TL;DR
This study investigates how different uncertainty visualization designs influence effect size judgments and decisions, revealing that added means can bias perceptions and that users often switch strategies, affecting visualization effectiveness.
Contribution
It provides empirical evidence on the impact of visualization design choices on effect size estimation and decision-making, highlighting the discrepancy between theoretical optimality and practical user strategies.
Findings
Adding means biases effect size estimates
Designs supporting unbiased estimation do not always improve decisions
Users employ varied heuristics and switch strategies during tasks
Abstract
Uncertainty visualizations often emphasize point estimates to support magnitude estimates or decisions through visual comparison. However, when design choices emphasize means, users may overlook uncertainty information and misinterpret visual distance as a proxy for effect size. We present findings from a mixed design experiment on Mechanical Turk which tests eight uncertainty visualization designs: 95% containment intervals, hypothetical outcome plots, densities, and quantile dotplots, each with and without means added. We find that adding means to uncertainty visualizations has small biasing effects on both magnitude estimation and decision-making, consistent with discounting uncertainty. We also see that visualization designs that support the least biased effect size estimation do not support the best decision-making, suggesting that a chart user's sense of effect size may not…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Code & Models
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
