Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 48 references

Design by Immersion: A Transdisciplinary Approach to Problem-Driven Visualizations

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Problem-driven visualization can be organized as design by immersion, where researchers participate in a partner domain and let designs and knowledge emerge from that participation.

desk verdict A useful, honest synthesis that names and organizes a common way of working; the load-bearing weakness is that the framework rests on six successful, self-authored cases, but that is not disqualifying. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.00559 v2 pith:GOHVLQSA submitted 2019-08-01 cs.GR cs.HC

Kyle Wm. Hall , Adam J. Bradley , Uta Hinrichs , Samuel Huron , Jo Wood , Christopher Collins , Sheelagh Carpendale This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.GRcs.HC
keywords designbyimmersiontransdisciplinarityproblem-drivenvisualizationstudiescollaborativeexperientiallearningdomainexpertsmethodology
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper proposes that problem-driven visualization work can be organized around a paradigm the authors name design by immersion: instead of keeping visualization experts and domain experts in fixed, separate roles, researchers from one side participate in the work of the other side, so that visualization design, solutions, and knowledge emerge from those transdisciplinary experiences. The authors argue that existing design-study frameworks tend to assign roles and separate domain characterization from ideation, whereas design by immersion treats personal participation in the domain as a generative design resource. They build the argument from six of their own transdisciplinary projects, spanning computational linguistics, medicine, literary studies, transport, and chemistry, and from them derive a catalogue of reusable design activities and a three-stage immersion trajectory. If the paradigm is right, a visualization researcher can deliberately and methodically become part of a partner community, and the designs that come back are more domain-grounded, the relationships more productive, and the process personally transformative.

What carries the argument

The central object is the design-by-immersion paradigm itself, made operational through three instruments. The first is the immersive skills space, a two-axis diagram with visualization expertise on one axis and target-domain expertise on the other, along which immersion moves a researcher from a novice position toward domain skill and, in the deepest cases, dual citizenship. The second is a table of more than twenty design activities—domain data analysis, study methods, prototyping, learning about the other domain, and communicating across domains—each linked to the three opportunities it supports. The third is a three-stage trajectory for planning an immersion: establishing basic domain knowledge, gaining domain research exposure, and establishing a broader domain reputation. Together these instruments let a researcher construct a customized immersion trajectory rather than follow a single prescribed procedure.

What would settle it

A concrete test would be to apply the paper's activity catalogue to a new, unfamiliar domain and compare it with a matched project run in the conventional role-separated design-study style: if the immersed team produces no more domain-inspired designs, no deeper domain understanding, and no stronger collaboration, the claimed opportunities fail to materialize. A simpler disconfirming observation would be a documented immersion trajectory that follows all three stages yet yields no design or knowledge traced to transdisciplinary interaction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that design by immersion is an identifiable, reusable methodology for problem-driven visualization. The methodology's definition is: visualization researchers (or target domain experts) engage with and participate in the work of the other domain, and visualization design, solutions, and knowledge emerge from these transdisciplinary experiences and interactions. Four themes characterize the approach—communal, personal, active, and emergent—and the paper shows how these themes play out in six case studies. Across those cases, the authors identify three opportunities that the method provides: enriching domain understanding through personal experiences, exploring new domain-inspired design spaces, and building strong transdisciplinary relationships. The claim is not that design by immersion is better than existing practices, but that it offers a distinct and currently missing route into problem-driven visualization work.

Load-bearing premise

The framework rests on the assumption that the six transdisciplinary projects drawn from the authors' own experience, interpreted through their own reflection, are representative enough to define a general methodology and its activity tables.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Researchers can treat immersion as a deliberate, first-class design activity, selecting activities from the paper's catalogue to match the project's domain, team, and goals.
  • Domain-inspired visual encodings become a legitimate outcome of the design process, since immersion exposes concepts beyond the immediate problem characterization.
  • Open-ended and evolving collaborations, where research questions change as the work proceeds, become a natural fit for the method rather than a risk to be contained.
  • Committed immersion can open channels beyond the immediate project, including domain publications, conference participation, access to domain experts, and impact across sectors.
  • The approach reframes role blurring and personal relationships as load-bearing mechanisms for trust and communication, complementing role-based methods such as the Liaison concept.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If design by immersion produces the claimed benefits, a testable extension would be a comparative study of otherwise similar visualization projects run with and without immersion, measuring novelty of encodings, persistence of collaborations, and domain uptake; the paper does not provide this comparison.
  • The underlying mechanism—participating in another discipline's work so that designs emerge from that participation—may transfer beyond visualization to other transdisciplinary design fields such as human-computer interaction, data journalism, or science communication, though the paper's evidence is limited to visualization projects.
  • Because personal experience serves as evidence of domain understanding, the method's credibility depends heavily on the researcher's documentation habits; the paper's own recommendation to keep journals and sketches is therefore load-bearing rather than optional.
  • The paper notes systemic barriers but does not develop their consequences: if PhD programs and funding structures remain single-discipline, design by immersion will likely remain an individual choice rather than an institutionalized methodology.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces and defines a methodological paradigm called "design by immersion" for problem-driven visualization work. The core claim is that visualization researchers and/or domain experts can engage in and participate in the work of another domain, so that visualization design, solutions, and knowledge emerge from these transdisciplinary experiences. The paper grounds this definition in the authors' own collaborative projects and presents six case studies spanning computational linguistics, medicine, literary analysis, transport studies, and chemistry. From these cases, the authors derive three opportunities of design by immersion: enriching domain understanding through personal experience, exploring new domain-inspired design spaces, and building strong transdisciplinary relationships. They also provide a taxonomy of design activities (Table 1), a staged trajectory framework for constructing immersion experiences (Table 2), and reflective questions inspired by experiential learning (Table 3). The paper closes with a discussion of challenges including time commitment, research identity navigation, translational work, and systemic barriers.

Significance. If the framework holds, this paper makes a useful contribution by giving a name and structure to a practice that is visible in several successful transdisciplinary visualization projects but has not been systematically articulated. The activity taxonomy, the staged guidance, and the honest treatment of challenges provide practitioners with a starting vocabulary for planning and reflecting on immersive collaborations. The paper connects the approach to established literatures such as participatory design, action design research, and experiential learning, which helps situate it within the field. The main strength is the richness and diversity of the six case studies, and the authors are explicit that the definition grows out of their own experiences. However, the evidence base is limited to six successful, self-reported projects, and the transferability of the methodology to new projects is asserted rather than demonstrated. The three opportunities in Section 5 and the tables in Section 6 are interpretations of the same cases that motivated the definition, so the framework currently functions as a reflective taxonomy rather than an externally validated methodology.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3 and Section 5] The definition of design by immersion is explicitly built from the authors' own projects (Section 3 states: "This definition is based on our own transdisciplinary visualization projects"), and the three opportunities in Section 5 are then derived from the same six case studies. This creates a circular evidentiary chain: Table 1 is a post-hoc coding of the authors' experiences rather than an independent classification of external material. Because the authors both lived the experiences and coded them into the activity/opportunity tables, the mappings may reflect narrative construction rather than a public, repeatable analysis. I recommend either reframing the paper as a reflective framework grounded in six cases, with the transferability claim presented as a hypothesis for future work, or adding a systematic analysis protocol (selection criteria, coding scheme, source documents, and ideally independent coding) to support the current strength of the claims.
  2. [Section 4 and Section 7] All six case studies are successful projects, and Section 7's challenges are presented without any case in which immersion failed, was abandoned, or produced net-negative outcomes. This selection-on-outcome makes it impossible to distinguish activities that enabled success from activities that merely co-occurred in successful projects. The framework cannot currently identify boundary conditions under which design by immersion is inappropriate or counterproductive. Please add negative or borderline cases, or explicitly scope the framework to successful transdisciplinary collaborations and state that failure modes remain an open question.
  3. [Section 6.2 and Table 2] The three-stage trajectory in Section 6.2 is described as "transferable across immersion trajectories," but the supporting evidence is limited to the two example trajectories in Section 6.1 and the authors' own recollections. The paper does not operationalize how a researcher should decide between stopping at Stage #2 and proceeding to Stage #3, nor how activities in Table 1 should be selected or ordered for a particular domain. Because Section 6 is the paper's practical "how to" contribution, these criteria need to be made more explicit, or the stages should be clearly labeled as an illustrative rather than prescriptive template.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3 and Section 4] There are several typos: "transdiciplinary" in Section 3 and "multifacted" in Section 4 should be "transdisciplinary" and "multifaceted," respectively.
  2. [Figure 1] The text refers to the orange square at the lower bound of the knowledge space, but the figure caption does not label this element; please add a label or adjust the reference.
  3. [Table 1] The numeric entries in the table (e.g., "1,4,5,6") indicate case-study links, but the table does not distinguish activities that recurred in many cases from those that occurred in only one. Adding a frequency or centrality indicator would help readers assess the generalizability of each activity.
  4. [Section 4.2] The sentence "the medical collaborator spent considerable time with the visualization group to understand the importance of pre-design empirical work [2]" cites Brehmer et al.'s methods paper rather than a case study; please clarify whether this detail comes from that reference or from the authors' own project experience.
  5. [Section 5.1] The phrase "pre-design studies aimed at gaining a understanding of a domain situation" needs the article corrected to "an understanding."

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation found; the methodology is an explicitly self-referential qualitative synthesis rather than a prediction or first-principles result.

full rationale

The paper does not claim to derive a prediction or a first-principles result from independent axioms, so the usual circularity tests do not apply. Section 3 states that the definition of design by immersion is 'based on our own transdisciplinary visualization projects as discussed below in Section 4,' and Section 5 derives the three opportunities from 'our shared experiences using six case studies from our recent problem-driven visualization work.' This is an inductive, reflective synthesis, and the paper is transparent about that grounding: it also says that 'extracting traces of this approach from such work would be difficult without insider knowledge.' There is no equation, fitted parameter, or uniqueness theorem that reduces the claimed contribution to its inputs by construction. The self-citations to prior case-study publications function as the authors' data set, not as an unverified authority that carries the argument. The main weakness is external generalizability from six successful, author-involved cases, which is a validity and sampling concern, not circularity under the provided rules. The paper's own challenge list in Section 7 further acknowledges time commitment, identity navigation, translation difficulties, and systemic barriers, so the account does not present itself as a forced or unfalsifiable derivation. Accordingly, no specific circular step meets the requirement of exhibiting a reduction by construction, and the score reflects only the acknowledged self-referential basis of the framework rather than a circular argument.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The framework's central claim rests on assumptions about experiential learning, the representativeness of six self-authored case studies, and the validity of reflective analysis; no numerical free parameters are fit. The invented entity is the methodology itself, which is not independently evidenced beyond the presented cases.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Experiential learning and cultural immersion transfer knowledge that benefits design
    Invoked in Sections 1 and 3 using Kolb [21] and cultural immersion [35] to justify the mechanism behind design by immersion.
  • domain assumption The six author-experienced case studies are a sufficient basis for a general methodology
    Section 3 says the definition is based on the authors' own projects, and Section 4 presents those same projects as the evidence base.
  • domain assumption Qualitative reflection and discussion among authors is a valid way to identify generalizable opportunities
    Section 3: opportunities in Section 5 are derived from the authors' reflective interpretation rather than a systematic qualitative analysis protocol.
  • domain assumption A single researcher can acquire enough domain expertise through immersion to improve visualization design
    Core premise of Section 3 and Figure 1, where designers move from novice to expert along domain and visualization axes; if false, the method loses its mechanism.
invented entities (2)
  • design by immersion methodology
    purpose: Named paradigm that guides transdisciplinary problem-driven visualization projects
    The methodology is defined from the authors' own case studies; the claimed benefits are illustrated by the same cases, so no external or prospectively tested evidence is provided in this manuscript.
  • immersive skills space (Figure 1)
    purpose: Conceptual model showing researchers gaining expertise in both domains
    A descriptive diagram rather than an empirical or measured construct; no external validation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Design by Immersion: A Transdisciplinary Approach to Problem-Driven Visualizations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GOHVLQSA

@misc{pith2026190800559,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Design by Immersion: A Transdisciplinary Approach to Problem-Driven Visualizations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GOHVLQSA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.00559}
}
read the original abstract

While previous work exists on how to conduct and disseminate insights from problem-driven visualization projects and design studies, the literature does not address how to accomplish these goals in transdisciplinary teams in ways that advance all disciplines involved. In this paper we introduce and define a new methodological paradigm we call design by immersion, which provides an alternative perspective on problem-driven visualization work. Design by immersion embeds transdisciplinary experiences at the center of the visualization process by having visualization researchers participate in the work of the target domain (or domain experts participate in visualization research). Based on our own combined experiences of working on cross-disciplinary, problem-driven visualization projects, we present six case studies that expose the opportunities that design by immersion enables, including (1) exploring new domain-inspired visualization design spaces, (2) enriching domain understanding through personal experiences, and (3) building strong transdisciplinary relationships. Furthermore, we illustrate how the process of design by immersion opens up a diverse set of design activities that can be combined in different ways depending on the type of collaboration, project, and goals. Finally, we discuss the challenges and potential pitfalls of design by immersion.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.00559 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The immersive skills space. Immersion can result in improving skills in both visualization and domain areas. Traversal of this space from novice to expert involves choosing where and how much time to commit to skill acquisition along the two dimensions. transdisciplinary transformation of individuals and the opportunities these transformations present for design. By engaging potential users and stakeholders in the d… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A. J. Bradley, T. Kirton, M. Hancock, and S. Carpendale. Language DNA: Visualizing a language decomposition. Digital Humanities Quarterly , 10(4), 2016

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    Brehmer, S

    M. Brehmer, S. Carpendale, B. Lee, and M. Tory. Pre-design empiricism for information visualization: Scenarios, methods, and challenges. In Proc. BELIV ’14, pp. 147–151. ACM, 2014. doi: 10.1145/2669557.2669564

    arXiv 2014

  3. [3]

    Chevalier, S

    F. Chevalier, S. Huot, and J.-D. Fekete. WikipediaViz: Conveying article quality for casual Wikipedia readers. In Proc. 2010 IEEE Pacific Vis. Symp., pp. 49–56, 2010. doi: 10.1109/PACIFICVIS.2010.5429611

    arXiv 2010

  4. [4]

    Codorniu-Hern ´andez, K

    E. Codorniu-Hern ´andez, K. W. Hall, A. D. Boese, D. Ziemianowicz, S. Carpendale, and P. G. Kusalik. Mechanism of O(3P) formation from a hydroxyl radical pair in aqueous solution. J. Chem. Theory Comput., 11(10):4740–4748, 2015. doi: 10.1021/acs.jctc.5b00783

    work page doi:10.1021/acs.jctc.5b00783 2015

  5. [5]

    Codorniu-Hern´andez, K

    E. Codorniu-Hern´andez, K. W. Hall, D. Ziemianowicz, S. Carpendale, and P. G. Kusalik. Aqueous production of oxygen atoms from hydroxyl radicals. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., 16(47):26094–26102, 2014. doi: 10. 1039/c4cp02959c

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    Collins, G

    C. Collins, G. Penn, and S. Carpendale. Bubble Sets: Revealing set relations with isocontours over existing visualizations. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graphics, 15(6):1009–1016, 2009. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2009. 122

    doi:10.1109/tvcg.2009 2009

  7. [7]

    Forlini, U

    S. Forlini, U. Hinrichs, and J. Brosz. Mining the material archive: Bal- ancing sensate experience and sense-making in digitized print collections. Open Library of Humanities, 4(2):35, 2018. doi: 10.16995/olh.282

    work page doi:10.16995/olh.282 2018

  8. [8]

    Gilin and T

    B. Gilin and T. Young. Educational benefits of international experiential learning in an msw program. Int. Soc. Work, 52(1):36–47, 2009. doi: 10. 1177/0020872808093347

    work page 2009

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    K. W. Hall, C. Perin, P. G. Kusalik, C. Gutwin, and S. Carpendale. For- malizing emphasis in information visualization. Comput. Graph. Forum, 35(3):717–737, 2016. doi: 10.1111/cgf.12936

    2016 doi

  2. [10]

    Henry and J.-D

    N. Henry and J.-D. Fekete. MatrixExplorer: a dual-representation system to explore social networks.IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graphics, 12(5):677– 684, 2006. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2006.160

    2006 doi

  3. [11]

    Hinrichs, M

    U. Hinrichs, M. El-Assady, A. J. Bradley, C. Collins, and S. Forlini. Risk the drift! Stretching disciplinary boundaries through critical collaborations between the humanities and visualization. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Visualization for the Digital Humanities, 2017

    2017

  4. [12]

    Hinrichs, S

    U. Hinrichs, S. Forlini, and B. Moynihan. Speculative practices: Utilizing infovis to explore untapped literary collections. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graphics, 22(1):429–438, 2016. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2015.2467452

    2016

  5. [13]

    Hinrichs, S

    U. Hinrichs, S. Forlini, and B. Moynihan. In defense of sandcastles: Research thinking through visualization in digital humanities. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities (DSH), 2018. doi: 10.1093/llc/fqy051

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    House, V

    D. House, V . Interrante, D. Laidlaw, R. Taylor, and C. Ware. Design and evaluation in visualization research. In Proc. IEEE Vis. 2005, pp. 705–708,

    2005

  7. [15]

    C. Hu, A. Abraham, A. Mitra, and S. Griffiths. The benefits of experiential learning in global public health. Public Health, 136:196 – 199, 2016. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2015.10.030

    2016 doi

  8. [16]

    Isenberg, T

    P. Isenberg, T. Zuk, C. Collins, and S. Carpendale. Grounded evaluation of information visualizations. In Proc. BELIV ’08, pp. 1–8, 2008. doi: 10. 1145/1377966.1377974

    2008

  9. [17]

    J¨anicke, G

    S. J¨anicke, G. Franzini, M. F. Cheema, and G. Scheuermann. Visual text analysis in digital humanities. Comput. Graph. Forum, 36(6):226–250, 2016

    2016

  10. [18]

    Kerzner, S

    E. Kerzner, S. Goodwin, J. Dykes, S. Jones, and M. Meyer. A frame- work for creative visualization-opportunities workshops. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graphics, 25(1):748–758, 2019. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2018. 2865241

    2019 doi

  11. [20]

    R. M. Kirby and M. Meyer. Visualization collaborations: What works and why. IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl., 33(6):82–88, 2013. doi: 10.1109/MCG .2013.101

    2013 doi

  12. [21]

    D. A. Kolb. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Pearson Education, Inc., 2nd ed., 2015

    2015

  13. [22]

    S. A. Lee. Increasing student learning: A comparison of students’ percep- tions of learning in the classroom environment and their industry-based ex- periential learning assignments. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 7(4):37–54, 2008. doi: 10.1080/15313220802033310

    2008 doi

  14. [23]

    S. A. Lisko and V . O’Dell. Integration of theory and practice: Experiential learning theory and nursing education. Nursing Education Perspectives, 32(2):106–108, 2010

    2010

  15. [24]

    Lloyd and J

    D. Lloyd and J. Dykes. Human-centered approaches in geovisualization design: Investigating multiple methods through a long-term case study. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graphics, 17(12):2498–2507, 2011

    2011

  16. [25]

    B. H. McCormick, T. A. DeFanti, and M. D. Brown (ed.). Visualization in scientific computing. Computer Graphics, 21(6), 1987

    1987

  17. [26]

    McCurdy, J

    N. McCurdy, J. Dykes, and M. Meyer. Action design research and vi- sualization design. In Proc. BELIV ’16, pp. 10–18, 2016. doi: 10.1145/ 2993901.2993916

    2016

  18. [28]

    G. G. M´endez, M. A. Nacenta, and U. Hinrichs. Considering agency and data granularity in the design of visualization tools. In Proc. CHI ’18, pp. 638:1–638:14, 2018. doi: 10.1145/3173574.3174212

    2018

  19. [29]

    A. V . Moere and H. Purchase. On the role of design in information visual- ization. Info. Vis., 10(4):356–371, 2011. doi: 10.1177/1473871611415996

    2011 doi

  20. [30]

    L. A. Mooney and B. Edwards. Experiential learning in sociology: Ser- vice learning and other community-based learning initiatives. Teaching Sociology, 29(2):181–194, 2001

    2001

  21. [31]

    T. H. Morris. Experiential learning a systematic review and revision of Kolb’s model. Interactive Learning Environments, pp. 1–14, 2019. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2019.1570279

    2019

  22. [32]

    M. L. Muller. Participatory Design: The Third Space in HCI, pp. 1061–

  23. [33]

    T. Munzner. A nested model for visualization design and validation. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graphics, 15(6):921–928, 2009. doi: 10.1109/TVCG. 2009.111

    2009 doi

  24. [34]

    Neustaedter and P

    C. Neustaedter and P. Sengers. Autobiographical design in HCI research: Designing and learning through use-it-yourself. In Proc. DIS ’12, pp. 514–523, 2012. doi: 10.1145/2317956.2318034

    2012

  25. [35]

    J. Nieto. The cultural plunge: Cultural immersion as a means of promoting self-awareness and cultural sensitivity among student teachers. Teaching Education Quarterly, 33(1):75–84, 2006

    2006

  26. [36]

    A. Rind, W. Aigner, M. Wagner, S. Miksch, and T. Lammarsch. Task cube: A three-dimensional conceptual space of user tasks in visualization design and evaluation. Info. Vis., 15(4):288–300, 2016. doi: 10.1177/ 1473871615621602

    2016

  27. [37]

    J. C. Roberts, C. Headleand, and P. D. Ritsos. Sketching designs using the five design-sheet methodology. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graphics, 22(1):419–428, 2016. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2015.2467271

    2016

  28. [38]

    E. B.-N. Sanders, E. Brandt, and T. Binder. A framework for organizing the tools and techniques of participatory design. In Proc. PDC ’10, pp. 195–198, 2010. doi: 10.1145/1900441.1900476

    2010

  29. [39]

    Schuler and A

    D. Schuler and A. Namioka. Participatory design: Principles and prac- tices. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 1993

    1993

  30. [40]

    Sedlmair, M

    M. Sedlmair, M. Meyer, and T. Munzner. Design study methodology: Reflections from the trenches and the stacks. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graphics, 18(12):2431–2440, 2012. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2012.213

    2012 doi

  31. [41]

    M. K. Sein, O. Henfridsson, S. Purao, M. Rossi, and R. Lindgren. Action design research. MIS Quarterly, 35(1):37–56, 2011

    2011

  32. [42]

    Shneiderman and C

    B. Shneiderman and C. Plaisant. Strategies for evaluating information visualization tools: Multi-dimensional in-depth long-term case studies. In Proc. BELIV ’06, pp. 1–7, 2006. doi: 10.1145/1168149.1168158

    2006

  33. [43]

    Simon, S

    S. Simon, S. Mittelstdt, D. A. Keim, and M. Sedlmair. Bridging the gap of domain and visualization experts with a liaison. In E. Bertini, J. Kennedy, and E. Puppo, eds., Proc. EuroVis 2015 – Short Papers. The Eurographics Association, 2015. doi: 10.2312/eurovisshort.20151137

    2015 doi

  34. [44]

    J. J. van Wijk. Bridging the gaps. IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl., 26(6):6–9,

  35. [45]

    Y . L. Wong, K. Madhavan, and N. Elmqvist. Towards characterizing domain experts as a user group. In Proc. BELIV 2018, pp. 1–10, 2018. doi: 10.1109/BELIV.2018.8634026

    2018

  36. [46]

    J. Wood, R. Beecham, and J. Dykes. Moving beyond sequential design: Reflections on a rich multi-channel approach to data visualization. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graphics, 20(12):2171–2180, 2014. doi: 10.1109/ TVCG.2014.2346323

    2014

  37. [47]

    T. D. Zuk. Visualizing Uncertainty. PhD thesis, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, April 2008. 10

    2008

  38. [1081]

    CRC Press, Baton Rouge, USA, 2nd ed., 2007

    The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook : Fundamentals, Evolv- ing Technologies and Emerging Applications. CRC Press, Baton Rouge, USA, 2nd ed., 2007

    2007

  39. [2005]

    doi: 10.1109/VISUAL.2005.1532860

    2005

  40. [2006]

    doi: 10.1109/MCG.2006.120

    2006 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.