Papers › Comparative Layouts Revisited: Design Space, Guidelines, and Future Directions
Comparative Layouts Revisited: Design Space, Guidelines, and Future Directions
Sehi L'Yi, Jaemin Jo, Jinwook Seo
The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.
We present a systematic review on three comparative layouts (i.e., juxtaposition, superposition, and explicit-encoding) which are information visualization (InfoVis) layouts designed to support comparison tasks. For the last decade, these layouts have served as fundamental idioms in designing many visualization systems. However, we found that the layouts have been used with inconsistent terms and confusion, and the lessons from previous studies are fragmented. The goal of our research is to distill the results from previous studies into a consistent and reusable framework. We review 127 research papers, including 15 papers with quantitative user studies, which employed comparative layouts. We first alleviate the ambiguous boundaries in the design space of comparative layouts by suggesting lucid terminology (e.g., chart-wise and item-wise juxtaposition). We then identify the diverse aspects of comparative layouts, such as the advantages and concerns of using each layout in the real-world scenarios and researchers' approaches to overcome the concerns. Building our knowledge on top of the initial insights gained from the Gleicher et al.'s survey, we elaborate on relevant empirical evidence that we distilled from our survey (e.g., the actual effectiveness of the layouts in different study settings) and identify novel facets that the original work did not cover (e.g., the familiarity of the layouts to people). Finally, we show the consistent and contradictory results on the performance of comparative layouts and offer practical implications for using the layouts by suggesting trade-offs and seven actionable guidelines.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections