(updated:  06/29/07)

 

This form is a web page which was created in MS WORD and therefore can be easily edited that way. Of course you can recreate the simple look with any other tool…  Just use the same layout, as it will help the judges.

Add links to your video, 2-page summary and complementary URLs.

Remember to make hyperlinks “relative” to this answer form so that when it is zipped and copied elsewhere later on the links will still work.  Keep the answer form named “index.htm”.

THANK YOU

 

Replace the instructions in italic by your text – but please do not italicize your text

 

 

Your Title Here (team name - tool[s] or specific approach)
e.g. “University of MarylandSuperVis

VAST 2007 Contest Submission

Authors and Affiliations:

e.g. Tom Jones, University of Maryland, Jones@cs.umd.edu

Student team: [  ] YES  [   ] NO 
If you answered yes, name the faculty who agreed to be your sponsor:     Name, email address

Tool(s):

Provide a short description of the tool(s) you used. Mention where and when it was developed.
Additional credit to developers of the tools can be provided here, and links to find more information on the tool. 

(250 words MAX)

 

Data set used:   [   ] RAW DATA SET     [   ] PRE-PROCESSED  SET

 

 

TOC:  WhoWhatWhereDebriefing - Process - Video

          (ADD your links to the video – use a relative link so that it works everywhere)


1. WHO: who are the players engaging in questionable activities in the plot(s)?   When appropriate, specify the association they are associated with

Name

Associated organization

Involved in
illegal activities? (Yes/No)

Involved in terrorist activities? (Yes/No)

Most relevant source files (5 MAX)  

e.g. John doe 

 

Yes

Yes

 

1101631275108, 110124686862, picture 083, phone log

e.g. Mary Smith (National Football League)

 

Yes

No

 

etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Note: ignore the file extensions of the files)


2. WHEN /WHAT:   What events occurred during this time frame that are most relevant to the plot(s)? 

 

Provide a text list of events following the sample layout.  Use short description (i.e. one or 2 lines per event)

Provide what you think is the best subset of events (20 events MAX)

 

 

Date
Can be a range

Event description

Most relevance source files

(5 Max)

1

e.g. 11/4/1789

e.g. Citizens take control of the Bastille

1101162452686, Image 2

2

 

 

 

3

 

 

 

4

 

 

 

5

 

 

 

6

 

 

 

7

 

 

 

8

 

 

 

9

 

 

 

10

 

 

 

11

 

 

 

12

 

 

 

13

 

 

 

14

 

 

 

15

 

 

 

16

 

 

 

17

 

 

 

18

 

 

 

19

 

 

 

20 max

 

 

 


3. WHERE: What locations are most relevant to the plot(s)?

Follow this example layout.  Use only one-line per item.

 

Location

Description

Most relevance source files

(5 Max)

1

e.g. Berlin

e.g.  training of the bank robbers

 

2

e.g. China

 

 

3

 

 

 

4

 

 

 

5
max

 

 

 

 


4. DEBRIEFING

Include your written assessment of the situation (between 1000 and 2000 words)

This narrative should describe the plot(s) and subplots(s) and how people, motivations, activities and locations are part of the plot. Include in your narrative the relationships of the various players.  If there are uncertainties, you can suggest possible next steps to  clarify those uncertainties.

 

(NOTE: here there is no need to explain how the tool helped you, focus on convincing us that you UNDERSTAND the situation).

 

 

 

 


5. VISUALS and Description of ANALYTICAL PROCESS

Explain the process you used to arrive at the assessment described above (about 10 printed pages maximum of text and pictures + the video).

 

The description should contain many screen shots illustrating how you arrived at the answers to questions 1-4 (e.g. who are the players and how they are connected, relationships between events and locations, how you worked thru one or more hypotheses and arrived at the final assessment).

Describe clearly what can be seen in the screens (e.g. do not just say: “Fig 3 shows that Joe is obviously involved”, but explain what visual (or non visual) characteristics of the display leads to this insight. How can you tell he was involved? Was it using color? order? numerical ratings? etc.  Clarify what happens manually, automatically, or in between. Your description should clearly show the process you used in your analysis.  Make sure the screen shots are usable when printed in color (and you can always link to the best resolution versions in the html document). Do not forget to include legends for the visual encodings of your screen shots, and captions describing what data is being shown and what filters have been applied in the static figures we see.  In other words, help us understand what we are looking at! 

 

The purpose of the video is to help the judges understand  the interactive features of your tool.  Videos should have well synchronized audio commentaries.  We are interested in seeing different interactions that might have resulted in views that provided more insights into the analysis.  Use the video to show different interactions on different visualizations.  You should focus on those interactions that were most useful to you.  The video does not need to show the entire process covered in the above description. 

 

We highly recommend that you look at entries from last year (see the VAST 2006 contest page) to see how others did this.

See also the description of the criteria used for judging in Information about the dataset, tasks and judging.

 

TOC:  WhoWhatWhereDebriefing - Process - Video

          (ADD your links to the video – use a relative link so that it works everywhere)

Web Accessibility