Metrics and Benchmarks for Visualization

Abstract

What is a "good" visualization? How can the quality of a visualization be measured? How can one tell whether one visualization is "better" than another? I claim that the true quality of a visualization can only be measured in the context of a particular purpose. The same image generated from the same data may be excellent for one purpose and abysmal for another. A good measure of visualization quality will correspond to the performance of users in accomplishing the intended purpose, so the "gold standard" is user testing. As a user of visualization software (or at least a consultant to such users) I don't expect visualization software to have been tested in this way for every possible use. In fact, scientific visualization (as distinct from more "production oriented" uses of visualization) will continually encounter new data, new questions and new purposes; user testing can never keep up. User need software they can trust, and advice on appropriate visualizations of particular purposes. Considering the following four processes, and their impact on visualization trustworthiness, reveals important work needed to create worthwhile metrics and benchmarks for visualization. These four processes are (1) complete system testing (user-in-loop), (2) software testing, (3) software design and (4) information dissemination. Additional information is contained in the original extended abstract.