Spatial Distribution and Integrated Information Display: Effects on Memory for Rapidly Changing Information

Abstract

One symptom of the digital revolution has been the rapid proliferation of information displays on everything from consumer products to automotive dashboards. As devices get smaller and displays are placed in environments where real-estate is at a premium, new methods for representing large quantities of information in small spaces must be developed. In a recent panel discussion on the topic of compact information displays, Christoffersen (1998) raised a dichotomy between “single-sensor-single-indicator” (SSSI) displays (Goodstein, 1981; Vicente and Rasmussen, 1990) and integrated displays. In integrated displays, users pull separate values on each of several variable from a single location on the display. The advantages of integrated displays have been attributed to a number of design factors, but we wondered whether the simple attribute of spatial proximity might account for some of the benefits. To study spatial proximity issues in the lab, we looked at participants abilities to monitor and keep track of the current states of rapidly changing variables that were presented in tight physical proximity vs spatially separated, with each variable presented in a unique location. Our results provide further evidence that there are task contexts in which display integration may not be the appropriate design decision.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bennet

K.B.

Flach

J.M.

(1992). Graphical displays: Implications for divided attention, focused attention, and problem solving. Human Factors, 34, 513–533.

Carswell

C.M.

Wickens

C.D.

(1990). The perceptual interaction of graphical attributes: Configurality, stimulus homogeneity, and object integration. Perception and Psychophysics, 47, 157–168.

Christopherson

(1998). Assessing the state of the art in integrated displays. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 42^nd Annual Meeting (pp 400–403). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

Detweiler

M. C.

Hess

S. M.

Ellis

R. D.

(1996). The effects of display layout on keeping-track of visual-spatial information. In Rogers

W.A.

Fisk

A.D.

Walker

(Eds.), Aging and skilled performance: Advances in theory and applications (pp.157–184). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hess

S. M.

Detweiler

M. C.

Ellis

R.D.

(1994). The effects of display layout on monitoring and updating system states. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (pp. 1336–1339). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

Miller

L.C.

Warm

J.S.

Dember

W.N.

Schumsky

D.A.

(1998). Sustained attention and feature-integrative displays. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 42^nd Annual Meeting (pp 1585–1589). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

Sanderson

P.M.

Flach

J.M.

Buttigieg

M.A.

Casey

E.J.

(1989). Object displays do not always support better integrated task performance. Human Factors, 31, 183–198.

Venturino

(1998). Interference and information organization in keeping track of continually changing information. Human Factors, 39(4), 532–539.

Yntema

D.B.

(1963). Keeping track of several things at once. Human Factors, 5, 7–17.

10.

Yntema

D.B.

Mueser

G.E.

(1960). Remembering the present states of a number of variables. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 18–22.

11.

Yntema

D.B.

Mueser

G.E.

(1962). Keeping track of variables that have few or many states. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 391–395.