Information structure and the relative efficacy of tables and graphs

Human Factors

Volumn 41, Issue 4, 1999, Pages 570-587

  Meyer, Joachim ^a   Shamo, Marcia Kuskin ^b   Gopher, Daniel ^b  

^a BEN GURION UNIVERSITY OF THE NEGEV   (Israel)

^b TECHNION ISRAEL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Israel)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPUTER GRAPHICS; DECISION MAKING; INFORMATION PROCESSING; PREDICTION; STRUCTURE ANALYSIS; TASK PERFORMANCE;

EID: 0033510580     PISSN: 00187208     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1518/001872099779656707     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Andre, A. D., & Wickens, C. D. (1995, October). When users want what's not best for them. Ergonomics in Design, 10-14.
2. Carswell, C. M. (1992a). Reading graphs: Interactions of processing requirements and stimulus structure. In B. Burns (Ed.), Percepts, concepts, and categories. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
3. Carswell, C. M. (1992b). Choosing specifiers: An evaluation of the basic tasks model of graphical perception. Human Factors, 34, 535-554.
4. Carswell, C. M., & Ramzy, C. (1997). Graphing small data sets: Should we bother? Behaviour & Information Technology, 16, 61-71.
5. 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.
6. Carter, L. F. (1948). The relative effectiveness of presenting numerical data by the use of tables and graphs. In P. M. Fitts (Ed.), Psychological research on equipment design (pp. 65-72). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
7. Christofferson, K., Hunter, C. N., & Vicente, K. J. (1996). A longitudinal study of the effects of ecological interface design on skill acquisition. Human Factors, 38, 523-541.
8. 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.
9. Coll, R. A., Coll, J. H., & Thakur, G. (1994). Graphs and tables: A four-factor experiment. Communications of the ACM, 37(4), 77-86.
10. Coll, R., Thyagarajan, A., & Chopra, S. (1991). An experimental study comparing the effectiveness of computer graphics data versus computer tabular data. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 21, 897-900.
11. DeSanctis, G. (1984). Computer graphics as decision aids: Directions for research. Decision Sciences, 15, 463-487.
12. DeSanctis, G., & Jarvenpaa, S. L. (1989). Graphical presentation of accounting data for financial forecasting: An experimental investigation. Accounting Organizations and Society, 14, 509-525.
13. Dickson, G. W., DeSanctis, G., & McBride, D. J. (1986). Understanding the effectiveness of computer graphics for decision support: A cumulative experimental approach. Communications of the ACM, 29 (1), 40-47.
14. Effken, J. A., Kim, N.-G., & Shaw, R. E. (1997). Making the constraints visible: Testing the ecological approach to interface design. Ergonomics, 40, 1-27.
15. Gillan, D. J., & Lewis, R. (1994). A componential model of human interaction with graphs: 1. Linear regression modeling. Human Factors, 36, 419-440.
16. 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.
17. Hansen, J. P. (1995). Representation of system invariants by optical invariants in configurai displays for process control. In P. Hancock, J. Flach, J. Caird, & K. Vicente (Eds.), Local applications of the ecological approach to human-machine systems (pp. 208-233). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
18. Hwang, M. I. H., & Wu, B. J. P. (1990). The effectiveness of computer graphics for decision support: A meta-analytical integration of research findings. Data Base, 21 (2 & 3), 11-20.
19. Jacobs, B. (1994). Graphische vs. Tabellarische praesentation von statistische Daten (Presentation of statistical data: Graphics vs. tables). Zeitschrift fuer Paedagogische Psychologie, 8, 73-87.
20. Jarvenpaa, S. L., (1990). Graphic displays in decision making - The visual salience effect. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 3 (6), 247-262.
21. Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Dickson, G. W. (1988). Graphics and managerial decision making: Research based guidelines. Communications of the ACM, 31, 764-774.
22. Jones, P. M., Wickens, C. D., & Deutsch, S. J. (1990). The display of multivariate information: An experimental study of an information integration task. Human Performance, 3, 1-17.
23. Kuskin-Shamo, M., Meyer, J., & Gopher, D. (1996). Predicting values and trends from tables and graphs. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 40th Annual Meeting (pp. 1151-1154). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
24. Lohse, J. (1993). A cognitive model for understanding graphical perception. Human-Computer Interaction, 8, 353-388.
25. Mahon, B. H. (1977). Statistics and decisions: The importance of presentation and the power of graphical presentation. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A, 140, 298-323.
26. Meyer, J. (1997). A new look at an old study on information display: Washburne (1927) reconsidered. Human Factors, 39, 333-340.
27. Meyer, J. (1998). Data extraction from quantitative displays: Effects of training and an analytical model. Manuscript submitted for publication.
28. Meyer, J., & Seagull, F. J. (1996). Where human factors meets marketing. Ergonomics in Design, 4 (3), 22-25.
29. Meyer, J., Shinar, D., & Leiser, D. (1997). Multiple factors that determine performance with tables and graphs. Human Factors, 39, 268-286.
30. Montazemi, A. R., & Wang, S. (1989). The effects of modes of information presentation on decision making: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Management Information Systems, 5, 101-127.
31. Pawlak, W. S., & Vicente, K. J. (1996). Inducing effective operator control through ecological interface design. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 44, 653-688.
32. 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.
33. Schaubroeck, J., & Muralidhar, K. (1991). A meta-analysis of the relative effects of tabular and graphic display formats on decision making performance. Human Performance, 4, 127-145.
34. Seger, C. A. (1994). Implicit learning. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 163-196.
35. Simkin, D., & Hastie, R. (1987). An information processing analysis of graph perception. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 82, 454-465.
36. Sparrow, J. A. (1989). Graphical displays in information systems: Some data properties influencing the effectiveness of alternate forms. Behaviour and Information Technology, 8, 43-56.
37. Tractinsky, N., & Meyer, J. (1999). Chartjunk or Goldgraph? Effects of presentation objective and content desirability on information presentation. MIS Quarterly, 23, 397-420.
38. Tufte, E. (1983). The visual display of quantitative information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
39. Tufte, E. (1990). Envisioning information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
40. Umanath, N. S., & Vessey, I. (1994). Multiattribute data presentation and human judgment: A cognitive fit perspective. Decision Sciences, 25, 795-824.
41. Vessey, I. (1991). Cognitive fit: A theory-based analysis of the graphs vs. tables literature. Decision Sciences, 22, 219-241.
42. Vessey, I. (1994). The effect of information presentation on decision making: A cost-benefit analysis. Information and Management, 27, 103-119.
43. Vicente, K. J., & Rasmussen, J. (1990). The ecology of human-machine systems: II. Mediating "direct perception" in complex work domains. Ecological Psychology, 2, 207-249.
44. Vicente, K. J., & Rasmussen, J. (1992). Ecological interface design: Theoretical foundations. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 22, 589-606.
45. Washburne, J. N. (1927). An experimental study of various graphic, tabular and textual methods of presenting quantitative material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 18, 361-376, 465-476.
46. Wickens, C. D., & Andre, A. D. (1990). Proximity compatibility and information display: Effects of color, space and objectness on information integration. Human Factors, 32, 61-78.
47. Wickens, C. D., & Carswell, C. M. (1995). The proximity compatibility principle: Its psychological foundation and relevance to display design. Human Factors, 37, 473-494.