  People have expectations about how colors map to concepts in visualizations,
and they are better at interpreting visualizations that match their
expectations. Traditionally, studies on these expectations (inferred mappings)
distinguished distinct factors relevant for visualizations of categorical vs.
continuous information. Studies on categorical information focused on direct
associations (e.g., mangos are associated with yellows) whereas studies on
continuous information focused on relational associations (e.g., darker colors
map to larger quantities; dark-is-more bias). We unite these two areas within a
single framework of assignment inference. Assignment inference is the process
by which people infer mappings between perceptual features and concepts
represented in encoding systems. Observers infer globally optimal assignments
by maximizing the "merit," or "goodness," of each possible assignment. Previous
work on assignment inference focused on visualizations of categorical
information. We extend this approach to visualizations of continuous data by
(a) broadening the notion of merit to include relational associations and (b)
developing a method for combining multiple (sometimes conflicting) sources of
merit to predict people's inferred mappings. We developed and tested our model
on data from experiments in which participants interpreted colormap data
visualizations, representing fictitious data about environmental concepts
(sunshine, shade, wild fire, ocean water, glacial ice). We found both direct
and relational associations contribute independently to inferred mappings.
These results can be used to optimize visualization design to facilitate visual
communication.
