1140 Research Chase Stokes and Marti A. Hearst are with University of
California, Berkeley. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Clara affiliation?

# “It’s a Good Idea to Put It Into Words”:
Writing ‘Rudders’ in the Initial Stages of Visualization Design

Chase Stokes0000-0001-7644-9021  Clara Hu  and Marti A. Hearst

###### Abstract

Written language is a useful tool for non-visual creative activities like
writing essays and planning searches. This paper investigates the integration
of written language into the visualization design process. We create the idea
of a ‘writing rudder,’ which acts as a guiding force or strategy for the
design. Via an interview study of 24 working visualization designers, we first
established that only a minority of participants systematically use writing to
aid in design. A second study with 15 visualization designers examined four
different variants of written rudders: asking questions, stating conclusions,
composing a narrative, and writing titles. Overall, participants had a
positive reaction; designers recognized the benefits of explicitly writing
down components of the design and indicated that they would use this approach
in future design work. More specifically, two approaches –- writing questions
and writing conclusions/takeaways –- were seen as beneficial across the design
process, while writing narratives showed promise mainly for the creation
stage. Although concerns around potential bias during data exploration were
raised, participants also discussed strategies to mitigate such concerns. This
paper contributes to a deeper understanding of the interplay between language
and visualization, and proposes a straightforward, lightweight addition to the
visualization design process.

###### keywords:

Visualization, design, language, text.

Main findings from two interview studies. Both Study 1 and Study 2 found that
visualization designers rarely use writing as a concrete design step. Of the
variants proposed in Study 2, key questions and possible conclusions were seen
as the most beneficial.

##  1 Introduction

While visual activities

The process of visualization design puts great attention on the creation of
visual elements. Activities that produce visual artifacts, such as sketching
or and wireframing, are important and common steps in visualization design
[parsons2021understanding], the potential importance of writing, a critical
tool in other creative fields, is underexplored. The process of visualization
design is deeply intertwined with how visual elements are conceptualized,
iterated upon, and ultimately deployed to convey meaning. Designing
visualizations is often iterative and complex, as reflected in taxonomies of
design practice [munzner2009nested, mckenna2014design]. However, taxonomies .
By contrast, taxonomies and studies of design practice have not yet considered
focused on the use of writing writing in the design of visualizations.

For creative tasks outside of data visualization, taking time to write down a
plan or outcome is a standard practice. For example, library science has long
advised writing down the information need as a prelude to effective search
[wilson2004talking, ross2019conducting]. The introduction to Russell’s Joy of
Search [russell2019joy] advocates this approach for web search:

> “I know, it sounds too simple to actually work. But if you take ten seconds
> to write down your question BEFORE you start … you’ll find your research
> process will be much, much more effective.” (p. 7)

Research on essay writing instruction finds benefits in pre-writing steps,
including writing outlines, lists, notes, or concept webs [graham2007meta]. In
visual endeavors such as animation and film, scripts and screenplays provide a
narrative foundation for eventual visual output. This paper explores this
overlooked aspect of design for the creation of visualization.

The origin of this paper stems from the direct experience of the authors in
creating visualizations to serve as stimuli for a research study. At first, we
struggled to determine what the narrative of the visualization would be and
how we should write the accompanying text. We took a step back from the
visualization itself to write a short paragraph describing the visualization
and the story of the data. After writing this narrative, the design of the
visualization was more successful.

In this paper, we focus on the use of language to support the framing or the
narrative of the visualization. We use the term rudder, which refers to a
mechanism to steer a boat, as well as, more metaphorically, “a guiding force
or strategy” [mw:rudder]. A written rudder provides direction in the design of
the visualization and helps to maintain focus on the message and goals of the
project. Written rudders are also flexible, just as a boat’s rudder may be
pivoted to move the boat in a new direction. The purpose is to guide of a
rudder is to guide the design, similar to how a sketch acts as a starting
point for determining visual representations. For both a written rudder and a
sketch, the final design may not be true to the specifications of the starting
point

Design practice currently uses writing in ways that differ from the rudders
notion. Designers may use writing for user research, such as reviewing or
summarizing insights from user interviews. It is also a common practice to
document specific design decisions or write down design requirements
[munzner2009nested, walny2019data, mckenna2014design]. User interviews provide
data on the insights to display but this data does not itself describe the
design’s message or goals. Design documentation is about tracking and
justifying choices made throughout the design development, while the writing
rudder serves as a guide before or during the design process.

Design requirements are the most similar to a writing rudder, but there are a
few areas where the two diverge. Design requirements typically involve
technical specifications as well as possible user needs or objectives. They
may also contain limitations for the project, and the specific data that will
be used. Writing rudders, on the other hand, focus primarily on guiding
(rather than requiring or instructing) the design process and focus on the
message or story of the design.

The idea behind the writing rudder can also be situated in the context of
design philosophy. As an element of the design process, a rudder can impose a
“discipline,” acting as a useful constraint to focus and guide the iteration
of ideas and design [schon1987educating]. Writing rudders also support the
iterative nature of design, since they are lightweight and so can be recreated
or adjusted as the design evolves or parameters change.

We investigate two main research questions. First, how do designers currently
use writing during the design process? Second, what is the perceived impact of
writing rudders on the design process? In this paper, we use the following
terms and definitions:

  * •

Visualization designer: a professional who creates visual representations of
data as part of a paid role, typically for a specific ask or objective. Also
referred to as designer or practitioner.

  * •

Design process: the dynamic, iterative set of activities undertaken while
creating visual representations from raw data.

  * •

Written Writing rudder: hand-written or typed language created and/or used
during the design process, describing the message, story, or key goals of the
design itself. Also referred to as a writing written rudder or rudder. A
rudder variant or variant is a specific form of this language (e.g., questions
the design may address).

  * •

Text elements: typeface features on visual representations of data (e.g.,
captions, annotations, etc.).

To better understand the use and influence of writing rudders during the
design process, we conducted two semi-structured interview studies with
visualization designers.

Contributions: We contribute two interview studies with visualization
designers which illustrate the potential impact of a recommended written step
in the design processwriting rudders.

Study 1 finds that the deliberate use of writing as a design step among
visualization designers is uncommon. When writing is used, it primarily
informs the designer’s understanding of the visualization’s goals and the
generation of creative ideasto display the data. We conclude that writing is
underutilized an underutilized step in visualization design.

Study 2 builds upon these findings by exploring the tangible benefits and
drawbacks of incorporating specific written rudder variants(, shown in “It’s a
Good Idea to Put It Into Words”: Writing ‘Rudders’ in the Initial Stages of
Visualization Design) , into the visualization design process. Four variants
were proposed, two of which were found to be especially beneficial to the
beginning stages of the design process. The actual written artifacts created
from these steps may also serve important uses later on, such as evaluating
whether a visualization has achieved its goals. Written rudders which take the
form of statements or narratives were seen as better suited for later in the
design process. have important evaluative uses.

This research illuminates supports the utility of writing in down guiding text
as part of the design process and suggests additional areas for future work
and evaluation.

##  2 Related Work

###  2.1 Practical Insights from Visualization Design

Academic research often lacks actionable insights for practitioners,
indicating a need to bridge the gap between research questions and design
practices [smits2023towards, parsons2020methods]. In the broader field of HCI,
there has been a shift towards practice-oriented research programs to enhance
practical relevance of frameworks and theories [kuutti2014turn,
goodman2011understanding]. Some work in the area of visualization design
engages with design practices in HCI, particularly in the case of design
studies: researchers collaborate with domain exports experts to address
problems through visualization systems [sedlmair2012design,
meyer2019criteria]. These systems can contribute practical solutions as well
as theoretical insights into how designers create data visualizations. There
is an ongoing conversation about making findings from design research more
accessible and relevant to practitioners [gray2014bubble,
parsons2021understanding].

When examining the design of visualizations in practice, researchers have
found that the design The design process is nonlinear and iterative
[parsons2021understanding, parsons2020methods, parsons2021fixation,
alspaugh2018futzing]. Design involves insights from science and research, such
as visual encodings and marks/channels, as well as artistic instinct, since
sensibility; visualization designers often incorporate elements of creativity
into their designs. Designers often use guidelines, heuristics, or examples of
past designs to assist in ideation and to avoid fixating on a particular
design or approach [parsons2020methods, parsons2021fixation,
bako2022understanding]. Designers require flexibility in their approaches
depending on the context, audience, and particulars of the data being
displayed [bigelow2014reflections, walny2019data]. This need is even more
salient in environments with sensitive and/or important data, such as the
COVID-19 pandemic [zhang2022visualization].

There have been a few studies examining the use of written guides in the
designprocess. Participants visualization design. Lee-Robbins et al.
[lee2021learning] found that participants from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk
selected more effective visualizations when they were provided clear provided
clear learning objectives (e.g., “Spot outliers within the data”)
[lee2021learning].”). Learning objectives are similar to the concept of
written rudders that we explore in this paper. However, the learning
objectives examined in prior work learning objectives take specific forms and
contain certain information, while ‘rudders’ are more flexible in form and
content. In other words, learning objectives are one version of the kind of
written guides that designers may use in the visualization design process.

Some researcher-designed tools consider the use of natural language in the
visualization design process. For example, InkSight [lin2023inksight] allows
visualization creators to augment their iterative sketching practices with
generated data facts within a computational notebook environment. This method
of exploratory data analysis supports concrete insights through natural
language as well as freeform investigations through sketching. Storyboarding
frameworks have also proved useful for the design of interactive systems,
including visual analytics [walker2015storyboarding, truong2006storyboarding].
Text accompanying the storyboard was particularly useful for understanding the
overall narrative [truong2006storyboarding].

###  2.2 Frameworks in Visualization Design

Researchers have created a variety of frameworks to capture key steps in the
design process [sedlmair2012design, munzner2009nested, mckenna2014design,
wodehouse2010integration, mccurdy2016action]. These frameworks tend to
incorporate similar stages of the design process: a stage for understanding
the data and the overall context, a stage for generating ideas to show the
data, and a stage for creating this the design. While design frameworks are
helpful for considering the different steps and actions that make up
visualization design, none of them explicitly incorporate the use of written
guides explicitly incorporate writing in any stage.

In this paper, we use the Design Activity Framework (DAF) as our main
framework. In comparison to other models and frameworks, the DAF fits most
clearly with the nonlinearity of design practices and is the most
generalizable across design contexts. The DAF [mckenna2014design] provides
four overlapping activities in the design process: understand, ideate, make,
and deploy. Similar to the nested model, each stage typically provides an
output for development in the following stage. However, these there is more
overlap and less linearity in the DAF process. Designers typically first
understand the users, their data, and the project context. They then ideate
different ways of communicating key information (e.g., different visual
encodings) using sketches or low-fidelity prototypes [bigelow2014reflections,
parsons2021fixation, fallman2003design]. These lo-fi ideas are then made into
tangible prototypes and are deployed when the final design is decided and
created in full. While these areas are intricately linked, they are also
separable for individual study and attention. These activities or similar
concepts are consistent across different frameworks of the design process,
[wodehouse2010integration, mccurdy2016action, sedlmair2012design,
oppermann2020data] indicating their critical role in visualization creation.

###  2.3 Teaching Visualization Design

Teaching the design of visualizations involves not only imparting knowledge of
tools and techniques but also fostering an understanding of the conceptual
underpinnings that guide the effective communication of data. The teaching of
visualization principles typically involves an understanding of visual
encodings [cleveland1984graphical], communicating data clearly through data
storytelling [knaflic2015storytelling, tufte1985visual,
munzner2014visualization], and instruction in tools for visualization design,
such as Tableau or d3 [beyer2016teaching]. This often takes the form of hands-
on projects and exercises to encourage the application of these teachings in
real-world scenarios [kammer2021experience, bach2023challenges]. Also
recommended are design and redesign activities [Viégas_Wattenberg_2015], peer
critique [beasley2020leveraging], and design thinking [mckenna2014design,
wassink2009applying]. Worksheets and other writing activities can formalize
some of these steps, requiring the student to think through specific steps in
creating and conceptualizing a visualization [byrd2021activity].

Data storytelling

###  2.4 Narrative Visualizations

The impact of language in visualization has recently become a growing area of
interest in visualization research (e.g,. [stokes2021give, ottley2019curious,
borkin2015beyond, kong2018frames, wanzer2021role, ajani2021declutter]). Data
stories and narrative visualizations often incorporate language elements
alongside data, animation, and other visual elements [segel2010narrative,
hullman2011visualization, kosara2013storytelling, lee2015more,
hulllman2013deeper, figueiras2014narrative]. While these elements do not
always result in a high degree of engagement, the use of data storytelling
methods can increase overall comprehension for certain tasks
[boy2015storytelling, shao2024data].

In addition to being important for data communication overall, data
storytelling and narrative infographics are increasingly recognized as a
crucial component crucial components of visualization design education
[hearst2017teaching]. The role of narratives or stories in data visualization
allows for the development of broader skills alongside visualization
techniques [bach2023challenges]. These broader skills are necessary in order
to prepare students for the less structured and more situated environments of
data visualization practice [parsons2023preparing]. [bach2023challenges,
parsons2023preparing].

Writing activities have some precedence in teaching data visualization design
. For example, There are systems designed to support storytelling with data
[satyanarayan2014authoring], including those that combine text and visual
components of the design [srinivasan2018augmenting, latif2021kori,
chen2020supporting]. One recent contribution to this space, Epigraphics,
explores a similar idea to writing rudders [zhou2024epigraphics]. Users of
Epigraphics begin with text as a first-class object, writing the key message
they plan to convey. This is an example of a written rudder embedded within a
tool for designing infographics. In this study, we focus on the use of rudders
for visualization design broadly and explore additional variants. Outside of
this example, the planning for a redesign can be written down, or peer
critique can be documented for later reference. Worksheets formalize some of
these steps, requiring the student to think through specific steps in creating
and conceptualizing a visualization [byrd2021activity].

###  2.5 Text Elements in Visualizations

Although visualization is focused on spatial depictions, creation of a
narrative visualization centers more on how text elements are important, and
the impact of language in visualization has recently become a growing area of
interest in visualization research (e. g, . [stokes2021give,
ottley2019curious, borkin2015beyond, kong2018frames, wanzer2021role,
ajani2021declutter]). used in the resulting visualization, rather than the use
of language during the design process.

Writing rudders also share similarities with the concepts of ‘model checking’
and graphical belief elicitation [kale2024evm, mahajan2022vibe,
kim2017explaining]. By generating pseudo-hypotheses about the trends or
features in the data, analysts can more effectively evaluate the accuracy of
these hypotheses. Similarly, writing rudders prompt designers to consider the
audience’s perspective and anticipate what conclusions might be drawn from the
visualization depending on the actual appearance of the data. This use of
rudders encourages designers to externalize their assumptions and consider the
audience’s perspective, enhancing the overall design process in a way similar
to how belief elicitation can enhance analysis and interpretation.

We mention text elements in visualization here We mention narrative
visualizations and text elements to distinguish them from the focus of this
paper, in which we study the use of written language in the design process.
There are instances where the two uses concepts can be connected; a designer .
For example, a designer working on a narrative visualization may use a written
rudder to illustrate the kind of conclusions readers might come to after
viewing the display. Additionally, a designer could use a written rudder to
influence the title , annotation, or caption that ultimately appears in their
final design. Despite the ties between the ideas, written rudders are a
distinct contribution which focuses on the use of writing in the visualization
design process, bringing in the affordances of language to guide visual
design.

##  3 Study 1

In the first study, we conducted semi-structured interviews with visualization
designers to shed light on the following research question:

RQ1: How do designers use writing during the design process?

Demographic | Study 1 | Study 2
---|---|---
| n = 24 | n = 15
Years of Experience
1-3 years | 3 | 4
4-6 years | 9 | 4
7-9 years | 7 | 2
10+ years | 5 | 5
1.11.1 Time Spent Designing (per week)
Less than 5 hours | 2 | 2
5-10 hours | 5 | 5
11-20 hours | 7 | 2
21-30 hours | 5 | 2
30+ hours | 5 | 4
1.11.1 Industry Sector
Broadcasting/Journalism | 5 | 3
Manufacturing | 3 | 0
Medical/healthcare | 4 | 1
Non-profit/Government | 3 | 4
Research | 2 | 5
Scientific or Technical Services | 4 | 1
Software | 3 | 1
1.1

Table 1: Information about participants’ experience and work context.

###  3.1 Methodology

Participants completed a 5-minute pre-interview survey about their work with
data visualizations, followed by a 60 minute semi-structured interview on
Zoom. The interview was recorded and automatically transcribed by the Zoom
Cloud Service. They were compensated with a $30 Amazon gift card.

The pre-interview survey contained questions regarding features of the
participants’ work environments, such as the time per week they spend creating
or working with data visualizations, the size of their company, and the number
of people they frequently collaborate with. It also collected details about
their work with visualizations, including the types of visualizations they
create and the tools they frequently use, as well as information, such as the
participants’ level of experience, their gender, and their employment status.

Interviews began with an overall discussion of the participant’s role and
responsibilities in data visualization design, continuing on to discuss
different aspects of their design process, such as the tools they used, their
tools used, collaboration practices, and the use of writing in their the
design process. When possible, the participant and interviewer would discuss
an example design to ground this discussion, selected by the participant prior
to the interview. In some cases, this was not permitted by the participant’s
company. This portion of the interview took approximately 25 minutes.

The rest of the interview examined designer use and implementation of text
elements , though these responses are out of the scope (e.g., annotations) in
visualizations, which is a separate topic intended for a different set of
research questions. This interview protocol allowed us to optimize participant
time, but the primary focus of this paper . The full is on the design process
of visualizations, rather than the use of text elements. For this analysis, we
only focus on content from the interviews that pertained to the design process
and the use of writing. The interview protocol can be found in supplementary
materials. Participants are referred to with their assigned ID number [P#].

####  3.1.1 Participants

24 visualization designers participated in this study. Participants were
recruited from the Data Visualization Society (DVS), News Nerdery, and public
posts to X (Twitter) and LinkedIn. Recruitment materials had an emphasis on
recruiting data journalists in addition to more traditional visualization
designers to account for the possibility of their unique perspectives on the
integration of text and visualization. All participants, regardless of their
primary role, were involved in visualization design work. To be eligible for
this study, participants were required to be based in the United States, be
fluent in English, and spend at least a portion of their time at work
designing or creating visualizations. These eligibility requirements were
aimed to provide some consistency across participants and ensure study-
relevant experience.

22 of the participants were employed full time, with one participant employed
part time and another unemployed, looking for work. A majority of participants
were women (14), with eight men, one non-binary person, and one trans man.
Most participants worked in medium-sized (7) or enterprise-sized companies
(11). Further information on participants can be found in Section 3, and
supplementary materials.

####  3.1.2 Coding

Interviews were coded along three dimensions: the design outcome, writing in
their design process, and the specific phase of the design process during
which writing was used, when relevant. Descriptions of each code can be found
in the codebook in supplementary materials.

The codes for the outcome dimension were developed post-interview, derived
from the common outcomes mentioned by participants in the interviews via
grounded coding. While these codes could be further refined during the coding
process, no new codes were added. This code served to provide context for
participant practices.

We also developed a separate dimension to address our main research question.
While we knew we would code a dimension for writing prior to conducting the
interviews, the precise codes (No use/none, Incidental, and Deliberate) were
developed through the coding process. Distinguishing between incidental and
deliberate use of writing required consideration of participants’ practices
with written elements. Specifically, we focused on the regularity and impact
of the written elements on the design process. For example, deliberate use was
identified when participants systematically created and referred to written
notes as a main step in their design process. Incidental use, on the other
hand, was identified when such notes were created sporadically and had minimal
impact on the design’s development. It was challenging to make this subjective
judgement from interview transcripts; we aimed to mitigate this by using
detailed coding guidelines and seeking consensus among coders when assigning
these labels.

Additionally, we accounted for the stage of the design process that the
rudders impacted. Stage codes (Understand, Ideate, Make, Deploy) were drawn
from the Design Activity Framework (DAF) [mckenna2014design]. Prior to
conducting the interviews, we considered different design frameworks. The DAF
was chosen for its compatibility with other frameworks [munzner2009nested,
mccurdy2016action] and its separate but intersecting stages of design.

The first and second authors engaged in detailed discussions about the
dimensions and codes, applying them to two transcripts. After discussing the
two transcripts, the The codebook was then refined for improved clarity.
Following this, the two coders independently coded the entire set of 24
transcripts. They met to discuss discrepancies and reach consensus on
disagreeing codes. For the codes where consensus was not found, the third
author was brought in as a tiebreaker to review the relevant transcripts,
without prior knowledge of the codes applied by the first two coders. After
considering responses from all three coders, consensus was reached on all
coding categories. Interrater reliability (Cohen’s kappa) for the two original
coders was calculated for all codes and can be found in supplemental
materials. There was moderate to substantial agreement between coders, with
kappa values ranging from 0.662 0.66 to 0.75.

###  3.2 Results

We distilled two themes regarding the use of writing in participants’ design
processes. Overall, writing was not frequently used as a deliberate and
intentional part of the design process, as shown in “It’s a Good Idea to Put
It Into Words”: Writing ‘Rudders’ in the Initial Stages of Visualization
Design. When participants did use writing (deliberately or incidentally), this
tended to occur in the early stages of designing.

####  3.2.1 Theme 1: Use of Writing is Relatively Uncommon

Participants tended to use visual methods in their design processes. Some
participants (8/24) began their visualization process with sketching, and many
participants (17/24) used sketching as at least part of their design process.
For example, P19 said that while on an initial call with a client, they would
“just sketch out the chart… just quickly take my pen and sketch out. Other
times, if it’s more complex, I’ll draw a more complex chart in my notes.”
Across participants, this sometimes took the form of paper and pencil but
could also occur using digital tools like Figma. P11 commented on the fast-
moving landscape of these tools, “So we started out with Axure and
Illustrator… now we are on Figma. God knows what we will be on next month.”

Other participants (8/24) began their design process by putting the data
directly into a tool to explore and visualize. The initial use of a
visualization tool versus using sketching could depend on the complexity of
the data, as stated by P18, “I’ll try to sketch it out or just mock something
up… with basic shapes to try to get an idea of what something is gonna look
like. Or I’ll take Tableau, Power BI and just throw the data in there, see
what happens. And then start refining if it’s less complicated.” Putting the
data directly into the tool facilitated speed and ease in the design process:
“it’s just easier to test different chart types that we’re looking at” [P14].
The speed of changing chart types and variables in a tool often meant that, at
times, it would take longer for the participant to draw the chart than it
would to make the same chart in Tableau. The use of these tools also supported
exploratory data analyses (EDA).

For most participants (15/24), writing was either not used at all (7/24) or
not used as a distinct part of the design process (8/24). In the latter case,
participants would mention taking notes or having written documents, but these
were not integral to their design process. Around a third of participants
(9/24) used writing in a deliberate way (more detail in “It’s a Good Idea to
Put It Into Words”: Writing ‘Rudders’ in the Initial Stages of Visualization
Design). Only two participants started their design with some form of writing
similar to a written rudder. For both designers, this took the form of a
headline or written report from another collaborator.

Participants (7/24) who did not incorporate writing at all during their design
process tended to think of the process as more internal. P1 stated, “I think
it’s happening internally. I don’t list out key takeaways … I guess it comes
up in the process.” In some cases, despite explicit probing from the
interviewer, written rudders never came up as a component of the design
processwere never mentioned.

Participants (8/24) who incidentally incorporated writing did not consider it
an important or consistent part of their design process. For example, P18
mentioned that they “try to keep notes as I’m going, cause as I’m coming up
with a design, or really, as I’m working on it, I’ll just have random stuff
pop on my head.” In this case, the use of language was sporadic and informal,
serving primarily as a tool for capturing fleeting ideas rather than a
formalized element of the design methodologyformal element of designing.

Participants (9/24) who deliberately incorporated writing in their design
process tended to think of them as intentional steps, often mentioning without
probing from the interviewer. This could take the form of a formal document,
such as a “written and approved strategic plan” [P3] or “paragraphs that are
really data heavy” [P13].

In exploratory reviews of the codes, journalists (5/5) and participants who
created text and visual reports (7/10) used writing in a deliberate way.
However, all journalists were among those who created text and visual reports,
thus conflating the values.

Overall, the use of writing in the design process was relatively uncommon in
our sample, with only about a third or participants considering it a pivotal
or concrete step in their design process.

####  3.2.2 Theme 2: Language Used in Early Design Stages

For the participants who used writing in any minor capacity (17/24), this step
most frequently played a role in the understandingunderstand stage of the
design. In general, these writings set the scene for what the visualization
addressed and the specific needs served.

Participants (11/15) relied on this step as a way to better understand the
ideas behind the design and the key questions the design would be used to
answer. P20 described their use of written language as, “After I have that
initial conversation, I like write it all up. This is the question. This is
the context. This is the data we’re going to use. This is how we think we’re
going to communicate it.” In other words, the preparation for the design is
written out, with key questions and data attributes captured in concrete
language prior to beginning the design. Another participant created a short
description of “ what the graphic is supposed to show, which is usually two
sentences” prior to beginning the visual design [P17].

In data journalism contexts, the actual written artifact may come from sources
other than the participants themselves: “I request [the story draft] because
it’s helpful for me… I’m less likely to make a mistake if I see the whole
story, even if it’s just reporter notes” [P6]. The language provides
information on the problem domain, but it comes from a source other than the
designer. However, in cases where journalists were writing their own reports,
a similar process took place where the draft was written first, and data-heavy
paragraphs were replace with “preliminary charts” for review [P13].

Writing was also used during the ideate stage of design (7/15), where
participants were brainstorming different ways to address the needs of the
design. For example, after finalizing the goals and intents of the design, P23
has “a whole notes document going of things that just occur to me.”

##  4 Study 2

Figure 1: Template for the design exercise in Study 2. The “writing step” was
filled in with the rudder variant selected by the participant. An example is
shown here for “User’s key questions.”

Following the findings from Study 1, we faced several open questions about the
impact of writing on designer workflows. Is writing beneficial for
designersoverall, including those who may not typically incorporate them? What
form should these steps take? Which stages of the design process do they
impact?

We formulated extracted four different ways that people might use written
language in order to introduce the idea to designers and allow them to compare
the options. These became the four writing rudder variants that we assessed in
Study 2.

from the interviews in Study 1 in order to evaluate them with designers.

We conducted a second set of semi-structured interviews to collect feedback on
writing rudders with a new set of visualization designers. This included a
brief design exercise and a post-interview survey to address the second
research question:

RQ2: What is the perceived impact of writing rudder variants on the design
process?

We focused primarily on the design process, rather than the design outcome. As
a preliminary study, the primary aim was to evaluate the feasibility and
interest in interventions like written rudders. During pilot interviews for
this study, designers expressed concern that observing their design process or
judging their outcomes could introduce pressure to the conversation with the
interviewer, similar to a job interview. In an effort to avoid this
connotation and to emphasize the evaluation of the rudder, rather than the
design abilities of the participants, the study was scoped to focus on the
process, encouraging the participants to share their true impressions of
written rudders.

Based on insights from Study 1, we focused this study specifically on the
beginning stages of the design process. The initial design stages,
particularly the understand and ideate phases, were where participants most
frequently utilized writing to shape their designs. By concentrating on these
stages, we aimed to capture the most impactful and relevant use of writing in
the design workflow, ensuring that our findings are both practical and
applicable to real-world scenarios.

###  4.1 Methodology

Participants completed a 5-minute

Rudder Variant | Getting Started | Understand | Ideate | Make | Overall
---|---|---|---|---|---
Questions | 4.13 (0.74) | 4.53 (0.64) | 4.27 (0.46) | 4.33 (0.82) | 4.30 (0.68)
Conclusions | 4.20 (0.86) | 4.53 (0.64) | 3.93 (0.80) | 4.13 (0.83) | 4.20 (0.80)
Narratives | 3.33 (1.29) | 3.53 (1.06) | 3.40 (1.18) | 3.47 (1.06) | 3.43 (1.13)
Titles | 2.73 (1.33) | 3.00 (1.20) | 2.93 (1.28) | 2.87 (1.13) | 2.88 (1.21)
Table 2: Average ratings for each rudder variant for the different stages of
visualization design, as well as the average rating overall. Standard
deviations are included in parentheses. Ratings were made on a scale from 1 to
5.

Participants completed the same pre-interview survey about their work with
data visualizations. This pre-interview survey was the same as the one given
survey as described in Study 1. This was followed by a 60 minute semi-
structured interview on Zoom. The interview was recorded and automatically
transcribed by the Zoom Cloud Service. After the interview, participants
completed a post-interview survey and were compensated with a $30 Amazon gift
card.

There were four distinct phases in the interview: designer role, introduction
of variants, design exercise, and reflection. Interview materials can be found
in supplementary materials. As in Study 1, interviews began with a broad
discussion of the participant’s role in designing visualizations. The
interview focused the conversation specifically on the beginning of the design
process, attempting to capture the initial steps a designer typically takes.
This design exercise was piloted by three graduate students, five participants
from Study 1, and six additional participants recruited for Study 2. The pilot
studies helped to shape the scope of the data, the time frame, and the
description of the design task.

After asking about the participant’s design process and context, the interview
moved to the next phase, where the interviewer introduced four possible
written rudders that could be incorporated into the early stages of design,
prior to bringing the data into a visualization tool. Specifically, these
were:

  * •

Key questions: Write down the key questions that a user/reader may use the
visualization(s) to address.

  * •

Possible reader conclusions/takeaways: Write down ideas for possible
conclusions readers might make when viewing the visualization(s).

  * •

Narrative/story: Write down a brief story that conveys the main points the
visualization(s) might express.

  * •

Possible titles: Write down ideas for possible titles for the
visualization(s).

These four rudder variants were the most common amongst participants in Study
1 who used writing, with each of them being each mentioned by at least two
participants. We focused on these specific variants to keep stimuli grounded
in actual practice. While this set is somewhat limited, it is well-suited to
explore the impact of incorporating a step like this in the design process.
These variants were directly based on discussions with the participants in
Study 1, allowing us to remain within the scope of real-world experiences and
avoid extrapolating to novel cases. As the nature of this study is
exploratory, this approach helped maintain relevance and applicability to
participants’ existing workflows.

The interviewer introduced the variants in a random order, then walked through
an example of what each rudder variant might look like in a sample design
prompt. The order of examples was also randomized. The interviewer asked if
the participant had any questions on each variant or how it might be applied
in the design process. They then asked the participant to reflect on all the
variants discussed and to select the one they liked the best or found the most
interesting.

While a controlled study would have randomly assigned variants to
participants, we prioritized external validity by allowing participants to
choose their writing rudder, reflecting the flexibility of real-world design
practices and ensuring higher engagement. This approach was fitting for the
exploratory nature of this study, as it helped identify which rudders best
aligned with existing design practices. However, this decision involved trade-
offs. The lack of randomization limited our ability to directly compare each
variant’s effectiveness across a representative sample. Additionally,
participants’ tendency to rate their chosen rudders favorably could be viewed
as a result of wanting to give high ratings to the rudder they selected.
However, participants chose rudders that they felt would work best for them,
which also suggests that they had a prior preference for the rudder.

Following the introduction of these interventions, participants went on to use
used their selected variant in a brief design exercise. This exercise was
described via a pre-recorded video so all participants received the same
information. Since the study focused on the beginning of the design process,
the exercise was limited to 10 minutes. Participants were provided with one
year of Chicago weather data: temperature, precipitation, and wind speed. They
were asked to design a visualization or a set of visualizations for a
marketing agency whose goal was to determine the optimal time to begin
marketing a waterproof windbreaker.

The template for the design exercise can be seen in Fig. 1. Participants were
provided the overall goal of the visualization, any specific client
considerations they might need, and the audience for the visualization. This
overview was set up to imitate the content received in initial conversations
with clients (i.e., requirements gathering stage). If participants had other
questions about the client’s goals or interests (e.g., is there a particular
temperature at which customers begin wearing windbreakers?), they were told to
use their best judgment and to assume it aligned with what the client would
say if asked.

The “writing step” in the template was replaced with the participant’s
selected rudder variant. Depending on their selection, participants were
prompted to generate three user questions (displayed in Fig. 1), three
possible reader conclusions, a 3-4 sentence story, or three possible titles
for the visualization(s) they planned to make.

Pilot testing of this exercise indicated that designers felt under pressure
when having their design process observed. Therefore, we opted not to observe
the design process, since the time of the exercise was also short, and we
wanted to limit the amount of external pressure placed on the participant.
Participants were repeatedly assured that they were not expected to produce a
final design, since this exercise was focused on the starting phases of
visualization design. Participants were not asked to share their screen or
narrate their process. They could use any tools they felt most comfortable
using. In order to further remove external pressures to the exercise, the
interviewer Participants were not asked to share their screen or narrate their
process, and the interviewer also turned their camera and microphone off.

Template for the design exercise in Study 2. The “writing step” was filled in
with the rudder variant selected by the participant. An example is shown here
for “User’s key questions.”

After 10 minutes had passed, the exercise ended and the camera was turned back
on. The interviewer asked about how the “writing step” affected the process of
getting started on the design. The participant commented on the impact of the
selected variant on their design process and considered the other three
variants and what their impact may have been. The order of the three variants
were introduced was randomized.

Following the completion of the interview, participants took a 5-10 minute
post-interview survey which asked them to further consider each of the four
rudder variants and to rate their impact on the understand, ideate, and make
stages of design from the DAF. They also rated the impact of the writing step
on “getting started on the design.” The act of This additional rating was
added to the set of pre-defined stages to provide a more holistic evaluation
of the rudders. By including “getting started” could fall within any of the
other three stages of the DAF, depending on how it was internally defined by
participants. In order to also capture this nuance, we added this question to
the other DAF stages . ,” we captured insights into the impact of writing
rudders on how designers initiate the workflow, which could include a
combination or non-linear progression of the stages from the DAF.

Ratings were made on a scale from 1 to 5. A rating of 1 indicated that the
step variant would negatively impact the stage in question, a rating of 3
indicated that the step variant would have no impact on their design process,
and a rating of 5 indicated that the step would positively impact the design
process. All ratings were made in comparison to the participant’s current
design process. While this approach relies on subjective feedback, it provides
valuable insights into designer perceptions of the proposed writing rudder
variant’s usefulness within existing workflows. This can help us identify
potential challenges and areas where these new design approaches might
integrate seamlessly. Participants also reported if they currently use a
similar step (which did not have to be written) and if they would consider
using a step like this in the future. At the end of the survey, they reported
their overall industry of work and their typical design outcomes.

In our discussion of themes from these interviews, participants are referred
to with their assigned ID number [P#]. In order to provide a clear distinction
between participants from Study 1 and those from Study 2, ID numbers for Study
2 begin at 101 rather than 1.

####  4.1.1 Participants

15 visualization designers participated in this study. Participants were
recruited using the same calls for participation as in Study 1 (DVS, News
Nerdery, and social media posts). As in Study 1, participants had to be based
in the United States, be fluent in English, and spend at least a portion of
their time at work (in a paid role) designing or creating visualizations.
Recruitment for this study used the same eligibility requirements as Study 1.
12 of the participants were employed full time, with two participants employed
as students and one participant on leave. Again, a A majority of participants
were women (13), with two men. Further information on participants can be
found in Section 3 and supplementary materials.

Rudder Variant Understand Avg. (SD) Ideate Avg. (SD) Overall Avg. (SD)
Questions 4.53 (0.64) 4.27 (0.46) 4.30 (0.68)

Conclusions 4.53 (0.64) 3.93 (0.80) 4.20 (0.80)

Narratives 3.53 (1.06) 3.40 (1.18) 3.43 (1.13)

Titles 3.00 (1.20) 2.93 (1.28) 2.88 (1.21) Average ratings for each rudder
variant for the understand and ideate stages, as well as the average rating
overall. A rating of 4 or above indicates a positive impact on the design
process, and a rating of 2 or below indicates a negative impact.

####  4.1.2 Coding

Interviews were again coded by the first two authors for the use of writing
and the stage of the design process in which this occurred. The design outcome
was captured in the post-interview survey. For the codes where consensus was
not found, the third author was brought in as a tiebreaker. After considering
responses from all three coders, consensus was reached on all coding
categories. Interrater reliability (Cohen’s kappa) for the first two coders
was 0.796 for the use of writing and 0.754 for the stage of the design
process.

In addition to these pre-defined codes, we also completed an open coding of
the discussions about the rudder variants. The first two authors independently
coded participants’ feedback on the variants, focusing on their likes,
dislikes, and the impact of these steps. This process of open coding allowed
us to uncover underlying themes and insights into how these steps influenced
the design approach. After individual analysis, both authors met to discuss
the emergent themes across the sets of codes.

ID | Industry | 1.1Years Exp. Use of Writing Process Start |  1.1Selected Rudder Representative Quotes about the Selected Rudder
---|---|---|---
Questions
101 | Research | 1.110+ Incidental Examines raw Raw data |  1.1Questions “You need an objective and a plan, and you need to make sure those questions are open enough.”
1.1103 | 1.1Nonprofit and Government Public Sector | 1.14–6 Sketch |  1.1None Sketches Questions “The establishing [of] the questions beforehand makes you sit down and just focus on the client first.”
1.1104 | 1.1Nonprofit and Government Public Sector | 1.110+ Sketch |  1.1None Sketches Questions “Going back, saying, this is my goal… Can people answer this question?… I think that’s super helpful.”
1.1106 | 1.1Medical/ healthcare Healthcare | 1.110+ Incidental Examines raw Raw data |  1.1Questions “It’s a non- event. It’s just part of [design]… It’s just pretty fundamental.”
1.1107 | Software | 1.17–9 Tool |  1.1None Inputs data to tool Questions “Building something that the user wants is the main goal. I think that doing [questions] is the most effective way.”
1.1113 | Research | 1.11–3 Sketch |  1.1None Sketches Questions “I think it’s a good way to kind of organize things, cause I feel like a lot of times, it’s just kind of in my head.”
1.1114 | 1.1Nonprofit and Government Public Sector | 1.14–6 Sketch |  1.1None Sketches Questions “I like this approach and that it does require me to begin more with those [questions].”
1.1115 | Journalism 1.1/ Broadcasting  | 1.11–3 Incidental Examines raw Raw data |  1.1Questions “I think it was a good framing to have in mind. But it definitely changed a lot as I like explored the data more.”
Conclusions
102 | Journalism 1.1/ Broadcasting  | 1.11–3 Sketch |  1.1Deliberate Sketches Conclusions “Coming up with what you want people to get out of this data set… helps me figure out what I’m gonna be visualizing”
1.1108 | Journalism 1.1/ Broadcasting  | 1.14–6 Tool |  1.1None Inputs data to tool Conclusions “Having to write out kind of the actual conclusion that someone would see forced me to really be strategic.”
1.1110 | Research | 1.110+ Tool |  1.1Deliberate Inputs data to tool Conclusions “I was surprised at how much it guided me in the process. Hadn’t really occurred to me to to do it like that before.”
1.1111 | 1.1Scientific or Technical | 1.11–3 Writing |  1.1Deliberate Written text Conclusions “You want to make sure that you haven’t gone down a rabbit hole too far, and you’re straying from the main point.”
1.1112 | Research | 1.14–6 Tool |  1.1Incidental Inputs data to tool Conclusions “I would just have it as [a] starting point, because the takeaway can change.”
Narrative
105 | Research | 1.110+ Sketch |  1.1Incidental Sketches Narrative “It’s a good idea to try to put it into words… It helped to figure out what the point is.”
1.1109 | 1.1Nonprofit and Government Public Sector | 1.17–9 Tool |  1.1None Inputs data to tool Narrative “It really focused me. I used what I wrote to immediately start thinking about what graph type I was going to use.”
Table 3: Participant responses and quotes regarding the use of written
rudders, grouped according to the rudder type chosen by the participant.
“Process Start” refers to how the participant usually begins their design
process. Average ratings for 1.1all selected rudders of all participants were
4.25 or greater. All participants reported that they would use their selected
variant in future contexts.

ID Q C N T Q C N T Q C N T Q C N T Q C N T 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109
110 111 112 113 114 115

Participant reflections on the impact of different rudder variants (Q =
Questions, C = Conclusions, N = Narrative, T = Titles). Column names came from
discussion of themes between coders. Add Focus and Center Users relate to
Theme 1 (). Evaluate Design and Create Too Early relate to Theme 2 (). Bias
Exploration relates to Theme 3 ().

###  4.2 Results

####  4.2.1 Current Use of Writing

As in Study 1, we coded each participant’s use of written text and when in
their typical design processes. Participants used text at these frequencies:
deliberately (3/15), incidentally (5/15), and not at all (7/15). A smaller
proportion of participants (20%) used written text deliberately in Study 2,
compared to Study 1 (38%). This may be partially due to the goals of the Study
2 interview, which asked fewer questions about assessing the current use of
written language than the Study 1 interview.

As in Study 1, most participants (6/8) who used writing did so when
understanding the audience or goals of the visualization; a few (3/8) used
language during the ideate phase, when generating ideas for how to show the
information. These findings also support those from Study 1 as well as our
decision to focus on the early stages of design in this study.

####  4.2.2 Intervention Results Overview

Overall, participants responded positively to the written rudders, assigning
an average rating of 3.71 out of 5 across the different variants and stages of
design. (The average rating for each variant can be seen in .) In some cases,
these written rudders were also seen as useful tools for assessing or
explaining the final visualization design .

The most popular rudder variant was the writing of key questions (8/15Key
questions received the highest average ratings, with almost all participants
viewing this approach as beneficial to the design process. Across the rudder
variants, all stages of the design process were rated relatively similarly on
average, with the understand stage rated highest (Mean = 3.80, SD = 1.1),
followed by possible reader conclusions (5/15)and narratives (2/15). These
selections and representative quotes from participants can be found in . These
quotes provide additional detail on participant opinions, which were generally
positive. make (Mean = 3.70, SD = 1.1), ideate (Mean = 3.63, SD = 1.1), and
getting started (Mean = 3.60, SD = 1.2). The average rating for each variant
and stage of design can be seen in Table 2.

Two variants (questions and conclusions) received relatively positive average
ratings across stages. Almost all participants (14/15) viewed the use of key
questions as positive overall for the design process, with some emphasis on
the understand stage, as 9 participants reported a rating of a 5. There was
also some emphasis on the make stage, with 7 participants rating it a 5. Only
one participant (P112) provided any neutral or negative ratings for the
questions variant.

Most participants (14/15) also viewed writing possible conclusions as
beneficial for the overall design process. Despite the overall positive
reception, two participants rated the conclusion variant as having a negative
effect on the ideate stage and the process of getting started on the design.
Four participants rated it as having no benefit for the design process,
primarily for the make (4/4) and ideate (2/4) stages.

The other two variants (narrative and titles) did not fit well in the
beginning of the design process; some participants felt that making a plan for
the design too early could bias the exploration of the data. Overall,
narratives were seen as relatively neutral, while titles received slightly
lower than neutral ratings. This can also be seen in , which shows the overall
category of the ratings The narrative rudder variant elicited mixed opinions
from participants, with it being just slightly more common that the rudder
would have a positive effect (8/15) than a negative effect (6/15). While
overall the impact was seen as more positive than negative, a majority of
participants (10/15) gave the narrative rudder a neutral or negative rating
for at least one of the stages of design, particularly the understand stage
(9/15) and getting started in the design overall (8/15). In other areas of the
design process, the narrative rudder was seen relatively favorably, receiving
high ratings for the make (positive, neutral, or negative) . 9/15) and ideate
(8/15) stages. This rudder was divisive for participants, but it may have a
use case in the later stages of the design process when the visuals are being
actively created.

The title variant received the most negative feedback of the four variants
tested. More participants (6/15) felt it would hinder the design process than
benefit it (4/15). Another third of participants felt it would have no benefit
or adverse impact (5/15). Four unique participants gave a rating of a 1 to at
least one stage of the design process. No other rudder variants received any
‘1’ ratings for any other stage. Ratings of ‘1’ and ‘2’ for this rudder
variant tended to be assigned most frequently to the act of getting started in
the design process (9/15).

The most popular rudder variant was the writing of key questions (8/15),
followed by possible reader conclusions (5/15) and narratives (2/15). These
selections and representative quotes from participants can be found in Table
3. These quotes provide additional detail on participant opinions on their
selected rudders, which were generally positive. The commentary from
participants reflects a variety of nuances as well, including considerations
for using the rudder and more detail on the impact on the design process
during the exercise.

Most participants (11/15) noted that there were similarities between the
rudder variants, as “they’re all very similar, just approaching things at a
different stage” [P103]. This overlap stems from their common function, which
is to guide the visualization by externalizing the message, story, or key
goals of the design. While there were similarities between the variants,
participants also displayed distinct thoughts about each one, as we explore in
the themes.

Although the participants only used one of the steps variants during the
design exercise, we report their thoughts and reflections on all four written
stepsrudders. Some of these results are thus based on considering the use of
language in the hypothetical, while others are reflections from the actual use
of the step rudder in the design exercise. When applicable, we provide this
context. Although we do not examine design outcomes due to the intentional
focus on the design process and the limited timeframe, both hypothetical and
actual reflections provide useful insights.

Participant responses to the writing step had an average length of 257
characters, ranging from 63 characters for the shortest response to 476 for
the longest. Most responses (11/15) were concerned with time periods of
extrema, particularly for precipitation (7/15), temperature (4/15) or wind
(3/15), as relevant to the overall goal of the exercise in marketing
waterproof windbreakers. Examples are shown in “It’s a Good Idea to Put It
Into Words”: Writing ‘Rudders’ in the Initial Stages of Visualization Design.

The next subsections describe the results in more detail in the form of three
themes. Data related to the themes can be found in . Fig. 2. The precise
impact of writing rudders may vary across different design contexts and tools,
and these themes do not incorporate consideration of design outcomes.
Additionally, we focused only on the initial stages of the design process.
However, these themes were common across participants working in different
industries with different backgrounds and tools and thus provide a useful
starting point for understanding the effect of writing rudders within the
scope of our study.

####  4.2.3 Theme 1: Written Rudders Add Design Focus

Figure 2: Participant reflections on the impact of different rudder variants
in Study 2. Counts shown here represent how many participants (n = 15)
mentioned the given feature for the specific variant. Questions and
conclusions could add user-centered focus to the design. Some rudders may also
be useful for later in the design process. One major concern was the potential
to introduce bias.

When discussing the rudders, participants commented frequently on the
structure and focus they added to the design process. These comments were
mainly associated with the writing of key questions (9/15) and the writing of
example reader conclusions/takeaways (9/15). The narratives (3/15) and titles
(3/15) were not often seen as providing additional direction to the design
process, as shown in the ‘Add Focus’ columns in in Fig. 2.

In comparison to how participants typically began the design process, writing
rudders allowed for a more guided process. The interviews revealed that in
their current practices, participants began the process by entering the data
into a visualization tool (5/15), examining the raw data (3/15), or sketching
(6/15). Only one participant started their design process with writing.
Through writing rudders, participants felt they had a greater degree of focus
in the initial stages of the design process (12/15). For example, P108 said
that writing out possible conclusions helped to narrow down, “Which of the
metrics would be most important to someone?” Written rudders also acted as
guardrails to the design process, protecting against, “getting too excited and
diving into the data, potentially losing focus of what the purpose is.”
[P103].

In addition to acting as a guide in when beginning the design process, written
rudders also emphasized a closer connection to the audience’s perspective and
their uses of the data (8/15). When describing why they most preferred the key
question approach, P107 mentioned, “I like to make sure that I am doing what
the audience wants… The data isn’t valuable unless you’re giving it to the
right people in the right format.” As shown in , the The narrative and title
rudder variants did not seem to provide this user-centered guidance in the
same way that questions or conclusions did.

While only hypothetical, future use of these written rudders was also received
well. For both of the highest rated rudders (key questions and possible
conclusions), almost all participants (14/15) reported that they would use the
variant in the future in at least some contexts.

In general, participants viewed the written rudders favorably, as they helped
to provide additional focus and structure to the early stages of the design
process. The listing of possible questions provided the most added benefit in
bringing the design closer to the needs of the audience or user. Additional
quotes regarding the design focus added by written rudders can be found in
Table 3.

####  4.2.4 Theme 2: Using Rudders for Evaluation or Instruction

While the exercise completed by participants only encompassed the beginning of
the design process, participants Participants also brought up the possible use
of written rudders later in the design process (12/15). These comments should
be seen as hypothetical, since they pertain to stages of the design process
that participants could not reach within the 10 minute exercise time frame.
However, some reflections are directly connected to past client scenarios.

In providing a guide for beginning a visualization, written rudders create
artifacts to act as a comparison for the final design. Participants (11/15)
mentioned that the tangible outcome of writing rudders would be a useful
metric with which to judge a design’s success or to aid in discussions with a
client. Shown in the ‘Evaluate Design’ columns in As shown in Fig. 2, the
questions rudder was most frequently associated with the possible possible
evaluative use.

Along with the client or a potential user group, the designer could evaluate
whether the resulting design measured up to the goals set out in the key
questions (9/15) or conclusions (3/15) outlined prior to beginning the design.
Completing this step could help, “at the end of the design process, to be
like, wait a second. Are people actually coming away with what I wanted them
to come away with?” [P102]. A narrative (3/15) could also provide design
justification for the client (“Definitely when you’re communicating with a
team or with the client… it would be nice to have a narrative” [P105]) or
simply to provide a point of engagement with the client about the
visualization’s goals.

In addition to supporting the client’s goals for the visualization, writing
written rudders could also be used in academic or educational contexts. When
describing their experience in writing out key questions, P110 described it as
“the more intuitive place to start for, particularly a beginner. But it’s not
a necessary step for me.” The rudders themselves sometimes felt educational as
well. After completing the design exercise, P113 stated, “I’m always a little
bit skeptical of this sort of thing because I’m like, This feels like school.
But I actually really liked it.” Considering these reflections, there may be a
tailored approach to using rudders that is best suited for students or early-
career designers.

The comments made by participants for this theme were not based in their
direct experience using the rudders for evaluation or instruction; the design
exercise was completed solo and only focused on the initial stages of the
design process. However, reflecting on the rudder exercise and drawing from
prior design experiences, participants indicated that these features could
have use cases beyond getting started on the design.

####  4.2.5 Theme 3: Rudders Suited for Later Stages

While the narrative and title rudder variants were the least preferred by
participants (as seen in “It’s a Good Idea to Put It Into Words”: Writing
‘Rudders’ in the Initial Stages of Visualization Design), participants
indicated that these variants could be better suited for later stages of the
design process (9/15). When considering the narrative approach, P115 compared
it to the “‘alt text for graphic,” stating, “I can’t imagine writing it
before.” In one example, P110 already used a narrative step as a rudder in
their design process when selecting the visualization that best communicates
the key ideas: “I’ll write text for each [visualization option]… I’ll look at
the text by itself to see which one reads better.”

As shown in the ‘Create Too Early’ columns of Fig. 2, writing titles before
exploring the data was often seen as premature (7/15). Titles tended to be one
of the last steps in the design process, and the title of a visualization may
change over the course of the design. Completing this step at the beginning of
the design process seemed counterintuitive.

Shifting some rudder variants (conclusions, narratives, and possible titles)
to later in the design process has additional benefits for data exploration.
While written rudders provided a clear direction to the design process, this
design direction guide could also introduce possible bias to data exploration
(10/15). This is shown in the ‘Bias Exploration’ columns of . When describing
the impact of the rudder on their design process, P112 mentioned, “[the
design] was 100% based on on on these takeaways.”

This kind of direction could be useful when focusing on explaining data, but
some visualization contexts require open data explorationand unbiased
analysis. For journalists like unbiased data exploration. F For P102 , this
context may be different than for researchers like P106. For P102,
(journalist), “if there’s no lead, there’s no story… It’s a very easy test
that we really have to be able to answer.” In this context, writing out
possible takeaways or titles could ensure the data has a relevant storydata
relevance. On the other hand, P106 (researcher) described, “For me, quality
data vis means you don’t know the answers. You’re exploring the data.”’

Participants suggested workarounds for the potential issue of bias, such as
using a “fill in the blank” approach rather than referring to specifics of the
data. An example of this approach is shown for the conclusions rudder in “It’s
a Good Idea to Put It Into Words”: Writing ‘Rudders’ in the Initial Stages of
Visualization Design, using an X instead of a specific month. Keeping an open
mind would be important when using these approaches, as mentioned by P108, “ I
do think it is helpful to be imagining what someone looking at [the
visualization] might be like experiencing or thinking, but, on the other hand,
I think you also have to be open to the idea of the data not saying what you
might want it to say.”

##  5 General Discussion

In exploring the role of writing within the visualization designprocessin
visualization design, these two interview studies offer a nuanced
understanding of how written rudders can potentially enrich current practices
in visualization design visualization design practices. Overall, participants
in Study 2 responded positively to the suggestion of using use of rudders when
designing visualizations, as represented by the quotes in Table . All
participants indicated that they would be willing to adopt some form of this
idea, despite the fact that only a few (3/15) use writing in their current
practice. In particular, writing down reader’s key questions and possible
conclusions /takeaways emerged as the most preferred variantsamong designers.
Writing a narrative about the chart could also be useful, but it may be better
positioned towards the middle of the design process. emerged as preferred
variants.

: While less than a third of designers across both studies deliberately
incorporated writing into their design process, an additional third of
designers use writing incidentally. Additionally, when The implementation of
writing rudders into the design workflow has the potential to improve the
clarity and focus of visualization design.  When reviewing the rudder variants
in Study 2, designers often made comments that they used similar steps, “I do
use a combination of these throughout the process” [P107]. However, these
steps happen mostly internally , rather than explicitly.

Study 2 made this step explicit and tangible, something that was foreign to
most participants. In comparison to other recommended design practices, such
as cognitive walkthroughs, the addition of written rudders takes much less
time and effort to incorporate. In this case, completing the writing step took
less than the 10 minute design period for all participants. As such, written
rudders would fit well with most designers’ existing practices.

happened mostly internally (mentally). By explicitly combining language and
visualization, rudders help bridge the gap between the data and its
interpretation, facilitating a deeper connection with the audience and a
better understanding of the design process goals. Creating detailed plans or
task lists can improve outcomes, specifically in the cases of writing tasks or
employee performance [kaur2018creating, gollwitzer1996psychology,
parke2018daily]. This occurs Research suggests that this works in part by
increasing engagement with the overall objective. This can also have longer-
term benefits, as planning tends to increase the likelihood of follow-through
on key tasks [rogers2015beyond]. Adding a concrete step in the visualization
design processthat encourages the creation of a plan or outline for the key
points of the visualizationmay improve the overall focus of

While traditional design practices, such as writing down design requirements
or documenting decision rationale [munzner2009nested, walny2019data,
mckenna2014design], are well-established in the field, writing rudders
provided an additional layer of user-centered guidance [norman2013design,
vredenburg2002survey] to the design process. Compared to other design
practices, such as cognitive walkthroughs, the addition of written rudders
takes less time (less than 10 minutes) and effort. Written rudders also
provided a narrative focus, crucial for creating engaging and dynamic designs
to effectively tell stories with data. Rudders build on work in narrative
visualization, offering a lightweight and flexible approach to encourage
narrative designs [segel2010narrative, hullman2011visualization].

Furthermore, writing rudders can also act as artifacts that aid in evaluating
a design’s success and facilitating continuous iteration. Similar to model
checking and graphical belief elicitation methods [kale2024evm,
mahajan2022vibe, kim2017explaining], rudders prompt designers to externalize
assumptions and consider the audience’s perspective. This approach may not
only aid in the initial stages of understanding and ideating but also may
support ongoing evaluation and refinement. The possible use of rudders
throughout the design process further supports them an interesting case study
in how to incorporate written language into the visualization design process.

: While writing rudders may have important uses and benefits to visualization
design practices, there are also several considerations for future use. In
some cases, the process of designing a visualization is exploratory, and
designers want to avoid any preconceived notions about the data that may bias
this exploration. In other cases, such as in data journalism, the process is
more explanatory, where the goal may be to make data understandable and
accessible for lay audiences. data exploration. To avoid bias in data
exploration, designers could use only a series of open-ended questions to
explore key pieces of the data without stating expectations of the data
features. Designers could alternatively use an process similar to hypothesis
testing. A combination of writing and sketching could provide an a priori
understanding of how data features would look if different possible takeaways
were true . [mahajan2022vibe, kim2017explaining].

The benefits and drawbacks of writing rudders may also vary based on the
designer’s role or stage of the design process. Using a rudder maybe more
beneficial for early career designers or in educational settings, rather than
in established workflows. In collaborative settings, rudders may help align
team objectives but could also limit creative exploration. Certain variants,
such as the narrative, may be more useful once a draft of the design has been
created. These considerations point to important directions of future work on
written rudders.

##  6 Limitations and Future Work

These interview studies provide insights into a previously underexamined
written components of visualization design

Need for broader controlled studies: One significant limitation of this study
is the absence of controlled studies to statistically evaluate the
effectiveness of writing rudders against other methods or tools. While our
preliminary findings suggest that the rudder can provide additional focus and
clarity to the design process, these results are not indicative that this is
the best approach available. Additionally, this study was focused on a
specific set of written rudders used in the early stages of the design
process, thus limiting the generalizability of the findings.

Our current study serves as an initial exploration of designer perspectives on
the rudder intervention, providing groundwork on considerations that should be
made for future variants and evaluations. Future research should include
controlled user studies that compare rudders with established design methods,
using metrics such as efficiency, creativity, and outcome quality. This work
could also incorporate novel variants of written rudders and examine different
stages of the design process. This would provide the necessary statistical
evidence and broader scope to substantiate the rudder’s practical value. Here
we discuss key limitations and future work to address them.

Reflections and hypotheticals: The primary goal of this paper was to uncover
the current use of writing in visualization design, and ascertain
practitioners’ reaction to written rudders as a part of the design process.

Participant feedback is based on reflections and hypothetical scenarios rather
than long-term application of the steps in regular workflows. This approach,
while useful for forming an initial understanding, may not capture the
complexity of actually using these practices consistently. Preferences
expressed in hypothetical scenarios may not translate into actual changes in
established design practices.

Future research should aim to transition from hypothetical scenarios to
empirical evaluations, including the use of longitudinal studies to observe
how designers integrate written rudders into their workflows over time. By
observing the adoption and impact of these practices in a variety of real-
world design projects, researchers can gather concrete evidence on the utility
of written rudders, including barriers to integration.

Leaving out the design: This paper focused specifically on the design process,
and the interviews were primarily about the early stages of creating a
visualization. This focus excludes the direct impact on the design outcomes.
This limitation was necessary to first establish whether designers see values
from these steps. Without preliminary buy-in from the design community,
assessing the effect on resulting designs would be prematurestudy was not
designed to assess outcomes and instead focused on the impact on the design
process. This is a preliminary study on interventions like writing rudders to
check for viability and overall designer interest. In pilot interviews for
Study 2, designers mentioned that observing their design process or evaluating
their design outcome put a great deal of pressure on the design exercise. To
encourage participation and to focus the interview on the rudders themselves,
rather than on unrelated design decisions, we opted for a study design that
did not include evaluation of design outcomes.

Subsequent research should directly investigate how writing rudders impact the
final designs. While it is useful to understand their impact on the design
process, it is unclear whether these impacts have any downstream effects on
the resulting design. By comparing designs developed with and without these
interventions, researchers can better quantify their impact on creativity,
clarity, user engagement, and the use of text in the design. Evaluations of
design outcomes will allow for a more concrete assessment of the benefits and
limitations of written interventions .

: These interviews were not conducted with a statistically representative
sample of visualization designers. The most recent State of the Industry
survey from DVS contains responses from 445 visualization designers based in
the United States. Our sample size of 39 is a meaningful fraction of that
number but is still small. Further work should explore more specific design
contexts, such as data journalism, or more specific demographic categories,
such as early-career designers, in order to provide more detailed
understandings of these sub-populations. and is an essential next step in
building a better understanding of the impact of writing in the visualization
design process.

##  7 Conclusion

This research has explored the role of writing in the visualization design
process, revealing its potential to enhance clarity and intention during the
creation of a visualization as well as to provide artifacts for evaluating
designs at the end of the design process. Our findings suggest that by
incorporating written rudders, such as formulating key questions or possible
reader takeaways, designers can not only refine their goals for the design but
also align more closely with audience needs. Future studies should explore the
longitudinal impact of these practices on design processes and outcomes.
Overall, these results reinforce the symbiotic relationship between language
and visualizations, encouraging further integration of the two.

## Supplemental Materials

All supplemental materials are available OSF, released under a CC BY 4.0
license. In particular, they include (1) interview materials for both studies
and (2) analysis files used for participant distributions and exploratory data
analysis.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors wish to thank A, B, and C. This work was supported in part by a
grant from XYZ (# 12345-67890).