arXiv subjects

Andrew M. McNutt

Publications and source records attributed to Andrew M. McNutt.

8 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Ten Years Later: Replicating Two Color Discrimination Studies

Color discrimination is a fundamental aspect of visualization as it influences how people interpret visual encodings. Many visualization guidelines are informed by perceptual studies, yet relatively few have been replicated. Acknowledging that the interaction between human perception, visual tasks, and display technology can change over time, we replicate two crowdsourced color discrimination studies conducted 10 years earlier. Specifically, we replicated a visualization-focused color discrimination task (N=144) and a more general perceptual discrimination task (N=394). In both studies, our results reproduced the original perceptual effects. We further use the replication to investigate whether color-related practice influences color discrimination. Specifically, we extended our replication studies by adding questions about participants' engagement with color practices. We then examined whether diverse color-related practices (e.g., artistic hobbies, knowledge of color theory, and cosmetic makeup use) influenced color discrimination. We found no significant difference between participants who reported engaging in color-related practices and those who did not, suggesting that design guidance regarding color discrimination may generalize across viewers regardless of their regular color practice.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

How Wrangling Tools Shape Wrangling: A Technical Dimensions Analysis

Wrangling consumes a disproportionate share of the effort associated with any data project. While a variety of tools support it, relatively little is known about how their differing interface forms shape the way people actually wrangle. We conduct a between-subjects (N=40) observational study of data cleaning tasks performed in tools spanning distinct interface paradigms: Jupyter (notebook), Excel (spreadsheet), ChatGPT (conversational AI), and OpenRefine (visual wranglers). We situate our observations within the Technical Dimensions of Programming Systems framework, which we use as a conceptual scaffold for comparing across interface paradigms. Within the context of our study, the results suggest that tool affordances steer user strategies but do not determine outcomes. There is no consistent advantage of any single tool, nor convergence of results within tools observed across our outcome measures. Instead, we identify trade-offs and connect them with observed practice. For example, a key tension is between data- and abstraction-centered interfaces, where data-centered interfaces encourage opportunistic cleaning rather than systematic, planned transformations found in abstraction-focused tools (but come with a cognitive burden). Tool design, beyond mere functionality, plays a structuring role in how data work unfolds.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

Reading Between the Curly Braces: On Textual Data Serialization Format Usability

Textual data serialization formats, such as JSON or XML, are ubiquitous, supporting tasks like software configuration and data tabularization. Despite their prominence, little is known about their usability. What makes one good or bad? Is there a best one for cognitive efficiency? We explore these questions via a (N=215) crowd work study and a (N=9) semi-structured interview study. We find that format distinctions (like indentation versus curly braces) do not consistently translate into substantial usability differences. While HJSON and YAML performed better than other formats in certain modification tasks, these advantages disappeared in more realistic settings where task complexity was either trivial or highly demanding. Instead, usability appears driven by sociotechnical ecosystems: the tooling, documentation, and community practices surrounding a format matter more than syntax.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

Linting Style and Substance in READMEs

READMEs shape first impressions of software projects, yet what constitutes a good README varies across audiences and contexts. Research software needs reproducibility details, while open-source libraries might prioritize quick-start guides. Through a design probe, LintMe, we explore how linting can be used to improve READMEs given these diverse contexts, aiding style and content issues while preserving authorial agency. Users create context-specific checks using a lightweight DSL that uses a novel combination of programmatic operations (e.g., for broken links) with LLM-based content evaluation (e.g., for detecting jargon), yielding checks that would be challenging for prior linters. Through a user study (N=11), comparison with naive LLM usage, and an extensibility case study, we find that our design is approachable, flexible, and well matched with the needs of this domain. This work opens the door for linting more complex documentation and other culturally mediated text-based documents.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

Linting is People! Exploring the Potential of Human Computation as a Sociotechnical Linter of Data Visualizations

Traditionally, linters are code analysis tools that help developers by flagging potential issues from syntax and logic errors to enforcing syntactical and stylistic conventions. Recently, linting has been taken as an interface metaphor, allowing it to be extended to more complex inputs, such as visualizations, which demand a broader perspective and alternative approach to evaluation. We explore a further extended consideration of linting inputs, and modes of evaluation, across the puritanical, neutral, and rebellious dimensions. We specifically investigate the potential for leveraging human computation in linting operations through Community Notes -- crowd-sourced contextual text snippets aimed at checking and critiquing potentially accurate or misleading content on social media. We demonstrate that human-powered assessments not only identify misleading or error-prone visualizations but that integrating human computation enhances traditional linting by offering social insights. As is required these days, we consider the implications of building linters powered by Artificial Intelligence.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

How Do Data Analysts Respond to AI Assistance? A Wizard-of-Oz Study

Data analysis is challenging as analysts must navigate nuanced decisions that may yield divergent conclusions. AI assistants have the potential to support analysts in planning their analyses, enabling more robust decision making. Though AI-based assistants that target code execution (e.g., Github Copilot) have received significant attention, limited research addresses assistance for both analysis execution and planning. In this work, we characterize helpful planning suggestions and their impacts on analysts' workflows. We first review the analysis planning literature and crowd-sourced analysis studies to categorize suggestion content. We then conduct a Wizard-of-Oz study (n=13) to observe analysts' preferences and reactions to planning assistance in a realistic scenario. Our findings highlight subtleties in contextual factors that impact suggestion helpfulness, emphasizing design implications for supporting different abstractions of assistance, forms of initiative, increased engagement, and alignment of goals between analysts and assistants.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2023

Metrics-Based Evaluation and Comparison of Visualization Notations

A visualization notation is a recurring pattern of symbols used to author specifications of visualizations, from data transformation to visual mapping. Programmatic notations use symbols defined by grammars or domain-specific languages (e.g., ggplot2, dplyr, Vega-Lite) or libraries (e.g., Matplotlib, Pandas). Designers and prospective users of grammars and libraries often evaluate visualization notations by inspecting galleries of examples. While such collections demonstrate usage and expressiveness, their construction and evaluation are usually ad hoc, making comparisons of different notations difficult. More rarely, experts analyze notations via usability heuristics, such as the Cognitive Dimensions of Notations framework. These analyses, akin to structured close readings of text, can reveal design deficiencies, but place a burden on the expert to simultaneously consider many facets of often complex systems. To alleviate these issues, we introduce a metrics-based approach to usability evaluation and comparison of notations in which metrics are computed for a gallery of examples across a suite of notations. While applicable to any visualization domain, we explore the utility of our approach via a case study considering statistical graphics that explores 40 visualizations across 9 widely used notations. We facilitate the computation of appropriate metrics and analysis via a new tool called NotaScope. We gathered feedback via interviews with authors or maintainers of prominent charting libraries (n=6). We find that this approach is a promising way to formalize, externalize, and extend evaluations and comparisons of visualization notations.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2023

On the Design of AI-powered Code Assistants for Notebooks

AI-powered code assistants, such as Copilot, are quickly becoming a ubiquitous component of contemporary coding contexts. Among these environments, computational notebooks, such as Jupyter, are of particular interest as they provide rich interface affordances that interleave code and output in a manner that allows for both exploratory and presentational work. Despite their popularity, little is known about the appropriate design of code assistants in notebooks. We investigate the potential of code assistants in computational notebooks by creating a design space (reified from a survey of extant tools) and through an interview-design study (with 15 practicing data scientists). Through this work, we identify challenges and opportunities for future systems in this space, such as the value of disambiguation for tasks like data visualization, the potential of tightly scoped domain-specific tools (like linters), and the importance of polite assistants.

cs.HC↗