Layout effects on sociogram perception

Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)

Volumn 3843 LNCS, Issue , 2006, Pages 262-273

  Huang, Weidong ^a,b   Hong, Seok Hee ^a,b   Eades, Peter ^a,b  

^a CSIRO   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DATA ACQUISITION; ONLINE SYSTEMS; SOCIAL ASPECTS; TELECOMMUNICATION NETWORKS; USER INTERFACES;

EDGE CROSSINGS; SOCIAL NETWORKS; SOCIOGRAM PERCEPTION;

DRAWING (GRAPHICS);

EID: 33745653572     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/11618058_24     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (17)

1. Card, S., Mackinlay, J., and Shneiderman, B. (1999): Readings in information visualization: using vision to think. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco, CA.
2. Brandes, U., Raab, J. and Wagner, D. (2001): Exploratory Network Visualization: Simultaneous Display of Actor Status and Connections. Journal of Social Structure 2(4).
3. Brandes, U., Kenis, P. and Wagner, D. (2003): Communicating Centrality in Policy Network Drawings. IEEE Trans. on Visualization and Computer Graphics 9(2): 241-253.
4. Di Battista, G., Eades, P., Tamassia, R. and Tollis, I. (1998): Graph drawing: algorithms for the visualisation of graphs, Prentice Hall.
5. Freeman, L. (1999): Visualizing Social Groups. American Statistical Association, Proceedings of the Section on Statistical Graphics, 47-54.
6. Ghoniem, M., Fekete, J. and Castagliola, P. (2004): A Comparison of the Readability of Graphs Using Node-Link and Matrix-Based Representations. Proceedings of the 10th IEEE InfoVis'04, Austin, TX. IEEE Press, pp. 17-24.
7. Huang, W., Hong, S., and Eades, P. (2005): Layout Effects: Comparison of So ciogram Drawing Conventions, http://www.it.usyd.edu.au/~whua5569/ex/.
8. Katz, L. (1953): A new status index derived from sociometric analysis. Psychometrika, 18: 39-43.
9. Krackhardt, D. (1996): Social Networks and Liability of Newness for Managers. In C. L. Cooper and D. M. Rousseau (eds.), John Wiley Sons, Ltd. New York, NY. Trends in Organizational Behavior, Volume 3, pp. 159-173.
10. McGrath, C., Blythe, J. and Krackhardt, D. (1997): The effect of spatial arrangement on judgments and errors in interpreting graphs. Social Networks, 19(3):223-242.
11. McGrath, C., Blythe, J. and Krackhardt, D. (1996): Seeing Groups in Graph Layout. Connections, 19(2): 22-29.
12. McGrath, C., Krackhardt, D. and Blythe, J. (2003): Visualizing Complexity in Networks: Seeing Both the Forest and the Trees. Connections, 25(1): 37-47.
13. Moreno, J. L. (1953): Who shall survive: Foundations of Sociometry, Group Psychother-apy, and Sociodrama. Beacon House Inc.
14. Purchase, H., Allder, J. Carrington, D. (2002): Graph Layout Aesthetics in UML Diagrams: User Preferences. J. Graph Algorithms Appl. 6(3): 255-279.
15. Purchase, H., Cohen R., James M. (1995): Validating graph drawing aesthetics. Proceedings of the Graph Drawing Symposium, Passau, Germany (GD '95), 435-446, Springer-Verlag.
16. Purchase, H. (1997): Which aesthetic has the greatest effect on human understanding? Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Graph Drawing (GD '97), 248-261. Springer-Verlag.
17. Scott, J. (2000): Social Network Analysis: A Handbook. Sage Publications, 2nd edition.