Two experiments assessed the relative efficiency of line graphs, bar graphs, and tables, applying a multiple-factors approach to study the effects of the type of the required information, the complexity of the data, and the user's familiarity with the display. information extraction tasks included reading exact values, comparing values, identifying trends, and reading maximum values. Tables led to faster responses for all tasks, and the accuracy for tables was equally high or higher than for graphs. Bar graphs and line graphs differed in their relative efficiency for the different tasks. The complexity of the data also affected the tasks differentially, as did prior familiarity with the display. Performance for most conditions improved with experience. Our findings demonstrate the benefits of a multiple-factors approach to the study of displays. Generalizations about the relative efficiency of displays and computational models of the task performance with displays must consider the various relevant factors if they are to serve as valid design aids.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Statistical Association Style Guide. (1986). American Statistician, 40, 80–87.
2.
Barfield, W., & Robless, R. (1989). The effects of two- and three-dimensional graphics on the problem-solving performance of experienced and novice decision makers. Behavior & information Technology, 8, 369–385.
3.
Benbasat, I., & Schroeder, R. G. (1977). An experimental investigation of some MIS design variables. MIS Quarterly, I, 37–49.
4.
Carswell, C. M. (1991). Boutique data graphics: Perspectives on using depth to embellish data displays. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 35th Annual Meeting (pp. 1532–1536). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
5.
Casall, J. G., & Gaylin, K. B. (1988). Selected graph design variables in four interpretation tasks: A microcomputer-based pilot study. Behavior & Information Technology, 7, 31–49.
6.
Christ, R. E., & Corso, G. M. (1983). The effects of extended practice on the evaluation of visual display codes. Human Factors, 25, 71–84.
7.
Cleveland, W. S., & McGill, R. (1984). Graphical perception: Theory, experimentation and application to the development of graphical methods. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 79, 531–554.
8.
Cleveland, W. S., & McGill, R. (1986). An experiment in graphical perception. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 25, 491–500.
9.
DeSanctis, G. (1984). Computer graphics as decision aids: Directions for research. Decision Sciences, 15, 463–487.
10.
Gillan, D. J., & Lewis, R. (1994). A componential model of human interaction with graphs: I. Linear regression modeling. Human Factors, 36, 419–440.
11.
Gillan, D. J., & Neary, M. (1992). A componential model of human interaction with graphs: II. Effects of the distances among graphical elements. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 36th Annual Meeting (pp 365–368). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
12.
Hollands, J. G., & Spence, I. (1992). Judgment of change and proportion in graphical perception. Human Factors, 34, 313–334.
13.
Kosslyn, S. M. (1985). Graphics and human information processing. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 180, 449–512.
14.
Kosslyn, S. M. (1989). Understanding charts and graphs. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 3, 185–226.
15.
Kosslyn, S. M. (1994). Elements of graph design. New York: Freeman & Co.
16.
Lohse, J. (1991). A cognitive model for the perception and understanding of graphs. In Human Factors in Computing Systems-Reaching Through Technology, CHI VI Conference Proceedings (pp. 137–144). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
17.
Lucas, H. C. (1981). An experimental investigation of the use of computer-based graphics in decision making. Management Science, 27, 757–768.
18.
Lucas, H. C, & Nielsen, N. R. (1980). The impact of the mode of information presentation on learning and performance. Management Science, 26, 982–993.
19.
Meyer, J., & Shinar, D. (1992). Estimating correlations from scatter plots. Human Factors, 34, 335–349.
20.
Powers, M., Lashley, C,Sanchez, P., & Shneiderman, B. (1984). An experimental comparison of tabular and graphic data representations. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 20, 545–566.
21.
Schutz, H. G. (1961a). An evaluation of formats for graphic trend displays-Experiment II. Human Factors, 3, 99–107.
22.
Schutz, H. G. (1961b). An evaluation of methods for presentation of graphic multiple trends-Experiment IIIHuman Factors, 3, 108–119.
23.
Simkin, D., & Hastie, R. (1987). An information-processing analysis of graph perception. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 82, 454–465.
24.
Sparrow, J. A. (1989). Graphical displays in information systems: Some data properties influencing the effectiveness of alternative forms. Behavior & Information Technology, 8, 43–56.
25.
Spence, I., & Lewandowsky, S. (1991). Displaying proportions and percentages. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5, 61–77.
26.
Thomas, J. (1991). Suggestions for MIS research in information presentation. In J. M. Carey (Ed.), Human factors in information systems: An organizational perspective (pp. 219–231). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
27.
Wickens, C. D., & Andre, A. D. (1990). Proximity compatibility and information display: Effects of color, space, and object-ness on information integration. Human Factors, 32, 61–77.
28.
Wickens, C. D., Merwin, D. H., & Lin, E. L. (1994). Implications of graphics enhancement for the visualization of scientific data: Dimensional integrality, stereopsis, motion, and mesh. Human Factors, 36, 44–61.
