nhahn
New Member
Posts: 22 
|
Post by nhahn on Apr 12, 2016 2:24:56 GMT
I am curious if a tool like Kinetic encourages certain conclusions over others due to it's physics based metaphors. Comparing this to the graphical perception paper, the author in that paper suggested that there were was an ordering to perceptual accuracy. So some of Kinetica's tools could possibly be more appealing to use, or when certain data is presented with them, become more obvious. This could drive a bias in the data exploration (possibly a good bias). I feel like this was where their generative framework was trying to go, but I am somewhat more interested in the unintended consequences of these tools.
|
|
|
|
Post by bttaylor on Apr 12, 2016 4:14:59 GMT
I agree with Judy that the interactivity is the key. Someone earlier in the thread asked about an WIMP version of the software, but I'd really be more interested in going the other direction and exploring more, non-traditional methods of data representation/interaction. I don't have a real good sense of what might make data visualization better, but this is an interesting starting point. Throw it in a VR setting and let people engage with data representations in 3D. Maybe I'm still hung up on the Cleveland paper, but I'd like to see more explorations that try to build new methods of interactivity for data analysis.
|
|
vish
New Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by vish on Apr 12, 2016 4:49:06 GMT
Q> Using the authors’ framework, can you come up with new tools/applications that use physics-based affordances? Or alternatively, what other HCI applications could naturalistic interactions benefit?
I worked on a project to explore whether or not swarm control can be generalized with intuition (using gestures). The broad question of this project was whether or not intuition is sufficient for incremental mastery of a complex system constructed with an understanding thereof. An intuitive ubiquitous ground station to tele-control unmanned vehicles was developed.
In the experiment, participants were asked to navigate two virtual UAV representatives to 20 beacon locations. Upon successful navigation, a new beacon waypoint would be displayed until all 20 beacon where found. In this experiment, we were testing whether a participant’s intuition in manipulating game pieces, UAV representative, is a suitable method to perform mission control and route navigation tasks. The goal was to determine if the design method is
capable of allowing participants with zero to no aviation and trained pilot skills performance the task with the same performance of highly trained and skilled pilots. Some of the observations from this project were that the despite knowing how to move game pieces across a gameboard, individuals still struggle with parallel virtual interactions.
|
|
|
|
Post by rushil on Apr 12, 2016 8:16:55 GMT
Cool. But that's about it. I don't think the idea is practical. We talked a little about this in class last time that metaphors are generally agreeable over a large group of people. In this particular case, I would like to point out that you need to know the underlying concept to be even able to understand the metaphor properly. Physics is not something everyone inherently understands, and as Alex pointed out that it seems a lot of the metaphors were opinionated. It makes me wonder how well would it fare with people who are unaware of such concepts (this is why I don't buy the argument that it can be used in education).
|
|
Qian
New Member
Posts: 20 
|
Post by Qian on Apr 12, 2016 13:08:16 GMT
I echo rushil's comment.... "Cool but that's about it." Kinetica and the physics-based affordances seem to me a design improvement on WIMP-based exploratory data viz tools (like D3). Intuitively I imagine people would enjoy it in a gallery/exhibit setting. But I doubt whether it helps sense-making efficiency and performance. Some empirical study/supporting evidence might convince me in this regard. |
|
|
|
Post by Amy on Apr 12, 2016 13:27:24 GMT
I agree with Rushil's point - how much physics knowledge do these metaphors require before the learner can understand how the tools affect their data? But I do like the language we are using when we talk about this tool: "play" with the data, "interact", "explore". I agree with Mary Beth and others who see this as a learning tool. But I'm wondering how much expertise this tool supports? Would someone with intermediate data analysis skills still find the tool useful? What about an expert? or is it only designed for novices?
|
|
|
|
Post by anhong on Apr 18, 2016 18:08:18 GMT
A lot of existing HCI tools are taking advantage of the affordances in the real world, such as metaphors, acceleration in scrolling, etc. And I think using physics based affordances and powerful especially when the interaction is more blended in the real world, such as interacting with the phone and smartwatches to augment the real world experiences. However, I think the focus of this paper is not on the gestures, but on the data presentation techniques. How to use visualization to guide users' attention, and how to help them understand the information in a better way. For gestures, we are moving from 2D gestures on the touchscreen to 3D gestures in AR and VR, which is closer to how we manipulate objects in the real world.
|
|
