Reveal-It!- The Impact of a Social Visualization Projection

8/12/2019 Reveal-It!- The Impact of a Social Visualization Projection

1/10

Reveal-it!: The Impact of a Social Visualization Projectionon Public Awareness and Discourse

Nina Valkanova1, Sergi Jorda1, Martin Tomitsch2, Andrew Vande Moere31 Music Technology Group, Universitat Pompeu Fabra

[email protected] Lab - Faculty of Architecture, Design and Planning, The University of Sydney

[email protected] Research x Design - Department of Architecture, Urbanism and Planning, KU Leuven

[email protected]

ABSTRACT

Public displays and projections are becoming increasinglyavailable in various informal urban settings. However, their

potential impact on informing and engaging citizens onrelevant issues has still been largely unexplored. In this

paper, we show that visualizations displayed in publicsettings are able to increase social awareness and discourse

by exposing underlying patterns in data that is submitted bycitizens. We thus introduce the design and evaluation of

Reveal-it!, a public, interactive projection that facilitates thecomparison of the energy consumptions of individuals andcommunities. Our in-the-wild deployment in three distinct

physical locations provided insights into: 1) how peopleresponded to this form of display in different contexts; 2)how it influenced peoples perception and discussion ofindividual and communal data; and 3) the implications for a

public visualization as a tool for increasing awareness anddiscourse. We conclude by discussing emerging participant

behaviors, as well as some challenges involved infacilitating a socially motivated crowd-sourced

visualization in the public context.Author Keywords

public display; urban screen; urban visualization; energyconsumption; sustainability; in-the-wild study; awareness,reflection; captology; persuasive computing; evaluation.

ACM Classification Keywords

H.5.2 Information Interfaces and Presentation:Miscellaneous

INTRODUCTION

Electronic displays are becoming increasingly ubiquitous inour urban environment, ranging from community centers,museums to airports. As display technology is developingrapidly, it is likely that this trend will accelerate, so that

people will become more accustomed to this type ofsituated media [19, 41]. With their visual presence and

opportunistic accessibility, such urban displays formpromising communication platforms for citizens [9, 14, 23,41]. While the majority of urban displays serve mainlycivic, commercial, artistic or entertainment purposes, onlyfew works present a civic goal: that of increasing theawareness and discourse on socially relevant topics [1, 38].

One topic of growing public concern is environmentalsustainability. Several non-governmental organizations areactively trying to raise awareness on this issue by focusingon making relevant data available in the public media.However, although people are becoming increasinglyconscious of the ongoing Climate Crisis, they are rarelyaware of how their own activities contribute to greenhousegas emissions [24, 36]. As a result, the interaction withenergy-consuming appliances tends to occur without anyconscious consideration of their environmental impact [33].Recent initiatives address this problem by providing toolsfor precise quantitative measures of energy or monetaryexpenditures. Confined in a private context, these toolsnegate the potential of social comparison [15] and

discussion, which might support people in making sense of,and reflecting on, their personal consumption habits.Furthermore, they tend to not gracefully integrate into the

physical environment, and do not typically sparkoccupants curiosity [47].

We propose that these opportunities could be addressed byexploiting the unique characteristics of social visualizationwithin the context of the urban environment. Socialvisualization, in its original definition, describes theenriching of social, electronic communication by making itsrich and salient qualities visible in easily accessible andunderstandable ways [12]. Accordingly, social dataexploration offers people the chance to increase their

understanding of complex information by the power ofcollective and collaborative efforts [51]. Recent research inthis field has indicated that people seem to becomeencouraged to create public visualizations for participative

purposes, even spurring social activities alongside [11, 17].While most social visualizations have focused on onlineenvironments, little is known on whether they can besuccessfully deployed in other contexts, such as publicspaces. Accordingly, we hypothesize that awareness anddiscourse about citizen-related issues may benefit from the

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work forpersonal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies arenot made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies

bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise,or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires priorspecific permission and/or a fee.CHI 2013, April 27May 2, 2013, Paris, France.Copyright 2013 ACM 978-1-4503-1899-0/13/04...$15.00

Session: Tensions in Social Media CHI 2013: Changing Perspectives, Paris, France

3461
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/10

externalization of contextualized data, for instance bymeans of social viewing and comparison. As a case study,we thus introduceReveal-it!, a life-size, public visualizationthat consists of a dynamic infographic illustration tofacilitate the comparison of individual and communityenergy consumption data.Reveal-it!is specifically designedas a tool for citizens to explore, reflect and debate onsocially-relevant issues, such as energy consumption.

RELATED WORK

A comprehensive taxonomy of the design space andrequirements for interactive public displays exists [31], aswell as several studies of their real-world deployment in arange of informal public or semi-public contexts: frommuseums [22] and galleries [46], to urban settings [14].They have been designed to display information ofrelevance to a specific group of people [18], supportopportunistic conversations [25], provide playfulinformation experience [22, 46], or enrich casualinteractions of people sharing an environment [29].

Ambient and Eco-Visualization

Like ambient display [39] and related approaches [34, 35,

48], Reveal-it! aims to raise the awareness of people byplacing dynamic information in the immediate physicalsurroundings. While ambient displays communicate at-a-glance information in the periphery of human attention,

Reveal-it!shifts the idea of an aesthetic, public informationdisplay from the peripheral to the center of attention, also

by using a more explicit way of representing the data.

Based on the ecological issue of energy consumption, ourconcept relates to eco-visualization, originally defined asdata-driven animations that display ecological informationof any sort [24]. Some eco-visualizations aim to motivatethe reduction of consumption by showing abstract yet real-time visual representations of appliance consumption [e.g.

7, 37]. Others constitute unusual interfaces to encourageplayful and aesthetic engagement and exploration of energy[2], exploring the experiential and reflective potential of thesystems [4]. Research in this field [e.g. 7, 26, 37] hasfocused mainly on optimizing the effectiveness of energyfeedback in terms of measurable reduction of householdconsumption by supporting different stages of motivation[21]. In contrast, we use the concept of eco-visualization to

promote public awareness and discussion outside of thedomestic context and shared by many.

Urban Data Projections for Sustainability

Several urban displays have already brought debate onsustainability to the forefront by projecting related data intothe public sphere. Some have augmented urban spaces with

abstract, metaphorical representations of environmentaldata, such as future sea water levels [50], CO2measurements of the surroundings [5] or the energyconsumption of a local nuclear plant [32]. Others have

playfully allowed passers-by to form statements on climatechange [16]. However, the impact of these visualizationshas either not been studied, or little influence on publicdiscussion has been shown, beyond the fascination with theinteractive features of the installations [16]. Furthermore,unlike this prior work, Reveal-it! represents private and

community energy consumptions and allows for datacomparison on both individual and public level.

DESIGN PROCESS

The general research objective of our work is to explorehow the externalization of contextualized data can influencethe reflection and discourse of onlookers. To better informour design goals, we conducted several design activities

including an ethnographic pre-study and a workshop.Ethnographic Pre-study

We commenced our design process with a pre-study, whichhelped us better understand the relation between citizensand energy-related information from an individual andcommunity perspective, leading to the design requirementsfor a shared visualization in public space. The pre-studyconsisted of seven focus group sessions, each with one tothree adults with varying backgrounds and professions. Intotal we talked to 14 participants (six male and eightfemale) ranging from 22 to 57 years. Each group shared thesame household, among which 4 were home-owners. Thefocus group sessions lasted from 30 to 55 minutes. Thequestions probed participants attitudes and knowledge

about their own and public resource consumption. Thediscussions were based upon a short description of ourconcept and design examples in the form of sketches.

Pre-study Conclusions

The analysis of the focus group data helped us identify thetypes of information that seem to capture the interest of

people, as well as opinions regarding publicizing this data.

The focus group sessions indicated that the publiccomparison of individual consumption might sparkopportunistic engagement and discussions. However,

participants were not interested in the personal data ofothers in an isolated manner. Instead, they were interestedin comparing values to averages, which could answerquestions like Am I consuming more or less than others?.The discussions revealed how participants assumed there isa good average or a reasonable consumption (even intheir local context only) that they found crucial and

beneficial to compare on various scales: me vs. neighbors,me vs. neighborhood, neighborhood vs. neighborhood, orneighborhood vs. city. The discussions also revealed that

people are only aware of the monetary value - what theyactually pay - of their household energy consumption,compared to their consumption expressed as kWh, forinstance. A majority of focus group participants arguedabout the fair positioning of personal data within itscontext. They often mentioned factors like household size,

but also geographical aspects such as climate conditions orliving in the same neighborhood or city. Eight out of 14

participants mentioned the importance of attractive ormore visual representations of consumption data. Thediscussions suggested that people are interested in non-numeric forms and in 80% of the cases participants found iteven unnecessary to talk about data units.


3462


3/10

Design Workshop

We conducted an iterative refinement of design constraintsand requirements during a collaborative 3-week workshopwith data visualization experts [47]. This process wasconducted in an extensive dialogue with paper and digitalsketches, interactive prototypes and tests in-the-wild.

Based on the design activities and previous work, we set

out to build an urban visualization display that would a)provide awareness on individual and communal data butconsider privacy; b) promote socially valid comparisons; c)encourage opportunistic and spontaneous conversations; d)

be understandable and enjoyable; and e) be accessible andaesthetically-integrated in the physical environment.

THE URBAN VISUALIZATION DISPLAY REVEAL-IT!

To structure and maintain an overview of the design goals,we used the Design Space Explorer Framework for MediaFaades [10]. This framework allows us to describeReveal-it! with regards to the key aspects of any urban displaysystem, such as its location and situation, material andform, dataset and data input and visualization design(mapping and animations).

Location and Situation

Considering the situational along with the spatial aspects inthe design of public visualization is important, as situationsdetermine the shared understanding and socialinterpretation of cues in the physical environment [20].Based on the pre-study and previous work [25] wespecifically aimed at creating a situation that supportsspontaneous and opportunistic conversations. We thuschose to focus on public and semi-public settings that hostinformal, opportunistic social activities and encourageinformal gathering, dwelling and transition, such as spacesin front of local cafs, inner yards or entrance halls ofcommunity centers.

Material and FormPrevious work on visualization in shared settings [37, 43,45] emphasizes on the seamless aesthetic integration of thedisplay in the physical environment. Therefore, weattempted to mimic the visual style of graffiti, by avoidingthe visible rectangular frame of traditional data screens. Ourvisualization was implemented as a life-size (3x3m)

projection, which is suitable to a wide range of physicalspaces. This type of low-cost and portable displaytechnology was preferred above alternatives such as LCdisplays or multi-touch interfaces, as these tend to be toofragile or expensive for a typical public setting.

Dataset

Previous work has used public, comparative feedback toreduce energy consumption by triggering feelings ofcompetition, social comparison or social pressure [45].Based on our pre-study, which indicated the potential

benefits of comparing data averages on several levels, wechose to focus on a dataset that combines private electricityconsumption data (i.e. from individual households) withmore commonly relevant data, such as the neighborhoodand city consumption averages.

Private Data Entry

We developed a form of personal, yet public, form of dataentry that allows any onlooker to voluntarily input theirdata into the system. We chose to use a mobile interface, toallow multiple participants to simultaneously interact withour system while still keeping some form of privacy. To thisend, we created a web-form, which can be loaded on anytablet or smartphone (Fig. 1). This deliberate act of publicdata entry is also meant to enhance public engagement, as it

provides an opportunistic moment at which participantsmust dedicate their attention to the topic at hand.

The data entry form requested the participants monthlyenergy expense (what she remembers to have paid for herlast electricity bill), her neighborhood and the number ofco-inhabitants in her household. The participant could also

provide her name, however this data entry was not madeobligatory. Based on observations from our pre-study, wechose to include a monetary value range instead ofelectrical usage (kWh). Secondly, we made a list of valueranges available, since people generally do not rememberthe exact quantitative values. Aiming to address theconsideration for fairness, the interface required the input ofthe number of co-inhabitants. Accordingly, the system

normalized the reported electricity bill by the number of co-inhabitants to derive an estimated consumption value per

participating household member. While there are admittedlymany additional (and difficult to capture) factors thatcontribute to the real average consumption within a multi-

person home, we believe that this estimation provessufficient to evaluate our research goal.

Visual Mapping

The observations from our pre-study support previousresults in literature, which suggest that visually distinctinterfaces, visual aesthetics and animation have the

potential to promote curiosity and initiate participation [22,44, 46]. We chose a visualization technique that combines

the seriousness of the topic with the more accessible styleof popular infographics. The visualization consists of anabstract sunburst representation [40], of which each burst(Fig. 2.A) corresponds to the energy bill of an individualhousehold participant. The circular visualization techniqueallows for scalability and hence an arbitrary number of

people to be represented. Upon data entry, the participantsname (if provided) appears in two distinct places: in thecenter of the sunburst graphic as a textual statement X

spends Y !! and at the end of the corresponding burst, as a

Figure 1. The web-form for private data entry loaded in a

table interface.


3463


4/10

comparative consumption number: Person X: Y !.Neighborhood X: Y !. . Each neighborhood is representedby a different color, and occupies different parts of thecircular shape proportionally to the relative participationrate of the neighborhood.

Animations

The integration of dynamic visual cues can makevisualization richer, vivid and more understandable [49].Accordingly, our visualization shows a dynamicallyanimated arc over each neighborhood portion in order toconvey the average consumption of a given neighborhood(Fig. 2.B). The arc representation also allows onlookers tocompare neighborhood values to city-wide statistics (Fig.2.C). This visual feature focuses the attention to one'selectricity consumption as a shared resource if anindividual consumes more, the average increases and viceversa. In addition, the burst of each new participant visuallyappears with a smooth animation and bouncing effect, to

highlight the recording of fresh data. A new entry isdisplayed in a white color to unambiguously distinct it fromthe rest of the graphical representation, which thensmoothly takes over the color of its respect iveneighborhood. To offer an opportunistic conversationalwindow between the visualization and the audience, weused the center of the sunburst to occasionally animateinviting messages such as Do you know how much you

spend? or N neighborhoods are participating (Fig. 2.D).

IN-THE-WILD EVALUATION

We deployed Reveal-it! as a public projection at threedistinct public locations in two different cities over a total

period of 20 days (Fig. 3). The goal of the study was to gain

insight into more open-ended questions such as:how will onlookers engage with a public visualization of

data originating from themselves, in particular ininfluencing their personal reflections and informaldiscussions, and

how well can a social visualization in a public andphysical context convey an implicit message (e.g. saveenergy) that is supported with exact data (e.g. onesenergy own consumption).

Location Descriptions

Reveal-it!was first deployed at a public cultural center inthe city center of Crdoba, Argentina (location A). The

projection was installed for 16 days in a semi-open spacewithin an open-air inner yard of the centers. To expand thediversity of possible overlapping situations [9], Reveal-it!was also installed in the entrance lobbies of two communitycenters (locations B and C) in two different neighborhoodsof the city of Barcelona, Spain for one and threeconsecutive days respectively. The situations duringdeployments varied largely across locations:Reveal-it!wasinstalled at location A during an annual festival about artsand technology, and at location B during a local round-tablemeeting about renewable energies. In contrast, location Chosted various parallel activities at the time of thedeployment. In each of the study locations a mobile iPadinterface was situated in front of the visualization tofacilitate participation. Visitors could dwell around in thespaces, discover and spontaneously approach thevisualization. A sign, placed on the wall next to the

projection, informed visitors about the study beingconducted. Through a contextual inquiry, we identifiedthree distinct types of situational contexts: daily-basisactivities (e.g. senior social club, daily care for children),weekly activities (e.g. workshops, dance classes) andoccasionalspecial events (e.g. performances, exhibitions ortalks on specific topics).

Observations

Two observers watched people for 6 to 8 hours perobservation day at location A, and for 3 to 4 hours atlocations B and C. Due to ethical constraints, we neverrecorded video or audio material, but always kept field

notes. We observed and listened in to the visitors, capturingtheir initial behavior towards the projection (e.g. attentionand reaction) as well as the visitors attitudes whileinteracting with it, discussing among themselves, orcontemplating it. To facilitate the process, we devisedobservational categories that were subsequently refined. Inan overall period of 20 days (i.e. 144 observation hours),we took notes of about 442 (out of a total of approximately558 visitors) unique persons who intentionally approached

Reveal-it!,alone or in a group.

Figure 2. Reveal-it!: close-up (left) and two snapshots of the whole visualization interface with 22 (middle) and 56 (right)participants: (A) Burst of a single participant (pink) with her name; (B) Average neighborhood consumption arc (pink); (C) Circle

of city-wide consumption statistics; (D)The center as a conversation window with changeable inviting messages.


3464


5/10

Semi-structured Interviews

The semi-structured interviews typically varied between 7and 15 minutes and were performed after participantssubmitted the data entry form in front of the display.Interviews were conducted with individuals or groups,

during which we also recorded demographical data, such asage and gender. The interviews included questionsregarding the opinions about the Reveal-it!in terms of itsunderstandability and experience, as well as its potentialusefulness. Visitors were also invited to freely express theirsuggestions and thoughts in relation to the project.Throughout the 3 study locations, we conducted 18interviews with 86 visitors overall (47 male and 39 female),who interacted with the visualization and spent at least 2minutes in front of it. The interviewed people ranged fromsingle individuals or couples to groups of 20 people ofapproximately 15 to 70 years old.

Participation Logs

At all study locations, we logged the data entries of thevisitors who directly interacted with the visualization(N=198) (see subsection Private Data Entry). Each

participation was digitally time-stamped, allowing us tolater map the reported visitors data to the overall state ofthe visualization at the moment of participation (Fig. 2).

Questionnaire Test

To quantitatively assess how well the visualizationconveyed comparative information, we conducted a post-response questionnaire test with 30 participants in the lastdeployment day at location C. The questionnaire wasintegrated in the data entry interface and shown on tabletdevice. The test followed a simple 2-step procedure:

1. Participation. Participants first entered their personalconsumption-related data (like normally). They thenobserved the visualization and while still standing in frontof it, proceeded to the post-response questionnaire.

2. Post-Response. Participants provided a response to thequestions Compared with my neighbors, my consumptionis:, and Compared with my city, my neighborhoodsconsumption is: expressed as a 5-point Likert scale (range:much less - much more).

Data Analysis

We analyzed field notes and visitor opinions usinggrounded theory to draw bottom-up findings based on thedirect quotations and to establish hierarchies andconnections among remarkable findings. Apart ofdescriptive statistics of visitors participation, we used thelogs together with the questionnaire test data to evaluate thecomparative understandability of the visualization. We

further used this data to triangulate participants commentsand reactions upon participation.

RESULTS

We first uncover factors that influenced participation anddiscuss patterns and incentives that let visitors explore

Reveal-it!. We then explain how individual and groupsexplored the visualization and consider different patterns ofinterpretation, discussion and comparisons.

Situations

Our study sheds light onto how the actual situationalcontexts in a public space influence the intrinsic motivationto engage with Reveal-it!.The vast majority of visitors atlocation A and B were interested to actively acquire more

knowledge about the installation: approximately 86% atlocation A (N=344) and all visitors at location B (N=33)intentionally approached the visualization. In contrast, weobserved only 52% (N=33) at location C. This resultindicates a close connection between the visitorsengagement with the visualization and the degree ofsituational diversity during the deployment. While thecontext at locations A and B was a rather constantthroughout the study (i.e. an exhibition area and a hostingspace for a special talk respectively), location C hostedseveral co-existing situations: it served as 1) a transit spacefor people, who were committed to daily tasks, 2) anarriving area for guests of three special events, 3) arecreation area and 4) a waiting area for participants of two

weekly workshops. From the overall 52 visitors whodirectly interacted withReveal-it! at location C, only 8 weredaily visitors, 18 were visitors of weekly activities and 26were visiting a dance spectacle. Previous research discussesthat introducing displays into urban spaces transforms thesituations specific to these spaces [9]. Accordingly, weanalyzed how the interest in Reveal-it! unfolded over timeversus the variety of situations and visitors.

Temporal Patterns

Weekly Activities. Visitors of weekly activities were morewilling to actively engage with the visualization in dwelling

periods before and after the activities when they had time towalk around the space, talk and socialize. We measured an

average threshold of 8 minutes from the moment when thevisitors entered the space until they would intentionallyapproach the display. In most of the cases (12 out of 18),this occurred upon arriving, when visitors had to wait fortheir activity to start.

Special Activities. The visualization enticed active interestonly afterthe end of the special events people had attended:48% of the data entries were registered during the lastquarter of the daily deployment time. The visitors whoapproached Reveal-it! and entered their data were around

Figure 3. In-the-wild deployment at location C.


3465


6/10

before, and already looked at the visualization whenentering. However, they seemed only motivated to closelyapproach afterwards: once the activities were over, visitorswould progressively gather in front of the projection,talking and pointing at the visualization.

Generally, our results demonstrate that the use ofvisualizations in a public setting entails an unfoldingtransformation of the pre-existing situation. In particular,this transformation involves a temporal dimension in that

certain opportunistic situations such as idling, dwelling,waiting or gathering [30] are more adequate to engagepotential users, in contrast to short-term or goal-orientedsituations such as arriving, departing or passing-by.

Evolving Incentives

What were the incentives for these unfolding reactions ofpeople to the public visualization?

Physical Setup and Visual Design. The prominent positionand size of the installation were key factors in evokinginitial curiosity. All visitors throughout the evaluationslooked (for more than 2 seconds) at the projection uponentering the space, although some did not approach it. Thevisual design and the animations further increased peoples

curiosity. Approximately 86% (N=74) of the interviewedparticipants (Table 1) mentioned that these features hadsome persuasive effect on them, e.g. I saw the colors, thatit [the visualization] is moving., Cool graphics, I found itintriguing. The more dynamic features caused positive,even affective attitudes, such as I really liked it, itresembled breathing, which makes you think that it is like

something alive.[V22].

Data-related and Social Factors. The altruistic nature of thedata positively influenced people to engage with thevisualization, with V16 explaining. Of course, it catchesthe attention visually. [...] But than it gets intriguing, as it ismuch more different than a boring electricity bill. It is anattractive way to address a serious topic. Approximately67% (N=58) of the interviewed visitors described the datavisualization as intriguing, 50% as innovative, 42% asrelevant to the community. However, 73% (N=145) ofthe visitors who actually entered their data expressed aloudtheir doubts about how accurate they could remember theirhousehold bill. This might explain why some visitors didnot directly participate, but observed the display from adistance. Previous studies on public screens have revealedthat the implicit expectation to perform in a public context

presents a participation barrier [6]. Our observations

indicate that in addition to this social awkwardness, apublic social visualization can suffer from hindrances thatrelate to the data, such as fear of inaccurate submissions orsubmitting values that will stand out.

Evolving Reactions. Most of the visitors understood thesignificance of the visualization only after closer inspection,that is after reading the visualization labels or the

information flyers. After a certain time, participants seemedto want to acquire some form of external confirmation oftheir initial preconception about the goals of thevisualization:So, this is an ecological project. To promoteresponsible consumption, right?or Why do you have thisinstallation, Is it aiming at making people moreconscious?. People tend to be curious and intrigued first

by its prominent visual presence, after which the attentionswitched to the data that was shown. It was only afterfurther active involvement and reflection that peopleadopted a more critical perspective towards thevisualization and its implications.

Individual Exploration

Approximately 87% (N=172) of the visitors who submitted

the data entry form of the visualization (Table 1) reflectedon their own consumption behavior afterwards. Althoughthe installation did not convey any opinion about good orbad energy consumption, the uttered qualifications variedwidely from reasonable, [V7], satisfactory,[V12] toit could be lower, [V6], shocking,[V4], too much forliving alone[V8]. These interview statements confirm thatthe comparative features of the visualization provided

participants with the opportunity to reflect on theirpreconceptions about their own energy habits. You mightthink you are fine, because you dont know how the rest isdoing. [...] Here [in the visualization] you can see where

you stand. [V20]; I thought, that in my house we are bigconsumers, as we are four and use video consoles,computers, etc. [...] But when I entered the data and sawourselves in the graphics, actually we are not doing thatbad! [V14].

Approximately 24% of the interviewed participants (21 outof 86) explicitly claimed that the visualization motivatedthem to enhance their consumption habits in a positive way.For instance visitor V15 explained: I know I use a lot, butnow seeing this [the visualization], I would try to dobetter..Often visitors tended to reason on solutions on howto reduce their consumption. I see it [his consumptionvalue] is high, and it could be lower. [...] For example, Icould disconnect devices such as cell phone chargers,televisions, and others.. they consume minimal but plugged

still add to your value. [V10].

Group and Social Exploration

At all three locations, the participants who explicitlycompared their individual consumption to the other burstsin the graphics were mostly part of a group. The relatively

private and trusted situational context of a group oftenempowered people to put (group) pressure on others to

participate. For instance, in one of the groups [V16] formedby five elderly women, a participant entered her data, after

Location Days Observedvisitors

Visitorsintentionallyapproached

ParticipationLogs

Interviewed

A

B

C*

Total

16 400 344 172 67

1 33 33 28 5

3 125 65 52 14

20 558 442 198 86

Table 1. Overview of collected data from the threedeployments of Reveal-it!.

*At location C, we also conducted a questionnaire test with 30 participants


3466


7/10

her friend, and exclaimed happily [...] Look, I spend lessthan you!,which directly caused the addressed participantto explain why this might happen [...] You live alone, ofcourse you spend less!. The women then proceeded toinvite a friend of theirs to compare herself as well: Comeone, come, let me see how much you spend!.

The participant names shown in the visualization also

seemed to support a playful competition among friends.Participants would often read aloud or comment on thosevisual sectors that were accompanied with a name-tag. Theywould cheer up their own name when it appeared in thevisualization and would be disappointed when the next

participant caused it to disappear. Comments of participantsindicate that the infographic visual style combined with thissocial [V4] feature seemed to create a more playfulsituation to engage with this otherwise seemingly boring orimpersonal data, with participant V21 saying:This

graphics and the [participant] names gives a social face tothe data, its not like looking at an impersonal statistics.

(In)visible Outliers

Visitors explicitly paid attention to outliers, patterns in the

data that visually stood out within the visualization. Forinstance, visitors frequently commented on particularlylong burst: This guy has definitely shot high! [V18].Others reflected on their personal consumption, for instance

by comparing it to a low value: I thought I am doing fine![...] But I want to see how this guy is achievingit! [pointing at a low burst] [V15]. We observed a similarfocus on outliers in the case of neighborhood averages. Avast majority of discussions were concerned with a

particularly high neighborhood average, for instance inthinking up its possible causes. People often discussed onthe relatively high average consumption of their ownneighborhoods, although they never attributed the cause totheir own behavior, but instead referred to external factorslike construction, infrastructure or city politics: [...] Ofcourse, houses here are not so well isolated [...] Theycannot be very energy-efficient, [V16]; Here most of thehouses are very old, there is no central heating installed[V13]; [...] There is a lack of general energy awareness,this issue is not really a topic in this neighborhood. [V14].

We observed that this emergent comparison ofneighborhood consumptions triggered critical thoughts,even for neighborhoods which were not even represented inthe visualization. For instance, in 11 of the 18 interviews atlocation A, participants noticed out loud that a certainneighborhood was not included - an economicallydisadvantaged region with a high unemployment rate and

where energy bills are subsidized by the government. Theseparticipants argued that people from those regions were thehighest consumers of electricity in the city. Their commentswere often motivated by preconceived ideas, such as theyhave the whole day the TV on [since they are notworking]. [V2], or they steal electricity, so nobody

pays.[V5].

Comparative Understanding

We also analyzed the usability and understandability of theprojected sunburst visualization. First, we assessed howpeople understood comparative information about 1) theirown energy consumption and 2) the consumption of theirneighborhood, conducting a questionnaire test at location C.As a measure of comparative understanding, we calculatedthe difference between the reported individual consumption

(Fig. 2.A) of the test participant and the current average ofher neighborhoods consumption (Fig. 2.B). Theneighborhood average in the moment of participation wascalculated using the data from the participation logs. A non-

parametric Spearman rank test revealed a highly significantcorrelation between this difference and the post-response ofthe questionnaire (!=0.8142, p.01. This suggests thatthe visualization could not accurately transmit information

about participants neighborhood average, compared to thecity-wide statistics. This poor performance could be due tothe visualization techniques we used. The distinction

between participants individual consumption and herneighborhood average is supported by several visualfeatures (color, shape, size). In contrast, neighborhood andcity-wide statistics have a similar graphical representationand can be distinguished only by color, which can becomedifficult to differentiate in the uncontrolled setting of a

public projection.

The analysis of the questionnaire test data shows thatapproximately 70% of the test participants, who consumedless than their neighborhood average (10 out of 14)

assessed accurately that they are below the average. Incontrast, only 30% of the participants who consumed morethan their neighborhood average (5 out of 16) reported thatthey consumed more. This result indicates that participantstend to interpret their own comparative data differently forthe different visual extremes. There may be social factorswhich influence these different interpretations in a social

public setting: high-consumers would feel embarrassed andtend to reject their high consumption, whereas lowconsumers would acknowledge their positive behavior.

DISCUSSION

While data visualization displays have been studied insemi-public and public settings [22, 44, 45, 46], they havenot yet been examined in terms of their potential impact oninfluencing the awareness, discussions, attitudes or opinionsof citizens.

Data Comparisons in Social Settings

Our results confirmed the ability of public visualization toconvey socially motivated, data-driven information andconsecutively inspire both individual reflection and socialdebate on the underlying topic. Our analysis furtheruncovered following implications in regard to peoplessensitivity to displaying visualizations in a public settings.


3467


8/10

Playful Comparisons. The public comparison of normallyprivate information did not cause significant privacyconcerns, similar to what was reported in [45]. On thecontrary, 93% (N=184), of the visitors who directly

participated in the visualization provided a name, whichwas often a quite long and playful pseudonym. Theseresults suggest that visitors seemed to perceive the publicvisualization as a harmless social experience. While the

potential of play has been recently discussed in the contextof participatory urban sensing [28], our results encouragefurther exploration of playful data dissemination andcomparisons by way of public visualizations. The ability tocompare data values, enhanced by a playful visual designand the explicit personalization of participants data can

particularly support group exploration of the data, andconsecutively lead to friendly competition and mutualnudging.

Interpretation of Comparisons. Both high and low outliers ofothers were singled out and discussed, the latter causingcuriosity on how they have done it. People were able toself-reflect based on what they perceived on the

visualization. When asked where they stood, higherconsumers tended to negate their negative behavior,assessing their consumption as lower-than or about-the-average; lower consumers however, assessed theirindividual consumption more accurately. People alsointerpreted the apparent averages of their own communitiesin the context of external factors. Research in psychologyhas demonstrated that people would try to recognizethemselves, and subsequently report about their result more

positively than in reality, especially when social comparisonis involved [15]. Public visualization researchers shouldthus be aware of subjectively different interpretations of

personal data versus the data of others, when designing aswell as evaluating public, user-driven visualizations in a

social context. It is still an open question whether suchsystems actually succeed in questioning or reinterpreting, or

just affirming the self-image of participants.

Participation Scalability and Visual Complexity

Reveal-it! was designed as a scalable visualization, wherean arbitrary number of visitors are able to submit their

personal data. In terms of public participation, ourobservations and activity logs showed that an average ofmore that 70% of the visitors who intentionally approachedthe visualization (N=309), entered their own energy billestimations. However, the specific characteristics of thesunburst visualization technique increases the complexityand density of the graphical representation the more peopleadd data values (and thus increasing and narrowing theindividual bursts). While the analysis of the questionnairetest showed a very good performance in participantsunderstanding of individual comparative data (!=0.8142, p-value


9/10

data, or to discover the ideal values. Participants whoseemed more knowledgeable on energy issues wereconcerned that the visualization did not capture water orcarbon footprint and even meat consumption, some of them

proposing to provide us with a better or the right data.Therefore, a public visualization should ideally balance theissues of sufficient information capacity and intuitive visualunderstanding, while still allowing for parallel interaction

styles, from an at-a-glance overview to more explorativestrategies that allow a deeper sense-making. In addition,

public visualization designers should consider that thisissue not only relates to aesthetic preferences, but also tothe expertise and background of the onlookers and theirinterest or motivation on the underlying topic.

Unfolding Engagement

Previous research has pointed out that the diversity ofsituations in the public sphere may pose challenges in urbandisplay design [9]. We showed specifically how theopportunistic engagement promoted by public visualizationis influenced by the types [30] and variety of situationalcontexts. For instance, people engage with public

visualizations easier in situations such as idling, dwelling,waiting or gathering, in contrast to short-lived situationssuch as arriving, departing or passing-by. In addition, ourfindings suggest that engagement with the visualizationinvolves certain dynamics that tend to unfold over time.While it is well known that prominent visibility [22] and

presence of others [6] attracts attention and evokes initialcuriosity to public displays, we discovered that the actualengagement with an underlying topic involves a temporalflow, namely first to realize that the display is avisualization, then to understand what the visualization isabout, and finally, how to relate to the presentedinformation.

Moral Aspects

Research has highlighted the existence of moral aspects ofthe public, collective experience of online social media[13]. Observations from our study underline someimportant moral aspects of how visualization of sociallyrelevant data is collectively interpreted in the public sphere.For instance, specifically high neighborhood consumptionswere often attributed to issues related to local urban politicsor infrastructure, while economically or socially deprivedneighborhoods were publicly discussed as governmentallysupported outliers. While these observations confirm the

potential of public visualization as a catalyst of criticaldebate on civic topics, it also calls for awareness ofunexpected (and potentially unwanted) group dynamics thatmay unfold and might even enforce negative social effects,such as stigma. For instance, people or neighborhoods who

intentionally or not do not take part in the visualizationmight still be affected due to this uncontrolled socialdiscussion and reflection. This phenomenon implies severalimplicit responsibilities when designing a publicvisualization such as its inevitable use as a subjectivelyinterpretive and seemingly data-driven, thus accurate,artifact.

CONCLUSION

We investigated a public visualization of crowd-sourced,self-reported energy expenditure as an approach forencouraging awareness and opportunistic discourse on thesocially relevant issue of energy consumption. Our in-the-wild deployments in three distinct informal public settingsempowered citizens across locations to reflect on their ownas well as their communal energy consumption issues. We

leveraged our findings to propose social and opportunisticdata comparisons as essential to raising awareness and

provoking discussion. Our results should encourage futurecase studies that address the public and visualcommunication of data as a catalyst for increasing civicawareness. For instance, other urban issues such as air

pollution, council expenditures or traffic can benefit fromsuch social visualizations to open up and contextualize therelevant data in the public sphere. In addition, suchvisualizations could allow opportunistic data entry toencourage voluntary, grass-roots data collection andcommunication among urban stakeholders for social and

political purposes, such as public opinion, census and alike.

We also observed several challenges involved in integratingsocially motivated data visualizations into the publiccontext. While the use of abstract aggregate visualizationtechniques can evoke curiosity and support comparisonsamong arbitrary individuals and groups, it may impact theaccuracy of understanding and the perception of trust.However, the explicit expectation to submit openly onesown data may induce feelings of embarrassment, whichmay ultimately lead to false data entries and negating thetruthfulness of the display. Lastly, our work highlights thechallenges of crafting study methods in-the-wild that areable to capture the subtleness of integrating technologicalmeans such as visualization projections to encourage anunpredictable, public discourse. Some of the most salient

are the discrepancy in self-reflection and the unfoldingtemporal dimension of engagement with the visualizationdisplay.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSWe would like to thank Medialab Prado, Centro Cultural Espaa Crdobaand both the community centers La Bareloneta and Sant Marti, Barcelonafor making this study possible. Special thanks to Juan Pablo Carrascal,Guillermo Maln, Penelope Maldonado, Uta Hinrichs, Martin Inderbitzin,Sytse Wierenga, Andrea Rosales, Ernesto Arroyo, Rodrigo Oliveira andSebastian Mealla.

REFERENCES1. Ananny, M. and Strohecker, C. TexTales: Creating Interactive Forums

with Urban Publics. In Foth, M. ed.Handbook of Research on UrbanInformatics: The Practice and Promise of the Real-Time City, IGIGlobal, Hershey, PA, 2009.

2. Backlund, S., Gustafsson, A., Gyllenswrd, M., Ilstedt- Hjelm, S., Maz,R. and Redstrm, J. Static! The Aesthetics of Energy in EverydayThings. InProc. DRS 2006.

3. Blomberg, J., Giacomi, J., Mosher, A. and Swenton-Wall, P.Participatory Design-Principles and Practices. Ch. Ethnographic FieldMethods and Their Relation to Design, Lawrence Erlbaum, 123155.

4. Bodker, S. When Second Wave HCI Meets Third Wave Challenges. InProc. NordiCHI 2006, 1-8.

5. Breinbjerg, M., Riis, M. S., Ebsen, T., and Lunding, R. Experiencing theNon-sensuous.In Proc. NordiCHI 2010, 611614.


3469


10/10

6. Brignull, H. and Rogers, Y. Enticing People to Interact with LargePublic Displays in Public Spaces. InProc. INTERACT 2003, 17-24.

7. Broms, L., Katzeff, C., B!ng, Magnus, M., Nyblom, S., Hjelm, S., andEhrnberger, K. Coffee Maker Patterns and the Design of EnergyFeedback Artefacts. InProc. DIS 2010, 93-102.

8. Churchill, E. F., Nelson, L., Denoue, L. and Girgensohn, A. The PlasmaPoster Network: Posting Multimedia Content in Public Places. In Proc.of INTERACT 2003, 599-606.

9. Dalsgaard, P., and Halskov, K. Designing Urban Media Faades : Cases

and Challenges. InProc. CHI 2010, 2277-2286.10. Dalsgaard, P., Nielsen, R. and Halskov, K.: Towards a Design Space

Explorer for Media Facades. InProc.OZCHI 2008, 219-226.

11. Danis, C., Viegas, F., Wattenberg, M. and Kriss, J. Your Place orMine?: Visualization as a Community Component. InProc. CHI 2008,275-284.

12. Donath, J., Karahalios, K. and Viegas, F. Visualizing conversations.

Computer!Mediated Communication4, 4 (1998).

13. Dourish, P. and Christine, S. The Moral Economy of Social Media. InFoth, M., Forlano, L., Satchell, C. and Gibbs, M. (Eds.)From Social

Butterfly to Engaged Citizen: Urban Informatics, Social Media,Ubiquitous Computing, and Mobile Technology to Support Citizen

Engagement(2011), MIT Press, 21-37.

14. Fatah Gen. Schieck, A., Briones, C. and Mottram, C. The Urban Screenas a Socializing Platform: Exploring the Role of Place within the UrbanSpace. In F. Eckardt, J. Geelhaar, L. Colini, K.S. Willis, K.

Chorianopoulos and R. Hennig (Eds.) MediaCity: Situations, Practicesand Encounters (2008), Frank & Timme GmbH, 285-305.

15. Festinger, L. A Theory of Social Comparison Processes. InHumanRelations7, 2 (1954), 117-140.

16. Fritsch, J. and Brynskov, M. Between Engagement, Affect andInformation - Experimental Urban Media in the Climate ChangeDebate. In Foth, M., Forlano, L., Gibbs, M., & Satchell, C. (Eds.).

From Social Butterfly to Engaged Citizen: Urban Informatics, SocialMedia, Ubiquitous Computing, and Mobile Technology to SupportCitizen Engagement (2011), MIT Press, 115-135.

17. Gilbert, E. and Karahalios, K. Using social visualization to motivatesocial production. InIEEE Transactions on Multimedia - Special

section on communities and media computing 11, 3 (2009), 413-421.

18. Grasso, A., Muehlenbrock, M., Roulland, F., and Snowdon, D. Publicand Situated Displays: Social and Interactional Aspects of SharedDisplay Technologies, Ch. 11: Supporting Communities of Practice

with Large Screen Displays (2003), Springer, 261282.19. Greenfield, A., Shepard, M.: Urban Computing and Its Discontents.

The Architectural League of New York, New York (2007).

20. Harrison, S. and Dourish, P. Re-place-ing Space: the Roles of Placeand Space in Collaborative Systems. InProc. CSCW 1996, 67-76.

21. He, H., Greenberg, S. and Huang, E. One Size Does Not Fit All:Applying the Transtheoretical Model to Energy Feedback TechnologyDesign. InProc. CHI 2010, 927-936.

22. Hinrichs, U., Schmidt, H., and Carpendale, S EMDialog: BringingInformation Visualization into the Museum.IEEE Transactions onVisualization and Computer Graphics14, 6 (2008), 11811189.

23. Hinrichs, U., Valkanova, N., Kuikkaniemi, K., Jacucci, G.,Carpendale,S. and Arroyo, E. Large Displays in Urban Life. FromExhibition Halls to Media Facades.Ext. Abstracts CHI 2011,2433-2436.

24. Holmes, T. Eco-Visualization: Combining Art and Technology toReduce Energy Consumption. InProc. C&C 2007, 153-162.

25. Jancke, G. Venolia, G., Grudin, J., Cadiz, J. and Gupta. J. LinkingPublic Spaces: Technical and Social Issues. InProc. CHI 2001,530-537.

26. Kim, T., Hong, H. and Magerko, B., Design Requirements for AmbientDisplay that Supports Sustainable Lifestyle. In.Proc. DIS 2010,103-112.

27. Kuznetsov, S. and Paulos, E. Participatory Sensing in Public Spaces:Activating Urban Surfaces with Sensor Probes. InProc. DIS 2010,21-30.

28. Kuznetsov, S., Davis, G. N., Paulos, E., Gross, M. D., and Cheung, J.C. Red Balloon, Green Balloon, Sensors in the Sky. In Proc. UbiComp2011, 237-246.

29. McCarthy, F. Public and Situated Displays: Social and InteractionalAspects of Shared Display Technologies, Ch. 12: Promoting a Sense ofCommunity with Ubiquitous Peripheral displays (2003), Springer, 283308.

30. McCullough, M. On Typologies of Situated Interaction.Human-Computer Interaction 16, 2-4 (2001), 336-349.

31. Mller, J., Alt, F., Michelis, D. and Schmidt, A. Requirements anddesign space for interactive public displays. InProc. MM 2010,1285-1294.

32. Nuage Vert. http://www.pixelache.ac/nuage-blog/. Visited Sept., 2012

33. Pierce, J., Schiano, D. and Paulos, E. Home, Habits, and Energy:Examining Domestic Interactions and Energy Consumption. InProc.CHI 2010, 1985-1994.

34. Pousman, Z., and Stasko, J. A Taxonomy of Ambient InformationSystems": Four Patterns of Design.In Proc. AVI 2006, 6774.

35. Redstrom, J., Skog, T., and Hallanas, L. Informative Art: UsingAmplified Artworks as Information Displays. InProc. DARE 2000,103-114.

36. Roberts, S., Humphries, H., Hyldon, V.: Consumer Preferences forImproving Energy Consumption Feedback. Report to Ofgem, Centrefor Sustainable Energy (2004).

37. Rodgers, J., and Bartram, L. Exploring Ambient and ArtisticVisualization for Residential Energy Use Feedback. InProc. INFOVIS2011, 2489-2497.

38. Schroeter, R., Foth, M. and Satchell, C. People, Content, Location:Sweet Spotting Urban Screens for Situated Engagement. InProc. DIS2012, 146-155.

39. Skog, T., Ljungblad, S. and Holmquist, L.E. Between Aesthetics andUtility: Designing Ambient Information Visualizations. InProc.

INFOVIS 2003, 233-240.

40. Stasko, J. SunBurst Project. http://www.cc.gatech.edu/gvu/ii/sunburst/(2000). Visited Sept. 2012.

41. Struppek, M. The Social Potential of Urban Screens. InJournal forVisual Communication5, 2 (2007), 173-188.

42. Townsend, A., Maguire, R., Liebhold, M. and Crawford, M. The Futureof Cities, Information, and Inclusion. Report for the RockefellerFoundation Institute of the Future. Available athttp://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/news/publications/future-cities-information-inclusion

43.Valkanova, N., Arroyo, E. Blat, J. The Visitors: Designing MediaFaades to Support Links Between People and Places. InProc. IASDR2011.

44. Valkanova, N., Moghnieh, A., Arroyo, E., and Blat, J. AmbientNEWS:Augmenting Information Discovery in Complex Settings throughAesthetic Design. InProc. IV 2010, 439444.

45. Vande Moere, A., Tomitsch, M., Hoinkis, M., Trefz, E., Johansen, S.,and Jones, A. Comparative Feedback in the Street: ExposingResidential Energy Consumption on House Facades. InProc.

INTERACT 2011, 470-488.

46. Vigas, F., Perry, E. Howe, E. Donath, J. Artifacts of the Presence Era:Using Information Visualization to Create an Evocative Souvenir. In

Proc. INFOVIS 2004, 105-111.

47. Visualizar11: Understanding Infrastructures (2011). http://medialab-

prado.es/article/visualizar11_taller_seminario.48. Vogel, D. and Balakrishnan, R. Interactive Public Ambient Displays:

Transitioning from Implicit to Explicit, Public to Personal, Interactionwith Multiple Users. InProc. UIST 2004, 137-146.

49. Ware, C. Visual Thinking for Design. In Morgan Kaufmann Series inInteractive Technologies, 2008.

50. Watermarks Project. http://watermarksproject.org/project.html . VisitedSept. 2012.

51. Wattenberg, M. Babynames, Visualization, and Social Data Analysis.InProc. INFOVIS 2005, 17.


3470
http://www.pixelache.ac/nuage-blog/http://www.cc.gatech.edu/gvu/ii/sunburst/http://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/news/publications/future-cities-information-inclusionhttp://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/news/publications/future-cities-information-inclusionhttp://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/news/publications/future-cities-information-inclusionhttp://medialab-prado.es/article/visualizar11_taller_seminariohttp://medialab-prado.es/article/visualizar11_taller_seminariohttp://watermarksproject.org/project.htmlhttp://watermarksproject.org/project.htmlhttp://watermarksproject.org/project.htmlhttp://medialab-prado.es/article/visualizar11_taller_seminariohttp://medialab-prado.es/article/visualizar11_taller_seminariohttp://medialab-prado.es/article/visualizar11_taller_seminariohttp://medialab-prado.es/article/visualizar11_taller_seminariohttp://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/news/publications/future-cities-information-inclusionhttp://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/news/publications/future-cities-information-inclusionhttp://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/news/publications/future-cities-information-inclusionhttp://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/news/publications/future-cities-information-inclusionhttp://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/news/publications/future-cities-information-inclusionhttp://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/news/publications/future-cities-information-inclusionhttp://www.cc.gatech.edu/gvu/ii/sunburst/http://www.cc.gatech.edu/gvu/ii/sunburst/http://www.pixelache.ac/nuage-blog/http://www.pixelache.ac/nuage-blog/

Documents

Reveal-It!- The Impact of a Social Visualization Projection