Data Visualisation and Information Design are increasingly employed in print, broadcast and web media to convey complex ideas or bring simple ones to life. The tools for maps, infographics and visualisations are becoming cheaper and easier to use, and the range of approaches is diversifying. At the same time, data of all kinds is becoming more accessible, whether on research funding (through the Gateways to Research platform), Open Government Data, or the results of individual research projects – as Open Access initiatives to make sharing scientific data a key element of journal publications. We will cover basic ideas and examples of visualisation for newcomers, how visualisation exists as part of wider engagement goals and include a more critical discussion about what visualisation needs to do in order to be a meaningful mechanism for engagement and participation. Speakers: Andrew Steele (Cancer Research UK), Artemis Skarlatidou (UCL), Damien George, (University of Cambridge), Martin Austwick (UCL)

1. Data Visualisation for Public
Engagement
Damien George, Andrew Steele, Artemis Skarlatidou
Chair: Martin Zaltz Austwick 1

2. Data Visualisation for Public
Engagement
Martin Zaltz Austwick, Course Director
MRes Advanced Spatial Analysis and Visualisation
CASA, Bartlett Faculty of the Built Environment, UCL 2

3. Damien George
Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge
paperscape.org
thecmb.org
3

4. The Scienceogram
Making sense of science spending
scienceogram.org
@scienceogram
Andrew Steele

5. social protection
£3900
healthcare
£1900
education
£1000
defence
£700
other
£3500
research
£160
£695bn
government spend
£11,000
per person
63m
population
=

6. causes
of death
research spend
per person per year
cancer
30%
£4.30
stroke
10%
heart disease
15%
28p £1.30

8. Nuclear fusion
• Hasn’t that been 30 years
away for the last 30 years?
• Hasn’t that been 50 years
away for the last 50 years?
• Hasn’t that been 30 years
away for the last 50 years?

9. £60bn
develop fusion
1.1bn
population of
high-income countries
£50
per person
=

10. Blue-skies
research

11. fusion (projected)
£60,000,000,000
iPhone revenue
£123,000,000,000
iPhone profit
£65,000,000,000
LHC
£2,600,000,000
Crossrail
£14,800,000,000

12. fusion (projected)
£60,000,000,000
iPhone revenue
£123,000,000,000
iPhone profit
£65,000,000,000
LHC
£2,600,000,000
Crossrail
£14,800,000,000

13. energy
£10
cancer
£5
heart disease
£1
stroke
28p
alcohol
loo roll
£17
weddings
£160
£600

14. Put data in context
 Meaningful figures
 Meaningful categories
 Meaningful comparisons
scienceogram.org
@scienceogram

15. The Scienceogram
Making sense of science spending
scienceogram.org
@scienceogram
Andrew Steele
andrewsteele.co.uk
@statto
Tom Fuller

16. trust
User Issues: spatial visualisations for public
engagement
Dr Artemis Skarlatidou
Extreme Citizen Science Group
www.ucl.ac.uk/excites
a.skarlatidou@ucl.ac.uk
Science Communication | Data Visualisation | 1 May 2014

17. Public Engagement and Spatial Visualisations
• “Almost everything that happens, happens somewhere…” (Longley, 2005)
• From cave drawings of spatial representations to online maps that are
used by almost everyone (with internet access) and everywhere..!
• Human spatial ability?
– People trust (i.e. rely on) maps more than their spatial cognition and ability to navigate
and
– People trust maps more than other types of data visualisation despite the fact that all
maps lie (Monmonier, 1996)
• PPGIS studies claim that “cultivate a stronger sense of commitment,
increase user satisfaction, create realistic expectations of outcomes and
build trust” (Al-Kodmany, 1999); allow for integration of indigenous
knowledge with expert data (Dunn, 2007)...

18. Engaging the public using maps (provision of
information)

19. Engaging the public using maps (contribution and
analysis of information)

20. Engaging the public using maps (analysing information –
make and submit decision)

21. But what about the users?
• Is it easy to use?
• Is it trustworthy?
• Is it useful?
• Do people understand it? Do they like it?
• ….does it meet its purpose?
• Other user issues such as: Public familiarity and
expertise in spatial data handling and analysis etc?

22. • Public engagement to:
– improve transparency and build trust
– understand the problem and resolve NIMBY-type conflicts and
potentially find a solution
– very limited public knowledge of nuclear & nuclear waste
disposal issues… improve public understanding
The Nuclear Waste Disposal example

24. [Improving public understanding]
• Content – Risk Communication & Mental Models and HCI
testing

25. Improving Trust / Helping people develop rational
trust perceptions
• Trust Design – Trustee attributes
– Functional attributes (e.g. usability, aesthetics)
– Perceptual attributes (e.g. reputation of the source)
– trust cues (e.g. logos, pictures, videos, blogs)

26. [Trust Guidelines - 5 design dimensions]
User Interface
Map/ Spatial
Visualisation
component
Graphic Structure Content Functionality
Menu should
match popular
menu
visualisations.
Distinct colours
should be used
or shades of
blue if this not
possible.
Map larger than
388x589 pix.
Trust Cues
Provide a map
tutorial below the
map
Visible logos
from all pages
Provide a blog
….
Skarlatidou, A., Cheng, T. and Haklay, M.(2013) Guidelines for Trust Interface Design for
Public Engagement Web GIS, International Journal of GIScience, 257,8, pp. 1668-1687.

27. colours

28. colours

29. legend

30. map size

32. Different structure similar to
Health Physics Society on
Radioactive Waste Disposal
Website
structure
Mental models structure

33. Testing and extending the guidelines on other
contexts
• communicating clearly data generalisation issues
• Perceived usefulness … ? ?

34. Aesthetics
This is a Van Gogh!
…and this is a Matisse!!!
Fabrikant et al. (2012) Emotional response to map design aesthetics. In: GIScience 2012: Seventh International
Conference on Geographic Information Science, Columbus, Ohio, 18 September 2012 - 21 September 2012.

35. Thank you!!!
a.skarlatidou@ucl.ac.uk