Representation aiding (and similar approaches that share the general orientation) has a great deal of utility, predictive ability, and explanatory power. Marino and Mahan (2005) discuss principles that are critical to the RA approach (configurality, emergent features, and mappings) in a reasonable fashion. However, the application of these principles is far from reasonable. The authors explicitly realize the potential for interactions between nutrients: "The nutritional quality of a food product is a multidimensional concept, and higher order interactions between nutrients may exist" (p. 126). However, they made no effort to discover the nature of these interactions: "No attempt was made to identify contingent interactions between nutrients" (p. 126). Despite not knowing the nature of the interactions between nutrients, they purposely chose a highly configural display that produced numerous emergent features dependent upon these interactions: "A radial spoke display was selected because of the strong configural properties of such display formats (Bennett & Flach, 1992)" (p. 124). Finally, the authors show apparent disdain for the specific mappings among domain, agent, and display that are fundamental to the RA approach: "[O]ther configural display formats could have been used" (p. 124). It is impossible to reconcile these statements and the RA approach to display design. However, these statements make perfect sense if a perceptual object is a guiding principle in one's approach to display design. Marino and Mahan (2005) draw heavily upon the principle of a perceptual object in their design justifications, experimental predictions, and interpretations of results. As we have indicated here and elsewhere (Bennett & Flach, 1992), we believe that these two sets of organizing principles for display design (i.e., objects and mappings) are incompatible. Display design will never be an exact science; there will always be elements of art and creativity. However, the guiding principles have moved well beyond the simple strategy of throwing variables into a geometric object format and relying upon the human agent's powerful perceptual systems to carry the design.
[1]
Gavriel Salvendy,et al.
Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics
,
2005
.
[2]
K B Bennett,et al.
Graphical Displays: Implications for Divided Attention, Focused Attention, and Problem Solving
,
1992,
Human factors.
[3]
Eleanor Noss Whitney,et al.
Understanding normal and clinical nutrition
,
1983
.
[4]
Kevin B. Bennett,et al.
Configural Display Design Techniques Considered at Multiple Levels of Evaluation
,
2001,
Hum. Factors.
[5]
Jens Rasmussen,et al.
Cognitive Systems Engineering
,
2022
.
[6]
Janice L Raymond Ms Rd Cd,et al.
Krause's Food, Nutrition and Diet Therapy
,
2000
.
[7]
Issei Fujishiro,et al.
The elements of graphing data
,
2005,
The Visual Computer.
[8]
Christopher D. Wickens,et al.
The Proximity Compatibility Principle: Its Psychological Foundation and Relevance to Display Design
,
1995,
Hum. Factors.
[9]
L. Mahan,et al.
Krause's Food, Nutrition, & Diet Therapy
,
1984
.
[10]
Robert P. Mahan,et al.
Configural Displays Can Improve Nutrition-Related Decisions: An Application of the Proximity Compatibility Principle
,
2005,
Hum. Factors.
[11]
Kevin B. Bennett,et al.
The placement of digital values in configural displays
,
2003
.
[12]
G. Santucci,et al.
[Visual displays].
,
1981,
L'Annee therapeutique et clinique en ophtalmologie.
[13]
Mary Anne Buttigieg,et al.
Object Displays Do Not Always Support Better Integrated Task Performance
,
1989
.