Information Structure and the Relative Efficacy of Tables and Graphs

Users and system designers often prefer to display information with graphs rather than with tables. However, empirical studies that compared task performance with the two display types frequently revealed either an advantage of tables over graphs or no differences between the displays. This apparent contradiction may result from previous studies in which the importance of the structure that usually exists in displayed information is overlooked. We predict that graphic displays will have an advantage over tables when the displayed information has structure and when this structure is relevant for the task. These conditions generally exist in the actual use of information displays, but have seldom been assessed in experiments. In the present study participants in an experiment performed an information extraction task and a prediction task with unstructured or structured data and with different levels of prior information about the structure. The results showed that the information structure and prior knowledge about the existence of structure affected the advantage of graphic displays over tables when task performance depended on the use of structure. Existing approaches to the study of displays were analyzed in view of these findings. Actual or potential applications of this research include the development of better displays for process control and decision support and better operator training programs.

[1]  J. N. Washburne.  An experimental study of various graphic, tabular, and textual methods of presenting quantitative material , 1927 .

[2]  Paul M Fitts,et al.  PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH ON EQUIPMENT DESIGN , 1947 .

[3]  L. Carter,et al.  An experiment on the design of tables and graphs used for presenting numerical data. , 1947, The Journal of applied psychology.

[4]  S.M. Harris,et al.  Information Processing , 1977, Nature.

[5]  B. H. Mahon,et al.  Statistics and Decisions : The Importance of Communication and the Power of Graphical Presentation , 1977 .

[6]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  COMPUTER GRAPHICS AS DECISION AIDS: DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH* , 1984 .

[7]  W. Cleveland,et al.  Graphical Perception: Theory, Experimentation, and Application to the Development of Graphical Methods , 1984 .

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

[9]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  Understanding the effectiveness of computer graphics for decision support: a cumulative experimental approach , 1986, CACM.

[10]  David K. Simkin,et al.  An Information-Processing Analysis of Graph Perception , 1987 .

[11]  Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa,et al.  Graphics and managerial decision making: research-based guidelines , 1988, CACM.

[12]  S. Wang,et al.  The Effects of Modes of Information Presentation on Decision-Making: A Review and Meta-Analysis , 1989, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[13]  John A. Sparrow,et al.  Graphical displays in information systems: some data properties influencing the effectiveness of alternative forms , 1989 .

[14]  Mary Anne Buttigieg,et al.  Object Displays Do Not Always Support Better Integrated Task Performance , 1989 .

[15]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  Graphical presentation of accounting data for financial forecasting: An experimental investigation , 1989 .

[16]  Patricia M. Jones,et al.  The Display of Multivariate Information: An Experimental Study of an Information Integration Task , 1990 .

[17]  Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa,et al.  Graphic displays in decision making — the visual salience effect , 1990 .

[18]  Edward R. Tufte,et al.  Envisioning Information , 1990 .

[19]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  Proximity Compatibility and Information Display: Effects of Color, Space, and Objectness on Information Integration , 1990 .

[20]  K. J. Vicente,et al.  The Ecology of Human-Machine Systems II: Mediating 'Direct Perception' in Complex Work Domains , 1990 .

[21]  Samir Chopra,et al.  An experimental study comparing the effectiveness of computer graphics data versus computer tabular data , 1991, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[22]  Iris Vessey,et al.  Cognitive Fit: A Theory‐Based Analysis of the Graphs Versus Tables Literature* , 1991 .

[23]  Krishnamurty Muralidhar,et al.  A Meta-Analysis of the Relative Effects of Tabular and Graphic Display Formats on Decision-Making Performance , 1991 .

[24]  Bruce J. P. Wu,et al.  The effectiveness of computer graphics for decision support: meta-analytical integration of research findings , 1991, DATB.

[25]  Kim J. Vicente,et al.  Ecological interface design: theoretical foundations , 1992, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[26]  C M Carswell,et al.  Choosing Specifiers: An Evaluation of the Basic Tasks Model of Graphical Perception , 1992, Human factors.

[27]  C. Carswell,et al.  16 Reading Graphs: Interactions of Processing Requirements and Stimulus Structure , 1992 .

[28]  Douglas J. Gillan,et al.  A Componential Model of Human Interaction with Graphs. H. Effects of the Distances among Graphical Elements , 1992 .

[29]  Gerald L. Lohse,et al.  A Cognitive Model for Understanding Graphical Perception , 1993, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[30]  Joan H. Coll,et al.  Graphs and tables: a four-factor experiment , 1994, CACM.

[31]  Iris Vessey,et al.  The effect of information presentation on decision making: A cost-benefit analysis , 1994, Inf. Manag..

[32]  Carol A. Seger,et al.  Implicit learning. , 1994, Psychological bulletin.

[33]  D J Gillan,et al.  A Componential Model of Human Interaction with Graphs: 1. Linear Regression Modeling , 1994, Human factors.

[34]  Iris Vessey,et al.  Multiattribute Data Presentation and Human Judgment: A Cognitive Fit Perspective* , 1994 .

[35]  Lotfi A. Zadeh,et al.  Fuzzy logic, neural networks, and soft computing , 1993, CACM.

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

[37]  Kim J. Vicente,et al.  Local applications of the ecological approach to human-machine systems , 1995 .

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

[39]  Joachim Meyer,et al.  Predicting Values and Trends from Tables and Graphs , 1996 .

[40]  Kim J. Vicente,et al.  Inducing effective operator control through ecological interface design , 1996, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[41]  F. Jacob Seagull,et al.  Where Human Factors Meets Marketing , 1996 .

[42]  Kim J. Vicente,et al.  A Longitudinal Study of the Effects of Ecological Interface Design on Skill Acquisition , 1996, Hum. Factors.

[43]  C. Melody Carswell,et al.  Graphing small data sets: Should we bother? , 1997, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[44]  Joachim Meyer.  A New Look at an Old Study on Information Display: Washburne (1927) Reconsidered , 1997, Hum. Factors.

[45]  J A Effken,et al.  Making the constraints visible: testing the ecological approach to interface design. , 1997, Ergonomics.

[46]  Joachim Meyer,et al.  Multiple Factors that Determine Performance with Tables and Graphs , 1997, Hum. Factors.

[47]  Joachim Meyer,et al.  Chartjunk or Goldgraph? Effects of Presentation Objectives and Content Desirability on Information Presentation , 1999, MIS Q..

[48]  Joachim Meyer,et al.  Chartjunk or goldgraph? Effects of persenataion objectives and content desirability on information presentation: effects of presentation objectives and content desirability on information presentation , 1999 .