跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail

YOUR RESEARCH, IN SIGHT

让下一篇重要论文,不再错过。

覆盖计算机全学科,以 AI 为快捷入口。关注方向、作者和关键词,把发现变成持续的研究积累。

部分采集异常
正在读取账号与研究记录…

全站更新概况

+0新增论文
+0其中 AI 相关
+1已有论文修订
+100新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-09 02:00 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-08 06:02各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-08 02:30 — 2026-11-09 02:30(北京时间) · 点击数字查看对应简报;AI 相关包含在新增论文内。

最近完成检查:2026-11-09 02:00最近发现新增版本:2026-11-08 06:02库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-06 02:59

每分钟刷新已保存的数据。空检查不代表采集异常;新收录可能包含历史论文。AI 导读按新增版本计数。

17,100 已收录论文14,661 AI 相关4,057 有修订112 HF 社区发现

浏览论文库

时间范围跟随排序:版本更新、本站收录或首次发表。最新收录可能包含历史论文。部分信源异常,查看状态 →

找到 1 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序上轮扫描起点 2026-11-09 01:58(北京时间)
新论文 · v1arXiv:2611.02238

User Engagement in Visualization: A Scoping Review of 243 Research Articles

Mara Solen, Clara-Marie Barth, Heather O'Brien, Tamara Munzner

原文摘要

User engagement is well studied in other domains. Work to date has proposed conceptual models and definitions, approaches to measurement, and factors that influence engagement in digital interactions. However, of the articles in the visualization literature that refer to engagement, few of them make evidence-based, generalizable claims, and research that does is challenging to locate due to inconsistent reporting and often lacks connection to the broader engagement literature. To address these issues and promote the consideration of the broader engagement literature, we conduct a comprehensive scoping review of visualization literature and engagement. Using scoping review methodology, we identify and analyze 243 articles that make claims about engagement with visualizations. We coded the studies conducted, literature cited, definitions provided, and claims made in these articles and analyze the codes to evaluate the quality of the work in the field and to synthesize existing findings. We find that, despite frequent references to engagement and apparent interest in the topic, the overall quality of visualization engagement research is poor, often with weak evidence, inconsistent conceptualizations, and infrequent citation of existing models, methods, or claims. We report the evidence-based claims about what engages people with visualization, including the factors of animation, interaction, and immersion, additionally describing both corroboration and apparent contradictions between these claims. Finally, we propose the COMFI framework and mnemonic for reporting important information in future engagement studies.

cs.HC