An Audit Tool for Assessing the Visuocognitive Design of Infographics

Visuocognitive design accommodates the alignment of visualization to human cognitive processes. Established theory suggests that 1) recognition is easier than recall [1], 2) spatial visualizations are less abstract than temporal ones [2], and 3) aesthetics induce cognitive ease [3]. These principles, and others, underpin our new audit tool that focusses on design for cognition. Theories of form, function and utility have been known for many decades and are well-known in the field of design, but infovisualization is a relatively new field, as are associated fields such as user-experience (UX), user-centered design and information design. Therefore, generally, design schools focus far more (possibly, exclusively) on teaching form, style, function, sustainability and user-experience than on visuocognition. The same emphasis is found in the design industry. This audit tool has been created to provide heuristic evaluations based on a set of visuocognitive design principles and is, therefore, a valuable contribution. To devise the visuocognitive principles, we conducted a narrative review as a method of approach. The tool is composed of one prerequisite and six principles. ‘Informed Engagement’ is the prerequisite to accurately inform the graphics with ground truth, and to give them substance. The six principles are: 1) clarity, 2) arrangement, 3) cued meaning, 4) intuitive meaning, 5) cognitive fit, and 6) cognitive preference. They are divided into three groups: the first two principles concern appearance, the second two principles concern meaning, and the last two principles concern cognition (Figure 1). The term ‘meaning’ can imply intended meaning by the designer (in a graphic representation), or construed meaning by the user. The novelty of this audit tool is that it fixes ‘meaning’ as the pivotal point between aesthetic visual display and mental cognition, with the aim to align construed meaning with intended meaning and achieve fluent cognition.

[1]  N. McGlynn.  Thinking fast and slow. , 2014, Australian veterinary journal.

[2]  Kurt F. Rowland.  A history of the modern movement: art architecture design , 1973 .

[3]  S. Kosslyn,et al.  Visual Mental Imagery Activates Topographically Organized Visual Cortex: PET Investigations , 1993, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[4]  Yuri Engelhardt,et al.  The Language of Graphics: A Framework for the Analysis of Syntax and Meaning in Maps, Charts and Diagrams , 2002, ILLC dissertation series.

[5]  P. Chandler,et al.  THE SPLIT‐ATTENTION EFFECT AS A FACTOR IN THE DESIGN OF INSTRUCTION , 1992 .

[6]  Edward Rolf Tufte,et al.  The visual display of quantitative information , 1985 .

[7]  D. Kolb.  Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development , 1983 .

[8]  M. Ashcraft.  Fundamentals of Cognition , 1997 .

[9]  John Sweller,et al.  Cognitive Load During Problem Solving: Effects on Learning , 1988, Cogn. Sci..

[10]  Hanspeter Pfister,et al.  Beyond Memorability: Visualization Recognition and Recall , 2016, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[11]  Barbara Tversky,et al.  Some Ways that Maps and Diagrams Communicate , 2000, Spatial Cognition.

[12]  Alan Trachtenberg,et al.  Rhetoric of the Image , 2008 .

[13]  Helen C. Purchase,et al.  A Classification of Infographics , 2018, Diagrams.

[14]  John M Kennedy,et al.  Metaphor in Pictures , 1982, Perception.

[15]  R. Shiffrin,et al.  Retrieval processes in recognition and cued recall. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[16]  Tony Jappy.  Introduction to Peircean Visual Semiotics , 2013 .

[17]  John W. Berry,et al.  Psychological Differentiation in Cross-Cultural Perspective , 1975 .

[18]  G. Bateson,et al.  STEPS TO AN ECOLOGY OF MIND COLLECTED ESSAYS IN ANTHROPOLOGY, PSYCHIATRY, EVOLUTION, AND EPISTEMOLOGY , 2006 .

[19]  Colin Ware,et al.  Visual Thinking for Design , 2008 .