Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Tufte (1983) proposed a measure, the data-ink ratio, and a rule that the data-ink ratio be maximized. The present research tested this rule by examining the effect of the relation between the physical features in the graph indicators and those in the background on graph reading performance. Eighteen participants performed comparison and difference tasks with bar graphs (rectangular indicators) or line graphs (circular indicators). Graphs had no background, a pictorial background containing circles, or a pictorial background containing rectangles. Accuracy was highest for the difference task when the features in the indicators and background of a graph differed. The role of preattentive processing during visual search in graph reading and the pop-out effect that occurs when background and search target features differ are discussed.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Carswell

C.M.

(1992). Choosing specifiers: An evaluation of the basic tasks model of graphical perception. Human Factors, 34, 535–554.

Casner

S.M.

(1991). A task-analytic approach to the automated design of graphic presentations. ACM Transactions of Graphics, 10, 111–151.

Gillan

D. J.

(1995). Visual arithmetic, computational graphics, and the spatial metaphor. Human Factors, 37, 766–780.

Gillan

D. J.

(2000). A componential model of human interaction with graphs: V. Using pie graphs to make comparisons. In Proceedings of the IEA 2000/HFES 2000 Congress (pp. 3–439 - 3–443). Santa Monica, CA: HFES.

Gillan

D. J.

Callahan

A. B.

(2000). A componential model of human interaction with graphs: VI. Cognitive engineering of pie graphs. Human Factors, 42, 566–591.

Gillan

D. J.

Lewis

(1994). A componential model of human interaction with graphs: I. Linear regression modeling. Human Factors, 36, 419–440.

Gillan

D. J.

Neary

(1992). A componential model of human interaction with graphs: II. Effects of distances among graphical elements. In Proceedings of Human Factors Society 36th Annual Meeting (pp. 365–368). Santa Monica, CA: HFES.

Gillan

D. J.

Richman

E. H.

(1994). Minimalism and the syntax of graphs. Human Factors, 36, 619–644.

Healey

C. G.

Booth

K. S.

Enns

J. T.

(1995). Visualizing real-time multivariate data using preattentive processing. ACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer Simulation, 3, 2, 107–135.

10.

Lohse

G. L.

(1993). A cognitive model for understanding graphical perception Human-Computer Interaction, 8, 353–388.

11.

Neisser

(1964). Visual search. Scientific American, 210(6), 94–102.

12.

Ryua

Limb

E. A. C.

Tanc

L. T. L.

Han

Y. J.

(2007). Preattentive processing of banner advertisements: The role of modality, location, and interference. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 6, 6–18.

13.

Shah

Freedman

Vekiri

(2005). The comprehension of quantitative information in graphical displays. In Shah

Miyake

, (eds.). The Cambridge handbook of visuospatial thinking (pp. 426–476). New York: Cambridge University Press.

14.

Sorensen

(1993) The psychological processes of embellished graph reading. Masters Thesis, The University of Idaho.

15.

Treisman

A.M.

Gelade

(1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97–136.

16.

Tufte

(1983). The visual display of quantitative information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.

17.

Tukey

J. W.

(1990). Data-based graphics: Visual display in the decades to come. Statistical Science, 5, 327–339.

18.

Wainer

(1984). How to display data badly. American Statistician, 38, 137–147.

19.

Yoo

Chan Yun.

(2005). Preattentive processing of Web advertising [electronic resource]. Doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin. Available electronically from http://hdl.handle.net/2152/786.

Minimalism and the Syntax of Graphs: II. Effects of Graph Backgrounds on Visual Search

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References