Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHaase, Helmuten_US
dc.contributor.editorBartz, Dirken_US
dc.date.accessioned2015-11-19T09:53:14Z
dc.date.available2015-11-19T09:53:14Z
dc.date.issued1998en_US
dc.identifier.isbn3-211-83209-2en_US
dc.identifier.issn-en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.2312/vissym19981010en_US
dc.description.abstractWhat is a 'good' visualization, one which leads to desired insights? How can we evaluate the quality of a scientific visualization or compare two visualizations (or visualization systems) to each other? In the following, the importance of considering the 'visualization context' is stressed. It consists of the prior knowledge of the user; the aims of the user; the application domain; amount, structure, and distribution of the data; and the available hardware and software. Then, six subqualities are identified: data resolution quality, semantic quality, mapping quality, image quality, presentation and interaction quality, and multi-user quality. The QV IS reference model de nes a weight value C (i.e., importance) and a quality value Q for each subquality. The QV IS graph is introduced as a compact, easy to perceive representation of the so-de ned visualization quality. An example illustrates all concepts. The reference model and the graph can help to evaluate visualizations and thus to further improve the quality of scientific visualizations.en_US
dc.publisherThe Eurographics Associationen_US
dc.titleMirror, Mirror on the Wall, Who Has the Best Visualization of All?- A Reference Model for Visualization Qualityen_US
dc.description.seriesinformationVisualization in Scientific Computing '98en_US
dc.description.sectionheadersVisualization Qualityen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.2312/vissym19981010en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record