Cognition, Metacognition, and the Design of Maps

With advances in information technologies, graphical displays are becoming increasingly complex and interactive, giving users flexibility to choose and design their own displays. But most people are not trained in graphic design. Do people intuitively choose or create the most effective displays for particular tasks? More generally, what defines an effective graphic? Recent research on cognition of geospatial displays (i.e., maps) has provided empirical validation of cartographic design principles. At the same time, research on metacognition has indicated that people’s preferences for displays do not always conform to the effectiveness of these displays for the task at hand. In this article, I highlight the importance of empirically testing principles of visual-display design and argue for broader education in visual literacy, including principles of graphic design.

[1]  Edward R. Tufte,et al.  The Visual Display of Quantitative Information , 1986 .

[2]  Mary Hegarty,et al.  Thinking about the weather: How display salience and knowledge affect performance in a graphic inference task. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[3]  Richard Lowe,et al.  Animation and learning: selective processing of information in dynamic graphics , 2003 .

[4]  H. Wainer,et al.  Alternative Displays for Communicating NAEP Results: A Redesign and Validity Study , 1999 .

[5]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  Attentional Filtering in the Design of Electronic Map Displays: A Comparison of Color Coding, Intensity Coding, and Decluttering Techniques , 2001, Hum. Factors.

[6]  Harvey S. Smallman,et al.  Naive Realism: Misplaced Faith in Realistic Displays , 2005 .

[7]  Eytan Adar,et al.  Benefitting InfoVis with Visual Difficulties , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[8]  Peter C.-H. Cheng,et al.  Modeling the Effect of Task and Graphical Representation on Response Latency in a Graph Reading Task , 2003, Hum. Factors.

[9]  Barbara Tversky,et al.  Reading bar graphs: Effects of extraneous depth cues and graphical context. , 1998 .

[10]  Stephen Michael Kosslyn,et al.  Graph Design for the Eye and Mind , 2006 .

[11]  Mary Hegarty,et al.  Expertise, Spatial Ability and Intuition in the Use of Complex Visual Displays , 2007 .

[12]  G. Underwood,et al.  Something Overlooked? How experts in change detection use visual saliency , 2010 .

[13]  Mary Hegarty,et al.  Naïve Cartography: How Intuitions about Display Configuration Can Hurt Performance , 2009, Cartogr. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Geovisualization.

[14]  Pat Hanrahan,et al.  Show Me: Automatic Presentation for Visual Analysis , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[15]  John J. Bertin,et al.  The semiology of graphics , 1983 .

[16]  Melissa R. Beck,et al.  Measuring search efficiency in complex visual search tasks: global and local clutter. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[17]  Mary Hegarty,et al.  Cognitively Inspired and Perceptually Salient Graphic Displays for Efficient Spatial Inference Making , 2010 .

[18]  C. Melody Carswell,et al.  Graphing in depth: Perspectives on the use of three-dimensional graphs to represent lower-dimensional data. , 1991 .

[19]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  The Proximity Compatibility Principle: Its Psychological Foundation and Relevance to Display Design , 1995, Hum. Factors.

[20]  Alan G. Sanfey,et al.  Does Evidence Presentation Format Affect Judgment? An Experimental Evaluation of Displays of Data for Judgments , 1998 .

[21]  Mary Hegarty,et al.  Effects of knowledge and display design on comprehension of complex graphics , 2010 .

[22]  H. Smallman,et al.  Choosing and using geospatial displays: effects of design on performance and metacognition. , 2012, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[23]  Yvonne Rogers,et al.  External cognition: how do graphical representations work? , 1996, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[24]  Raj M Ratwani,et al.  Thinking graphically: Connecting vision and cognition during graph comprehension. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[25]  R. Lloyd,et al.  VISUAL AND STATISTICAL COMPARISON OF CHOROPLETH MAPS , 1977 .

[26]  Harvey S. Smallman,et al.  The Use of 2D and 3D Displays for Shape-Understanding versus Relative-Position Tasks , 2001, Hum. Factors.

[27]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  When Users Want What's not Best for Them , 1995 .