Matrices or node-link diagrams: Which visual representation is better for visualising connectivity models?

Information Visualization

Volumn 5, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 62-76

  Keller, René ^a   Eckert, Claudia M ^a   Clarkson, P John ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Design structure matrix; Engineering change; Evaluation; Graph visualisation; Readability

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SIMULATION; GRAPH THEORY; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; PROCESS CONTROL; SEMANTICS; VISUALIZATION;

DESIGN STRUCTURE MATRIX; ENGINEERING CHANGE; GRAPH VISUALISATION; READABILITY;

MATRIX ALGEBRA;

EID: 33744830828     PISSN: 14738716     EISSN: 14738724     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1057/palgrave.ivs.9500116     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Blythe J, McGrath C, Krackhardt D. The effect of graph layout on inference from social network data. Symposium on Graph Drawing 1995 (Passau, Germany).
2. Johnson JH. Some structures and notation of Q-analysis. Environment and Planning B 1981; 8: 73-86.
3. Newman MEJ. The spread of epidemic disease on networks. Physical Review E 2002; 66. http://pre.aps.org/ (accessed 18 March 2006).
4. Jarratt T, Eckert CM, Clarkson PJ. Development of a product model to support engineering change management. Proceedings of Tools and Methods of Competitive Engineering (TCME). 2004 (Lausanne, Switzerland), 331-342.
5. Browning TR. Applying the design structure matrix to system decomposition and integration problems: a review and new directions. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 2001; 48: 292-306.
6. Browning TR. Process integration using the design structure matrix. Systems Engineering 2002; 5: 180-193.
7. Dodge M, Kitchin R. Atlas of Cyberspace. Pearson Education: Edinburgh, 2001.
8. Bucciarelli LL. Designing Engineers. MIT Press: Cambridge, 1996.
9. Malcolm DG, Roseboom JH, Clark CE, Fazar W. Applications of a technique for research and development program evaluation (PERT). Operations Research 1959; 7: 646-669.
10. Eckert CM, Keller R, Earl C, Clarkson PJ. Supporting change processes in design: complexity, prediction and reliability, Technical Report CUED/C-EDC/TR136, University of Cambridge: Cambridge, 2005.
11. Simon HA. The Sciences of the Artificial. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 1998.
12. Clarkson PJ, Hamilton JR. 'Signposting', a parameter-driven task-based model of the design process. Research in Engineering Design 2000; 12: 18-38.
13. Sosa ME, Eppinger SD, Rowles CM. Identifying modular and integrative systems and their impact on design team interactions. ASME Journal of Mechanical Design 2003; 125: 240-252.
14. Keller R, Eckert CM, Clarkson PJ. Multiple views to support engineering change management for complex products. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Coordinated & Multiple Views in Exploratory Visualization (CMV '05), IEEE Computer Society: London, UK, 2005; 33-41.
15. Keller R, Eger T, Eckert CM, Clarkson PJ. Visualising change propagation. Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED '05) (Melbourne, Australia), 2005.
16. Clarkson PJ, Simons C, Eckert CM. Predicting change propagation in complex design. ASME Journal of Mechanical Design 2004; 126: 765-797.
17. INCOSE, Systems Engineering Handbook 2004. http://www.inco-se.org/ ProductsPubs/products/sehandbook.aspx (accessed 18 March 2006).
18. Steward DV. The design structure system: a method for managing the design of complex systems. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 1981; 28: 71-74.
19. Warfield JN. Binary matrices in system modeling. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 1973; 3: 441-449.
20. Eppinger SD, Whitney DE, Smith RP, Gebala DA. A model-based method for organizing tasks in product development. Research in Engineering Design 1994; 6: 1-13.
21. Problematics [WWW document] http://www.problematics.com/ (accessed 7 November 2005).
22. Siirtola H, Mäkinen E. Constructing and reconstructing the reorderable matrix. Information Visualization 2005; 4: 32-48.
23. Card SK. User perceptual mechanisms in the search of computer command menus. Proceedings of the 1982 Conference On Human Factors In Computing Systems (Gaithersburg, Maryland, US), 1981, 190-196.
24. Di Battista G, Eades P, Tamassia R, Tollis IG. Algorithms for drawing graphs: an annotated bibliography. Computational Geometry: Theory and Applications 1994; 4: 1 75-198.
25. Harel D. On visual formalisms. Communications of the ACM 1988; 31: 514-530.
26. Chen P. The entity-relationship model - toward a unified view of data. ACM Transactions on Database Systems 1976; 1: 9-36.
27. Purchase HC. Effective information visualisation: a study of graph drawing aesthetics and algorithms. Interacting with Computers 2000; 13: 147-162.
28. Purchase HC, Cohen RF, James MI. An experimental study of the basis for graph drawing algorithms, Journal of Experimental Algorithmics 1997; 2. http://www.jea.acm.org/ (accessed 18 March 2006).
29. Purchase HC. Performance of layout algorithms: comprehension, not computation. Journal of Languages and Computing 1997; 9: 647-657.
30. Purchase HC, Allder JA, Carrington D. Graph layout aesthetics in UML diagrams: user preferences. Journal of Graph Algorithms and Applications 2002; 6: 255-279.
31. Ghoniem M, Fekete J-D, Castagliola P. On the readability of graphs using node-link and matrix-based representations: a controlled experiment and statistical analysis. Information Visualization 2005; 4: 114-135.
32. Summers JD, Shah JJ. Developing measures of complexity for engineering design. Proceedings of ASME-DETC Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Design Theory and Methodology Conference (DTM): (Chicago, Illinois, USA), 2003.
33. Earl C, Johnson J, Eckert CM. Complexity. In: Clarkson PJ and Eckert CM (Eds). Design Process Improvement. Springer Verlag: London, 2005.
34. Chambers J, Cleveland W, Kleiner B, Tukey P. Graphical Methods for Data Analysis. Wadsworth: Belmont, CA, USA, 1983.
35. Gansner E, North S. An open graph visualization system and its applications to software engineering. Software: Practice and Experience 2000; 30: 1203-1233.
36. AT&T-Labs. http://www.research.att.com/~john/Grappa/ (accessed 9 June 2005).
37. Keller R, Eckert CM, Clarkson PJ. Building connectivity models in design: representations and tools to support cognitive preferences. Second International Conference on Design Computing and Cognition (DCC'06) 2006, (accepted) (Eindhoven, Netherlands).