1991
DOI: 10.1109/21.108306
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An experimental study comparing the effectiveness of computer graphics data versus computer tabular data

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

1993
1993
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
1
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…More recently, however, other researchers have concluded that graphs should be used primarily when people have to use their judgement to analyse trends and make forecasts (Coll et al, 1991;Tullis, 1988); in fact, Dickson et al (1986) argue that there is no point in producing them for any other purpose. Our findings are consonant with this view: using the task information did not require judgement of trends and overall performance level did not differ between display formats.…”
Section: Display Formatmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…More recently, however, other researchers have concluded that graphs should be used primarily when people have to use their judgement to analyse trends and make forecasts (Coll et al, 1991;Tullis, 1988); in fact, Dickson et al (1986) argue that there is no point in producing them for any other purpose. Our findings are consonant with this view: using the task information did not require judgement of trends and overall performance level did not differ between display formats.…”
Section: Display Formatmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There is some consensus that graphical presentation produces better performance than tabular presentation when people are required to use their judgment to analyze trends and to make forecasts (Coll, Thyagarajan & Chopra, ; Dickson, DeSanctis & McBride, ; Tullis, ). Harvey and Bolger () confirmed that graphical presentation is superior for this purpose when data contain trends and showed that this was because trend damping was much greater with tabular presentation.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This general principle of organization for cognitive compatibility is an aspect of Cognitive Match Interface Design (COMIND) promulgated by Co11 et al in several previous papers (Co11 & Coll, 1989;Coll, Thyagarajan, & Chopra, 1991;Co11 & Wingertsman, 1990). The COMIND message is that a computer system must be designed so that it operates in a manner which parallels the human thought process, so that it, in effect, anticipates the needs and actions of the user.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%