Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2283431383> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 83 of
83
with 100 items per page.
- W2283431383 endingPage "25" @default.
- W2283431383 startingPage "23" @default.
- W2283431383 abstract "AbstractConducting and reporting evaluation studies has become more and more popular over the last few years in theinformation visualization community. A big challenge is to describe such studies in a way such that the investi-gations are repeatable and comparable with other studies. This not only includes the description of methodology,tasks, and procedure of the study but also information about the participants – including the reasons for theirselection – to make the work reproducible and to assess its validity. In this paper we give a short overview aboutour research that we conducted in the past to show in which context and situations which types of test persons(e.g., students or experts) were considered.Categories and Subject Descriptors (according to ACM CCS) : H 5.2. [Information Interfaces and Presentation(e.g.,HCI) ]: User Interfaces—Evaluation/Methodology1. IntroductionReproducibility of research results is an important aspect ofscientific research in many different areas [IIC 13]. To attainreproducibility, different procedures have to be followed indifferent disciplines. In social sciences and the experimentalareas of Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), reproducibil-ity implies that various aspects of the experimentation pro-cess are reported in great detail so that investigations canbe repeated easily and readers are able to assess their valid-ity without any problems. Such aspects might be, for exam-ple: hypotheses investigated, methods of investigation, de-scription of the sample, details of the procedure of the study(e.g. where was an investigation conducted, how much timedid it take, etc.), tasks used in the investigation, methods ofanalysis, and results. It is well known that such details areoften lacking in evaluation studies in information visualiza-tion [IIC 13].One important issue in such a reporting procedure is thesample used for the investigation. Investigations in HCI andinformation visualization often use students as participants.There is an ongoing controversial discussion about this is-sue (cf. [BD06]). In general, it is seen as problematic to usestudents as extensively as is currently the case. On the otherhand, it is well accepted that it is difficult to convince expertsto take part in comprehensive evaluation studies. In addition,it is not advisable to use some kinds of study methods withexperts. Experts might, for example, be offended if they haveto solve long series of challenging cognitive tasks. On theother hand, such tasks might provide researchers with im-portant insights into cognitive processes. Therefore, it is anopen question whether to use experts or students for evalu-ations in information visualization. This question is also re-lated to other important aspects of experimental processes.As mentioned above, some kinds of tasks and methods arenot appropriate for testing experts.In this paper, we discuss research we conducted in thepast to clarify the conditions where it is more appropriateto use experts or students for the evaluation of informationvisualizations.2. Analysis of Previous Research WorkWe conducted several studies concerning the applicationof information visualizations in the medical domain, partlywith physicians as participants and partly with students. Wealso conducted a study to compare the results of physicianswith those of students [RAM 11b]. This study indicated thatthe differences between the results of experts and of stu-dents were not highly significant. The most obvious differ-ence was that students took more time to interact with thesystem and therefore identified more usability problems thanthe physicians. Students were slightly more favorable con-" @default.
- W2283431383 created "2016-06-24" @default.
- W2283431383 creator A5012636375 @default.
- W2283431383 creator A5025331216 @default.
- W2283431383 date "2015-01-01" @default.
- W2283431383 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
- W2283431383 title "Choosing the Right Sample? Experiences of Selecting Participants for Visualization Evaluation" @default.
- W2283431383 cites W148975250 @default.
- W2283431383 cites W1533191152 @default.
- W2283431383 cites W181624760 @default.
- W2283431383 cites W18436175 @default.
- W2283431383 cites W1940181400 @default.
- W2283431383 cites W1992743299 @default.
- W2283431383 cites W2058203255 @default.
- W2283431383 cites W2064141619 @default.
- W2283431383 cites W2163653912 @default.
- W2283431383 doi "https://doi.org/10.2312/eurorv3.20151146" @default.
- W2283431383 hasPublicationYear "2015" @default.
- W2283431383 type Work @default.
- W2283431383 sameAs 2283431383 @default.
- W2283431383 citedByCount "0" @default.
- W2283431383 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
- W2283431383 hasAuthorship W2283431383A5012636375 @default.
- W2283431383 hasAuthorship W2283431383A5025331216 @default.
- W2283431383 hasConcept C126838900 @default.
- W2283431383 hasConcept C151730666 @default.
- W2283431383 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
- W2283431383 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
- W2283431383 hasConcept C185592680 @default.
- W2283431383 hasConcept C198531522 @default.
- W2283431383 hasConcept C2522767166 @default.
- W2283431383 hasConcept C2777267654 @default.
- W2283431383 hasConcept C2777601897 @default.
- W2283431383 hasConcept C2779343474 @default.
- W2283431383 hasConcept C36464697 @default.
- W2283431383 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
- W2283431383 hasConcept C43617362 @default.
- W2283431383 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
- W2283431383 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
- W2283431383 hasConceptScore W2283431383C126838900 @default.
- W2283431383 hasConceptScore W2283431383C151730666 @default.
- W2283431383 hasConceptScore W2283431383C154945302 @default.
- W2283431383 hasConceptScore W2283431383C15744967 @default.
- W2283431383 hasConceptScore W2283431383C185592680 @default.
- W2283431383 hasConceptScore W2283431383C198531522 @default.
- W2283431383 hasConceptScore W2283431383C2522767166 @default.
- W2283431383 hasConceptScore W2283431383C2777267654 @default.
- W2283431383 hasConceptScore W2283431383C2777601897 @default.
- W2283431383 hasConceptScore W2283431383C2779343474 @default.
- W2283431383 hasConceptScore W2283431383C36464697 @default.
- W2283431383 hasConceptScore W2283431383C41008148 @default.
- W2283431383 hasConceptScore W2283431383C43617362 @default.
- W2283431383 hasConceptScore W2283431383C71924100 @default.
- W2283431383 hasConceptScore W2283431383C86803240 @default.
- W2283431383 hasLocation W22834313831 @default.
- W2283431383 hasOpenAccess W2283431383 @default.
- W2283431383 hasPrimaryLocation W22834313831 @default.
- W2283431383 hasRelatedWork W1520226576 @default.
- W2283431383 hasRelatedWork W1551550442 @default.
- W2283431383 hasRelatedWork W1587378153 @default.
- W2283431383 hasRelatedWork W1970033642 @default.
- W2283431383 hasRelatedWork W1990863537 @default.
- W2283431383 hasRelatedWork W2087822852 @default.
- W2283431383 hasRelatedWork W2144780528 @default.
- W2283431383 hasRelatedWork W2258489777 @default.
- W2283431383 hasRelatedWork W2286334941 @default.
- W2283431383 hasRelatedWork W2290557853 @default.
- W2283431383 hasRelatedWork W2587160776 @default.
- W2283431383 hasRelatedWork W2761734853 @default.
- W2283431383 hasRelatedWork W2799194108 @default.
- W2283431383 hasRelatedWork W2809209867 @default.
- W2283431383 hasRelatedWork W2936224142 @default.
- W2283431383 hasRelatedWork W3001244089 @default.
- W2283431383 hasRelatedWork W3009151219 @default.
- W2283431383 hasRelatedWork W3112686651 @default.
- W2283431383 hasRelatedWork W35256413 @default.
- W2283431383 hasRelatedWork W436500820 @default.
- W2283431383 isParatext "false" @default.
- W2283431383 isRetracted "false" @default.
- W2283431383 magId "2283431383" @default.
- W2283431383 workType "article" @default.