Exploring the Relative Importance of Number of Edge Crossings and Size of Crossing Angles: A Quantitative Perspective

Recent research has indicated that human graph reading performance can be affected by the size of crossing angles. The aesthetic of crossing angles is closely related to another aesthetic factor: edge crossings. Although the number of edge crossings has been previously identified as the most important aesthetic, its relative impact on human graph reading, compared to the size of crossing angles, has not been investigated. In this paper, we present an exploratory user study investigating the relative importance between crossing number and crossing angle. This study also aims to further examine the effects of crossing number and crossing angle not only on task performance measured as response time and accuracy, but also on cognitive load and visualization efficiency. The experimental results reinforce the previous findings that the two aesthetics each significantly affect performance of human graph reading. Further, in terms of the relative importance, the study demonstrates that given the current setting of the user study, the number of edge crossings is relatively more important than the size of crossing angles. To be more specific, crossing number and crossing angle together explain about 40% of the variance in response time, mental effort and visualization efficiency, with about 83% of the explained variance being attributed to crossing number. In regard to response accuracy, crossing number and crossing angle together explain about 14% of the variance, with a slightly larger portion of the explained variance being attributed to crossing number.

[1]  David S. Johnson,et al.  Crossing Number is NP-Complete , 1983 .

[2]  Weidong Huang,et al.  Using eye tracking to investigate graph layout effects , 2007, 2007 6th International Asia-Pacific Symposium on Visualization.

[3]  Weidong Huang,et al.  Improving Force-Directed Graph Drawings by Making Compromises Between Aesthetics , 2010, 2010 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing.

[4]  Jacob L. Moreno,et al.  Who shall survive? : foundations of sociometry, group psychotherapy, and sociodrama , 1953 .

[5]  Weidong Huang,et al.  Effects of Sociogram Drawing Conventions and Edge Crossings in Social Network Visualization , 2007, J. Graph Algorithms Appl..

[6]  Colin Ware,et al.  Cognitive Measurements of Graph Aesthetics , 2002, Inf. Vis..

[7]  Weidong Huang,et al.  A Force-Directed Method for Large Crossing Angle Graph Drawing , 2010, ArXiv.

[8]  Joachim Gudmundsson,et al.  Notes on Large Angle Crossing Graphs , 2009, Chic. J. Theor. Comput. Sci..

[9]  Weidong Huang,et al.  Predicting graph reading performance: a cognitive approach , 2006, APVIS.

[10]  Ulrik Brandes,et al.  Crossing Reduction in Circular Layouts , 2004, WG.

[11]  Michael A. Bekos,et al.  Maximizing the Total Resolution of Graphs , 2010, Comput. J..

[12]  Walter Didimo,et al.  Drawing Graphs with Right Angle Crossings , 2009, WADS.

[13]  Ulrik Brandes,et al.  Drawing on Physical Analogies , 2001, Drawing Graphs.

[14]  Weidong Huang,et al.  How People Read Graphs , 2005, APVIS.

[15]  Peter Eades,et al.  On Rectilinear Drawing of Graphs , 2009, Graph Drawing.

[16]  Weidong Huang,et al.  Measuring Effectiveness of Graph Visualizations: A Cognitive Load Perspective , 2009, Inf. Vis..

[17]  Helen C. Purchase,et al.  Which Aesthetic has the Greatest Effect on Human Understanding? , 1997, GD.

[18]  Kozo Sugiyama Graph Drawing and Applications for Software and Knowledge Engineers , 2002, Series on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering.

[19]  Emilio Di Giacomo,et al.  Area, Curve Complexity, and Crossing Resolution of Non-Planar Graph Drawings , 2010, Theory of Computing Systems.

[20]  Melanie Tory,et al.  Human factors in visualization research , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[21]  Holger Eichelberger,et al.  Nice class diagrams admit good design? , 2003, SoftVis '03.

[22]  Petra Mutzel,et al.  An Alternative Method to Crossing Minimization on Hierarchical Graphs , 1996, GD.

[23]  Weidong Huang,et al.  Large Crossing Angles in Circular Layouts , 2010, GD.

[24]  Dietrich Albert,et al.  Speed of comprehension of visualized ordered sets. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[25]  Peter Eades,et al.  Effects of Crossing Angles , 2008, 2008 IEEE Pacific Visualization Symposium.

[26]  Weidong Huang,et al.  A graph reading behavior: Geodesic-path tendency , 2009, 2009 IEEE Pacific Visualization Symposium.

[27]  Weidong Huang,et al.  Exploring the relative importance of crossing number and crossing angle , 2010, VINCI '10.

[28]  Chris North,et al.  A Comparison of User-Generated and Automatic Graph Layouts , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[29]  Michael Kaufmann,et al.  On the Perspectives Opened by Right Angle Crossing Drawings , 2009, J. Graph Algorithms Appl..

[30]  David A. Carrington,et al.  Graph Layout Aesthetics in UML Diagrams: User Preferences , 2002, J. Graph Algorithms Appl..

[31]  U. Brandes,et al.  Explorations into the Visualization of Policy Networks , 1999 .

[32]  Weidong Huang,et al.  Layout Effects on Sociogram Perception , 2005, GD.

[33]  Bernice E. Rogowitz,et al.  Perceptual Organization in User-Generated Graph Layouts , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[34]  Carlo Batini,et al.  What is a Good Diagram? A Pragmatic Approach , 1985, ER.

[35]  Weidong Huang,et al.  Beyond time and error: a cognitive approach to the evaluation of graph drawings , 2008, BELIV '08.

[36]  Robert F. Cohen,et al.  Validating Graph Drawing Aesthetics , 1995, GD.