Understanding visual influence in graph design through temporal and spatial eye movement characteristics

Interacting with Computers

Volumn 16, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 557-578

  Renshaw, J A ^a   Finlay, J E ^a   Tyfa, D ^b   Ward, R D ^b  

^a LEEDS METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF HUDDERSFIELD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Eye tracking; Graphs; Perception; Usability

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SOFTWARE; EYE MOVEMENTS; HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION; PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY; VISION;

EYE TRACKING; GRAPH DESIGNERS; LINE GRAPHS; PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES;

GRAPH THEORY;

EID: 2942592802     PISSN: 09535438     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.intcom.2004.03.001     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (22)

1. Benel D., Ottens D., Horst R. Use of an eyetracking systemin the usability laboratory. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 35th Annual Meeting. 1991;461-465.
2. Bertin J. Semiology of Graphics. 1983;University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.
3. Carpenter P.A., Shah P. A model of the percetual and conceptual processes in graph comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied. 4:1998;75-100.
4. Chandler P., Sweller J. Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction. 1991:1991;293-332.
5. Cowen L., Ball L.J., Delin J. An eye movement analysis of web page usability. People and Computers XVI - Memorable Yet Invisible. 2002;317-335.
6. Ellis S., Candrea R., Misner J., Craig C.S., Lankford C.P., Hutshinson T.E. Window to the soul? What eye movements tell us about software usability. In: Proceedings of the Usability Professionals' Association Conference. 1998;151-178.
7. Goldberg J.H., Kotval X.P. Computer interface evaluation using eye movements: methods and constructs. International Journal Of Industrial Ergonomics. 24:1999;631-645.
8. Julez B. Textons, the elements of texture perception and their interactions. Nature. 290:1981;91-97.
9. Just M.A., Carpenter P.A. Eye fixations and cognitive processes. Cognitive Psychology. 8:1976;441-480.
10. Kosslyn S.M. Image and Brain: The Resolution of the Imagery Debate. 1994;MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
11. Palmer S.E., Rock I. Rethinking perceptual organisation: The role of uniform connectedness. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review. 1:1994;29-55.
12. Renshaw J.A., Finlay J.E., Ward R.D., Tyfa D. Designing for visual influence: an eye tracking study of the usability of graphical management information. Human-Computer Interaction INTERACT '03. 1:2003;144-151.
13. Russo J.E., Rosen L.D. An eye fixation analysis of multi-alternative choice. Memory and Cognition. 3:1975;267-276.
14. Salvucci D.D., Goldberg J.H. Identifying fixations and saccades in eye-tracking protocol. Proceedings of the Eyetracking Research and Applications Symposium ACM. 2000;71-78.
15. Schkade D.A., Kleinmuntz D.N. Information displays and choice processes: differential effects of organisation, form and sequence. Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes. 57:1994;319-337.
16. Schriver K.A. Dynamics in Document Design. 1997;Wiley, New York.
17. Tufte E.R. Envisioning Information. 1990;Graphics Press, Cheshire, CT.
18. Vincow M.A., Wickens C. Spatial layout of displayed information: three steps towards developing quantitative models. Human Factors Society - Thirty Seventh Annual Meeting. 1993;348-352.
19. Ware C. Information Visualization Perception for Design. 2000;Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, CA.
20. Wertheimer M. Untersuchungen zur Lehre von der Gestalt,II. (Translated as Laws of organisation in perceptual forms). 1923;Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
21. Wickens C.D., Carswell C.M. The proximity compatibility principle: its psychological foundations and its relevance to display design. Human Factors. 37:1995;473-494.
22. Wickens C.D., Holland J.G. 3rd ed. Engineering Psychology and Human Performance. 2000;Longman, London.