Why looking isn't always seeing: readership skills and graphical programming

ABSTRACT

Many believe that visual programming techniques are quite close to developers. This article reports on some fascinating research focusing on understanding how textual and visual representations for software differ in effectiveness. Among other things, it is determined that the differences lie not so much in the textual-visual distinction as in the degree to which specific representations support the conventions experts expect.

REFERENCES

• 1: Anzai, Y. Learning diagram-drawing and graphical reading skills: analysis and design. Presented to: Workshop on Graphical Representations, Reasoning, and Communication, AI-ED '93 (Edinburgh, August, 1993).
• 2: Bouwhuis, D. G. Reading as goal-driven behaviour. In B. A. G. Elsendoorn and H. Bouma, Eds., Working Models of Human Perception. Academic Press, 1988, pp. 341-362.
• 3: Chi, M.T.H., Glaser, R., and Farr, MJ., Eds. The Nature of Expertise. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1988.
• 4: Cleveland, W.S., and McGill, R. Graphical perception: theory, experimentation and application to the development of graphi cal methods.J. Amer. Statistical Assoc. 79, (1984), 531-554.
• 5: Simon P. Davies, Skill levels and strategic differences in plan comprehension and implementation in programming, Proceedings of the fifth conference of the British Computer Society, Human-Computer Interaction Specialist Group on People and computers V, p.487-502, February 1990, Univ. of Nottingham
• 6: Gibson, EJ., and Levin, H. The Psychology ofReading. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1975.
• 7: Gilmore, D.J., and Green, T. R. G. Programming plans and programming expertise. Quarterly j. of Experimental Psych. 40A (1988), 423-442.
• 8: Green, T.R.G., and Petre, M. When visual programs are harder to read than textual programs. In Proceedings of the Sixth European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics (ECCE-6), Budapest, Hungary, September 1992.
• 9: Green, T. R. G., Petre, M., and Bellamy, R. K. E. Comprehensibility of visual and textual programs: A test of Superlativism against the "match-mismatch" conjecture. In Empirical Studies of Programmers Fourth Workshop. Ablex, 1991.
• 10: P. Horowitz , W. Hill, The Art of Electronics, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 1989
• 11: Koga, K., and Groner, R. Intercultural experiments as a research tool in the study of cognitive skill acquisition: Japanese character recognition and eye movements in non-Japanese subjects. In H. Mandl and J.R. Levin Eds., Knowledge Acquisition from Text and Pictures. North-Holland, 1989, 279-291.
• 12: Kosslyn, S.M. Imagery and internal representation. In E. Rosch and B.B. Lloyd, Eds., Cognition and Categorization. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1978, 227-286.
• 13: 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]
• 14: Moher, T.G., Mak, D.C., Blumenthal, B., and Leventhal, L.M. Comparing the comprehensibility of textual and graphical programs: The case of Petri nets. In C.R. Cook, J.C. Scholtz, and J.C. Spohrer, Eds., Empirical Studies of Programmers: Fifth Workshop. Ablex, 1993, 137-161.
• 15: Myers, B.A. Taxonomies of visual programming and program visualization. JVLC 1, 1 (1990), 97123.
• 16: Pennington, N. Stimulus structures and mental representations in expert comprehension of computer programs. Cognitive Psychology 19, (1987), 295-341.
• 17: Marian Petre , Thomas R. G. Green, Where to draw the line with text: Some claims by logic designers about graphics in notation, Proceedings of the IFIP TC13 Third Interational Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, p.463-468, August 27-31, 1990
• 18: Petre, M., and Green, T. R. G. Requirements of graphical notations for professional users: Electronics CAD systems as a case study. Le Travail Humain 55, 1 (1992), 47-70.
• 19: Petre, M., and Green, T.R.G. Learning to read graphics: some evidence that 'seeing' an information display is an acquired skill. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing 4 (1993), 55-70.
• 20: Raymond, D. Characterizing visual languages. In The 1991 1EEE Workshop on Visual Languages, (1991) IEEE Computer Society Press.
• 21: Rohr, G. Using visual concepts. In S-K. Chang, T. Ichikawa and P.A. Ligomenides, Eds., Visual Languages. Plenum Press, 1986.
• 22: N. C. Shu, Visual programming, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, NY, 1988
• 23: Sime, M.E., Green, T.R.G., and Guest, D.J. Scope marking in computer conditionals--A psychological evaluation. IJMMS 9, (1977) 107-118.
• 24: Swigger, K.M., and Brazile, R.P. An empirical study of the effects of design/documentation formats on expert system modifiability. In J. Joenemann-Belliveau, T. Moher, and S. Robertson, Eds., Empirical Studies of Programmers: Fourth Workshop, Ablex, 1991.
• 25: Anne Treisman, Features and objects in visual processing, Scientific American, v.255 n.5, p.114-125, Nov. 1986

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  D. Software
  D.m MISCELLANEOUS
      Subjects: Software psychology**

Additional Classification:
  D. Software
  D.1 PROGRAMMING TECHNIQUES

  H. Information Systems
  H.1 MODELS AND PRINCIPLES

General Terms:
Design, Human Factors, Management