Expository motion graphics are dynamic visual communication devices capable of both informing and entertaining because they provide visual explanations and present narratives to an audience. This article had the goal of exploring how viewers interact with motion graphics that offer exposition and two theories were utilized to frame this inquiry: the theory of naïve realism and cognitive load theory. Each theory describes complementary aspects of the motion graphic viewing experience and a 2 x 2 experiment conducted by the author indicated that visual clutter is detrimental to the viewing experience associated with motion graphics and a viewer’s predilections about motion graphics can be altered after exposure to multiple motion graphics that vary in fidelity or representativeness. These findings have implications for journalistic applications of expository motion graphics within the contexts of online news packages and broadcast news.
AndreA.D.WickensC.D. (1995) When users want what’s not best for them. Ergonomics in Design: The Quarterly of Human Factors Applications3(4): 10–14.
2.
AustinT.DoustR. (2007) New Media Design. London: Laurence King.
3.
BaddeleyA.D. (2012) Working memory: Theories, models, and controversies. Annual Review of Psychology63: 1–29.
4.
BarnesS. (2016a) Studies in the efficacy of motion graphics: How the presentation of complex animation implicates exposition. Journal of Entertainment and Media Studies2(1): 37–76.
5.
BarnesS. (2016b) Studies in the efficacy of motion graphics: The effects of complex animation on the exposition offered by motion graphics. Animation: An Interdisciplinary Journal11(2): 146-168.
6.
BarnesS. (2017) Studies in the efficacy of motion graphics: The impact of narrative structure on exposition. Digital Journalism: Epub ahead of print 20January2017. DOI: 10.1080/21670811.2017.1279020.
7.
BednarekM. (2014) ‘And they all look just the same’? A quantitative survey of television title sequences. Visual Communication13(2): 125–145.
8.
BrackenC.C. (2005) Presence and image quality: The case of high-definition television. Media Psychology7(2): 191–205.
9.
BrinkmannR. (2008) The Art and Science of Digital Compositing: Techniques for Visual Effects, Animation and Motion Graphics. Boston, MA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
10.
BrucknerF. (2015) Hybrid image, hybrid montage: Film analytical parameters for live action/animation hybrids. animation: an interdisciplinary journal10(1): 22–41.
11.
CookM.BSmallmanH.S.RiethC.A. (2014) Increasing the effective span of control: Advanced graphics for proactive, trend-based monitoring. IIE Transactions on Occupational Ergonomics and Human Factors2(3/4): 137–151.
12.
CurranS. (2001) Motion Graphics: Graphic Design for Broadcast and Film. Gloucester, MA: Rockport.
13.
CuttingJ.E.DeLongJ.E.BrunickK.L. (2011) Visual activity in Hollywood film: 1935 to 2005 and beyond. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts5(2): 115–125.
14.
FieldA. (2009) Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
15.
FranchiF. (2013) Designing News: Changing the World of Editorial Design and Information graphics. Berlin: Gestalten.
16.
GredlerM. (2005) Learning and Instruction: Theory into Practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
17.
HeckR.HThomasS.L.TabataL.N. (2012) Multilevel Modeling of Categorical Outcomes, New York: Routledge.
18.
HegartyM. (2013) Cognition, metacognition, and the design of maps. Current Directions in Psychological Science22(1): 3–9.
19.
HegartyM.CanhamM.S.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 Cognition36(1): 37–53.
20.
HegartyM.SmallmanH.S.StullA.T. (2012) Choosing and using geospatial displays: Effects of design on performance and metacognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied18(1): 1–17.
21.
HegartyMet al (2009) Naïve cartography: How intuitions about display configuration can hurt performance. Cartographica44(3): 171–186.
22.
Johnson-LairdP.N. (1980) Mental models in cognitive science. Cognitive Science4(1): 71–115.
23.
Johnson-LairdP.N. (1996) Images, models, and propositional representations. In: De VegaMet al (eds) Models of Visuospatial Cognition. New York: Oxford University Press, 90–127.
24.
Johnson-LairdP.N. (2005) Mental models and thought. In: HolyoakK.SternbergR.J. (eds) The Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 185–208.
25.
JonesM. (2007) Vanishing point: Spatial composition and the virtual camera. animation: an interdisciplinary journal2(3): 225–243.
26.
KalyugaS. (2009) Knowledge elaboration: A cognitive load perspective. Learning and Instruction19(5): 402–410.
27.
KalyugaS. (2010) Schema acquisition and sources of cognitive load. In: PlassJ.L.et al (eds) Cognitive Load Theory: Theory and Application. New York: Cambridge University Press, 48–64.
28.
KrasnerJ.S. (2013) Motion Graphic Design: Applied History and Aesthetics. Burlington, MA: Focal Press.
29.
KrizS.HegartyM. (2007) Top-down and bottom-up influences on learning from animations. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies65(11): 911–930.
30.
LanierL. (2010) Professional Digital Compositing: Essential Tools and Techniques. Indianapolis: Wiley Publishing.
31.
LoweR.K.SchnotzW. (2008) Learning with Animation: Research Implications for Design. New York: Cambridge University Press.
32.
LoweR.K.SchnotzW. (2014) Animation principles in multimedia learning. In: MayerR.E. (ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press, 513–546.
33.
MacdonaldI. (2014) Cultural change in the creative industries: A case study of BBC graphic design from 1990–2011. Visual Communication13(1): 31–49.
34.
ManovichL. (2006) Image future. animation: an interdisciplinary journal1(1): 25–44.
35.
MartinezO.O.L. (2015) Criteria for defining animation: A revision of the definition of animation in the advent of digital moving images. animation: an interdisciplinary journal10(1): 42–57.
MillerG.A. (1956) The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review63(2): 81–97.
38.
MorenoR. (2010) Cognitive load theory: More food for thought. Instructional Science38(2): 135–141.
39.
MorenoR.ParkB. (2010) Cognitive load theory: Historical development and relation to other theories. In: PlassJ.L.et al (eds) Cognitive Load Theory: Theory and Application. New York: Cambridge University Press, 9–28.
40.
O’ MalleyC.DraperS. (1992) Representation and interaction: Are mental models all in the mind? In: RogersY.et al (eds) Models in the Mind: Theory, Perspective and Application. New York: Academic Press, 73–92.
41.
PaasF. (1992) Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology84(4): 429–434.
42.
PaasF.SwellerJ. (2014) Implication of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In: MayerR.E. (ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press, 27–42.
43.
PaasF.Van MerriënboerJ.J.G. (1993) The efficiency of instructional conditions: An approach to combine mental effort and performance measures. Human Factors35(4): 737–743.
44.
PaasF.et al (2003) Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist38(1): 63–71.
45.
RallH.M. (2013) Interview of New York Times interactive graphics editors. In: WeberWet al (eds) Interaktive Infografiken. Berlin: Springer, 251–260.
46.
RooneyB.HennessyE. (2013) Actually in the cinema: A field study comparing real 3D and 2D movie patrons’ attention, emotion, and film satisfaction. Media Psychology16(4): 441–460.
47.
RosenholtzR.LiY.NakanoL. (2007) Measuring visual clutter. Journal of Vision7(2): 1–22.
48.
SchnotzW.KürschnerC (2007) A reconsideration of cognitive load theory. Educational Psychology Review19(4): 469–508.
49.
SkjulstadS. (2007) Communication design and motion graphics on the web. Journal of Media Practice8(3): 359–378.
50.
SmallmanH.S.CookM.B. (2011) Naïve realism: Folk fallacies in the design and use of visual displays. Topics in Cognitive Science3(3): 579–608.
51.
SmallmanH.S.St. JohnM. (2005a) Naïve realism: Limits of realism as a display principle. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting200549: 1564–1568.
52.
SmallmanH.S.St. JohnM. (2005b) Naive realism: Misplaced faith in realistic displays. Ergonomics in Design: The Quarterly of Human Factors Applications13(6): 6–13.
53.
StrayerD.L.DrewsF.A. (2007) Attention. In: DursoF.T.et al (eds) Handbook of Applied Cognition. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley, 29–54.
54.
SwellerJ. (1988) Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science12(2): 257–285
55.
SwellerJ. (2010) Cognitive load theory: Recent theoretical advances. In: PlassJ.L.et al (eds) Cognitive Load Theory: Theory and Application. New York: Cambridge University Press, 29–47.
56.
TorreD. (2014) Cognitive animation theory: A process-based reading of animation and human cognition. animation: an interdisciplinary journal9(1): 47–64.
57.
TranH. (2012) Exemplification effects of multimedia enhancements. Media Psychology15(4): 396–419.
58.
Van GogT.PaasF. (2008) Instructional efficiency: Revisiting the original construct in educational research. Educational Psychologist43(1): 16–26.
59.
Van GogT.et al (2012) Timing and frequency of mental effort measurement: Evidence in favour of repeated measures. Applied Cognitive Psychology26(6): 833–839.
60.
VieraX.G. (2012) A diverse and driven crew at the New York Times. A look at one of the world’s most admired graphics desks. In: SND-E (ed.) Malofiej 19: International Infographics Awards. Pamplona: Universidad de Navarra, 52–65.
61.
WickensC.D.HollandsJ.G. (2000) Engineering Psychology and Human Performance. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
62.
WoodA. (2014) Behind the scenes: A study of Autodesk Maya. Animation: An Interdisciplinary Journal9(3): 317–332.
