Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 130 references

Reflecting on Design Paradigms of Animated Data Video Tools

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper proposes a two-dimensional framework that maps animated data video authoring tools by the components they create and by how much of the creation is delegated to AI, and applies it to 46 tools to identify recurring design…

desk verdict A genuinely useful finer-grained map of data video authoring tools that would be stronger with a released codebook and reliability check, but the framework holds up. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.04801 v1 pith:KMBVE73D submitted 2025-02-07 cs.HC

Leixian Shen , Haotian Li , Yun Wang , Huamin Qu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords datavideosdesignparadigmsauthoringtoolshuman-AIcollaborationstorytellinganimationsurveyframework
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper seeks to establish that the many tools for authoring animated data videos can be understood systematically through a two-dimensional framework. The first dimension asks what components a tool creates and coordinates — visual, motion, narrative, and audio — and groups tools into three expressivity levels by which combinations they support. The second dimension asks how the work is divided between humans and AI, with four transformation modes: original, human-led, mixed-initiative, and AI-led. Applying the framework to 46 published tools, the authors summarize the design paradigms that recur for each component and coordination relationship, and then identify gaps that future tools could fill. The payoff is a component-level map of current practice that gives tool builders a shared vocabulary and a concrete agenda for next-generation data video authoring.

What carries the argument

The framework itself is the central object: a two-axis classification of data video tools. The 'what' axis decomposes a data video into visual components (data visualization, real-world scene, pictograph), motion components (animation, transition, camera), narrative, and audio components (narration, music, sound effect); the 'how' axis labels each tool's input-to-output transformation as Original, Human-Led, Mixed-Initiative, or AI-Led. Tools are further grouped into three expressivity levels by which component combinations they support: animation unit, animated narrative, and audio-enriched data video. This framework does the analytical work by turning each tool into a row of mode labels across components and coordination relationships, and the design paradigm summaries are drawn from clustering those labels together with the tools' interaction designs.

What would settle it

Have two or more independent coders re-annotate the same 46 tools using a codebook built from Section 4, then compute agreement on the mode labels and expressivity levels. If agreement on components such as visualization-motion or audio-visual coordination falls well below acceptable thresholds, or if the aggregate statistics (for example, 26 original-mode visualization tools and 35 AI-led motion tools) cannot be reproduced, then the paradigm summaries in Section 5 lose their evidential basis.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the variety of animated data video authoring tools can be decomposed into recurring design paradigms once each tool is labeled by the components it produces and by its transformation mode per component. Applying this to 46 academic tools, the paper finds that most tools accept user-uploaded visualizations rather than generating them; animation creation splits into keyframe, preset, and procedural authoring paradigms with different human-AI balances; narrative control remains largely human-held; audio is dominated by text-to-speech narration; and coordination between components is typically achieved by linking text segments to visuals and then to animations. The paper reads these patterns as evidence that the field has moved from manual control toward automation, but that automation is uneven across components. It then identifies nine gaps, including weak support for music and sound effects, the rarity of generated rather than recorded real-world scenes, the difficulty of ensuring LLM reliability, and the absence of a comprehensive, quantifiable evaluation framework.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the mode assigned to each tool in Table 1 is accurate: every tool is placed in exactly one of the four transformation modes for each component and coordination relationship based on the authors' reading of the original papers, with no inter-rater reliability check and no released codebook.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Tool builders can position a new system in the framework by choosing which components to support and which transformation mode to use per component, making design trade-offs explicit.
  • The four transformation modes give researchers a shared vocabulary for comparing human-AI division of labor at the component level rather than only at the whole-tool level.
  • The three expressivity levels imply that adding audio or richer narrative coordination increases expressive potential but also authoring complexity, so tools must weigh learnability against creative freedom.
  • The nine gaps name concrete investments: music and sound-effect support, generated real-world scenes, a unified user-intent model, and a quantifiable evaluation framework.
  • Because the corpus spans 2000 to 2024, the paradigm summaries can be extended to new tools as they appear, allowing the field to track how design paradigms evolve over time.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Extending the paper's approach, the mode labels in Table 1 could be re-derived by independent coders using the framework as a codebook; if inter-rater agreement were low, the paradigm summaries would need to be read as interpretive rather than descriptive.
  • The framework could be exported to commercial and general-purpose video tools by treating their feature modules as components and their automation settings as modes, which would test whether the academic patterns hold in widely used software.
  • A natural follow-up is to use the framework's coordination relationships as an evaluation checklist, measuring not just whether a component is present but whether its coordination with other components is actually supported by the tool.
  • The paper's observation that few empirical design guidelines are directly computable suggests a research program that converts high-level guidelines into constraint-based representations; this program is not spelled out in the paper but follows directly from its Gap 8.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a two-dimensional framework for analyzing animated data video creation tools: the first dimension decomposes data videos into visual, motion, narrative, and audio components and groups tools into three expressivity levels (animation unit, animated narrative, audio-enriched data video); the second dimension classifies the transformation from user input to output into four modes (Original, Human-Led, Mixed-Initiative, AI-Led). The authors apply this framework to 46 academic tools, summarize design paradigms for each component and coordination relationship, and then reflect on gaps and future directions for the data storytelling community.

Significance. If the framework and the Table 1 annotations are reliable, this paper offers a valuable fine-grained map of technical practice in data video authoring, complementing prior coarse-grained surveys by Li et al. and Chen et al. The component-level decomposition and coordination relationships provide a useful vocabulary for tool builders, and the paradigm tables in Section 5 organize a large corpus in a way that is easy to reuse. The gap analysis in Section 6 is thoughtful and generative. The main weakness is that the empirical core—the 46×9 mode-assignment matrix in Table 1—is not independently verifiable in the current version, and the paper's strongest quantitative claims derive entirely from that matrix.

major comments (3)
  1. [Table 1 / Section 5] The central generalizations in the paper rest entirely on the mode assignments in Table 1, but that table cannot be reproduced by a reader and no annotation codebook, raw matrix, or reliability data are provided. For example, the DataParticles row lists only five mode labels (M, M, A, O, M) while the header defines nine component/coordination columns, so a reader cannot map the row to the columns. Reconciling the Visualization–Visualization column from the visible rows gives counts that disagree with the reported Statistics row (the visible rows sum to approximately 20 Human-Led, 5 Mixed-Initiative, and 14 AI-Led across 39 labeled tools, whereas the Statistics block reports 20/6/13). Since Tables 2–9 and claims such as "26/46 tools require users to upload visualizations in advance" (Section 5.1.1) and "manual coordination remains the dominant approach" (Section 5.2.2) are summaries of Table 1, the empirical core of the paper is currently not verifiable. Please publish the complete annotation matrix with a per-column codebook, state how not-applicable cells are encoded, and report inter-rater reliability or at least a second-coder check on the full matrix.
  2. [Section 4.3 / Tables 2–9] The four transformation modes are induced from the same 46 tools that the paper then classifies, and five tools from the authors' own group (GeoCamera, Data Player, WonderFlow, Data Playwright, Narrative Player) recur frequently in the paradigm tables (e.g., Tables 2, 4, 8, and 9). This does not make the framework circular in a formal sense, but it creates a self-confirmation risk: the summarized "key design paradigms" may disproportionately encode design choices made by the authors. Please add a sensitivity analysis that recomputes the paradigm summaries after excluding author-affiliated tools, or at minimum disclose the overlap explicitly and discuss its potential effect on the observed paradigm distributions.
  3. [Section 6.3 / Section 6] The limitation section correctly notes that the corpus is restricted to academic tools and is relatively small, but the gap analysis in Section 6 generalizes beyond this sample. For instance, Gap 1 ("current tools lack comprehensive support for all aspects") and Gap 3 ("tools can only handle a defined set of user intents") are framed as properties of the data video tool landscape, while the evidence covers only 46 academic tools. Commercial tools such as Flourish, PowerPoint, and After Effects are mentioned but not systematically analyzed. Please temper the scope of these claims or support them with a broader scan of commercial tools so that the gaps are stated about the analyzed corpus rather than about all data video tools.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 2 / Section 5.1.1] There is a typo in the text: "Narrative Playter [88]" should be "Narrative Player [88]".
  2. [Section 4.1.4] The heading "Audio components" is not capitalized consistently with the other component headings (e.g., "Visual Components", "Motion Components"); it should be "Audio Components".
  3. [Section 4.1] The sentence "Data We decompose data videos into different components" appears to be missing a period or section break; it should read "Data. We decompose data videos into different components".
  4. [Section 3 / Figure 1] The corpus selection process is described verbally, but a PRISMA-style flow diagram with the number of papers after each exclusion step would make the final 46-tool corpus easier to audit.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper is a qualitative survey whose framework and paradigm summaries are descriptive classifications, not predictions reduced to fitted inputs or load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

This paper is a literature survey and taxonomy-building exercise, not a derivation with fitted parameters or testable predictions. The two-dimensional framework in Section 4 is defined from the structure of data videos (visual, motion, narrative, audio components) and from the human/AI division of labor in transformation modes (Original, Human-Led, Mixed-Initiative, AI-Led). It is then applied to the 46 surveyed tools in Table 1, and Section 5 summarizes the resulting annotations into design paradigms. These paradigm summaries are descriptive restatements of the annotated corpus, not outputs of a model that was fitted to a subset and then used to predict a closely related quantity. No equation or formal derivation is involved, so there is no step that reduces by construction to its own input. The paper does cite several tools by the same authors (e.g., WonderFlow, Data Player, Data Playwright, Narrative Player, GeoCamera, VisTellAR), but these citations are ordinary references to independently published peer-reviewed systems used as examples among many other tools; none is invoked as a uniqueness theorem, as the sole justification for the framework, or to forbid alternative classifications. The reviewer-raised concerns about Table 1 (single-coder annotation, missing codebook, no inter-rater reliability, possible internal inconsistencies in row/column counts) are validity and reproducibility limitations of the empirical synthesis, not evidence of circular reasoning. The limitation section itself acknowledges the coarse-grained annotation and the small, focused dataset. Because no load-bearing step is defined in terms of its own conclusion and no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction, the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework introduces no free parameters or invented entities. It relies on three domain assumptions about the exhaustiveness of its component and mode taxonomies and the representativeness of its corpus.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The four transformation modes (Original, Human-Led, Mixed-Initiative, AI-Led) are a complete and disjunctive classification of human-AI work distribution.
    Introduced in Sec. 4.3 and used to label every tool in Table 1; no empirical test of completeness or mutual exclusivity is provided.
  • domain assumption The decomposition of data videos into visual, motion, narrative, and audio components captures the essential authoring dimensions.
    Stated in Sec. 4.1 based on the authors' reading of the data video literature; other decompositions are possible.
  • domain assumption The 46 analyzed tools constitute a representative sample of data video creation tools.
    Sec. 3 describes keyword search and venue restrictions; the authors acknowledge the dataset is relatively small in Sec. 6.3.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reflecting on Design Paradigms of Animated Data Video Tools." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KMBVE73D

@misc{pith2026250204801,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reflecting on Design Paradigms of Animated Data Video Tools},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KMBVE73D}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.04801}
}
read the original abstract

Animated data videos have gained significant popularity in recent years. However, authoring data videos remains challenging due to the complexity of creating and coordinating diverse components (e.g., visualization, animation, audio, etc.). Although numerous tools have been developed to streamline the process, there is a lack of comprehensive understanding and reflection of their design paradigms to inform future development. To address this gap, we propose a framework for understanding data video creation tools along two dimensions: what data video components to create and coordinate, including visual, motion, narrative, and audio components, and how to support the creation and coordination. By applying the framework to analyze 46 existing tools, we summarized key design paradigms of creating and coordinating each component based on the varying work distribution for humans and AI in these tools. Finally, we share our detailed reflections, highlight gaps from a holistic view, and discuss future directions to address them.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.04801 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of papers about data video creation tools [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustrations of data video components along a timeline from left to right, each serving a distinct role. They are divided [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Data video with three levels of expressivity. Greater diversity in data video components enhances expressive potential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The roles of humans and AI in transforming diverse user inputs into coordinated data video components. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Animation authoring paradigms: (a) keyframe animations [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Coordination between real-world scenes and visualizations: (a) Embedding visualizations into pre-recorded videos [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Coordination patterns of two data video compo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

130 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Adobe Inc. 2024. After Effects. https://www.adobe.com/products/aftereffects. html

    2024

  2. [2]

    Adobe Inc. 2024. Premiere Pro. https://www.adobe.com/products/premiere.html

    2024

  3. [3]

    Fereshteh Amini, Nathalie Henry Riche, Bongshin Lee, Christophe Hurter, and Pourang Irani. 2015. Understanding data videos: Looking at narrative visualiza- tion through the cinematography lens. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI’15 . ACM, 1459–1468. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702431

    arXiv 2015

  4. [4]

    Fereshteh Amini, Nathalie Henry Riche, Bongshin Lee, Jason Leboe-McGowan, and Pourang Irani. 2018. Hooked on data videos: Assessing the effect of anima- tion and pictographs on viewer engagement. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Advanced Visual Interfaces, A VI’18. ACM, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1145/3206505. 3206552

    doi:10.1145/3206505 2018

  5. [5]

    Fereshteh Amini, Nathalie Henry Riche, Bongshin Lee, Andres Monroy- Hernandez, and Pourang Irani. 2017. Authoring Data-Driven Videos with DataClips. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 23, 1 (2017), 501–510. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2016.2598647

    arXiv 2017

  6. [6]

    Peter Andrews, Oda Elise Nordberg, Stephanie Zubicueta Portales, Njål Borch, Frode Guribye, Kazuyuki Fujita, and Morten Fjeld. 2024. AiCommentator: A Multimodal Conversational Agent for Embedded Visualization in Football Viewing. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, IUI’24. ACM, 14–34. https://doi.org/10.1145...

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Apple Inc. 2024. iMovie. https://www.apple.com/imovie/index.html

    2024

  8. [9]

    Benjamin Bach, Zezhong Wang, Matteo Farinella, Dave Murray-Rust, and Nathalie Henry Riche. 2018. Design Patterns for Data Comics. In Proceed- ings of CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI’18 . ACM, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173612

    arXiv 2018

Show all 130 references
  1. [10]

    Sumon Biswas, Mohammad Wardat, and Hridesh Rajan. 2022. The Art and Practice of Data Science Pipelines: A Comprehensive Study of Data Science Pipelines In Theory, In-The-Small, and In-The-Large. In Proceedings of the 44th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE’...

    2022

  2. [11]

    Michael Bostock, Vadim Ogievetsky, and Jeffrey Heer. 2011. D3: Data-Driven Documents. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 17, 12 (2011), 2301–2309. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2011.185

    2011 doi

  3. [12]

    Bradbury and Rosanna E

    Judd D. Bradbury and Rosanna E. Guadagno. 2020. Documentary narrative visualization: Features and modes of documentary film in narrative visualiza- tion. Information Visualization 19, 4 (2020), 339–352. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1473871620925071

    2020

  4. [13]

    Matthew Brehmer, Bongshin Lee, Benjamin Bach, Nathalie Henry Riche, and Tamara Munzner. 2017. Timelines Revisited: A Design Space and Considerations for Expressive Storytelling. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 23, 9 (2017), 2151–2164. https://doi.org/1...

    2017

  5. [14]

    Smith, Joanne E

    Ruochen Cao, Subrata Dey, Andrew Cunningham, James Walsh, Ross T. Smith, Joanne E. Zucco, and Bruce H. Thomas. 2020. Examining the use of narrative constructs in data videos. Visual Informatics 4, 1 (2020), 8–22. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.visinf.2019.12.002

    2020 doi

  6. [16]

    Amira Chalbi, Jacob Ritchie, Deokgun Park, Jungu Choi, Nicolas Roussel, Niklas Elmqvist, and Fanny Chevalier. 2020. Common Fate for Animated Transitions in Visualization. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 26, 1 (2020), 386–396. https://doi.org/10.1109/TV...

    2020

  7. [17]

    Qing Chen, Shixiong Cao, Jiazhe Wang, and Nan Cao. 2024. How Does Au- tomation Shape the Process of Narrative Visualization: A Survey of Tools. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 30, 8 (2024), 4429–4448. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2023.3261320

    2024

  8. [18]

    Zhutian Chen, Qisen Yang, Jiarui Shan, Tica Lin, Johanna Beyer, Haijun Xia, and Hanspeter Pfister. 2023. iBall: Augmenting Basketball Videos with Gaze- moderated Embedded Visualizations. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI’23 . ...

    2023

  9. [19]

    Zhutian Chen, Qisen Yang, Xiao Xie, Johanna Beyer, Haijun Xia, Yingcai Wu, and Hanspeter Pfister. 2023. Sporthesia: Augmenting Sports Videos Using Natural Language. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 29, 1 (2023), 918 – 928. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2...

    2023

  10. [20]

    Zhutian Chen, Shuainan Ye, Xiangtong Chu, Haijun Xia, Hui Zhang, Huamin Qu, and Yingcai Wu. 2022. Augmenting Sports Videos with VisCommentator. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 28, 1 (2022), 824–834. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2021.3114806

    2022

  11. [21]

    Hao Cheng, Junhong Wang, Yun Wang, Bongshin Lee, Haidong Zhang, and Dongmei Zhang. 2022. Investigating the Role and Interplay of Narrations and Animations in Data Videos. Computer Graphics Forum 41, 3 (2022), 527–539. https://doi.org/10.1111/cgf.14560

    2022 doi

  12. [22]

    Fanny Chevalier, Nathalie Henry Riche, Catherine Plaisant, Amira Chalbi, and Christophe Hurter. 2016. Animations 25 years later: New roles and opportunities. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Advanced Visual Interfaces, A VI’16. ACM, 280–

    2016

  13. [24]

    Clark and Allan Paivio

    James M. Clark and Allan Paivio. 1991. Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review 3, 3 (1991), 149–210

    1991

  14. [26]

    Matthew Conlen and Jeffrey Heer. 2022. Fidyll: A Compiler for Cross-Format Data Stories & Explorable Explanations. arXiv (2022), 1–12. arXiv:2205.09858

    2022 arXiv

  15. [27]

    Matthew Conlen, Jeffrey Heer, Hillary Mushkin, and Scott Davidoff. 2023. Cinematic Techniques in Narrative Visualization. arXiv (2023), 1–13. arXiv:2301.03109

    2023 arXiv

  16. [28]

    Keshav Dasu, Yun Hsin Kuo, and Kwan Liu Ma. 2024. Character-Oriented Design for Visual Data Storytelling. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 30, 1 (2024), 98–108. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2023.3326578

    2024

  17. [29]

    Pierre Dragicevic, Anastasia Bezerianos, Waqas Javed, Niklas Elmqvist, and Jean-Daniel Fekete. 2011. Temporal distortion for animated transitions. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI’11. ACM, 2009–2018. https://doi.org/10.1145/197...

    2011

  18. [30]

    Temiloluwa Femi-Gege, Matthew Brehmer, and Jian Zhao. 2024. VisConduc- tor: Affect-Varying Widgets for Animated Data Storytelling in Gesture-Aware Augmented Video Presentation. In Proceedings of the ACM PACMHCI Interactive Surfaces and Spaces, ISS’24 . 1–22. http://arxiv.org/a...

    2024 arXiv

  19. [31]

    Flourish. 2024. Beautiful and easy data visualization and storytelling . https: //flourish.studio/

    2024

  20. [32]

    Tong Ge, Bongshin Lee, and Yunhai Wang. 2021. CAST: Authoring Data-Driven Chart Animations. In Proceedings of CHI Conference on Human Factors in Com- puting Systems, CHI’21. ACM, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445452

    2021

  21. [34]

    Tovi Grossman, George Fitzmaurice, and Ramtin Attar. 2009. A survey of software learnability: Metrics, methodologies and guidelines. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI’09 . ACM, 649–658. https://doi.org/10.1145/1518701.1518803

    2009

  22. [35]

    Hall, Lyn Bartram, and Matthew Brehmer

    Brian D. Hall, Lyn Bartram, and Matthew Brehmer. 2022. Augmented Chirono- mia for Presenting Data to Remote Audiences. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, UIST’22 . ACM, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3526113.3545614

    2022

  23. [36]

    Shan Hao, Zezhong Wang, Benjamin Bach, and Larissa Pschetz. 2024. Design Patterns for Data-Driven News Articles. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI’24 . ACM, 1–16. https://doi.org/10. 1145/3613904.3641916

    2024

  24. [37]

    Robertson

    Jeffrey Heer and George G. Robertson. 2007. Animated transitions in statistical data graphics. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 13, 6 (2007), 1240–1247. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2007.70539

    2007

  25. [38]

    Anuradha Herath, Samar Sallam, Yumiko Sakamoto, Randy Gomez, and Pourang Irani. 2023. Exploring the Design of Social Robot User Interfaces for Present- ing Data-Driven Stories. In Proceedings of International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia, MUM’23 . ACM, 315–33...

    2023

  26. [39]

    Jessica Hullman, Steven Drucker, Nathalie Henry Riche, Bongshin Lee, Danyel Fisher, and Eytan Adar. 2013. A deeper understanding of sequence in narrative visualization. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 19, 12 (2013), 2406–2415. https://doi.org/10.1109/T...

    2013 doi

  27. [41]

    Rubaiat Habib Kazi, Fanny Chevalier, Tovi Grossman, Shengdong Zhao, and George Fitzmaurice. 2014. Draco: Bringing life to illustrations with kinetic textures. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI’14. ACM, 351–360. https://doi.org/1...

    2014

  28. [42]

    Younghoon Kim, Michael Correll, and Jeffrey Heer. 2019. Designing animated transitions to convey aggregate operations. Computer Graphics Forum 38, 3 Reflecting on Design Paradigms of Animated Data Video Tools CHI’25, April 26-May 1, 2025, Yokohama, Japan (2019), 541–551. https...

    2019 doi

  29. [44]

    Younghoon Kim and Jeffrey Heer. 2021. Gemini2: Generating Keyframe-Oriented Animated Transitions between Statistical Graphics. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE Visualization Conference, VIS’21 Short Paper . 201–205. https://doi.org/10. 1109/VIS49827.2021.9623291

    2021

  30. [45]

    Younghoon Kim, Kanit Wongsuphasawat, Jessica Hullman, and Jeffrey Heer

  31. [46]

    Ha Kyung Kong, Zhicheng Liu, and Karrie Karahalios. 2017. Internal and External Visual Cue Preferences for Visualizations in Presentations. Computer Graphics Forum 36, 3 (2017), 515–525. https://doi.org/10.1111/cgf.13207

    2017 doi

  32. [47]

    Ha-Kyung Kong, Wenjie Zhu, Zhicheng Liu, and Karrie Karahalios. 2019. Under- standing Visual Cues in Visualizations Accompanied by Audio Narrations. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI’19. ACM, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290...

    2019

  33. [48]

    Chufan Lai, Zhixian Lin, Ruike Jiang, Yun Han, Can Liu, and Xiaoru Yuan. 2020. Automatic Annotation Synchronizing with Textual Description for Visualization. In Proceedings of the 38rd Annual Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI’20. ACM, 1–13. https://doi.org/...

    2020

  34. [50]

    Xingyu Lan, Yanqiu Wu, and Nan Cao. 2024. Affective Visualization Design: Leveraging the Emotional Impact of Data. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 30, 1 (2024), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2023. 3327385

    2024 doi

  35. [52]

    Shahid Latif, Hagen Tarner, and Fabian Beck. 2022. Talking Realities: Audio Guides in Virtual Reality Visualizations. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applica- tions 42, 1 (2022), 73–83. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCG.2021.3058129

    2022

  36. [53]

    Bongshin Lee, Rubaiat Habib Kazi, and Greg Smith. 2013. SketchStory: Telling more engaging stories with data through freeform sketching. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 19, 12 (2013), 2416–2425. https://doi. org/10.1109/TVCG.2013.191

    2013 doi

  37. [54]

    Bongshin Lee, Nathalie Henry Riche, Petra Isenberg, and Sheelagh Carpendale

  38. [55]

    Vera Liao, and Huamin Qu

    Haotian Li, Yun Wang, Q. Vera Liao, and Huamin Qu. 2023. Why is AI not a Panacea for Data Workers? An Interview Study on Human-AI Collaboration in Data Storytelling. arxiv (2023). arXiv:2304.08366

    2023 arXiv

  39. [56]

    Haotian Li, Yun Wang, and Huamin Qu. 2024. Where Are We So Far? Understand- ing Data Storytelling Tools from the Perspective of Human-AI Collaboration. In Proceedings of CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI’24 . ACM, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642726

    2024

  40. [57]

    Haotian Li, Lu Ying, Leixian Shen, Yun Wang, Yingcai Wu, and Huamin Qu

  41. [58]

    Wenchao Li, Yun Wang, He Huang, Weiwei Cui, Haidong Zhang, Huamin Qu, and Dongmei Zhang. 2021. AniVis: Generating Animated Transitions Between Statistical Charts with a Tree Model. arxiv (2021), 1–25. arXiv:2106.14313

    2021 arXiv

  42. [59]

    Wenchao Li, Yun Wang, Haidong Zhang, and Huamin Qu. 2020. Improving Engagement of Animated Visualization with Visual Foreshadowing. In Pro- ceedings of the 2020 IEEE Visualization Conference, VIS’20 . 141–145. https: //doi.org/10.1109/VIS47514.2020.00035

    2020

  43. [60]

    Wenchao Li, Zhan Wang, Yun Wang, Di Weng, Liwenhan Xie, Siming Chen, Haidong Zhang, and Huamin Qu. 2023. GeoCamera: Telling Stories in Geo- graphic Visualizations with Camera Movements. In Proceedings of 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI’23 . ACM, ...

    2023

  44. [61]

    Tica Lin, Zhutian Chen, Johanna Beyer, Yingcai Wu, Hanspeter Pfister, and Yalong Yang. 2023. The Ball is in Our Court: Conducting Visualization Research with Sports Experts. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 43, 1 (2023), 84–90. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCG.2022.3222042

    2023

  45. [63]

    Hela Ltifi, Christophe Kolski, and Mounir Ben Ayed. 2020. Survey on Visualiza- tion and Visual Analytics pipeline-based models: Conceptual aspects, compara- tive studies and challenges. Computer Science Review 36, 100245 (2020), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosrev.2020.100245

    2020

  46. [64]

    Junhua Lu, Jie Wang, Hui Ye, Yuhui Gu, Zhiyu Ding, Mingliang Xu, and Wei Chen. 2020. Illustrating changes in time-series data with data video. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 40, 2 (2020), 18–31. https://doi.org/10.1109/ MCG.2020.2968249

    2020

  47. [65]

    Min Lu, Noa Fish, Shuaiqi Wang, Joel Lanir, Daniel Cohen-Or, and Hui Huang

  48. [66]

    Microsoft Inc. 2024. PowerPoint Recording. https://support.microsoft.com/office/ record-a-presentation-2570dff5-f81c-40bc-b404-e04e95ffab33

    2024

  49. [67]

    Mittenentzwei, V

    S. Mittenentzwei, V. Weiß, S. Schreiber, L. A. Garrison, S. Bruckner, M. Pfister, B. Preim, and M. Meuschke. 2023. Do Disease Stories Need a Hero? Effects of Human Protagonists on a Narrative Visualization about Cerebral Small Vessel Disease. Computer Graphics Forum 42, 3 (202...

    2023

  50. [68]

    Eric Morth, Stefan Bruckner, and Noeska N. Smit. 2023. ScrollyVis: Interactive Visual Authoring of Guided Dynamic Narratives for Scientific Scrollytelling. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 29, 12 (2023), 5165–

    2023

  51. [69]

    Tamara Munzner. 2014. Visualization analysis and design . CRC press

    2014

  52. [70]

    Jung Who Nam, Tobias Isenberg, and Daniel F. Keefe. 2024. V-Mail: 3D- Enabled Correspondence About Spatial Data on (Almost) All Your Devices. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 30, 4 (2024), 1853–

    2024

  53. [71]

    Jakob Nielsen. 1999. Designing web usability: The practice of simplicity . New riders publishing

    1999

  54. [72]

    Obie, Caslon Chua, Iman Avazpour, Mohamed Abdelrazek, John Grundy, and Tomasz Bednarz

    Humphrey O. Obie, Caslon Chua, Iman Avazpour, Mohamed Abdelrazek, John Grundy, and Tomasz Bednarz. 2019. A study of the effects of narration on com- prehension and memorability of visualisations. Journal of Computer Languages 52, April (2019), 113–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/...

    2019 doi

  55. [73]

    Yang Ouyang, Leixian Shen, Yun Wang, and Quan Li. 2024. NotePlayer: En- gaging Jupyter Notebooks for Dynamic Presentation of Analytical Processes. Proceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, UIST’24 (2024), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1...

    2024

  56. [74]

    PolyMatter. 2018. Data Video about Dubai’s Plan to Outlive Oil . https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=-dsM8zPGqa0

    2018

  57. [75]

    Hofman, and Daniel G

    Xiaoying Pu, Sean Kross, Jake M. Hofman, and Daniel G. Goldstein. 2021. Data- mations: Animated Explanations of Data Analysis Pipelines. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI’21 . ACM, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445063

    2021

  58. [76]

    Pengkun Ren, Yi Wang, and Fan Zhao. 2023. Re-understanding of data story- telling tools from a narrative perspective. Visual Intelligence 1, 1 (2023), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44267-023-00011-0

    2023 doi

  59. [77]

    Nathalie Henry Riche, Christophe Hurter, Nicholas Diakopoulos, and Sheelagh Carpendale (Eds.). 2018. Data-Driven Storytelling. CRC Press

    2018

  60. [78]

    George Robertson, Roland Fernandez, Danyel Fisher, Bongshin Lee, and John Stasko. 2008. Effectiveness of animation in trend visualization.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 14, 6 (2008), 1325–1332. https://doi. org/10.1109/TVCG.2008.125

    2008 doi

  61. [79]

    Dennig, Vincent Brandt, Daniel A

    Nils Rodrigues, Frederik L. Dennig, Vincent Brandt, Daniel A. Keim, and Daniel Weiskopf. 2024. Comparative Evaluation of Animated Scatter Plot Transitions. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (2024), 1–11. https: //doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2024.3388558

    2024

  62. [80]

    Hans Rosling. 2020. A fact-based worldview. https://www.gapminder.org/

    2020

  63. [81]

    Sadia Rubab, Lingyun Yu, Junxiu Tang, and Yingcai Wu. 2023. Exploring Effective Relationships Between Visual-Audio Channels in Data Visualization. Journal of Visualization 26, 4 (2023), 937–956. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12650-023-00909-3

    2023 doi

  64. [82]

    Yumiko Sakamoto, Samar Sallam, Aaron Salo, Jason Leboe-McGowan, and Pourang Irani. 2022. Persuasive Data Storytelling with a Data Video during Covid-19 Infodemic: Affective Pathway to Influence the Users’ Perception about Contact Tracing Apps in less than 6 Minutes. In Proceed...

    2022

  65. [83]

    Samar Sallam, Yumiko Sakamoto, Jason Leboe-McGowan, Celine Latulipe, and Pourang Irani. 2022. Towards Design Guidelines for Effective Health-Related Data Videos: An Empirical Investigation of Affect, Personality, and Video Con- tent. In Proceedings of CHI Conference on Human F...

    2022

  66. [84]

    Arvind Satyanarayan, Bongshin Lee, Donghao Ren, Jeffrey Heer, John Stasko, John Thompson, Matthew Brehmer, and Zhicheng Liu. 2019. Critical Reflections on Visualization Authoring Systems. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 26, 1 (2019), 1–11. https://doi....

    2019 doi

  67. [85]

    Arvind Satyanarayan, Dominik Moritz, Kanit Wongsuphasawat, and Jeffrey Heer. 2017. Vega-Lite: A Grammar of Interactive Graphics. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 23, 1 (2017), 341–350. https://doi.org/ 10.1109/TVCG.2016.2599030

    2017

  68. [86]

    Kay Schröder, Wiebke Eberhardt, Poornima Belavadi, Batoul Ajdadilish, Nanette van Haften, Ed Overes, Taryn Brouns, and André Calero Valdez. 2023. Telling stories with data – A systematic review. arXiv (2023), 1–25. arXiv:2312.01164

    2023 arXiv

  69. [87]

    Edward Segel and Jeffrey Heer. 2010. Narrative visualization: Telling stories with data. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 16, 6 (2010), 1139–1148. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2010.179

    2010 doi

  70. [88]

    Zekai Shao, Leixian Shen, Haotian Li, Yi Shan, Huamin Qu, Yun Wang, and Siming Chen. 2025. Narrative Player: Reviving Data Narratives with Visuals. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (2025), 1–15. https: //doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2025.3530512

    2025

  71. [89]

    Leixian Shen, Haotian Li, Yun Wang, Tianqi Luo, Yuyu Luo, and Huamin Qu

  72. [90]

    Leixian Shen, Haotian Li, Yun Wang, and Huamin Qu. 2024. From Data to Story: Towards Automatic Animated Data Video Creation with LLM-Based Multi-Agent Systems. In IEEE VIS 2024 Workshop on Data Storytelling in an Era of Generative AI (GEN4DS) . IEEE, 20–27. https://doi.org/10....

    2024

  73. [91]

    Leixian Shen, Enya Shen, Yuyu Luo, Xiaocong Yang, Xuming Hu, Xiongshuai Zhang, Zhiwei Tai, and Jianmin Wang. 2023. Towards Natural Language Inter- faces for Data Visualization: A Survey. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 29, 6 (2023), 3121–3144. https://...

    2023 doi

  74. [92]

    Leixian Shen, Enya Shen, Zhiwei Tai, Yun Wang, Yuyu Luo, and Jianmin Wang. 2022. GALVIS: Visualization Construction through Example-Powered Declarative Programming. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Con- ference on Information & Knowledge Management, CIKM’22 . ACM, ...

    2022

  75. [93]

    Leixian Shen, Yizhi Zhang, Haidong Zhang, and Yun Wang. 2024. Data Player: Automatic Generation of Data Videos with Narration-Animation Interplay. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 30, 1 (2024), 109–119. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2023.3327197

    2024

  76. [94]

    Yuancheng Shen, Haoyan Shi, Bongshin Lee, and Yunhai Wang. 2024. Authoring Data-Driven Chart Animations.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (2024), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2024.3491504

    2024

  77. [95]

    Danqing Shi, Antti Oulasvirta, Tino Weinkauf, and Nan Cao. 2024. Under- standing and Automating Graphical Annotations on Animated Scatterplots. In Proceedings of 2024 IEEE 16th Pacific Visualization Symposium, PacificVis’24 . IEEE, 212–221. https://doi.org/10.1109/PacificVis60...

    2024

  78. [96]

    Danqing Shi, Fuling Sun, Xinyue Xu, Xingyu Lan, David Gotz, and Nan Cao

  79. [97]

    Yang Shi, Tian Gao, Xiaohan Jiao, and Nan Cao. 2023. Understanding Design Collaboration Between Designers and Artificial Intelligence: A Systematic Liter- ature Review. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 7, CSCW2 (2023), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/3610217

    2023 doi

  80. [98]

    Yang Shi, Xingyu Lan, Jingwen Li, Zhaorui Li, and Nan Cao. 2021. Communi- cating with Motion: A Design Space for Animated Visual Narratives in Data Videos. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/34117...

    2021

  81. [99]

    Minjeong Shin, Joohee Kim, Yunha Han, Lexing Xie, Mitchell Whitelaw, Bum Chul Kwon, Sungahn Ko, and Niklas Elmqvist. 2023. Roslingifier: Semi- Automated Storytelling for Animated Scatterplots. IEEE Transactions on Visual- ization and Computer Graphics 29, 6 (2023), 2980–2995. ...

    2023

  82. [100]

    Xinhuan Shu, Aoyu Wu, Junxiu Tang, Benjamin Bach, Yingcai Wu, and Huamin Qu. 2021. What Makes a Data-GIF Understandable? IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 27, 2 (2021), 1492–1502. https://doi.org/10. 1109/TVCG.2020.3030396

    2021

  83. [101]

    Alexa Siu, Gene S-H Kim, Sile O’Modhrain, and Sean Follmer. 2022. Supporting Accessible Data Visualization Through Audio Data Narratives. In Proceedings of Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI’22 . ACM, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3517678

    2022

  84. [102]

    Statista. 2024. Most popular social networks worldwide as of April 2024, by number of monthly active users . Retrieved Sep 5, 2024 from https://www.statista.com/ statistics/272014/global-social-networks-ranked-by-number-of-users/

    2024

  85. [103]

    Junxiu Tang, Lingyun Yu, Tan Tang, Xinhuan Shu, Lu Ying, Yuhua Zhou, Peiran Ren, and Yingcai Wu. 2020. Narrative Transitions in Data Videos. In 2020 IEEE Visualization Conference (VIS). IEEE, 151–155. https://doi.org/10.1109/VIS47514. 2020.00037

    2020

  86. [104]

    Tan Tang, Junxiu Tang, Jiewen Lai, Lu Ying, Yingcai Wu, Lingyun Yu, and Peiran Ren. 2022. SmartShots: An Optimization Approach for Generating Videos with Data Visualizations Embedded. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems 12, 1 (2022), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.11...

    2022 doi

  87. [105]

    John Thompson, Zhicheng Liu, Wilmot Li, and John Stasko. 2020. Understanding the Design Space and Authoring Paradigms for Animated Data Graphics. Com- puter Graphics Forum 39, 3 (2020), 207–218. https://doi.org/10.1111/cgf.13974

    2020 doi

  88. [106]

    John Thompson, Zhicheng Liu, and John Stasko. 2021. Data Animator: Authoring Expressive Animated Data Graphics. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI’21 . ACM, 1–18. https://doi.org/ 10.1145/3411764.3445747

    2021

  89. [107]

    Laramee, Kodzo Wegba, Aidong Lu, Yun Wang, Huamin Qu, Qiong Luo, and Xiaojuan Ma

    Chao Tong, Richard Roberts, Rita Borgo, Sean Walton, Robert S. Laramee, Kodzo Wegba, Aidong Lu, Yun Wang, Huamin Qu, Qiong Luo, and Xiaojuan Ma. 2018. Storytelling and visualization: An extended survey. Information (Switzerland) 9, 3 (2018), 1–42. https://doi.org/10.3390/info9030065

    2018 doi

  90. [108]

    Wai Tong, Kento Shigyo, Lin-ping Yuan, Mingming Fan, Ting-chuen Pong, and Huamin Qu. 2024. VisTellAR : Embedding Data Visualization to Short-form Videos Using Mobile Augmented Reality. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics PP (2024), 1–13. https://doi.org/10...

    2024

  91. [109]

    Tiffany Tseng, Ruijia Cheng, and Jeffrey Nichols. 2024. Keyframer: Empow- ering Animation Design using Large Language Models. arXiv (2024), 1–31. arXiv:2402.06071

    2024 arXiv

  92. [110]

    Qianwen Wang, Zhen Li, Siwei Fu, Weiwei Cui, and Huamin Qu. 2019. Narvis: Authoring narrative slideshows for introducing data visualization designs. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 25, 1 (2019), 779–788. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2018.2865232

    2019

  93. [111]

    Yun Wang, Zhutian Chen, Quan Li, Xiaojuan Ma, Qiong Luo, and Huamin Qu

  94. [112]

    Yun Wang, Yi Gao, Ray Huang, Weiwei Cui, Haidong Zhang, and Dongmei Zhang. 2021. Animated Presentation of Static Infographics with InfoMotion. Computer Graphics Forum 40, 3 (2021), 507–518. https://doi.org/10.1111/cgf. 14325

    2021 doi

  95. [113]

    Yun Wang, Leixian Shen, Zhengxin You, Xinhuan Shu, Bongshin Lee, John Thompson, Haidong Zhang, and Dongmei Zhang. 2024. WonderFlow: Narration- Centric Design of Animated Data Videos. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (2024), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1109...

    2024

  96. [114]

    Zheng Wei, Huamin Qu, and Xian Xu. 2024. Telling Data Stories with the Hero’s Journey: Design Guidance for Creating Data Videos. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (2024), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1109/ TVCG.2024.3456330

    2024

  97. [115]

    Liwenhan Xie, Xinhuan Shu, Jeon Cheol Su, Yun Wang, Siming Chen, and Huamin Qu. 2023. Creating Emordle: Animating Word Cloud for Emotion Expression. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (2023), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2023.3286392

    2023

  98. [116]

    Liwenhan Xie, Chengbo Zheng, Haijun Xia, Huamin Qu, and Chen Zhu-Tian

  99. [117]

    Liwenhan Xie, Zhaoyu Zhou, Kerun Yu, Yun Wang, Huamin Qu, and Siming Chen. 2023. Wakey-Wakey: Animate Text by Mimicking Characters in a GIF. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, UIST’23. ACM, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3...

    2023

  100. [118]

    Xian Xu, Aoyu Wu, Leni Yang, Zheng Wei, Rong Huang, David Yip, and Huamin Qu. 2023. Is It the End? Guidelines for Cinematic Endings in Data Videos. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI’23. ACM, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1145/35445...

    2023

  101. [119]

    Xian Xu, Leni Yang, David Yip, Mingming Fan, Zheng Wei, and Huamin Qu

  102. [120]

    Leni Yang, Aoyu Wu, Wai Tong, Xian Xu, Zheng Wei, and Huamin Qu. 2023. Understanding 3D Data Videos: From Screens to Virtual Reality. IEEE Pacific Visualization Symposium 2023-April (2023), 197–206. https://doi.org/10.1109/ PacificVis56936.2023.00029

    2023

  103. [121]

    Leni Yang, Xian Xu, Xing Yu Lan, Ziyan Liu, Shunan Guo, Yang Shi, Huamin Qu, and Nan Cao. 2022. A Design Space for Applying the Freytag’s Pyramid Structure to Data Stories. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 28, 1 (2022), 922–932. https://doi.org/10.1109/...

    2022

  104. [122]

    Lijie Yao, Anastasia Bezerianos, Romain Vuillemot, and Petra Isenberg. 2022. Visualization in Motion: A Research Agenda and Two Evaluations. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 28, 10 (2022), 3546–3562. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2022.3184993

    2022

  105. [123]

    Lijie Yao, Romain Vuillemot, Anastasia Bezerianos, and Petra Isenberg. 2024. Designing for Visualization in Motion: Embedding Visualizations in Swimming Videos. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 30, 3 (2024), 1821–1836. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2023....

    2024

  106. [124]

    Lu Ying, Yun Wang, Haotian Li, Shuguang Dou, Haidong Zhang, Xinyang Jiang, Huamin Qu, and Yingcai Wu. 2024. Reviving Static Charts into Live Charts. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (2024), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2024.3397004

    2024

  107. [125]

    Li Yu, Aidong Lu, William Ribarsky, and Wei Chen. 2010. Automatic animation for time-varying data visualization. Computer Graphics Forum 29, 7 (2010), 2271–2280. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8659.2010.01816.x

    2010

  108. [126]

    Zhenpeng Zhao and Niklas Elmqvist. 2022. DataTV: Streaming Data Videos for Storytelling. arXiv (2022), 1–16. arXiv:2210.08175

    2022 arXiv

  109. [127]

    In Proceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, UIST’24

    WaitGPT: Monitoring and Steering Conversational LLM Agent in Data Analysis with On-the-Fly Code Visualization. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, UIST’24 . ACM, Article 52, 14 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3654777.3676374

  110. [128]

    Tongyu Zhou, Jeff Huang, and Gromit Yeuk-yin Chan. 2024. Epigraphics: Message-Driven Infographics Authoring. In Proceedings of the CHI Confer- ence on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI’24 . ACM, 1–18. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642172

    2024

  111. [129]

    Jonathan Zong, Josh Pollock, Dylan Wootton, and Arvind Satyanarayan. 2023. Animated Vega-Lite: Unifying Animation with a Grammar of Interactive Graph- ics. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 29, 1 (2023), 149–159. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2022.3209369

    2023

  112. [131]

    InProceedings of 2022 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI’22

    From ’Wow’ to ’Why’: Guidelines for Creating the Opening of a Data Video with Cinematic Styles. InProceedings of 2022 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI’22 . ACM, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102. 3501896

    2022 doi

  113. [139]

    Zhenpeng Zhao and Niklas Elmqvist. 2023. The Stories We Tell About Data: Sur- veying Data-Driven Storytelling Using Visualization. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 43, 4 (2023), 97–110. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCG.2023.3269850

    2023

  114. [287]

    https://doi.org/10.1145/2909132.2909255

  115. [1867]

    https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2022.3229017

    2022

  116. [2015]

    IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 35, 5 (2015), 84–90

    More Than Telling a Story: Transforming Data into Visually Shared Stories. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 35, 5 (2015), 84–90. https: //doi.org/10.1109/MCG.2015.99

    2015 doi

  117. [2016]

    SA 2016 - SIGGRAPH ASIA 2016 Symposium on Visualization (2016)

    Animated narrative visualization for video clickstream data. SA 2016 - SIGGRAPH ASIA 2016 Symposium on Visualization (2016). https://doi.org/10. 1145/3002151.3002155

    2016

  118. [2017]

    In Proceedings of the 35rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI’17

    GraphScape: A model for automated reasoning about visualization sim- ilarity and sequencing. In Proceedings of the 35rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI’17 . ACM, 2628–2638. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025866

  119. [2022]

    IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 28, 7 (2022), 2628–2640

    Enhancing Static Charts With Data-Driven Animations. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 28, 7 (2022), 2628–2640. https://doi. org/10.1109/TVCG.2020.3037300

    2022

  120. [2024]

    IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (2024), 1–11

    Data Playwright: Authoring Data Videos with Annotated Narration. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (2024), 1–11. https: //doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2024.3477926

    2024

  121. [2025]

    arXiv (2025), 1–15

    Composing Data Stories with Meta Relations. arXiv (2025), 1–15. arXiv:2501.03603

    2025 arXiv

  122. [5177]

    https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2022.3205769

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.