The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Crowdsourcing graphical perception: using mechanical turk to assess visualization design
Abstract
Understanding perception is critical to effective visualization design. With its low cost and scalability, crowdsourcing presents an attractive option for evaluating the large design space of visualizations; however, it first requires validation. In this paper, we assess the viability of Amazon's Mechanical Turk as a platform for graphical perception experiments. We replicate previous studies of spatial encoding and luminance contrast and compare our results. We also conduct new experiments on rectangular area perception (as in treemaps or cartograms) and on chart size and gridline spacing. Our results demonstrate that crowdsourced perception experiments are viable and contribute new insights for visualization design. Lastly, we report cost and performance data from our experiments and distill recommendations for the design of crowdsourced studies.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Displaying proportions and percentages
Spence, I., & Lewandowsky, S. (1991) · Applied Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1002/acp.2350050106 · Cited by 162
Cited by
Inside the Turk: Understanding Mechanical Turk as a Participant Pool
Paolacci, G., & Chandler, J. (2014) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0963721414531598 · Cited by 2,136
Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
(2021) · doi:10.1145/3411764 · Cited by 1,240
Conducting Clinical Research Using Crowdsourced Convenience Samples
Chandler, J., & Shapiro, D. (2016) · Annual Review of Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-021815-093623 · Cited by 1,072
Soylent: a word processor with a crowd inside
Bernstein, M. S., Little, G., Miller, R. C., Hartmann, B., Ackerman, M. S., Karger, D. R., Crowell, D., & Panovich, K. (2010) · Proceedings of the 23nd annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology · doi:10.1145/1866029.1866078 · Cited by 686
Shepherding the crowd yields better work
Dow, S., Kulkarni, A., Klemmer, S., & Hartmann, B. (2012) · Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work · doi:10.1145/2145204.2145355 · Cited by 334
Metadata
- Authors
- Heer, J., & Bostock, M.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2010-04-10
- Pages
- 203-212
- OpenAlex
- W2117470435
- Cited by
- 816
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 38.21
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Crowdsourcing graphical perception: using mechanical turk to assess visualization design. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/1753326.1753357
- The paper
- Heer, J., & Bostock, M. (2010). Crowdsourcing graphical perception: using mechanical turk to assess visualization design. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753357
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
