This invention relates generally to computer systems and methods for displaying data such as database information. The invention relates specifically to a computer system and method for displaying data clearly and effectively based upon the types of data found in a dataset.
Data is more than the numbers, values, or predicates of which it is comprised. Data resides in multi-dimensional spaces which harbor rich and variegated landscapes that are not only strange and convoluted, but are not readily comprehendible by the human brain. The most complicated data arises from measurements or calculations that depend on many apparently independent variables. Data sets with hundreds of variables arise today in many contexts, including, for example: gene expression data for uncovering the link between the genome and the various proteins for which it codes; demographic and consumer profiling data for capturing underlying sociological and economic trends; sales and marketing data for huge numbers of products in vast and ever-changing marketplaces; and environmental measurements for understanding phenomena such as pollution, meteorological changes and resource impact issues. International research projects such as the Human Genome Project and the Sloan Digital Sky Survey are also forming massive scientific databases. Furthermore, corporations are creating large data warehouses of historical data on key aspects of their operations. Corporations are also using desktop applications to create many small databases for examining specific aspects of their business.
One challenge with any of these databases is the extraction of meaning from the data they contain: to discover structure, find patterns, and derive causal relationships. Often, the sheer size of these data sets complicates this task and means that interactive calculations that require visiting each record are not plausible. It may also be infeasible for an analyst to reason about or view the entire data set at its finest level of detail. Even when the data sets are small, however, their complexity often makes it difficult to glean meaning without aggregating the data or creating simplifying summaries.
Among the principal operations that may be carried out on data, such as regression, clustering, summarization, dependency modeling, and classification, the ability to see patterns rapidly is of paramount importance. Data comes in many forms, and the most appropriate way to display data in one form may not be the best for another. In the past, where it has been recognized that many methods of display are possible, it has been a painstaking exercise to select the most appropriate one. However, identifying the most telling methods of display can be intimately connected to identifying the underlying structure of the data itself.
Business intelligence is one rapidly growing area that benefits considerably from tools for interactive visualization of multi-dimensional databases. A number of approaches to visualizing such information are known in the art. However, although software programs that implement such approaches are useful, they are often unsatisfactory. Such programs have interfaces that require the user to select the most appropriate way to display the information.
Visualization is a powerful tool for exploring large data, both by itself and coupled with data mining algorithms. However, the task of effectively visualizing large databases imposes significant demands on the human-computer interface to the visualization system. The exploratory process is one of hypothesis, experiment, and discovery. The path of exploration is unpredictable, and analysts need to be able to easily change both the data being displayed and its visual representation. Furthermore, the analyst should be able to first reason about the data at a high level of abstraction, and then rapidly drill down to explore data of interest at a greater level of detail. Thus, a good interface both exposes the underlying hierarchical structure of the data and supports rapid refinement of the visualization.
Tableau® software and Microsoft® Excel® are examples of visualization software that create views of datasets. Tableau® Table Drop allows users to drag data fields onto a Tableau® view to create a graphical views. When the view is a text table, the behavior is similar to the drags supported by Excel® Pivot Tables. For example, dragging a quantitative data type (Q) onto a text table (X=O Y=O T=Q, where “O” stands for ordinal data), extends the table to put the two measures next to each other (X=O Y=O, Om T=Qm, where “Om” stands for measure ordinal data and “Qm” stands for measure quantitative data). However, Tableau® Table Drop has functionality not found in Excel® Pivot Tables in that it may change the view type of a view when fields are dragged onto the view. For example, dragging a Q onto a bar chart (X=O Y=Q) can create a stacked bar chart (X=O Y=Qm C=Om). Or, if there was already a field with a color encoding (X=O Y=Q C=F) in the view, then the software can transform the Q data into Qm data, and place the measure names on the Level of Detail encoding (X=O Y=Qm C=F L=Om). With scatter plots, the logic is similar, except the transformation of Q to Qm and placement of measure names on the Level of Detail encoding are triggered when an existing field already has a shape encoding.
In addition to various software programs, the known art further provides formal graphical presentations. Bertin's Semiology of Graphics, University of Wisconsin Press, Madison Wis., (1983), is an early attempt at formalizing graphic techniques. Bertin developed a vocabulary for describing data and techniques for encoding the data into a graphic. Bertin identified retinal variables (position, color, size, etc.) in which data can be encoded. Cleveland (The Elements of Graphing Data, Wadsworth Advanced Books and Software, (1985), Pacific Grove, Calif.; and Visualizing Data, (1993), Hobart Press) used theoretical and experimental results to determine how well people can use these different retinal properties to compare quantitative variations.
Mackinlay's APT system (ACM Trans. Graphics, 5, 110-141, (1986)) was one of the first applications of formal graphical specifications to computer generated displays. APT uses a graphical language and a hierarchy of composition rules that are searched through in order to generate two-dimensional displays of relational data. The Sage system (Roth, et al., (1994), Proc. SIGCHI '94, 112-117) extends the concepts of APT, providing a richer set of data characterizations and forming a wider range of displays. The existing art also provides for the assignment of a mark based upon the innermost data column and row of a dataset (Hanrahan, et al., U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/005,652, “Computer System and Methods for Visualizing Data with Generation of Marks”). Heuristically guided searches have also been used to generate visualizations of data (Agrawala, et al., U.S. Pat. No. 6,424,933, “System and Method for Non-Uniform Scaled Mapping”).
A drawback with the formal graphical specifications of the art is that they do not provide any guidance to a user as to useful and clear visual formats in which a set of data could be rendered. The rendering of the data is such that there is no analysis to examine the resulting visualization for clarity or usefulness. Further, in the use of heuristic searches (trial-and-error method), the searches fail, leaving the user with the problem of finding clear or useful views. Heuristic algorithms can have complex behavior that creates a poor user experience. When a user does not understand why a heuristic algorithm generates certain views, the algorithm becomes unpredictable to the user and the user will not be inclined to use the algorithm.
Based on the background state of the art, as described herein, what is needed are improved methods and graphical interfaces wherein the initial visualization of data has been determined to be a clear and useful visualization, and this visualization is then automatically presented to the user.
The present invention provides improved methods for visualizing data.
A first aspect of the invention provides a computer implemented method for automatically and visually displaying a graphical representation of a dataset, comprising: receiving a user selected and ordered plurality of fields; selecting a resulting view for displaying the dataset based on the order of the user selected fields; and displaying the dataset or a transformation of the dataset according to the resulting view. In one embodiment, the dataset is retrieved from a remote database. In another embodiment, rules are used to select the resulting view. In yet another embodiment, the rules are predetermined. In other embodiments, the rules are determined by the user's preferences or usage. In a further embodiment, heuristics are used to select the resulting view.
A second aspect of the invention provides a computer implemented method for automatically and visually displaying a graphical representation of a dataset with a plurality of tuples, comprising: forming a plurality of rated alternative views, each alternative view showing all tuples, or a transformation of all tuples, in the dataset; selecting a resulting view from the plurality of alternative views, based upon a user selected option; and displaying the dataset according to the resulting view. In one embodiment, the dataset is retrieved from a remote database. In another embodiment, rules are used to select the resulting view. In yet another embodiment, the rules are predetermined. In other embodiments, the rules are determined by the user's preferences or usage. In a further embodiment, heuristics are used to select the resulting view. In yet a further embodiment, when the user selected option is a first option, the selecting step further comprises: ranking the plurality of alternative views according to a rating system; and assigning the resulting view as the highest ranked alternative view. In still another embodiment, when the user selected option is a second option, the selecting step further comprises: displaying a list of the alternative views; receiving the user's selection of an alternative view; and assigning the resulting view as the alternative view selected by the user.
A third aspect of the invention provides a computer program product for use in conjunction with a computer system, the computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium and a computer program mechanism embedded therein, the computer program mechanism for automatically and visually displaying a graphical representation of a dataset, the computer program mechanism comprising: a field receiver for receiving a user selected and ordered plurality of fields; a resulting view selector for selecting a resulting view for displaying the dataset based on the order of the user selected fields; and a dataset displayer for displaying the dataset or a transformation of the dataset according to the resulting view. In one embodiment, the dataset is retrieved from a remote database. In another embodiment, rules are used to select the resulting view. In yet another embodiment, the rules are predetermined. In other embodiments, the rules are determined by the user's preferences or usage. In a further embodiment, heuristics are used to select the resulting view.
A fourth aspect of the invention provides a computer program product for use in conjunction with a computer system, the computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium and a computer program mechanism embedded therein, the computer program mechanism for automatically and visually displaying a graphical representation of a dataset with a plurality of tuples, the computer program mechanism comprising: an alternative view former for forming a plurality of rated alternative views, each alternative view showing all tuples, or a transformation of all tuples, in the dataset; a resulting view selector for selecting a resulting view from the plurality of alternative views, based upon a user selected option; and a dataset displayer for displaying the dataset according to the resulting view. In one embodiment, the dataset is retrieved from a remote database. In another embodiment, rules are used to select the resulting view. In yet another embodiment, the rules are predetermined. In other embodiments, the rules are determined by the user's preferences or usage. In a further embodiment, heuristics are used to select the resulting view. In yet a further embodiment, when the user selected option is a first option, the resulting view selector further comprises: an alternative view ranker for ranking the plurality of alternative views according to a rating system; and a view assignor for assigning the resulting view as the highest ranked alternative view. In still another embodiment, when the user selected option is a second option, the resulting view selector further comprises: a list displayer for displaying a list of the alternative views; a selection receiver for receiving the user's selection of an alternative view; and a view assignor for assigning the resulting view as the alternative view selected by the user.
A fifth aspect of the invention provides a computer system for automatically and visually displaying a graphical representation of a dataset, the computer system comprising: a central processing unit; a memory, coupled to the central processing unit, the memory storing: the dataset; a programming module comprising, comprising: instructions for receiving a user selected and ordered plurality of fields; instructions for selecting a resulting view for displaying the dataset based on the order of the user selected fields; and instructions for displaying the dataset or a transformation of the dataset according to the resulting view. In one embodiment, the dataset is retrieved from a remote database. In another embodiment, rules are used to select the resulting view. In yet another embodiment, the rules are predetermined. In other embodiments, the rules are determined by the user's preferences or usage. In a further embodiment, heuristics are used to select the resulting view.
A sixth aspect of the invention provides a computer system for automatically and visually displaying a graphical representation of a dataset with a plurality of tuples, the computer system comprising: a central processing unit; a memory, coupled to the central processing unit, the memory storing: the dataset; a programming module comprising: instructions for forming a plurality of rated alternative views, each alternative view showing all tuples, or a transformation of all tuples, in the dataset; instructions for selecting a resulting view from the plurality of alternative views, based upon a user selected option; and instructions for displaying the dataset according to the resulting view. In one embodiment, the dataset is retrieved from a remote database. In another embodiment, rules are used to select the resulting view. In yet another embodiment, the rules are predetermined. In other embodiments, the rules are determined by the user's preferences or usage. In a further embodiment, heuristics are used to select the resulting view. In yet a further embodiment, when the user selected option is a first option, the instructions for selecting further comprises: instructions for ranking the plurality of alternative views according to a rating system; and instructions for assigning the resulting view as the highest ranked alternative view. In still another embodiment, when the user selected option is a second option, the instructions for selecting further comprises: instructions for displaying a list of the alternative views; instructions for receiving the user's selection of an alternative view; and instructions for assigning the resulting view as the alternative view selected by the user.
Like reference numerals refer to corresponding parts throughout the several views of the drawings.
The present invention provides methods, computer program products, and computer systems for automatically providing a user with a clear and useful view of a dataset. In a typical embodiment, the present invention builds and displays a view of a dataset as a user adds fields to the dataset or as a dataset is accessed, such that the view is clear and useful, and is automatically presented to the user. An advantage of the present invention is that data is presented in a clear and useful form automatically.
The present invention operates on a set of data, called a dataset, that are made up of tuples. As one skilled in the art will realize, the dataset can be a relational database, a multidimensional database, a semantic abstraction of a relational database, or an aggregated or unaggregated subset of a relational database, multidimensional database, or semantic abstraction. Fields are categorizations of data in a dataset. A tuple is an item of data (such as a record) from a dataset, specified by attributes from fields in the dataset. A search query across the dataset will return one or more tuples. Fields contain data that are of particular types, and each field is of a particular type. These types include:
Measure names may include an ordinal field whose domain is the name of one or more Qd fields. Measure values may include a dependent quantitative field whose domain and values are the blending of the Qd fields whose names appear in the domain of measure names.
A view is a visual representation of a dataset or a transformation of that dataset. Text table, bar chart, and scatter plots are all examples of types of views. Views contain marks that represent one or more tuples in a dataset. In other words, marks are visual representations of tuples in a view. A mark is typically associated with a type of graphical display. Some examples of views and their associated marks are as follows:
In
The computer system modules used to perform this embodiment of the invention are shown in
According to one embodiment of the invention, resulting view selector 110 selects the resulting view by choosing rule(s) for adding the user selected ordered fields (step 208). This is accomplished by rule chooser 114. Rule applier 116 then applies the rule(s) to determine the resulting view's view type (step 210). In another embodiment of the invention, before rule chooser 114 chooses rule(s), view determiner 118 determines whether a first view exists (step 212). In yet another embodiment of the invention, the dataset is displayed in step 206 when mark chooser 126 chooses a mark for the resulting view (step 218), and dataset renderer 128 renders the dataset according to the mark (step 220).
The sets of rules are organized first by the type of the field that is dropped (e.g. O or Qd), and then by the type of the view that the field is being dropped onto. The rules are further broken down by the type of the view. The type of a view depends on their innermost row and column. For example, OO is a view with ordinal fields in the row and column; OQ is a view with an ordinal field in the row and a quantitative field in the column; and ϕ is an empty view with no fields. For each type of field being dropped, a rule table is shown containing the rules for each type of view into which the field is being dropped. The columns of the rule tables represent the contents of the innermost field on the column (X), and the rows of the rules table the innermost field on the row (Y).
In step 208, rule(s) for adding the user selected field's data type are chosen. For example, if a user selected field is an ordinal, then the set of rules in
Notes for
Notes for
Conversions for
Notes for
Notes for
Notes for
Notes for
Notes for
The order in which fields are added affect the view type of the resulting view. For example, if a measure data type field is added to an empty view, and is subsequently followed by a dimension data type field, the resulting view will be a bar chart. However, if a measure data type field is added to an empty view subsequent to a dimension data type field, then the resulting view will be a text table. The resulting view's view type is thusly selected based upon a set of rules. The view type is then assigned to the resulting view and the view is then populated with data from the dataset. In one embodiment, the set of rules are predetermined. In another embodiment, the set of rules are based upon a user's preferences or actual usage. For example, a user may be given the opportunity to designate the best view type for various sequences of the addition of fields to views. Or, after the visual plot is populated and rendered for the user, the user is allowed to choose a different rendering. The user's choice as to the ultimate resulting view, if recorded, may indicate the user's preference for what view type the user considers the clear and/or useful. In yet another embodiment, heuristics may be used instead of a set of rules for selecting a resulting view.
In one embodiment, the cardinalities of the fields in the resulting view are computed and are considered in determining how the user selected fields are added. In set theory, cardinality is the size of a set. In the present invention, cardinality refers to the number of distinct instances that are associated with a field's type. For example, if a field type is “States of America”, then the cardinality of such a field would be 50.
In another embodiment, the functional dependency of the fields in the resulting view are computed and are considered in determining how the user selected fields are added. Functional dependency refers to the determination of one field by another field. For example, if one field is of the type “States of America,” and a second field is “Inches of Rainfall of the States of America,” then the second field depends upon the first. Another example is shown in
In yet another embodiment, in the application of the selected rule to populate the resulting view with data from the dataset, a mark is chosen for the resulting view's view type and the data from the dataset is rendered according to the mark. This is shown in
Now, referring to
In another embodiment, alternative views are formed based upon a set of criteria.
In one embodiment, if the user selected a first option, then the alternative views are ranked according to a rating system by alternative view ranker 134 in step 608. View assignor 120 then assigns the resulting view as the highest ranked alternative view at step 610. Dataset displayer 112 then displays the dataset according to the resulting view in step 606. For example, if all the data in a dataset is aggregated and does not contain any independently quantitative data, then alternative views of all the view types listed in
In another embodiment, if the user selected a second option, then a list of alternative views would be displayed by list displayer 136 at step 622 for the user's selection. After the user's selection is received at step 624 by selection receiver 138, the resulting view is assigned as the alternative view that the user selected by view assignor 120 at step 616, and dataset displayer 112 then displays the dataset according to the resulting view in step 606.
In yet another embodiment of the invention, cardinality computer 122 computes the cardinality of the fields in the plurality of tuples when forming the alternative views. In a further embodiment, functional dependency computer 124 computes the functional dependency of the fields in the plurality of tuples when forming the alternative views.
The present invention not only accepts datasets and databases as inputs, it also accepts views as inputs. A view can be used to represent a set of fields. Resulting views can also depend on the existing view. For example, rules or operators can take into account the current view to generate a new view that is related to the current view. Also, as one skilled in the art will realize, many other rules are possible, include ones to generate statistical, maps, pie charts, and three dimensional views of data.
The present invention can be implemented as a computer program product that comprises a computer program mechanism embedded in a computer readable storage medium. For instance, the computer program product could contain the program modules shown in
Many modifications and variations of this invention can be made without departing from its spirit and scope, as will be apparent to those skilled in the art. The specific embodiments described herein are offered by way of example only, and the invention is to be limited only by the terms of the appended claims, along with the full scope of equivalents to which such claims are entitled.
All references cited herein are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety and for all purposes to the same extent as if each individual publication or patent or patent application was specifically and individually indicated to be incorporated by reference in its entirety for all purposes.
This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/632,253, filed Jun. 23, 2017, entitled “Methods and Systems for Building a View of a Dataset Incrementally According to Data Types of User-Selected Data Fields,” which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/436,706, filed Feb. 17, 2017, entitled “Computer Systems and Methods for Ranking Data Visualizations using Different Data Fields,” which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/549,482, filed Nov. 20, 2014, entitled “Computer Systems and Methods for Automatically Viewing Multidimensional Databases,” which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/352,137, filed Jan. 17, 2012, entitled “Computer Systems and Methods for Automatically Viewing Multidimensional Databases,” now U.S. Pat. No. 9,600,528, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/223,658, filed Sep. 9, 2005, entitled “Computer Systems and Methods for Automatically Viewing Multidimensional Databases,” now U.S. Pat. No. 8,099,674, each of which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4800810 | Masumoto | Jan 1989 | A |
5036314 | Barillari et al. | Jul 1991 | A |
5060980 | Johnson et al. | Oct 1991 | A |
5143888 | Olbrich | Sep 1992 | A |
5144452 | Abuyama | Sep 1992 | A |
5169713 | Kumurdjian | Dec 1992 | A |
5265244 | Ghosh et al. | Nov 1993 | A |
5265246 | Li et al. | Nov 1993 | A |
5377348 | Lau et al. | Dec 1994 | A |
5383029 | Kojima | Jan 1995 | A |
5461708 | Kahn | Oct 1995 | A |
5560007 | Thai | Sep 1996 | A |
5577241 | Spencer | Nov 1996 | A |
5581677 | Myers et al. | Dec 1996 | A |
5664172 | Antoshenkov | Sep 1997 | A |
5664182 | Nierenberg et al. | Sep 1997 | A |
5668987 | Schneider | Sep 1997 | A |
5794246 | Sankaran et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
5864856 | Young | Jan 1999 | A |
5893088 | Hendricks et al. | Apr 1999 | A |
5933830 | Williams | Aug 1999 | A |
6014661 | Ahlberg | Jan 2000 | A |
6031632 | Yoshihara et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6032158 | Mukhopadhyay et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6044374 | Nesamoney et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
6100901 | Mohda et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6115744 | Robins et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
6137488 | Kraft et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6154766 | Yost et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6173310 | Yost et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6188403 | Sacerdoti et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6208990 | Suresh et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6222540 | Sacerdoti | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6247008 | Cambot et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6253257 | Dundon | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6260050 | Yost et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6269393 | Yost et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6300957 | Rao et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6301579 | Becker | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6317750 | Tortolani et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6327628 | Anuff et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6339775 | Zamanian et al. | Jan 2002 | B1 |
6356891 | Agrawal et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6377259 | Tenev et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6397195 | Pinard et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6397204 | Liu et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6400366 | Davies et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6405195 | Ahlberg | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6405208 | Raghavan et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6424933 | Agrawala et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6490593 | Proctor | Dec 2002 | B2 |
6492989 | Wilkinson | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6505205 | Kothuri et al. | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6522342 | Gagnon et al. | Feb 2003 | B1 |
6528217 | Cutter et al. | Mar 2003 | B2 |
6529217 | Maguire, III | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6581068 | Bensoussan et al. | Jun 2003 | B1 |
6590577 | Yonts | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6601075 | Huang et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6611825 | Billheimer et al. | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6643646 | Su et al. | Nov 2003 | B2 |
6701485 | Igra et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6707454 | Barg et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6714897 | Whitney et al. | Mar 2004 | B2 |
6725230 | Ruth et al. | Apr 2004 | B2 |
6750864 | Anwar | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6763308 | Chu et al. | Jul 2004 | B2 |
6768986 | Cras et al. | Jul 2004 | B2 |
6867788 | Takeda | Mar 2005 | B1 |
6906717 | Couckuyt | Jun 2005 | B2 |
6920608 | Davis | Jul 2005 | B1 |
6928433 | Goodman et al. | Aug 2005 | B2 |
6961716 | Rhodes | Nov 2005 | B2 |
6985905 | Prompt et al. | Jan 2006 | B2 |
7009609 | Miyadai | Mar 2006 | B2 |
7089266 | Stolte et al. | Aug 2006 | B2 |
7117058 | Lin et al. | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7168035 | Bell et al. | Jan 2007 | B1 |
7181450 | Malloy et al. | Feb 2007 | B2 |
7191169 | Tao | Mar 2007 | B1 |
7250951 | Hurley et al. | Jul 2007 | B1 |
7315305 | Crotty et al. | Jan 2008 | B2 |
7328407 | MacLaurin | Feb 2008 | B2 |
7346839 | Acharya | Mar 2008 | B2 |
7379601 | Yang et al. | May 2008 | B2 |
7420562 | Shinohara et al. | Sep 2008 | B2 |
7630971 | Arrouye et al. | Dec 2009 | B2 |
7694278 | Pasumansky et al. | Apr 2010 | B2 |
7716225 | Dean et al. | May 2010 | B1 |
7725483 | Poyourow et al. | May 2010 | B2 |
7761784 | Parks et al. | Jul 2010 | B2 |
7853456 | Soto et al. | Dec 2010 | B2 |
7999809 | Beers et al. | Aug 2011 | B2 |
8140391 | Jacobi et al. | Mar 2012 | B2 |
8269773 | Gregg, III | Sep 2012 | B2 |
8271892 | Duncker et al. | Sep 2012 | B2 |
8321781 | Tolle | Nov 2012 | B2 |
8412726 | Yan et al. | Apr 2013 | B2 |
8860727 | Beers et al. | Oct 2014 | B2 |
9489119 | Smith, Jr. | Nov 2016 | B1 |
9792017 | Landefeld | Oct 2017 | B1 |
20020016699 | Hoggart et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020032682 | Kobayashi et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020118192 | Couckuyt et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020123865 | Whitney et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020133441 | Tanaka | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020138636 | Buttner et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020154118 | McCarthy et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020161664 | Shaya et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20030042928 | Tsai | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030195884 | Boyd et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030200034 | Fellenberg et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030204511 | Brundage et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20040181543 | Wu | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040183800 | Peterson | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040210491 | Sadri | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040224577 | Kaji | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040227759 | McKnight et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040243593 | Stolte et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050035966 | Pasquarette et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050035967 | Joffrain et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050038717 | McQueen, III et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050060300 | Stolte et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050099423 | Brauss | May 2005 | A1 |
20050210389 | Middelfart | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050231392 | Meehan et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050234688 | Pinto et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050234920 | Rhodes | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20060020586 | Prompt et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060020641 | Walsh et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060031187 | Pyrce et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060053363 | Bargh et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060100873 | Bittner et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060101391 | Ulke et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060129913 | Vigesaa et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060136825 | Cory et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060143205 | Fuchs | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060206512 | Hanrahan et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060212412 | Sapir | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060218499 | Matthews et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060229753 | Seskin et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20070055487 | Habitz et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070061344 | Dickerman et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070100824 | Richardson et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070112844 | Tribble et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20080059422 | Tenni et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080133573 | Haft et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20090276399 | Irmak et al. | Nov 2009 | A1 |
20090300547 | Bates et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20100191582 | Dicker | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20130080444 | Wakefield | Mar 2013 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
215657 | Jan 1994 | HU |
WO1997012334 | Apr 1997 | WO |
WO 2006060773 | Jun 2006 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Becker, Trellis Graphics Displays: A Multi-Dimensional Data Visualization Tool for Data Mining, 1997, 13 pgs. |
Becker, Visualizing Decision Table Classifiers, 1998, 4 pgs. |
Beers, Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 11/787,761, dated Apr. 8, 2011, 8 pgs. |
Beers, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/787,761, dated Dec. 1, 2010, 16 pgs. |
Beers, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/787,761, dated Jul. 8, 2009, 14 pgs. |
Beers, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/787,761, dated Jun. 12, 2008, 12 pgs. |
Beers, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/787,761, dated Sep. 14, 2010, 12 pgs. |
Beers, Office ActIon, U.S. Appl. No. 11/787,761, dated Dec. 17, 2008, 13 pgs. |
Beers, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/787,761, dated Apr. 28, 2010, 10 pgs. |
Beers, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/787,761, dated Nov. 30, 2009, 14 pgs. |
Beers, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 14/514,319, dated Jun. 4, 2015, 14 pgs. |
Beers, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 13/211,048, dated Oct. 11, 2012, 13 pgs. |
Beers, Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 13/211,048, dated Feb. 3, 2014, 5 pgs. |
Beers, Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 13/211,048, dated Jun. 3, 2014, 9 pgs. |
Bosch, Performance Analysis and Visualization of Parallel Systems Using SimOS and Rivet: A Case Study, Jan. 2000, 12 pgs. |
Bosch, Rivet: A Flexible Environment for Computer Systems Visualization, Jan. 2000, 9 pgs. |
Brunk, MineSet: An Integrated System for Data Mining, 1997, 4 pgs. |
Cleveland, Graphical Perception: Theory, Experimentation, and Application to the Development of Graphical Methods, Sep. 1984, 24 pgs. |
Derthick, An Interactive Visual Query Environment for Exploring Data, 1997, 11 pgs. |
Freeze, Unlocking OLAP with Microsoft SQL Server and Excel 2000, 2000, pp. 155-332 and 379-422. |
Fu, Implementation of Three-dimensional Scagnostics, University of Waterloo, 2009, 61 pgs. |
Goldstein, A Framework for Knowledge-Based Interactive Data Exploration, Dec. 1994, 30 pgs. |
Gotz, Behavior-Driven Visualization Recommendation, IBM T.J. Watson Research Center, Feb. 8-11, 2009, 10 pgs. |
Gray, Data Cube: A Relational Aggregation Operator Generalizing Group-By, Cross-Tab, and Sub-Total, 1997, 25 pgs. |
Hanrahan, Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 11/005,652, dated May 18, 2010, 4 pgs. |
Hanrahan, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/005,652, dated Feb. 20, 2009, 12 pgs. |
Hanrahan, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/005,652, dated Oct. 23, 2009, 14 pgs. |
Hanrahan, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/005,652, dated Jul. 24, 2008, 11 pgs. |
Hanrahan, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/005,652, dated Dec. 27, 2007, 11 pgs. |
Hanrahan, Specification, U.S. Appl. No. 11/005,652, dated Dec. 2, 2004, 104 pgs. |
Healey, On the Use of Perceptual Cues and Data Mining for Effective Visualization of Scientific Datasets, 1998, 8 pgs. |
Key, VizDeck: Self-Organizing Dashboards for Visual Analytics, SIGMOD, May 20-24, 2012, 4 pgs. |
Kohavi, Data Mining and Visualization, 2000, 8 pgs. |
Livny, DEVise: Integrated Querying and Visual Exploration of Large Datasets, May 1997, 12 pgs. |
MacDonald, Creating Basic Charts, 2006, 46 pgs. |
MacKinlay, Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 12/214,818, dated May 13, 2014, 9 pgs. |
MacKinlay, Automating the Design of Graphical Presentations of Relational Information, 1986, 34 pgs. |
MacKinlay, Show Me: Automatic Presentation for Visual Analysis, 2007, 8 pgs. |
MacKinlay, Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 13/352,137, dated Aug. 30, 2016, 14 pgs. |
MacKinlay, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 13/352,137, dated Feb. 11, 2016, 14 pgs. |
MacKinlay, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 13/352,137, dated Jul. 27, 2015, 15 pgs. |
MacKinlay, Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 13/352,137, dated Apr. 22, 2015, 15 pgs. |
MacKinlay, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 13/352,137, dated Dec. 12, 2014, 11 pgs. |
MacKinlay, Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 13/352,137, dated Jan. 17, 2017, 7 pgs. |
MacKinlay, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/223,658, dated Jun. 10, 2010, 22 pgs. |
MacKinlay, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/223,658, dated Nov. 12, 2009, 22 pgs. |
MacKinlay, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/223,658, dated Jan. 21, 2011, 22 pgs. |
MacKinlay, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/223,658, dated May 21, 2008, 20 pgs. |
MacKinlay, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/223,658, dated Feb. 23, 2009, 19 pgs. |
MacKinlay, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 14/549,482, dated Aug. 6, 2015, 9 pgs. |
MacKinlay, Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 14/549,482, dated Mar. 10, 2016, 10 pgs. |
MacKinlay, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 14/549,482, dated Jun. 10, 2016, 10 pgs. |
MacKinlay, Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 14/549,482, dated Sep. 22, 2016, 12 pgs. |
MacKinlay, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 14/549,482, dated Jan. 13, 2017, 12 pgs. |
MacKinlay, Specification, U.S. Appl. No. 11/223,658, dated Sep. 5, 2005, 58 pgs. |
MacKinlay, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 15/436,706, dated Oct. 30, 2018, 15 pgs. |
MacKinlay, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 15/436,706, dated May 15, 2019, 17 pgs. |
Magyar Szabadalmi Hivatal, HU Search Report, HU P0700460, Oct. 9, 2007, 1 pg. |
Matching and ranking legal citations, Publication No. WO1997012334A1, Google Patents, https://www.google.com/patents/WO1997012334A1?cl=en&dq=user+ranking+document+type&hl=en&sa=X&ved=OahUKEwin5K_19YILAhVP&mMKHeU2DO . . . Downloaded on Feb. 20, 2016, 11 pgs. |
Miller, The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information, Mar. 2014, 19 pgs. |
Perlin, An Alternative Approach to the Computer Interface, 1993, 11 pgs. |
Rao, The Table Lens: Merging Graphical and Symbolic Representations in an Interactive Focus+Context Visualization for Tabular Information, Apr. 1994, 7 pgs. |
Roth, Interactive Graphics Design Using Automatic Presentation Knowledge, Apr. 24-28, 1994, 7 pgs. |
Roth, Visage: A User Interface Environment for Exploring Information, Oct. 28-29, 2006, 9 pgs. |
Screen Dumps for Microsoft Office Excel 2003 SP2, figures 1-24, 2003, 19 pgs. |
Spenke, Focus: The Interactive Table for Product Comparison and Selection, Nov. 6-8, 1996, 10 pgs. |
Stevens, On the Theory of Scales of Measurement, Jun. 7, 1946, 4 pgs. |
Stolte, Multiscale Visualization Using Data Cubes, 2002, 8 pgs. |
Stolte, Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 10/453,834, dated Mar. 27, 2006, 3 pgs. |
Stolte, Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 10/667,194, dated Mar. 5, 2010, 4 pgs. |
Stolte, Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 11/488,407, dated Dec. 29, 2009, 8 pgs. |
Stolte, Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 12/821,029, dated Sep. 24, 2012, 8 pgs. |
Stolte, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 10/667,194, dated Jan. 7, 2008, 10 pgs. |
Stolte, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 10/667,194, dated Feb. 9, 2009, 11 pgs. |
Stolte, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 10/667,194, dated Aug. 14, 2007, 16 pgs. |
Stolte, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 10/667,194, dated Aug. 14, 2008, 10 pgs. |
Stolte, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 10/667,194, dated Jan. 18, 2007, 15 pgs. |
Stolte, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 10/667,194, dated Sep. 25, 2009, 10 pgs. |
Stolte, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 10/667,194, dated Jun. 26, 2006, 13 pgs. |
Stolte, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/488,407, dated Apr. 3, 2009, 6 pgs. |
Stolte, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 12/821,029, dated Apr. 12, 2011, 9 pgs. |
Stolte, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 12/821,029, dated Feb. 24, 2012, 10 pgs. |
Stolte Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 13/753,452, dated Feb. 26, 2014, 8 pgs. |
Stolte, Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 13/753,452, dated Sep. 16, 2014, 10 pgs. |
Stolte, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 13/753,452, dated Dec. 2, 2014, 6 pgs. |
Stolte, Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 13/753,452, dated Mar. 23, 2015, 8 pgs. |
Stolte, Polaris: A System for Query, Analysis, and Visualization of Multidimensional Relational Databases, Jan. 2002, 14 pgs. |
Stolte, Query, Analysis, and Visualization of Hierarchically Structured Data Using Polaris, Jul. 2002, 11 pgs. |
Stolte, Specification, U.S. Appl. No. 10/453,834, Jun. 2, 2003, 114 pgs. |
Stolte, Visualizing Application Behavior on Superscalar Processors, 1999, 9 pgs. |
Savva, ReVision: Automated Classification, Analysis and Redesign of Chart Images, Oct. 16-19, 2011, 10 pgs. |
Sun, Articulate: A Semi-automated Model for Translating Natural Language Queries into Meaningful Visualizations, 2010, 184 pgs. |
Tableau Software Inc., IPRP, PCT/US07/009810, dated Oct. 22, 2008, 7 pgs. |
Tableau Software Inc., ISR, PCT/US07/009810, dated Jul. 7, 2008, 8 pgs. |
Tableau Software LLC, IPRP, PCT/US06/35300, dated Mar. 24, 2009, 5 pgs. |
Tableau Software LLC, IPRP, PCT/US2005/043937, dated Jun. 5, 2007, 9 pgs. |
Tableau Software LLC, ISR/WO, PCT/US06/35300, dated Jul. 7, 2008 6 pgs. |
Tableau Software LLC, ISR/WO, PCT/US2005/043937, dated Apr. 18, 2007, 9 pgs. |
The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University, IPER, PCT/US04/18217, dated Oct. 19, 2006, 4 pgs. |
The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University, IPRP, PCT/US04/30396, dated Apr. 19, 2007, 5 pgs. |
The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University, ISR/WO, PCT/US04/18217, dated Feb. 7, 2006, 6 pgs. |
The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University, ISR/WO, PCT/US04/30396, dated Aug. 24, 2006, 5 pgs. |
The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University, Supplemental EP Search Report, EP 04754739.3, dated Dec. 17, 2007 , 4 pgs. |
Thearling, Visualizing Data Mining Models, 2001, 14 pgs. |
Welling, Visualization of Large Multi-Dimensional Datasets, Aug. 11, 2000, 6 pgs. |
Wilkinson, nViZn: An Algebra-Based Visualization System, Mar. 21-23, 2001, 7 pgs. |
Wilkinson, Graph-Theoretic Scagnostics, Proceedings of the IEEE Information Visualization, 2005, 8 pgs. |
Wilkinson, Statistics and Computing—The Grammar of Graphics, New York, 1999, 418 pgs. |
MacKinlay, First Action Interview Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 15/632,253, dated Sep. 6, 2019, 20 pgs. |
Mackinlay, Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 14/549,482, dated Jun. 12, 2019, 7 pgs. |
MacKinlay, Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 15/632,253, dated Mar. 11, 2020, 21 pgs. |
MacKinlay, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 15/632,253, dated Sep. 4, 2020, 41 pgs. |
MacKinlay, Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 15/632,253, dated Mar. 2, 2021, 20 pgs. |
MacKinlay, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 15/436,706, dated Jan. 31, 2020, 20 pgs. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20190050138 A1 | Feb 2019 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 15632253 | Jun 2017 | US |
Child | 16162332 | US | |
Parent | 15436706 | Feb 2017 | US |
Child | 15632253 | US | |
Parent | 14549482 | Nov 2014 | US |
Child | 15436706 | US | |
Parent | 13352137 | Jan 2012 | US |
Child | 14549482 | US | |
Parent | 11223658 | Sep 2005 | US |
Child | 13352137 | US |