This is the second part of my highlights from EuroVis earlier this year in Porto, Portugal. There are papers about decision making and interaction, as well as a report on the capstone talk and a look to next year’s conference, which will be a bit different.
The EuroVis 2019 conference took place in early June this year in Porto, Portugal. While I enjoyed the city and conference venue, I found the program a bit underwhelming this time around. I’ve kept pushing off writing this report because I found myself griping rather than talking about the content.
I see a lot of discussions of misleading charts lately, and there are certainly many of them out there. One distinction that isn’t always made, but that I feel is important, is whether the chart itself is poorly designed, or whether an otherwise correct chart is taken to mean something it does not. It’s an important difference that often gets glossed over.
You may not be aware that we’re organizing the Visualization for Communication (VisComm) workshop at VIS again this year. That’s why we’ve decided to push back the deadline to July 15, so you can submit all your amazing research papers, position papers, posters, and visual case studies.
Why do pie charts look the way they do? What makes this particular way of slicing up a circle the preferred way of showing part-to-whole relationships? In two short papers that I’m presenting this week at EuroVis, I looked at the design space of circular part-to-whole charts, including pie charts.
Criticizing visualizations is a cottage industry of sorts, and an activity I have indulged in in the past as well. Redesigning those charts is also not uncommon, though it's usually other people's charts, and that isn't always welcome. Sarah Leo of The Economist has redesigned some of the charts made by that publication, and not only do her redesigns work better, her thoughts around some of the design issues are also very insightful.
I'm one of the organizers of the new TrustVis Workshop at EuroVis this year. We haven't done a good publicizing its existence, so here is a reminder and a deadline extension: submit your papers on trust in visualization until April 5!
I'm not generally a fan of year-end lists, but they do provide a great way to see many fantastic pieces of work in one place. And if a simple list already does that, what might a list of lists do? Check out Maarten Lambrecht's List of 2018 Visualization Lists to find out!
While activity on this site has been a bit slow this year, I’ve helped start a new group blog focused on visualization research, called Multiple Views.
The Tapestry 2018 program is complete, including the three keynotes and eight newly-added short stories. We are now looking for proposals for demos and will send out a call for PechaKucha-style talks to attendees soon, too.