This article provides guidelines for presenting quantitative data in papers for publication. The article begins with a reader-centered design philosophy that distills the maxim “know thy user” into three components: (a) know your users′ tasks, (b) know the operations supported by your displays, and (c) match user's operations to the ones supported by your display. Next, factors affecting the decision to present data in text, tables, or graphs are described: the amount of data, the readers′ informational needs, and the value of visualizing the data. The remainder of the article outlines the design decisions required once an author has selected graphs as the data presentation medium. Decisions about the type of graph depend on the readers′ experience and informational needs as well as characteristics of the independent (predictor) variables and the dependent (criterion) variable. Finally, specific guidelines for the design of graphs are presented. The guidelines were derived from empirical studies, analyses of graph readers′ tasks, and practice-based design guidelines. The guidelines focus on matching the specific sensory, perceptual, and cognitive operations required to read a graph to the operations that the graph supports.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Gillan, D. J., & Lewis, R. (1994). A componential model of human interaction with graphs: I. Linear regression modeling.. Human Factors, 36, 419–440.
2.
Hink, J. K., Wogalter, M. S., & Eustace, J. K. (1996). Display of quantitative information: Are grables better than plain graphs or tables? In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 40th Annual Meeting (pp. 1155–1159). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
3.
Larkin, J. & Simon, H. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth 10,000 words.. Cognitive Science, 4, 317–345.
4.
Loftus, G. R. (1993). Visual data representation and hypothesis testing in the microcomputer age.. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 25, 250–256.
5.
Lohse, G. L. (1993). A cognitive model for understanding graphical perception.. Human-Computer Interaction, 8, 313–334.
6.
Pinker, S. (1990). A theory of graph comprehension. In R. Freedle (Ed.), Artificial intelligence and the future of testing (pp. 73–126). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
7.
Simkin, D. & Hastie, R. (1987). An information processing analysis of graph perception.. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 82, 454–465.
8.
Stevens, S. S. (1975). Psychophysics: Introduction to its perceptual, neural, and social prospects. New York: Wiley.
9.
Wickens, C. D. (1992). The human factors of graphs at HFS annual meetings. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Bulletin, 35(7), 1–3.
10.
Carswell, C. M. (1992). Reading graphs: Interactions of processing requirements and stimulus structure. In B. Burns (Ed.), Percepts, concepts, and categories (pp. 605–645). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
11.
Cleveland, W. S. (1985). The elements of graphing data. Monterey, CA: Wadsworth.
12.
Cleveland, W. S., & McGill, R. (1984). Graphical perception: Theory, experimentation, and application to the development of graphic methods.. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 70, 531–555.
13.
Gurthrie, J. T., Weber, S. & Keimmerly, N. (1993). Searching documents: Cognitive processes and deficits in understanding graphs, tables, and illustrations.. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18, 186–221.
14.
Hollands, J. G., & Spence, I. (1992). Judgments of change and proportion in graphical perception.. Human Factors, 34, 313–334.
15.
Kosslyn, S. M. (1989). Understanding charts and graphs.. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 3, 185–225.
16.
Tan, J. K. H., & Benbasat, I. (1990). Processing of graphical information: A decomposition taxonomy to match data extraction tasks and graphical representations.. Information Systems Research, 1, 416–439.
17.
Wickens, C. D., & Carswell, C. M. (1995). The proximity compatibility principle: Its psychological foundation and relevance to display design.. Human Factors, 37, 473–494.
18.
Winn, W. (1994). Contributions of perceptual and cognitive processes to the comprehension of graphics. In W. Schnotz and R. W. Kulhavy (Eds.), Comprehension of graphics (pp. 3–27). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
19.
Barfield, W. & Robless, R. (1989). The effect of two- and three-dimensional graphics on the problem-solving performance of experienced and novice decision makers.. Behaviour and Information Technology, 8, 369–385.
20.
Bennett, K. B., Toms, M. L., & Woods, D. D. (1993). Emergent features and graphical elements: Designing more effective configural displays.. Human Factors, 35, 71–97.
21.
Carswell, C. M. (1992). Choosing specifiers: An evaluation of the basic tasks model of graphical perception.. Human Factors, 34, 535–554.
22.
Carswell, C. M., Frankenberger, S. & Bernhard, D. (1991). Graphing in depth: Perspectives on the use of three-dimensional graphs to represent lower-dimensional data.. Behavior and Information Technology, 10, 459–474.
23.
Carswell, C. M., & Ramzy, C. (1997). Graphing small data sets: Should we bother?. Behaviour and Information Technology, 16, 61–71.
24.
Carswell, C. M., & Wickens, C. D. (1987). Information integration and the object display: An interaction of task demands and display superiority.. Ergonomics, 30, 511–527.
25.
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.
26.
Carter, L. F. (1947). An experiment on the design of tables and graphs used for presenting numerical data.. Journal of Applied Psychology, 31, 640–650.
27.
Casali, J. G., & Gaylin, K. B. (1989). Selected graph design variables in four interpretation tasks: A microcomputer-based pilot study.. Behaviour and Information Technology, 7, 31–49.
28.
Casner, S. (1991). A task-analytic approach to the automated design of graphic presentations.. ACM Transactions of Graphics, 10, 111–151.
29.
Clevelend, W. S., & McGill, R. (1985). Graphical perception and graphical methods for analyzing scientific data.. Science, 229, 828–833.
30.
Coury, B. G., & Boulette, M. D. (1993). Time stress and the processing of visual displays.. Human Factors, 34, 707–726.
31.
Coury, B. G., & Purcell, J. (1988). The bargraph as a configural and separable display. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 32nd Annual Meeting (pp. 1361–1365). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
32.
Culbertson, H. M., & Powers, R. D. (1959). A study of graph comprehension difficulties.. A/V Communication Review, 7, 97–110.
33.
DeSanctis, G. (1984). Computer graphics as decision aids: Directions for research.. Decision Sciences, 15, 463–487.
34.
Gillan, D. J., & Neary, M. (1992). A componential model of human interaction with graphs: II. The effect of distance between graphical elements. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 36th Annual Meeting (pp. 365–368). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
35.
Gillan, D. J., & Richman, E. (1994). Minimalism and the syntax of graphs.. Human Factors, 36, 619–644.
36.
Goettl, B. P., Kramer, A. F., & Wickens, C. D. (1991). Integrated displays and the perception of graphical data.. Ergonomics, 34, 1047–1063.
37.
Hollands, J. G. (1992). Alignment, scaling, and size effects in discrimination of graphical elements. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 36th Annual Meeting (pp. 1393–1397). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
38.
Hurts, C. M. M. (1996). The effectiveness of configurality in statistical graphs: A task-oriented approach. In H. Zwaga, T. Boersma, & H. C. M. Hoonhout (Eds.), Public graphics (pp. 1–8). London: Taylor & Francis.
39.
Jarvenpaa, S. L. (1989). The effect of task demands and graphical format on information processing strategies.. Management Science, 35, 285–303.
40.
Lauer, T. W., & Post, G. V. (1989). Density in scatterplots and the estimation of correlation.. Behaviour and Information Technology, 8, 235–244.
41.
Legge, G. E., Gu, Y. & Luebker, A. (1991). Efficiency of graphical perception. In S. R. Ellis (Ed.), Pictorial communication in virtual and real environments (pp. 111–130). London: Taylor & Francis.
42.
MacGregor, D. & Slovic, P. (1986). Graphic representation of judgmental information.. Human-Computer Interaction, 2, 179–200.
43.
Maichle, U. (1994). Cognitive processes in understanding line graphs. In W. Schnotz & R. W. Kulhavy (Eds.), Comprehension of graphics (pp. 207–225). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
44.
Meyer, J. & Shinar, D. (1992). Estimating correlations from scatterplots.. Human Factors, 34, 335–349.
45.
Milroy, R. & Poulton, E. C. (1978). Labelling graphs for increased reading speed.. Ergonomics, 21, 55–61.
46.
Nowicki, J. R., & Coury, B. G. (1993). Individual differences in processing strategy for a bargraph display. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 37th Annual Meeting (pp. 1315–1319). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
47.
Peterson, L. & Schramm, W. (1954). How accurately are different kinds of graphs read?. A/V Communication Review, 2, 178–189.
48.
Poulton, E. C. (1985). Geometric illusions in reading graphs.. Perception and Psychophysics, 37, 543–548.
49.
Powers, M., Lashley, C., Sanchez, P. & Shneiderman, B. (1984). An experimental comparison between tabular and graphic data presentation.. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 20, 545–566.
50.
Preece, J. (1983). Graphs are not straightforward. In T. R. G. Green, S. J. Payne, & G. C. van der Veer (Eds.), The psychology of computer use (pp. 41–56). New York: Academic.
51.
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.
52.
Sanderson, P. M., Haskell, I. & Flach, J. (1992). The complex role of perceptual organization in visual display design theory.. Ergonomics, 35, 1199–1219.
53.
Schutz, H. (1961a). An evaluation of formats for graphic trend displays — Experiment II.. Human Factors, 3, 99–107.
54.
Schutz, H. (1961b). An evaluation of methods for presentation of graphic multiple trends — Experiment III.. Human Factors, 3, 108–119.
55.
Shah, P. & Carpenter, P. A. (1995). Conceptual limitations in comprehending line graphs.. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 43–61.
56.
Sparrow, J. A. (1989). Graphical displays in information systems: Some data properties influencing the effectiveness of alternative forms.. Behaviour and Information Technology, 8, 43–56.
57.
Spence, I. (1990). Visual psychophysics of simple graphical elements.. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, 683–692.
58.
Spence, I. & Lewandowsky, S. (1990). Graphical perception. In J. Fox & J. S. Long (Eds.), Modern methods of data analysis (pp. 13–57). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
59.
Spence, I. & Lewandowsky, S. (1991). Displaying proportions and percentages.. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5, 61–77.
60.
Tan, J. K. H., & Benbasat, I. (1993). The effectiveness of graphical presentation for information extraction: A cumulative experimental approach.. Decision Sciences, 24, 167–191.
61.
Tversky, B. (1991). Distortions in memory for visual displays. In S. R. Ellis (Ed.), Pictorial communication in virtual and real environments (pp. 61–75). London: Taylor & Francis.
62.
Tversky, B. & Schiano, D. J. (1989). Perceptual and cognitive factors in distortions in memory for graphs and maps.. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, 387–398.
63.
Washburne, J. (1927). An experimental study of various graphic, tabular and textual methods of presenting quantitative material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 18, 361–376, 465–476.
64.
Wickens, C. D., LaClair, M., Sarno, K. (1995). Graph-task dependencies in three-dimensional data: Influence on three-dimensionality and color. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 39th Annual Meeting (pp. 1420–1424). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
65.
Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Dickson, G. W. (1988). Graphics and managerial decision making: Research-based guidelines.. Communications of the ACM, 31, 764–774.
66.
Kosslyn, S. M. (1994). Elements of graph design. New York: Freeman.
67.
Andrews, H. P., Snee, R. D., & Sarner, M. H. (1980). Graphical display of means.. American Statistician, 34, 195–209.
68.
Bertin, J. (1983). Semiology of graphics (W. J. Berg, Trans.). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. (Original work published 1967)
69.
Schmid, C. F. (1954). Handbook of graphic presentation. New York: Ronald.
70.
Tufte, E. R. (1983). The visual display of quantitative information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
71.
Tufte, E. R. (1990). Envisioning information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
72.
Tufte, E. R. (1997). Visual explanations. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
73.
Wainer, H. (1980). Making newspaper graphs fit to print. In P. A. Kolers, M. E. Wrolstad, & H. Bouma (Eds.), Processing of visible language (Vol. 2, pp. 125–142). New York: Plenum.
74.
Wainer, H. (1984). How to display data badly.. American Statistician, 38, 137–147.
75.
Wainer, H. & Thissen, D. (1981). Graphical data analysis. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 191–241.
