InfoVis 2004 Contest
Your Title Here

Contest webpage:

Authors and Affiliations:

• Tom Jones, University of Maryland, Jones@cs.umd.edu
• Mary Pierce, University of Maryland, mary@cs.umd.edu

Tool(s):

(Replace this text by your text) In about 200 words maximum provide the name of the tool(s) you used, and describe where and when it was developed. Additional credit to developers of the tools can be provided here, and links to find more information on the tool.

TASK 1: Static Overview of 10 years of Infovis

• Process:
  Replace this with your text. Describe how you accomplished this task, e.g. analysis done, algorithms used, features used… NOTE: THE RESOLUTION OF THIS IMAGE CANNOT BE MORE THAN 1600x1200. If you do not address this task, just say "Not addressed".

• Image 1.1 :
  
• Insight:
  Replace this text with your text. In less that 200 words describe your image and what it tells us about the 10 years of Information Visualization (i.e. what you can learn from this image, not how it was produced).
• Caption for exhibit:
  Replace this text by your text. Provide about 50 words of text you would want to appear below the image should it figure be selected for the picture exhibit – you will have a chance to edit this later.
• Other Images (optional):
  
• Insight:
  IF you wish, you can submit multiple entries for this task which will be judged separately. UP TO 3 MAXIMUM. Just follow the same format of process, insights and caption for images 1.2 and 1.3.

TASK 2: Characterize the research areas and their evolution

• Process:
  Replace this with your text. Describe how you accomplished this task, e.g. analysis done, algorithms used, interface features used, user interaction features (refer to part of the video you submitted if needed), problems encountered and overcome, attempts, …. If you do not address this task, just say "Not addressed".
• Image 2.1:
  
• Insight 2.1:
  Replace this text with your text. Describe the interesting facts your visualization or its tool revealed, e.g. "there were three dominant topics A, B, C in 1985", and how users can see it e.g. "Each topic appears as a dot whose color is proportional to X and the blinking rate indicates XY, therefore the dominant topics stand out as the bright red flashy dots of figure 2.1, see also video clip #1. By doing blabla, users can animate the yearly view and see that nothing changed at all. To see the label of a topic users have to hit CTRL-T while pointing at the topic. Using the slider at the top right they can animate the yearly display over time, revealing that the topics have not changed a bit between 1985 and 2004, …

• Image 2.2:
  
• Insight 2.2:
  Blabla

• And so on:
  (provide as much information as you feel necessary). You may want to split your answer by subtask numbered 2.1, 2.2 etc., for example you can create a task named "Topics in 1985" and another task for "Changes over time". You can choose a particular research area to track, for example graphs/network visualization.

TASK 3: The people in InfoVis

Task 3.1: Where does a particular author/researcher fit within the research areas defined in task 2?

• Process:
  If you do not address this task, just say "Not addressed".

• Image 3.1.1:
  
• Insight:
  Blabla

• Image 3.1.2:
  
• Insight:
  Blabla

• etc. You can present your insights for one or several authors, but we suggest that you look at least at G. Robertson, so that we can compare results more easily.
  

Task 3.2: What, if any, are the relationships between two or more or all researchers?

• Process:
  
• Image 3.2.1:
  
• Insight:
  Blabla

• Image 3.2.2:
  
• Insight:
  
Blabla
• etc. You can choose any group that leads to interesting insights, but we suggest that you look at least at Robertson and Card, and all researchers, which might help us compare results more easily.
  

OTHER TASKS (optional)

You can address more tasks and report more insights if you wish. Just follow the same format as above.

COMMENTS (optional)

You can add here any other comments you have that could not be addressed in the form. Be brief, otherwise reviewers may not read those as carefully as the rest of your submission.

Web Accessibility