The intersection of visualization and the humanities (VIS*H) is marked by a tension between chasing analytical "insight'' and interpretive "meaning.'' The effectiveness of visualization techniques hinges on established evaluation frameworks that assess both analytical utility and communicative efficacy, creating a potential mismatch with the non-positivist, interpretive aims of humanities scholarship. To examine how this tension manifests in practice, we systematically surveyed 171 VIS*H design studies to analyze their evaluation workflows and rigor according to standard practice. Our findings reveal recurring flaws, such as an over-reliance on monomethod approaches, and show that higher-quality evaluations emerge from workflows that effectively triangulate diverse evidence. From these findings, we derive recommendations to refine quality and validation criteria for humanities visualizations, and juxtapose them to ongoing critical debates in the field, ultimately arguing for a paradigm shift that can reconcile the advantages of established validation techniques with the interpretive depth required for humanistic inquiry.
Preparing an oral case presentation (OCP) is a crucial skill for medical students, requiring clear communication of patient information, clinical findings, and treatment plans. However, inconsistent student participation and limited guidance can make this task challenging. While Large Language Models (LLMs) can provide structured content to streamline the process, their role in facilitating skill development and supporting medical education integration remains underexplored. To address this, we conducted a formative study with six medical educators and developed CaseMaster, an interactive probe that leverages LLM-generated content tailored to medical education to help users enhance their OCP skills. The controlled study suggests CaseMaster has the potential to both improve presentation quality and reduce workload compared to traditional methods, an implication reinforced by expert feedback. We propose guidelines for educators to develop adaptive, user-centered training methods using LLMs, while considering the implications of integrating advanced technologies into medical education.
This paper presents a theoretical model for interactive visualization literacy to describe how people use interactive data visualizations and systems. Literacies have become an important concept in describing modern life skills, with visualization literacy generally referring to the use and interpretation of data visualizations. However, prior work on visualization literacy overlooks interaction and its associated challenges, despite it being an intrinsic aspect of using visualizations. Based on existing theoretical frameworks, we derive a two-dimensional model that combines four well-known literacies with five novel ones. We found evidence for our model through analyzing existing visualization systems as well as through observations from an exploratory study involving such systems. We conclude by outlining steps towards measuring, evaluating, designing for, and teaching interactive visualization literacy.
Conversational interfaces are increasingly used for data analysis, enabling data workers to express complex analytical intents in natural language. Yet, these interactions unfold as long, linear transcripts that are misaligned with the iterative, nonlinear nature of real-world analyses. Revisiting and summarizing conversations for different contexts is therefore challenging. This paper investigates how data workers navigate, make sense of, and communicate prior analytical conversations. To study behaviors beyond those supported by standard interfaces (i.e., scrolling and keyword search), we develop a design probe that supplements analytical conversations with structured elements and affordances (e.g., filtering, multi-level navigation and detail-on-demand). In a user study ($n = 10$), participants used the probe to navigate and communicate past analyses, fulfilling information needs (recall, reorient, prioritize) through navigation strategies (visual recall, sequential and abstractive) and summarization practices (adding process details and context). Based on these findings, we discuss design implications to support re-visitation and communication of analytical conversations.
Large language models (LLMs) have shown considerable potential in supporting medical diagnosis. However, their effective integration into clinical workflows is hindered by physicians' difficulties in perceiving and trusting LLM capabilities, which often results in miscalibrated trust. Existing model evaluations primarily emphasize standardized benchmarks and predefined tasks, offering limited insights into clinical reasoning practices. Moreover, research on human–AI collaboration has rarely examined physicians' perceptions of LLMs' clinical reasoning capability. In this work, we investigate how physicians perceive LLMs' capabilities in the clinical reasoning process. We designed clinical cases, collected the corresponding analyses, and obtained evaluations from physicians (N=37) to quantitatively represent their perceived LLM diagnostic capabilities. By comparing the perceived evaluations with benchmark performance, our study highlights the aspects of clinical reasoning that physicians value and underscores the limitations of benchmark-based evaluation. We further discuss the implications of opportunities for enhancing trustworthy collaboration between physicians and LLMs in LLM-supported clinical reasoning.
Visualization has matured into an established research field, producing widely adopted tools, design frameworks, and empirical foundations. As the field has grown, ideas from outside computer science have increasingly entered visualization discourse, questioning the fundamental values and assumptions on which visualization research stands. In this short position paper, we examine a set of values that we see underlying the seminal works of Jacques Bertin, John Tukey, Leland Wilkinson, Colin Ware, and Tamara Munzner. We articulate three prominent values in these texts — universality, objectivity, and efficiency — and examine how these values permeate visualization tools, curricula, and research practices. We situate these values within a broader set of critiques that call for more diverse priorities and viewpoints. By articulating these tensions, we call for our community to embrace a more pluralistic range of values to shape our future visualization tools and guidelines.
Decision-making in energy control rooms relies on visualising complex, dynamic networks through single-line diagrams (SLDs), yet the tasks these views support remain under-characterised. From a systematic review of 42 papers, we coded 202 tasks using Munzner’s WHY–WHAT–HOW framework and Lee et al.’s graph-task taxonomy. Analysis identified six task themes coalescing into five archetypes: topology exploration using shape/orientation; line-attribute comparison through size/alignment; temporal evolution via animation; alarm triage using colour/luminance; and overview synthesis through coordinated views. Assessment with 42 field tasks from real control room observations demonstrated that the archetypes show coverage, clean boundaries, and distinctive visual channels. Our findings reveal critical needs for semantic zoom, temporal continuity, and adaptive view coordination in control room design. Beyond infrastructure domains, this work highlights fundamental visualisation challenges in representing dynamic topologies, encoding multiple attributes in dense configurations, and managing attention across views. Further study should balance geographic reality with operational clarity.