4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

What Makes a Visualization Memorable?

Journal

Publisher

IEEE COMPUTER SOC
DOI: 10.1109/TVCG.2013.234

Keywords

Visualization taxonomy; information visualization; memorability

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation (NSF) [1016862]
  2. Google
  3. Xerox
  4. Department of Defense through the National Defense Science & Engineering Graduate Fellowship (NDSEG) Program
  5. NSF Graduate Research Fellowship
  6. Div Of Information & Intelligent Systems
  7. Direct For Computer & Info Scie & Enginr [1016862] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

An ongoing debate in the Visualization community concerns the role that visualization types play in data understanding. In human cognition, understanding and memorability are intertwined. As a first step towards being able to ask questions about impact and effectiveness, here we ask: What makes a visualization memorable? We ran the largest scale visualization study to date using 2,070 single-panel visualizations, categorized with visualization type (e.g., bar chart, line graph, etc.), collected from news media sites, government reports, scientific journals, and infographic sources. Each visualization was annotated with additional attributes, including ratings for data-ink ratios and visual densities. Using Amazon's Mechanical Turk, we collected memorability scores for hundreds of these visualizations, and discovered that observers are consistent in which visualizations they find memorable and forgettable. We find intuitive results (e.g., attributes like color and the inclusion of a human recognizable object enhance memorability) and less intuitive results (e.g., common graphs are less memorable than unique visualization types). Altogether our findings suggest that quantifying memorability is a general metric of the utility of information, an essential step towards determining how to design effective visualizations.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available