Task-analytic approach to the automated design of graphic presentations

ABSTRACT

BOZ is an automated graphic design and presentation tool that designs graphics based on an analysis of the task for which a graphic is intended to support. When designing a graphic, BOZ aims to optimize two ways in which graphics help expedite human performance of information-processing tasks: (1) allowing users to substitute simple perceptual inferences in place of more demanding logical inferences, and (2) streamlining users' search for needed information. BOZ analyzes a logical description of a task to be performed by a human user and designs a provably equivalent perceptual task by substituting perceptual inferences in place of logical inferences in the task description. BOZ then designs and renders an accompanying graphic that encodes and structures data such that performance of each perceptual inference is supported and visual search is minimized. BOZ produces a graphic along with a perceptual procedure describing how to use the graphic to complete the task. A key feature of BOZ's approach is that it is able to design different presentations of the same information customized to the requirements of different tasks. BOZ is used to design graphic presentations of airline schedule information to support five different airline reservation tasks. Reaction time studies done with real users for one task and graphic show that the BOZ-designed graphic significantly reduces users' performance time to the task. Regression analyses link the observed efficiency savings to BOZ's two key design principles: perceptual inference substitutions and pruning of visual search.

REFERENCES

• 1: Asc9, S. E. Studies of independence and submission to group pressure: A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs, 1956, 70.
• 2: Jacques Bertin, Semiology of graphics, University of Wisconsin Press, 1983
• 3: BR^c~M^~, R. J., ^~D Sc~MO~S, J.G. An overview of the KL. ONE knowledge representation system. Cognitive Sci. 9 2, (1985), 171-216.
• 4: BP~m~-Rv, W. S., AND LANDWEBm~, L.H. Theory of Computation, Wiley, New York, 1974.
• 5: Stuart K. Card , Allen Newell , Thomas P. Moran, The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Mahwah, NJ, 1983
• 6: CASN~R, S. M. Building customized diagramming languages. In Visual Languages and Visual Programming, S. K. Chang Ed. Plenum Press, New York, 1990.
• 7: Stephen Michael Casner , Shi-Kyo Chang, Task-analytic design of graphic presentations, 1990
• 8: CASN~R, S. M., A~D LARKn~ J. H. Cognitive efficiency considerations for good graphic design. In Proc. 11th Annual Conf. Cognitive Science Society (Ann Arbor, Mich., Aug. 1989).
• 9: CL~,NCEY, S. M., ~a~n HoYER, W.J. Effects of age and skill on domain-specific visual search. In Proc. 9th Annual Conf. Cognitive Science Society, (Seattle, Wash., 1987), 398-404.
• 10: William S. Cleveland, The elements of graphing data, Wadsworth Publ. Co., Belmont, CA, 1985
• 11: CLEVEL~'~O, W. S., ~,~o McGILL, R. Graphical perception: Theory, experimentation, and application to the development of graphical methods. J. Amer. Stat. Assoc. 79, 387 (Sept. 1984), 531-554.
• 12: D^VmOFF, J. B. The role of colour in visual displays. Int. Rev. Ergonomics 1, (1987), 21-42.
• 13: FALLmD~, D. Understanding machines in motion. Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon Univ., Pittsburgh, Pa., May 1986.
• 14: FZINER, S. APEX: An experiment in the automatic creation of pictorial explanations. IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl. (Nov. 1985), 29-37.
• 15: Mark Friedell , Jane Barnett , David Kramlich, Context-sensitive, graphic presentation of information, ACM SIGGRAPH Computer Graphics, v.16 n.3, p.181-188, July 1982
• 16: Sakunthala Gnanamgari, Information presentation through default displays, 1981
• 17: HEGARTY, M., AND JUST, M. Understanding machines from text and diagram. In Knowledge Acquisition from Text and Picture, H. Mandl and J. Levin Eds., North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1988.
• 18: HuDson, W. The study of the problem of pictorial perception among accultured groups. Int. J. Psychology 2 (1968), 89-107.
• 19: S. L. Jarvenpaa , G. W. Dickson, Graphics and managerial decision making: research-based guidelines, Communications of the ACM, v.31 n.6, p.764-774, June 1988 [doi>10.1145/62959.62971]
• 20: JENKS, C. F., AND KNOS, D.S. The use of shading patterns in graded series. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geographers 51 (1961) 316-334.
• 21: KmRAs, D., AND POLSON, P.G. An approach to the formal analysis of user complexity. Int. J. Man-Mach. Stud. 22 (1985), 365-394.
• 22: KLAHR, D. Quantification processes. In Visual Information Processing, W. G. Chase Ed., Academic Press, Orlando, Fla, 1973, pp. 3-34.
• 23: KOEDtNCmt, K. R., AND ANDZRSON, J. R. Abstract planning and perceptual chunks: Elements of expertise in geometry. Cognitive Sci. 14, 4 (1990), 511-550.
• 24: LARKIN, J., AND Sr~ON, H. Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth 10,000 words. Cognitive Sci. 11 (1967), 65-99.
• 25: LusK, E. J., A~D KERSmCK, M. The effect of cognitive style and report format on task performance: The MIS design consequences. Manage. Sci. 22, 3 (1979), 787-798.
• 26: Jock Mackinlay, Automating the design of graphical presentations of relational information, ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), v.5 n.2, p.110-141, April 1986 [doi>10.1145/22949.22950]
• 27: Steven F. Roth , Joe Mattis , Xavier Mesnard, Graphics and natural language as components of automatic explanation, Intelligent user interfaces, ACM Press, New York, NY, 1991 [doi>10.1145/107215.128701]
• 28: SCHMW, C. F. Statistical Graphics: Design Principles and Practices, Wiley, New York, 1983.
• 29: SC~N~mE~, W. Training high-performance skills: Fallacies and guidelines. Hum. Factors 27, 3 (1985), 285-300.
• 30: STEVENS, S. S. On the theory of scales of measurement. Science 103, 2684 (June 1946), 677-680.
• 31: TECHTSOO~IAN, J. The judgement of size. Am. J. Psychology 78 (1965), 392-402.
• 32: Edward Tufte, Envisioning information, Graphics Press, Cheshire, CT, 1990
• 33: Edward R. Tufte, The visual display of quantitative information, Graphics Press, Cheshire, CT, 1986
• 34: ULLMAN, S. Visual routines. Cognition 18 (1984), 97-i59.
• 35: YAMADA, H. An analysis of the standard English keyboard. Tech. Rep. 80-11, Dept. of Information Science, Univ. of Tokyo, 1980.
• 36: ZDYBEL, F., GREENFIELD, N. R., YONKE, M.D., ANn GmBONS, J. An information presentation system. In Proceedings of the 7th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (Aug. 1981), 978-984.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  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)
          Subjects: Screen design (e.g., text, graphics, color)

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

  H. Information Systems
  H.1 MODELS AND PRINCIPLES
      H.1.2 User/Machine Systems
          Subjects: Human information processing
  H.5 INFORMATION INTERFACES AND PRESENTATION (I.7)
      H.5.2 User Interfaces (D.2.2, H.1.2, I.3.6)
          Subjects: Ergonomics; Interaction styles (e.g., commands, menus, forms, direct manipulation)

  I. Computing Methodologies
  I.3 COMPUTER GRAPHICS
      I.3.6 Methodology and Techniques
          Subjects: Ergonomics

General Terms:
Design, Experimentation, Human Factors

Keywords:
automated design, graphic design, graphic user interface, task analysis, visual languages