Interaction enables users to navigate large amounts of data effectively, supports cognitive processing, and increases data representation methods. However, there have been few attempts to empirically demonstrate whether adding interaction to a static visualization improves its function beyond popular beliefs. In this paper, we address this gap. We use a classic Bayesian reasoning task as a testbed for evaluating whether allowing users to interact with a static visualization can improve their reasoning. Through two crowdsourced studies, we show that adding interaction to a static Bayesian reasoning visualization does not improve participants' accuracy on a Bayesian reasoning task. In some cases, it can significantly detract from it. Moreover, we demonstrate that underlying visualization design modulates performance and that people with high versus low spatial ability respond differently to different interaction techniques and underlying base visualizations. Our work suggests that interaction is not as unambiguously good as we often believe; a well designed static visualization can be as, if not more, effective than an interactive one.

中文翻译：

---

交互是否可以通过可视化改善贝叶斯推理？

交互使用户可以有效地导航大量数据，支持认知处理并增加数据表示方法。但是，很少有尝试来凭经验证明静态交互可视化是否增加了交互性，从而超出了人们的普遍观念。在本文中，我们解决了这一差距。我们使用经典的贝叶斯推理任务作为测试平台，以评估允许用户与静态可视化交互是否可以改善他们的推理。通过两项众包研究，我们表明将交互添加到静态贝叶斯推理可视化中并不能提高参与者在贝叶斯推理任务上的准确性。在某些情况下，它可能会大大降低它的吸引力。而且，我们证明了基础的可视化设计可以调节性能，并且具有高空间能力和低空间能力的人对不同的交互技术和基础基础可视化的反应不同。我们的工作表明，互动并不像我们通常认为的那么明确。设计良好的静态可视化效果可能要好于交互式可视化效果。