How people read sociograms: a questionnaire study

ABSTRACT

Visualizing social network data into sociograms plays an important role in communicating information about network characteristics. Previous studies have shown that human perceptions of network features can be affected by the layout of a sociogram [McGrath et al. 1996, 1997]. An empirical user study has been conducted to investigate effectiveness of five different network visualization conventions and impact of edge crossings on sociogram perceptions, using both quantitative performance and preference measures and qualitative questionnaire study. This paper reports results and findings of the questionnaire study. We relate qualitative questionnaire results with quantitative findings and discuss their implications for sociogram design. We found that subjects had a strong preference of placing nodes on the top or in the center to highlight importance, and clustering nodes in the same group and separating groups to highlight groups. They had tendency to believe that nodes in the center or on the top are more important, and nodes in close proximity belong to the same group. Some preliminary recommendations for sociogram design and hypotheses about human reading behaviors are proposed.

REFERENCES

• 1: Brandes, U., Raab, J. and Wagner. D. (2001): Exploratory Network Visualization: Simultaneous Display of Actor Status and Connections. Journal of Social Structure 2(4).
• 2: Ulrik Brandes , Patrick Kenis , Dorothea Wagner, Communicating Centrality in Policy Network Drawings, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, v.9 n.2, p.241-253, April 2003 [doi>10.1109/TVCG.2003.1196010]
• 3: Brandes, U. and Wagner, D. (2003b): visone - Analysis and Visualization of Social Networks. In Michael Jnger and Petra Mutzel (Eds.): Graph Drawing Software, pp. 321-340. Springer-Verlag, 2003.
• 4: Giuseppe Di Battista , Peter Eades , Roberto Tamassia , Ioannis G. Tollis, Graph Drawing: Algorithms for the Visualization of Graphs, Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1998
• 5: Eades, P. (1984) A heuristic for graph drawing. Congressus Numerantium, 42: 149-160.
• 6: Freeman, L. (1999) Visualizing Social Groups. American Statistical Association, 1999 Proceedings of the Section on Statistical Graphics, 47-54.
• 7: Mohammad Ghoniem , Jean-Daniel Fekete , Philippe Castagliola, A Comparison of the Readability of Graphs Using Node-Link and Matrix-Based Representations, Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization (INFOVIS'04), p.17-24, October 10-12, 2004 [doi>10.1109/INFOVIS.2004.1]
• 8: Weidong Huang , Peter Eades, How people read graphs, proceedings of the 2005 Asia-Pacific symposium on Information visualisation, p.51-58, January 01, 2005, Sydney, Australia
• 9: Huang, W., Hong, S. and Eades, P. (2005b) Layout effects on sociogram perception. Proceedings of 13th International Symposium on Graph Drawing (GD'05), September 2005, Limerick, Ireland.
• 10: Michael Kaufmann , Dorothea Wagner, Drawing graphs: methods and models, Springer-Verlag, London, 2001
• 11: Krackhardt, D. (1996) Social Networks and Liability of Newness for Managers. In C. L. Cooper and D. M. Rousseau (eds.), John Wiley Sons, Ltd. New York, NY. Trends in Organizational Behavior, Volume 3, pp. 159-173.
• 12: Larkin, J. H. and Simon, H. A. (1987) Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65-99.
• 13: McGrath, C., Blythe, J. and Krackhardt, D. (1997) The effect of spatial arrangement on judgments and errors in interpreting graphs. Social Networks, 19(3):223-242.
• 14: McGrath, C., Blythe, J. and Krackhardt, D. (1996) Seeing Groups in Graph Layout. Connections, 19(2): 22-29.
• 15: McGrath, C. and Blythe, J. (2004) Do You See What I Want You to See? The Effects of Motion and Spatial Layout on Viewers' Perceptions of Graph Structure. Journal of Social Structure, Vol. 5, No. 2.
• 16: McGrath, C., Krackhardt, D. and Blythe, J. (2003) Visualizing Complexity in Networks: Seeing Both the Forest and the Trees. Connections, 25(1): 37-47.
• 17: Northway, M. L. (1940) A method for depicting social relationships obtained by sociometric testing. Sociometry, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 144-150.
• 18: Helen C. Purchase , Robert F. Cohen , Murray James, Validating Graph Drawing Aesthetics, Proceedings of the Symposium on Graph Drawing, p.435-446, September 20-22, 1995
• 19: Purchase, H. C., Carrington, D. A. and Allder, J. A. (2002) Graph Layout Aesthetics in UML Diagrams: User Preferences. J. Graph Algorithms Appl. 6(3): 255-279.
• 20: Helen C. Purchase, Which Aesthetic has the Greatest Effect on Human Understanding?, Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Graph Drawing, p.248-261, September 18-20, 1997
• 21: Ratwani, R. M., Trafton, J. G. and Boehm-Davis, D. A. (2003). Thinking graphically: Extracting Local and Global Information. In R. Alterman, D. Kirsch (Eds.), 25th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Boston, MA: Erlbaum.
• 22: Scott, J. (2000) Social Network Analysis: A Handbook. Sage Publications, 2nd edition.
• 23: Colin Ware, Information visualization: perception for design, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, 2000
• 24: Colin Ware , Helen Purchase , Linda Colpoys , Matthew McGill, Cognitive measurements of graph aesthetics, Information Visualization, v.1 n.2, p.103-110, June 2002 [doi>10.1057/palgrave.ivs.9500013]
• 25: Wasserman, S. and Faust, K. (1994) Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge University Press.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  I. Computing Methodologies
  I.6 SIMULATION AND MODELING
      I.6.5 Model Development

Additional Classification:
  D. Software
  D.2 SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
      D.2.2 Design Tools and Techniques
          Subjects: User interfaces

  G. Mathematics of Computing
  G.2 DISCRETE MATHEMATICS
      G.2.2 Graph Theory

  H. Information Systems
  H.5 INFORMATION INTERFACES AND PRESENTATION (I.7)
      H.5.2 User Interfaces (D.2.2, H.1.2, I.3.6)

General Terms:
Design, Theory

Keywords:
edge crossing, questionnaire, social network, sociogram perception