Graph folding: Extending detail and context viewing into a tool for subgraph comparisons

  • M. Sheelagh
  • T. Carpendale
  • David J. Cowperthwaite
  • F. David Fracchia
  • Thomas Shermer
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1027)

Abstract

It is a difficult problem to display large, complex graphs in a manner which furthers comprehension. A useful approach is to expand selected sections (foci) of the graph revealing details of subgraphs. If this expansion is maintained within the context of the entire graph, information is provided about how subgraphs are embedded in the overall structure. Often it is also desirable to realign these foci in order to facilitate the visual comparison of subgraphs. We have introduced a distortion-based viewing tool, three-dimensional pliable surface (3DPS) [1], which allows for multiple arbitrarily-shaped foci on a surface that can be manipulated by the viewer to control the level of detail contained within each region. This paper extends 3DPS to include the repositioning of foci so as to bring together spatially separated regions for the purpose of comparison while retaining the effect of detail in context viewing. The significance of this approach is that it utilizes precognitive perceptual cues about the three-dimensional surface to make the distortions comprehensible, and allows the user to interactively control the location, shape, and extent of the distortion in very large graphs.

Keywords

distortion viewing graph layout 3D interactions information visualization interface design 

References

  1. 1.
    M. S. T. Carpendale, D. J. Cowperthwaite, and F. D. Fracchia. 3-dimensional pliable surfaces: For effective presentation of visual information. In toappear: UIST: Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, 1995.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    B. D. Fisher and Z. W. Pylyshyn. The cognitive architecture of bimodal event perception: A commentary and addendum to Radeau. Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive/Current Psychology of Cognition, 13(1):92–96, Feb. 1994.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    G. W. Furnas. Generalized fisheye views. In Human Factors in Computing Systems: CHI'86 Conference Proceedings, pages 16–23, 1986.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    N. Goodman. Languages of Art; An Approach to a Theory of Symbols. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1968.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. Himsolt. GraphEd: A graphical platform for the implementation of graph algorithms. In Graph Drawing, DIMACS International Workshop, Proceedings, pages 182–193, 1994.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    K. Kaugers, J. Reinfelds, and A. Brazma. A simple algorithm for drawing large graphs on small screens. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science: Graph Drawing, pages 278–282, 1995.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    D. A. Kleffner and V. S. Ramachandran. On the perception of shape from shading. In Perception and Psychophysics, 52(1):18–36, 1992.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. Lamping and R. Rao. Laying out and visualizing large trees using a hyperbolic space. In UIST: Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pages 13–14, 1994.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. D. Mackinlay, G. G. Robertson, and S. K. Card. The perspective wall: Detail and context smoothly integrated. In CHI'91 Conference Proceedings, pages 173–180, 1991.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    D. W. Massaro. Speech perception by ear and eye: a paradigm for psychological inquiry. Hillsdale, N.J., Erlbaum Associates, 1987.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    D. W. Massaro. Attention and perception: An information integration perspective. Special Issue: Action, attention and automaticity. / (In Acta Psychologica), 60(2–3):211–243, Dec. 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    K. Misue and K. Sugiyama. Multi-viewpoint perspective display methods: Formulation and application to compound digraphs. In Human Aspects in Computing: design and Use of Interactive Systems and Information Management, pages 834–838. Elsevier Science Publishers, 1991.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    E. G. Noik. Layout-independent fisheye views of nested graphs. In Proceedings of the 1993 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages, pages 336–341, 1993.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    E. G. Noik. A space of presentation emphasis techniques for visualizing graphs. In Graphics Interface '94, pages 225–233, 1994.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    V. S. Ramachandran. Perception of shape from shading. Nature, 331(14):163–166, 1988.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    G. Robertson and J. D. Mackinlay. The document lens. In UIST: Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pages 101–108, 1993.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    M. Sarkar and M. H. Brown. Graphical fisheye views. Communications of the ACM, 37(12):73–84, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    M. Sarkar, S. Snibbe, O. J. Tversky, and S. P. Reiss. Stretching the rubber sheet: A metaphor for viewing large layouts on small screens. In UIST: Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pages 81–91, 1993.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    E. Tufte. Envisioning Information. Cheshire, Connecticut: Graphics Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    C. Ware. The foundations of experimental semiotics: a theory of sensory and conventional representation. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, 4:91–100, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Sheelagh
    • 1
  • T. Carpendale
    • 1
  • David J. Cowperthwaite
    • 1
  • F. David Fracchia
    • 1
  • Thomas Shermer
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computing ScienceSimon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada

Personalised recommendations