TreeJuxtaposer: scalable tree comparison using Focus+Context with guaranteed visibility
By Tamara Munzner, François Guimbretière, S. Tasiran, Li Zhang, Yunhong Zhou. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 2003
367 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Ecological Modeling
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/781db41425fdeb69bc108f709e8d294a44b90aa3
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition
- Shixia Liu
- Mengchen Liu
- Weiwei Cui
- Yingcai Wu
- Tamara Munzner
- Matthew Brehmer
- Catherine Plaisant
- Hanspeter Pfister
In Ecological Modeling
Citations in the corpus
- TreeDyn: towards dynamic graphics and annotations for analyses of trees (2006, methodology): “Several approaches are now available from the "simple" consensus tree [34] to the visualization of a "tree space" using multi-dimensional scaling based on a tree-to-tree distance matrix (Tree Set, [13,35]) or to systems allowing detailed structural comparisons between trees of up to 100,000 nodes (T”
- A Multi-Level Typology of Abstract Visualization Tasks (2013, methodology): “SpaceTree [20] and TreeJuxtaposer [46] are two tree visualization tools that allow users to locate paths between nodes by means of different focus + context techniques.”
- Mylar: a degree-of-interest model for IDEs (2005, result): “Another benefit of the Active Mylar views is similar to what was reported by study subjects’ use of the Mylar Package Explorer: the DOI model makes the structure views visually stable and provides guaranteed visibility [12] for the elements of high interest.”
- Visual comparison for information visualization (2011, background): “J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 1978; 4(1): 1–20.”
- LineUp: Visual Analysis of Multi-Attribute Rankings (2013, methodology): “As trees can be ranked, tree comparison techniques, such as Tree Juxtaposer [18], can also be used to compare rankings.”
- A survey on information visualization: recent advances and challenges (2014, background): “Typical examples include basic interactions such as selection, filtering, brushing, and highlighting [92,160], as well as advanced interactions like visual comparison [135], interest-driven navigation [55], focus-based navigation [105,138], and faceted navigation [37].”
- The challenge of information visualization evaluation (2004, background): “TreeJuxtaposer [24] submitted the most convincing description of how the tasks could be conducted and results interpreted.”