skip to main content
10.1145/2909132.2933287acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesaviConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open Access

Simple is Good: Observations of Visualization Use Amongst the Big Data Digerati

Authors Info & Claims
Published:07 June 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

While modern information visualization (IV) has been around for several decades, the inventions of IV seem to be peripheral to the everyday work in companies that would seem to be the most likely to use these inventions. In this case study, Google uses very few IV tools, relying mostly on more traditional ways of looking at data and data relationships. What has brought about this state of affairs? An analysis shows that the basic causes of low adoption are (a) difficulty of data wrangling and sharing the work products of analysis, (b) the need to share a common visual language literacy across different parts of the organization, (c) problems in using IV tools to communicate and present complex data analyses. At the same time, IV technology is found to be more useful in the investigation phase of research, rather than for communication and presentation reasons.

References

  1. Abadi, M., Agarwal, A., Barham, P., Brevdo, E., Chen, Z., Citro, C., & Ghemawat, S. (2016). TensorFlow: Large-Scale Machine Learning on Heterogeneous Distributed Systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.04467.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Cooley, R., Mobasher, B., & Srivastava, J. (1999). Data preparation for mining world wide web browsing patterns. Knowledge and information systems, 1(1), 5--32.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Corbett, J. C., Dean, J., Epstein, M., Fikes, A., Frost, C., Furman, J. J., & Hsieh, W. (2013). Spanner: Google's globally distributed database. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems (TOCS), 31(3), 8. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. D3. https://github.com/mbostock/d3/wiki Last access on May 1, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Dean, J., & Ghemawat, S. (2008). MapReduce: simplified data processing on large clusters. Communications of the ACM, 51(1), 107--113. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Gesmann, M., & de Castillo, D. (2011). Using the Google visualisation API with R. The R Journal, 3(2), 40--44.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Ghemawat, S., Gobioff, H., & Leung, S. T. (2003, October). The Google file system. In ACM SIGOPS operating systems review (Vol. 37, No. 5, pp. 29--43). ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. GPDE. Google Public Data Explorer. https://www.google.com/publicdata/directory (last accessed: May 1, 2016) For the interactive Bubble Chart of, see: https://goo.gl/K4fvSwGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. GViz. Google Visualization Toolkit API (2015) https://developers.google.com/chart/interactive/docs/reference#constructor_1 Last accessed on May 1, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Hernández, M. A., & Stolfo, S. J. (1998). Real-world data is dirty: Data cleansing and the merge/purge problem. Data mining and knowledge discovery, 2(1), 9--37. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Lam, H. (2007) Visualization of large data sets to support exploratory data analysis. Ph.D Thesis, Univ. of British Columbia, Canada.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Lam, H., Russell, D., Tang, D., & Munzner, T. (2007). Session viewer: Visual exploratory analysis of web session logs. In Visual Analytics Science and Technology, 2007. VAST 2007. IEEE Symposium on (pp. 147--154). IEEE. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Lam, H., Bertini, E., Isenberg, P., Plaisant, C., & Carpendale, S. (2012). Empirical studies in information visualization: Seven scenarios. Visualization and Computer Graphics, IEEE Transactions on, 18(9), 1520--1536 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Mackay, Wendy E. "Triggers and barriers to customizing software." (1991) Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Melnik, S., Gubarev, A., Long, J. J., Romer, G., Shivakumar, S., Tolton, M., & Vassilakis, T. (2010). Dremel: interactive analysis of web-scale datasets. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, 3(1-2), 330--339.Tavel, P. 2007. Modeling and Simulation Design. AK Peters Ltd., Natick, MA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. North, C., Saraiya, P., & Duca, K. (2011). A comparison of benchmark task and insight evaluation methods for information visualization. Information Visualization, 1473871611415989. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Periodic Table of Visualizations. http://www.visual-literacy.org/periodic_table/periodic_table.html Last accessed on May 1, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Pirolli, P., & Card, S. (2005, May). The sensemaking process and leverage points for analyst technology as identified through cognitive task analysis. In Proceedings of international conference on intelligence analysis (Vol. 5, pp. 2--4).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Plaisant, Catherine. "The challenge of information visualization evaluation." Proceedings of the working conference on Advanced visual interfaces. ACM, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Rodden, K. (2014). Applying a Sunburst Visualization to Summarize User Navigation Sequences. Computer Graphics and Applications, IEEE, 34(5), 36--40.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Russell, D. M., Stefik, M. J., Pirolli, P., & Card, S. K. (1993, May). The cost structure of sensemaking. In Proceedings of the INTERACT'93 and CHI'93 conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 269--276). ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Viégas, Fernanda, Martin Wattenberg, Jack Hebert, Geoffrey Borggaard, Alison Cichowlas, Jonathan Feinberg, Jon Orwant, and Christopher Wren. "Google+ ripples: A native visualization of information flow." In Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on World Wide Web, pp. 1389--1398. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader