Assignment 3 Peer Review

In this assignment, you will review the Assignment 3 submissions of your peers in an in-class activity, and you will receive feedback from your peers as well.

The goals of this assignment are threefold:

1. To use a systematic approach to provide constructive feedback to your peers about their visualizations.
2. To gain insights into others’ ideas given the same constraints as you, and to reflect on your own work.
3. To receive and reflect on constructive feedback about your own work, and to make improvements based on it.

Task

This is a synchronous, in-person activity that will take place during lab. You will self-organize into groups of 3–4 people—it doesn’t need to be your project teams, it can simply be the people sitting around you in lab.

We have an 80-minute-long lab session. Accounting for setup and group formation, let’s say we have 70 minutes of work time. Those 70 minutes should be distributed equally among each team member so that everyone can receive feedback from the group (so between 18 and 23 minutes per person, depending on how many people are in your group).

Once you have formed a group, take turns doing the following:

• Each group member should present their Assignment 3 graphic to the rest of the group.
• The whole group (including the presenter!) should then collaboratively critique the graphic (details below).
• One group member should be responsible for keeping the group on time and on task. They should take care that the time budget for each group member is not exceeded or severely under-utilised.
• Throughout this discussion, the presenter should take notes about the feedback they are receive (both positive and negative).

You will get an opportunity to re-submit your Assignment 3 to make targeted improvements based on feedback. So it’s important that you take notes while your visualization is being critiqued.

Go through the above cycle for each group member. You have the full lab session, so divvy up the time accordingly. You will benefit from your group members’ thoughts and feedback, so you should extend the same attentiveness and thoughtfulness to them.

Critiquing visualizations

Consider the following questions when critiquing your group member’s submission:

• At what level of the nested model are you critiquing the graphic? The domain, data/task abstraction, encodings, or algorithm?
• Does the visualization have a clear purpose? Its purpose may be to inform, to explain through exploration, to persuade, to entertain, or something else.
• Does the visualization make clear what data is being visualized and how it was transformed, e.g., though parenthetical remarks in labels or tooltips?
• Does the visualization use expressive and effective visual encodings?
• Is the visualization cluttered or confusing? Is it easy to read and understand?
• Does the visualization make appropriate use of scales, axes, titles, labels, legends and color schemes? Does it effectively exert control over default aesthetics or behaviors?

I suggest that you focus your critiques around one or more of the following phrases:

• “I like…” (for positive feedback; also mention why you like what you like)
• “I suggest…” (for constructive feedback; this should tell you that it’s not enough to say you don’t like something: you need to suggest a way to improve it)
• “What if…” (for suggestions that are more open-ended, potentially half-baked ideas for extending the visualization)

You might also say

• “I wonder…” (for points of confusion you have about the visualization)

These are obviously not the only types of feedback you may have, but centering around these sentiments should help keep our reviews constructive.

Deliverable

In Canvas, submit a short write-up describing the feedback you received. This can happen after the lab session if needed. This is as much a submission to me as it is a note to yourself, since you’ll reference this write-up when you work Assignment 3 revisions.

Your submission should include statements about each of the feedback items you received (including positive, negative, and “what if”-style feedback):

• What the feedback was, and which level of the nested model was targeted
• Who gave the feedback (possibly this is multiple people)
• If it was constructive feedback for improvement, what the suggested remediation was