View
160
Download
1
Category
Tags:
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Data Visualisation and Information Design are increasingly employed in print, broadcast and web media to convey complex ideas or bring simple ones to life. The tools for maps, infographics and visualisations are becoming cheaper and easier to use, and the range of approaches is diversifying. At the same time, data of all kinds is becoming more accessible, whether on research funding (through the Gateways to Research platform), Open Government Data, or the results of individual research projects – as Open Access initiatives to make sharing scientific data a key element of journal publications. We will cover basic ideas and examples of visualisation for newcomers, how visualisation exists as part of wider engagement goals and include a more critical discussion about what visualisation needs to do in order to be a meaningful mechanism for engagement and participation. Speakers: Andrew Steele (Cancer Research UK), Artemis Skarlatidou (UCL), Damien George, (University of Cambridge), Martin Austwick (UCL)
Citation preview
Data Visualisation for Public Engagement
Damien George, Andrew Steele, Artemis Skarlatidou
Chair: Martin Zaltz Austwick 1
Data Visualisation for Public Engagement
Martin Zaltz Austwick, Course Director
MRes Advanced Spatial Analysis and Visualisation
CASA, Bartlett Faculty of the Built Environment, UCL 2
Damien GeorgeCavendish Laboratory, Cambridge
paperscape.orgthecmb.org
3
The ScienceogramMaking sense of science spending
scienceogram.org@scienceogram
Andrew Steele
social protection£3900
healthcare£1900
education£1000
defence£700
other£3500
research£160
£695bngovernment spend
£11,000per person
63mpopulation
=
causesof death
research spendper person per year
cancer
30%
£4.30
stroke
10%heart disease
15%
28p £1.30
Nuclear fusion
• Hasn’t that been 30 years away for the last 30 years?
• Hasn’t that been 50 years away for the last 50 years?
• Hasn’t that been 30 years away for the last 50 years?
£60bndevelop fusion
1.1bnpopulation ofhigh-income
countries
£50per person
=
Blue-skies research
fusion (projected)£60,000,000,000
iPhone revenue£123,000,000,000
iPhone profit£65,000,000,000
LHC£2,600,000,000
Crossrail£14,800,000,000
fusion (projected)£60,000,000,000
iPhone revenue£123,000,000,000
iPhone profit£65,000,000,000
LHC£2,600,000,000
Crossrail£14,800,000,000
energy£10
cancer£5
heart disease£1
stroke28p
alcohol
loo roll£17
weddings£160
£600
Put data in context Meaningful figures Meaningful categories Meaningful comparisons
scienceogram.org@scienceogram
The ScienceogramMaking sense of science spending
scienceogram.org@scienceogram
Andrew Steeleandrewsteele.co.uk@statto
Tom Fuller
trust
User Issues: spatial visualisations for public engagement
Dr Artemis SkarlatidouExtreme Citizen Science Group
www.ucl.ac.uk/excitesa.skarlatidou@ucl.ac.uk
Science Communication | Data Visualisation | 1 May 2014
Public Engagement and Spatial Visualisations
• “Almost everything that happens, happens somewhere…” (Longley, 2005)• From cave drawings of spatial representations to online maps that are
used by almost everyone (with internet access) and everywhere..!• Human spatial ability?
– People trust (i.e. rely on) maps more than their spatial cognition and ability to navigate and
– People trust maps more than other types of data visualisation despite the fact that all maps lie (Monmonier, 1996)
• PPGIS studies claim that “cultivate a stronger sense of commitment, increase user satisfaction, create realistic expectations of outcomes and build trust” (Al-Kodmany, 1999); allow for integration of indigenous knowledge with expert data (Dunn, 2007)...
Engaging the public using maps (provision of information)
Engaging the public using maps (contribution and analysis of information)
Engaging the public using maps (analysing information – make and submit decision)
But what about the users?
• Is it easy to use?• Is it trustworthy?• Is it useful?• Do people understand it? Do they like it?• ….does it meet its purpose?• Other user issues such as: Public familiarity and
expertise in spatial data handling and analysis etc?
• Public engagement to:– improve transparency and build trust– understand the problem and resolve NIMBY-type conflicts and
potentially find a solution – very limited public knowledge of nuclear & nuclear waste
disposal issues… improve public understanding
The Nuclear Waste Disposal example
[Improving public understanding]• Content – Risk Communication & Mental Models and HCI
testing
Improving Trust / Helping people develop rational trust perceptions
• Trust Design – Trustee attributes – Functional attributes (e.g. usability, aesthetics)– Perceptual attributes (e.g. reputation of the source) – trust cues (e.g. logos, pictures, videos, blogs)
[Trust Guidelines - 5 design dimensions]
User Interface
Map/ Spatial Visualisation component
Graphic Structure Content Functionality
Menu should match popular menu visualisations.
Distinct colours should be used or shades of blue if this not possible.
Map larger than 388x589 pix.
Trust Cues
Provide a map tutorial below the map
Visible logos from all pages
Provide a blog
….
Skarlatidou, A., Cheng, T. and Haklay, M.(2013) Guidelines for Trust Interface Design for Public Engagement Web GIS, International Journal of GIScience, 257,8, pp. 1668-1687.
colours
colours
legend
map size
Different structure similar toHealth Physics Society onRadioactive Waste DisposalWebsite
structure
Mental models structure
Testing and extending the guidelines on other contexts
• communicating clearly data generalisation issues• Perceived usefulness … ? ?
Aesthetics
This is a Van Gogh!
…and this is a Matisse!!!
Fabrikant et al. (2012) Emotional response to map design aesthetics. In: GIScience 2012: Seventh International Conference on Geographic Information Science, Columbus, Ohio, 18 September 2012 - 21 September 2012.
Recommended