REVIEW 1 cited by
Beyond English: Centering Multilingualism in Data Visualization
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
Information visualization and natural language are intricately linked. However, the majority of research and relevant work in information and data visualization (and human-computer interaction) involve English-speaking populations as both researchers and participants, are published in English, and are presented predominantly at English-speaking venues. Although several solutions can be proposed such as translating English texts in visualization to other languages, there is little research that looks at the intersection of data visualization and different languages, and the implications that current visualization practices have on non-English speaking communities. In this position paper, we argue that linguistically diverse communities abound beyond the English-speaking world and offer a richness of experiences for the visualization research community to engage with. Through a case study of how two non-English languages interplay with data visualization reasoning in Madagascar, we describe how monolingualism in data visualization impacts the experiences of underrepresented populations and emphasize potential harm to these communities. Lastly, we raise several questions towards advocating for more inclusive visualization practices that center the diverse experiences of linguistically underrepresented populations.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Designing Within the Lines: Practitioners' Perspectives and Visualisation Tool Evaluation in the Arabic Context
Seven popular GUI visualisation tools poorly support Arabic/RTL (especially Eastern numerals and maps), forcing 11 practitioners into multi-tool labour, simpler charts, and language compromises that the authors frame ...
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.