pith. sign in

arxiv: 2306.06043 · v2 · submitted 2023-06-09 · 💻 cs.HC

A Qualitative Analysis of Common Practices in Annotations: A Taxonomy and Design Space

Md Dilshadur Rahman , Ghulam Jilani Quadri , Bhavana Doppalapudi , Danielle Albers Szafir , Paul Rosen This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 08:28 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC
keywords annotationvisualizationdesign spacequalitative codingcharttaxonomydata visualization
0
0 comments X

The pith

Annotations on visualizations follow patterns in purpose, mechanism and data source that form a design space.

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

The authors collected and qualitatively coded more than 1,800 static annotated charts from real-world use. They examined three aspects: the analytic purposes such as presenting, identifying, summarizing or comparing data features; the mechanisms including types, combinations and frequency of annotations across chart types; and the data sources used to create the annotations. These findings were synthesized into a design space that highlights key design choices. The work provides a framework illustrated through case studies for using annotations to communicate visualization insights more effectively.

Core claim

Qualitative coding of 1,800 real-world annotated charts reveals patterns in analytic purposes, mechanisms and data sources for annotations, which are organized into a design space of key design choices for chart annotations.

What carries the argument

The design space of annotations synthesized from purposes, mechanisms and data sources identified in the coded charts.

If this is right

  • The design space acts as a practical framework for chart annotations.
  • Case studies demonstrate how the space enhances communication of visualization insights.
  • Patterns show variations in annotation use depending on chart type and purpose.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Tool builders could embed the design space to suggest annotations automatically.
  • The categories might apply to interactive visualizations beyond the static ones studied.
  • Future work could test if following the design space improves user understanding of charts.

Load-bearing premise

The set of 1,800 static annotated charts sufficiently represents common annotation practices to support a general design space.

What would settle it

Identification of a substantial number of annotated charts whose purposes, mechanisms or data sources fall outside the categories in the proposed design space.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2306.06043 by Bhavana Doppalapudi, Danielle Albers Szafir, Ghulam Jilani Quadri, Md Dilshadur Rahman, Paul Rosen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Examples of annotated charts collected from the internet and analyzed within our annotation design space, which is organized [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: A line chart from The Washington Post [62] illustrates COVID-19 peak comparisons, plotting time on the horizontal axis and percentage growth relative to the January 2021 peak vertically: (a) shows the baseline chart with basic visualization elements (i.e., axes, labels, lines, legends, and gridlines) but with annotations removed; (b) uses color+enclosure+text ensembles of annotations to help identify the p… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: We scrapped annotated visualization images from Google Im [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: An illustrative example of annotations in a scatterplot showing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Our design space of annotations is divided into three key sections. The design space is used by starting in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: A line chart from The Economist [81] depicting factors influencing deaths of despair from 1979 to 2019 on the horizontal axis and the number of deaths on the vertical. (a) shows the base chart; (b) uses an indicator+text ensemble to help identify OxyContin’s introduction to present its impact on the deaths of despair; (c) employs indicator+text ensembles to aid in summarizing data trends, and color+enclosu… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The bar chart from The Wall Street Journal [19] visualizes inflation fluctuations during the COVID-19 pandemic, with time on the horizontal axis and inflation rate on the vertical. (a) shows the base chart; (b) employs a color+enclosure+text ensemble to help identify important chart sections; (c) uses connector+text ensembles to present article-specific details; (d) presents the complete annotated visualiz… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Annotations play a vital role in highlighting critical aspects of visualizations, aiding in data externalization and exploration, collaborative sensemaking, and visual storytelling. However, despite their widespread use, we identified a lack of a design space for common practices for annotations. In this paper, we evaluated over 1,800 static annotated charts to understand how people annotate visualizations in practice. Through qualitative coding of these diverse real-world annotated charts, we explored three primary aspects of annotation usage patterns: analytic purposes for chart annotations (e.g., present, identify, summarize, or compare data features), mechanisms for chart annotations (e.g., types and combinations of annotations used, frequency of different annotation types across chart types, etc.), and the data source used to generate the annotations. We then synthesized our findings into a design space of annotations, highlighting key design choices for chart annotations. We presented three case studies illustrating our design space as a practical framework for chart annotations to enhance the communication of visualization insights. All supplemental materials are available at {https://shorturl.at/bAGM1}.

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

2 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper reports a qualitative analysis of over 1,800 static annotated charts collected from real-world sources. It identifies three main aspects of annotation practice—analytic purposes (present, identify, summarize, compare), mechanisms (annotation types, combinations, and frequency by chart type), and data sources—then synthesizes these observations into a design space of key design choices, which is illustrated via three case studies.

Significance. If the sampled corpus is representative, the work supplies the first large-scale empirical taxonomy of annotation practices in visualization, filling a documented gap and offering a practical framework that could guide both tool design and authoring guidelines.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods] Methods section: the abstract and text state that 1,800 charts were evaluated but provide no description of the search strategy, platforms, inclusion/exclusion criteria, language or domain coverage, or sampling frame. This information is required to evaluate whether the corpus supports generalization to a design space that claims to capture 'common practices.'
  2. [Methods] Methods section: no details are given on the qualitative coding process, including number of coders, codebook development, or any measure of inter-coder reliability. Without these, the reproducibility and robustness of the three primary aspects and the resulting design space cannot be assessed.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments on the methods. We agree that additional detail is needed and will revise the manuscript to address both points.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods] Methods section: the abstract and text state that 1,800 charts were evaluated but provide no description of the search strategy, platforms, inclusion/exclusion criteria, language or domain coverage, or sampling frame. This information is required to evaluate whether the corpus supports generalization to a design space that claims to capture 'common practices.'

    Authors: We agree that the Methods section requires expansion. The revised manuscript will add a dedicated subsection detailing the search strategy (targeted queries across news sites, visualization blogs, academic papers, and public repositories), platforms sampled, inclusion/exclusion criteria (static charts containing at least one annotation; exclusion of interactive visualizations, non-chart graphics, and duplicates), language coverage (English-language sources), domain coverage (news, science, business, education), and sampling frame (stratified collection to ensure diversity across chart types). These additions will support the claim that the corpus captures common practices. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Methods] Methods section: no details are given on the qualitative coding process, including number of coders, codebook development, or any measure of inter-coder reliability. Without these, the reproducibility and robustness of the three primary aspects and the resulting design space cannot be assessed.

    Authors: We acknowledge the omission. The revised Methods section will describe the coding process: two authors performed iterative open coding on an initial subset of 200 charts to develop the codebook for analytic purposes, mechanisms, and data sources; the codebook was refined through discussion; the remaining charts were coded by one author with spot-checks by the second. We will report inter-coder reliability (Cohen's kappa) computed on a 10% random sample to demonstrate robustness of the taxonomy and design space. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical qualitative synthesis from external corpus

full rationale

The paper conducts qualitative coding on an external collection of 1,800 real-world static annotated charts to identify usage patterns and synthesize a design space. No equations, fitted parameters, or predictions appear; the taxonomy is presented as an inductive summary of observed practices rather than a derivation that reduces to its inputs by construction. Self-citations, if present, are not load-bearing for the central claims, which rest on the coded corpus itself. This is a standard empirical qualitative study whose validity hinges on sampling and coding rigor, not on definitional or self-referential reduction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the representativeness of the sampled charts and the reliability of the qualitative coding process; no free parameters or invented entities are introduced.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The 1,800 static annotated charts form a representative sample of common annotation practices.
    This assumption is required to generalize the observed patterns into a broadly applicable design space.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5735 in / 1112 out tokens · 27476 ms · 2026-05-24T08:28:14.725395+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

92 extracted references · 92 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ajani, E

    K. Ajani, E. Lee, C. Xiong, C. N. Knaflic, W. Kemper, and S. Fran- coneri. Declutter and focus: Empirically evaluating design guidelines for effective data communication. IEEE Trans. on Visual Comput. Graphics, 28(10):3351–3364, 2021. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2021.3068337 1

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2021.3068337 2021

  2. [2]

    R. Amar, J. Eagan, and J. Stasko. Low-level components of analytic activity in information visualization. In IEEE InfoVis, pp. 111–117, 2005. doi: 10.1109/INFOVIS.2005.24 4

    work page doi:10.1109/infovis.2005.24 2005

  3. [3]

    B. Bach, Z. Wang, M. Farinella, D. Murray-Rust, and N. Henry Riche. Design patterns for data comics. In ACM CHI, pp. 1–12, 2018. doi: 10. 1145/3173574.3173612 3

    work page arXiv 2018

  4. [4]

    Bateman, R

    S. Bateman, R. L. Mandryk, C. Gutwin, A. Genest, D. McDine, and C. Brooks. Useful junk? the effects of visual embellishment on compre- hension and memorability of charts. In ACM CHI, pp. 2573–2582, 2010. doi: 10.1145/1753326.1753716 1, 3

    work page doi:10.1145/1753326.1753716 2010

  5. [5]

    Borkin, Z

    M. Borkin, Z. Bylinskii, N. W. Kim, C. M. Bainbridge, C. S. Yeh, D. Borkin, H. Pfister, and A. Oliva. Beyond memorability: Visualiza- tion recognition and recall. IEEE Trans. on Visual Comput. Graphics , 22(1):519–528, 2015. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2015.2467732 1, 3

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2015.2467732 2015

  6. [6]

    Borkin, A

    M. Borkin, A. A. V o, Z. Bylinskii, P. Isola, S. Sunkavalli, A. Oliva, and H. Pfister. What makes a visualization memorable? IEEE Trans. on Visual Comput. Graphics, 19(12):2306–2315, 2013. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2013. 234 1, 3

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2013 2013

  7. [7]

    J. Boy, F. Detienne, and J.-D. Fekete. Storytelling in information visualiza- tions: Does it engage users to explore data? In ACM CHI, pp. 1449–1458,

    work page

  8. [8]

    doi: 10.1145/2702123.2702452 3

    work page doi:10.1145/2702123.2702452

  9. [9]

    Braun and V

    V . Braun and V . Clarke. Thematic analysis. American Psychological Association, 2012. doi: 10.1080/17439760.2016.1262613 2

    work page doi:10.1080/17439760.2016.1262613 2012

  10. [10]

    Brehmer, B

    M. Brehmer, B. Lee, N. Henry Riche, D. Tittsworth, K. Lytvynets, D. Edge, and C. White. Timeline storyteller: The design & deployment of an in- teractive authoring tool for expressive timeline narratives. In Computa- tion+Journalism Symposium, pp. 1–5, February 2019. 3

    work page 2019

  11. [11]

    Brehmer and T

    M. Brehmer and T. Munzner. A multi-level typology of abstract visualiza- tion tasks. IEEE Trans. on Visual Comput. Graphics, 19(12):2376–2385,

    work page

  12. [12]

    doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2013.124 2, 4, 5, 7

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2013.124 2013

  13. [13]

    Bresciani and M

    S. Bresciani and M. J. Eppler. The benefits of synchronous collaborative information visualization: Evidence from an experimental evaluation. IEEE Trans. on Visual Comput. Graphics, 15(6):1073–1080, 2009. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2009.188 3

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2009.188 2009

  14. [14]

    Bryan, K.-L

    C. Bryan, K.-L. Ma, and J. Woodring. Temporal summary images: An approach to narrative visualization via interactive annotation generation and placement. IEEE Trans. on Visual Comput. Graphics, 23(1):511–520,

    work page

  15. [15]

    doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2016.2598876 3

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2016.2598876 2016

  16. [16]

    Cedilnik and P

    A. Cedilnik and P. Rheingans. Procedural annotation of uncertain infor- mation. In IEEE Visualization, pp. 77–84, 2000. doi: 10.1109/VISUAL. 2000.885679 1, 3

    work page doi:10.1109/visual 2000

  17. [20]

    E. K. Choe, B. Lee, and M. Schraefel. Characterizing visualization in- sights from quantified selfers’ personal data presentations. IEEE Comput. Graphics Appl., 35(4):28–37, 2015. doi: 10.1109/MCG.2015.51 3

    work page doi:10.1109/mcg.2015.51 2015

  18. [21]

    R. Chun. Giving guidance to graphs: Evaluating annotations of data visualizations for the news. Visual Commun. Q., 27(2):84–97, 2020. doi: 10.1080/15551393.2020.1749842 3

    work page doi:10.1080/15551393.2020.1749842 2020

  19. [22]

    Dapena and P

    K. Dapena and P. Santilli. Rising inflation looks less severe using pre- pandemic comparisons, 2021. 8, 9

    work page 2021

  20. [24]

    Ellis and D

    S. Ellis and D. P. Groth. A collaborative annotation system for data visualization. In Advanced Visual Interfaces, pp. 411–414. ACM, 2004. doi: 10.1145/989863.989938 1, 3

    work page doi:10.1145/989863.989938 2004

  21. [25]

    A. Fan, F. Lei, M. Mancenido, A. MacEachren, and R. Maciejewski. Understanding reader takeaways in thematic maps under varying text, detail, and spatial autocorrelation. arXiv preprint, 2024. doi: 10.1145/ 3613904.3642132 3

    work page arXiv 2024

  22. [26]

    A. Fan, Y . Ma, M. Mancenido, and R. Maciejewski. Annotating line charts for addressing deception. In ACM CHI, 12 pages, 2022. doi: 10. 1145/3491102.3502138 3

    work page arXiv 2022

  23. [27]

    Ferreira, D

    N. Ferreira, D. Fisher, and A. C. Konig. Sample-oriented task-driven visualizations: allowing users to make better, more confident decisions. In ACM CHI, pp. 571–580, 2014. doi: 10.1145/2556288.2557131 3

    work page doi:10.1145/2556288.2557131 2014

  24. [28]

    Gadhave, Z

    K. Gadhave, Z. Cutler, and A. Lex. Reusing interactive analysis workflows. Comput. Graphics Forum, 41(3):133–144, 2022. doi: 10.1111/cgf.14528 3

    work page doi:10.1111/cgf.14528 2022

  25. [29]

    Gadhave, J

    K. Gadhave, J. Görtler, Z. Cutler, C. Nobre, O. Deussen, M. Meyer, J. M. Phillips, and A. Lex. Predicting intent behind selections in scatterplot visualizations. Inf. Visualization, 20(4):207–228, 2021. doi: 10.1177/ 14738716211038604 3

    work page 2021

  26. [30]

    T. Gao, J. R. Hullman, E. Adar, B. Hecht, and N. Diakopoulos. Newsviews: an automated pipeline for creating custom geovisualizations for news. In ACM CHI, pp. 3005–3014, 2014. doi: 10.1145/2556288.2557228 3

    work page doi:10.1145/2556288.2557228 2014

  27. [31]

    Gratzl, A

    S. Gratzl, A. Lex, N. Gehlenborg, N. Cosgrove, and M. Streit. From visual exploration to storytelling and back again. Comput. Graphics Forum, 35(3):491–500, 2016. doi: 10.1111/cgf.12925 3

    work page doi:10.1111/cgf.12925 2016

  28. [32]

    D. P. Groth and K. Streefkerk. Provenance and annotation for visual ex- ploration systems. IEEE Trans. on Visual Comput. Graphics, 12(6):1500– 1510, 2006. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2006.101 3

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2006.101 2006

  29. [33]

    Heer and M

    J. Heer and M. Agrawala. Design considerations for collaborative visual analytics. In IEEE VAST, pp. 171–178, 2007. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.ivs. 9500167 3

    work page doi:10.1057/palgrave.ivs 2007

  30. [34]

    Heer and B

    J. Heer and B. Shneiderman. Interactive dynamics for visual analysis. Commun. ACM, 55(4):45–54, 2012. doi: 10.1145/2133806.2133821 1, 3

    work page doi:10.1145/2133806.2133821 2012

  31. [35]

    J. Heer, F. Viégas, and M. Wattenberg. V oyagers and voyeurs: supporting asynchronous collaborative information visualization. In ACM CHI, pp. 1029–1038, 2007. doi: 10.1145/1240624.1240781 3

    work page doi:10.1145/1240624.1240781 2007

  32. [36]

    Hoffswell, A

    J. Hoffswell, A. Satyanarayan, and J. Heer. Visual debugging techniques for reactive data visualization. Comput. Graphics Forum, 35(3):271–280,

    work page

  33. [37]

    doi: 10.1111/cgf.12903 3

    work page doi:10.1111/cgf.12903

  34. [38]

    Hopkins, M

    A. Hopkins, M. Correll, and A. Satyanarayan. Visualint: Sketchy in situ annotations of chart construction errors. Comput. Graphics Forum, 39(3):219–228, 2020. doi: 10.1111/cgf.13975 3

    work page doi:10.1111/cgf.13975 2020

  35. [39]

    Hullman and N

    J. Hullman and N. Diakopoulos. Visualization rhetoric: Framing effects in narrative visualization. IEEE Trans. on Visual Comput. Graphics , 17(12):2231–2240, 2011. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2011.255 1, 3

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2011.255 2011

  36. [40]

    Hullman, N

    J. Hullman, N. Diakopoulos, and E. Adar. Contextifier: automatic genera- tion of annotated stock visualizations. In ACM CHI, pp. 2707–2716, 2013. doi: 10.1145/2470654.2481374 2, 3

    work page doi:10.1145/2470654.2481374 2013

  37. [41]

    Hullman, S

    J. Hullman, S. Drucker, N. H. Riche, B. Lee, D. Fisher, and E. Adar. A deeper understanding of sequence in narrative visualization. IEEE Trans. on Visual Comput. Graphics, 19(12):2406–2415, 2013. doi: 10. 1109/TVCG.2013.119 3

    work page 2013

  38. [42]

    Isenberg, P

    T. Isenberg, P. Neumann, S. Carpendale, S. Nix, and S. Greenberg. Inter- active annotations on large, high-resolution information displays. In IEEE Visualization, pp. 124–125, 2006. 1

    work page 2006

  39. [44]

    Kang and J

    Y .-a. Kang and J. Stasko. Characterizing the intelligence analysis process through a longitudinal field study: Implications for visual analytics. Inf. Visualization, 13(2):134–158, 2014. doi: 10.1177/1473871612468877 3

    work page doi:10.1177/1473871612468877 2014

  40. [45]

    Kauer, M

    T. Kauer, M. Dörk, A. L. Ridley, and B. Bach. The public life of data: Investigating reactions to visualizations on reddit. In ACM CHI, pp. 1–12,

    work page

  41. [46]

    doi: 10.1145/3411764.3445720 3

    work page doi:10.1145/3411764.3445720

  42. [47]

    Y .-S. Kim, N. Henry Riche, B. Lee, M. Brehmer, M. Pahud, K. Hinckley, and J. Hullman. Inking your insights: Investigating digital externalization behaviors during data analysis. In ACM ISS, pp. 255–267, 2019. doi: 10. 1145/3343055.3359714 1, 3

    work page arXiv 2019

  43. [48]

    H.-K. Kong, Z. Liu, and K. Karahalios. Internal and external visual cue preferences for visualizations in presentations. Comput. Graphics Forum, 36(3):515–525, 2017. doi: 10.1111/cgf.13207 2, 3

    work page doi:10.1111/cgf.13207 2017

  44. [49]

    H.-K. Kong, W. Zhu, Z. Liu, and K. Karahalios. Understanding visual 10 To appear in IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics cues in visualizations accompanied by audio narrations. In ACM CHI, pp. 1–13, 2019. doi: 10.1145/3290605.3300280 1, 3

    work page doi:10.1145/3290605.3300280 2019

  45. [50]

    Kong and M

    N. Kong and M. Agrawala. Perceptual interpretation of ink annotations on line charts. In ACM UIST, pp. 233–236, 2009. doi: 10.1145/1622176. 1622219 3

    work page doi:10.1145/1622176 2009

  46. [51]

    Kong and M

    N. Kong and M. Agrawala. Graphical overlays: Using layered elements to aid chart reading. IEEE Trans. on Visual Comput. Graphics, 18(12):2631– 2638, 2012. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2012.229 2

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2012.229 2012

  47. [52]

    Kosara and J

    R. Kosara and J. Mackinlay. Storytelling: The next step for visualization. IEEE Comput., 46(5):44–50, 2013. doi: 10.1109/MC.2013.36 3

    work page doi:10.1109/mc.2013.36 2013

  48. [53]

    B. Lee, R. Kazi, and G. Smith. Sketchstory: Telling more engaging stories with data through freeform sketching. IEEE Trans. on Visual Comput. Graphics, 19(12):2416–2425, 2013. doi: 10.1109/tvcg.2013.191 3

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2013.191 2013

  49. [54]

    B. Lee, N. H. Riche, P. Isenberg, and S. Carpendale. More than telling a story: Transforming data into visually shared stories. IEEE Comput. Graphics Appl., 35(5):84–90, 2015. doi: 10.1109/MCG.2015.99 1

    work page doi:10.1109/mcg.2015.99 2015

  50. [55]

    H. Lin, D. Akbaba, M. Meyer, and A. Lex. Data hunches: Incorporating personal knowledge into visualizations. IEEE Trans. on Visual Comput. Graphics, 29(1):504–514, 2022. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2022.3209451 3

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2022.3209451 2022

  51. [56]

    H. Lin, R. A. Metcalf, J. Wilburn, and A. Lex. Sanguine: Visual analysis for patient blood management. Inf. Visualization, 20(2-3):123–137, 2021. doi: 10.1177/14738716211028565 3

    work page doi:10.1177/14738716211028565 2021

  52. [57]

    L. Liu, A. P. Boone, I. T. Ruginski, L. Padilla, M. Hegarty, S. H. Creem- Regehr, W. B. Thompson, C. Yuksel, and D. H. House. Uncertainty visualization by representative sampling from prediction ensembles. IEEE Trans. on Visual Comput. Graphics , 23(9):2165–2178, 2016. doi: 10. 1109/TVCG.2016.2607204 3

    work page arXiv 2016

  53. [58]

    Mahyar, A

    N. Mahyar, A. Sarvghad, and M. Tory. Note-taking in co-located collabora- tive visual analytics: Analysis of an observational study. Inf. Visualization, 11(3):190–204, 2012. doi: 10.1177/1473871611433713 1, 3

    work page doi:10.1177/1473871611433713 2012

  54. [59]

    Mahyar and M

    N. Mahyar and M. Tory. Supporting communication and coordination in collaborative sensemaking. IEEE Trans. on Visual Comput. Graphics, 20(12):1633–1642, 2014. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2014.2346573 1

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2014.2346573 2014

  55. [60]

    Martinez-Maldonado, V

    R. Martinez-Maldonado, V . Echeverria, G. Fernandez Nieto, and S. Buck- ingham Shum. From data to insights: A layered storytelling approach for multimodal learning analytics. In ACM CHI, pp. 1–15, 2020. doi: 10. 1145/3313831.3376148 3

    work page arXiv 2020

  56. [61]

    Masson, S

    D. Masson, S. Malacria, G. Casiez, and D. V ogel. Charagraph: Interactive generation of charts for realtime annotation of data-rich paragraphs. In ACM CHI, pp. 1–18, 2023. doi: 10.1145/3544548.3581091 3

    work page doi:10.1145/3544548.3581091 2023

  57. [62]

    Mathisen, T

    A. Mathisen, T. Horak, C. N. Klokmose, K. Grønbæk, and N. Elmqvist. Insideinsights: Integrating data-driven reporting in collaborative visual analytics. Comput. Graphics Forum, 38(3):649–661, 2019. doi: 10.1111/ cgf.13717 3

    work page 2019

  58. [63]

    M. L. McHugh. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem. Med., 22(3):276–282, 2012. doi: 10.11613/BM.2012.031 4

    work page doi:10.11613/bm.2012.031 2012

  59. [64]

    T. Munzner. Visualization analysis and design. CRC press, Boca Raton FL, 2014. doi: 10.1201/b17511 1, 2

    work page doi:10.1201/b17511 2014

  60. [65]

    Ohyicong/google-image-scraper: A library to scrap google images

    Ohyicong. Ohyicong/google-image-scraper: A library to scrap google images. 3

    work page

  61. [66]

    Ottley, A

    A. Ottley, A. Kaszowska, R. J. Crouser, and E. M. Peck. The curious case of combining text and visualization. EuroVis (Short Papers), 2019. doi: 10.2312/evs.20191181 3

    work page doi:10.2312/evs.20191181 2019

  62. [67]

    T. W. Post. Four charts that analyze how omicron’s wave compares to previous coronavirus peaks, 2022. 2, 8

    work page 2022

  63. [68]

    G. J. Quadri, A. Z. Wang, Z. Wang, J. Adorno, P. Rosen, and D. A. Szafir. Do you see what i see? a qualitative study eliciting high-level visualization comprehension. In ACM CHI, CHI ’24. ACM, May 2024. doi: 10.1145/ 3613904.3642813 9

    work page arXiv 2024

  64. [69]

    M. D. Rahman, G. J. Quadri, and P. Rosen. A qualitative evaluation and taxonomy of student annotations on bar charts. IEEE VIS Workshop on Visualization for Communication, 2022. doi: 10.31219/osf.io/e5vfy 4

    work page doi:10.31219/osf.io/e5vfy 2022

  65. [70]

    M. D. Rahman, G. J. Quadri, and P. Rosen. Exploring annotation strategies in professional visualizations: Insights from prominent us news portals. IEEE VIS Workshop on Visualization for Communication, 2023. doi: 10. 31219/osf.io/fd8zj 3

    work page 2023

  66. [71]

    D. Ren, M. Brehmer, B. Lee, T. Höllerer, and E. K. Choe. Chartaccent: Annotation for data-driven storytelling. In IEEE PacificVis, pp. 230–239,

    work page

  67. [72]

    doi: 10.1109/PACIFICVIS.2017.8031599 2, 3

    work page doi:10.1109/pacificvis.2017.8031599 2017

  68. [74]

    Romat, N

    H. Romat, N. Henry Riche, K. Hinckley, B. Lee, C. Appert, E. Pietriga, and C. Collins. Activeink: (th) inking with data. In ACM CHI, pp. 1–13,

    work page

  69. [75]

    doi: 10.1145/3290605.3300272 3

    work page doi:10.1145/3290605.3300272

  70. [76]

    P. M. Sanderson and C. Fisher. Exploratory sequential data analysis: Foundations. Hum.–Comput. Interact., 9(3-4):251–317, 1994. doi: 10. 1207/s15327051hci0903&4_2 3

    work page 1994

  71. [77]

    Satyanarayan and J

    A. Satyanarayan and J. Heer. Authoring narrative visualizations with ellipsis. Comput. Graphics Forum, 33(3):361–370, 2014. doi: 10.1111/cgf .12392 3

    work page doi:10.1111/cgf 2014

  72. [78]

    Schwab, D

    M. Schwab, D. Saffo, Y . Zhang, S. Sinha, C. Nita-Rotaru, J. Tompkin, C. Dunne, and M. Borkin. Visconnect: Distributed event synchronization for collaborative visualization. IEEE Trans. on Visual Comput. Graphics, 27(2):347–357, 2020. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2020.3030366 3

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2020.3030366 2020

  73. [79]

    Segel and J

    E. Segel and J. Heer. Narrative visualization: Telling stories with data. IEEE Trans. on Visual Comput. Graphics, 16(6):1139–1148, 2010. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2010.179 1, 3

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2010.179 2010

  74. [80]

    Sevastjanova, M

    R. Sevastjanova, M. El-Assady, A. J. Bradley, C. Collins, M. Butt, and D. Keim. Visinreport: Complementing visual discourse analytics through personalized insight reports. IEEE Trans. on Visual Comput. Graphics, p. preprint, 2021. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2021.3104026 3

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2021.3104026 2021

  75. [81]

    Y . Shi, X. Lan, J. Li, Z. Li, and N. Cao. Communicating with motion: A design space for animated visual narratives in data videos. In ACM CHI, pp. 1–13, 2021. doi: 10.1145/3411764.3445337 3

    work page doi:10.1145/3411764.3445337 2021

  76. [82]

    Y . B. Shrinivasan, D. Gotzy, and J. Lu. Connecting the dots in visual analysis. In IEEE VAST, pp. 123–130, 2009. doi: 10.1109/V AST.2009. 5333023 1, 3

    work page doi:10.1109/v 2009

  77. [83]

    Stitz, S

    H. Stitz, S. Gratzl, H. Piringer, T. Zichner, and M. Streit. Knowledgepearls: Provenance-based visualization retrieval. IEEE Trans. on Visual Comput. Graphics, 25(1):120–130, 2018. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2018.2865024 3

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2018.2865024 2018

  78. [84]

    Stokes, C

    C. Stokes, C. X. Bearfield, and M. A. Hearst. The role of text in vi- sualizations: How annotations shape perceptions of bias and influence predictions. IEEE Trans. on Visual Comput. Graphics , 2023. doi: 10. 1109/TVCG.2023.3338451 3

    work page arXiv 2023

  79. [85]

    Stokes, V

    C. Stokes, V . Setlur, B. Cogley, A. Satyanarayan, and M. A. Hearst. Striking a balance: Reader takeaways and preferences when integrating text and charts. IEEE Trans. on Visual Comput. Graphics, 29(1):1233– 1243, 2022. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2022.3209383 3

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2022.3209383 2022

  80. [86]

    C. D. Stolper, B. Lee, N. Henry Riche, and J. Stasko. Emerging and recur- ring data-driven storytelling techniques: Analysis of a curated collection of recent stories. Technical Report MSR-TR-2016-14, Microsoft, April

    work page 2016

Showing first 80 references.