With advances in information technologies, graphical displays are becoming increasingly complex and interactive, giving users flexibility to choose and design their own displays. But most people are not trained in graphic design. Do people intuitively choose or create the most effective displays for particular tasks? More generally, what defines an effective graphic? Recent research on cognition of geospatial displays (i.e., maps) has provided empirical validation of cartographic design principles. At the same time, research on metacognition has indicated that people’s preferences for displays do not always conform to the effectiveness of these displays for the task at hand. In this article, I highlight the importance of empirically testing principles of visual-display design and argue for broader education in visual literacy, including principles of graphic design.
AndreA. D.WickensC. D. (1995). When users want what’s not best for them. Ergonomics in Design, 3, 10–14.
2.
BeckM. R.LohrenzM. C.TraftonJ. G. (2010). Measuring search efficiency in complex visual search tasks: Local and global clutter. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 16, 238–250.
3.
BertinJ. (1983). Semiology of graphics (BergW. J., Trans.). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. (Original work published 1967)
4.
CanhamM.HegartyM. (2010). Effects of knowledge and display design on comprehension of complex graphics. Learning and Instruction, 20, 155–166.
5.
CarswellC. M.FrankenbergerS.BernhardD. (1991). Graphing in depth: Perspectives on the use of three-dimensional graphs to represent lower-dimensional data. Behavior & Information Technology, 10, 459–474.
6.
FabrikantS. I.Rebich-HespanhaS.HegartyM. (2010). Cognitively inspired and perceptually salient graphic displays for efficient inference making. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 100, 13–29.
7.
HegartyM.CanhamM.FabrikantS. I. (2010). Thinking about the weather: How display salience and knowledge affect performance in a graphic inference task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 37–53.
8.
HegartyM.SmallmanH. S.StullA. T. (2012). Choosing and using geospatial displays: Effects of design on performance and metacognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 18, 1–17.
9.
HegartyM.SmallmanH. S.StullA. T.CanhamM. (2009). Naïve cartography: How intuitions about display configuration can hurt performance. Cartographica, 44, 171–187.
10.
HullmanJ.AdarE.ShahP. (2011). Benefitting infovis with visual difficulties. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 17, 2213–2222.
11.
KosslynS. (2006). Graph design for the eye and mind. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
12.
LansdaleM.UnderwoodG.DaviesC. (2010). Something overlooked? How experts in change detection use visual saliency. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24, 213–225.
13.
LloydR.SteinkeT. (1977). Visual and statistical comparison of choropleth maps. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 67, 429–436.
14.
LoweR. K. (2003). Animation and learning: Selective processing of information in dynamic graphics. Learning and Instruction, 13, 157–176.
15.
MacEachrenA. M. (1995). How maps work. New York, NY: Guilford.
16.
MackinlayJ.HanrahanP.StolteC. (2007). Show me: Automatic presentation for visual analysis. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 5, 110–141.
17.
NewcombeN. (2006). A plea for spatial literacy. Chronicle of Higher Education, 52, B20.
18.
PeeblesD.ChengP. C. (2003). Modeling the effect of task and graphical representation on response latency in a graph reading task. Human Factors, 45, 28–46.
19.
RatwaniR. M.TraftonJ. G.Boehm-DavisD. A. (2008). Thinking graphically: Connecting vision and cognition during graph comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14, 36–49.
20.
SanfeyA.HastieR. (1998). Does evidence presentation format affect judgment? An experimental evaluation of displays of data for judgments. Psychological Science, 9, 99–103.
21.
ScaifeM.RogersY. (1996). External cognition: How do graphical representations work?International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 45, 185–213.
22.
SmallmanH. S.HegartyM. (2007, October1–5). Expertise, spatial ability and intuition in the use of complex displays. In Proceedings of the 51st Annual Conference of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (pp. 200–204), Baltimore, MD.
23.
SmallmanH. S.St. JohnM. (2005). Naïve realism: Misplaced faith in realistic displays. Ergonomics in Design, 13, 14–19.
24.
St. JohnM.CowenM. B.SmallmanH. S.OonkH. M. (2001). The use of 2-D and 3-D displays for shape understanding versus relative position tasks. Human Factors, 43, 79–98.
25.
TufteE. T. (1983). The visual display of quantitative information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
26.
WainerH.HambletonR. K.MearaK. (1999). Alternative displays for communicating NAEP results: A redesign and validity study. Journal of Educational Measurement, 36, 301–335.
27.
WickensC. D.CarswellM. (1995). The proximity compatibility principle: Its psychological foundation and relevance to display design. Human Factors, 37, 473–494.
28.
YehM.WickensC. D. (2001). Attentional filtering in the design of electronic map displays: A comparison of color coding, intensity coding, and decluttering techniques. Human Factors, 43, 543–562.
29.
ZacksJ.LevyE.TverskyB.SchianoD. J. (1998). Reading bar graphs: Effects of extraneous depth cues and graphical context. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 4, 119–138.
