Published by Maney Publishing (c) The British Cartographic Society eopsdit e foelpigtasaetsheets, 10.1179/1743277412Y.0000000019 DOI: transparent overlapping of when map set the a from removed into or identify decomposed added to be of can pins categories features add Further, map and 2011). it (Wallace, annotate markers, locations eyes, it, coloured her important folding or or his by pens from extent farther using or mapped to the nearer adjust it bring can user map The Bertin, 1993; Cartwright (e.g., Wood, 1998; 1990; Fisher, well been Ganter, as and have maps MacEachren arguments 1967/1983; paper less-ephemeral, Similar for cave-peer. evolving made her inquisitive response or in an or his quickly phenomenon, to to mapmaker mapped response the the in of charcoal, understanding design of the piece adjust 1949). or (Brown, could or interactive stick sand were a the wall Using into cave etched a even diagrams onto that spatial scribbled argued and be maps can first It the interactive. inherently are Maps PRIMITIVES INTERACTION AND INTERACTION CARTOGRAPHIC INTRODUCTION: Roth E. Robert Synthesis and Framework Primitives: Interaction Cartographic # The eateto egah,Uiest fWsosnMdsn 5 .Pr tet aio,W 30,USA 53706, WI Madison, Street, Park N. 550 Wisconsin–Madison, of University Geography, of Department mi:[email protected] Email: The ewrs neatv as atgahcitrcin neato rmtvs tgso neato,objectives, interaction, of stages primitives, Analytics Visual interaction Visualisation, Information interaction, Interaction, Human–Computer cartographic operands, key maps, operators, synthesizing taxonomies. turn, interactive associated in the treated across Keywords: compartmentalizing discordances are and approaches approach, concordances three important Extant operand-based identifying these operator-based interacting. and make of is approach an an user each each that (2) the within (3) of which themes interface; interfaces representative with and object cartographic taxonomies cartographic digital/virtual a primitive possible; the unique of interaction with characteristics representation complete to the interaction according cartographic to for interaction to cartographic cartographic wish a foundation according may compartmentalizing useful of user interaction a approach, manipulation the cartographic dominant provides objective-based tasks three compartmentalizing model of an in approach, kinds action resulting (1) the model new of the to interaction: a stages by according offer parsing taxonomies Norman’s to extant for framework. of not organisation approaches is logical with research a primitives, this interaction Visualisation, into for Information conceptualizing of strategies Interaction, Analytics Human–Computer extant purpose of synthesize Visual The fields and related organize and maps. the to and interactive existence—but Cartography in within for and many interaction ‘grand interaction, are parsing guidelines the cartographic there use of primitives—as considered nature interaction and strategies the is of investigate interaction framework design primitives to map-based to experiments describing interaction scientific lead for basic of lexicon design ultimately these consistent the when a inform of sequence designs, provide taxonomy in interface taxonomies primitives and a such other as with of interaction’, combined construction of is that challenge The interactivity maps. of unit interactive basic a using is primitive interaction cartographic A atgahcJournal Cartographic rts atgahcScey2012 Society Cartographic British tal. et o.4 o p 7–9 onto,Bhvor ersnain-SeilIseNvme 2012 November Issue Special - Representation Behaviour, Cognition, 376–395 pp. 4 No. 49 Vol. 01 Dodge 2001; , tal. et EEEDPAPER REFEREED 2008). , opie oeta 0yaso a-ae eerhon research map-based of representation years 50 cartographic than of more geographic science comprises signify to The employed are information. and that map rendering a constituting between distinction Visualisation). representation Information similar in a manipulation for Buja 1996, (see relationship synergistic while their interaction, acknowledging and representation and between Cartography (MacEachren time real in 1992). map- Monmonier, reasoning of process human the of supporting driven requests views, and map instantaneous unique computing and for 2005; new personal allow Dykes, in technologies 1999; Internet Advances is Andrienko, 2008). it as and Harrower, maps of (Andrienko utility overall today on and impactful consumption, as design, been However, interactivity the the of 2010). possibility metaphor: Goodchild, the has interaction 1969; never (McHarg, GIS stack common layer the in resulting ntefloig cetafnaetldaiywithin duality fundamental a accept I following, the In ecie h rpis ons atc,etc., haptics, sounds, graphics, the describes Cartographic tal. et , Published by Maney Publishing (c) The British Cartographic Society neato.I eerhaed o Geovisualisation, for agenda research the cartographic a a of Cartwright constitute In articulation Human— that interaction. and of components fields identification fundamental related the the Analytics—is in Visual and Visualisation, efforts Information Interaction, Computer similar goal well the efforts— research these as of directly common in most across that mirrored One primarily interaction regarding Geovisualisation. issues interaction, of special cartographic context and with volumes a engages edited been has of Pivar there 1990, (e.g., series since 1960s 1968); the English, and to Engelbart least interactive subsection. at on an dating research next not maps with is Cartography, the interaction to new cartographic in aspiration of 2011); science provided carto- a (Roth, is digital Establishing of interaction device definition graphic the computing about discussion a additional map through a and human a mediated between dialogue the as formally defined h eeto frpeetto hie prpit o the for appropriate context. choices mapping representation given of selection the syntactics the answer to used be how? can then findings representations empirical the These varying work best. representations of which examining way frame- empirically systematic taxonomic when These a 1994). provide (Krygier, works sonic or (DiBiase 2002), 1974; animated are representations Morrison, effectivethat designing an and 1967/1983; conceptualizing is for also convey approach but (Bertin, 1992), to MacEachren, visual 1990; varied Caivano, are be representations for can that influential especially representation is This a information. dimensions which fundamental the across as defined map, a constructing riuaino atgahcitrcinpiiie is primitives and interaction Identification Cartography. cartographic to of pertains it articulation as tion’ altogether term that interactions exchange. the interaction of an types constitute use avoid or kinds To I fundamental techniques’’. terminology, primitives interaction varying interaction of grand across space ‘‘The confusion describe that design to taxonomy stating a the develop Analytics, to then is interaction Visual the of challenge for of recommendations Finally, field of list well. nascent their as in interaction interaction’’ of to applied representation in be Thomas variables should visual the and to can led that a logic suggesting the of ‘‘Information operations’’, that a visualization development that lacks studying but in for declare methods, framework representation strides 63) graphical great of p. semiology made (1998, has Riedl Visualization of typology and a Chi Similarly, develop Geovisualisation. for to operations’’ georepresentation is problem the geospatialinterfacetasks’’andgoontocallfora‘‘typologyof of part difficult fthe articulation of and identification the the carto- was of representation regarding graphic One breakthroughs theoretical 1995). significant (MacEachren, most meaning) how with (i.e., become maps cognition imbued how (i.e., seen), semiotics and understood), are are maps maps how (i.e., perception Synthesis and Framework Primitives: Interaction Cartographic h te ieo h ult is duality the of side other The ee ietyadesti gadcalneo interac- of challenge ‘grand this address directly I Here, usino atgahcrpeetto ie,the (i.e., representation cartographic of question iulvariables visual tal. et ftevsa aibe) sitn atgahr in cartographers assisting variables), visual the of tal. et 20,p 6 nld raino ‘e science ‘‘new a of creation include 76) p. (2005, 20,p.5,5)saeta ‘ particularly ‘‘A that state 57) 55, pp. (2001, vial otecrorpe when cartographer the to available ntefloigt eciethe describe to following the in tal. et atgahcinteraction cartographic 92,hpi (Griffin, haptic 1992), , tal. et 1963; , , o h neato ob opee iial Fgr ) (1) 1): (Figure digitally completed be to necessary interaction are the that for interaction three cartographic acknowledges a definition of a components Such computing 2011). a through (Roth, mediated device map a and human a dialogue between the is interaction cartographic above, introduced As MODEL (INTER)ACTION OF STAGES NORMAN’S FRAMEWORK: section. final and sixth the in across offered confusion) st these of within (points taxonomies the discordances and within approach) themes of each (overarching three concordances operands), at and important objectives taxonomies revealing fifth (operators, extant interaction and of of fourth, stages synthesis these third, a The provide platform. sections by computing a mediated digital map, as and interaction the human cartographic between of conversation of to interpretation two-way modified an is nature for model for (inter)action account the of framework stages (1988) on associated Norman’s Specifically, discussion the primitives. interaction cartographic and conceptualizing deeper interaction a cartographic provides section to broad purposefully fields. is these review to the relevance maintain of and scope Pike the Visualisation, however, (e.g., Information Analytics Visual Interaction, Computer ubro fot osmaieitrcini Human– in by interaction use a summarize to for from efforts presented small of offered relatively the number is from is itself and distinguishing presentation cartographers, perspective This to cartographic according framework. taxonomies and these this framework of taxo- conceptual synthesis primitive broader subsequent interaction the a to extant according of work nomies such this organisation of at the contributions are arrived primary recommen- the problem taxonomical why Therefore, another contradictory dations. same understand times at yet to the and order diverse on the offer in from working step-back taxonomies to scholars critical of a not suite take present of to is rather purpose but discussion The taxonomy, 1–3). following Tables (e.g., the below Human–Computer summarized Cartography, Analytics, as Visual of and primitives Visualisation, fields Information into Interaction, the interaction the in of address parsing dozens offered to to literally efforts are approaches there many existing primitives; been interaction have of important there topic is that It note primitives). to interaction cartographic of tics the answering inform maps, interactive how? they of (3) evaluation and from and corpus; design insights the single a carto- research into experiments of aggregating individual these then investigation scoping first and the of terms experiments to in both allowing approach interaction experiments, graphic systematic scientific a inform of analysis they for and (2) design maps; and the designers interactive of engineering teams across inter- developers collaboration cartographic as interface well on supporting as a of education action competing end workshop provide the and to describing they classroom strategies (1) interaction for and reasons: designs three lexicon least consistent at for significant h ae rceswt v diinlscin.Tenext The sections. additional five with proceeds paper The usino atgahcitrcin(.. h syntac- the (i.e., interaction cartographic of question gs umr n ulo are outlook and summary A ages. tal. et 09 inr 2011); Aigner, 2009; , 377 Published by Maney Publishing (c) The British Cartographic Society ua n a opee spr ftecnesto is conversation the of part an as as not completed described in between map sequence are view answer and and question map human insights unique A new respond, on. will new so a again and map request the If the explanation, of may search if continued question). mapped human (i.e., the the the discovered discovered, regarding are answers insights schema map new mental if human’s phenomenon, the is the (i.e., change view of map kind map to some updated evokes the which the human, goals, to turn, the by In interpreted her change question). or of a poses his kind human to some map according evokes new interface a which requests the human through to The ability other. view the the holding to interaction, technology- change the affect in a agents to are map an (leading and human The device interaction). to cartographic on on computing perspective centred (leading the perspective interaction); (3) map interaction: cartographic user-centred map and cartographic a the on of a and perspective science (2) (left) interface-centred a to human within interaction); a emphasis (leading between cartographic of areas dialogue human three the to the as rise defined (middle) gives is technology-centred This interaction and (middle). (right), Cartographic device interface-centred Interaction. computing (left), Cartographic a user-centred through of mediated Components (right) 1. Figure 378 eotdi h atgahcltrtr oue o on perspective, on interface-centred an Such not occurs. interaction rather the focuses but literature interfaces interactions, cartographic the cartographic in reported interaction. cartographic the impact context situated the user how and on discussion use for human (2011) between Roth see agency map; mutual and the the acknowledge to but renew one-way), instead based albeit metaphor, to conversation is or also dialogue attempt a (which on Cartography an in not model communication is interaction cartographic (Yi Analytics Visual Visualisation, and in Information accepted Interaction, is metaphor Human–Computer conversation or this dialogue using two-way interaction and of a in (MacEachren definition similar discussion A mediator active 1992). occur Monmonier, support the to to exchanges real-time is conversational in the device affording computing dialogue, The an 2003). as described is conversation otrsac ntedsg n s fitrciemaps interactive of use and design the on research Most ecie stedgtltostruhwhich through tools digital the as described , neato exchange interaction tal. et 07.Sc ento of definition a Such 2007). , neato session interaction hl h complete the while , cartographic (Edsall, h a ie,tetss n h eodrepresenting second the interacting is and user the tasks) which with map the the of (i.e., characteristics map with objectives the user’s the representing first the stages interaction, a two of acknowledges for that taxonomy task-by-type space a (1996) offers Shneiderman solution example, For complete interaction. of the stage given represents in included taxonomy carto- primitives cartographic a of of set stage the taxonomy any model; at a a within formulated be Theoretically, Plaisant, can primitives and review). interaction Shneiderman graphic a (see stages for discrete Human– 2010, of of set field a exchange the into interaction single in a divide used to Interaction models Computer number a workflow are interaction popular There the primitives. of offer in they stage which at the exchange unknown to according into differ taxonomies insights 1994). reveal MacEachren, trends; to and patterns, exploration anomalies, interactive (i.e., for or Geovisualisation of maps insights, context the known in Eccles thinking of stories; presentation (i.e., visual for Cartography Interactive maps of interactive visual context effective the promote in storytelling design practices an interaction Best of cartographic 2004). use of successful (Beaudouin-Lafon, the map) to interactive leading making decision careful iha neatv a)a hyd to do experience they successful as a map) interactive to an leading with making the to attention decision completely) equal careful overcome emphasis profes- give to shift and must (or Academics therefore struggle experience. cartographers the this sionals foster not to meaningful, user-centred interface is a that humans under interfaces that experience between is concern distinction interactions primary and cardinal the of human’s The in (a the interface components perspective). cartographic place overlooks a three thus out first seeking the and for map) of motivation perspectives, (the other one the interaction only to complement acknowledges essential an while eunn otetpco neato rmtvs extant primitives, interaction of topic the to Returning neatos ti h xeineo h interaction the of experience the is it interactions; tal. et 08 n fetv visual effective and 2008) , use The neato design interaction nefc design interface nefcs u they but interfaces, atgahcJournal Cartographic (the (the Published by Maney Publishing (c) The British Cartographic Society btatqeto n nwrsqec osiuigan constituting sequence answer the and primitives replacing for question metaphor, framework interaction conversation abstract useful two-way cartographic this a within Norman’s provides possible digital/virtual). model or identifying action a (real between user- of object interactions a stages an of for design and foundation the human conceptual to approach the to centred as user offered from model, they an exchange state only. that specifying human the the of interaction is perceiving to 1 stage and agency models Figure one-way assigning are action the in representation, workflow of there an offered (at a limitation stages, executing interaction interaction these A operator-based cartographic of assume these of type). of execution–eva- stages (2) all the definition single the of intention); at the (i.e., between a most offered to interaction the evaluation, decomposes relation be the forming and (1988) in could impact execution Norman of placed primitives that of Interaction. is interaction stage nexus 2 Cartographic of Figure the the of taxonomy system). (at (at O’s a the operand-based Three While objective-based of (3) the stages. (1) and and seven approaches: action); of Model sequence common Action a of three into Stages exchange The luation 2. Figure Synthesis and Framework Primitives: Interaction Cartographic n xeto sNra’ 18)sae faction of stages (1988) Norman’s is exception One nteoealitrcincnesto noasqec of sequence a the into or to steps, conversation map observable interaction seven the evaluation overall exchange of single from the a gulf decomposes dialogue in Norman the the model, (2) the in In and user). breakdown map) dialogue the a the in to (i.e., breakdown user design: a the (i.e., interaction execution from during of overcome gulf be the (1) to user). in as need the described failures that objects, of evaluation to gulfs and kinds and map humans general between two the map) communication of from the warns Norman dialogue to Further, the user (i.e., the (i.e., sequence from execution concrete dialogue more the a with exchange interaction tgso (inter)action of stages iue2 Figure . 379 Published by Maney Publishing (c) The British Cartographic Society 4. 3. 2. of 1. include: definition interaction seven cartographic the digital These for 1. to applied Figure as relation stages in in depicted interaction stages cartographic seven these shows 380 pehrcgiintpclyaemlimdland multi-modal a using are manipulate systems typically map-based to even speech-recognition skills device; require motor input styles physical human interface of eye- recognition). aforementioned application (e.g., the gesture mode of recognition, Most other speech or tracking, etc.), (e.g., pointing keypad, device keying a keyboard, etc.), joystick, through mouse, the (e.g., interface device manipulate or to cartographic exchange, required provided input interaction human the physical the of component she ‘doing’ operator. or that he objective, execute and an must achieving for (Howard operator Action possible styles the interface Executing five 1996). these using MacEachren, implemented of be can operator any implement same are that the styles as but interface them, fill-in, the language), than form natural abstract more and selection, styles language, interface menu five command be of manipulation, should one it (direct upon how rely and do that Operators through can used. interface system operators cartographic the user what available the indicate The into the display. built of map affordances the aware allow to becomes that change interactive interfaces for cartographic through provided srt upr hsojcie hs ucin a be the can of functions classes by These generic into perceived objective. distilled this are support that objective to by provided user interface functions user’s the cartographic to the stage the prior from the in translation formed the exploration). interaction Action describes mind: in the an goal beginning a an Specifying have of have when does not (but context mind session may user the in overall the objective the in which in in particularly the Geovisualisation sequences session, for interaction interaction past input identi- from user is often fied objective cognitive user The the interaction. the cartographic what form Objectives of interface. a cartographic therefore the statement (e.g., with do a goals to wants as can broader and conceptualized task) the the open-ended be an during from increased versus task complete an precision closed-ended at to of formalized wishes level are user Objectives the the exchange. primitives—describes that interaction task of taxonomies the as here Intention the static remain interac- Forming session. or past evolve interaction may of the either across failure itself support: or goal the success tions, may the on interface Depending presentation. cartographic and synthesis, confirmation, a exploration, user of that set likely goals one DiBiase’s suggests information. diagram Swoopy this and (1990) interaction, to information domain geographic interfaces cartographic of and cartographic of use defined the context motivate poorly goals the is In often specific. and achieve to Goal the Forming objective The : oflo oecoeywt extant with closely more follow to neteue dniisa identifies user the Once : pcfcto fteaction the of Specification : h neto—eerdto intention—referred The : goal Execution swa h sri trying is user the what is operators rteactions the or , ersnsthe represents 7. 5. 6. neato xhne etrigtesvnstage seven the restarting sequence. new exchange, a initialize answer?’). may interaction my user through have the the evaluation, I accomplished this (‘do if Following insights been these determine of has to generation seem goal meta-evaluation this (‘does a overarching insights and generated evaluation of or right?’) critical validity expected a the the both of with includes operator This the result. desired of result the pares Outcome the Evaluating why’. h ytm(iue2 Stage the 2, (Figure in System participates Action the map Stage the the 2, Executing (Figure that conversation. is It operand interaction operator. the made executed changes what about to the feedback about of of provision signals the result through or to a user, way as primary the happened important a to is feedback particularly it map. provide as is execution, and following operand directly user the essential the given between is action, However, of operand a conversation stages The seven (or two-way graphic all map. of map digital information completion for digital the other cartographic to a or linked For is thereof) 2003). operand component Yang, interface the four and interactions, other interface (Ward the (through manipulation styles) indirectly direct or either the interacting style) is (through user the directly operator which with The object state. virtual system or the recipient, in changing operator the way, of some recipient the digital manipulates System the of executed, of context State the the Perceiving in the machine from the interactions. offloaded potentially onto is and this interaction user the Thus, of of stage input). manipulation additional semantic be for (i.e., can application that display (i.e., the information inputs by meaningful user ingested basic into convert input) (e.g., to raw pointing logic necessary as the such movements MacEachren motor include h iia neato smd osbe(iue1: (Figure possible made is interaction which through digital device computing the the emphasize that o‘eigta’ hl nepeigteSaeo the of State Stage the 2, (Figure Interpreting System while Stage 2, ‘seeing-that’, (Figure System to the new Perceiving of State of model, the generation pattern-matching context the (1990) the to Ganter’s lead In properly may insight. state objective system the completion operator, of revised desired the the of application identified reflects If the out objective. carry to user used be should been it representation—has requested, cartographic is informa- that Stage about stage additional tion 2, this representation—or (Figure second action cartographic describe the in of to formulated stage objective way the of One completion of sense update. make must then the user the perceived, is System operand the of State the Interpreting middle). tal. et operand 05.Cmuigdvcsprovide devices Computing 2005). , # )adPrevn h tt of State the Perceiving and 4) ecie h elo digital/ or real the describes , # h ia vlaincom- evaluation final The : )i iia o‘reasoning- to similar is 6) fteMcahe and MacEachren the of The # h prtr once operator, The : atgahcJournal Cartographic )aetestages the are 5) neteupdated the Once : # ) neanew a once 2); # )i similar is 5) Published by Maney Publishing (c) The British Cartographic Society al .Etn betv-ae aooiso neato primitives interaction Geovisualisation of taxonomies for objective-based been Extant need has 1. research Table ontologies key the a task ontologies; to task as functional wish as identified may of described user are development Objective-based the often interface. tasks Stage cartographic taxonomies the 2, of (Figure with kinds complete stage the Intention emphasizing the Forming the approaches Objective-based TAXONOMIES OBJECTIVE-BASED are approaches the three as These here Map). described the 2, (Figure objective- approach Stage an 2, parsing (Figure (1) approach Stage 2, to primitives: (Figure approach interaction approaches based taxonomy, into recommended include two-dimensional exchanges or a three in stages, stages three producing three only these of stage). of one own two with its align interaction as primitives of frameworks operand taxonomical the extant Interestingly, seven-dimen- considering eight-dimen- (or a when primitives Norman’s sional, producing interaction of of interaction, taxonomy a each sional of construct at to stages primitives possible (1988) interaction theoretically is of it taxonomy above, stated As Synthesis and Framework Primitives: Interaction Cartographic tlc r sdt ifrnit em sdt eciean terms. same describe the to of the used uses sections. regular terms of from synthesis differentiate primitive view following to interaction used the unfiltered are in confusion an Italics or discussed overlap are of provide areas instead use; map to in concept currently order each terminology in in terms attempt the minimal figure disambiguate a of to taxo- Only frequencies made size). extant was relative (text the of primitives and a relationships interaction as connections) the well (line as showing nomies stage given map the at concept offered summary taxonomies table extant a the of includes in section synthesized Each sections. are subsequent primitives interaction of taxonomies operand-based and operator-based, objective-based, Extant Yi Amar huadFie 19)Vsa ak 1 soit,()bcgon,()ctgrz,()cutr 5 compare, (5) cluster, (4) categorize, (3) background, Objectives (2) associate, (1) cluster, (5) categorize, (4) distinguish, (3) locate, (2) identify, (1) compare (2) identify, (1) Tasks Visual Goals Visualisation Title Blok (1998) Feiner and Operations Zhou (1993) Wehrend (1990) Lewis and Wehrend Author(s) rmtn(02 neatvt ak 1 xmn,()cmae 3 r)re/r)ot 4 extract/suppress, (4) (re)order/(re)sort, (3) compare, (2) examine, (1) Tasks Interactivity Andrienko (2002) Crampton MacEachren tal. et tal. et tal. et 20)Ue net 1 eet 2 xlr,()rcniue 4 encode, (4) reconfigure, (3) explore, (2) select, (1) Intents User (2007) 19)EpoaoyTss()ietf,()compare (2) identify, (1) Tasks Exploratory (1999) tal. et 20)Aayi ak 1 ereevle 2 itr 3 opt eie au,()find (4) value, derived compute (3) filter, (2) value, retrieve (1) Tasks Analytic (2005) tal. et 20)CgiieOeain 1 dniy 2 compare (2) identify, (1) Operations Cognitive (2003) 19)Mt-prtos()ietf,()cmae 3 interpret (3) compare, (2) identify, (1) Meta-operations (1999) he O’s three # oprmnaieitrcinat interaction compartmentalize ) n 3 noperand-based an (3) and 3); fcrorpi interaction. cartographic of # ) 2 noperator-based an (2) 2); # 2), 5 btateaoae 6 itr 7 connect (7) filter, (6) abstract/elaborate, (5) itiuin 8 idaoais 9 lse,(0 correlate (10) cluster, (9) characterize anomalies, (7) find range, (8) determine distribution, (6) sort, (5) extremum, 1)lct,(2 ak 1)rva,(4 wth n 1)encode (15) and switch, (14) identify, reveal, (10) (13) generalize, rank, (9) (12) emphasize, locate, (8) (11) distinguish, (7) correlate, (6) correlate (9) associate, (8) compare, (7) rank, (6) 5 cause/effect (5) us(90 93,Zo n enr(98,Blok (1998), Andrienko Feiner MacEachren collea- and and Zhou (1999), Cartography, Wehrend 1993), include: (1990, of which gues Analytics, domains Visual objective- Visualisation, and the Information extant Interaction, from summarizes Human–Computer taxonomies 1 1988; Table Goodchild, based (e.g., 1997). broadly more Albrecht, GIScience as well as pcfial eg,Fbiat 01 Andrienko 2001; Fabrikant, (e.g., specifically rn rpssnn vsaiaingas,dfie as defined goals’, We- ‘visualization tasks’. ‘visual nine (1998) proposes Feiner’s and hrend Zhou taxo- and only goals’ objective-based including taxonomies two simpler identify the includes extend 3, that Figure nomies of important middle semiotics). (an of entity model triadic real-world the a considering when to objective feature identified an graphic, primitives objective-based the the equivalent of only of top include set the that At concentrated taxonomies lines. a dashed is by there figure delineated overlap, the their in on based subsections general three primitive. interaction the each and of taxonomies frequencies relative objective-based similarities the across indicates differences map concept and 3 Figure The (2007). atgah yMerk 18) MacEachren (1986), define Muehrcke (1999) primitive by the the Cartography extends with but map, taxonomies interpret concept objective-based 3 Figure two-part the of MacEachren subsection The objects. al. map et multiple across differences al. et compare while of identify definitions The and operations’. ‘cognitive (2003) h eodsbeto ntecnetmp oae nthe in located map, concept the in subsection second The into map concept 3 Figure the segment to possible is It s(99 mt-prtos loaeicue nthis in included are also ‘meta-operations’ (1999) ’s s(99 epoaoytss,adAndrienko and tasks’, ‘exploratory (1999) ’s compare compare ern n ei’ 19)‘prtos,Blok ‘operations’, (1993) Lewis’s and Wehrend : ecie h xmnto fasnl a object, map single a of examination the describes rwn rmpeiu oko a edn in reading map on work previous from Drawing . and tal. et compare interpret r agl ossetars taxonomies; across consistent largely are extends 20) Amar (2003), ern’ 19)‘visualization (1993) Wehrend’s : tal. et identify sdtriigterltosi of relationship the determining as 19) rmtn(2002), Crampton (1999), ocnie iiaiisand similarities consider to tal. et 20) n Yi and (2005), tal. et identify 2003) , identify tal. et tal. et tal. et tal. et 381 and ’s Published by Maney Publishing (c) The British Cartographic Society pnthe upon rusbsdo iia hrceitc—hsts differs task characteristics—this similar from on based (5) groups (3) organisation), group for or terms), (4) another divisions from relative others), different as of or object one absolute (recognize in her or (1) distinctly object is his (2) object on include: an which recognisable), perform by goals characteristics to subsections the like three (establish Visualisation into would taxonomies segmented user objective-based information. be a extant can that among primitives map relationships actions the concept the include objective-based that shows The taxonomies map primitives. simple concept of interaction The set included primitives. concentrated the a objective-based of relations: of on frequency map based relative concept the A and 3. Figure 382 fWhedstxnm ot oig is,Wehrend First, noting. characteristics worth two taxonomy are Wehrend’s There of objects). (8) (7) (9) between/among ranking), type), and explicit no same ship), have the they associate of when objects objects among other to compare respect an with using (6) than intervals), rather them, of in placed are objects categorize compare ln rji w rmr bet narelation- a in objects more or two join or (link ntc iiaiisaddfeecsbetween/ differences and similarities (notice nta lseigcetstegop sthe as groups the creates clustering that in rmtv mdl) nrcdne rotooa aooista aemnmloelpwt tes(ue rim) (outer others with overlap minimal have that taxonomies orthogonal or unprecedented (middle); primitive correlate rank categorize locate gv nojc nodro position or order an object an (give dtrietepsto fan of position the (determine etbihadrc connection direct a (establish paeojcsit e of set a into objects (place cluster ji bet into objects (join priori a distinguish identify set tegh;eape htmyb osdrdseilcases different special considered at be may elements of beyond that a information go examples strengths; includes that individual Wehrend primitives organize of Second, number operators. large GIS of context eacmlse hog e flwlvloperations. low-level of set (10) a include: can primitives Added through that techniques accomplished visualisation ‘visual be 15 abstract of as total defined a tasks’, generate to taxonomy nine-part (1993) distinguish, atclrmpfaueta led a,o ed obe, to needs or as has, difference already the that distinction, feature located map the this particular of a Using any literature, in the otherwise. found identify within or not is taxonomies cartographic but objective-based emphasis, other spatial clear a hoe oseparate to chooses huadFie 19)drcl xedWehrend’s extend directly (1998) Feiner and Zhou compare rmtv arwyfcssuo h trbtsof attributes the upon focuses narrowly primitive ntemp lrct(97 ecie this describes (1997) Albrecht map. the on identify and include hmtcsearch thematic rank and locate associate . compare from , tp;totxnme htexpand that taxonomies two (top); categorize versus background identify The pta search spatial atgahcJournal Cartographic ; , locate cluster (11) , sats with task a is compare , emphasize correlate nthe in to , , Published by Maney Publishing (c) The British Cartographic Society ae aoois(.. ern n ei,19;Blok objective- 1990; simpler Lewis, al. the and Wehrend in et (e.g., found taxonomies also based those are primitives n aiuain oteoeadsc sarqetfrnew for request a ( as structure such visual operand describ- the operators, to with manipulations confused ing are sophistication of level with overlaps common objectives, five the across manner ordinal from an in Sophistication of objective. increases the level complete their to required objectives: operators user organized the representa- is of sophistication across it characteristic because relationship a important across a is taxonomy of This tions). nature and strength mani- direct (5) and a (4) filtering), performing them), to on addition pulation in information the Crampton, the objective-based Despite operators, and operator. remaining objectives an Amar the of as blending (and of understood this primitive better each interaction is in one taxonomies least more) at often that is disconnect ‘five Yi (2002) Amar each Crampton’s tasks’, with with include interactivity or taxonomies overlap subsections, These 3 minimal Figure other. or other exhibit the unprecedented in that taxonomies largely includes offerings map orthogonal concept 3 Figure 2). (Figure interac- session of interaction stages an the during through model loops tion multiple or exchanges interaction together, of multiple considering that first when conditioning occur result after a may achieved indicating objective, be a given can a a that completing as objectives through new the user the operand contrast, describes the In the to mechanism. provided feedback to objective, an change completing The the implication. accomplish- describes visual visual objective’s and the A organisation ment around is primitives. taxonomy Feiner six the and added Zhou of by the made for extension offered further not are definitions (12) Synthesis and Framework Primitives: Interaction Cartographic yCapo oue pcfial nmnplto to of manipulation sophi- case most on The primitive, interface. objective cartographic specifically sticated a through focuses view the Crampton by of definition objectives—the of and usto etrs( features of subset (3) once), at displays cartographic (2) more feature), a a with inspecting (1) and conduct include: at users tasks actions Interactivity of interface. kinds the as due approaches. following their objective- the in to in divergence remaining separately provided the treated to Each interfaces is taxonomy intentions. the based on than such focus rather overall accomplish scholars’ intentions, the user of because objective-based (re)sort h nlsbeto oae ln h ue i fthe of rim outer the along located subsection final The rmtn(02 fesfie‘neatvt ak’ defined tasks’, ‘interactivity five offers (2002) Crampton tal. et categorize reveal 99 Andrienko 1999; , examine tal. et ocpulyaesmlrt ern’ (1993) Wehrend’s to similar are conceptually s(07 ue net’ n xlnto o this for explanation One intents’. ‘user (2007) ’s compare compare (13) , raon n opeiyo h subsequent the of complexity and amount or , n Yi and epcieyadtu a erepresentative be may thus respectively—and identify to (re)order/(re)sort generalize cause/effect extract/suppress nwihtega st sals a establish to is goal the which in swl as well as cause/effect h betvsa nintermediate an at objectives The . tal. et extract/suppress tal. et (14) , tal. et cause/effect (re)order/(re)sort s(05 aayi ak’ and tasks’, ‘analytic (2005) ’s lnigvest dniythe identify to views (linking aooisaeconsidered are taxonomies h es sophisticated least The . compare examine (re)order/(re)sort .Although ). 03,icuigthe including 2003), , rarqett hwa show to request a or ) switch, iulaccomplishment visual ecie specific a describes , iulimplication visual rmtv that primitive a , eaiigtoor two (examining hglgtn and (highlighting examine n (15) and (re)order (examining provided (looking encode rank and ; dslyadfeetsbe fcss,(3) cases), of subset different a (display ulsto ytm,pouigacletv oa f331 vi- of 51 seven (1) total by intents: and grouped empirical collective user were papers Techniques a than techniques. 59 producing interaction rather included systems, review sources sualisation Their secondary evidence. on taxonomy, the develop although to approach diagramming affinity an ae aooiswti atgah olpewa Yi what collapse operator- Cartography Most within taxonomies operators. based generic of characteristics as or considered this descriptions within better primitives are all taxonomy that objective-based possible is the it (6) examining alone, (7) When detail), definitions and items). conditions), related less of or set associated or (highlight a more satisfy that in cases (5) (show information information), the the (show representing (4) of cases), of arrangement the techni- Amar interaction Like of operators). (i.e., application ques the drive that objectives) Yi subsequent exclusive. mutually primitive not the Finally, is that taxonomy objective-based an lsl ihoeao-ae taxonomies. operator-based with closely insufficiently primitives, these by meant of is cases what redefine special with along ie lhuhde o include not does although tive, the within discrimination also additional taxonomy includes objective-based Wehrend’s As above, items. described compared between relationship temporal one-way trbt) (6) attribute), (5) (3) values), (4) conditions), cases), of of set a value derived meet (2) attributes case), whose information identified an about (1) Visua- tasks: method, analytic diagramming objectives 10 affinity revealing These the Information using information tools. grouped were example visualisation objectives then an an commercial possible with using of accomplished set listing in be a could generate that students to course previously lisation college all Amar extant generally). unlike asked primitives most interaction derived, (and of taxonomies taxonomies empirically interesting objective-based is is mentioned taxonomy it This because Visualisation. Information n/rncsay te betv-ae aooisthat generic the taxonomies both objective-based include other necessary; and/or more a within if delineation appropriate detailed is perhaps replacement This primitive. range, determine correlate, cluster, (10) and attributes), similar (9) expectation), cases), or relationship of set a of (7) (8) distribution the cases), characterize of that statistics set a for pcfi emnlg omnt ttsis uhas such value statistics, derived to common terminology specific compare value Interestingly, attributes). their by cases across Yi Amar n anomalies find o the for tal. et tal. et r o itdadisedaerpae ihmore with replaced are instead and listed not are identify , cluaea grgt ersnainfraset a for representation aggregate an (calculate 20)ls 0‘nltctss ntecnetof context the in tasks’ ‘analytic 10 list (2005) 20)ietf ee ue net’(i.e., intents’ ‘user seven identify (2007) sort n extremum find eemn range determine n anomalies find tal. et select ietf ae htd o ac given a match not do that cases (identify rn ae codn oanumeric a to according cases (rank filter rmtv and primitive 20)txnme,btain more aligns but taxonomies, (2007) mr aeo neet,(2) interest), of case a (mark hrceiedistribution characterize identify sicue nteAmar the in included is identify identify correlate , ietf ae ihextreme with cases (identify ereevalue retrieve n extremum, find cause/effect cluster encode fidtesa fattributes of span the (find tal. et and and hrceiedistribution characterize and and ietf relationships (identify gopcssbsdon based cases (group 20) Yi (2005), cag h method the (change compare sort compare reconfigure compare abstract/elaborate . filter o the for fidattributes (find compare eutn in resulting , identify and fidcases (find primitives, spossible is tal. et tal. et (produce compute compare (change compute connect retrieve explore primi- tal. et 383 tal. et filter used and and , Published by Maney Publishing (c) The British Cartographic Society aoois ti motn ont htteeaea are there that note to of important number is considerable it same sophistication. taxonomies, of the instead level at with same are or that sophistication, meaning, agree primitives of of level of not semantic taxonomy a do notion for arguing other they (2002) upon builds Thus, that Crampton’s goal primitives. level higher a interaction is it that arguing Yi identified the the Interestingly, of marks inclusion then of feature). that combination operator map an a with (i.e., objective primitive (DiBiase, included objective an not with goal, Yi 1994). overarching MacEachren, an 1990; as use for term the only n li 19) MacEachren Dix (1996), (1998), 1995), Shepherd, Ellis Shneiderman Buja from and directly (1996), drawing (1995), Roth (1997; Dykes available and Shepherd Chuah the (1987), (1996), Becker of Cleveland include: aware which and is taxonomies, summarizes 2 operator-based user Table the extant user’s affordances. the strong the that The through that supports operators ensure devices. completely and operators input must objectives of available set designer execute provided using not interface she does itself or cartographic but he operator objective, operator the make the the support identifies stage that will user this believes At the interfaces possible. interaction, representation cartographic of the of the manipulation upon focusing h pcfigteAto tg Fgr ,Stage 2, (Figure stage Action the Specifying the approaches Operator-based TAXONOMIES OPERATOR-BASED with session group focus a from input ornithologists. expert user Andrienko and and (2000), (2003) taxonomies Blok objective-based (1993), Wehrend existing purpose- from the bird final, of through of integration spatiotemporal constructed his the study was patterns; taxonomy of the objective-based to migration driven typology’ specific who and tasks ‘task (2009), distribution reading Auer robust map by dynamic example a presented such is describes One be objectives. Cartography identified operators to within the potential included brainstorm need support each to that of which and examples primitive, specific determine objective generate generally to to the through supported, work and primitives can simply objective applicable developers place be and in designers can broadly the taxonomy workflow a objective-based user-centred and accepted the with design of to streamlined stage (Robinson approach This interface cartographic user-centred 2005). a a of domain in development work or step analysis task the analysis of part is objective- taxonomies purpose-driven based of Construction primitives. descriptions single the detailed and of a highly include to Interaction and specific domain are application Human–Computer that literature Engineering the Usability in taxonomies call 384 eoecnldn h umr nobjective-based on summary the concluding Before explore select and compare ersnigtecnetal otsimilar most conceptually the representing filter filter h otpraieojcieprimitive, objective pervasive most the , n nta eevn h term the reserving instead and noasnl prtrpiiie using primitive, operator single a into purpose-driven oprmnaieitrcinat interaction compartmentalize tal. et tal. et tal. et ontinclude not do 19) atr and Masters (1999), xlctyreject explicitly objective-based priori a identify identify explore tal. et tal. et tal. et # ,as 3), , , diinlwr nbuhn prtosi rvddin operator); provided is second operations a brushing (i.e., on Becker receive work to treatment operands) additional the additional Cleveland (i.e., elements some and that map interaction Becker the enabling indicates the an is under brushing conceptualisation, Thus, items). selected tm) n (4) 2006, and Robinson, (3) items), by items), delimited lected further (2) is 2011), items; selected operator the of this representation the (1) changes and operations’: (brushing Becker ‘brushing four 1989). identify Monmonier, Cleveland (e.g., non-interactive are nefc igt wihat seither as linked acts of or widget (which manipulation direct widgets considered require interface not either are through they alternatives possible because these is While styles, brushing interface manipulation. a that other direct suggest in style: scholars interface items several primitives one operator information offered to few the of specific of one groups it making the selecting display, of directly majority for a to describe Cleveland common (1987) and litera- primitive Becker taxonomies. Analysis only objective-based reviewed Data the Exploratory is the ture, in offered operators the of portion ( the large taxonomies a to the to operator-based common 4 treating primitives first Figure of delineation, according subset this The small follow- by organized The segmented is taxonomies. taxonomies. review across is ing two primitives the instead or of frequency one map a only concept in in results primitives many This found and common taxonomies operator. different primitives operator-based several multiple same employ to only the with or map to operators concept complex operator-based refer different that to the terms refer across to same the term variation employ commonly into taxonomies lexical greater These easily taxonomies. much a segmented of of be because amount structures cannot similar of map subsections concept interaction 4 Figure each of taxo- frequencies relative operator-based primitive. the across and differences nomies Edsall and and (2003), similarities Yang al. and MacEachren Ward et from (2002), directly Keim 1999), drawing (2000; Edsall n h nta,slcinse nterdfiiino the of definition their in in term step the selection of initial, the uses emphasiz- ing scholars subsequent several with in taxonomies, operator-based confusion caused nldstrepiiie on nalreprino the of portion large and a taxonomies: in objective-based found reviewed primitives three includes and representation, cartographic operators). the enabling on the the viewpoint in manipulate user’s symbolisation that themes operators the remaining representation, common manipulate cartographic of several that menagerie operators exhibit (e.g., the together treating that primitives then and manner, ing tprasi hsda-tpntr of nature dual-step this is perhaps It nietecnet asi iue3adFgr ,the 5, Figure and 3 Figure in maps concepts the Unlike h eta uscino h iue4cnetmap concept 4 Figure the of subsection central The ,btotnue na nosseto contradicting or inconsistent an in used often but ), linking 20) h iue4cnetmpidctsthe indicates map concept 4 Figure The (2008). tal. et filtering . hdwhighlight shadow Brushing (1987). brushing label falne oto)(.. ad 97 or 1997) Ward, (e.g., control) linked a of delete n fteeris iia interaction digital earliest the of one , buhn eree h aesfor labels the retrieves (brushing sahgl neatv technique interactive highly a as buhn eee h selected the deletes (brushing brushing buhn hne h unse- the changes (brushing The , atgahcJournal Cartographic focusing brushing brushing brushing and , , highlight focusing hthas that fthat of tal. et link- , , Published by Maney Publishing (c) The British Cartographic Society icsino h rmtv smc lsrt h definition Edsall the to and closer Keim Cleveland’s much by is primitive provided the of discussion coordinated Cleveland’s conflate multiple, (1998) across Ellis (definedbelow),whichimpliesanemphasisonBeckerand and relates Dix visually views. that operator linking conflate Cleveland’s highlight and Becker o or applied selected, a been is emphasizing that particularly change of primitive, visual stage the secondary of definition the their on operator. focus unique (2000) a Edsall than rather MacEachren style Conversely, interface an it making rnfrainse,o n fBce n Cleveland’s defining and step, and former (1995) the on Becker Shepherd focus (1997) operations’. of Dykes ‘brushing one four or (1987) step, transformation brushing primitives interaction of taxonomies operator-based Extant 2. Table Synthesis and Framework Primitives: Interaction Cartographic prtr,clasn hmit igepiiie em(2002) Edsall Keim primitive. and single a into them collapsing operators, the equates of it synon- as critical pretation, is be that to use (2003) necessary Yang’s a and Ward technique, with ymous selection information an uhrs il Operators comparison, dynamic (3) rotation, object (2) motion, observer (1) label (4) delete, (3) highlight, Visualisation shadow Basic (2) highlight, (1) Behaviour Observer-related Title (1996) Roth and Chuah Buja Operations Brushing (1995) Shepherd (1987) Cleveland and Becker Author(s) atr n dal(00 neato oe 1 sinet 2 rsig 3 ouig 4 colourmap (4) focusing, (3) brushing, (2) assignment, (1) Distortion and Interaction information, extra accessing (2) details-on-demand, focus, (4) and filter, highlight (3) (1) zoom, (2) overview, (1) dynamic (3) Modes rotation, Interaction object (2) motion, observer (1) (2002) Keim (2000) Edsall and Interaction Masters of Kinds Behaviour Observer-related MacEachren Tasks (1998) Ellis and Dix (1997) Dykes (1996) Shneiderman adadYn 20)ItrcinOeaos()nvgto,()slcin 3 distortion (3) selection, (2) navigation, (1) Operators Interaction Edsall (2003) Yang and Ward tal. et brushing tal. et neetnl,treo h aooisexplicitly taxonomies the of three Interestingly, . dfie eo) defining below), (defined rmtv n tesepaiigtesecondary, the emphasizing others and primitive tal. et label 19)ItrcieVe aiuain 1 ouig 2 ikn,()arnigviews arranging (3) linking, (2) focusing, (1) Manipulations View Interactive (1996) delete 20)ItrcinFrs()zoig 2 ann/ecnrn,()re-projecting, (3) panning/re-centring, (2) zooming, (1) Forms Interaction (2008) tal. et rmtv srltdt hedra’ (1996) Shneiderman’s to related is primitive ihoeo h te he omnyfound commonly three other the of one with 20)cnaeterueof use their conflate (2008) 19)ItrcinFrs()asgmn,()buhn,()fcsn,()colourmap (4) focusing, (3) brushing, (2) assignment, (1) Forms Interaction (1999) prto;hwvr hi subsequent their however, operation; brushing tal. et c usto lmnshave elements of subset a nce tal et brushing 19)adMsesand Masters and (1999) ihdrc manipulation, direct with neato Operators Interaction Techniques brushing selection brushing ial,Bce and Becker Finally, . highlight -as- selection saselection a as rmtv.I is It primitive. brushing with brushing brushing and focusing shadow inter- with in as aiuain hnaepie yBuja three by These paired views). the of are with number then large update a manipulations of views position or all order (3) having and then result), and graphically yoeao aooy h primitives The taxonomy. by-operator comparisons ( objectives ayoeainta hne h ealo ustof subset a of detail the (2) changes that objects), coordi- operation support (any that (1) manipulations’ visualisation: multi-view nated, view ‘interactive of ihteteteto prns ie t vrl ou)and focus) overall its given operands, Yi of treatment the with al. et ersnain ftesm nomto e,wt the multiple with create Buja 2008). set, (Roberts, permutated to others representation information all user one to same upon the performed the operators inter- allow of of of that class context representations a systems the or active visualisation, in multi-view presented coordinated, taxonomy operator-based Edsall and details-on-demand h hr primitive while taxonomies, third subsequent the in inconsistently defined are focusing 4 yai eepeso,()brushing (5) re-expression, dynamic (4) aiuain 5 iwon aiuain 6 sequencing (6) manipulation, viewpoint (5) manipulation, sequencing (6) manipulation, viewpoint (5) manipulation, representations linking representation, (6) data-changing representation-changing same same (5) (4) parameters, context, and overview (3) brushing (5) re-expression, dynamic (4) comparison, extract (7) history, (6) relate, (5) (data) join (11) (data), (data), add summarize (8) (10) (set), (data), join delete delete (7) (5) (9) (set), (set), summarize create (6) (4) (set), (graphic), (graphic), objects set-graphical-value manipulate (2) (3) (graphic), data encode (1) ogigvsblt,(0 rsigadlnig 1)conditioning (11) linking, and (9) brushing queries, (10) posing representation visibility, (8) altering toggling symbolisation, (6) altering focusing, (7) (5) type, data, exact accessing (4) distortion, (4) brushing zooming, and (3) linking filtering, (5) (2) projection, dynamic (1) h eodadtidcmo rmtvsi iue4, Figure in primitives common third and second The s(2006) ’s and tal. et epciey,pouigasml objective- simple a producing respectively), , nigGestalt finding linking ragn ayviews many arranging linking ’s arranging i n Ellis’s and Dix , cesn xc information exact accessing rgnt rmteBuja the from originate , ragn views arranging utpeves(oigaquery a (posing views multiple , utpeves(dutn the (adjusting views multiple oigqueries posing cesn xr information extra accessing focusing tal. et atxnm included taxonomy (a ssmlrt Persson to similar is focusing ics he types three discuss tal. et . niiulviews individual and , tal. et and , ihthree with making linking (1996) 385 , Published by Maney Publishing (c) The British Cartographic Society ae nrltos omnyicue rmtvswt nosseto otaitn entos(ete;piiie nlddi nyoeor subsections one two only into in segmented taxonomies included be operator-based primitives can extant (centre); among map rim) definitions al. relationships (outer concept contradicting themes et the operator-based or common shows The inconsistent several map exhibit primitives. with concept altogether interaction primitives that The included included but primitives. commonly taxonomies, the operator-based two relations: of of on frequency map based relative concept the A and 4. Figure 386 usqetshlr.Buja scholars. subsequent objectives). of treatment above the emsdfiiinof and definition Shneiderman’s with Keim’s synonymous is condi- that definition user-defined a meeting tions, those to elements information define of with definitions MacEachren synonymous Keim’s is and itself which Shneiderman’s zooming’’, equating ‘‘data definition, of this action follow 9) Edsall elements. p. data displayed (2008, the in detail in decrease or conditioning and sa prtr ie h mhsso oriae,multi- coordinated, on Buja emphasis visualisation, the view Given operator. an as of use this style; interface manipulation direct iia oEdsall to similar h primitive The otdfiiin fthe of definitions Most focusing s(2007) ’s focusing ial,DxadEls(98 conflate (1998) Ellis and Dix Finally, . hc etit plcto of application restricts which , tal. et satcnqefrlmtn h nlso of inclusion the limiting for technique a as tal. et focusing reconfigure 19)adMsesadEsl (2000) Edsall and Masters and (1999) ’s filter oigqueries posing tal. et tal. et sue ntredfeetwy by ways different three in used is linking n Edsall and s(96 ento of definition (1996) ’s atxnm nlddwith included taxonomy (a 19)epaieteincrease the emphasize (1996) rmtv ontqaiyit qualify not do primitive primitive. tal. et zoom sdfiiinof definition ’s focusing focusing .Incontrast, focusing brushing linking othe to oan to tal. et is ersnain o eunildsly uhadfiiinis definition (1995) a alternative Shepherd’s Such to an display. similar sequential offer for (1998) representations Ellis of and definition Dix that Interestingly, meaning display, linking the to manipulation hs ehp nytescn opnn fti three- this of component second the step forms’. only ‘representation perhaps the of Thus, characteristic a it considering of form this MacEachren neato prtrt te iw through this views of coordination other (3) to through and operator interest operator; interaction of interaction items an of identification selection (1) action: linking oriae iw;a oe bv,Ki 20)and (2002) Keim above, noted Becker’s and as Edsall Cleveland views; to coordinated similar conceptually (1987) is itself brushing tal. et uhaprpcieon perspective a Such . 2 aiuaino h eetdiesthrough items selected the of manipulation (2) ; nioaind o ulf sitrcinoperators. interaction as qualify not do isolation in brushing 20)flo hscnainof conflation this follow (2008) tal. et linking z linking operator 19,p 2)aecerntt include to not clear are 323) p. (1999, hnteitrcini ple to applied is interaction the when nwihteue eusssuccessive requests user the which in sa neato prtr instead operator, interaction an as z linking yai comparison dynamic brushing cinrpeet true a represents action The ae tathree-step a it makes atgahcJournal Cartographic brushing brushing primitive linking and and . Published by Maney Publishing (c) The British Cartographic Society n h eaiefeunyo h nldditrcinpiiie.Teoeadbsdcnetmpcnb emne notosubsections two into taxonomies segmented operand-based be extant can (2000) among map relationships concept MacEachren the operand-based and shows The map primitives. concept (bottom) interaction state-centric The included and primitives. (top) the operand-based type-centric of of relations: frequency on map based relative concept the A and 5. Figure Synthesis and Framework Primitives: Interaction Cartographic aiuainde ulf sa neato prtrand operator the same to interaction extended the an be as in may of qualify kind another This does animation. one manipulation cartographic a atop as or side- multiples, representation, as display, for small representations related by-side of series a of tion fpiiie nlddi nyoeo w fteex- the of of range two the or Despite one taxonomies. only operator-based in tant included primitives of through 2003). user (Hardisty, the the interaction or by enabling science) indicated an of views stage of synthesis linking the coordinated during as (such items h ue i fFgr nldsalrenumber large a includes 4 Figure of rim outer The sequencing tal. et rmtv,wihbt eciegenera- describe both which primitive, s(99 n atr n Edsall’s and Masters and (1999) ’s linking fidvda information individual of dutteicue a aes(ntecnetof context the (in layers map theme this included with aligning inter- the primitives of of adjust set features first indicate The to est). in change included symbol representa- be temporary would cartographic what the beyond tion in included symbolisation opera- next. user’s (3) of reviewed is category and the tors Each representation; operators. manipulate cartographic interaction enabling that the that of operators operators viewpoint repre- (1) (2) cartographic themes: the sentation; in general symbolisation three the manipulate of one les with these used, terminology h rtteeicue opera includes theme first The rqetpiiie align primitives frequent s osta aiuaethe manipulate that tors highlight ie,a (i.e., 387 Published by Maney Publishing (c) The British Cartographic Society .Do Drpeettos uha ita globes; virtual primitive as separate the such as of this reserve representations, definition Dykes and 3D their Shepherd in or rotation 2.5D of manipulation entire surrounding notion viewpoint the the of the scale include or the MacEachren Finally, changing overview map). without (i.e., an context maintaining use (2002) while Keim and (2003) primitive the Yang 1988). and Ichikawa, Ward and (Tanaka Inversely, scales changing when th tion of the abstraction the in in change change a from necessarily zoom not displayed the and different of only, detail scale is map in Cartography, of use Shneiderman’s Interactive within n li,and Ellis, and Edsall and described is primitive operator as this a information; representation to same new map the choropleth of a a producing of from map), changing change symbol kind proportional a without (e.g., the mapped adjust is displayed what theme representation this with cartographic aligning set primitives second The well. of as projection map the to changes include noeve fteifrainsaet pcfi details. specific of to use space the information However, the of overview an hc nldscagst h xeto h a (i.e., map the of extent the to pan changes (Harr includes browsing which map of cover part theme This viewpoint. operator includes primitives manipulation as colourmap described primitive repre- operator this is the data; underlying changing the or without type scheme) sentation classifica- this colour (e.g., with scheme, parameters aligning tion symbolisation primitives the of set adjust final theme A (1998). Ellis and and (1996), 1977), Roth Tukey, by introduced expression representation); can map variables self-organizing which a Edsall to in axes (e.g., of assigned be number the includes also (2002) (2000) the MacEachren Edsall and (in mapping); visibility variable(s) thematic toggle mapped of the context or mapping) reference 388 respectively. 19)vsa nomto s bines information visual (1996) terms the a browsing using map of components Edsall (2003). Yang and as as described motion are manipulations observer these of combination The n atr n dal(00,and (2000), Edsall and Masters and h eodteectigars hs peripheral these across cutting theme second The iwon manipulation viewpoint leigrpeetto type representation altering n hne otesaeo h a (i.e., map the of scale the to changes and ) zoom i n s t e a di su s e dw i t h i nC a r t o g r a p h yt od e s c r i b ea tal. et assignment yai projection dynamic ySehr 19)adDks(97 atr first term (a (1997) Dykes and (1995) Shepherd by aerpeetto,cagn parameters changing representation, same n h aforementioned the and ’s Zooming distortion set-graphical-value re-projection rmtv ecie h omrsituation former the describes primitive ySehr 19)adDks(1997), Dykes and (1995) Shepherd by leigsymbolisation altering aedt,cagn representation changing data, same tal. et rmtv ecie h atr Keim’s latter. the describes primitive panning/re-centring zoom s(99 n atr n Edsall’s and Masters and (1999) ’s zoom sfnaetlt Shneiderman’s to fundamental is a etrs h term The features. map odsrb hnei h detail the in change a describe to yMacEachren by whenappliedinthecontextof tal. et extends yMacEachren by ssmlrt sinet but assignment, to similar is tal. et o a rwig common browsing, map for nta tidctsachange a indicates it that in htmnplt h user’s the manipulate that s eigmnr,wihcom- which mantra, eeking wradSese,2005), Sheesley, and ower yEdsall by sprimitivesconsideredas noedata encode atgahcrepresenta- cartographic e 20)miti h two the maintain (2008) yCuhadRoth. and Chuah by niiulprimitives, individual s n atr n Edsall and Masters and yai projection dynamic navigation filter ta.dnmcre- dynamic al. et yEdsall by tal. et tal. et and yCuhand Chuah by omv from move to tal. et n Master and s(2008) ’s semantic zooming yWard by (1999) yDix by zoom yDix by tal. et to ). , betrotation object u-olcino tm lsteqeyn aaeesfor and parameters application) the querying of the outside use plus future items primitives of sub-collection (1996) operators enabling Shneiderman’s ostensibly Other include redo. includes and undo that Although as enabling primitive such Yi 2008). special as taxonomy, a Zafiri, in reserve objective-based considered constraints and an overcome (Haklay primarily be to real-estate applied to may are related screen they primitives also a as of as operators, set browsing included entire if The map itself. operator, by enabling primitive an as conceptualized operator- objects (1996) from, including primitives Roth operators, up the enabling and emphasizes clean Chuah taxonomy (Whitefield based The or work 1998). for, perform Davies, prepare that to operators required operators their tutaproedie prtrbsdtxnm for taxonomy MacEachren operator-based include analysis purpose-driven data qualitative a con- a that struct with experiments along interaction session, Cartographic an timestamp. interaction during real-world employed or for operator experiment interaction developed user every were listing of taxonomies analysis data These qualitative Cartography. specific are to that taxonomies to operator-based purpose-driven performed interaction work. enabling past from an up are clean of which history), examples interaction the both using operation an redo 20a b). (2008a, Andrienko oiotldse ietruhtemdl fFgr 5. Figure of middle the through line dashed by horizontal delineated are a type- sections primitives: These state-centric. operand and centric articulating and avenues identifying different very to represent each that subsections of two into frequencies relative the primitive. and interaction taxonomies operand- across based differences and similarities the indicates map 19) h n olaus(98 00,Crampton 2000), (1998, Persson and (2003), Yang Andrienko colleagues (2002), Shneiderman Keim and (1996), (2002), (1993), Roth Chi Wehrend and which (1996), (1990), Chuah McNabb (1994), taxonomies, 3 Table Peuquet and operator. operand-based Haber proper executed operand the the include: that extant of how result about ensure a summarizes user as must the changed to has designer provided is interface feedback interacting. is user user the The which with Action object digital/virtual an the and Executing Stage 2, execution of (Figure (1988) stages Stage 2, Norman’s the (Figure of between nexus evaluation, the at action Finally, TAXONOMIES OPERAND-BASED swt betv-ae aoois hr sasbe of subset a is there taxonomies, objective-based with As includes theme final The ti osbet emn h iue5cnetmap concept 5 Figure the segment to possible is It re-projecting h eeto tpof step selection The . prn-ae approaches operand-based tal. et hl Edsall while , add # # )adPrevn h tt fteSystem the of State the Perceiving and 4) ) ee h ou so h prn,or operand, the on is focus the Here, 5). 20) dal(03,adRobinson and (2003), Edsall (2002), primitive. , create tal. et neato logs interaction , eee join, delete, 20) h iue5concept 5 Figure The (2006). tal. et nbiginteractions enabling brushing tal. et oprmnaieinter- compartmentalize The includeitaspartof atgahcJournal Cartographic 20) adand Ward (2003), ytminteractions system and radocument a or , history extract a ebest be may tal. et tal. et tal. et manipulate ud or (undo 1993; , (1998), sv a (save (2007) ,or Published by Maney Publishing (c) The British Cartographic Society ersne nomto.I contrast, In information. accord represented primitives discriminate Type-centric primitives interaction of taxonomies operand-based Extant 3. Table Synthesis and Framework Primitives: Interaction Cartographic ulttvl) (3) qualitatively), a rendering, the onscreen as (Card to pipeline through referred visualisation information linear transformations data computational the of raw emphasize sequence bottom) from 5: workflow (Figure taxonomies based fafaue,(5) feature), a of (4) relative), is position another can user a (2) which number), with one (1) data’ by specified include: of offers primitives ‘types (1993) type seven Data Wehrend interact. of 5, Figure set of early half an are top the avenues in Both located this interacting. in is section. state following user the the the in reviewed to which according at pipeline discriminated are primitives ersnainbsduo h betv n operand and objective the upon context. visual based appropriate (i.e., the representation prescribe taxonomy to operand-based taxonomy) task-by-type a objective-by-operand type-centric producing a taxonomy, a two-dimensional objective-based set an combining did with taxonomy type- Wehrend in subsequent and taxonomies, precedent taxonomy operand-based this with there centric Although overlap network). little or hierarchy is single a into (7) objects and space), in (6) einn ihtp-eti prn-ae taxonomies operand-based type-centric with Beginning adadYn 20)ItrcinOead n pcs()sre,()dt,()dt tutr,()atiue 5 object, (5) attribute, (4) structure, data (3) data, (2) screen, (1) Spaces and Operands Interaction Persson (2003) Yang and Ward em(02 aaTps()oedmninl 2 w-iesoa,()multi-dimensional, (3) two-dimensional, (2) one-dimensional, (1) view (4) abstraction, visualisation (3) abstraction, analytical (2) data, (1) dimension, temporal (3) representation, (2) data, (1) view visualisation abstraction, (4) abstraction, (3) analytical (2) data, (1) three-dimensional, (3) Types two-dimensional, Data (2) one-dimensional, (1) control (3) data, (2) position, graphical, Andrienko States object (5) (1) Data (3) shape, time, Types (4) (2) Interactivity Operands direction, location, (3) (1) nominal, (2) scalar, (1) (2002) Keim view (4) abstraction, States visualisation Data (3) data, (2002) derived Crampton (2) data, (1) (2000) Types Chi Data (1998) Riedl and framework Chi TRIAD State Output (1996) Data Shneiderman of Types (1996) Roth and Chuah Title (1994) Peuquet States Data (1993) Wehrend (1990) McNabb and Haber Author(s) ptal xeddrgo robject or region extended spatially tal. et tal. et prtrbsdtxnme Fgr :top) 5: (Figure taxonomies operator-based 20)ItrcinTps()rpeetto,()agrtm o h raino a of creation the for algorithms (2) representation, (1) Types Interaction (2006) 20)Cmoet fSaitmoa aa()sae 2 ie 3 objects (3) time, (2) space, (1) Data Spatiotemporal of Components (2003) position direction structure telcto fapiti space), in point a of location (the apsto owihmto or motion which to position (a a ragmn fmultiple of arrangement (an n ocaatrsiso the of characteristics to ing nominal shape telcto fa area an of location (the teotieo surface or outline (the state-centric tal. et apoet specified property (a scalar 99;operand 1999); , aquantity (a operand- 7 he-iesoa,()sse interaction system (8) dimension, three-dimensional, temporal (7) (6) views, linking, simultaneous dynamic arranging (5) (4) database, (3) representation, structure visualisation (6) 4 etadhpret 5 irrhe n graphs, software and and hierarchies algorithms (5) (6) hypertext, and text (4) interaction contextualizing (4) network (7) tree, (6) multi-dimensional, (5) temporal, (4) structure (7) object, or region extended spatially (6) sasnl rmtv,eutn oWehrend’s to equating primitive, single a as Shneiderman’s hedra) (4) Shneiderman), (3) Shneiderman), n graphs and Wehrend’s sifrainwt eprldmnin matching dimension, temporal notable dimensional a several are with Shneiderman’s there information although as types’, (1) Shneiderman: from ‘data differences six of Wehrend’s of variant not position, spatial (4) attribute), vertical an representing numerical dimension third 1993, Wehrend’s, three-dimensional than (1) scalar types’: rather ‘data information taxo- seven Keim and lists dimensional Shneiderman Shneiderman Wehrend the above nomies. and the type-centric taxonomy between (1993) of primitives common no type pair are information there own the overlap; their much of exhibiting with taxonomies part as taxonomies, primitives task-by-type operand of set type-centric aeasatadeddt n niiuleeet may elements individual and (6) element), date information each end (5) and overlap), start a have hc ifrfrom differ which hedra 19)adKi 20)ec rsn a present each (2002) Keim and (1996) Shneiderman ,(2) ), tetn Shneiderman’s (treating ,(2) ), structure lna nomto,dfie rmrl stextual as primarily defined information, (linear two-dimensional multi-dimensional one-dimensional temporal temporal dfie s‘elwrd bet,wt the with objects, world’ ‘real as (defined one-dimensional ,ad(7) and ), structure etadhypertext and text multi-dimensional two-dimensional ahrta Shneiderman’s than rather ifraincletdoe time, over collected (information gopta nomto) (3) information), (geospatial .Ki fesasmlrlisting similar a offers Keim ). tree rmtv) (5) primitive), nmru trbtsfor attributes (numerous network one-dimensional nomto nta they that in information aheacia ain of variant hierarchical (a tree a endby defined (as and a endby defined (as a endas defined (as a unordered (an structure network hierarchies (defined ,and ), types 389 one- one- Published by Maney Publishing (c) The British Cartographic Society hc ecie h trbtso h spatiotemporal the of attributes Andrienko the The phenomenon). describes (3) the and which and Keim), described Shneiderman, the by with synonymous is (2) which Keim), the and Shneiderman with by described synonymous is which rcal,a hyvee t ifrnefo h general the from difference minor. its conceptually viewed as level they as tractable, ihthe the with are times; that all known interactions at for consideration the important as cartographic, is explicitly taxonomy based for Andrienko framework TRIAD information, al. et (1994) spatiotemporal information. Peuquet’s of conceptualizing components on temporal Keim and Drawing and spatial (1996) the Shneiderman empha- size that the taxonomies operand-based the of type-centric (2002) and effectively simplification for dimension Andrienko a target in is treatment search provided The 2006). is expanded Andrienko, taxonomy (an task operational primitives objective etrs;Bri’ nemdaelvli eoe rmthe from removed is level Andrienko intermediate Bertin’s versus features); feature) map levels: one search only general with primary map interaction two and of (reading include levels of level, to search concept reading the (1967/1983) dimension, Bertin’s third simplifies The interaction. the during with investigation, under temporal primitive operand unknown g nrdcdi hsppr;a umrzdabove, summarized as paper); this in terminol- Andrienko the introduced using cognitive operator, an ogy an The of (not concept consideration). objective the with interaction under synonymous percentage is features dimension (the operation map level all search information (3) of spatiotemporal and search the investigation), (2) of under representation), component the across (the to target visual dimensions applied (the operation process three cognitive (1) analytic vary: includes tasks spatiotem- use map taxonomy a which with task Andrienko complete The to tional interface. need cartographic may of user poral suite a full that the characterize tasks to taxonomy’ task ‘operational or Andrienko by Geovisualisation task-by-type, provided and is Cartography Interactive a cartographic of context the of of context utility the Cartography. for the taxonomy in objective-by-operand, reducing fixed type is interaction, non- information as largely the well Thus, primitive as representations. globes 3D virtual geographic as primitive such depictions the geographic reserves Shneiderman ersnain,uigteprimitive the using representations, cartographic associated and information, geographic describe both they that is taxonomies operand-based type-centric Keim hypertext one-dimensional (6) 390 n yecnrcoeaddsicinta sifleta in influential is that distinction operand type-centric One loihsadsoftware and algorithms dniytresac agt:(1) targets: search three identify , priori a raigaditrcinwt eea-oalmap several-to-all with interaction and (reading rmtv) e iiaiyi h hedra and Shneiderman the in similarity key A primitive). and/or time tal. et tal. et and/or eaae rmtemr basic more the from separated , ciga osritdrn interaction during constraint a as acting , object sfaeokt aeteproblem the make to framework ’s nyinclude only object rmtvsatn steconstraints the as acting primitives tal. et aseilcs fShneiderman’s of case special (a objects prn rmtvs ri the is or primitives, operand space 20,p 1) h fe an offer who 510), p. (2003, temporal tal. et one-dimensional two-dimensional identify space rmtv skp under kept is primitive te‘ht r‘who’, or ‘what’ (the yecnrcoperand- type-centric three-dimensional rmtv described primitive rmtv seither is primitive space time and two-dimensional te‘where’, (the tal. et te‘when’, (the compare elementary primitive primitive etand text opera- for as ; nomto,rte hncaatrsiso hsinformation the this pr to of (1990) McNabb characteristics and applied Haber itself. than techniques rather rendering primitives information, vis and information operand transformations the discriminate to which according taxonomies, based utvraedt aus,(3) values), (2) data multivariate itself), data the includes not spaces Interaction it (1) both. include: within and divisions although interaction additional data several interaction, focuses between taxonomy difference information/graphic this the 2000), on (1998, and primarily (1996), colleagues Roth by is and and described Chuah operator Chi taxonomies (1990), the McNabb interaction state-based and as the the Haber with defined which As spaces’, on applied. ‘interaction object of conceptual as taxonomy such based system, the interactions. past undoing with and permissions interactions accessing enabling include (2) data), derived to three data through states (1) between operators: transition a request stat four interactively these of any with interact and ( primitives state-centric two into pipeline McNabb view abstraction analytical iulsto yatiue,(5) attribute), by visualisation (4) organisation), data space of components with tion Dojc nowihtevsaiaini rjce) and projected), is visualisation the which (6) onto object 3D (1) primitives: state-centric four same the terminol- for different ogy slightly using taxonomy, similar a operand-based present 2000) (1998, colleagues and operand-based Chi state-centric taxonomy. (1990) McNabb to and Haber information the interact. through may user data the which at from representation the transformation both tional taxonomies, themse primitives state-centric represent are between) the the and in information whereas prescri form, then which c as information, defined afore are primitives the nomies, in taxonomies: the type-cent based illustrates between taxonomy operand-based difference McNabb (3) and The view). and Haber the to visualisation), visualisation abstract abstract the from the (transformation to data derived the (4) and representation), for translated McNabb been displayable and has Haber (3) that the information), in or data, simulations of (2) taxonomy), output the to n xso h iulsto) adadYn pair Yang and operators Ward interaction three visualisation). with the spaces interaction of these axes and (1) primitives: state-centric four ‘visual the as described pipeline, h otmhl fFgr pn tt-eti operand- state-centric spans 5 Figure of half bottom The adadYn 20)peetasaecnrcoperand- state-centric a present (2003) Yang and Ward eea usqetshlr fe ocpulvrat to variants conceptual offer scholars subsequent Several iulsto structure–space visualisation rpia state graphical ha n oh(96 ipiyteHbrand Haber the simplify (1996) Roth and Chuah . itrcinwt rpia igt oajs the adjust to widgets graphical with (interaction image screen–space aaenrichment/enhancement data eie data derived terpeetto tef.Teue sal to able is user The itself). representation (the ,btadathird a add but ), (3) , iulsto mapping visualisation aavalue–space data itrcinwt cenpxl and pixels screen with (interaction btatvisualisation abstract iulsto abstraction visualisation i n tt-eti operand- state-centric and ric ual btatoso h raw the of abstractions (usable vs rpit ntecomputa- the in points or lves, aastructure–space data sto rcs’ hc includes which process’, isation to adayasrcinin abstraction any (and ation object–space etoe yecnrctaxo- type-centric mentioned etepoe representation proper the be data -eti rmtvs swl as well as primitives, e-centric aatrsiso h mapped the of haracteristics aiainppln,o the or pipeline, ualisation itrcino h labels the on (interaction sn neryvisualisation early an esent The oto state control terwdt,particular data, raw (the atgahcJournal Cartographic itrcinwith (interaction itrcino a on (interaction tasto from (transition tasto from (transition (information rmtv to primitive attribute– aastate data rendering data n (4) and , (interac- ,(2) Published by Maney Publishing (c) The British Cartographic Society ersnainmodel representation (1) types’: ‘interaction broad-level eight oh 96.I otat Persson contrast, In 1996). Roth, the to (similar sion (3) primitive), (state (2) primitive), (1) broad-level in types’: four marked describes ‘interactivity is (2002) Crampton each following. approaches; blend the state-based literature cartographic and the type-based operand- within additional taxonomies two based Interestingly, of Cartography. the outside set sources of from reviewed derived are previously taxonomies operand-based for the taxonomy, opportunity operand-based little offer and shelf-life scholarly extension. exhibit abbreviated that perspective dynamism means an technology-centred great a technologies the appro- from inquiry; mapping contributions less scientific the interactive interface—is of subject of cartographic (2011), a usable as Roth priate and implementing in useful for a discussed essential view—while the As technology-centred to carto- interaction. on analogous right) 1: graphic itself is (Figure perspectives difference operand interface-centred middle) 1: and this (Figure the technology-centred the Map); between difference of the characteristics 2, 2, (Figure (Figure System emphasizes the of instead State the Perceiving Stage of stage the h loihsfrteceto farepresentation views a of query creation the (3) primitive), for algorithms the smlrt the an to (similar than distinction visualisation operator an (6) dimension of distinction), more operand be to appears (5) 1996), moving Stage in 2, (Figure Action challenges an Executing technological of stage the the from on emphasis overall taxonomy. operator-by-operand based loigfraciia xmnto ftecretsolution current the offered, of taxo- were examination they extant critical which a contrast at for stage and allowing the compare to to according it place, nomies possible in framework was interaction own of then its seven stages be the to into map With exchange the stage). was considering interaction if model metaphor (eight, single steps action a observable conversation of divide stages or to (1988) applied dialogue Norman’s that 1), two-way (Figure interaction cartographic a on accepts perspective a Taking 76). rpi neato:ietfiainadatclto fthe of carto- articulation (Thomas of primitives and challenge’ interaction fundamental ‘grand identification the interaction: to graphic contributes paper This OUTLOOK AND DISCORDANCES CONCORDANCES, CONCLUSION: ( Synthesis and Framework Primitives: Interaction Cartographic navigation sd rmteAndrienko the from Aside n nepeaino h tt-eti esetv san is perspective state-centric the of interpretation One tp rmtv) n (4) and primitive), (type icue ne the under (included # saepiiie,(4) primitive), (state ) ncnrs otetp-eti esetv that perspective type-centric the to contrast in 5), tp rmtv) (7) primitive), (type , yai ikn ihfrhrdslytypes display further with linking dynamic tp rmtv) n (8) and primitive), (type selection, oto state control neato ihtepiaymodel/database primary the with interaction oto state control neato ihtedt representation data the with interaction saepiiie,(2) primitive), (state neato ihtetmoa dimen- temporal the with interaction or neato ihtedata the with interaction oto state control rmtv nlddi ha and Chuah in included primitive distortion nCuhadRt,1996). Roth, and Chuah in neato ihtetemporal the with interaction ragn aysimultaneous many arranging tal. et otxulzn interaction contextualizing neato ihte3D the with interaction tal. et ,pouigastate- a producing ), nCuhadRoth, and Chuah in 20)type-centric (2003) neato ihthe with interaction ytminteraction system 20)describe (2006) neato with interaction tal. et 05 p. 2005, , # (state (state )to 4) (this N N N N N N N prtrbsdtxnme fitrcinprimitives interaction of include: taxonomies extant regarding operator-based discordances and concordances Important xatojciebsdtxnme fitrcinprimitives interaction include: of taxonomies objective-based extant (discordances). confusion of points common determine 5). as as to (Figure (concordances) well possible approach each was within taxonomies it themes overarching synthesized, operand-based and objective- sorted taxonomies Once and as operator-based characterized 4), 3), (Figure (Figure were taxonomies interaction based parsing the approaches in and to the three stages These objective-by-operand, three taxonomies). that these objective-by-operator, operator-by-operand of two three revealed of a of case (or challenge’ one interaction with of ‘grand aligned stages taxonomies key the disparate One otherwise challenge’. into ‘grand aforementioned insight the for space motn ocracsaddsodne regarding discordances and concordances Important etyepaieol n rteohri hi definition. their in other incor- the (1987) or one Cleveland only emphasize and rectly Becker following scholars inse (e.g., step tion a of composed ftoetxnme htd iciiaewti the within discriminate do that identify taxonomies those Of Crampton, the 1998; within Feiner, and Amar 2002; Zhou the com- 1993; within taxonomies (Wehrend, discriminate objective-based complex monly more The The al. 1997; et Edsall Dykes, 2002; Keim, 1995; and Shepherd, MacEachren (Becker 1987; taxonomies Cleveland, operator-based reviewed Brushing (Yi meaning of levels opera- semantic 2002), of different inclusion Crampton, at continuum against from argue tors a explicitly sophistication across others or of while implications 1998) level Feiner, visual (e.g., and and Zhou categories accomplishments from into visual primitives the (e.g., organize scholars Several 2007). h betv-ae aooyi uulyexclusive. mutually is taxonomy objective-based the broader the removes 99 atr n dal 00 Edsall 2000; Edsall, and Masters 1999; linking ae aoois(lhuhnti majority). a in not (although taxonomies based Edsall 2002; The tal. Blok et 1998; Feiner, and 1993; Wehrend, Zhou 1990; Lewis, objective-based and (Wehrend reviewed taxonomies the across included commonly tg rabedn ftetosae eg,Zo and Zhou (e.g., stages Amar al. two 2002; et the Crampton, of 1998; blending Feiner, a intermediate or an authors, at stage operators many offered taxonomies by several considered and in not resulting is objectives 2 Figure in between described distinction The 99 Andrienko 1999; , 2007). , 96 i n li,19;MacEachren 1998; Ellis, and Dix 1996; , brushing identify (Buja and steol rmtv on namjrt fthe of majority a in found primitive only the is identify tal. et compare tal. et tal. et tal. et and selection rmtv sa es w-tpaction two-step a least at is primitive highlight 05 n esfeunl discriminate frequently less and 2005) , 08 lofudi ayoperator- many in found also 2008) , 99 atr n dal 2000; Edsall, and Masters 1999; , rmtv (Amar primitive 96 i n li,19;Keim, 1998; Ellis, and Dix 1996; , compare identify tal. et rmtvs nyAmar only primitives, tpadasbeun manipula- subsequent a and step , tal. et hdwhighlight shadow 08,with 2008), , and 2003). , rmtvsaetemost the are primitives tal. et compare 99 MacEachren 1999; , tal. et compare tal. et tal. et 2005). , focusing , oesr that ensure to delete tal. et 08 and 2008) , 05 Yi 2005; , primitive , (2005) label tal. et tal. et (Buja 391 ); , , Published by Maney Publishing (c) The British Cartographic Society N N N N N N N N N N 392 n xatoeadbsdtxnme fitrcinprimi- interaction include: of tives taxonomies regard- operand-based discordances extant and ing concordances important Finally, set-graphical-value ulation leigtegahcprmtr ftecartographic the of parameters ( graphic representation the altering constituting Buja (e.g., Edsall operator an as iulsto ieie(Card pipeline the on visualisation based are taxonomies operand-based all State-centric of consideration). under percentage under (the features information level map search the spatiotemporal (the (3) and target to the investigation), search applied of (2) process operator), component the analytic cognitive or visual representation, (1) dimensions: (the three operation includes that typology multi- Andrienko coordinated, of understanding (although context visualisation). the cartographic view for in useful explicitly taxonomies remain are they these that of interactions utility information the geographic Shneiderman place the (2002) under by Keim offered and (1996) taxonomies type-centric and state-centric The a Ward of example taxonomy. 2002); only objective-by-operand the Keim, provide (2003) 1996; Yang Shneiderman, 1993; objec- an (task-b construct tive-by-operand to taxonomies objective-based paired are with often 2003). taxonomies Yang, operand-based and Riedl, Type-centric Ward and Chi 2000; 1996; Chi, Roth, 1998; 2002; and Chuah Keim, 1990; McNabb, 1996; 1993; Shneiderman, Andrienko (Wehrend, articulating 1994; and type-centric Peuquet, identifying primitives: for avenues operand two are There representation, cartographic the the manipulate to that including primitives viewpoint of group user’s large a is There ( and displayed is type representation that representation cartographic is that information map ( the symbolized altering the for representation, manipulate those cartographic that including a primitives in of included group symbolisation large a is There the of definitions Most filtering Edsall focusing The ing manipulation, rotation with (3) combined and 2000); ayo h rmtvsicue noperator-based in included interactions. primitives enabling represent the taxonomies of Many , focusing aedt-hnigrepresentation data-changing same n ogevisibility toggle and tal. et tal. et , , (MacEachren spoiigmr eal(Buja detail more providing as aerpeetto-hnigparameters representation-changing same two-dimensional distortion panning/re-centre tal. et tal. et 08;(2) 2008); , 08,isedmkn ttetidstep third the it making instead 2008), , brushing rmtv a endfndi he as (1) ways: three in defined been has primitive assignment and leigsymbolisation altering brushing 20)peetaueu prtoa task operational useful a present (2003) 03 n tt-eti Hbrand (Haber state-centric and 2003) , ). , focusing zooming , yai re-expression dynamic . aiain bevrmotion observer navigation, tal. et linking , ,toefratrn h yeof type the altering for those ), -ye aooy(Wehrend, taxonomy y-type) DxadEls 1998). Ellis, and (Dix yai projection dynamic focusing rmtv,wihi unlimits turn in which primitive, . 99 atr n Edsall, and Masters 1999; , tal. et tal. et stescnayaction secondary the as , rmtv ontqaiyit qualify not do primitive re-projecting 96 em 2002; Keim, 1996; , 99 n separate and 1999) , ssnnmu with synonymous as , oora manip- colourmap ,adtoefor those and ), , tal. et noedata encode , , re-project- viewpoint 1996; , altering , and , object , 2. 1. the how questions: investiga- core on support these explicit directly of near synthesis connection tion the and the framework in make above questions interaction to core cartographic and the of future, of interaction science several of the to cartographic set facing forward evolving look of to and necessary science an diverse is the it the approaches; to that opportu- ‘grand answers the questions seek the affords line taxonomy to a considered a of nity such endpoint not Rather, the research. is is it of because con- taxonomy interaction’ the of However, a challenge and therein. of primitives, discordances struction interaction and of to concordances taxonomy and efforts framework extant a above of The snapshot construct contemporary here? a from offer go synthesis we do where So, neatoswt h a aafo neatoswt the with interactions from data representation. raw the with interactions rbe mrv h blt osseaiecartographic unique systematize a to ability around the developed improve taxo- problem 2009) purpose-driven Auer, even (e.g., However, nomies interaction corpus. into cartographic unified results a of individual aggregation subsequent both and of experiments supports scoping framework theoretical the a the from Such derived interaction. the apparatus investigate cartographic that experiments of allows of nature lexicon series a consistent of science: design a for with for taxonomy apparatus composite time. with theoretical the expand to therefore, A likely solution and are remain the themselves, interaction, primitives as must cartographic technologies, taxonomy for in space composite changes any to malleable that important is it note lexicon, consistent to a for need the Despite salsigacmoietxnm spoie yAmar al. by provided Initial et is not. taxonomy composite are to a approach establishing which theoretical-empirical blended and ecologically a taking logical, are work determine generally taxonomies to and extant order a valid of in interactive design portions developers from to which and knowledge possible the designers eliciting now map studies on is of based it series taxonomy interaction Further, composite derive framework. cartographic to possible a under- of now is deeper theoretically it nature however, a place, in With the primitives translations. of of a standing set than providing complex table look-up rather a a generated synthesis definitions, taxonomies; above of of the set extant comprehensive taxonomy a in providing of structure dictionary additional seek corpus an to instead the contribute the but primitives, in to interaction stated here not As reported research station). was the of work purpose from the the transition introduction, painless to a inter- classroom making engineering the for across developers (and collaboration maps and supporting workshop active designers for equally and of is teams is it classroom as lexicon supporting education and consistent for strategies A important interaction designs. map-based lexicon interface consistent describing a inter- of cartographic practice: provision for of the and is taxonomy primitives a education action of for purpose lexicon primary consistent A 20) Yi (2005), enabling tal. et tutr.A notok tis it outlook, an As structure. 20) n oh(2012). Roth and (2007), The atgahcJournal Cartographic salsiga Establishing A Published by Maney Publishing (c) The British Cartographic Society atgahcItrcinPiiie:FaeokadSynthesis and Framework Primitives: Interaction Cartographic nwradeetal iln no will has currently for eventually those interaction unanswered and of cartographic subset of The answer a science but interaction. a are a which above cartographic posed as questions of regarding research done act questions, be science to research work above of these the amount great approach provided a remains to there but synthesis which on and foundation framework The 3. o pta neatosaeseil sdsusdi the in discussed As special. approaches, operand-based explicitly are interactions investigate spatial how should for framework interactions the applying cartographic purposefully work other future is scope, synthesis in with broad above the integration affords While and experiments. then interpretation framework the follow-up experiments; interaction oisn(08,b,adRt (2011). Roth and b), (2008a, Robinson MacEachren guidelines towards al. include use et work experiments and interaction Initial design through map framework. interactive experiments the generating interaction by work of they informed designs why administration new to as these through evidence of provide reporting additionally simple and the should carto- beyond we or go forward, novel Moving maps solutions. large interface interactive emphasizing graphic a individual applications, literature on map-based cartographic reports the of number in (i.e., maps exist interactive currently of that use and primitives the design interaction a the cartographic prescribe in for of resulting cartographic provided syntactics ultimately have regarding variables representation, insight visual cartographic the of that inte- bounty interaction an offer same Such may turn visual the significant. in of approach most theoretical-empirical syntactics grated the a among of repre- break- variables development cartographic such of with many science sentation, the been in regarding have stated throughs there As introduction, practice. the interaction positively of cartographic that guidelines generation impact use and the of design is map science interactive guidelines: the broadly, and interaction use framework, cartographic the and of purpose design ultimate map operand Interactive etc.). other cartograms, maps/linear network the animations, map representing using in primitives much work) of of (and potential science existing gamut great is a there the as that primitives, address operand remind should to Data interaction important the cartographic Spatial is on it emphasis Exploratory primitive, the of Despite perspective Analysis. interactions spatial the of nature from and the into 2007), provide insight 2003) 2003, 2006), 1998, important 1994, 1995, (e.g., 1999, colleagues (e.g., and 1989, Unwin colleagues (e.g., and colleagues Dykes and afford Anselin and work of The design. interaction interface cartographic impose in cartographic opportunities autocorrelation—both on spatial constraints in of and characteristics geographic topology, unique and the how spatial reveal (Andrienko to set important larger a in primitive and how? three-dimensional 19) Andrienko (1998), usino atgahcitrcin.There interaction). cartographic of question space o otx mpbsdtgclouds, tag (map-based context for sbtoetp-eti operand type-centric one but is ) tal. et e oase.Itherefore I answer. to eed space omto—uha scale, as formation—such 20) dal(2003), Edsall (2002), o the (or tal. et two-dimensional space 03.I is It 2003). , operand The otakSr arkn,KnFed m rfi and Griffin Amy Field, issue. special Ken the organizing Fabrikant, for wish Kent Sara I Alexander the Finally, thank thank input. to useful like to would their also for I paper. reviewers this anonymous feedback of helpful draft for early MacEachren an Alan on thank to like would I ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS NOTES BIOGRAPHICAL nei,L,Sar,I n h,Y 20) Goa nitouto to introduction An ‘GeoDa: (2006). Y. Kho, and I. Syabri, L., Anselin, data spatial exploratory and techniques ‘Interactive (1999). L. Alternative Anselin, data? spatial about special is ‘What (1989). L. Anselin, and J. Hipolito, F., Bernardo, H., Voss, G., Andrienko, N., Andrienko, ‘Exploratory (2003). P. Gatalsky, and G. Andrienko, N., Andrienko, (2006). G. Andrienko, and N. Andrienko, for maps ‘Interactive (1999). V. N. Andrienko, and L. G. Andrienko, of components ‘Low-level (2005). J. Stasko, and J. Eagan, R., Amar, task- a operations: GIS analytical ‘Universal (1997). J. Albrecht, interaction: of value and role the ‘Understanding (2011). W. Aigner, REFERENCES fott aesneo atgahcinteraction. the cartographic of in sense join make and to Cartography effort in interaction and representation th embrace to others encourage . odhl,M,Mgie .adRid . p 253–266, pp. analysis’, data D., spatial Rhind, and D. York. Maguire, New Wiley, M., Goodchild, Applications P., and Management, Techniques, in analysis’, Future in and March–June. Present, analysis’, Past, data Statistics, spatial on perspectives in maps Science interactive of usability the CommonGIS’, ‘Testing (2002). U. Kretchmer, review’, Computing analytical and Languages an Visual visualization: spatio-temporal Approach Systematic A Data: Berlin/Heidelberg. Temporal and Spatial Science Information exploration’, data visual 23–25. Oct Visualization Information in visualization’, on information in activity analytic London. Francis, & Taylor func- Perspectives GIS in structure-independent data tionality’, of systematization oriented 31. May Bergen, 17–20, in steps’, first 9 p 325–342. pp. 29, , d yCala .adOsu,H,p.577–591, pp. H., Onsrud, and M. Craglia, by ed. , egahcIfrainRsac:Transatlantic Research: Information Geographic egahclIfrainSses Principles, Systems: Information Geographical nentoa okhpo iulAnalytics Visual on Workshop International atgah n egahcInformation Geographic and Cartography egahclAnalysis Geographical 3 p 355–374. pp. 13, , nentoa ora fGeographical of Journal International neadpatc fcartographic interaction. sci- of practice the and ence upon focused dis- sertation his Center; Penn GeoVISTA the State with researcher where a was he University, State Penn- Geovisualisation. sylvania from PhD his earned and Roth Carto- teaching graphy Geography of of University Department Assistant the Wisconsin–Madison an in is Professor Roth E. Robert p 1–1,Mnepls MN, Minneapolis, 111–117, pp. , udmna ult between duality fundamental e 4 p 503–541. pp. 14, , p 37,Srcs,NY, Syracuse, 63–77, pp. , xlrtr nlssof Analysis Exploratory ypsu nSpatial on Symposium 8 p 5–22. pp. 38, , EESymposium IEEE d yLongley, by ed. , ora of Journal Springer, , 393 pp. , Published by Maney Publishing (c) The British Cartographic Society ye,J n rndn .(07.‘egahclyweighted ‘Geographically (2007). C. Brunsdon, and J. in geovisualization’, Dykes, for interaction ‘Facilitating (2005). J. Dykes, unified a limits: established their past maps ‘Pushing (1995). J. Dykes, visualiza- geographic in types ‘Interactivity (2002). W. J. Crampton, interactive of semantics the ‘On (1996). F. S. Roth, and C. M. Chuah, the using techniques visualization of taxonomy ‘A interaction (2000). H. operator E. ‘An Chi, (1998). T. J. Riedl, and H.-H. E. Chi, (1999). K., Mitchell, B. S., Miller, Shneiderman, G., Gartner, and J., Crampton, D. W., Cartwright, J. Mackinlay, K., S. system’, Card, semiotic high- a as ‘Interactive texture ‘Visual (1996). (1990). L. F. J. Caivano, D. Swayne, and D. Cook, A., Buja, (1999). (1949). A. A. A. L. Brown, Kuterema, and T. Cheng, B., Kobben, C., Blok, geo- dynamic of Characteristics Change: ‘Monitoring (2000). C. ‘Dynamic Blok, (1987). (1967/1983). R. A. J. Wilks, and Bertin, S. scatterplots’, W. ‘Brushing Cleveland, A., (1987). R. S. Becker, W. Cleveland, and A. R. Becker, interfaces’, not interaction, ‘Designing (2004). M. Beaudouin-Lafon, map in change geographic representing Explicitly (2009). T. M. Auer, 394 og,M,MDry .adTre,M 20) Tepwrof power ‘The (2008). M. Turner, and M. McDerby, static M., to value Dodge, adding – simple ‘Starting (1998). G. Ellis, and A. Dix, (1992). C. Reeves, and B. J. Krygier, M., A. MacEachren, D., Sciences’, DiBiase, Earth the in ‘Visualization an (1990). tasks: D. DiBiase, system complex in ‘‘work’’ ‘Analysing (1998). C. Davies, iulzto:itrciegahc o cl-ayn exploratory scale-varying Graphics for graphics analysis’, interactive visualization: Amsterdam. Science, Elsevier 265–291, pp. M.-J., Kraak, and London. Francis, Geovisualization Exploring & Taylor 177–187, pp. D., Parker, by in ed. visualisation’, cartographic to approach tion’, in Visualization visualizations’, Visualization in model’, reference state data 19–20. Oct NC, in systems’, Visualization Information visualization for information framework ‘Geospatial (2001). J. Science issues’, Information Wood, interface user and visualization E. Siekierska, Think CA. to Francisco, Vision San Kaufmann, Using Visualization: Information 239–252. pp. 80, Statistics visualization’, Graphical data dimension York. time in patterns animation’, Science spatial Information cartographic between relationships by in ‘Visualization 16– pp. F., K. Wender, and Berlin. W. Springer-Verlag, Brauer, C., 30, Habel, C., Freksa, by in ed. exploration’, visual for phenomena spatial Maps Networks, analysis’, data for graphics Technometrics 25–28. May Gallipoli, 22, in USA. PA, Pennsylvania Park, thesis, University MSc University, State symbolization. bivariate with animations ceb,M n unr . onWly&Sn,Ws Sussex. West Sons, & Wiley John M., 1–10. Applications Turner, pp. and and M. in McDerby, Tools, Concepts, visualizations’, geographical Interfaces Visual Advanced in on interaction’, simple through visualisation visualization’, Systems scientific Information in 265–266. design 201–214, Geographic map and of role Cartographic the and ‘Animation Sciences Mineral and Earth of College the GIS’, with Technology study exploratory 85–98. pp. okn ofrneo dacdVsa Interfaces Visual Advanced on Conference Working atgah n egahcIfrainScience Information Geographic and Cartography 3 p 1161–1168. pp. 13, , EETascin nVsaiainadComputer and Visualization on Transactions IEEE 7 p 218–230. pp. 17, , p 93,SnFacso A c 28–29. Oct CA, Francisco, San 29–36, pp. , 9–10. Oct UT, City, Lake Salt 69–75, pp. , 9 p 127–142. pp. 29, , nvriyo icni rs,Mdsn WI. Madison, Press, Wisconsin of University , h tr fMaps of Story The ,p.78–99. pp. 5, , 8 p 45–60. pp. 28, , 139–151. pp. 26, , EESmoimo Information on Symposium IEEE eilg fGahc:Diagrams, Graphics: of Semiology ttsia Science Statistical p 37,Rsac ragePark, Triangle Research 63–70, pp. , d yDks . aEcrn .M. A. MacEachren, J., Dykes, by ed. , EESmoimo Information on Symposium IEEE ora fCmuainland Computational of Journal p –0 ’qia a 28–30. May L’Aquila, 1–20, pp. , atgah n Geographic and Cartography eaiu n Information and Behaviour atgah n Geographic and Cartography egahcVisualization: Geographic oe ulctos New Publications, Dover , d yDde M., Dodge, by ed. , noain nGS3 GIS in Innovations EESmoimon Symposium IEEE okn Conference Working pta onto II Cognition Spatial 9 p 13–18. pp. 59, , ,p.355–383. pp. 2, , ultnof Bulletin Semiotica Morgan- , 9 pp. 19, , p 15– pp. , 29, , , , , rge,J 19) Sudadgorpi iulzto’ in visualization’, geographic and ‘Sound (1994). J. Krygier, mining’, data visual and visualization ‘Information (2002). A. D. Keim, for design ‘Interface (1996). map M. A. better MacEachren, and ‘Designing L. D. (2005). Howard, B. Sheesley, and M. Axis Harrower, now. is Cartography of Age Golden The (2008). M. Harrower, geographic coordinated designing for Strategies (2003). F. Hardisty, aEcrn .M,Bso,F . ag .adPcl,L .(1998). W. L. Pickle, and D. Haug, P., F. Boscoe, M., A. MacEachren, (1995). M. A. MacEachren, Cartography: Modern in information’, ‘Visualization (1994). uncertain M. ‘Visualizing A. MacEachren, (1992). M. A. MacEachren, aly .adZfr,A 20) UaiiyegneigfrGIS: for engineering ‘Usability (2008). A. Zafiri, and M. Haklay, idioms: ‘Visualization (1990). A. D. McNabb, and B. for R. visualization haptic Haber, Repurposing of use the Geodesign: out: it ‘Towards ‘Feeling (2002). A. (2010). Griffin, F. M. Goodchild, Classification and Enumeration an ‘Towards (1988). F. Cartography?’, M. of Goodchild, legacy the by hidebound GIS ‘Is (1998). F. P. Fisher, geovisua- for task-ontologies ‘Building (2001). I. S. for Center Fabrikant, Research ‘A (1968). K. W. English, and C. D. Engelbart, dal .M 20) Dsg n sblt fa nacdgeographic enhanced an of usability and ‘Design (2003). M. R. Edsall, (2008). B. Buttenfield, and N. in Andrienko, ‘Stories G., (2008). Andrienko, W. R., Wright, Edsall, and R. Harper, T., Kapler, R., Eccles, ye,J .(97.‘xlrn pta aarpeetto with representation data spatial ‘Exploring (1997). A. J. Dykes, of records in structure ‘Seeking (2003). M. D. Mountain, and J. Dykes, iulzto nMdr Cartography Modern in Visualization Graphics Computer and 100–107. Visualization reliability’, on Transactions representing Science for Information Geographic 59–77. tools and Cartography visualization: geographic zooming’, and panning GIS in for framework A interfaces: University, State age-of-cartography-is-now/ http://www.axismaps.com/blog/2008/10/the-golden- Pennsylvania Maps. The component-based USA. thesis, PA, a Park, University data: PhD enumerated approach. for software visualization 87–97. n eprlyvriggoeeecdsaitc’ in statistics’, 19–20. georeferenced Oct NC, Durham, Visualization varying Information on Symposium temporally explor- for ing maps manipulable Designing Visualization: ‘Geographic York. New Pergamon, 1–12, pp. F., R. D. Taylor, and Oxford. M. A. MacEachren, by in agenda’, the setting Oxford. Elsevier, Perspectives 149–166, Cartographic pp. F., R. D. Taylor, and M. .SrvradL .Rsnlm p 49,IE Computer screenshot), IEEE a 74–93, from in learning pp. Rosenblum, systems’, CA. J. Alamitos, visualization Los L. Press, and Society scientific Shriver Computing for B. Scientific model in Visualization conceptual A 12–29. pp. analysis’, geographic exploratory GIS?’, and Cartography Symposium in Systems Functions’, GIS of Journal Cartographic The 3–4. Pre- Web Aug the Beijing, Enviroments on 4, Geovisualization Virtual on and Workshop Conference Visualization on Commission in lization’, in Intellect’, Conference Human Augmenting nomto ytmfrepoaino utvraehat statistics’, Geographer health Professional multivariate The of exploration for system information in data’, MD. spatial Bethesda, ASPRS, Systems exploring 837–858, Information for Geographic maps ‘Interactive GeoTime’, yai graphics’, dynamic 603. applica- and efforts tions’, issues, visualization behaviour: spatio-temporal opttoa ttsisadDt Analysis Data and Statistics Computational ,p.77–89. pp. 9, , nomto Visualization Information o.3,p.3540 a rnic,C,Dc9–11. Dec CA, Francisco, San 395–410, pp. 33, Vol. , 0hItrainlCrorpi ofrne ICA Conference, Cartographic International 20th optr Geosciences & Computers p 67,Wsigo,D,Nv15–18. Nov DC, Washington, 66–77, pp. , iulzto nMdr Cartography Modern in Visualization nentoa egahclInformation Geographical International atgahcPerspectives Cartographic o asWork Maps How 3 p 10–19. pp. 13, , 5 p 5–9. pp. 35, , h atgahcJournal Cartographic The 5 p 146–160. pp. 55, , atgahcPerspectives Cartographic d yMde,M,pp. M., Madden, by ed. , The ,p.3–17. pp. 7, , d yMcahe,A. MacEachren, by ed. , d yG .Nielson, M. G. by ed. , alJitComputer Joint Fall atgahcJournal Cartographic p 79,Raleigh– 87–94, pp. , h ulodPress, Guilford The , 3 p 345–370. pp. 23, , 6 p 7–21. pp. 66, , 3 p 581– pp. 43, , Transactions aulof Manual 3 pp. 23, , 5 pp. 45, , p 1– pp. , ,pp. 7, , IEEE 39, , ed. , Published by Maney Publishing (c) The British Cartographic Society ie .A,Sak,J . hn,R n ’onl,T .(09.The (2009). A. T. O’Connell, and R. Chang, T., J. Stasko, A., W. Pike, for framework conceptual A time: about ‘It’s (1994). J. D. Peuquet, a ‘Towards (2006). M. Bruchroithner, and G. Gartner, D., (2003). Persson, J. D. Unwin, and D. O’Sullivan, (1969). support L. I. to Mcharg, tools ‘Interaction (2000). R. Edsall, and R. Masters, Masters, and ‘Geographic D. Haug, R., (1992). Edsall, M., Wachowicz, M. M., A. MacEachren, Monmonier, and M. A. MacEachren, identification pattern ‘A (1990). H. J. Ganter, and M. A. MacEachren, I., Brewer, I., Rauschert, R., Sharma, G., Cai, M., A. MacEachren, Synthesis and Framework Primitives: Interaction Cartographic oisn .C,Ce,J,Lneih .J,Myr .G and G. H. Meyer, J., E. Lengerich, Geovisualization’, J., Chen, in C., A. ‘Highlighting Robinson, (2011). C. A. geovisualization. in Robinson, synthesis for Design (2008b). C. A. analytic Robinson, visual of synthesis support ‘Collaborative to (2008a). C. techniques A. Robinson, ‘Highlighting (2006). C. A. Robinson, exploratory for views multiple ‘Coordinated (2008). C. J. Roberts, ‘Computer-compiled (1963). H. Stommel, and E. Fredkin, M., Pivar, omn .A (1988). A. D. Norman, cartographic for Muehrcke,P.C.(1986). framework theoretical ‘A (1974). L. J. Morrison, exploratory enhancing brushing: ‘Geographic (1989). M. Monmonier, cec finteraction. of science 441–461. pp. 84, information geographic in systems’, dynamics temporal pp. of V., representation the Delis, and C. Systems Armenakis, Berlin. P., and Springer, M. in 275–292, Peterson, exploration’, Concepts E., map Stefanakis, visual Hypermedia: for functions Geographic interactivity of typology Analysis York. New Books, Tcl/ and Explorer Data Meeting using study in case Tk’, a discovery: knowledge methods’, database Science Information knowledge Geographical in with visualization geographical discovery spatiotem- Integrating multivariate data: from poral knowledge ‘Constructing (1999). R. Introduction’, Science Information – Visualization visualization’, 64–81. cartographic to approach Science Information (2005). Geographical interface’, H. multimodal Wang, natural, a decision-making and through and S. access geoinformation Fuhrmann, collaborative B., ‘Enabling Shaparenko, L., Bolelli, aEcrn .M 20) Cmiiguaiiytcnqe to techniques usability ‘Combining (2005). M. A. MacEachren, Science Information Geographic 374–384. and Cartography PA, Park, University University, USA. State Pennsylvania The thesis, PhD Technology in results’, Analytics Visual in 25–48. pp. geovisualization’, Sussex. West Sons, & Wiley John M., Applications and interaction’, in geovisualization’, man-machine Sciences in of Academy experiment National the of An Proceedings atlas: oceanographic Interpretation symbolization’, of Cartography process of the Yearbook on International emphasis the with generalization matrix’, 81–84. scatterplot the of analysis NY. City, Garden s nulVsaiainDvlpetEnvironments Development Visualization Annual 1st onWly&Sn,Hbkn NJ. Hoboken, Sons, & Wiley John , p –,Pictn J p 27–28. Apr NJ, Princeton, 1–7, pp. , naso h soito fAeia Geographers American of Association the of Annals h EECneec niulAayisSineand Science Analytics onVisual Conference IEEE The p 79,Clmu,O,Ot19–24. Oct OH, Columbus, 67–94, pp. , PPbiain,Mdsn WI. Madison, Publications, JP , otad R u 24. Jun OR, Portland, , d yDde . ceb,M n Turner, and M. McDerby, M., Dodge, by ed. , einwt Nature with Design egahcVsaiain ocps Tools, Concepts, Visualization: Geographic 9 p 197–200. pp. 19, , C okhpo evsaiainand Geovisualization on Workshop ICA nomto Visualization Information h eino vrdyThings Everyday of Design The MapUse:Reading,Analysis,and atgah n Geographic and Cartography egahclAnalysis Geographical 3 p 311–334. pp. 13, , 293–317. pp. 19, , nentoa ora of Journal International egahcInformation Geographic nentoa ora of Journal International Cartographica 4 p 115–127. pp. 14, , aua itr Press, History Natural , 0 p 396–398. pp. 50, , ,p.263–274. pp. 8, , 8 pp. 38, , d by ed. , 7 pp. 27, , 1 pp. 21, , Basic , , alc,T .(01.‘ e a intplg o h ewb,in geoweb’, the for typology sign map new ‘A (2011). R. analysis T. Wallace, data spatial ‘Exploratory (1998). D. Unwin, and A. Unwin, in data’, geographic ‘Regarding (1994). A. Unwin, (1977). W. J. Tukey, J., Dill, D., Carr, S., Card, A., Bartoletti, A., K. Cook, J., map J. for Thomas, interface user visual ‘A (1988). T. Ichikawa, and M. Tanaka, ad .O 19) Cetn n manipulating and and ‘Creating data (1997). in O. spaces M. ‘Interaction Ward, (2003). J. Yang, and M. Ward, hu .X n enr .K 19) Vsa akcaatrzto for characterization task ‘Visual (1998). K. S. Feiner, and X. M. a Zhou, ‘Toward (2007). A. J. Jacko, and T. J. Stasko, A., Y. Kang, S., J. Yi, in maps’, with ‘Interacting ‘On (1993). (1993). M. P. Wood, Byerley, and I. Denley, A., Escgate, A., Whitefield, classification problem-oriented ‘A (1990). C. Lewis, and S., Wehrend, in goals’, visualization of Taxonomy B: ‘Appendix (1993). S. Wehrend, (2010). C. Plaisant, and B. Shneiderman, hedra,B 19) Teee aei:Ats ydt type data by task A it: have eyes Dynamic ‘The map: (1996). the on B. time Shneiderman, ‘Putting (1995). H. D. I. Shepherd, oh .E 21) A miial-eie aooyo cartographic of taxonomy empirically-derived ‘An (2012). E. R. Roth, of practice and science The maps: with Interacting (2011). E. R. Roth, nentoa atgahcConference Cartographic International D Series statistics’, local with Heidelberg. Velag, Statistics Visual for MA. Agenda Reading, Development and B., Hetzler, Research Analytics B., Fisher, The (2005). P. White, B., Whitney, M., Path: Wright, & M. D., Ward, Whiting, Woods, A., C., D., Turner, C., Peuquet, Plaisant, M., P. A., Wong, Stone, MacEachren, J., D., D., Stasko, Laidlaw, B., D., Jones, Ribarsky, Kasik, C., Hansen, K., R., Joy, Grossman, S., D., Eick, D., Ebert, R., Earnshaw, Engineering Software significance’, on semantic on based retrieval information nefc:Srtge o fetv human–computer Effective for Strategies Interaction Interface: ypsu nVisualization on Symposium in visualization’, information A p 18–23. in Apr Conference CA, synthesis’, Systems discourse Computing visual automated information in interaction of Graphics role the visualization’, of understanding London. Press, deeper Belhaven 223–232, pp. M., H. Hearnshaw, and Systems Information Geographical tasks’, enabling and Computers tasks work distinguishing in techniques’, Visualization visualization of Alamitos, Los Press, Society Computer IEEE CA. 187, p. M., M. Keller, Visualization Data Practical Cues: Visual 10–14. in brushes, iulLanguages in Visual visualization’, London. Francis, information & for Taylor taxonomy 169–188, pp. F., in P. GIS’, Fisher, and by ed. visualization data in displays Columbus 21. Sep Science Information Geographic in primitives’, interaction nvriyPr,P,USA. PA, University, Park, State University Pennsylvania thesis, PhD interaction. cartographic Science Information epidemiology’, Geographic for tools geovisualization design 7 p 415–421. pp. 47, , d yDrcel .adOtra,R,p.315–326, pp. R., Osterman, and P. Dirschedl, by ed. , 3 p 1224–1231. pp. 13, , EEC rs,LsAaeo,CA. Alametos, Los Press, CS IEEE , on ttsia Meeting Statistical Joint ,p.333–347. pp. 5, , dio-ely otn MA. Boston, Addison-Wesley, , p 3–4,SnFacso A c 23–26. Oct CA, Francisco, San 139–143, pp. , rnatoso iulzto n Computer and Visualization on Transactions p 3–4,Budr O e 3–6. Sep CO, Boulder, 336–343, pp. , , xlrtr aaAnalysis Data Exploratory ora fteRylSaitclSociety: Statistical Royal the of Journal eet nentoa ofrneon Conference International Seventh 4 p 666–670. pp. 14, , on uorpisIE TCVG Eurographics/IEEE Joint p –,Geaa e 1–5. Sep Grenada, 1–9, pp. , 2 p 243–255. pp. 32, , p 9–9,LsAngeles, Los 392–399, pp. , s EECneec on Conference IEEE 1st p –,Aaem A Aug CA, Anaheim, 1–5, pp. , d yMdcy-ct,D. Medyckyj-Scott, by ed. , ai,Jl8. Jul Paris, , d yKle,R .and P. R. Keller, by ed. , noain nGS2 GIS in Innovations einn h User the Designing EECneec on Conference IEEE ua atr in Factors Human ua atr in Factors Human oubs OH, Columbus, , Addison-Wesley, , atgah and Cartography neatn with Interacting luiaigthe Illuminating Computational n Transactions -dimensional 395 ,