Glanceable Data Visualizations for Older Adults: Establishing Thresholds and Examining Disparities Between Age Groups

The knowledge gap at the intersection of data visualization with aging is significant and under-researched (Backonja et al., 2016; Le et al., 2016; Brandt et al., 2014). This issue is gaining urgency in light of the growing global population of older adults, which is expected to rise to 16% by 2050 and 24% by 2100; in the U.S., older adults will outnumber children by 2060 (Vespa et al., 2018). The use of visualizations in enhancing older adults’ lives, such as in health monitoring wearables, is on the rise, with most interventions including visualizations (Cajamarca et al., 2020). However, challenges in design and usability hinder adoption among older adults (Chung et al., 2023). Addressing this research area is timely and ethically necessary, responding to calls for more diverse, inclusive, and equitable research in visualization  (Lee et al., 2020; Angerbauer and Sedlmair, 2022; Marriott et al., 2021).

Our research aligns with a conceptual replication (Brandt et al., 2014; Crandall and Sherman, 2016; Stroebe and Strack, 2014), a replication study type, in which the same research questions or hypotheses are examined as in the original study but with controlled changes in methods, participants, or settings. Conceptual replication aims to test and extend the generalizability of prior findings. Crandall and Sherman (Crandall and Sherman, 2016) argue for its importance in scientific research by emphasizing its role in testing theories across various settings and conditions, contributing to a broader understanding of the subject. Unlike direct replications, which primarily seek to confirm original findings, conceptual replications challenge and expand these theories. They are more efficient in advancing the field and identifying theories’ limitations or boundary conditions. The ongoing debate in the scientific community about direct versus conceptual replications is noted; for example, Stroebe and Strack (Stroebe and Strack, 2014) suggest that conceptual replications, by testing a theory’s validity across different settings and populations, offer more robust evidence than direct replications. Throughout this paper, replication specifically refers to conceptual replication.

Previous studies on smartwatch perception mainly involved young participants (e. g., (Blascheck et al., 2018, 2023; Neshati et al., 2019b)). Given the smaller displays of smartwatches, age-related vision changes, and the growing interest of older adults in smartwatches, it is crucial to determine if these findings apply to them. Our replication of Blascheck et al.’s study (Blascheck et al., 2018) was motivated by four factors: its focus on fundamental aspects of smartwatch perception, the inclusion of basic comparison tasks relevant to many visualization tasks, the use of various visualization types and data sizes, and the prior study’s participant age range ($<65$), enabling direct performance comparisons between older and younger adults. Additionally, its previous replication with young participants on larger displays confirmed the original results’ robustness (Blascheck and Isenberg, 2021). Lastly, access to detailed information from the original researchers facilitated a comprehensive replication.

Glanceable visualizations depict information that can be gleaned at a glance, focusing on design choices that communicate data as concisely as possible, although different areas of research present varying definitions of the length of a “glance” (Blascheck et al., 2021). Consolvo et al. (Consolvo et al., 2008) presented one of the earliest works on glanceable displays, demonstrating the positive impacts of a mobile fitness tracker on wearers’ motivation. Blascheck et al. (Blascheck et al., 2023) observed that watch faces with a digital time representation and multiple proportion visualizations lead to better performance with bar and radial bar charts and outperformed text depicting progress toward a target value. Bar charts led to higher accuracy. However, participants preferred radial bar charts concerning aesthetics. Adding distracting elements, such as an analog time representation, did not significantly affect performance. Horak et al. (Horak et al., 2018) investigated the interplay of smartwatches and large interactive displays in data analysis scenarios, using smartwatches to store and show sets of data points or visualization configuration options as well as to control aspects of the large display. However, that work viewed the smartwatch as a supplement to large displays instead of creating visualizations for smaller screens. Islam et al. (Islam et al., 2022) examined the design of sleep visualizations on smartwatches and fitness bands, observing greater preference for visualizations over text depictions and similar chart preferences across both devices.

Neshati et al. (Neshati et al., 2019b) incorporated glanceable sparkline designs on smartwatches. Condensed line graphs along the x-axis improved accuracy in judging line heights, reducing the number of flick operations needed to view entire graphs and maximizing screen real estate. Similar efforts in efficient use of screen space include the simplified designs of Space-Filling Line Graphs (Neshati et al., 2021) as well as the work of Chen (Chen, 2017), which proposed utilizing smartwatch borders for interactive broad views of large time-series data. Our study focuses on older adults as a target population, while these targeted a more general audience and included significantly younger participants.

Understanding the data viewed on smartwatches is crucial, with previous studies exploring common and health-related preferences (Islam et al., 2020; Chung et al., 2023). Islam et al. (Islam et al., 2020) found health and fitness data as the most frequently displayed, with an average of five items on participants’ watch faces at any time. Chung et al. (Chung et al., 2023) noted strong interest in step count, walking distance, and heart rate but lower interest in oxygen levels, stairs climbed, and sleep. Glanceable visualization has been studied in application-focused contexts such as qualitative exercise feedback (Gouveia et al., 2016; Schiewe et al., 2020), while other works observed preferences for visualizing data rather than presenting it as a notification (Schiewe et al., 2020) or a number (Amini et al., 2017). In contrast to this past work, our perceptual study is data- and application-agnostic.

Research on visualization often overlooks older adults, a gap highlighted by Cajamarca et al. (Cajamarca et al., 2020). One visualization area considered for older adults is health data monitoring and decision-making. This field explores the impact of visualization systems on life decisions, particularly for older adults. Galesic et al. (Galesic et al., 2009) found that icon arrays aided risk comprehension in individuals with low numeracy, including older adults. Pham et al. (Pham et al., 2012) observed that health visualizations assisted older adults in progressing toward health goals, while Vargemidis et al. (Vargemidis et al., 2023) reported increased motivation for physical activity in older adults through visualizations that emphasized enjoyment. Additionally, Price et al. (Price et al., 2016) explored how visualization affects working memory and decision-making in older adults. They found that color-based visualizations were more effective than tabular data for medical decision-making, although this advantage decreased in more complex situations. Collectively, these studies underscore the potential of visualization in enhancing the decision-making and well-being of older adults, including applications with smartwatches.

Other work has focused on overall visualization design with older adults in mind. Le et al. (Le et al., 2012) evaluated health visualization designs, including stacked bar charts, wellness polygons, and partitioned donut charts. They found that while bar charts were familiar, they demanded high cognitive load; polygons were complex for trend analysis; and partitioned donut charts, though adequate for trend depiction, also required high mental effort. Subsequent studies (Le et al. (Le et al., 2016, 2014)) showed older adults’ preference for separate line graphs over stacked ones, and a longer time was taken for value comparison than younger adults. Le et al. (Le et al., 2015) further discovered that multiple visual cues in health visualizations could impair older adults’ information processing, with participants using a combination of prior knowledge and visualization elements when interacting with visual displays. Fan et al. (Fan et al., 2023) identified challenges for older adults in understanding interactive COVID-19 data visualizations, such as insufficient information clarity. Additionally, Cajamarca et al. (Cajamarca et al., 2023) observed that older Chilean adults interpreted health data on smartwatches more accurately without progress indicators, which otherwise distracted them from essential information. They also found that older adults with higher technology proficiency had better accuracy and speed in data interpretation. These studies highlight how aging affects visualization perception, a challenge that may be compounded when dealing with small-scale smartwatch displays.

The existing but limited body of work on visualization for older adults highlights critical aspects of design and graphical perception specific to this demographic. However, only one previous work was performed using smartwatches or glanceable visualizations (Cajamarca et al., 2023). This gap in the current literature underscores the pressing need for further exploration to determine whether the established understanding of graphical perception remains applicable in the face of significant shifts in screen size (small) and design objectives (rapid information retrieval).

Rosales et al. (Rosales et al., 2017) assessed the evolving attitudes and behaviors of older adults using smartwatches over time. Participants with a preexisting interest in technology showed greater enthusiasm for learning new technology, while others envisioned the smartwatch potentially replacing some smartphone functions. Li et al. (Li et al., 2020) found that prolonged wearable device usage positively impacted older adults’ health. Consistent daily usage formed long-term habits, corresponding with improved health outcomes. These findings highlight the potential of smartwatches to enhance older adults’ lives, encouraging behaviors that boost their well-being and cultivate interest in other technologies.

Khakurel et al. (Khakurel et al., 2018) investigated smartwatch usability issues for older adults, identifying persistent challenges such as screen size, typography, tap detection, and interaction techniques. Notably, screen size and font size emerged as critical factors influencing smartwatch usage. Chung et al. (Chung et al., 2023) found positive attitudes among older adults toward wearable devices for activity tracking but highlighted potential barriers like screen design, size, and complexity. Cristescu et al. (Cristescu et al., 2022) proposed a model exploring factors sha** older adults’ behavioral intentions towards wearable technology, observing that design aesthetics, performance expectancy, effort expectancy, and facilitating conditions played significant roles. This underscores the impact of external support on older adults’ behavioral intentions. Collectively, these works emphasize the need for nuanced design considerations to enhance smartwatch usability and appeal for older wearers, motivating our replication study as a foundational step toward more usable smartwatch visualizations.

After preregistration, approval of the study by our institution’s IRB, and requesting permission from local older adult community groups, we posted a PDF advertisement flyer to several email lists and a few in-person advertisement boards. We recruited 24 participants (19 female, 4 male, and one preferred not to answer), with ages ranging from 65 to 96 years old (Avg. = 73, SD = 8). Participants’ education levels were high school diploma or less, associate’s degree, bachelor’s degree, master’s degree, and doctorate, with almost all (22) participants possessing at least a bachelor’s degree. All participants had normal or corrected-to-normal vision (self-reported), only one participant did not wear glasses, and no participant had a color vision deficiency (self-reported).

Among the 24 participants, 13 reported having no prior familiarity with visualizations, and their years of experience ranged from 0 to 70 (Avg. = 18, SD = 26). Participants were asked for their familiarity with each chart on a Likert scale (Likert, 1932) from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very familiar), reporting on Bar  (Avg. = 4.1, SD = 1.1), Donut  (Avg. = 3.2, SD = 1.6), and Radial  (Avg. = 1.5, SD = 1.0). New for this study to investigate its possible effect on performance, participants were asked to rate their tech-savviness on a Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree to consider myself a tech-savvy person) to 5 (strongly agree)  (Avg. = 2.6, SD = 1.1). All participants finished the study, which typically took between 45 to 75 minutes. Participants then received a $25 Amazon gift card. Comparisons of this study’s participant demographic information to those of the original research are provided in Table 1.

We used a Sony SmartWatch 3 to enable comparison with the original study. The watch’s screen resolution is $320\times 320$ pixels, measuring 1.6 inches on each side (Sony, ). We reconstructed the watch stand (shown in Figure 1) using the original authors’ designs, approximating a typical viewing angle. As per the original study design (Blascheck et al., 2018), the stand was placed 28 cm horizontally from the end of the table and 20 cm vertically from the table’s surface. After observing some initial difficulty with seeing the watch in the pilot studies, we allowed participants to horizontally move the stand as needed (Avg. = 25.2, SD = 4.9, Range = 10.2-28) but kept the vertical height consistent.

This study followed a two-alternative forced choice (2AFC) approach (Macmillan and Creelman, 2004), in which participants were presented with a visualization (stimulus) comprised of one of three possible chart types (Bar , Donut , or Radial ) showing three possible data sizes (7, 12, or 24). On the stimulus, two black dots indicated two specific elements (e. g., two bars of a bar chart). After the visualization was shown, we asked participants to choose which dot (left or right) marked the larger-valued element. This meant the taller bar in Bar , the larger region in Donut , or the more complete circle in Radial . The original study’s authors provided us with the same software and set of stimuli as in the original study (Blascheck et al., 2018). A total of 396 images were provided, with half (198) having a larger value on the left and half having a larger value on the right.

As per the original study, the stimulus display time was adjusted in real-time as a function of the participant’s response using a weighted 3-down, 1-up staircase procedure that increased exposure time by 100 ms ($\Delta^{+}$) after an incorrect response and decreased it by 300 ms ($\Delta^{-}$) after three consecutive correct responses. This results in an expected accuracy of approximately $63\%$ (García-Pérez, 1998), though it is of note that the original study incorrectly calculated this value as approximately $91\%$ (Blascheck et al., 2018). For each of the nine conditions (3 chart types $\times$ 3 data sizes), participants completed a set of trials, which we refer to as a staircase. Figure 2 shows an example staircase from our study. A staircase would continue until the 15^th reversal (i. e., change from increasing to decreasing exposure time or vice-versa) or the end of the stimuli (the 198^th trial) was reached, as is typical for staircase procedures (García-Pérez, 1998).

Before the main study, we conducted four pilot studies involving volunteer older adults (ages 61-69). These pilots aimed to assess the study design and procedure, which were not tailored to older adults. During the pilots, we examined the visibility of dot markers on stimuli, the study duration, potential fatigue, eye strain, comprehensibility of the required comparison task and visualizations, and the placement and distance of the smartwatch stand.

We observed some pilot study participants encountering difficulties with Radial , mistakenly assuming they were measuring bar length rather than circle completeness. To address this, we included additional information and examples on interpreting these charts in the pre-study explanation of stimuli and tasks.

The overall study procedure is detailed in Figure 3. Participants would fill out the pre-study questionnaire upon confirming their consent to participate. Then, an investigator would explain the study format, including how to read and compare values on each chart using a printed set of examples. We also told participants they could take short breaks anytime, especially between conditions.

Participants were assigned a participant ID number based on the order of appointments, which would inform the specific ordering of the chart types and data sizes; orderings were counterbalanced by a reduced Latin square design (Bradley, 1958). Because our study ($n=24$) had more total participants than the original study’s Latin square design accounted for ($n=18$), there were some repeats in type-size orderings. To best allow comparison between the subgroups of young-old participants (age $65\text{-}74$, $n=12$) and old-old participants (age $\geq 75$, $n=12$), we made sure that there were no repeats of type-size orderings within either subgroup.

A condition would begin with ten practice trials, with the initial exposure time between 1700 ms and 5100 ms depending on the condition; for comparability, we use the exact starting times as the previous study (Blascheck et al., 2018). The individual trial procedure is shown in Figure 4. A trial would begin with viewing the visualization, after which a set of four intervening images would show on the screen for 20 ms each to prevent afterimages of the stimulus. Then, the screen would prompt the participant to give their input (left or right), and lastly, the participant would be shown if their answer was correct or not for 1000 ms. After completing three staircases for one chart type, we would ask the participant what strategies (if any) they used while completing the tasks for these charts.

We collected participants’ responses to the pre-study questionnaire, in which we asked for information about their age, gender, education level, primary occupation, dominant hand, vision deficits, vision corrections, and color vision deficiency. We also collected information about their level of familiarity with visualization, familiarity with Bar , Donut , and Radial  chart, years of experience with visualization, and their self-reported tech-savviness (see supplementary material for complete questionnaire).

For each trial within a staircase, we collected the following data: exposure time in milliseconds, chart type and data size of the stimulus, and the correctness of the participant’s answer to the comparison task. We also asked participants to “think aloud,” recording audio of and transcribing their thoughts and reactions during the study. Between sets of three staircases (i. e., three data sizes for a chart), participants were asked what strategy (if any) they used to perform the comparison task.

After completing the final staircase, each participant answered a post-study questionnaire. Participants were prompted to rank the three types of charts on a scale from 1 (best) to 3 (worst) based on their subjective preferences and confidence in accurately interpreting the data. We also inquired about their smartwatch ownership. For smartwatch owners, we asked about the watch’s make, what they use it for, how often they monitor their data, and any visualizations they encounter when using it. We further explored the data types they actively monitor, additional data they would like to track, and their preference for visualizations over numerical displays. For those without a smartwatch, we gauged their interest in owning one and inquired about any barriers preventing them. Finally, all participants were shown a list of commonly tracked smartwatch data types identified by Islam et al. (Islam et al., 2020) and asked to indicate which they would be interested in monitoring (see supplementary material for complete questionnaire).

To gain a comprehensive understanding of the relationship between chronological age and time thresholds, we divided our analysis into three parts: (1) a between-groups comparison of means between younger adults (original study (Blascheck et al., 2018)) and older adults (current study), (2) a between-groups comparison of means between young-old (age 65-74) and old-old (age $\geq 75$) adults from within our older adults group, and (3) the overall performance of older adults.

As per the original study, we created 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of participant thresholds using BCa bootstrap** (Efron, 1987) per condition, using Bonferroni correction when making multiple comparisons (i. e., 5(b)). All the information regarding the younger adults’ performance and preference we used for analysis in this section was initially collected and reported by Blascheck et al. (Blascheck et al., 2018).

To compare independent groups, younger vs. older adults as well as young-old vs. old-old, we assessed the strength of their time threshold differences for a specific condition by examining the overlap of their confidence intervals (CIs). In line with Blascheck et al. (Blascheck et al., 2018), we quantified this overlap with a metric we refer to as interval overlap percentage (IOP), calculating and interpreting IOP following the guidelines provided by Cumming (Cumming, 2014) as well as Besançon and Dragicevic (Besançon and Dragicevic, 2017); further details on this calculation can be found in the supplementary materials.

We assessed participants’ performance by examining the accuracy of their responses, aiming to determine whether observed accuracy aligned closely with the anticipated accuracy of $\sim$63%, as specified by the staircase design (refer to Section 4.3 for details). To achieve this, we calculated the average accuracy for each participant across each of the nine staircases they completed, dividing the number of correct answers by the total trials per staircase. Table 3 provides this analysis, segmented by the young-old and the old-old cohorts. Our study revealed that, except for old-old participants in the Radial  24 condition, both groups’ accuracy matched or exceeded the expected value of $\sim$63%.

After finishing three consecutive staircases for the same chart type (7, 12, and 24 data points), we asked participants to describe the strategy they used for the task. This section describes all strategies per chart that more than one participant reported. It is important to note that some participants mentioned multiple strategies.

For each data size, participants ranked the three chart types in terms of their subjective preferences and confidence in accurately interpreting the data. Table 4 shows the responses of younger (prior study) and older adults normalized to percentages of their respective sample sizes. We also break down the older adults group into the young-old and old-old subsets, presenting their preference and confidence ratings in Table 5.

Across all data sizes, older adults had the greatest preference for and confidence with Donut , followed by Bar  and Radial . While the percentages of older adults who ranked Bar  and Donut  the highest were similar for data size 7 (25 pp difference for preference, 16 pp for confidence), the differences increased with the data size, resulting in a more than 50 pp discrepancy for 12 and 24.

For preference, older adults ranked Donut  the highest across all data sizes, while younger adults ranked Bar  the highest for data size 7 and Donut  for data sizes 12 and 24. For Bar  12, 66 pp more of older adults rated Donut  as the highest compared to Bar  with a difference of only 12 pp for younger adults. The Rank 1 differences for data size 24 were slightly closer, with a 66 pp difference between Donut  and Bar  for older adults and 34 pp for younger adults. For confidence, older and younger adults had similar results (Donut  $>$ Bar  $>$ Radial ) for all data sizes.

The results for the young-old and old-old are similar for preference and confidence. The largest difference for preference is for Rank 1 of Bar  with 12 data points (25 pp) and 24 data points (25 pp). In contrast, the greatest difference in confidence is 25 pp for both Rank 1 and Rank 2 of Bar  12 and Donut  12.

Six of the twenty-four participants reported owning a smartwatch. They primarily used their devices for health (heart rate, oxygen, fall detection), activity (step count) monitoring, weather, and voice memos. The frequency of use varied from several times a day (4/6) to very seldom (1/6), with one stating that their frequency varied. Five of the six participants preferred viewing their data as numbers, with one preferring to see it presented as a visualization. The remaining eighteen participants did not own a smartwatch. Stated reasons for not owning a device included not needing it (11/18), not wanting to track personal data (7/18), assumptions of high cost (6/18), a lack of interest in technology (5/18), a lack of interest in wrist accessories (5/18), not knowing what smartwatches do (4/18), uncertainty with learning how to use it (3/18), avoiding reliance on technology (2/18), and preference for larger screens (2/18).

In our study, participants were asked to select data types (as per Islam et al. (Islam et al., 2020)) that they would be interested in tracking on a smartwatch. Of the three major categories, Health-Fitness had the highest overall interest, followed by Device-Location and Weather & Planetary data. Blood Pressure was the most favored type of data (17/24), while Humidity (4/24), Wind Info (4/24), Moon Phase (4/24), and None of the Above (1/24) were the least-selected (see Figure 10). Compared with Islam et al. (Islam et al., 2020) (in which participants indicated data they already see on their smartwatch), older adults in our study showed a greater interest in Blood Pressure, Distance Travelled, and Phone Battery.

Across all experimental conditions, older adults’ performance consistently lagged behind that of the younger participants from the original study (Blascheck et al., 2018). The differences in average time thresholds ranged from 51 ms (Donut  7) to 1555 ms (Radial  24), and except Donut  24, the performance gap invariably widened in tandem with increasing data size. The confidence interval overlap analysis showed strong (5/9) or weak (2/9) evidence of differences in seven out of nine conditions, as illustrated in Figure 7. Despite these disparities, the overarching trends related to visualization type, data size, and time thresholds were comparable between younger and older adults. Both groups achieved optimal performance with Donut , followed by Bar  and Radial . Also, in almost all cases, both studies’ participants subjectively ranked Donut  higher than Bar  and Radial .

The findings of our study suggest that some aspects of graphical perception remain unchanged with age (e. g., preferences) while others (e. g., speed) may decline. The similarities mentioned above between younger and older adults might indicate that basic pattern recognition, which includes identifying basic geometric shapes, lines, orientations, and spatial relationships among visual elements, remains relatively stable with age (Murman, 2015). Older adults were, however, invariably slower than their younger counterparts. This may partially stem from the compounded effects of perceptual and cognitive changes that people may experience with age. For instance, each comparison task required older adults to search for small black dots that marked the target elements. Visual search, which is the process of actively scanning the visual scene to identify a specific target among distractors, becomes slower and more error-prone with age, especially as the complexity of the visual environment increases (Becic et al., 2007). Comparing visual stimuli also relies on several cognitive functions, including working memory (WM), the mechanism responsible for the short-term simultaneous holding and manipulating information in our awareness. WM, however, declines with age, and on average, the WM of older adults is lower than that of their younger counterparts (Salthouse and Babcock, 1991). Hence, we speculate that declining WM could decrease the speed and accuracy of performing comparisons; however, it is essential to note that our study neither controlled for nor measured the impact of WM; further work is needed to understand the effects of WM among different age groups in this context. Still, the considerable differences between the performance of the young-old and the old-old in our study (Figure 9) suggest that the advancement of aging can exacerbate the performance disparities between older and younger adults. Due to our study design, the time taken to input the answer did not play a role in our measurements and can, therefore, be excluded as a possible source of differences.

We found that older adults used various strategies to perform the comparison task. We speculate that one factor that impacted participants’ strategies was the stimuli exposure time, based on remarks some participants made. For instance, P9 mentioned that “I tried to look at one [target bar]…and then the second dot [target bar], and see how tall it was. And that worked really well when things were slow. And then, when things were going faster…I tried to just kind of scan the bottom for the 2 dots and quickly look up and not focus on one versus the other, but try to see the proportion [distribution shape]” and P18 said “First I tried to see the whole thing. And when it got faster, and I couldn’t do that because it was too fast to look, and I would miss it, so I would just look at one side and just guess to see if the other one was lower or higher than that one.” Other factors, such as chart and data size, could have also influenced the strategies used to perform the task. However, further research is required to investigate these factors’ combined and isolated effects on strategy.

An important question that emerges from the findings of our study is: “Does the slower performance of older adults in interacting with glanceable visualizations on smartwatches bear practical significance in real-world situations?” Answering this question definitively necessitates further empirical examination. However, we posit that the relevance of slower performance may depend on a multifaceted interplay of factors, including the context, in which glancing occurs. Glimpsing at a smartwatch for quick insights often co-occurs with other activities, such as walking, biking, or daily chores (Pizza et al., 2016). Older adults in the study reported a much greater interest in health data than younger adults in the survey by Islam et al. (Islam et al., 2020), and health markers are often tracked on a watch during exercise. In these dynamic contexts, the extended glance duration observed in older adults might be consequential, particularly in scenarios that demand continuous attention and precise coordination. For instance, when navigating complex terrain, the interplay of visual attention and exact timing is critical; even a brief distraction could enhance the risk of falls, especially among older adults who are walking (Marigold and Patla, 2007; Yogev-Seligmann et al., 2008). The even slower performance of the old-old, particularly when compounded by more pronounced age-related physiological decline, might intensify such risks. Conversely, the additional time required to read a glanceable visualization might be negligible when an older adult is engaged in a less demanding context, such as sitting in a chair. Further studies must move beyond conjecture and deeply understand the factors influencing older adults’ performance and experience with glanceable visualizations and their tangible real-world applications. We can extend the conversation from a specific empirical finding to a broader discourse on the relationship between visualization design and utility, aging, and the human experience.

In line with the World Health Organization’s definition of older adults, as well as prevalent research practices, we set the starting chronological age for recruiting participants in our study at 65. However, our breakdown analysis of the young-old (age 65-74) and old-old participants (age $\geq 75$) showed notable performance differences between the two groups (Figure 9). This observation raises a critical question regarding visualization research involving older adults: “Who should we consider as older adults in the context of visualization research?” The heterogeneity of the older adult population is a well-known phenomenon. While aging is a shared experience, the onset and intensity of age-related physiological changes differ among individuals (Hofer et al., 2003; Ylikoski et al., 1999). Therefore, defining an age range that classifies older adults is challenging and debatable. We need mechanisms that enable us to enhance the internal and external validity of the experiments by recruiting samples that more accurately represent the older adult demographic. This might entail the creation of more systematic approaches to participant recruitment in visualization studies that assess core elements such as perception, cognition, and motor control. Pre-existing psychophysics exams like the mini-mental state test (Schatz, 2018) could serve as blueprints for crafting analogous assessments in the field of visualization. In the absence of standardized protocols, and drawing from the findings of this study, we strongly recommend that researchers interested in studying older adults embrace a comprehensive age range in their recruitment, with particular emphasis on including an ample number of participants from the older and more advanced age categories. This is crucial to enhance the probability of observing and accurately measuring the impact of age-related changes in their studies. A failure to secure a representative population could increase the risk of type-I and type-II errors, leading to erroneous insights and conclusions. For instance, if we had solely recruited participants aged 60-74, we may have falsely inferred that no noteworthy differences exist between older and younger adults—an assertion contradicted by our age $\geq 75$ results.

In the course of running this study, we made two adjustments to the study design and procedure. First, we allowed participants to exit the Radial  24 condition if performing trials became too cumbersome for them, and second, we replaced the keyboard with two separate keys (see Section 4 for details). Typically, changing the study protocol is not advised to preserve the integrity of the experimental conditions across participants. However, our experience in this study, and also evidence from prior work (Moore and Miller, 1999; Roller and Lavrakas, 2015), suggest that methodological flexibility might be required when working with vulnerable populations. Participation in studies can cause anxiety in older adults for many reasons, such as misunderstanding the goals of the researcher, fatigue, and cognitive difficulty, which can lead to increased difficulty in finding participants (McHenry et al., 2015). This recognition brings to light a critical consideration for researchers: the ethical imperative of balancing scientific rigor with human compassion and understanding. Hodge et al. (Hodge et al., 2020) touch on a related topic, spotlighting the ethical issues that can arise with people while working in dementia research. It reminds us that study designs must not only be methodologically sound but also adaptable to the unique needs and challenges different populations face. It also opens up further research questions concerning the recruitment and retention of older adults. How can researchers establish trust and alleviate potential anxieties? What additional support mechanisms might be necessary to ensure the comfort and understanding of participants from varying age groups? These considerations emphasize the interconnected nature of research design, ethics, and the potential to contribute meaningfully to the lives of the individuals involved.

The primary objective of our study was to investigate and assess the graphical perception of older adults in the context of glanceable visualization. Drawing on our findings, we also offer preliminary suggestions to assist visualization designers working on glanceable visualizations for older adults.

Our current knowledge of empirically derived glanceable visualization design guidelines for older adults is lacking. To address this issue, further work is needed to examine a broader range of glanceable visualizations and analysis tasks.