1. An Overview of Parliamentary
Information Visualization (PIV)
Initiatives:
Assessing their Completeness
and
Contribution to Parliamentary Openness
Aspasia Papaloi
PhD Candidate, Laboratory of New Technologies in Communication, Education and
the Mass Media, Faculty of Communication and Media Studies, University of
Athens, Greece, apapaloi@media.uoa.gr
Dimitris Gouscos
Assistant Professor, Laboratory of New Technologies in Communication, Education
and the Mass Media, Faculty of Communication and Media Studies, University of
Athens, Greece, gouscos@media.uoa.gr

2. Major points & Methodology
Part I
1. Aggregation of 19 PIV initiatives
2. Identification of project scale (European, national, federal, regional)
3. Adaptation based on 4 areas of concern of Parliamentary Informatics (PI)
(individual legislators; particular legislative proposals; votes; text of
legislation)
4. Outcomes: most common visualized parliamentary information and
visualization methods
Part II
1. Setting criteria for PIV completeness
2. Best practices of PIV completeness
3. Overall evaluation of the PIV initiatives and contribution to Parliamentary
Openness

3. Limitations
In terms of the authors:
• Subjective point of view as users
• Language barriers in understanding,
interpreting or further exploring some
visualizations and metadata
In terms of the enablers:
• Not 100% verified information
• Difficulty in acquiring parliamentary data
(via scrapping)

5. European scale projects

7. Findings-Part I:
• Complexity of parliamentary function
• Wide range of combination possibilities between
parliamentary information and visualization methods
• Variety of visualization methods for each area of concern on PI
• Most common visualization methods:
bar charts, pie charts, line charts, data maps, tree maps, timelines,
scatterplots, tables, word clouds
• Most common visualized parliamentary information:
Information about individual legislators (characteristics, personal
data, attendance, activity, performance etc.)

8. Setting criteria for PIV completeness
(according to Dörk, M., Feng, P., Collins, C. & Carpendale, S. (2013))
• Connection
Connect and engage viewers via maps, shaping of visualizations etc.
• Disclosure
Designer aspirations on visualization effects via ability to exchange views with
enablers, via background information etc.
• Plurality
Presentation of multiple aspects & variety of interpretations
• Contingency
Flexible visualizations leading to further exploration
• Empowerment
Interaction among users, use of information both in digital and physical
context, switch from awareness to civic engagement

9. Findings-Part II:
• Maps recommended on projects with federal system
• Visualization shaping=Self-exploration & further insights
• Pros and cons for multiple aspects and variety
of interpretations
• Data sets with too much information: detailed analysis and
background information
• Interdependence between disclosure and contingency:
occasionally lack of further exploration without the provision of
background information

10. 1. Connecting with maps:
recommended for projects with federal system
(Source: http://www.nossenateurs.fr/)

11. 2.Visualization shaping:
self exploration & feeling of further insights
(Source: http://capitolwords.org/?terma=war&termb=peace)

12. 3. Large data sets providing multiple aspects & variety of
interpretations:
necessity on detailed analysis and background information
(http://parltrack.euwiki.org/dossiers)

13. 4. Interdependence between Disclosure & Contingency:
methodology provision enables further exploration
(Source: https://www.govtrack.us/)

14. Best practices of PIV completeness
French National Assembly (‘Nos Députés’)
French Senate (‘Nos Sénateurs’)
Italian Chamber of Deputies (Open Parlamento)
European Parliament (VoteWatch Europe)

15. Connection and contribution
of PIV initiatives to
Parliamentary Openness
Provision of information on MPs assets, votes,
performance etc.
Provision of information as complete as possible
(stating limitations)
Time of data updating
Manner of data updating

16. Continuous effort…
• Teams acquainted with the legislative procedure
• User-centric design
• Guidance and explanation to the user on the
selected method, use and expected outcomes
• Provision of both traditional and contemporary
means of information sharing
• User motivation for further engagement
offline and online

17. Thank you!
Questions and Comments?

18. ACCOMPANYING SLIDES

19. Nos Députés
http://www.nosdeputes.fr/

24. Open Parlamento
http://parlamento17.openpolis.it/

29. VoteWatch Europe
http://www.votewatch.eu/

31. Methodology section