Perceptual Characteristics of Computerized Program Visualizations can Differentially Affect Detection and Localization Performance

Abstract

Program visualizations (PVs) are sometimes less effective in teaching computer algorithms than desired. One reason may be that PV designers have largely ignored the users' perceptual capabilities. We examined perceptual characteristics of bar displays, similar to those used in teaching sorting algorithms. Within each experimental condition we varied the number of bars displayed, number of flashing cues, number of bars changing height, and whether bars were labeled. Across experimental conditions we examined placement of bars within the visual field and whether bar profiles were fixed or varied from trial to trial. Thirty-six university students participated. Bars placed in peripheral locations can harm performance because of human retinal eccentricity effects. Moreover, many perceptual characteristics that help localization of critical changes (e.g., labels and cues) do not help detection, whereas some that help detection (e.g., 2 simultaneous changes) hurt localization. Our results suggest that consideration of both users' perceptual capabilities and tasks may improve effectiveness of PVs.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ball

K.K.

Beard

B.L.

Roenker

D.L.

Miller

R.L.

Griggs

D.S.

(1988)). Age and visual serch: Expanding the useful field of view. Journal of the Optical Society of America, A, 5, 2210–2219.

Davis

E.T.

Palmer

(2004). Visual search and attention: An overview. Spatial Vision, 17, 249–255.

Davis

E.T.

Shikano

Main

Hailston

Michel

R.K.

Sathian

(2006). Mirror-image symmetry and search asymmetry: A comparison of their effects on visual search and a possible unifying explanation. Vision Research, 46, 1263–1281.

Denning

P.J

(1989). A debate on teaching computer science. Communications of the ACM, 32, 1397–1414.

Geisler

W.S.

Chou

K.L.

(1995). Separation of low-level and high-level factors in complex tasks: Visual search. Psychological Review, 102, 356–378.

Graham

N.V.G.

(1989). Visual Pattern Analyzers. New York: Oxford.

Hamilton-Taylor

A.G.

Kraemer

(2002). Designing an algorithm animation system to support instructional tasks. International Multimedia Electronic Journal of Computer-Enhanced Learning (IMEJ). http://imej.wfu.edu/articles/2002/2/04/index.asp.

Hansen

S.R.

Narayanan

N.H.

Schrimpsher

(2000). Helping learners visualize and comprehend algorithms. Interactive Multimedia Electronic Journal of Computer-Enhanced Learning, 1.

Hundhausen

C.D.

Doughlas

S.A.

Stasko

J.T.

(2002). A meta-study of algorithm visualization effectiveness. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, 13, 259–290.

10.

Lawrence

A.W.

Badre

A.M.

Stasko

J.T.

(1994). Empirically evaluating the use of animations to teach algorithms. Proceedings of the 1994 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages, pp. 48–54.

11.

Mulholland

P.A.

(1998). A principled approach to the evaluation of SV: A case study in Prolog. In Brown

Dominique

Price

Stasko

(Eds.), Software Visualization: Programming as a Multimedia Experience (pp. 439–452. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

12.

Palmer

Verghese

Pavel

(2000). The psychophysics of visual search. Vision Research, 40, 1227–1268.

13.

Price

(1990). A framework for the automatic animation of concurrent programs. Unpublished master's thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, Canada.

14.

Shaw

M.L.

(1980). Identifying attentional and decision-making components in information processing. In Nickerson

(Ed.), Attention and Performance, VIII. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

15.

Stasko

J.T.

Badre

Lewis (1993). Do algorithm animations assist learning? An empirical study and analysis. Proceedings of ACM INTERCHI 1993 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 61–66). New York: ACM.

16.

Treisman

(1993). The perception of features and objects. In Baddeley

Weiskrantz

(Eds.), Attention, Selection, Awareness, and Control (pp. 6–34. Oxford: Clarendon.

17.

Tudoreanu

M.E.

Hamilton-Taylor

Kraemer

(2002). Empirical evidence that algorithm animation promotes understanding of distributed computations. IEEE Symposia on Human Centric Computing, Language, and Environments, pp. 236–243.