Regina Schuster

Regina Schuster, Kathleen Gregory, Christian Knoll et al.

Data visualizations are widely used to communicate messages about urgent topics such as climate change and public health. However, we still know little about how these visualizations are produced and interpreted in popular science contexts. In this mixed-method study, we examine how data are visually communicated and understood in the popular science magazine Scientific American, focusing on the messages these visualizations convey. To capture this complexity, we analyze data visualizations about climate change and pandemics in Scientific American over the past fifty years from three complementary perspectives: reader, chart, and producer. From the reader's perspective, we articulate takeaway messages and document sensemaking, interpreting visualizations first without and then with textual elements. From the chart perspective, we examine how visual features and text shape interpretation. From the producer's perspective, we draw on interviews with Scientific American staff to understand message planning and compare a sample of their intended messages with those we interpreted. Using takeaway messages as our central analytic lens, we develop a message typology and show that messages vary systematically across dimensions such as granularity, articulation, and inference. A key finding is that text plays a pivotal role: approximately two-thirds of messages change when textual elements are added. While the interviews highlighted the central role of message planning in visualization production, intended and interpreted messages only partially aligned. Our findings underscore the importance of contextual clarity and audience-aware communication, and we derive recommendations for visualization designers and science communicators.

Regina Schuster, Kathleen Gregory, Torsten Möller et al.

Public-facing data visualizations can play a vital role in making complex information clear and engaging, thereby encouraging informed public discourse and participation. However, existing work offers limited insight into how practitioners make design decisions based on their envisioned target audiences and across different media channels. To investigate this, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 21 professionals from journalistic settings, focusing on how they conceptualize their readers, translate these notions into design choices, and evaluate their work. We found that practitioners often rely on broad audience definitions, despite considering ``knowing their readers'' essential. Evaluation primarily relies on peer feedback or social metrics rather than user testing. From these accounts, we identify recurring strategies employed to reach general, often undefined publics. We discuss implications for audience-centered authoring tools, proposing features such as persona simulations and content-adaptive multi-format authoring, message-first rhetoric-aware workflows, and lightweight in-tool evaluation to better support the realities of public-facing design.