Differences between revisions 2 and 4 (spanning 2 versions)
Revision 2 as of 2017-09-14 18:28:21
Size: 567
Editor: DavidOwen
Comment: Cory's experiment
Revision 4 as of 2017-09-14 19:17:28
Size: 997
Editor: DavidOwen
Comment:
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 11: Line 11:
Slightly surprising to swing the way of pie-chart estimating being more accurate, but the p-value indicates that the effect is small enough that we need more participants to reliably detect it. --(Slightly surprising to swing the way of pie-chart estimating being more accurate, but the p-value indicates that the effect is small enough that we need more participants to reliably detect it. )--

Talked about whether the tick marks on bar-charts are biasing the experiment, and alternative ways to present the charts (''something'' is needed to show the user where "100%" is for a bar-chart).

Read Cory's code. Discovered some tracking of subjects/observations may have been wrong, leading to a bad p-value. Cory's going to fix up the code and try this again later. However, the mean errors should be correct.

2017-09-14

/Attendees

Minutes

Ran Cory's bar-chart versus pie-chart experiment (available at http://piechartssuck.com/) with 3 participants, and got:

  • Bar-chart mean error: 2.133
  • Pie-chart mean error: 1.733
  • P-value: 0.50

Slightly surprising to swing the way of pie-chart estimating being more accurate, but the p-value indicates that the effect is small enough that we need more participants to reliably detect it.

Talked about whether the tick marks on bar-charts are biasing the experiment, and alternative ways to present the charts (something is needed to show the user where "100%" is for a bar-chart).

Read Cory's code. Discovered some tracking of subjects/observations may have been wrong, leading to a bad p-value. Cory's going to fix up the code and try this again later. However, the mean errors should be correct.

Next Time

MeetingNotes/2017-09 (last edited 2017-09-14 19:17:28 by DavidOwen)