Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 79 references

InfoVids: Reimagining the Viewer Experience with Alternative Visualization-Presenter Relationships

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Co-locating the presenter and the visualization in one shared 3D frame reduces viewers' attention splitting and shifts their focus from the visualization to the presenter.

desk verdict A genuinely new design space with an honest, exploratory study, but the headline quantitative claims are undercut by a baseline the authors themselves admit was artificially constrained. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.03164 v1 pith:UF2GF7NI submitted 2025-05-06 cs.HC

Ji Won Chung , Tongyu Zhou , Ivy Chen , Kevin Hsu , Ryan A. Rossi , Alexa Siu , Shunan Guo , Franck Dernoncourt
show 2 more authors
James Tompkin Jeff Huang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords InfoVidsaugmentedrealitypresentationsdatastorytellingpresenter-visualizationrelationshipfull-bodyperformanceviewerattentionbody-visattachmenttechnologyprobes
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

The paper tries to establish that a presentation format can treat the presenter and the data visualization as equal partners inside one shared three-dimensional space, rather than confining the presenter to a small box next to slides. It designs four 'InfoVids'—short information videos that place augmented visualizations around a full-body presenter—and compares each with a 2D slide-style baseline using 30 viewers and nine forced-choice metrics. The authors report that co-location reduced the sense of splitting attention between two competing areas, moved viewers' self-reported focus from the visualization toward the presenter, and made the presenter's body language feel more natural, engaged, and story-relevant. They also show the boundary condition: when a visualization is attached to the body with no narrative purpose, the same format is rated worse than slides. If the effect is real, it gives video and AR presentation designers a concrete design lever: where the presenter stands relative to the data can itself tell the story.

What carries the argument

The machinery that carries the argument is the Body Object Model (BOM), a phone-based augmented-reality authoring and performance system that treats the presenter's face, joints, and hands as 'BodyAnchors' onto which 'VisNodes' (containers for 3D visualizations) can be nested, with a 'VisHandler' scripting gestures and actions. This nesting lets a designer create 'body-vis attachments' in which the visualization and the presenter move each other simultaneously, rather than one simply following the other. The system is used to produce four InfoVids implementing three design conditions: use of 3D physical space (C1), body-vis attachments for bidirectional interaction (C2), and unilateral body-vis interactions by the presenter (C3). The experimental contrast pairs each InfoVid with a slide-style baseline recorded from the same performance take, so the reported differences are attributed to the spatial relationship rather than to the content or the actor's delivery.

What would settle it

Run an eye-tracking study comparing an InfoVid with a baseline where the presenter is allowed to look at and point to the slide content naturally, instead of using the scripted common body language; if switching counts and gaze dwell times are equal, the claimed attention-splitting reduction is an artifact of the baseline style, not of co-location.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that merging the spatial world of the presenter with the world of the visualization changes the viewing experience in measurable ways: viewers switch less between presenter and chart, pay more attention to the presenter, and read the presenter's body as part of the narrative. The evidence comes from four paired probes—AirplaneVis, NapoleonVis, InjuryVis, and WalmartVis—which differ in whether the visualization uses 3D space, is attached to the body, or is controlled by gestures. Across all four, InfoVids beat the slide baseline on perceived presenter immersion, engagement, and co-presence in the same room as the visualization; for three of the four, viewers also rated the presenter's body movement as more natural and the storytelling as stronger, and the majority of the 30 participants switched from focusing on the chart in the baseline to focusing on the presenter in the InfoVid. The counterexample, WalmartVis, shows the same co-location can hurt: when a map is strapped to the chest with no narrative benefit, viewers find the movement unnatural and prefer the baseline for enjoyability, storytelling, and information understanding. The authors conclude that the relationship between presenter and visualization, not the mere fact of co-location, is what drives the experience.

Load-bearing premise

The baseline slide videos are a fair comparison condition, even though using the same performance forced the actor into scripted 'common body language'—large open hand gestures and facing the camera—that the paper acknowledges weakened the InfoVid presentation, so some of the measured differences may come from baseline design choices rather than from co-location itself.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Video-conferencing and slide tools could offer a co-located mode that shows the presenter full-body inside the same frame as the visualization, rather than boxing the presenter into a corner.
  • Full-body visibility alone can improve perceived naturalness and storytelling, since the simplest InfoVid, AirplaneVis, used no body attachment and still beat its baseline on those metrics.
  • Body-vis attachment should be reserved for moments where the body carries narrative meaning; a purposeless attachment, as in WalmartVis, reverses the benefits and makes the performance feel awkward.
  • Presentation designers should expect some viewer resistance when the format contradicts the mental model of a formal academic talk; acceptance may depend on the viewing context and the presenter's identity.
  • Authoring tools should reduce the presenter's memorization burden, for example by triggering animations from the presenter's spatial location instead of requiring remembered gestures.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One testable extension is a full factorial design that crosses 3D depth (C1) with body binding (C2/C3) to separate the effect of depth from the effect of attachment; the current four probes vary both together.
  • Self-reported focus could be checked with eye tracking or saliency maps; if gaze data confirm the attention shift, the finding becomes a stronger design principle rather than a preference.
  • The co-location principle should transfer to any single-frame medium, even a carefully staged 2D video where the presenter's hands directly control on-screen graphics; a comparison with such a baseline would isolate the role of true 3D depth.
  • Building on the paper's self-spectating observation, future performance tools may need separate private cues for the presenter and public visuals for the viewer, letting the presenter interact without visible awkwardness.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces InfoVids, a presentation paradigm in which the presenter and an AR visualization occupy a shared 3D frame, with the stated goal of creating a more equitable relationship between presenter and visualization. The authors describe an iterative, autobiographical design process (nine months), a prototype implementation called the Body Object Model (BOM), and four technology probes (AirplaneVis, NapoleonVis, InjuryVis, WalmartVis) that vary spatial layout, body-visualization attachment, and interaction. They then report a comparative study with 30 public participants who viewed each InfoVid and a corresponding 'slides' baseline and answered nine forced-choice-style questions, followed by semi-structured interviews. The central claim is that InfoVids reduce viewer attention splitting, shift focus from the visualization to the presenter, and produce more interactive, natural, and engaging full-body performances.

Significance. If the empirical claims were supported, the paper would make a useful contribution to the emerging design space of AR-mediated data presentation and performance, complementing work on data videos and shorts. The four probes are thoughtfully chosen, the qualitative analysis is grounded in participant quotes, and the autobiographical reflection provides practical design lessons. The authors also took several pains to make the comparison more controlled: using an external actor, recording from the same take, randomizing order, and reporting the limitations of the baseline construction. However, the strength of the central empirical claims is not justified by the current evidence, primarily because the baseline condition is not a representative or neutral comparison and because the statistical analysis is under-powered and over-tested.

major comments (4)
  1. [Appendix B.1–B.3, §3.3, Abstract] The fairness of the baseline is load-bearing for every causal claim in the abstract, and the baseline is not a neutral representation of a conventional slide presentation. To record both versions from the same take, the actor was scripted to use large open hand movements and to face the camera; the authors themselves write that these modifications 'detracted from InfoVid benefits and made the presenter look less immersed' (B.1). In addition, the baseline was framed to show only the upper torso (B.2), slide animations were post-hoc synchronized to the performer's movements (B.3), and rule-of-thirds reframing was applied. Consequently, the observed differences in immersion, natural body movement, engagement, and attention (Figures 7–8) may reflect the intentionally constrained baseline rather than the co-located presentation relationship itself. The abstract states that InfoVids 'reduced viewer attention splitting, shifted the focus from the visualization to the presenter, and led to more interactive, natural, and engaging full-body data performances'; such causal statements are not supported by a comparison against a baseline that suppresses the very features being tested. The claims should be explicitly scoped to 'this particular baseline construction,' or a more representative baseline should be devised.
  2. [§4.2, Figure 7] The statistical layer does not support the number of significance claims. The paper reports 36 binomial tests (9 questions × 4 visualizations) at α = 0.05 with no multiple-comparison correction, so roughly 1.8 false positives are expected by chance alone. The stars in Figure 7 should therefore be interpreted with caution. Additionally, the 6-point Likert responses are binarized into a 2AFC for analysis, discarding the strength of preference that the scale was designed to capture. The analysis should be re-run with appropriate multiplicity control (e.g., Bonferroni or FDR), and effect sizes or confidence intervals should be reported so that readers can judge the magnitude and precision of the claimed effects.
  3. [§4.2, Figure 8] The attention-switch analysis in Figure 8 uses Fisher's exact test on paired contingency tables, but Fisher's exact test assumes independent (unpaired) observations. Because the same 30 participants answered the attention question for both the InfoVid and the baseline version, a paired test such as McNemar's test should be used. The reported p-values for the attention comparisons are therefore not valid as computed. This issue directly affects the claim that 'more than half the participants switched from focusing on the visualizations to the presenter with InfoVids.'
  4. [§5, 'InfoVids Reduce Split Viewer Attention...'] The paper's claim that InfoVids 'reduced viewer attention splitting' is not directly measured. Survey questions 8 and 9 ask which stimulus—presenter or visualization—the participant viewed more, which measures relative attention allocation, not the degree to which attention was split, divided, or conflicted. The qualitative data include statements like 'two videos were fighting for their attention,' but no systematic measure of split attention (e.g., eye-tracking, self-reported cognitive load, or a dedicated split-attention scale) is presented. The abstract-level claim of reduced attention splitting should be softened to 'reported less attention conflict' or supported by an appropriate measurement.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors that should be corrected in a revision: 'presnter' in §2.2, 'showcae' in §5, 'inseprable' in §3.3, 'T orso' in Figure 5, and inconsistent capitalization of 'Vishandler' in Appendix A. The table header 'W almartVis' should be formatted consistently.
  2. [Introduction vs. §3 vs. §6] The design duration is inconsistent: the Introduction says InfoVids were 'iteratively designed over the span of four months,' while §3 says the iterative design process took place 'over the course of nine months' and §6 refers to a 'nine-month experience.' Please reconcile these numbers.
  3. [Figure 7] Figure 7 shows significance stars but no effect sizes, confidence intervals, or exact p-values. The caption says significance is from a binomial test at α = 0.05, but the reader cannot tell which bars are significant or how large the underlying preferences are; adding numeric annotations would improve transparency.
  4. [Figure 6] The caption of Figure 6 refers to an 'orange overlay' to illustrate rule-of-thirds, but the figure (as described in the text) does not clearly label the overlay. Please make the overlay explicit in the figure or describe it in the caption.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the observed claims are outputs of a controlled comparison, not consequences of the paper's inputs by definition.

full rationale

This paper makes no formal derivational claim that could reduce to its inputs. It designs four InfoVid technology probes, constructs matched baseline slides versions from the same performance take, collects 30 viewers' forced-choice and Likert responses plus interviews, and reports statistical comparisons (binomial, Friedman, Wilcoxon, Fisher's exact tests). The claimed outcomes—reduced attention splitting, shifted attention toward the presenter, and greater perceived immersion, engagement, and naturalness—are measured responses, not quantities fitted from the data and then renamed as predictions. No parameter is fitted to a subset and then "predicted" on a closely related subset; the nine survey metrics are independent of the design conditions being compared. Self-citations appear only as ordinary prior-work references (e.g., PortalInk, Epigraphics, Searchgazer) and are not load-bearing premises that force the conclusions. The baseline-fairness concerns raised in Section 3.3 and Appendix B (scripted common body language, upper-body cropping, rule-of-thirds framing, post-hoc synchronization) are threats to construct validity or generalizability, not circularity: the comparison still tests the co-located format against a specified traditional-style baseline, and the observed differences are not true by construction. Therefore the appropriate circularity score is 0.

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

No free parameters or invented explanatory entities are present. The central claim rests on domain assumptions about the validity of self-report comparison and baseline fairness. The paper's contributions are empirical, not derivational.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Self-reported two-alternative preference responses are a valid measure of viewer experience and attention allocation.
    The survey and analysis treat 6-point Likert ratings as 2AFC choices; all nine metrics rest on this assumption (Sections 4.1 and 4.2).
  • domain assumption The baseline slide video, made from the same performance take with post-hoc animation sync and a scripted common body language, is comparable to the InfoVid condition.
    Appendices B.1 to B.3 describe the modifications; the comparison claims in Section 5 depend on this equivalence.
  • domain assumption A convenience sample of 30 passersby is representative enough for the reported preference patterns.
    Section 4 recruits at cafes and a mall and intentionally omits demographics; the authors acknowledge limited generalizability.
  • domain assumption Thematic coding of short transcribed interviews captures the factors that drove participant choices.
    Section 4.2 uses deductive coding with three iterations; the themes are used as explanatory evidence.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of InfoVids: Reimagining the Viewer Experience with Alternative Visualization-Presenter Relationships." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UF2GF7NI

@misc{pith2026250503164,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: InfoVids: Reimagining the Viewer Experience with Alternative Visualization-Presenter Relationships},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UF2GF7NI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.03164}
}
read the original abstract

Traditional data presentations typically separate the presenter and visualization into two separate spaces--the 3D world and a 2D screen--enforcing visualization-centric stories. To create a more human-centric viewing experience, we establish a more equitable relationship between the visualization and the presenter through our InfoVids. These infographics-inspired informational videos are crafted to redefine relationships between the presenter and visualizations. As we design InfoVids, we explore how the use of layout, form, and interactions affects the viewer experience. We compare InfoVids against their baseline 2D `slides' equivalents across 9 metrics with 30 participants and provide practical, long-term insights from an autobiographical perspective. Our mixed methods analyses reveal that this paradigm reduced viewer attention splitting, shifted the focus from the visualization to the presenter, and led to more interactive, natural, and engaging full-body data performances for viewers. Ultimately, InfoVids helped viewers re-imagine traditional dynamics between the presenter and visualizations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.03164 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. InfoVids provide viewers with a new visualization-presenter paradigm. By visualizing the presenter and the data within a shared 3D space, InfoVids redefine the relationship between them. Film Strip Left: A virtual plane enters from the sky. Film Strip Center: The background and clouds immerse the presenter within the frame and contextualize the plane. Film Strip Right: The presenter’s full-body next to the plane emp… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Demonstrates system implementation of Body Object Model (BOM). There are three main components: (1) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. NapoleonVis shows the consequences of Napoleon’s march. The two compared versions are shown: one where slides with the animation is positioned to the left of their presentation (top), and one where the animation is positioned in the presenter’s environment with InfoVids (bottom). In frames 2 and 3, the presenter binds the French army to their body to control army movements directly. This presents an engaging way to … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: InjuryVis uses the presenter’s body as context as the presenter points to their own body to explain football injury statistics (bottom). These body-vis bindings engage the viewers by presenting a more personalized way to display data ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fi…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: WalmartVis’ binding of the visualization to the body serves no major benefits to the narrative ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Making the Baseline Video Format To use the same rendition, or takes, of the performance, two phones are used simultaneously to record the presenter—one uses InfoVids and the other is absent of the augmented visualizations. The latter is used to sync the presenter with…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Participants were asked about which version of presentation format immersed and engaged the presenter with the visualization more, felt like the presenter was in the same room as the visualization, had more natural body movement, was more enjoyable to watch, better sto…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: InfoVids disrupt this traditional visual flow as demonstrated by overall ratio of presenter to visualization ratio for the InfoVids. Binomial tests indicate statistical significance for InjuryVis because the presenter and visualization are infused with each other by de…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Self-facing cameras make users, or presenters, spectators of themselves. Thus, this paper modifies the original framework [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Modifications made to original script to preserve common body language for fair comparisons with slides. Presenter looks [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Fereshteh Amini, Nathalie Henry Riche, Bongshin Lee, Christophe Hurter, and Pourang Irani. 2015. Understanding data videos: Looking at narrative visualization through the cinematography lens. InProceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems. 1459–1468

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    Fereshteh Amini, Nathalie Henry Riche, Bongshin Lee, Jason Leboe-McGowan, and Pourang Irani. 2018. Hooked on data videos: assessing the effect of animation and pictographs on viewer engagement. InProceedings of the 2018 international conference on advanced visual interfaces. 1–9. Ji Won Chung et al

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Scott Bateman, Regan L Mandryk, Carl Gutwin, Aaron Genest, David McDine, and Christopher Brooks. 2010. Useful junk? The effects of visual embellishment on comprehension and memorability of charts. InProceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 2573–2582

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    Max Birk and Regan L Mandryk. 2013. Control your game-self: effects of controller type on enjoyment, motivation, and personality in game. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 685–694

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    Tobias Blum, Valerie Kleeberger, Christoph Bichlmeier, and Nassir Navab. 2012. mirracle: An augmented reality magic mirror system for anatomy education. In 2012 IEEE Virtual Reality Workshops (VRW). IEEE, 115–116. https://doi.org/10.1109/VR.2012.6180909

    work page arXiv 2012

  6. [6]

    Michelle A Borkin, Zoya Bylinskii, Nam Wook Kim, Constance May Bainbridge, Chelsea S Yeh, Daniel Borkin, Hanspeter Pfister, and Aude Oliva

    work page

  7. [7]

    Accessed in 2023

    Mike Bostock. Accessed in 2023. Walmart’s Growth. https://observablehq.com/@d3/walmarts-growth

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Michael Bostock, Vadim Ogievetsky, and Jeffrey Heer. 2011. D3 data-driven documents. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 17, 12 (2011), 2301–2309

    2011

Show all 79 references
  1. [9]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology 3, 2 (2006), 77–101

    2006

  2. [10]

    F. P. Brooks. 1988. Grasping Reality through Illusion—interactive Graphics Serving Science. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Washington, D.C., USA)(CHI ’88). 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1145/57167.57168

    1988

  3. [11]

    Marion Buchenau and Jane Fulton Suri. 2000. Experience prototyping. InProceedings of the 3rd conference on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques. 424–433

    2000

  4. [12]

    Zoya Bylinskii, Lore Goetschalckx, Anelise Newman, and Aude Oliva. 2022. Memorability: An Image-Computable Measure of Information Utility. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 207–239. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-81465-6_8

    2022 doi

  5. [13]

    Junjie Chen, Chenhui Li, Sicheng Song, and Changbo Wang. 2023. iARVis: Mobile AR Based Declarative Information Visualization Authoring, Exploring and Sharing. In2023 IEEE Conference Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR). 11–21

    2023

  6. [14]

    Zhutian Chen, Yijia Su, Yifang Wang, Qianwen Wang, Huamin Qu, and Yingcai Wu. 2019. Marvist: Authoring glyph-based visualization in mobile augmented reality. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 26, 8 (2019), 2645–2658

    2019

  7. [15]

    Zhutian Chen, Wai Tong, Qianwen Wang, Benjamin Bach, and Huamin Qu. 2020. Augmenting static visualizations with paparvis designer. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–12

    2020

  8. [16]

    Gifford Cheung and Jeff Huang. 2011. Starcraft from the stands: understanding the game spectator. InProceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 763–772

    2011

  9. [17]

    Ji Won Chung, Xiyu Jenny Fu, Zachary Deocadiz-Smith, Malte F Jung, and Jeff Huang. 2023. Negotiating Dyadic Interactions through the Lens of Augmented Reality Glasses. InProceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference. 493–508

    2023

  10. [18]

    Maxime Cordeil, Andrew Cunningham, Benjamin Bach, Christophe Hurter, Bruce H Thomas, Kim Marriott, and Tim Dwyer. 2019. IATK: An immersive analytics toolkit. In2019 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR). IEEE, 200–209

    2019

  11. [19]

    Peter Dalsgaard and Lone Koefoed Hansen. 2008. Performing perception—staging aesthetics of interaction. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 15, 3 (2008), 1–33

    2008

  12. [20]

    Josh Urban Davis, Paul Asente, and Xing-Dong Yang. 2023. Multimodal Direct Manipulation in Video Conferencing: Challenges and Opportunities. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference. 1174–1193

    2023

  13. [21]

    Tamara Denning, Zakariya Dehlawi, and Tadayoshi Kohno. 2014. In situ with bystanders of augmented reality glasses: Perspectives on recording and privacy-mediating technologies. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 2377–2386. https://d...

    2014

  14. [22]

    Audrey Desjardins and Aubree Ball. 2018. Revealing tensions in autobiographical design in HCI. In proceedings of the 2018 designing interactive systems conference. 753–764

    2018

  15. [23]

    Rebecca Fribourg, Etienne Peillard, and Rachel Mcdonnell. 2021. Mirror, mirror on my phone: Investigating dimensions of self-face perception induced by augmented reality filters. In2021 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR). IEEE, 470–478

    2021

  16. [24]

    Accessed in 2023

    Michael Friendly. Accessed in 2023. Minard’s Graphic Works. https://www.datavis.ca/gallery/re-minard.php

    2023

  17. [25]

    Weilun Gong, Stephanie Santosa, Tovi Grossman, Michael Glueck, Daniel Clarke, and Frances Lai. 2023. Affordance-Based and User-Defined Gestures for Spatial Tangible Interaction. InProceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference. 1500–1514

    2023

  18. [26]

    Accessed in 2024

    Tim Graham. Accessed in 2024. The Safest Seat to Sit In On a Plane is. . . . https://flowingdata.com/2008/05/20/the-safest-seat-to-sit-in-on-a-plane-is/

    2024

  19. [27]

    James Grime. 2015. The Greatest Ever Infographic - Numberphile. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3T7jMcstxY0&ab_channel=Numberphile

    2015

  20. [28]

    Brian D Hall, Lyn Bartram, and Matthew Brehmer. 2022. Augmented chironomia for presenting data to remote audiences. InProceedings of the 35th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. 1–14

    2022

  21. [29]

    Lane Harrison, Katharina Reinecke, and Remco Chang. 2015. Infographic aesthetics: Designing for the first impression. InProceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems. 1187–1190

    2015

  22. [30]

    Amelia Hassoun, Ian Beacock, Sunny Consolvo, Beth Goldberg, Patrick Gage Kelley, and Daniel M Russell. 2023. Practicing Information Sensibility: How Gen Z Engages with Online Information. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–17

    2023

  23. [31]

    Jeff Huang and Jing Qian. 2023. irchiver: A Full-Resolution Personal Web Archive for Users and Researchers. InProceedings of the 2023 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval. 449–453

    2023

  24. [32]

    Sebastian Hubenschmid, Johannes Zagermann, Simon Butscher, and Harald Reiterer. 2021. Stream: Exploring the combination of spatially-aware tablets with augmented reality head-mounted displays for immersive analytics. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors i...

    2021

  25. [33]

    Hilary Hutchinson, Wendy Mackay, Bo Westerlund, Benjamin B Bederson, Allison Druin, Catherine Plaisant, Michel Beaudouin-Lafon, Stéphane Conversy, Helen Evans, Heiko Hansen, et al. 2003. Technology probes: inspiring design for and with families. InProceedings of the SIGCHI con...

    2003

  26. [34]

    Yvonne Jansen, Pierre Dragicevic, Petra Isenberg, Jason Alexander, Abhijit Karnik, Johan Kildal, Sriram Subramanian, and Kasper Hornbæk. 2015. Opportunities and challenges for data physicalization. Inproceedings of the 33rd annual acm conference on human factors in computing s...

    2015

  27. [35]

    Yu Jiang, Zhipeng Li, Mufei He, David Lindlbauer, and Yukang Yan. 2023. HandAvatar: Embodying Non-Humanoid Virtual Avatars through Hands. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–17

    2023

  28. [36]

    Ulrike Kister, Konstantin Klamka, Christian Tominski, and Raimund Dachselt. 2017. GraSp: Combining Spatially-aware Mobile Devices and a Display Wall for Graph Visualization and Interaction.Computer Graphics Forum 36, 3 (2017), 503–514

    2017

  29. [37]

    Robert Kosara and Jock Mackinlay. 2013. Storytelling: The Next Step for Visualization.Computer 46, 5 (2013), 44–50. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2013.36

    2013 doi

  30. [38]

    Ricardo Langner, Marc Satkowski, Wolfgang Büschel, and Raimund Dachselt. 2021. Marvis: Combining mobile devices and augmented reality for visual data analysis. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–17

    2021

  31. [39]

    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 graphics 19, 12 (2013), 2416–2425

    2013

  32. [40]

    chart junk

    Huiyang Li and Nadine Moacdieh. 2014. Is “chart junk” useful? An extended examination of visual embellishment. InProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Vol. 58. Sage Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, 1516–1520

    2014

  33. [41]

    Jian Liao, Adnan Karim, Shivesh Singh Jadon, Rubaiat Habib Kazi, and Ryo Suzuki. 2022. RealityTalk: Real-Time Speech-Driven Augmented Presentation for AR Live Storytelling. InProceedings of the 35th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. 1–12

    2022

  34. [42]

    Leo Yu-Ho Lo, Ayush Gupta, Kento Shigyo, Aoyu Wu, Enrico Bertini, and Huamin Qu. 2022. Misinformed by visualization: What do we learn from misinformative visualizations? Computer Graphics Forum 41, 3 (2022), 515–525

    2022

  35. [43]

    Danielle Lottridge, Frank Bentley, Matt Wheeler, Jason Lee, Janet Cheung, Katherine Ong, and Cristy Rowley. 2017. Third-wave livestreaming: teens’ long form selfie. InProceedings of the 19th international conference on human-computer interaction with mobile devices and services. 1–12

    2017

  36. [44]

    Min Lu, Chufeng Wang, Joel Lanir, Nanxuan Zhao, Hanspeter Pfister, Daniel Cohen-Or, and Hui Huang. 2020. Exploring Visual Information Flows in Infographics. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI ’20). 1–12. htt...

    2020

  37. [45]

    Zhicong Lu, Haijun Xia, Seongkook Heo, and Daniel Wigdor. 2018. You watch, you give, and you engage: a study of live streaming practices in China. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–13

    2018

  38. [46]

    Weizhou Luo, Eva Goebel, Patrick Reipschläger, Mats Ole Ellenberg, and Raimund Dachselt. 2021. Exploring and slicing volumetric medical data in augmented reality using a spatially-aware mobile device. In2021 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality Adjunct (...

    2021

  39. [47]

    Yiwen Luo and Xiaoou Tang. 2008. Photo and video quality evaluation: Focusing on the subject. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2008: 10th European Conference on Computer Vision, Marseille, France, October 12-18, 2008, Proceedings, Part III 10. Springer, 386–399

    2008

  40. [48]

    I Don’t Want to Hide Behind an Avatar

    Margaret E Morris, Daniela K Rosner, Paula S Nurius, and Hadar M Dolev. 2023. “I Don’t Want to Hide Behind an Avatar”: Self-Representation in Social VR Among Women in Midlife. InProceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (Pittsburgh, PA, USA)(DIS ’23)...

    2023

  41. [49]

    The Learning Network. 2020. What’s going on in this graph? | high-school sports injuries. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/23/learning/whats- going-on-in-this-graph-high-school-sports-injuries.html

    2020

  42. [50]

    Carman Neustaedter and Phoebe Sengers. 2012. Autobiographical design in HCI research: designing and learning through use-it-yourself. In Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference. 514–523

    2012

  43. [51]

    Don Norman. 2013. The design of everyday things: Revised and expanded edition. Basic books, New York, New York

    2013

  44. [52]

    Leyla Norooz, Matthew Louis Mauriello, Anita Jorgensen, Brenna McNally, and Jon E Froehlich. 2015. BodyVis: A new approach to body learning through wearable sensing and visualization. InProceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1025–1034

    2015

  45. [53]

    Alexandra Papoutsaki, James Laskey, and Jeff Huang. 2017. Searchgazer: Webcam eye tracking for remote studies of web search. InProceedings of the 2017 conference on conference human information interaction and retrieval. 17–26

    2017

  46. [54]

    Siyou Pei, Alexander Chen, Jaewook Lee, and Yang Zhang. 2022. Hand interfaces: Using hands to imitate objects in AR/VR for expressive interactions. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–16

    2022

  47. [55]

    Ken Perlin, Zhenyi He, and Karl Rosenberg. 2018. Chalktalk: A Visualization and Communication Language–As a Tool in the Domain of Computer Science Education. arXiv:1809.07166 [cs.HC]

    2018 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Shwetha Rajaram and Michael Nebeling. 2022. Paper trail: An immersive authoring system for augmented reality instructional experiences. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–16

    2022

  49. [57]

    Stuart Reeves, Steve Benford, Claire O’Malley, and Mike Fraser. 2005. Designing the spectator experience. InProceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. 741–750

    2005

  50. [58]

    Hans Rolsing. 2011. Hans Rosling’s 200 Countries, 200 Years, 4 Minutes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo&t=54s&ab_channel=BBC

    2011

  51. [59]

    Samar Sallam, Yumiko Sakamoto, Jason Leboe-McGowan, Celine Latulipe, and Pourang Irani. 2022. Towards design guidelines for effective health-related data videos: An empirical investigation of affect, personality, and video content. InProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on H...

    2022

  52. [60]

    Nazmus Saquib, Rubaiat Habib Kazi, Li-Yi Wei, and Wilmot Li. 2019. Interactive body-driven graphics for augmented video performance. InProceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–12

    2019

  53. [61]

    Kadek Ananta Satriadi, Jim Smiley, Barrett Ens, Maxime Cordeil, Tobias Czauderna, Benjamin Lee, Ying Yang, Tim Dwyer, and Bernhard Jenny. 2022. Tangible globes for data visualisation in augmented reality. InProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing S...

    2022

  54. [62]

    Arvind Satyanarayan, Dominik Moritz, Kanit Wongsuphasawat, and Jeffrey Heer. 2016. Vega-lite: A grammar of interactive graphics.IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 23, 1 (2016), 341–350

    2016

  55. [63]

    Ronell Sicat, Jiabao Li, Junyoung Choi, Maxime Cordeil, Won-Ki Jeong, Benjamin Bach, and Hanspeter Pfister. 2018. DXR: A toolkit for building immersive data visualizations. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 25, 1 (2018), 715–725

    2018

  56. [64]

    Mel Slater, Andrea Brogni, and Anthony Steed. 2003. Physiological responses to breaks in presence: A pilot study. InPresence 2003: The 6th annual international workshop on presence, Vol. 157. Citeseer

    2003

  57. [65]

    Mel Slater and Anthony Steed. 2000. A virtual presence counter. Presence 9, 5 (2000), 413–434

    2000

  58. [66]

    Accessed in 2024

    sqadia.com. Accessed in 2024. Introduction to Anatomy SUBDIVISIONS | Made Easy for Medical Students. https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=q6fQf6VLDOY

    2024

  59. [67]

    Hariharan Subramonyam. 2015. SIGCHI: magic mirror-embodied interactions for the quantified self. InProceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1699–1704

    2015

  60. [68]

    Ryo Suzuki, Rubaiat Habib Kazi, Li-Yi Wei, Stephen DiVerdi, Wilmot Li, and Daniel Leithinger. 2020. Realitysketch: Embedding responsive graphics and visualizations in AR through dynamic sketching. InProceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Te...

    2020

  61. [69]

    Maryam Tohidi, William Buxton, Ronald Baecker, and Abigail Sellen. 2006. Getting the right design and the design right. InProceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in computing systems. 1243–1252

    2006

  62. [70]

    Wai Tong, Zhutian Chen, Meng Xia, Leo Yu-Ho Lo, Linping Yuan, Benjamin Bach, and Huamin Qu. 2023. Exploring interactions with printed data visualizations in augmented reality.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 29 (2023), 418 – 428. Issue 1

    2023

  63. [71]

    Last accessed in 2023

    DAVOD VEGJ. Last accessed in 2023. BLOCKING 101 How directors tell stories with movement. https://dramatics.org/blocking-101/

    2023

  64. [72]

    Yunwen Wang. 2020. Humor and camera view on mobile short-form video apps influence user experience and technology-adoption intent, an example of TikTok (DouYin). Computers in human behavior 110 (2020), 106373

    2020

  65. [73]

    Zezhong Wang, Shunming Wang, Matteo Farinella, Dave Murray-Rust, Nathalie Henry Riche, and Benjamin Bach. 2019. Comparing effectiveness and engagement of data comics and infographics. InProceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–12

    2019

  66. [74]

    Saelyne Yang, Sangkyung Kwak, Juhoon Lee, and Juho Kim. 2023. Beyond Instructions: A Taxonomy of Information Types in How-to Videos. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–21

    2023

  67. [75]

    Yalong Yang, Tim Dwyer, Kim Marriott, Bernhard Jenny, and Sarah Goodwin. 2020. Tilt map: Interactive transitions between choropleth map, prism map and bar chart in immersive environments.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 27, 12 (2020), 4507–4519

    2020

  68. [76]

    Tongyu Zhou, Jeff Huang, and Gromit Chan. 2024. Epigraphics: Message-Driven Infographics Authoring. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA)(CHI ’24). https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642172

    2024

  69. [77]

    Tongyu Zhou, Joshua Kong Yang, Vivian Hsinyueh Chan, Ji Won Chung, and Jeff Huang. 2024. PortalInk: 2.5D Visual Storytelling with SVG Parallax and Waypoint Transitions. InProceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology(Pittsburgh, PA, USA...

    2024

  70. [78]

    Chengyan Zhu, Xiaolin Xu, Wei Zhang, Jianmin Chen, and Richard Evans. 2020. How health communication via Tik Tok makes a difference: A content analysis of Tik Tok accounts run by Chinese provincial health committees.International journal of environmental research and public he...

    2020

  71. [2015]

    IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 22, 1 (2015), 519–528

    Beyond memorability: Visualization recognition and recall. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 22, 1 (2015), 519–528

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.