Guidelines for Presenting Quantitative Data in HFES Publications

This article provides guidelines for presenting quantitative data in papers for publication. The article begins with a reader-centered design philosophy that distills the maxim “know thy user” into three components: (a) know your users′ tasks, (b) know the operations supported by your displays, and (c) match user's operations to the ones supported by your display. Next, factors affecting the decision to present data in text, tables, or graphs are described: the amount of data, the readers′ informational needs, and the value of visualizing the data. The remainder of the article outlines the design decisions required once an author has selected graphs as the data presentation medium. Decisions about the type of graph depend on the readers′ experience and informational needs as well as characteristics of the independent (predictor) variables and the dependent (criterion) variable. Finally, specific guidelines for the design of graphs are presented. The guidelines were derived from empirical studies, analyses of graph readers′ tasks, and practice-based design guidelines. The guidelines focus on matching the specific sensory, perceptual, and cognitive operations required to read a graph to the operations that the graph supports.

[1]  C D Wickens,et al.  The perceptual interaction of graphical attributes: Configurality, stimulus homogeneity, and object integration , 1990, Perception & psychophysics.

[2]  Howard G. Schutz,et al.  An Evaluation of Formats for Graphic Trend Displays—Experiment II1 , 1961 .

[3]  P. Carpenter,et al.  Conceptual limitations in comprehending line graphs. , 1995 .

[4]  I. Spence.  Visual psychophysics of simple graphical elements. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[5]  Michael S. Wogalter,et al.  Display of Quantitative Information: Are Grables better than Plain Graphs or Tables? , 1996 .

[6]  Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa,et al.  The effect of task demands and graphical format on information processing strategies , 1989 .

[7]  Kevin B. Bennett,et al.  Emergent Features and Graphical Elements: Designing More Effective Configural Displays , 1993 .

[8]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth 10, 000 word , 1987 .

[9]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  Graph-Task Dependencies in Three-Dimensional Data: Influence of Three-Dimensionality and Color , 1995 .

[10]  J. G. Hollands.  Alignment, Scaling, and Size Effects in Discrimination of Graphical Elements , 1992 .

[11]  John T. Guthrie,et al.  Searching documents: Cognitive processes and deficits in understanding graphs, tables, and illustrations. , 1993 .

[12]  J. Witmer,et al.  Nonlinear Regression Modeling. , 1984 .

[13]  Ben Shneiderman,et al.  An Experimental Comparison of Tabular and Graphic Data Presentation , 1984, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[14]  E. C. Poulton,et al.  Labelling Graphs for Improved Reading Speed , 1978 .

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

[16]  J G Hollands,et al.  Judgments of Change and Proportion in Graphical Perception , 1992, Human factors.

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

[18]  S. Lewandowsky,et al.  Displaying proportions and percentages , 1991 .

[19]  Douglas J. Gillan,et al.  Minimalism and the Syntax of Graphs , 1994 .

[20]  Bruce G. Coury,et al.  The Bargraph as a Configural and a Separable Display , 1988 .

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

[22]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  Information integration and the object display An interaction of task demands and display superiority , 1987 .

[23]  B. C. Brookes,et al.  Handbook of Graphic Presentation. , 1955 .

[24]  Howard Wainer,et al.  Making newspaper graphs fit to print , 1980 .

[25]  Howard G. Schutz,et al.  An Evaluation of Methods for Presentation of Graphic Multiple Trends—Experiment III1 , 1961 .

[26]  Bruce G. Coury,et al.  Individual Differences in Processing Strategy for a Bargraph Display , 1993 .

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

[28]  B. Goettl,et al.  Integrated displays and the perception of graphical data. , 1991, Ergonomics.

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

[30]  Barbara Tversky,et al.  Distortions in memory for graphs and maps , 1986 .

[31]  Woodrow Barfield,et al.  The effects of two- or three-dimensional graphics on the problem-solving performance of experienced and novice decision makers , 1989 .

[32]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  Processing of graphical information: a decomposition taxonomy to match data extraction tasks and gra , 1990 .

[33]  E C Poulton,et al.  Geometric illusions in reading graphs , 1985, Perception & psychophysics.

[34]  Steven Pinker,et al.  A theory of graph comprehension. , 1990 .

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

[36]  Gerald V. Post,et al.  Density in scatterplots and the estimation of correlation , 1989 .

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

[38]  Howard Wainer,et al.  HOW TO DISPLAY DATA BADLY , 1982 .

[39]  U. Maichle.  Chapter 13 Cognitive Processes in Understanding Line Graphs , 1994 .

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

[41]  Geoffrey R. Loftus,et al.  A picture is worth a thousandp values: On the irrelevance of hypothesis testing in the microcomputer age , 1993 .

[42]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  The Effectiveness of Graphical Presentation for Information Extraction: A Cumulative Experimental Approach* , 1993 .

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

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

[45]  S. Kosslyn.  Understanding charts and graphs , 1989 .

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

[47]  Richard D. Powers,et al.  A study of graph comprehension difficulties , 1959 .

[48]  Margaret H. Sarner,et al.  Graphical Display of Means , 1980 .

[49]  G E Legge,et al.  Efficiency of graphical perception , 1991, Perception & psychophysics.

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

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

[52]  John G. Casali,et al.  Selected graph design variables in four interpretation tasks: a microcomputer-based pilot study , 1988 .

[53]  Robert F. Ling,et al.  Handbook of graphic presentation , 1979 .

[54]  Stephen M. Casner,et al.  Task-analytic approach to the automated design of graphic presentations , 1991, TOGS.

[55]  S. Ellis.  Pictorial communication in virtual and real environments , 1991 .

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

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

[58]  R McGill,et al.  Graphical Perception and Graphical Methods for Analyzing Scientific Data , 1985, Science.

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

[60]  B. Tversky.  Distortions in memory for visual displays , 1991 .

[61]  Wilbur Schramm,et al.  How accurately are different kinds of graphs read? , 1954 .

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

[63]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  Models of Competence in Solving Physics Problems , 1980, Cogn. Sci..

[64]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Graphic Representation of Judgmental Information , 1986, SGCH.

[65]  B G Coury,et al.  Time Stress and the Processing of Visual Displays , 1992, Human factors.

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

[67]  Stephen M. Kosslyn,et al.  Elements of graph design , 1993 .

[68]  William Winn,et al.  Chapter 1 Contributions of Perceptual and Cognitive Processes to the Comprehension of Graphics , 1994 .

[69]  Joachim Meyer,et al.  Estimating Correlations from Scatterplots , 1992 .

[70]  J M Flach,et al.  The complex role of perceptual organization in visual display design theory. , 1992, Ergonomics.