Do grables enable the extraction of quantitative information better than pure graphs or tables?

International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics

Volumn 22, Issue 6, 1998, Pages 439-447

  Hink, Jessica K ^a   Eustace, Jason K ^b   S Wogalter, Michael ^a  

^a NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b AMERICAN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Comprehension; Graphical display; Information display; Quantitative information display; Visual displays

Indexed keywords

DESIGN; DISPLAY DEVICES; GRAPHIC METHODS; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL;

GRABLES; TABLES;

INFORMATION RETRIEVAL SYSTEMS;

ARTICLE; COMPREHENSION; DISPLAY SYSTEM; INFORMATION; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; VISUAL DISPLAY UNIT;

EID: 0032400743     PISSN: 01698141     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0169-8141(97)00017-6     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. American Psychological Association (APA), 1994. Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 4th ed. Washington, DC.
2. Bennett B., Flach J. Graphical displays: implications for divided attention, focused attention, and problem solving. Human Factors. 34:1992;513-533.
3. Carswell C.M. Choosing specifiers: an evaluation of the basic tasks model of graphical perception. Human Factors. 34:1992;535-554.
4. Cleveland W.S., McGill R. Graphical perception: theory, experimentation, and application to the development of graphical methods. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 79:1984;531-554.
5. Coll R., Thyagarajan A., Chopra S. An experimental study comparing the effectiveness of computer graphics data verses computer tabular data. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. 21:1991;897-899.
6. Croxton F.E. Further studies in the graphics use of circles and bars II: some additional data. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 22:1927;36-39.
7. Croxton F.E., Stein H. Graphic comparison by bars, squares, circles and cubes. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 27:1932;54-60.
8. Croxton F.E., Stryker R.E. Bar charts versus circle diagrams. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 22:1927;473-482.
9. Culbertson H.M., Powers R.D. A study of graph comprehension difficulty. Audio-visual Communication Review. 7:1959;97-100.
10. Eells W.C. The relative merits of circles and bars for representing component parts. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 21:1926;119-132.
11. Ehrenberg Data reduction: Analyzing and Interpreting Statistical Data. 1975;Wiley, New York.
12. Henry G.T. Using graphical displays for evaluation data. Evaluation Review. 17:1993;60-78.
13. Hink, J.K., Wogalter, M.S., Eustace, J.K., 1996. Display of quantitative information: are grables better than plain graphs or tables? Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 40th Annual Meeting, pp. 1155-1159.
14. Hollands J.G., Spence I. Judgments of change and proportion in graphical perception. Human Factors. 34:1992;313-334.
15. Kosslyn S.M. Elements of Graph Design. 1994;W.H. Freeman, New York.
16. Kruswald W.H. Visions of maps and graphs. Kavaliunas J. AutoCartoII, Proceeding of the International Symposium on Computer Assisted Cartography. 1975;27-36 US Bureau of the Census and American Congress on Survey and Mapping, Washington DC.
17. MacDonald-Ross M. How numbers are shown: a review of research on the presentation of quantitative data in texts. Audio-visual Communication Review. 25:1977;359-407.
18. Mahon B.H. Statistics and decisions: the importance of communication and the power for graphical presentation. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A. 140:1977;298-320.
19. Peterson L.V., Schramm W. How accurately are different kinds of graphs read? Audio-visual Communication Review. 2:1955;178-189.
20. Pinker S. A theory of graph comprehension. Freedle R. Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Testing. 1990;73-126 Lawrence Erlbaum, New Jersey.
21. Playfair, W., 1786. The Commercial and Political Atlas. London.
22. Powers M., Lashley C., Sanchez P., Shneiderman B. An experimental comparison of tabular and graphic data presentation. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies. 20:1984;545-566.
23. Sanderson P.M., Flach J.M., Buttigieg M.A., Casey E.J. Object displays do not always support better integrated task performance. Human Factors. 31:1989;183-198.
24. Schmid C.F. Statistical Graphics. 1983;Wiley, New York.
25. Schutz H. An evaluation of formats for graphic trend displays: Experiment II. Human Factors. 3:1961;237-246.
26. Simkins D., Hastie R. An information processing analysis of graph perception. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 82:1987;454-465.
27. Spence I., Lewandowsky S. Displaying proportions and percentages. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 5:1991;61-77.
28. Tufte E.R. The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. 1983;Graphics Press, Chesire, CT.
29. Von Huhn R. Further studies in the graphic use of circles and bars: a discussion of Eels experiment. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 22:1927;31-36.
30. Wainer H., Thissen D. Plotting in the modern world: Statistical packages and good graphics. Chance. 1:1988;10-20.
31. Washburne, J.N., 1927. An experimental study of various graphic, tabular and textual methods of presenting quantitative materials. Journal of Educational Psychology 18, 361-376, 465-476.
32. Wickens C.D. Engineering Psychology and Human Performance. 1992;Harper Collins, New York.
33. Wickens, C., Andre, A., 1990a. Proximity compatibility and the object display. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 32 Annual Meeting. Human Factors Society, Santa Monica, CA, pp. 1335-1339.
34. Wickens C., Andre A. Proximity compatibility and display: effects of color, space, and objectness on information integration. Human Factors. 32:1990;61-77.