Bridging Open Science and Data Visualization: Evaluating the Usability of dataWASHES Dashboard

• Victor Gonçalves UFCA
• Davi Viana UFMA
• Rodrigo Santos UNIRIO
• Allysson Allex Araújo UFCA

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5753/washes.2025.8019

Abstract

[Context] Open Science has gained traction in Software Engineering in recent years, driven by the growing need to promote transparency and collaboration. The dataWASHES initiative exemplifies this perspective by providing an API for accessing WASHES proceedings. [Problem] Despite its contributions, dataWASHES lacks an interactive data visualization tool, limiting its accessibility to a broader audience. [Objective] This paper presents and evaluates a dashboard for dataWASHES to enhance data analysis and usability. [Method] We conducted a qualitative inspection based on Tufte’s principles and usability testing with 28 participants using the System Usability Scale (SUS). [Results] The dashboard adhered strongly to Tufte’s principles, particularly minimizing non-essential elements. The SUS yielded a score of 91.25, with 96.4% of participants reporting high satisfaction and 100% willing to recommend the tool. [Contributions] This work contributes by (1) applying Tufte’s principles in Open Science dashboards, (2) emphasizing the importance of user-centered design and data visualization in the engineering of Open Science tools, and (3) improving dataWASHES with a dashboard that turns data into actionable insights.

References

Araújo, A. A., Farias, I., Gonçalves, V., Santos, R., Viana, D., and Steinmacher, I. (2024). dataWASHES - Towards an Application Programming Interface of WASHES proceedings data. In Workshop sobre Aspectos Sociais, Humanos e Econômicos de Software (WASHES), pages 158–162. SBC.

Bangor, A., Kortum, P., and Miller, J. (2009). Determining what individual sus scores mean: Adding an adjective rating scale. Journal of usability studies, 4(3):114–123.

Bevan, N., Barnum, C., Cockton, G., Nielsen, J., Spool, J., and Wixon, D. (2003). The “magic number 5” is it enough for web testing? In CHI’03 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems, pages 698–699.

Brooke, J. et al. (1996). SUS - A quick and dirty usability scale. Usability evaluation in industry, 189(194):4–7.

Fekete, J.-D., Van Wijk, J. J., Stasko, J. T., and North, C. (2008). The value of information visualization. Information visualization: human-centered issues and perspectives, pages 1–18.

Few, S. (2009). Now you see it: simple visualization techniques for quantitative analysis. Analytics Press.

Gonçalves, V., Viana, D., Santos, R., and Araújo, A. A. (2024). Supporting dataset. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.15061857.

Grier, R. A., Bangor, A., Kortum, P., and Peres, S. C. (2013). The system usability scale: Beyond standard usability testing. In Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting, volume 57, pages 187–191. SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA.

Laubheimer, P. (2017). Dashboards: Making charts and graphs easier to understand. Accessed: 2025-02-22.

Mendez, D., Graziotin, D., Wagner, S., and Seibold, H. (2020). Open science in software engineering. Contemporary empirical methods in software engineering, pages 477–501.

Nielsen, J. et al. (2012). Usability 101: Introduction to usability.

Tufte, E. R. (2001). The visual display of quantitative information, volume 2. Graphics Press Cheshire, CT.

UNESCO (2021). UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

Wang, R., Perez-Riverol, Y., Hermjakob, H., and Vizcaíno, J. A. (2015). Open source libraries and frameworks for biological data visualisation: A guide for developers. Proteomics, 15(8):1356–1374.

Wilkinson, L. (2011). The grammar of graphics. In Handbook of computational statistics: Concepts and methods, pages 375–414. Springer.