article

Visual representation of information as communicative practice

Author:

Jaime SnyderAuthors Info & Claims

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, Volume 65, Issue 11

Pages 2233 - 2247

https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23103

Published: 01 November 2014 Publication History

Abstract

Anyone who has clarified a thought or prompted a response during a conversation by drawing a picture has exploited the potential of image making to convey information. Images are increasingly ubiquitous in daily communication due to advances in visually enabled information and communication technologies ICT, such as information visualization applications, image retrieval systems, and virtual collaborative work tools. Although images are often used in social contexts, information science research concerned with the visual representation of information typically focuses on the image artifact and system building. To learn more about image making as a form of social interaction and as a form of information practice, a qualitative study examined face-to-face conversations involving the creation of ad hoc visualizations i.e., "napkin drawings". Interactional sociolinguistic concepts of conversational involvement and coordination guided multimodal analysis of video-recorded interactions that included spontaneous drawing. Findings show patterns in communicative activities associated with the visual representation of information. Furthermore, the activity of mark making contributes to the maintenance of conversational involvement in ways that are not always evident in the drawn artifact. This research has implications for the design and evaluation of visually enabled virtual collaboration environments, visual information extraction and retrieval systems, and data visualization tools.

References

[1]

Amann, K., &Knorr-Cetina, K. 1988. The fixation of visual evidence. Human Studies, Volume 11 Issue 2/3, pp.133-169.

[2]

Arnheim, R. 1969. Visual thinking. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

[3]

Beaudoin, J.E., &Brady, J.E. 2011. Finding visual information: a study of image resources used by archaeologists, architects, art historians, and artists. Art Documentation, Volume 30 Issue 2, pp.24-36.

[4]

Bertin, J. 1983. Semiology of graphics. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

Digital Library

[5]

Burgoon, J.K., Buller, D.B., &Floyd, K. 2001. Does participation affect deception success? Human Communication Research, Volume 27 Issue 4, pp.503-534.

[6]

Burgoon, J.K., Bonito, J.A., Ramirez, A., Dunbar, N.E., Kam, K., &Fischer, J. 2002. Testing the interactivity principle: Effects of mediation, propinquity, and verbal and nonverbal modalities in interpersonal interaction. Journal of Communication, Volume 52 Issue 3, pp.657-676.

[7]

Charmaz, K. 1983. The grounded theory method: An explication and interpretation. In R.M.Emerson Ed., Contemporary field research pp. pp.109-126. Prospect Heights, IL: University of California, Waveland Press.

[8]

Clark, H.H. 1996. Using language. New York: Cambridge University Press.

[9]

Datta, R., Joshi, D., Li, J., &Wang, J.Z. 2008. Image retrieval: Ideas, influences, and trends of the new age. ACM Computing Surveys, Volume 40 Issue 2.

Digital Library

[10]

Dikovitskaya, M. 2005. Visual culture: The study of the visual after the cultural turn. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

[11]

Elkins, J. 1999. The domain of images. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

[12]

Ellis, G., &Dix, A. 2006. An explorative analysis of user evaluation studies in information visualisation. Proceedings of BELIV 2006: AVI Workshop, pp. pp.1-7.

Digital Library

[13]

Fox, P., &Hendler, J. 2011. Changing the equation on scientific data visualization. Science, Volume 331, pp.705-708.

[14]

Goffman, E. 1974. Frame analysis. Boston: Northeastern University Press.

[15]

Goffman, E. 1979. Footing. Semiotica, Volume 25 Issue 1/2, pp.1-29.

[16]

Goodman, N. 1968. Languages of art: An approach to a theory of symbols. New York: Bobbs-Merrill.

[17]

Goodwin, C. 1994. Professional vision. American Anthropologist, Volume 96 Issue 3, pp.606-633.

[18]

Goodwin, C. 2000. Gesture, aphasia, and interaction. In D.McNeill Ed., Language and gesture pp. pp.84-98. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

[19]

Goodwin, C. 2003. Pointing as situated practice. In S.Kita Ed., Pointing: Where language, culture and cognition meet pp. pp.217-241. Edison, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

[20]

Goodwin, C. 2007. Participation, stance and affect in the organization of activities. Discourse & Society, Volume 18 Issue 1, pp.53-73.

[21]

Gumperz, J.J. 1982. Discourse strategies. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

[22]

Guthrie, R.D. 2005. The nature of paleolithic art. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

[23]

Hanks, W.F. 1996. Language & communicative practices. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

[24]

Harrigan, J.A. 2005. Proxemics, kinesics and gaze. In J.A.Harrigan, R.Rosenthal, &K.R.Scherer Eds., The new handbook of methods in nonverbal behavior research pp. pp.137-198. New York: Oxford University Press.

[25]

Heath, C., Hindmarsh, J., &Luff, P. 2010. Video in qualitative research: Analysing social interaction in everyday life. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

[26]

Heer, J., Viégas, F.B., &Wattenberg, M. 2009. Voyagers and voyeurs: Supporting asynchronous collaborative information visualization. Communications of the ACM, Volume 52 Issue 1, pp.87-97.

Digital Library

[27]

Huang, W., Eades, P., &Hong, S.-H. 2008. Beyond time and error: A cognitive approach to the evaluation of graph drawings. Paper presented at BELIV '08, Florence, Italy.

Digital Library

[28]

Isenberg, P., Elmqvist, N., Scholtz, J., Cernea, D., Ma, K.-L., &Hagen, H. 2011. Collaborative visualization: Definition, challenges, and research agenda. Information Visualization, Volume 10 Issue 4, pp.310-329.

Digital Library

[29]

Jaffe, A. 2009. Stance: Sociolinguistic perspectives. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.

[30]

Johnstone, B. 2000. Qualitative methods in sociolinguistics. New York: Oxford University Press.

[31]

Kress, G., &<familyNamePrefix>van</familyNamePrefix>Leeuwen, T. 1996. Reading images: The grammar of visual design. New York: Routledge.

[32]

Latour, B. 1990. Drawing things together. In M.Lynch &S.Woolgar Eds., Representation in scientific practice pp. pp.19-68. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

[33]

Levine, P., &Scollon, R. 2004. Discourse and technology: Multimodal discourse analysis. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

[34]

Lynch, M. 1988. The externalized retina: selection and mathematization in the visual documentation of objects in the life sciences. Human Studies, Volume 11, pp.201-234.

[35]

Makri, S., &Warwick, C. 2010. Information for inspiration: Understanding architects' information seeking and use behaviors. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Volume 61 Issue 9, pp.1745-1770.

Digital Library

[36]

Manusov, V., &Patterson, M.L. 2006. The Sage handbook of nonverbal communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

[37]

Mathison, S. 2009. Seeing is believing: The credibility of image-based research and evaluation. In S.I.Donaldon, C.A.Christie, &M.M.Mark Eds., What counts as credible evidence in applied research and evaluation practice? pp. pp.181-196. London: Sage Publications.

[38]

McCay-Peet, L. &Toms, E. 2009. Image use within the work task model: Images as information and illustration. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Volume 60 Issue 12, pp.2416-2429.

Digital Library

[39]

Mitchell, C. 2011. Doing visual research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

[40]

Nakatani, C.H., Grosz, B.J., Ahn, D.D., &Hirschberg, J. 1995. Instructions for annotating discourses. Technical Report Number TR-21-95. Cambridge, MA: Center for Research in Computing Technology, Harvard University.

[41]

Norris, S. 2004. Analyzing multimodal interaction: A methodological framework. London: Routledge.

[42]

Norris, S., &Jones, R.H. 2005. Discourse in action: Introducing mediated discourse analysis. New York: Routledge.

[43]

Ochs, E. 1979. Transcription as theory. Developmental Pragmatics, pp.43-72.

[44]

Ochs, E., Gonzales, P., &Jacoby, S. 1996. "When I come down I'm in the domain state": Grammar and graphic representation in the interpretive activity of physicsts. In E.Ochs, E.Schegloff, &S.Thompson Eds., Interaction and grammar. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

[45]

Rose, G. 2007. Visual methodologies: An introduction to the interpretation of visual materials. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Digital Library

[46]

Rose, G., &Tolia-Kelly, D. Eds. 2012. Visuality/materiality: Images, objects and practices. Surrey, England: Ashgate Publishing.

[47]

Scollon, R. 1998. Mediated discourse as social interaction. London: Longman.

[48]

Shneiderman, B., &Plaisant, C. 2006. Strategies for evaluating information visualization tools: Multi-dimensional in-depth long-term case studies. Paper presented at BELIV '06, Venice, Italy.

Digital Library

[49]

Snyder, J. 2012. Activities & artifacts: The dual nature of image-making in communicative practice. Proceedings of the 2012 iConference, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, pp. pp.10-17.

Digital Library

[50]

Snyder, J. 2013. Drawing practices in image-enabled collaboration. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work CSCW 2013, San Antonio, TX, February 23-27.

Digital Library

[51]

Streeck, J., &Kallmeyer, W. 2001. Interaction as inscription. Journal of Pragmatics, Volume 33, pp.465-490.

[52]

Tannen, D. 1993. Framing in discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.

[53]

Tannen, D., &Wallat, C. 1993. Interactive frames and knowledge schemas in interaction: Examples from a medical examination/interview. In D.Tannen Ed., Framing in discourse pp. pp.57-76. New York: Oxford University Press.

[54]

Tibbetts, P. 1990. Representation and the realist-constructivist controversy. In M.Lynch &S.Woolgar Eds., Representation in scientific practice pp. pp.69-84. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

[55]

Tufte, E.R. 1983. The visual display of quantitative information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.

Digital Library

[56]

Tufte, E.R. 1990. Envisioning information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.

Digital Library

[57]

Tufte, E.R. 1997. Visual explanations. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.

[58]

<familyNamePrefix>van</familyNamePrefix>Dijk, T.A. 1981. Episodes as units of discourse analysis. In D.Tannen Ed., Analyzing discourse: Text and talk pp. pp.177-195. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.

[59]

Walny, J., Carpendale, S., Riche, N.H., Venolia, G., &Fawcett, P. 2011. Visual thinking in action: visualizations as used on whiteboards. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, Volume 17 Issue 12, pp.2508-2517.

Digital Library

[60]

Ware, C. 2000. Information visualization: Perception for design. San Francisco: Morgan Kauffman.

Digital Library

[61]

Yoon, J.W., &Chung, E.K. 2011. Understanding image needs in daily life by analyzing questions in a social Q&A site. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Volume 62 Issue 11, pp.2201-2213.

Digital Library

Cited By

Zolyomi ASnyder J(2024)An Emotion Translator: Speculative Design By Neurodiverse DyadsProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613904.3642210(1-18)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3613904.3642210
Zolyomi ASnyder J(2023)Designing for Common Ground: Visually Representing Conversation Dynamics of Neurodiverse DyadsProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36100577:CSCW2(1-33)Online publication date: 4-Oct-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3610057
Verheijden MFunk M(2023)Collaborative Diffusion: Boosting Designerly Co-Creation with Generative AIExtended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3544549.3585680(1-8)Online publication date: 19-Apr-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3544549.3585680
Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Linguistic politeness and face-work in computer-mediated communication, Part 1: A theoretical framework

Our daily social interaction is anchored in interpersonal discourse; accordingly, the phenomenon of linguistic politeness is prevalent in daily social interaction. Such linguistic behavior underscores the fact that linguistic politeness is a critical ...
Visual information seeking

The present study reports on the information seeking processes in a visual context, referred to throughout as visual information seeking. This study synthesizes research throughout different, yet complementary, areas, each capable of contributing ...
Linguistic politeness and face-work in computer mediated communication, Part 2: An application of the theoretical framework

Analysis of sociointerpersonal communication patterns among discourse participants is essential to understand the manifestation of and the interpersonal-communication features realized in online social interaction. The linguistic politeness theory ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology Volume 65, Issue 11

November 2014

215 pages

ISSN:2330-1635

EISSN:2330-1643

Issue’s Table of Contents

Publisher

John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

United States

Publication History

Published: 01 November 2014

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Article

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

9
Total Citations
View Citations
0
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)0
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 21 Sep 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Zolyomi ASnyder J(2024)An Emotion Translator: Speculative Design By Neurodiverse DyadsProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613904.3642210(1-18)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
Zolyomi ASnyder J(2023)Designing for Common Ground: Visually Representing Conversation Dynamics of Neurodiverse DyadsProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36100577:CSCW2(1-33)Online publication date: 4-Oct-2023
Verheijden MFunk M(2023)Collaborative Diffusion: Boosting Designerly Co-Creation with Generative AIExtended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3544549.3585680(1-8)Online publication date: 19-Apr-2023
Snyder JWakkary RAndersen KOdom WDesjardins APetersen M(2020)Visualizing Personal RhythmsProceedings of the 2020 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference10.1145/3357236.3395463(269-281)Online publication date: 3-Jul-2020
Carter DStaggers JRichards DAmidon TPflugfelder E(2019)How to debate a borderProceedings of the 37th ACM International Conference on the Design of Communication10.1145/3328020.3353932(1-10)Online publication date: 4-Oct-2019
Snyder JMurnane ELustig CVoida SBrewster SFitzpatrick GCox AKostakos V(2019)Visually Encoding the Lived Experience of Bipolar DisorderProceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3290605.3300363(1-14)Online publication date: 2-May-2019
Snyder JLee CPoltrock SBarkhuus LBorges MKellogg W(2017)Vernacular Visualization Practices in a Citizen Science ProjectProceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing10.1145/2998181.2998239(2097-2111)Online publication date: 25-Feb-2017
Lee CPoltrock SBarkhuus LBorges MKellogg W(2017)Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social ComputingundefinedOnline publication date: 25-Feb-2017
Matusiak KRorissa AAlbertson DYoon J(2016)How is image seeking and use studiedProceedings of the 79th ASIS&T Annual Meeting: Creating Knowledge, Enhancing Lives through Information & Technology10.5555/3017447.3017457(1-4)Online publication date: 14-Oct-2016

View Options

View options

Get Access

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Issue’s Table of Contents