InfoVis:Wiki - User contributions [en]

Teaching:TUW - UE InfoVis WS 2010/11 - Gruppe 03 - Aufgabe 3

2011-01-18T00:12:05Z

UE-InfoVis1011 0927624:

== The BRICs ==

=== Abstract ===
The goal of our visualization is to compare the so-called BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) countries in relation of their values for unimproved water, unimproved sanitation and open defecation over the past years. We think it’s very interesting to see how these vitally important things changed as their economy advanced.
=== Data ===
==== Source ====
The WHO and UNICEF are offering data on the web (http://www.wssinfo.org/data-estimates/table/) which makes our comparison possible.
==== Application area ====
The goal is to make it visible how the water and hygiene situation of the BRIC countries developed over the past years. The data set includes the following years: 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005 and 2008. There is always a five-year gap between the sets only between the last two it’s a three-year gap, which has to be considered while comparing the changes.
==== Data set ====
Year Discrete
Country Nominal
Unimproved Water Total Discrete
Unimproved Water Total in % Discrete
Unimproved Sanitation Total Discrete
Unimproved Sanitation Total in % Discrete
Open Defecation Total Discrete
Open Defecation Total in % Discrete

Data structure used: 3-dimensional (Year, Country, Data) for each visualization
=== Users ===
This visualization might be useful for economic and medical researchers to see if there is a necessary connection between economic development and the improvement of water quality and hygiene. To compare it to economic development more data would be needed, but we think our visualization is a good starting point to see how the BRIC countries have done in these areas over the past years.
=== Visualization Design ===
==== Bar chart ====
[[Image:Barchart_gr03.jpg|300px|thumb|alt=Barchart|''Fig1: Visualization with barchart'']]
For the nominal comparison we used a simple bar chart with vertical bars, one bar for each country. The length of the bar is mapped to the specific value (Unimproved Water Total, Unimproved Sanitation Total or Open Defecation Total) in % which could be either. To easily switch between these different data values we added a drop-down box to our visualization. We also wanted to include the time component (years) of our data into the visualization so we created a grouped bar chart and for every year the countries are grouped on the y-axis. An other interaction possibility of the bar chart is to hoover over the bars and a popup shows up with the absolute value.
We think the bar chart is really good in visualizing the trend of the specific country but also the difference between the BRIC countries and how this difference develops over the displayed years.
For a detailed view on the barchart look [http://web.student.tuwien.ac.at/~e0927624/infovis/barchart.html here].
==== Line chart ====
[[Image:Linechart_gr03_2.png|alt=Linechart|300 px|thumb|''Fig2: Visualizatioon with linechart'']]
The second method we choose to visualize our data is a line chart. We mapped the data value (Unimproved Water Total, Unimproved Sanitation Total or Open Defecation Total) in % to the y-axis and the years to the x-axis. For every country there is a separate line. As in the bar chart we used a drop-down box to easily switch between the different data sets. This chart is very helpful to see trends. You can clearly see that all countries are improving over time. But it’s also very easy to see if a country outperforms another (if the lines are crossing).
For a more detailed visualization, the user can zoom in with the scroll wheel, and pan, if the appropriate section disappears from the screen through zooming. The scale gets automatically adjusted to the zoom level. A vertical and horizontal rule follow the mouse movement, so the user can easily read off the correct values.
The linechart is available [http://web.student.tuwien.ac.at/~e0927624/infovis/linechart.html here].
== References ==
* WHO / UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) for Water Supply and Sanitation," 2010. [Online]. Available: http://www.wssinfo.org/data-estimates/table

File:Linechart gr03 2.png

2011-01-18T00:11:14Z

UE-InfoVis1011 0927624: New page: == Summary == == Copyright status == == Source ==

== Summary ==

== Copyright status ==

== Source ==

Teaching:TUW - UE InfoVis WS 2010/11 - Gruppe 03 - Aufgabe 3

2011-01-18T00:08:44Z

UE-InfoVis1011 0927624:

== The BRICs ==

=== Abstract ===
The goal of our visualization is to compare the so-called BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) countries in relation of their values for unimproved water, unimproved sanitation and open defecation over the past years. We think it’s very interesting to see how these vitally important things changed as their economy advanced.
=== Data ===
==== Source ====
The WHO and UNICEF are offering data on the web (http://www.wssinfo.org/data-estimates/table/) which makes our comparison possible.
==== Application area ====
The goal is to make it visible how the water and hygiene situation of the BRIC countries developed over the past years. The data set includes the following years: 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005 and 2008. There is always a five-year gap between the sets only between the last two it’s a three-year gap, which has to be considered while comparing the changes.
==== Data set ====
Year Discrete
Country Nominal
Unimproved Water Total Discrete
Unimproved Water Total in % Discrete
Unimproved Sanitation Total Discrete
Unimproved Sanitation Total in % Discrete
Open Defecation Total Discrete
Open Defecation Total in % Discrete

Data structure used: 3-dimensional (Year, Country, Data) for each visualization
=== Users ===
This visualization might be useful for economic and medical researchers to see if there is a necessary connection between economic development and the improvement of water quality and hygiene. To compare it to economic development more data would be needed, but we think our visualization is a good starting point to see how the BRIC countries have done in these areas over the past years.
=== Visualization Design ===
==== Bar chart ====
[[Image:Barchart_gr03.jpg|300px|thumb|alt=Barchart|''Fig1: Visualization with barchart'']]
For the nominal comparison we used a simple bar chart with vertical bars, one bar for each country. The length of the bar is mapped to the specific value (Unimproved Water Total, Unimproved Sanitation Total or Open Defecation Total) in % which could be either. To easily switch between these different data values we added a drop-down box to our visualization. We also wanted to include the time component (years) of our data into the visualization so we created a grouped bar chart and for every year the countries are grouped on the y-axis. An other interaction possibility of the bar chart is to hoover over the bars and a popup shows up with the absolute value.
We think the bar chart is really good in visualizing the trend of the specific country but also the difference between the BRIC countries and how this difference develops over the displayed years.
For a detailed view on the barchart look [http://web.student.tuwien.ac.at/~e0927624/infovis/barchart.html here].
==== Line chart ====
[[Image:Linechart_gr03.png|alt=Linechart|300 px|thumb|''Fig2: Visualizatioon with linechart'']]
The second method we choose to visualize our data is a line chart. We mapped the data value (Unimproved Water Total, Unimproved Sanitation Total or Open Defecation Total) in % to the y-axis and the years to the x-axis. For every country there is a separate line. As in the bar chart we used a drop-down box to easily switch between the different data sets. This chart is very helpful to see trends. You can clearly see that all countries are improving over time. But it’s also very easy to see if a country outperforms another (if the lines are crossing).
For a more detailed visualization, the user can zoom in with the scroll wheel, and pan, if the appropriate section disappears from the screen through zooming. The scale gets automatically adjusted to the zoom level. A vertical and horizontal rule follow the mouse movement, so the user can easily read off the correct values.
The linechart is available [http://web.student.tuwien.ac.at/~e0927624/infovis/linechart.html here].
== References ==
* WHO / UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) for Water Supply and Sanitation," 2010. [Online]. Available: http://www.wssinfo.org/data-estimates/table

Teaching:TUW - UE InfoVis WS 2010/11 - Gruppe 03 - Aufgabe 3

2011-01-18T00:03:41Z

UE-InfoVis1011 0927624: some description added to linechart

== The BRICs ==

=== Abstract ===
The goal of our visualization is to compare the so-called BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) countries in relation of their values for unimproved water, unimproved sanitation and open defecation over the past years. We think it’s very interesting to see how these vitally important things changed as their economy advanced.
=== Data ===
==== Source ====
The WHO and UNICEF are offering data on the web (http://www.wssinfo.org/data-estimates/table/) which makes our comparison possible.
==== Application area ====
The goal is to make it visible how the water and hygiene situation of the BRIC countries developed over the past years. The data set includes the following years: 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005 and 2008. There is always a five-year gap between the sets only between the last two it’s a three-year gap, which has to be considered while comparing the changes.
==== Data set ====
Year Discrete
Country Nominal
Unimproved Water Total Discrete
Unimproved Water Total in % Discrete
Unimproved Sanitation Total Discrete
Unimproved Sanitation Total in % Discrete
Open Defecation Total Discrete
Open Defecation Total in % Discrete

Data structure used: 3-dimensional (Year, Country, Data) for each visualization
=== Users ===
This visualization might be useful for economic and medical researchers to see if there is a necessary connection between economic development and the improvement of water quality and hygiene. To compare it to economic development more data would be needed, but we think our visualization is a good starting point to see how the BRIC countries have done in these areas over the past years.
=== Visualization Design ===
==== Bar chart ====
[[Image:Barchart_gr03.jpg|300px|thumb|alt=Barchart|''Fig1: Visualization with barchart'']]
For the nominal comparison we used a simple bar chart with vertical bars, one bar for each country. The length of the bar is mapped to the specific value (Unimproved Water Total, Unimproved Sanitation Total or Open Defecation Total) in % which could be either. To easily switch between these different data values we added a drop-down box to our visualization. We also wanted to include the time component (years) of our data into the visualization so we created a grouped bar chart and for every year the countries are grouped on the y-axis. An other interaction possibility of the bar chart is to hoover over the bars and a popup shows up with the absolute value.
We think the bar chart is really good in visualizing the trend of the specific country but also the difference between the BRIC countries and how this difference develops over the displayed years.
For a detailed view on the barchart look [http://web.student.tuwien.ac.at/~e0927624/infovis/barchart.html here].
==== Line chart ====
[[Image:Linechart_gr03.jpg|alt=Linechart|300 px|thumb|''Fig2: Visualizatioon with linechart'']]
The second method we choose to visualize our data is a line chart. We mapped the data value (Unimproved Water Total, Unimproved Sanitation Total or Open Defecation Total) in % to the y-axis and the years to the x-axis. For every country there is a separate line. As in the bar chart we used a drop-down box to easily switch between the different data sets. This chart is very helpful to see trends. You can clearly see that all countries are improving over time. But it’s also very easy to see if a country outperforms another (if the lines are crossing).
For a more detailed visualization, the user can zoom in with the scroll wheel, and pan, if the appropriate section disappears from the screen through zooming. The scale gets automatically adjusted to the zoom level. A vertical and horizontal rule follow the mouse movement, so the user can easily read off the correct values.
The linechart is available [http://web.student.tuwien.ac.at/~e0927624/infovis/linechart.html here].
== References ==
* WHO / UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) for Water Supply and Sanitation," 2010. [Online]. Available: http://www.wssinfo.org/data-estimates/table

Teaching:TUW - UE InfoVis WS 2010/11 - Gruppe 03 - Aufgabe 3

2011-01-17T22:32:57Z

UE-InfoVis1011 0927624: added link to barchart

== The BRICs ==

=== Abstract ===
The goal of our visualization is to compare the so-called BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) countries in relation of their values for unimproved water, unimproved sanitation and open defecation over the past years. We think it’s very interesting to see how these vitally important things changed as their economy advanced.
=== Data ===
==== Source ====
The WHO and UNICEF are offering data on the web (http://www.wssinfo.org/data-estimates/table/) which makes our comparison possible.
==== Application area ====
The goal is to make it visible how the water and hygiene situation of the BRIC countries developed over the past years. The data set includes the following years: 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005 and 2008. There is always a five-year gap between the sets only between the last two it’s a three-year gap, which has to be considered while comparing the changes.
==== Data set ====
Year Discrete
Country Nominal
Unimproved Water Total Discrete
Unimproved Water Total in % Discrete
Unimproved Sanitation Total Discrete
Unimproved Sanitation Total in % Discrete
Open Defecation Total Discrete
Open Defecation Total in % Discrete

Data structure used: 3-dimensional (Year, Country, Data) for each visualization
=== Users ===
This visualization might be useful for economic and medical researchers to see if there is a necessary connection between economic development and the improvement of water quality and hygiene. To compare it to economic development more data would be needed, but we think our visualization is a good starting point to see how the BRIC countries have done in these areas over the past years.
=== Visualization Design ===
==== Bar chart ====
[[Image:Barchart_gr03.jpg|300px|thumb|alt=Barchart|''Fig1: Visualization with barchart'']]
For the nominal comparison we used a simple bar chart with vertical bars, one bar for each country. The length of the bar is mapped to the specific value (Unimproved Water Total, Unimproved Sanitation Total or Open Defecation Total) in % which could be either. To easily switch between these different data values we added a drop-down box to our visualization. We also wanted to include the time component (years) of our data into the visualization so we created a grouped bar chart and for every year the countries are grouped on the y-axis. An other interaction possibility of the bar chart is to hoover over the bars and a popup shows up with the absolute value.
We think the bar chart is really good in visualizing the trend of the specific country but also the difference between the BRIC countries and how this difference develops over the displayed years.
For a detailed view on the barchart look [http://web.student.tuwien.ac.at/~e0927624/infovis/barchart.html here].
==== Line chart ====
[[Image:Linechart_gr03.png|alt=Linechart|300 px|thumb|''Fig2: Visualizatioon with linechart'']]
The second method we choose to visualize our data is a line chart. We mapped the data value (Unimproved Water Total, Unimproved Sanitation Total or Open Defecation Total) in % to the y-axis and the years to the x-axis. For every country there is a separate line. As in the bar chart we used a drop-down box to easily switch between the different data sets. This chart is very helpful to see trends. You can clearly see that all countries are improving over time. But it’s also very easy to see if a country outperforms another (if the lines are crossing).
The linechart is available [http://web.student.tuwien.ac.at/~e0927624/infovis/linechart.html here].
== References ==
* WHO / UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) for Water Supply and Sanitation," 2010. [Online]. Available: http://www.wssinfo.org/data-estimates/table

Teaching:TUW - UE InfoVis WS 2010/11 - Gruppe 03 - Aufgabe 3

2011-01-17T22:28:43Z

UE-InfoVis1011 0927624:

== The BRICs ==

=== Abstract ===
The goal of our visualization is to compare the so-called BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) countries in relation of their values for unimproved water, unimproved sanitation and open defecation over the past years. We think it’s very interesting to see how these vitally important things changed as their economy advanced.
=== Data ===
==== Source ====
The WHO and UNICEF are offering data on the web (http://www.wssinfo.org/data-estimates/table/) which makes our comparison possible.
==== Application area ====
The goal is to make it visible how the water and hygiene situation of the BRIC countries developed over the past years. The data set includes the following years: 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005 and 2008. There is always a five-year gap between the sets only between the last two it’s a three-year gap, which has to be considered while comparing the changes.
==== Data set ====
Year Discrete
Country Nominal
Unimproved Water Total Discrete
Unimproved Water Total in % Discrete
Unimproved Sanitation Total Discrete
Unimproved Sanitation Total in % Discrete
Open Defecation Total Discrete
Open Defecation Total in % Discrete

Data structure used: 3-dimensional (Year, Country, Data) for each visualization
=== Users ===
This visualization might be useful for economic and medical researchers to see if there is a necessary connection between economic development and the improvement of water quality and hygiene. To compare it to economic development more data would be needed, but we think our visualization is a good starting point to see how the BRIC countries have done in these areas over the past years.
=== Visualization Design ===
==== Bar chart ====
[[Image:Barchart_gr03.jpg|300px|thumb|alt=Barchart|''Fig1: Visualization with barchart'']]
For the nominal comparison we used a simple bar chart with vertical bars, one bar for each country. The length of the bar is mapped to the specific value (Unimproved Water Total, Unimproved Sanitation Total or Open Defecation Total) in % which could be either. To easily switch between these different data values we added a drop-down box to our visualization. We also wanted to include the time component (years) of our data into the visualization so we created a grouped bar chart and for every year the countries are grouped on the y-axis. An other interaction possibility of the bar chart is to hoover over the bars and a popup shows up with the absolute value.
We think the bar chart is really good in visualizing the trend of the specific country but also the difference between the BRIC countries and how this difference develops over the displayed years.
==== Line chart ====
[[Image:Linechart_gr03.png|alt=Linechart|300 px|thumb|''Fig2: Visualizatioon with linechart'']]
The second method we choose to visualize our data is a line chart. We mapped the data value (Unimproved Water Total, Unimproved Sanitation Total or Open Defecation Total) in % to the y-axis and the years to the x-axis. For every country there is a separate line. As in the bar chart we used a drop-down box to easily switch between the different data sets. This chart is very helpful to see trends. You can clearly see that all countries are improving over time. But it’s also very easy to see if a country outperforms another (if the lines are crossing).
The linechart is available [http://web.student.tuwien.ac.at/~e0927624/linechart.hhtml here].
== References ==
* WHO / UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) for Water Supply and Sanitation," 2010. [Online]. Available: http://www.wssinfo.org/data-estimates/table

Teaching:TUW - UE InfoVis WS 2010/11 - Gruppe 03 - Aufgabe 3

2011-01-17T22:27:56Z

UE-InfoVis1011 0927624: link to linechart added

== The BRICs ==

=== Abstract ===
The goal of our visualization is to compare the so-called BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) countries in relation of their values for unimproved water, unimproved sanitation and open defecation over the past years. We think it’s very interesting to see how these vitally important things changed as their economy advanced.
=== Data ===
==== Source ====
The WHO and UNICEF are offering data on the web (http://www.wssinfo.org/data-estimates/table/) which makes our comparison possible.
==== Application area ====
The goal is to make it visible how the water and hygiene situation of the BRIC countries developed over the past years. The data set includes the following years: 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005 and 2008. There is always a five-year gap between the sets only between the last two it’s a three-year gap, which has to be considered while comparing the changes.
==== Data set ====
Year Discrete
Country Nominal
Unimproved Water Total Discrete
Unimproved Water Total in % Discrete
Unimproved Sanitation Total Discrete
Unimproved Sanitation Total in % Discrete
Open Defecation Total Discrete
Open Defecation Total in % Discrete

Data structure used: 3-dimensional (Year, Country, Data) for each visualization
=== Users ===
This visualization might be useful for economic and medical researchers to see if there is a necessary connection between economic development and the improvement of water quality and hygiene. To compare it to economic development more data would be needed, but we think our visualization is a good starting point to see how the BRIC countries have done in these areas over the past years.
=== Visualization Design ===
==== Bar chart ====
[[Image:Barchart_gr03.jpg|300px|thumb|alt=Barchart|''Fig1: Visualization with barchart'']]
For the nominal comparison we used a simple bar chart with vertical bars, one bar for each country. The length of the bar is mapped to the specific value (Unimproved Water Total, Unimproved Sanitation Total or Open Defecation Total) in % which could be either. To easily switch between these different data values we added a drop-down box to our visualization. We also wanted to include the time component (years) of our data into the visualization so we created a grouped bar chart and for every year the countries are grouped on the y-axis. An other interaction possibility of the bar chart is to hoover over the bars and a popup shows up with the absolute value.
We think the bar chart is really good in visualizing the trend of the specific country but also the difference between the BRIC countries and how this difference develops over the displayed years.
==== Line chart ====
[[Image:Linechart_gr03.png|alt=Linechart|300 px|thumb|''Fig2: Visualizatioon with linechart'']]
The second method we choose to visualize our data is a line chart. We mapped the data value (Unimproved Water Total, Unimproved Sanitation Total or Open Defecation Total) in % to the y-axis and the years to the x-axis. For every country there is a separate line. As in the bar chart we used a drop-down box to easily switch between the different data sets. This chart is very helpful to see trends. You can clearly see that all countries are improving over time. But it’s also very easy to see if a country outperforms another (if the lines are crossing).
The linechart is available here.[http://web.student.tuwien.ac.at/~e0927624/linechart.hhtml here]
== References ==
* WHO / UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) for Water Supply and Sanitation," 2010. [Online]. Available: http://www.wssinfo.org/data-estimates/table

Teaching:TUW - UE InfoVis WS 2010/11 - Gruppe 03 - Aufgabe 3

2011-01-17T22:21:03Z

UE-InfoVis1011 0927624:

== The BRICs ==

=== Abstract ===
The goal of our visualization is to compare the so-called BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) countries in relation of their values for unimproved water, unimproved sanitation and open defecation over the past years. We think it’s very interesting to see how these vitally important things changed as their economy advanced.
=== Data ===
==== Source ====
The WHO and UNICEF are offering data on the web (http://www.wssinfo.org/data-estimates/table/) which makes our comparison possible.
==== Application area ====
The goal is to make it visible how the water and hygiene situation of the BRIC countries developed over the past years. The data set includes the following years: 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005 and 2008. There is always a five-year gap between the sets only between the last two it’s a three-year gap, which has to be considered while comparing the changes.
==== Data set ====
Year Discrete
Country Nominal
Unimproved Water Total Discrete
Unimproved Water Total in % Discrete
Unimproved Sanitation Total Discrete
Unimproved Sanitation Total in % Discrete
Open Defecation Total Discrete
Open Defecation Total in % Discrete

Data structure used: 3-dimensional (Year, Country, Data) for each visualization
=== Users ===
This visualization might be useful for economic and medical researchers to see if there is a necessary connection between economic development and the improvement of water quality and hygiene. To compare it to economic development more data would be needed, but we think our visualization is a good starting point to see how the BRIC countries have done in these areas over the past years.
=== Visualization Design ===
==== Bar chart ====
[[Image:Barchart_gr03.jpg|300px|thumb|alt=Barchart|''Fig1: Visualization with barchart'']]
For the nominal comparison we used a simple bar chart with vertical bars, one bar for each country. The length of the bar is mapped to the specific value (Unimproved Water Total, Unimproved Sanitation Total or Open Defecation Total) in % which could be either. To easily switch between these different data values we added a drop-down box to our visualization. We also wanted to include the time component (years) of our data into the visualization so we created a grouped bar chart and for every year the countries are grouped on the y-axis. An other interaction possibility of the bar chart is to hoover over the bars and a popup shows up with the absolute value.
We think the bar chart is really good in visualizing the trend of the specific country but also the difference between the BRIC countries and how this difference develops over the displayed years.
==== Line chart ====
[[Image:Linechart_gr03.png|alt=Linechart|300 px|thumb|''Fig2: Visualizatioon with linechart'']]
The second method we choose to visualize our data is a line chart. We mapped the data value (Unimproved Water Total, Unimproved Sanitation Total or Open Defecation Total) in % to the y-axis and the years to the x-axis. For every country there is a separate line. As in the bar chart we used a drop-down box to easily switch between the different data sets. This chart is very helpful to see trends. You can clearly see that all countries are improving over time. But it’s also very easy to see if a country outperforms another (if the lines are crossing).

== References ==
* WHO / UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) for Water Supply and Sanitation," 2010. [Online]. Available: http://www.wssinfo.org/data-estimates/table

Teaching:TUW - UE InfoVis WS 2010/11 - Gruppe 03 - Aufgabe 3

2011-01-17T22:18:34Z

UE-InfoVis1011 0927624: pics added

== The BRICs ==

=== Abstract ===
The goal of our visualization is to compare the so-called BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) countries in relation of their values for unimproved water, unimproved sanitation and open defecation over the past years. We think it’s very interesting to see how these vitally important things changed as their economy advanced.
=== Data ===
==== Source ====
The WHO and UNICEF are offering data on the web (http://www.wssinfo.org/data-estimates/table/) which makes our comparison possible.
==== Application area ====
The goal is to make it visible how the water and hygiene situation of the BRIC countries developed over the past years. The data set includes the following years: 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005 and 2008. There is always a five-year gap between the sets only between the last two it’s a three-year gap, which has to be considered while comparing the changes.
==== Data set ====
Year Discrete
Country Nominal
Unimproved Water Total Discrete
Unimproved Water Total in % Discrete
Unimproved Sanitation Total Discrete
Unimproved Sanitation Total in % Discrete
Open Defecation Total Discrete
Open Defecation Total in % Discrete

Data structure used: 3-dimensional (Year, Country, Data) for each visualization
=== Users ===
This visualization might be useful for economic and medical researchers to see if there is a necessary connection between economic development and the improvement of water quality and hygiene. To compare it to economic development more data would be needed, but we think our visualization is a good starting point to see how the BRIC countries have done in these areas over the past years.
=== Visualization Design ===
==== Bar chart ====
[[Image:Barchart_gr03.jpg|300px|thumb|alt=Barchart|Visualization with barchart]]
For the nominal comparison we used a simple bar chart with vertical bars, one bar for each country. The length of the bar is mapped to the specific value (Unimproved Water Total, Unimproved Sanitation Total or Open Defecation Total) in % which could be either. To easily switch between these different data values we added a drop-down box to our visualization. We also wanted to include the time component (years) of our data into the visualization so we created a grouped bar chart and for every year the countries are grouped on the y-axis. An other interaction possibility of the bar chart is to hoover over the bars and a popup shows up with the absolute value.
We think the bar chart is really good in visualizing the trend of the specific country but also the difference between the BRIC countries and how this difference develops over the displayed years.
==== Line chart ====
[[Image:Linechart_gr03.png|alt=Linechart|300 px|thumb|Visualizatioon with linechart]]
The second method we choose to visualize our data is a line chart. We mapped the data value (Unimproved Water Total, Unimproved Sanitation Total or Open Defecation Total) in % to the y-axis and the years to the x-axis. For every country there is a separate line. As in the bar chart we used a drop-down box to easily switch between the different data sets. This chart is very helpful to see trends. You can clearly see that all countries are improving over time. But it’s also very easy to see if a country outperforms another (if the lines are crossing).

== References ==
* WHO / UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) for Water Supply and Sanitation," 2010. [Online]. Available: http://www.wssinfo.org/data-estimates/table

File:Linechart gr03.png

2011-01-17T22:01:59Z

UE-InfoVis1011 0927624: Visualization of the Linechart

== Summary ==
Visualization of the Linechart
== Copyright status ==

== Source ==

File:Barchart gr03.jpg

2011-01-17T22:01:05Z

UE-InfoVis1011 0927624: Visualization of the Barchart

== Summary ==
Visualization of the Barchart
== Copyright status ==

== Source ==

File:Barchart gr03.png

2011-01-17T22:00:06Z

UE-InfoVis1011 0927624: Visualization of the Barchart

== Summary ==
Visualization of the Barchart
== Copyright status ==

== Source ==

Teaching:TUW - UE InfoVis WS 2010/11 - Gruppe 03 - Aufgabe 3

2010-12-16T18:06:56Z

UE-InfoVis1011 0927624:

== Aufgabe 3 ==

Notes:
Vergleichen der BRIC Staaten:
-water: unimproved
-sanitation:
-open defecation
-unimproved
-Auswahl aller Jahre

Interessant: Bei China ist open defecation mehr geworden

Visualisierungsarten:
Parallelkoordinaten, Indexchart, Line chart, evt stacked Chart

Teaching:TUW - UE InfoVis WS 2010/11 - Gruppe 03 - Aufgabe 3

2010-12-16T18:00:07Z

UE-InfoVis1011 0927624:

Teaching:TUW - UE InfoVis WS 2010/11 - Gruppe 03 - Aufgabe 3

2010-12-16T17:58:33Z

UE-InfoVis1011 0927624:

Teaching:TUW - UE InfoVis WS 2010/11 - Gruppe 03 - Aufgabe 3

2010-12-16T17:57:47Z

UE-InfoVis1011 0927624:

== Aufgabe 3 ==

Notes:
Vergleichen der BRIC Staaten:
-water: unimproved
-sanitation: open defecation
unimproved
Auswahl aller Jahre
Interessant: Bei China ist open defecation mehr geworden

Visualisierungsarten:
Parallelkoordinaten

Teaching:TUW - UE InfoVis WS 2010/11 - Gruppe 03 - Aufgabe 3

2010-12-16T17:57:29Z

UE-InfoVis1011 0927624:

Teaching:TUW - UE InfoVis WS 2010/11 - Gruppe 03 - Aufgabe 3

2010-12-16T17:38:42Z

UE-InfoVis1011 0927624:

== Aufgabe 3 ==

Notes:
Vergleichen der BRIC Staaten:
water: unimproved
sanitation: open defecation
unimproved
Interessant: Bei China ist open defecation mehr geworden

Teaching:TUW - UE InfoVis WS 2010/11 - Gruppe 03 - Aufgabe 3

2010-12-16T17:38:05Z

UE-InfoVis1011 0927624:

== Aufgabe 3 ==

Notes:
Vergleichen der BRIC Staaten:
water: unimproved
sanitation: open defecation
unimproved

Teaching:TUW - UE InfoVis WS 2010/11 - Gruppe 03 - Aufgabe 2

2010-11-17T18:34:07Z

UE-InfoVis1011 0927624:

__TOC__
==Perceptual Guidelines for Creating Rectangular Treemaps==

The following article is a summary of the work of Nicholas Kong, Jeffrey Heer, and Maneesh Agrawala [Nicholas Kong et al., 2010].
It discusses the advantages and disadvantages of ''treemaps'' as visualization tool.

===1. Treemaps - Basics===
[[Image:Treemaps_fig1.jpg | 350 px | thumb | alt=different visualizations of hierarchical data|''Fig. 1: visualization of hierarchical data'']]
Treemaps are used for space efficient visualizing large, hierarchical datasets. Therefore every node in a tree is represented by a rectangular area, where the size is proportional to the value of the node. The hierarchy of the tree is encoded by recursively subdividing the parent areas in the treemap. Following parameters have to be configured carefully to design perceptually effective treemaps:
* aspect ratio of rectangles (affected by the chosen layout algorithm)
* luminance of rectangles (used to encode additional variables)
* thickness of borders (used to encode hierarchy)

The problem with using treemaps is the use of area for encoding data. Studies have shown that people generally underestimate area, which leads to more inaccurate decoding than with other visualization types, like bar charts. Bar charts, on the other hand, are less space-efficient, not useful for visualization of hierarchies with more than two levels and more difficult to read at higher data densities. The paper gives a design guideline, based on three experiments, when to use treemaps and when to use other visual encodings and how to choose the parameters.

===2. Pilot Study – True Percentage and Luminance===
The authors first conducted a pilot study on ''true percentage'' and luminance to prove prior studies.
The term ''true percentage'' means the physical difference of two values measured in percent.
Following results were discovered:
*'''true percentage has a strong effect on judgment accuracy'''
*: More accurate judgment at either small (5%) or high (95%) percentage, more accurate judgment at multiples of 5 (due to our behavior to specify numbers at factors of 5)
*'''luminance has no significant effects on judgment accuracy'''
*: Because area and luminance are separable perceptual dimensions, luminance does not interfere with area judgment.

===3. Experiment #1: The Effects of Aspect Ratio===
The first experiment presented by Kong et al. [Nicholas Kong et al., 2010] assessed both the effects of aspect ratio on rectangular area judgments and the effects of aspect ratio on proportional judgments.
 
They further hypothesized three things:
* extreme aspect ratios hamper judgment accuracy
* squares would hinder judgment accuracy
* different primary orientation would increase the error rate

====3.1. Method====
[[Image:UE-InfoVis1011_0508080img_exp1_1.gif | 300px | thumb | alt=|''Fig. 2: Example stimuli from the aspect ratio study'']]
They conducted a series of controlled experiments to explore their hypothesis: 
Kong, Heer & Agrawala asked participants to compare rectangular areas with varying size and aspect ratios. For this purpose they showed subjects images (Fig. 2) containing two rectangles (A or B) and asked them to identify which is the smaller one. Further they had to guess the percentage the smaller was of the larger rectangle.

====3.2. Results====
They collected 2,600 responses to analyze:
* No effects of orientation on judgment accuracy were found.
* They did find a significant interaction effect between orientation and aspect ratio.
* Average judgment accuracy improves when comparing rectangles with varied aspect ratios.
* The highest error occurred comparing two extreme aspect ratios or squares.

====3.3. Discussion====
Their results support the general intuition against creating treemaps using rectangles with extreme aspect ratios.
{{Quotation | It instead seems that squarified algorithms are effective in part because (a) they avoid extreme aspect ratios and (b) in most cases they are unable to perfectly achieve their “squarification” objective, instead producing a distribution of aspect ratios. |[Nicholas Kong et al., 2010]}}

===4. Experiment #2: The Effects of Data Density===
{|border="0"
|The second experiment was designed to examine the data density at which treemaps become more effective than bar charts for comparing quantitative values. Kong, Heer & Agrawala chose to focus on value comparison tasks, which they believe to be the most common perceptual task performed with treemaps. 
A layout algorithm was designed which uses bar charts to encode the values of leaf nodes. Figure 3 shows an example of a treemap and their hierarchical bar chart, each encoding the same data.
| [[Image:UE-InfoVis1011_0508080img_exp2_1.jpg | 300px | thumb | alt=|''Fig. 3: Example stimuli from the second study'']]
|}
They presented participants with either a treemap or a hierarchical bar chart and asked them to compare two elements. They were asked either to compare leaf to leaf (LL), leaf to non-leaf (LN) or non-leaf to non-leaf (NN).
* With a treemap, participants were asked to compare two rectangular areas.
* With a hierarchical bar chart, participants were asked either to compare two bars (LL), or to compare groups of bars to one another (LN or NN).

====4.1. Method====
{|border="0"
|During the experminet for each trial a chart with two highlighted nodes was shown to subjects. The participants were asked to identify which of these two nodes were smaller and guess the percentage the smaller was of the larger.
They tested two chart types: treemaps and hierarchical bar charts (Fig. 3). To ensure that participants saw exactly the same data in both chart types, there was rendered a hierarchical bar chart and a treemap out of each tree-dataset.
 In Fig. 4 you see an example for these visualizations.
|[[Image:UE-InfoVis1011_0508080img_exp2_2.jpg | 300px | thumb | alt=|''Fig. 4: Example stimuli from the second study'']]
|}
====4.2. Results====
There were 8,640 responses collected.
 
* Leaf-Leaf comparison: Treemaps excel at high density
** Bar charts were more accurate than treemaps on average
** at higher data densities, errors equalized
** in general responses became less accurate as density increased
** as density increased, responses with treemaps became significant faster
*:(nearly 5 seconds at 8000 leaf nodes)

* Treemaps more accurate for Non-Leaf nodes
** for LN and NN comparison: strong main effect of chart on accuracy
** as data density increased, treemaps maintained their accuracy...
** while responses of bar charts reached higher error rates
** treemaps were more accurate at all densities in NN-comparisons and
*: outperformed bar charts in LN comparisons at the higher leaf node conditions.
====4.3. Discussion====
{{Quotation | The results support our hypothesis that treemaps are more accurate for comparisons of non-leaf nodes. |[Nicholas Kong et al., 2010]}} 
Furthermore treemaps were not significantly faster than bar charts in either NN or LN comparisons.
* At low data densities, bar charts are more accurate
* As data desndity increases, the accuracy difference equalizes
* Treemaps result in significantly better estimation times at higher densities
*: this could be, because bars (in the bar chart display) are small and difficult to find at higher densities

===5. Design Guidelines===
Based on the experimental results the paper offers the following four guidelines for creating treemaps.

*'''Use treemap layouts that avoid extreme aspect ratio'''
:The graphical perception suffers at extreme aspect ratios and diverse orientation. Because of this squarified treemap layouts should be preferred to slice-and-dice layouts even tough comparison of squares also reduces judgment accuracy.

*'''User bar charts at low denisty, treemaps at high denisty'''
:Bar charts have a lower error rate at low densities, but as the data denisty increases treemaps become more faster. With around the same accuracy as bar charts. The transition point is 4096 leaves.

*'''Use treemaps when comparing non-leaf nodes'''
:Treemaps are more accurate than bar charts when comparing leaf nodes to non-leaf nodes and comparing two non-leaf nodes.

*'''Use Luminance to encode secondary values in treemaps'''
:Area preception is not affected by luminance of the rectangles. Therefore luminance can be used to encode an additional variable.

===6. Limitations and Future Work===
There are some limitations for the studies presented in this paper. Just five different aspect ratios were tested in Experiment 1 and during the experiment only stand-alone, out of the context of treemaps rectangles were compared. In Experiment 2 a algorithm was used which created fixed-depth trees with only second level leaves. Also the fixed image size of 600x400 might have been a downside. 
Future work in this area might include optimizing treemaps for a 3/2 aspect ratio and investigate their performance. Also including structural question to the study might be an interesting idea.

===References===
[Nicholas Kong et al., 2010]
Nicholas Kong, Jeffrey Heer, Maneesh Agrawala. Perceptual Guidelines for Creating Rectangular Treemaps. ''IEEE Transactions on Visualization and computer Graphics'', 16(6):990-998, November/December 2010.

Teaching:TUW - UE InfoVis WS 2010/11 - Gruppe 03 - Aufgabe 2

2010-11-17T18:24:23Z

UE-InfoVis1011 0927624: citation hings

__TOC__
==Perceptual Guidelines for Creating Rectangular Treemaps==

The following article is a summary of the work of Nicholas Kong, Jeffrey Heer, and Maneesh Agrawala [Nicholas Kong et al., 2010].
It discusses the advantages and disadvantages of ''treemaps'' as visualization tool.

===1. Treemaps - Basics===
[[Image:Treemaps_fig1.jpg | 350 px | thumb | alt=different visualizations of hierarchical data|''Fig. 1: visualization of hierarchical data'']]
Treemaps are used for space efficient visualizing large, hierarchical datasets. Therefore every node in a tree is represented by a rectangular area, where the size is proportional to the value of the node. The hierarchy of the tree is encoded by recursively subdividing the parent areas in the treemap. Following parameters have to be configured carefully to design perceptually effective treemaps:
* aspect ratio of rectangles (affected by the chosen layout algorithm)
* luminance of rectangles (used to encode additional variables)
* thickness of borders (used to encode hierarchy)

The problem with using treemaps is the use of area for encoding data. Studies have shown that people generally underestimate area, which leads to more inaccurate decoding than with other visualization types, like bar charts. Bar charts, on the other hand, are less space-efficient, not useful for visualization of hierarchies with more than two levels and more difficult to read at higher data densities. The paper gives a design guideline, based on three experiments, when to use treemaps and when to use other visual encodings and how to choose the parameters.

===2. Pilot Study – True Percentage and Luminance===
The authors first conducted a pilot study on ''true percentage'' and luminance to prove prior studies.
The term ''true percentage'' means the physical difference of two values measured in percent.
Following results were discovered:
*'''true percentage has a strong effect on judgment accuracy'''
*: More accurate judgment at either small (5%) or high (95%) percentage, more accurate judgment at multiples of 5 (due to our behavior to specify numbers at factors of 5)
*'''luminance has no significant effects on judgment accuracy'''
*: Because area and luminance are separable perceptual dimensions, luminance does not interfere with area judgment.

===3. Experiment #1: The Effects of Aspect Ratio===
The first experiment presented by Kong et al. [Nicholas Kong et al., 2010] assessed both the effects of aspect ratio on rectangular area judgments and the effects of aspect ratio on proportional judgments.
 
They further hypothesized three things:
* extreme aspect ratios hamper judgment accuracy
* squares would hinder judgment accuracy
* different primary orientation would increase the error rate

====3.1. Method====
[[Image:UE-InfoVis1011_0508080img_exp1_1.gif | 300px | thumb | alt=|''Fig. 2: Example stimuli from the aspect ratio study'']]
They conducted a series of controlled experiments to explore their hypothesis: 
Kong, Heer & Agrawala asked participants to compare rectangular areas with varying size and aspect ratios. For this purpose they showed subjects images (Fig. 2) containing two rectangles (A or B) and asked them to identify which is the smaller one. Further they had to guess the percentage the smaller was of the larger rectangle.

====3.2. Results====
They collected 2,600 responses to analyze:
* No effects of orientation on judgment accuracy were found.
* They did find a significant interaction effect between orientation and aspect ratio.
* Average judgment accuracy improves when comparing rectangles with varied aspect ratios.
* The highest error occurred comparing two extreme aspect ratios or squares.

====3.3. Discussion====
Their results support the general intuition against creating treemaps using rectangles with extreme aspect ratios. 
{{Quotation | It instead seems that squarified algorithms are effective in part because (a) they avoid extreme aspect ratios and (b) in most cases they are unable to perfectly achieve their “squarification” objective, instead producing a distribution of aspect ratios. |[Nicholas Kong et al., 2010]}}

===4. Experiment #2: The Effects of Data Density===
{|border="0"
|The second experiment was designed to examine the data density at which treemaps become more effective than bar charts for comparing quantitative values. Kong, Heer & Agrawala chose to focus on value comparison tasks, which they believe to be the most common perceptual task performed with treemaps. 
A layout algorithm was designed which uses bar charts to encode the values of leaf nodes. Figure 3 shows an example of a treemap and their hierarchical bar chart, each encoding the same data.
| [[Image:UE-InfoVis1011_0508080img_exp2_1.jpg | 300px | thumb | alt=|''Fig. 3: Example stimuli from the second study'']]
|}
They presented participants with either a treemap or a hierarchical bar chart and asked them to compare two elements. They were asked either to compare leaf to leaf (LL), leaf to non-leaf (LN) or non-leaf to non-leaf (NN).
* With a treemap, participants were asked to compare two rectangular areas.
* With a hierarchical bar chart, participants were asked either to compare two bars (LL), or to compare groups of bars to one another (LN or NN).

====4.1. Method====
{|border="0"
|During the experminet for each trial a chart with two highlighted nodes was shown to subjects. The participants were asked to identify which of these two nodes were smaller and guess the percentage the smaller was of the larger.
They tested two chart types: treemaps and hierarchical bar charts (Fig. 3). To ensure that participants saw exactly the same data in both chart types, there was rendered a hierarchical bar chart and a treemap out of each tree-dataset.
 In Fig. 4 you see an example for these visualizations.
|[[Image:UE-InfoVis1011_0508080img_exp2_2.jpg | 300px | thumb | alt=|''Fig. 4: Example stimuli from the second study'']]
|}
====4.2. Results====
There were 8,640 responses collected.
 
* Leaf-Leaf comparison: Treemaps excel at high density
** Bar charts were more accurate than treemaps on average
** at higher data densities, errors equalized
** in general responses became less accurate as density increased
** as density increased, responses with treemaps became significant faster
*:(nearly 5 seconds at 8000 leaf nodes)

* Treemaps more accurate for Non-Leaf nodes
** for LN and NN comparison: strong main effect of chart on accuracy
** as data density increased, treemaps maintained their accuracy...
** while responses of bar charts reached higher error rates
** treemaps were more accurate at all densities in NN-comparisons and
*: outperformed bar charts in LN comparisons at the higher leaf node conditions.
====4.3. Discussion====
{{Quotation | The results support our hypothesis that treemaps are more accurate for comparisons of non-leaf nodes. |[Nicholas Kong et al., 2010]}} 
Furthermore treemaps were not significantly faster than bar charts in either NN or LN comparisons.
* At low data densities, bar charts are more accurate
* As data desndity increases, the accuracy difference equalizes
* Treemaps result in significantly better estimation times at higher densities
*: this could be, because bars (in the bar chart display) are small and difficult to find at higher densities

===5. Design Guidelines===
Based on the experimental results the paper offers the following four guidelines for creating treemaps.

*'''Use treemap layouts that avoid extreme aspect ratio'''
:The graphical perception suffers at extreme aspect ratios and diverse orientation. Because of this squarified treemap layouts should be preferred to slice-and-dice layouts even tough comparison of squares also reduces judgment accuracy.

*'''User bar charts at low denisty, treemaps at high denisty'''
:Bar charts have a lower error rate at low densities, but as the data denisty increases treemaps become more faster. With around the same accuracy as bar charts. The transition point is 4096 leaves.

*'''Use treemaps when comparing non-leaf nodes'''
:Treemaps are more accurate than bar charts when comparing leaf nodes to non-leaf nodes and comparing two non-leaf nodes.

*'''Use Luminance to encode secondary values in treemaps'''
:Area preception is not affected by luminance of the rectangles. Therefore luminance can be used to encode an additional variable.

===6. Limitations and Future Work===
There are some limitations for the studies presented in this paper. Just five different aspect ratios were tested in Experiment 1 and during the experiment only stand-alone, out of the context of treemaps rectangles were compared. In Experiment 2 a algorithm was used which created fixed-depth trees with only second level leaves. Also the fixed image size of 600x400 might have been a downside. 
Future work in this area might include optimizing treemaps for a 3/2 aspect ratio and investigate their performance. Also including structural question to the study might be an interesting idea.

===References===
[Nicholas Kong et al., 2010]
Nicholas Kong, Jeffrey Heer, Maneesh Agrawala. Perceptual Guidelines for Creating Rectangular Treemaps. ''IEEE Transactions on Visualization and computer Graphics'', 16(6):990-998, November/December 2010.

File:UE-InfoVis1011 0508080img exp2 2.jpg

2010-11-17T17:54:11Z

UE-InfoVis1011 0927624: format of source updated

== Summary ==
Fig. 10. A sample tree shown as (a) a node-link tree, and (b) a hierarchical
bar chart. Each group of sibling leaves form a cell of bar charts.
== Copyright status ==

== Source ==
Nicholas Kong, Jeffrey Heer, Maneesh Agrawala. Perceptual Guidelines for Creating Rectangular Treemaps. ''IEEE Transactions on Visualization and computer Graphics'', 16(6):990-998, November/December 2010.

File:UE-InfoVis1011 0508080img exp2 1.jpg

2010-11-17T17:53:26Z

UE-InfoVis1011 0927624: format of source updated

== Summary ==
Fig. 9. Example Exp. 2 stimuli with 256 leaves. (a) Squarified treemap.
(b) Hierarchical bar chart; each bar represents a leaf node and sibling
bars are grouped together in a cell. The charts depict the same data.
== Copyright status ==

== Source ==
Nicholas Kong, Jeffrey Heer, Maneesh Agrawala. Perceptual Guidelines for Creating Rectangular Treemaps. ''IEEE Transactions on Visualization and computer Graphics'', 16(6):990-998, November/December 2010.

File:UE-InfoVis1011 0508080img exp1 1.gif

2010-11-17T17:52:50Z

UE-InfoVis1011 0927624: format of source updated

== Summary ==
Example stimuli from the aspect ratio study. Rectangles varied in terms of both percentage difference and aspect ratio.
== Copyright status ==

== Source ==
Nicholas Kong, Jeffrey Heer, Maneesh Agrawala. Perceptual Guidelines for Creating Rectangular Treemaps. ''IEEE Transactions on Visualization and computer Graphics'', 16(6):990-998, November/December 2010.

Teaching:TUW - UE InfoVis WS 2010/11 - Gruppe 03 - Aufgabe 2

2010-11-15T18:39:52Z

UE-InfoVis1011 0927624: fixed errors

__TOC__
==Perceptual Guidelines for Creating Rectangular Treemaps==
===Abstract===
The following Article is a summary of the work of Nicholas Kong, Jeffrey Heer, and Maneesh Agrawala [Nicholas Kong et al., 2010].
It discusses the advantages and disadvantages of ''treemaps'' as visualization tool.

===Treemaps - Basics===
[[Image:Treemaps_fig1.jpg | 350 px | thumb | alt=different visualizations of hierarchical data|''figure 1: visualization of hierarchical data'']]
Treemaps are used for space efficient visualizing large, hierarchical datasets. Therefore every node in a tree is represented by a rectangular area in the treemap, where the size is proportional to the value of the node. The hierarchy of the tree is encoded by recursively subdividing the parent areas in the treemap. Following parameters have to be configured carefully to design perceptually effective treemaps:
* aspect ratio of rectangles (affected by the chosen layout algorithm)
* luminance of rectangles (used to encode additional variables)
* thickness of borders (used to encode hierarchy)

The problem with using treemaps is the use of area for encoding data. Studies have shown that people generally underestimate area, which leads to more inaccurate decoding than with other visualization types, like bar charts. Bar charts, on the other hand, are less space-efficient, not useful for visualization of hierarchies with more than two levels, and more difficult to read at higher data densities. The underlying work gives a design guideline, based on three experiments, when to use treemaps and when to use other visual encodings and how to choose the parameters.

===Pilot Study – True Percentage and Luminance===
The authors first conducted a pilot study on ''true percentage'' and luminance to prove prior studies.
The term ''true percentage'' means the physical difference of two values measured in percent.
Following results could be gained:
*'''true percentage has a strong effect on judgment accuracy'''
*: More accurate judgment at either small (5%) or high (95%) percentage, more accurate judgment at multiples of 5 (due to our behavior to specify numbers at factors of 5)
*'''luminance has no significant effects on judgment accuracy'''
*: Because area and luminance are separable perceptual dimensions, luminance does not interfere with area judgment.

===References===
[Nicholas Kong et al., 2010]
Nicholas Kong, Jeffrey Heer, Maneesh Agrawala. Perceptual Guidelines for Creating Rectangular Treemaps. ''IEEE Transactions on Visualization and computer Graphics'', 16(6):990-998, November/December 2010.

Teaching:TUW - UE InfoVis WS 2010/11 - Gruppe 03 - Aufgabe 2

2010-11-15T18:28:58Z

UE-InfoVis1011 0927624: luminance and true percentage added

__TOC__
==Perceptual Guidelines for Creating Rectangular Treemaps==
===Abstract===
The following Article is a summaray of the work of Nicholas Kong, Jeffrey Heer, and Maneesh Agrawala [Nicholas Kont et al., 2010].
It discusses the advantages and disadvantages of ''treemaps'' as visualization tool.

===Treemaps - Basics===
[[Image:Treemaps_fig1.jpg | 350 px | thumb | alt=different visualizations of hierarchical data|''figure 1: visualization of hierarchical data'']]
Treemaps are used for space efficient visualizing large, hierarchical datasets. Therefore every node in a tree is represented by a rectangular area in the treemap, where the size is proportional to the value of the node. The hierarchy of the tree is encoded by recursively subdividing the parent areas in the treemap. Following parameters have to be configured carefully to design perceptually effective treemaps:
* aspect ratio of rectangles (affected by the chosen layout algorithm)
* luminance of rectangles (used to encode additional variables)
* thickness of borders (used to encode hierarchy)

The problem with using treemaps is the use of area for encoding data. Studies have shown that people generally underestimate area, which leads to more inaccurate decoding than with other visualization types, like bar charts. Bar charts, on the other hand, are less space-efficient, not useful for visualization of hierarchies with more than two levels, and more difficult to read at higher data densities. The underlying work gives a design guidline, based on three experiments, when to use treemaps and when to use other visual encodings and how to choose the parameters.

===Pilot Study – True Percentage and Luminance===
The autors first conducted a pilot study on ‘’true percentage’’ and luminance to proof prior studies.
The term ‘’true percentage’’ means the physical difference of two values measured in percent.
Following results could be gained:
*’’’true percentage has a strong effect on judgment accuracy’’’
More accurate judgment at either small (5%) or high (95%) percentage, more accurate judgment at multiples of 5 (due to our behavior to specify numbers at factors of 5)
*’’’luminance has no significant effects on judgment accuracy’’’
Because area and luminance are separable perceptual dimensions, luminance does not interfere with area judgment.

===References===
[Nicholas Kont et al., 2010]
Nicholas Kong, Jeffrey Heer, Maneesh Agrawala. Perceptual Guidelines for Creating Rectangular Treemaps. ''IEEE Transactions on Visualization and computer Graphics'', 16(6):990-998, November/December 2010.

Teaching:TUW - UE InfoVis WS 2010/11 - Gruppe 03 - Aufgabe 2

2010-11-15T16:32:31Z

UE-InfoVis1011 0927624: introduction

==Perceptual Guidelines for Creating Rectangular Treemaps==

===Abstract===
The following Article is a summaray of the work of Nicholas Kong, Jeffrey Heer, and Maneesh Agrawala [Nicholas Kont et al., 2010].
It discusses the advantages and disadvantages of ''treemaps'' as visualization tool.

===Treemaps - Basics===
[[Image:Treemaps_fig1.jpg | 350 px | thumb | alt=different visualizations of hierarchical data|''figure 1: visualization of hierarchical data'']]
Treemaps are used for space efficient visualizing large, hierarchical datasets. Therefore every node in a tree is represented by a rectangular area in the treemap, where the size is proportional to the value of the node. The hierarchy of the tree is encoded by recursively subdividing the parent areas in the treemap. Following parameters have to be configured carefully to design perceptually effective treemaps:
* aspect ratio of rectangles (affected by the chosen layout algorithm)
* luminance of rectangles (used to encode additional variables)
* thickness of borders (used to encode hierarchy)

The problem with using treemaps is the use of area for encoding data. Studies have shown that people generally underestimate area, which leads to more inaccurate decoding than with other visualization types, like bar charts. Bar charts, on the other hand, are less space-efficient, not useful for visualization of hierarchies with more than two levels, and more difficult to read at higher data densities. The underlying work gives a guidline, when to use bar charts and when to use treemaps.

File:Treemaps fig1.jpg

2010-11-15T16:22:35Z

UE-InfoVis1011 0927624:

== Summary ==
different visualizations of hierarchical data.
The tree (1st row 1st figure) is visualized with treemaps with varying aspect ratio (1st row, 1st and 2nd image), varying luminance (2nd row 1st image), varying border thickness (2nd row 2nd image) or with hierarchical bar charts (2nd row 3rd image).
== Copyright status ==

== Source ==
Nicholas Kong, Jeffrey Heer, Maneesh Agrawala. Perceptual Guidelines for Creating Rectangular Treemaps. ''IEEE Transactions on Visualization and computer Graphics'', 16(6):990-998, November/December 2010.

File:Treemaps fig1.jpg

2010-11-15T16:15:15Z

UE-InfoVis1011 0927624:

== Summary ==
different visualizations of trees.
The tree (1st row 1st figure) is visualized with treemaps with varying aspect ratio (1st row, 1st and 2nd image), varying luminance (2nd row 1st image), varying border thickness (2nd row 2nd image) or with hierarchical bar charts (2nd row 3rd image)
== Copyright status ==

== Source ==
Nicholas Kong, Jeffrey Heer, Maneesh Agrawala. Perceptual Guidelines for Creating Rectangular Treemaps. ''IEEE Transactions on Visualization and computer Graphics'', 16(6):990-998, November/December 2010.

File:Treemaps fig1.jpg

2010-11-15T16:00:06Z

UE-InfoVis1011 0927624: different visualizations of trees

== Summary ==
different visualizations of trees
== Copyright status ==

== Source ==
[Nicholas Kong et al., 2010]

Teaching:TUW - UE InfoVis WS 2010/11

2010-10-22T16:15:27Z

UE-InfoVis1011 0927624: Korrektur (nur Nachname)

[[Image:Aigner03infovis ue.gif]] <big>WS 2010/11</big>

'''LVA Nr:''' 188.308 ([https://tiss.tuwien.ac.at/course/courseDetails.xhtml?courseNr=188308&semester=2010W TISS Seite])

'''LVA Homepage:''' http://ieg.ifs.tuwien.ac.at/~gschwand/teaching/infovis_ue_ws10/index.html

'''Leitung:''' [[Aigner, Wolfgang|Wolfgang Aigner]] [aigner (at) ifs.tuwien.ac.at] 
:: [[Gschwandtner, Theresia|Theresia Gschwandtner]] [gschwandtner (at) ifs.tuwien.ac.at] 

== Gruppen ==

*[[Teaching:TUW - UE InfoVis WS 2010/11 - Gruppe 01|Gruppe 01 (Emrich, ???, ???)]]
*[[Teaching:TUW - UE InfoVis WS 2010/11 - Gruppe 03|Gruppe 03 (Leichtfried, Chwistek, ???)]]
*[[Teaching:TUW - UE InfoVis WS 2010/11 - Gruppe 04|Gruppe 04 (Kastner, ???, ???)]]
*[[Teaching:TUW - UE InfoVis WS 2010/11 - Gruppe 05|Gruppe 05 (Alili, Bachhuber, Marschik)]]

== News / Bemerkungen ==

Liebe TeilnehmerInnen! 
Um diese Seite einheitlich zu gestalten (auch bezüglich der Vorjahre), schlage ich vor die Nachnamen
der Gruppenmitglieder in Klammer neben der Gruppe anzugeben, 
z.B.: Gruppe XX (Maier, Müller, Mustermann). 
-- [[Gschwandtner, Theresia|Theresia Gschwandtner]] 10:34, 08 October 2010 (CEST)

Teaching:TUW - UE InfoVis WS 2010/11 - Gruppe 03

2010-10-22T10:28:54Z

UE-InfoVis1011 0927624: Formatierung geändert

== Mitglieder ==
* [[User:UE-InfoVis1011_0927624|Leichtfried, Michael]]
* Robert Chwistek
* ???

== Aufgaben ==
* [[Teaching:TUW - UE InfoVis WS 2010/11 - Gruppe 03 - Aufgabe 0|Aufgabe 0]]
* [[Teaching:TUW - UE InfoVis WS 2010/11 - Gruppe 03 - Aufgabe 1|Aufgabe 1]]
* [[Teaching:TUW - UE InfoVis WS 2010/11 - Gruppe 03 - Aufgabe 2|Aufgabe 2]]
* [[Teaching:TUW - UE InfoVis WS 2010/11 - Gruppe 03 - Aufgabe 3|Aufgabe 3]]

Teaching:TUW - UE InfoVis WS 2010/11 - Gruppe 03 - Aufgabe 3

2010-10-22T10:26:23Z

UE-InfoVis1011 0927624: Page Aufgabe 3 erstellt

== Aufgabe 3 ==

Teaching:TUW - UE InfoVis WS 2010/11 - Gruppe 03 - Aufgabe 2

2010-10-22T10:25:57Z

UE-InfoVis1011 0927624: Page Aufgabe 2 erstellt

== Aufgabe 2 ==

Teaching:TUW - UE InfoVis WS 2010/11 - Gruppe 03

2010-10-22T10:25:26Z

UE-InfoVis1011 0927624: syntax korrigiert

== Gruppe 03 ==
===Mitglieder===
* [[User:UE-InfoVis1011_0927624|Leichtfried, Michael]]
* Robert Chwistek
* ???

=== Aufgaben ===
* [[Teaching:TUW - UE InfoVis WS 2010/11 - Gruppe 03 - Aufgabe 0|Aufgabe 0]]
* [[Teaching:TUW - UE InfoVis WS 2010/11 - Gruppe 03 - Aufgabe 1|Aufgabe 1]]
* [[Teaching:TUW - UE InfoVis WS 2010/11 - Gruppe 03 - Aufgabe 2|Aufgabe 2]]
* [[Teaching:TUW - UE InfoVis WS 2010/11 - Gruppe 03 - Aufgabe 3|Aufgabe 3]]

Teaching:TUW - UE InfoVis WS 2010/11 - Gruppe 03 - Aufgabe 1

2010-10-22T10:14:32Z

UE-InfoVis1011 0927624: New page: == Aufgabe 1 ==

== Aufgabe 1 ==

Teaching:TUW - UE InfoVis WS 2010/11 - Gruppe 03 - Aufgabe 0

2010-10-22T09:41:48Z

UE-InfoVis1011 0927624: Page Aufgabe 0 erstellt

== Aufgabe 0 ==

Teaching:TUW - UE InfoVis WS 2010/11 - Gruppe 03

2010-10-22T09:39:51Z

UE-InfoVis1011 0927624: Gruppenseite angelegt

== Gruppe 03 ==
===Mitglieder===
* [[User:UE-InfoVis1011_0927624|Leichtfried, Michael]]
* Robert Chwistek
* ???

=== Aufgaben ===
* '[[Teaching:TUW - UE InfoVis WS 2010/11 - Gruppe 03 - Aufgabe 0|Aufgabe 0]]'
* '[[Teaching:TUW - UE InfoVis WS 2010/11 - Gruppe 03 - Aufgabe 1|Aufgabe 1]]'
* '[[Teaching:TUW - UE InfoVis WS 2010/11 - Gruppe 03 - Aufgabe 2|Aufgabe 2]]'
* '[[Teaching:TUW - UE InfoVis WS 2010/11 - Gruppe 03 - Aufgabe 3|Aufgabe 3]]'

Teaching:TUW - UE InfoVis WS 2010/11

2010-10-22T09:31:03Z

UE-InfoVis1011 0927624: Robert Chwistek zur Gruppe 3 hinzugefügt

[[Image:Aigner03infovis ue.gif]] <big>WS 2010/11</big>

'''LVA Nr:''' 188.308 ([https://tiss.tuwien.ac.at/course/courseDetails.xhtml?courseNr=188308&semester=2010W TISS Seite])

'''LVA Homepage:''' http://ieg.ifs.tuwien.ac.at/~gschwand/teaching/infovis_ue_ws10/index.html

'''Leitung:''' [[Aigner, Wolfgang|Wolfgang Aigner]] [aigner (at) ifs.tuwien.ac.at] 
:: [[Gschwandtner, Theresia|Theresia Gschwandtner]] [gschwandtner (at) ifs.tuwien.ac.at] 

== Gruppen ==

*[[Teaching:TUW - UE InfoVis WS 2010/11 - Gruppe 01|Gruppe 01 (Emrich, ???, ???)]]
*[[Teaching:TUW - UE InfoVis WS 2010/11 - Gruppe 03|Gruppe 03 (Leichtfried, Robert Chwistek, ???)]]
*[[Teaching:TUW - UE InfoVis WS 2010/11 - Gruppe 04|Gruppe 04 (Kastner, ???, ???)]]
*[[Teaching:TUW - UE InfoVis WS 2010/11 - Gruppe 05|Gruppe 05 (Alili, Bachhuber, Marschik)]]

== News / Bemerkungen ==

Liebe TeilnehmerInnen! 
Um diese Seite einheitlich zu gestalten (auch bezüglich der Vorjahre), schlage ich vor die Nachnamen
der Gruppenmitglieder in Klammer neben der Gruppe anzugeben, 
z.B.: Gruppe XX (Maier, Müller, Mustermann). 
-- [[Gschwandtner, Theresia|Theresia Gschwandtner]] 10:34, 08 October 2010 (CEST)

User:UE-InfoVis1011 0927624

2010-10-22T09:28:02Z

UE-InfoVis1011 0927624: created Userpage

[[Image:Foto_Leichtfried.JPG|thumb|alt=Foto von Michael Leichtfried|Michael Leichtfried]]
== Personendaten ==

* '''Name:''' Michael Leichtfried
* '''Wohnort:''' Salesianergasse 10 / 1030 Wien
* '''Studium:''' [http://www.tuwien.ac.at/lehre/masterstudien/informatik/masterstudium_medieninformatik Medieninformatik Master]
** '''Lehrveranstaltungen:''' u.a. [[Teaching:TUW_-_UE_InfoVis_WS_2010/11|Informationsvisualisierung]]

File:Foto Leichtfried.JPG

2010-10-22T09:13:12Z

UE-InfoVis1011 0927624: Foto of Michael Leichtfried

== Summary ==
Foto of Michael Leichtfried
== Copyright status ==

== Source ==