An empirical evaluation of 3D pie charts with individually extruded sectors in a geovisualization context
Open access
Date
2019Type
- Dataset
ETH Bibliography
yes
Altmetrics
Abstract
The CSV files contain response accuracy and response times from 177 participants who completed a survey on the comparison of 2D pie and bar charts in adjacent map frames vs. 3D pie charts in a single map frame. The files were used as source data for the statistical analysis. Please see details on materials, procedure, etc. in the corresponding article: https://doi.org/10.1177/1473871619896103 Show more
Permanent link
https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-b-000366850Contributors
Contact person: Schnürer, Raimund
Data collector: Ritzi, Martin
Project leader: Cöltekin, Arzu
Project member: Sieber, René
Publisher
ETH ZurichEdition / version
1.0Software
LamaPollDate collected
2016Date created
2016Subject
2D; 3D; Pie charts; Bar charts; Maps; Performance measurement; Visual complexity; LearningOrganisational unit
02648 - Inst. f. Kartografie und Geoinformation / Institute of Cartography&Geoinformation
Related publications and datasets
Is supplement to: http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11850/396494
Notes
The following abbreviations are used in the headers of the attached CSV files:
id = id of participant;
group = group the participant was assigned to (1 = Group A, 2 = Group B); s = response accuracy (0 = fail, 1 = success); t = response time (in seconds); t1, t2, t3, t4 = Task 1* (i.e., proportion), Task 2* (i.e., highest magnitude), Task 3 (i.e., combination), Task 4 (i.e., map-related); k1, k2, k3 = different maps (k1 = blank background, k2 = lines background, k3 = choropleth background); 2d, 3d = 2D pie and bar chart(s) in adjacent map frames, 3D pie chart(s) in single map frame; pie, bar = pie chart in single map frame, bar chart in single map frame; t4a, t4b, t4c = different questions in Task 4;
* the first two tasks have been swapped in the article (see its URL in the abstract)More
Show all metadata
ETH Bibliography
yes
Altmetrics