pith. sign in

arxiv: 2504.02204 · v3 · submitted 2025-04-03 · 💻 cs.HC

Characterizing Creativity in Data Visualization: Reflections and Future Directions

Tianwei Ma , Zinat Ara , Safwat Ali Khan , Fanny Chevalier , Niklas Elmqvist , Naimul Hoque This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 22:22 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC
keywords creativity in visualizationdesign processvisual representationscreativity support toolspractitioner interviewsorganizational barriersideationsystematic review
0
0 comments X

The pith

Creativity in visualization is judged mainly by unusual final images rather than the design process that produced them.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper reviews 63 studies to map how creativity appears in visualization work through three themes: frameworks that guide design thinking, unorthodox visual outputs, and tools that aid creative tasks. It then interviews 11 practitioners to compare those academic themes against everyday practice. The interviews show that organizations treat the finished unusual visualization as the main proof of creativity while giving little attention to the steps that led there. This gap affects how tools get built and how teams support creative effort. The authors outline changes needed in frameworks, evaluation, and handling of barriers like idea generation and company rules, including in AI-assisted settings.

Core claim

A systematic review of 63 papers produces a design space with three themes: creative design frameworks that mix divergent and convergent thinking, creative visual representations focused on unorthodox outputs, and visualization-enabled creativity support tools. Interviews with 11 practitioners and researchers show that final artifacts receive most credit for creativity while the design process is undervalued in practice, with ideation as a universal bottleneck and organizational constraints as the chief barrier to creative visualization work.

What carries the argument

A design space of three themes extracted from the systematic review of 63 papers, used as a lens to interpret contrasts with the 11 practitioner interviews on how creativity is actually valued.

If this is right

  • Future authoring tools and frameworks should place more weight on supporting the full design process instead of only enabling unusual final outputs.
  • Evaluation methods for creative visualization need to measure process elements alongside product assessment.
  • Organizational practices must shift to reduce barriers and give more value to ideation and design steps.
  • AI-assisted visualization systems should be built to ease the ideation bottleneck while fitting within real organizational limits.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Teams could adopt separate tracking for creative process quality apart from output novelty when assessing visualization projects.
  • The emphasis on process could lead to new training methods that teach divergent thinking steps rather than only novel results.
  • Extending the work to more regions and company types might reveal whether organizational constraints vary by culture or scale.

Load-bearing premise

The 63 reviewed papers and 11 interview participants are representative enough to support general claims about how creativity is viewed across visualization work.

What would settle it

A larger survey or additional interviews across varied organizations that finds the design process receives equal or greater credit than the final artifact would challenge the main interview result.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.02204 by Fanny Chevalier, Naimul Hoque, Niklas Elmqvist, Safwat Ali Khan, Tianwei Ma, Zinat Ara.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Three broad creativity themes of the design space . (Left) Design frameworks involving activities such as sketching, group discussion, and card sorting can foster human creativity regardless of the resulting visualization. (Middle) Creative representations such as infographics, pictorials, and data comics can promote creativity through unusual layouts and personalized glyphs and icons. These representation… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Paper Collection Methodology guided by the PRISM checklist [43]. We collected papers in three steps. First, we searched for terms “creativity” and “creative” in title, abstract, or keywords of the papers in https://vispubs.com. In second step, we searched the ACM Digital Library (ACM DL) for finding papers from venues that are not included in vispub. Finally, we collected papers from exploratory search, re… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Distribution for our paper corpus, per year (x-axis) and venue (y-axis). Papers appearing in InfoVis, SciVis, VAST, VIS, and TVCG are merged into the Vis/TVCG category. and Computer Graphics (including VIS conference proceedings); (2) Computer Graphics Forum (CGF, including EuroVis conference proceedings); and (3) ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI). We searched for the terms “creati… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Example creative design frameworks. (A) The workshop-based framework proposed by Goodwin et al. [18] for energy analysts to identify visualization requirements. The authors explicitly integrated design activities (yellow rectangles on the left) such as wishful thinking, excursion, and storyboarding to promote creativity. Here rectangles are techniques and round-edged rectangles are concepts. Orange colors … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Different types of design activities found in the 13 analyzed frameworks. All frameworks support ideation (divergent thinking) through activities such as sketching, affinity diagramming, and wishful thinking. Activities such as card sorting and finding constraints support synthesis (i.e., convergent thinking). Collaboration among stakeholders, reflecting on solutions, and collecting data through literature… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Example creative representations with different properties. (A) TimeSplines [41] uses free-form sketch and unusual layouts to represent time series. (B) DataQuilt [71] lets users extract visual elements from images to form pictorials. (C) Dear Pictograph [50] uses free-form glyphs and 3D environment to produce pictorials. (D) Graph comics by Bach et al. [1]. (E) Schroeder and Keefe [55] proposed a system w… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Authoring actions for direct manipulation. Users can perform these interactions/actions to directly create or manipulate representations. Common actions include interactions such as add, select, and remove data points [51]. from non-experts and domain experts, and for helping them produce visual representations for their problems [38, 68]. Another major motivation is to educate non-experts and domain exper… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Manipulable objects. Elements that visualization authors can manipulate to produce creative representations. blobs ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: HaLLMark, an example vis-enabled creativity support tool (CST). The tool promotes responsible use of LLMs in writing. It offers a writing interface (A) with text written and influenced by the LLM highlighted with the orange and green colors, a ChatGPT like interface (B) for prompting the LLM, and a timeline visualization to trace writer-LLM interactions. Purple rectangles indicate prompts that were used fo… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Supporting creative design activities with LLMs. (A) Visualization authors can prompt an LLM to use a raw sketch as a seed for generating design ideas and produce a chart. (B) Multiple AI agents can simulate discussion and critique sessions to improve a original chart [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: A snapshot of data arts by Nadieh Bremer [7]. We have not encountered such artistic visualization in our analysis, indicating a gap in literature. Future research can pursue to understand such artistic representations and develop AI-powered authoring tools to lower barriers for this kind of representations. could also potentially serve as a simulated team member and participate in discussion and critique … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Characterizing creativity in visualization design can lead to the design of more expressive representations and visualization authoring tools that prioritize human creativity. In this paper, we examine how creativity manifests itself in visualization design processes through two complementary studies. First, a systematic review of 63 papers yields a design space spanning three themes: creative design frameworks that focus on developing design processes by incorporating divergent and convergent thinking activities, creative visual representations that focus on developing unorthodox visualizations, and visualization-enabled creativity support tools that focus on supporting a creative task (e.g., writing) with visualization. Second, we conducted qualitative interviews with 11 visualization practitioners and researchers to understand practical challenges and contrast those with current academic framing through our design space. The interview findings indicate that artifacts or final products (unorthodox visualizations) are often disproportionately considered as the primary indicator of creativity, whereas the design process remains undervalued in practical and organizational contexts. We also found that ideation is a universal bottleneck, and organizational constraints are often the primary barrier to creative work. We discuss implications for rethinking the relationship between our design space categories, addressing organizational barriers, and designing future frameworks, tools, and evaluation methods that better support creativity in the age of AI-assisted visualization. The full list of coded papers is available here: https://vizcreativity.notion.site/coded-papers.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

0 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that creativity in visualization design can be characterized via a design space derived from a systematic review of 63 papers, spanning three themes (creative design frameworks emphasizing divergent/convergent thinking, creative visual representations focusing on unorthodox outputs, and visualization-enabled creativity support tools), and that interviews with 11 practitioners/researchers reveal a disproportionate emphasis on final artifacts over design processes in practice, with ideation as a universal bottleneck and organizational constraints as the main barrier; it discusses implications for rethinking the design space, addressing barriers, and developing future frameworks/tools/evaluation methods especially with AI assistance. The full coded papers list is made public.

Significance. If the results hold, the work offers a useful organizing framework for an under-explored topic in visualization research, bridging academic literature with practitioner perspectives. The public release of the coded papers list is a strength that supports transparency and future work. It surfaces actionable gaps (process undervaluation, organizational barriers) that could inform tool design and evaluation practices in HCI/visualization.

minor comments (2)
  1. [§3] §3 (Methods, systematic review): the inclusion/exclusion criteria and inter-coder reliability details are referenced but could be expanded with a brief table or paragraph to allow readers to assess coverage of the 63 papers without consulting the external Notion link.
  2. [§4.2] §4.2 (Interview findings): the claim that 'organizational constraints are often the primary barrier' is well-supported by quotes but would benefit from a short summary table listing the most frequent themes across the 11 participants for quick reference.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive review, recognition of the paper's contributions as an organizing framework, and recommendation to accept. The feedback affirms the value of the systematic review, interview findings, and public data release.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The paper performs a systematic review of 63 external papers to construct a design space across three themes and reports findings from 11 new qualitative interviews with practitioners and researchers. No equations, fitted parameters, predictions, or self-citations serve as load-bearing steps in any derivation chain. All central claims (e.g., disproportionate emphasis on artifacts over process) rest directly on the collected interview data and the reviewed literature rather than reducing to the paper's own inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper is a qualitative synthesis relying on standard HCI research assumptions rather than fitted parameters or new entities.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption A systematic review of 63 papers can produce a representative design space for creativity in visualization.
    This assumption enables the first study and the resulting three themes.
  • domain assumption Interviews with 11 practitioners and researchers provide a valid basis for contrasting academic and practical views on creativity.
    This underpins the second study and the central finding about undervalued design processes.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5779 in / 1190 out tokens · 49545 ms · 2026-05-22T22:22:20.966442+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Hall, Sheelagh Carpendale, Jessie Kennedy, and Nathalie Henry Riche

    Benjamin Bach, Natalie Kerracher, Kyle Wm. Hall, Sheelagh Carpendale, Jessie Kennedy, and Nathalie Henry Riche. 2016. Telling Stories about Dynamic Networks with Graph Comics. InProceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 3670–3682. doi:10.1145/2858036.2858387

    work page doi:10.1145/2858036.2858387 2016

  2. [2]

    Basole and Timothy Major

    Rahul C. Basole and Timothy Major. 2024. Generative AI for Visualization: Opportunities and Challenges.IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 44, 2 (2024), 55–64. doi:10.1109/MCG.2024.3362168

    work page doi:10.1109/mcg.2024.3362168 2024

  3. [3]

    Alex Bigelow, Steven Mark Drucker, Danyel Fisher, and Miriah D. Meyer. 2014. Reflections on how designers design with data. InProceedings of the ACM Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 17–24. doi:10.1145/2598153.2598175

    work page doi:10.1145/2598153.2598175 2014

  4. [5]

    Margaret A. Boden. 2004.The Creative Mind: Myths and Mechanisms(2nd ed.). Routledge, London, UK

    work page 2004

  5. [6]

    Vo, Zoya Bylinskii, Phillip Isola, Shashank Sunkavalli, Aude Oliva, and Hanspeter Pfister

    Michelle Borkin, Azalea A. Vo, Zoya Bylinskii, Phillip Isola, Shashank Sunkavalli, Aude Oliva, and Hanspeter Pfister. 2013. What Makes a Visualization Memorable?IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics19, 12 (2013), 2306–2315. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2013.234

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2013.234 2013

  6. [7]

    2025.CHART: Designing Creative Data Visualizations from Charts to Art

    Nadieh Bremer. 2025.CHART: Designing Creative Data Visualizations from Charts to Art. CRC Press

    work page 2025

  7. [8]

    Nathalie Bressa, Kendra Wannamaker, Henrik Korsgaard, Wesley Willett, and Jo Vermeulen. 2019. Sketching and Ideation Activities for Situated Visualization Design. InProceedings of the ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 173–185. doi:10.1145/ 3322276.3322326

    work page arXiv 2019

  8. [9]

    Cibrian, and Trudi Di Qi

    Isaac Browen, Hector M Camarillo-Abad, Franceli L. Cibrian, and Trudi Di Qi. 2024. Creative Insights into Motion: Enhancing Human Activity Understanding with 3D Data Visualization and Annotation. InProceedings of the ACM Conference on Creativity & Cognition. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 482–487. doi:10.1145/3635636.3664256

    work page doi:10.1145/3635636.3664256 2024

  9. [10]

    Monika Büscher, Dan Shapiro, Michael Christensen, Preben Mogensen, and Peter Ørbæk. 2000. Creativity, Complexity, and Precision: Information Visualization for (Landscape) Architecture. InProceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, 167–171. doi:10.1109/INFVIS.2000.885105

    work page doi:10.1109/infvis.2000.885105 2000

  10. [11]

    Darius Coelho and Klaus Mueller. 2020. Infomages: Embedding Data into Thematic Images.Computer Graphics Forum39, 3 (2020), 593–606. doi:10.1111/CGF.14004

    work page doi:10.1111/cgf.14004 2020

  11. [12]

    Weiwei Cui, Jinpeng Wang, He Huang, Yun Wang, Chin-Yew Lin, Haidong Zhang, and Dongmei Zhang. 2022. A Mixed-Initiative Approach to Reusing Infographic Charts.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics28, 1 (2022), 173–183. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2021.3114856 Manuscript submitted to ACM 18 Hoque et al

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2021.3114856 2022

  12. [13]

    Graham Dove, Sara Jones, Jason Dykes, Amanda Brown, and Alison Duffy. 2013. Using data visualization in creativity workshops: a new tool in the designer’s kit. InProceedings of the ACM Conference on Creativity & Cognition. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 304–307. doi:10.1145/2466627.2466665

    work page doi:10.1145/2466627.2466665 2013

  13. [15]

    Piyum Fernando, Jennifer Weiler, and Stacey Kuznetsov. 2019. A Rough Sketch of the Freehand Drawing Process: Blending the Line between Action and Artifact. InProceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–13. doi:10.1145/3290605.3300312

    work page doi:10.1145/3290605.3300312 2019

  14. [16]

    Jonas Frich, Lindsay MacDonald Vermeulen, Christian Remy, Michael Mose Biskjaer, and Peter Dalsgaard. 2019. Mapping the Landscape of Creativity Support Tools in HCI. InProceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 389:1–389:18. doi:10.1145/3290605.3300619

    work page doi:10.1145/3290605.3300619 2019

  15. [17]

    Glaser and Anselm L

    Barney G. Glaser and Anselm L. Strauss. 2017.Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Routledge, New York, NY, USA. doi:10.4324/9780203793206

    work page doi:10.4324/9780203793206 2017

  16. [18]

    Sarah Goodwin, Jason Dykes, Sara Jones, Iain Dillingham, Graham Dove, Alison Duffy, Alexander Kachkaev, Aidan Slingsby, and Jo Wood. 2013. Creative User-Centered Visualization Design for Energy Analysts and Modelers.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics19, 12 (2013), 2516–2525. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2013.145

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2013.145 2013

  17. [19]

    Guilford

    J.P. Guilford. 1950. Creativity.American Psychologist5, 9 (1950), 444–454. doi:10.1037/h0063487

    work page doi:10.1037/h0063487 1950

  18. [20]

    Hall, Adam James Bradley, Uta Hinrichs, Samuel Huron, Jo Wood, Christopher Collins, and Sheelagh Carpendale

    Kyle Wm. Hall, Adam James Bradley, Uta Hinrichs, Samuel Huron, Jo Wood, Christopher Collins, and Sheelagh Carpendale. 2020. Design by Immersion: A Transdisciplinary Approach to Problem-Driven Visualizations.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics26, 1 (2020), 109–118. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2019.2934790

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2019.2934790 2020

  19. [21]

    Shiqing He and Eytan Adar. 2017. VizItCards: A Card-Based Toolkit for Infovis Design Education.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics23, 1 (2017), 561–570. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2016.2599338

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2016.2599338 2017

  20. [22]

    Jeffrey Heer, Michael Bostock, and Vadim Ogievetsky. 2010. A tour through the visualization zoo.Commun. ACM53, 6 (2010), 59–67. doi:10.1145/ 1743546.1743567

    work page arXiv 2010

  21. [23]

    Md Naimul Hoque, Bhavya Ghai, Kari Kraus, and Niklas Elmqvist. 2023. Portrayal: Leveraging NLP and Visualization for Analyzing Fictional Characters. InProceedings of the ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 74–94. doi:10.1145/3563657.3596000

    work page doi:10.1145/3563657.3596000 2023

  22. [24]

    Naimul Hoque, Tasfia Mashiat, Bhavya Ghai, Cecilia D

    Md. Naimul Hoque, Tasfia Mashiat, Bhavya Ghai, Cecilia D. Shelton, Fanny Chevalier, Kari Kraus, and Niklas Elmqvist. 2024. The HaLLMark Effect: Supporting Provenance and Transparent Use of Large Language Models in Writing with Interactive Visualization. InProceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1045...

    work page doi:10.1145/3613904.3641895 2024

  23. [25]

    Howard, Steve J

    Thomas J. Howard, Steve J. Culley, and Elies Dekoninck. 2008. Describing the creative design process by the integration of engineering design and cognitive psychology literature.Design Studies29, 2 (2008), 160–180. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2008.01.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.destud.2008.01.001 2008

  24. [26]

    Samuel Huron, Romain Vuillemot, and Jean-Daniel Fekete. 2013. Visual Sedimentation.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 19, 12 (2013), 2446–2455. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2013.227

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2013.227 2013

  25. [27]

    Hutchins, James D

    Edwin L. Hutchins, James D. Hollan, and Donald A. Norman. 1985. Direct manipulation interfaces.Hum.-Comput. Interact.1, 4 (Dec. 1985), 311–338. doi:10.1207/s15327051hci0104_2

    work page doi:10.1207/s15327051hci0104_2 1985

  26. [28]

    Shih, and Kyungsik Han

    Youngseung Jeon, Seungwan Jin, Patrick C. Shih, and Kyungsik Han. 2021. FashionQ: An AI-Driven Creativity Support Tool for Facilitating Ideation in Fashion Design. InProceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 576:1–576:18. doi:10.1145/3411764.3445093

    work page doi:10.1145/3411764.3445093 2021

  27. [29]

    Ethan Kerzner, Sarah Goodwin, Jason Dykes, Sara Jones, and Miriah D. Meyer. 2019. A Framework for Creative Visualization-Opportunities Workshops.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics25, 1 (2019), 748–758. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2018.2865241

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2018.2865241 2019

  28. [30]

    CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Proceedings (CHI 2019), May 4–9, 2019, Glasgow, Scotland Uk (2019)

    Nam Wook Kim, Nathalie Henry Riche, Benjamin Bach, Guanpeng Xu, Matthew Brehmer, Ken Hinckley, Michel Pahud, Haijun Xia, Michael J. McGuffin, and Hanspeter Pfister. 2019. DataToon: Drawing Dynamic Network Comics With Pen + Touch Interaction. InProceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–12. doi:10.114...

    work page doi:10.1145/3290605.3300335 2019

  29. [31]

    Nam Wook Kim, Eston Schweickart, Zhicheng Liu, Mira Dontcheva, Wilmot Li, Jovan Popovic, and Hanspeter Pfister. 2017. Data-Driven Guides: Supporting Expressive Design for Information Graphics.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics23, 1 (2017), 491–500. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2016.2598620

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2016.2598620 2017

  30. [32]

    Mike Kirby, David Laidlaw Robert S Laramee, Klaus Mueller, Han-Wei Shen, and Anders Ynnerman. 2016. On the Death of Scientific Visualization. Panel at the IEEE Conference on Visualization

    work page 2016

  31. [33]

    Johannes Landstorfer, Ivo Herrmann, Jan-Erik Stange, Marian Dörk, and Reto Wettach. 2014. Weaving a carpet from log entries: A network security visualization built with co-creation. InProceedings of the IEEE Conference on Visual Analytics Science and Technology. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, 73–82. doi:10.1109/VAST.2014.7042483

    work page doi:10.1109/vast.2014.7042483 2014

  32. [34]

    Devin Lange. 2024. VisPubs: A Visualization Publications Repository. Preprint. doi:10.31219/osf.io/dg3p2

    work page doi:10.31219/osf.io/dg3p2 2024

  33. [35]

    Bongshin Lee, Rubaiat Habib Kazi, and Greg Smith. 2013. SketchStory: Telling More Engaging Stories with Data through Freeform Sketching.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics19, 12 (2013), 2416–2425. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2013.191

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2013.191 2013

  34. [36]

    Damien Masson, Zixin Zhao, and Fanny Chevalier. 2025. Visual Story-Writing: Writing by Manipulating Visual Representations of Stories. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology(Busan, Republic of Korea)(UIST ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 15 pages. doi:10.1145/3746059.3747758 M...

    work page doi:10.1145/3746059.3747758 2025

  35. [37]

    Jon McCormack, Toby Gifford, Patrick Hutchings, Maria Teresa Llano Rodriguez, Matthew Yee-King, and Mark d’Inverno. 2019. In a Silent Way: Communication Between AI and Improvising Musicians Beyond Sound. InProceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 38. doi:10.1145/3290605.3300268

    work page doi:10.1145/3290605.3300268 2019

  36. [38]

    Sean McKenna, Dominika Mazur, James Agutter, and Miriah D. Meyer. 2014. Design Activity Framework for Visualization Design.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics20, 12 (2014), 2191–2200. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2014.2346331

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2014.2346331 2014

  37. [39]

    Gonzalo Gabriel Méndez, Uta Hinrichs, and Miguel A. Nacenta. 2017. Bottom-up vs. Top-down: Trade-offs in Efficiency, Understanding, Freedom and Creativity with InfoVis Tools. InProceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 841–852. doi:10.1145/3025453.3025942

    work page doi:10.1145/3025453.3025942 2017

  38. [40]

    Purchase

    Andrew Vande Moere and Helen C. Purchase. 2011. On the role of design in information visualization.Information Visualization10, 4 (2011), 356–371. doi:10.1177/1473871611415996

    work page doi:10.1177/1473871611415996 2011

  39. [41]

    Anna Offenwanger, Matthew Brehmer, Fanny Chevalier, and Theophanis Tsandilas. 2024. TimeSplines: Sketch-Based Authoring of Flexible and Idiosyncratic Timelines.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics30, 1 (2024), 34–44. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2023.3326520

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2023.3326520 2024

  40. [42]

    Anna Offenwanger, Theophanis Tsandilas, and Fanny Chevalier. 2024. Datagarden: Formalizing personal sketches into structured visualization templates.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics(2024)

    work page 2024

  41. [43]

    BMJ372(71), 1–9 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

    Matthew J. Page, Joanne E. McKenzie, Patrick M. Bossuyt, Isabelle Boutron, Tammy C. Hoffmann, Cynthia D. Mulrow, Larissa Shamseer, Jennifer M. Tetzlaff, Elie A. Akl, Sue E. Brennan, Roger Chou, Julie Glanville, Jeremy M. Grimshaw, Asbjørn Hróbjartsson, Manoj M. Lalu, Tianjing Li, Elizabeth W. Loder, Evan Mayo-Wilson, Steve McDonald, Luke A. McGuinness, Le...

    work page doi:10.1136/bmj.n71 2021

  42. [44]

    O'Brien and Carrie Jun Cai and Meredith Ringel Morris and Percy Liang and Michael S

    Joon Sung Park, Joseph C. O’Brien, Carrie Jun Cai, Meredith Ringel Morris, Percy Liang, and Michael S. Bernstein. 2023. Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behavior. InProceedings of the ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. ACM, 2:1–2:22. doi:10.1145/3586183.3606763

    work page doi:10.1145/3586183.3606763 2023

  43. [45]

    Paul Parsons, Prakash Shukla, and Chorong Park. 2021. Fixation and Creativity in Data Visualization Design: Experiences and Perspectives of Practitioners. InShort Paper Proceedings the IEEE Visualization Conference. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, 76–80. doi:10.1109/ VIS49827.2021.9623297

    work page arXiv 2021

  44. [46]

    Huamin Qu, Haomian Wang, Weiwei Cui, Yingcai Wu, and Ming-Yuen Chan. 2009. Focus+Context Route Zooming and Information Overlay in 3D Urban Environments.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics15, 6 (2009), 1547–1554. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2009.144

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2009.144 2009

  45. [47]

    Donghao Ren, Bongshin Lee, Matthew Brehmer, and Nathalie Henry Riche. 2018. Reflecting on the Evaluation of Visualization Authoring Systems: Position Paper. InProceedings of the IEEE VIS Workshop on Evaluation and Beyond - Methodological Approaches for Visualization. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, 86–92. doi:10.1109/BELIV.2018.8634297

    work page doi:10.1109/beliv.2018.8634297 2018

  46. [48]

    Roberts, Chris Headleand, and Panagiotis D

    Jonathan C. Roberts, Chris Headleand, and Panagiotis D. Ritsos. 2016. Sketching Designs Using the Five Design-Sheet Methodology.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics22, 1 (2016), 419–428. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2015.2467271

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2015.2467271 2016

  47. [49]

    Roberts, Panagiotis D

    Jonathan C. Roberts, Panagiotis D. Ritsos, James R. Jackson, and Christopher James Headleand. 2018. The Explanatory Visualization Framework: An Active Learning Framework for Teaching Creative Computing Using Explanatory Visualizations.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics24, 1 (2018), 791–801. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2017.2745878

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2017.2745878 2018

  48. [50]

    Hugo Romat, Nathalie Henry Riche, Christophe Hurter, Steven Mark Drucker, Fereshteh Amini, and Ken Hinckley. 2020. Dear Pictograph: Investigating the Role of Personalization and Immersion for Consuming and Enjoying Visualizations. InProceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–13. doi:10.1145/3313831.3376348

    work page doi:10.1145/3313831.3376348 2020

  49. [51]

    As-Rigid-As- Possible Deformation of Gaussian Radiance Fields ,

    Arvind Satyanarayan, Bongshin Lee, Donghao Ren, Jeffrey Heer, John T. Stasko, John Thompson, Matthew Brehmer, and Zhicheng Liu. 2020. Critical Reflections on Visualization Authoring Systems.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics26, 1 (2020), 461–471. doi:10.1109/TVCG. 2019.2934281

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg 2020

  50. [52]

    2017.Group Genius: The Creative Power of Collaboration

    Keith Sawyer. 2017.Group Genius: The Creative Power of Collaboration. Basic Books

    work page 2017

  51. [53]

    McNutt, Matthias Miller, J

    Victor Schetinger, Sara Di Bartolomeo, Mennatallah El-Assady, Andrew M. McNutt, Matthias Miller, J. P. A. Passos, and Jane Lydia Adams. 2023. Doom or Deliciousness: Challenges and Opportunities for Visualization in the Age of Generative Models.Computer Graphics Forum42, 3 (2023), 423–435. doi:10.1111/CGF.14841

    work page doi:10.1111/cgf.14841 2023

  52. [54]

    Jean Scholtz. 2006. Beyond Usability: Evaluation Aspects of Visual Analytic Environments. InProceedings of the IEEE Conference on Visual Analytics Science and Technology. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, 145–150. doi:10.1109/VAST.2006.261416

    work page doi:10.1109/vast.2006.261416 2006

  53. [55]

    David Schroeder and Daniel F. Keefe. 2015. Visualization-by-sketching: An artist’s interface for creating multivariate time-varying data visualizations. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics22, 1 (2015), 877–885. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2015.2467153

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2015.2467153 2015

  54. [56]

    Moushumi Sharmin and Brian P. Bailey. 2013. ReflectionSpace: an interactive visualization tool for supporting reflection-on-action in design. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Creativity & Cognition. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 83–92. doi:10.1145/2466627.2466645

    work page doi:10.1145/2466627.2466645 2013

  55. [57]

    Shneiderman. 1983. Direct Manipulation: A Step Beyond Programming Languages.Computer16, 8 (1983), 57–69. doi:10.1109/MC.1983.1654471

    work page doi:10.1109/mc.1983.1654471 1983

  56. [58]

    Ben Shneiderman. 2000. Creating creativity: user interfaces for supporting innovation.ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction7, 1 (2000), 114–138. doi:10.1145/344949.345077

    work page doi:10.1145/344949.345077 2000

  57. [59]

    Ben Shneiderman. 2007. Creativity support tools: accelerating discovery and innovation.Commun. ACM50, 12 (2007), 20–32. doi:10.1145/1323688. 1323689 Manuscript submitted to ACM 20 Hoque et al

    work page doi:10.1145/1323688 2007

  58. [60]

    Ben Shneiderman, Cody Dunne, Puneet Sharma, and Ping Wang. 2012. Innovation trajectories for information visualizations: Comparing treemaps, cone trees, and hyperbolic trees.Information Visualization11, 2 (2012), 87–105. doi:10.1177/1473871611424815

    work page doi:10.1177/1473871611424815 2012

  59. [61]

    Maria Shugrina, Wenjia Zhang, Fanny Chevalier, Sanja Fidler, and Karan Singh. 2019. Color Builder: A Direct Manipulation Interface for Versatile Color Theme Authoring. InProceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 456:1–456:12. doi:10.1145/3290605.3300686

    work page doi:10.1145/3290605.3300686 2019

  60. [62]

    Singh, Lee Lisle, T

    Divit P. Singh, Lee Lisle, T. M. Murali, and Kurt Luther. 2018. CrowdLayout: Crowdsourced Design and Evaluation of Biological Network Visualizations. InProceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–14. doi:10.1145/3173574.3173806

    work page doi:10.1145/3173574.3173806 2018

  61. [63]

    Sternberg

    Robert J. Sternberg. 1999.Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    work page 1999

  62. [64]

    Paul Torrance

    E. Paul Torrance. 1966. Torrance tests of creative thinking.Educational and Psychological Measurement(1966). doi:10.1037/t05532-000

    work page doi:10.1037/t05532-000 1966

  63. [65]

    Anjul Kumar Tyagi, Jian Zhao, Pushkar Patel, Swasti Khurana, and Klaus Mueller. 2022. Infographics Wizard: Flexible Infographics Authoring and Design Exploration.Computer Graphics Forum41, 3 (2022), 121–132. doi:10.1111/CGF.14527

    work page doi:10.1111/cgf.14527 2022

  64. [66]

    Zezhong Wang, Jacob Ritchie, Jingtao Zhou, Fanny Chevalier, and Benjamin Bach. 2021. Data Comics for Reporting Controlled User Studies in Human-Computer Interaction.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics27, 2 (2021), 967–977. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2020.3030433

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2020.3030433 2021

  65. [67]

    Sohn, Sasha Schriber, Markus Gross, Carlos Manuel Muniz, and Mubbasir Kapadia

    Katie Watson, Samuel S. Sohn, Sasha Schriber, Markus Gross, Carlos Manuel Muniz, and Mubbasir Kapadia. 2019. StoryPrint: an interactive visualization of stories. InProceedings of the ACM Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 303–311. doi:10.1145/3301275. 3302302

    work page doi:10.1145/3301275 2019

  66. [68]

    Jo Wood, Roger Beecham, and Jason Dykes. 2014. Moving beyond sequential design: Reflections on a rich multi-channel approach to data visualization. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics20, 12 (2014), 2171–2180. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2014.2346323

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2014.2346323 2014

  67. [69]

    Haijun Xia, Nathalie Henry Riche, Fanny Chevalier, Bruno De Araujo, and Daniel Wigdor. 2018. DataInk: Direct and creative data-oriented drawing. InProceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–13. doi:10.1145/3173574.3173797

    work page doi:10.1145/3173574.3173797 2018

  68. [70]

    Lu Ying, Xinhuan Shu, Dazhen Deng, Yuchen Yang, Tan Tang, Lingyun Yu, and Yingcai Wu. 2023. MetaGlyph: Automatic Generation of Metaphoric Glyph-based Visualization.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics29, 1 (2023), 331–341. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2022.3209447

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2022.3209447 2023

  69. [71]

    Jiayi Eris Zhang, Nicole Sultanum, Anastasia Bezerianos, and Fanny Chevalier. 2020. DataQuilt: Extracting Visual Elements from Images to Craft Pictorial Visualizations. InProceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 45:1–45:13. doi:10.1145/3313831.3376172 Manuscript submitted to ACM

    work page doi:10.1145/3313831.3376172 2020