  Interaction enables users to navigate large amounts of data effectively,
supports cognitive processing, and increases data representation methods.
However, there have been few attempts to empirically demonstrate whether adding
interaction to a static visualization improves its function beyond popular
beliefs. In this paper, we address this gap. We use a classic Bayesian
reasoning task as a testbed for evaluating whether allowing users to interact
with a static visualization can improve their reasoning. Through two
crowdsourced studies, we show that adding interaction to a static Bayesian
reasoning visualization does not improve participants' accuracy on a Bayesian
reasoning task. In some cases, it can significantly detract from it. Moreover,
we demonstrate that underlying visualization design modulates performance and
that people with high versus low spatial ability respond differently to
different interaction techniques and underlying base visualizations. Our work
suggests that interaction is not as unambiguously good as we often believe; a
well designed static visualization can be as, if not more, effective than an
interactive one.
