Abstract:How do viewers interpret graphs that abstract away from individual-level data to present only summaries of data such as means, intervals, distribution shapes, or effect sizes? Here, focusing on the mean bar graph as a prototypical example of such an abstracted presentation, we contribute three advances to the study of graph interpretation. First, we distill principles for Measurement of Abstract Graph Interpretation (MAGI principles) to guide the collection of valid interpretation data from viewers who may vary in expertise. Second, using these principles, we create the Draw Datapoints on Graphs (DDoG) measure, which collects drawn readouts (concrete, detailed, visuospatial records of thought) as a revealing window into each person's interpretation of a given graph. Third, using this new measure, we discover a common, categorical error in the interpretation of mean bar graphs: the Bar-Tip Limit (BTL) error. The BTL error is an apparent conflation of mean bar graphs with count bar graphs. It occurs when the raw data are assumed to be limited by the bar-tip, as in a count bar graph, rather than distributed across the bar-tip, as in a mean bar graph. In a large, demographically diverse sample, we observe the BTL error in about one in five persons; across educational levels, ages, and genders; and despite thoughtful responding and relevant foundational knowledge. The BTL error provides a case-in-point that simplification via abstraction in graph design can risk severe, high-prevalence misinterpretation. The ease with which our readout-based DDoG measure reveals the nature and likely cognitive mechanisms of the BTL error speaks to the value of both its readout-based approach and the MAGI principles that guided its creation. We conclude that mean bar graphs may be misinterpreted by a large portion of the population, and that enhanced measurement tools and strategies, like those introduced here, can fuel progress in the scientific study of graph interpretation.

A Simple Descriptive Method & Standard for Comparing Pairs of Stacked Bar Graphs

Visual Arrangements of Bar Charts Influence Comparisons in Viewer Takeaways

Du Bois Wrapped Bar Chart: Visualizing categorical data with disproportionate values

Comparing Overlapping Data Distributions Using Visualization

Visualizing Comparisons of Bills of Materials

What Does the Chart Say? Grouping Cues Guide Viewer Comparisons and Conclusions in Bar Charts

The Arrangement of Marks Impacts Afforded Messages: Ordering, Partitioning, Spacing, and Coloring in Bar Charts

Metrics-Based Evaluation and Comparison of Visualization Notations

Expert interpretation of bar and line graphs: the role of graphicacy in reducing the effect of graph format

Modeling Just Noticeable Differences in Charts

Typicality effect in data graphs

A Comparative Review of Methods for Comparing Means Using Partially Paired Data

A practical guide and software for analysing pairwise comparison experiments

Comparison Conundrum and the Chamber of Visualizations: An Exploration of How Language Influences Visual Design

AccuStripes: Adaptive Binning for the Visual Comparison of Univariate Data Distributions

Are pie charts evil? An assessment of the value of pie and donut charts compared to bar charts

Visual cues in estimation of part-to-whole comparison

Two graphs walk into a bar: Readout-based measurement reveals the Bar-Tip Limit error, a common, categorical misinterpretation of mean bar graphs

Graph-Based Tests for Two-Sample Comparisons of Categorical Data

Replacing bar graphs of continuous data with more informative graphics: Are we making progress?