Paolo Simonetto

Paolo Simonetto, Daniel Archambault, Stephen Kobourov

Timeslices are often used to draw and visualize dynamic graphs. While timeslices are a natural way to think about dynamic graphs, they are routinely imposed on continuous data. Often, it is unclear how many timeslices to select: too few timeslices can miss temporal features such as causality or even graph structure while too many timeslices slows the drawing computation. We present a model for dynamic graphs which is not based on timeslices, and a dynamic graph drawing algorithm, DynNoSlice, to draw graphs in this model. In our evaluation, we demonstrate the advantages of this approach over timeslicing on continuous data sets.

Bahador Saket, Paolo Simonetto, Stephen Kobourov et al.

Effectively showing the relationships between objects in a dataset is one of the main tasks in information visualization. Typically there is a well-defined notion of distance between pairs of objects, and traditional approaches such as principal component analysis or multi-dimensional scaling are used to place the objects as points in 2D space, so that similar objects are close to each other. In another typical setting, the dataset is visualized as a network graph, where related nodes are connected by links. More recently, datasets are also visualized as maps, where in addition to nodes and links, there is an explicit representation of groups and clusters. We consider these three Techniques, characterized by a progressive increase of the amount of encoded information: node diagrams, node-link diagrams and node-link-group diagrams. We assess these three types of diagrams with a controlled experiment that covers nine different tasks falling broadly in three categories: node-based tasks, network-based tasks and group-based tasks. Our findings indicate that adding links, or links and group representations, does not negatively impact performance (time and accuracy) of node-based tasks. Similarly, adding group representations does not negatively impact the performance of network-based tasks. Node-link-group diagrams outperform the others on group-based tasks. These conclusions contradict results in other studies, in similar but subtly different settings. Taken together, however, such results can have significant implications for the design of standard and domain specific visualizations tools.

Bahador Saket, Paolo Simonetto, Stephen Kobourov

Task taxonomies for graph and network visualizations focus on tasks commonly encountered when analyzing graph connectivity and topology. However, in many application fields such as the social sciences (social networks), biology (protein interaction models), software engineering (program call graphs), connectivity and topology information is intertwined with group, clustering, and hierarchical information. Several recent visualization techniques, such as BubbleSets, LineSets and GMap, make explicit use of grouping and clustering, but evaluating such visualization has been difficult due to the lack of standardized group-level tasks. With this in mind, our goal is to define a new set of tasks that assess group-level comprehension. We propose several types of group-level tasks and provide several examples of each type. Finally, we characterize some of the proposed tasks using the multi-level typology of abstract visualization tasks. We believe that adding group-level tasks to the task taxonomy for graph visualization would make the taxonomy more useful for the recent graph visualization techniques. It would help evaluators define and categorize new tasks, and it would help generalize individual results collected in controlled experiments.