Jonathan Gay
ABSTRACT
Visuocognitive design accommodates the alignment of visualization to human cognitive processes. Established theory suggests that 1) recognition is easier than recall [1], 2) spatial visualizations are less abstract than temporal ones [2], and 3) aesthetics induce cognitive ease [3]. These principles, and others, underpin our new audit tool that focusses on design for cognition.
Theories of form, function and utility have been known for many decades and are well-known in the field of design, but infovisualization is a relatively new field, as are associated fields such as user-experience (UX), user-centered design and information design. Therefore, generally, design schools focus far more (possibly, exclusively) on teaching form, style, function, sustainability and user-experience than on visuocognition. The same emphasis is found in the design industry. This audit tool has been created to provide heuristic evaluations based on a set of visuocognitive design principles and is, therefore, a valuable contribution.
To devise the visuocognitive principles, we conducted a narrative review as a method of approach. The tool is composed of one prerequisite and six principles. ‘Informed Engagement’ is the prerequisite to accurately inform the graphics with ground truth, and to give them substance. The six principles are: 1) clarity, 2) arrangement, 3) cued meaning, 4) intuitive meaning, 5) cognitive fit, and 6) cognitive preference. They are divided into three groups: the first two principles concern appearance, the second two principles concern meaning, and the last two principles concern cognition (Figure 1). The term ‘meaning’ can imply intended meaning by the designer (in a graphic representation), or construed meaning by the user. The novelty of this audit tool is that it fixes ‘meaning’ as the pivotal point between aesthetic visual display and mental cognition, with the aim to align construed meaning with intended meaning and achieve fluent cognition.
- A. Baddleley, M. Eysenck, and M. Anderson (2015). Memory. Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- B. Tversky (2000). Some Ways that Maps and Diagrams Communicate. (Ch. Freksa (Eds.): Spatial Cognition II, LNAI 1849, pp. 72-79, 2000). Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Bond (2017). Skype conversation with Jonathan Gay, 1 June 2017.Google Scholar
- H. Purchase (2018). A Classification of Infographics. In: 10th International Conference on the Theory and Application of Diagrams, Edinburgh, UK, 18-22 June 2018, pp. 210-218.Google ScholarCross Ref
- R. Kosara (2010). The Difference Between Infographics and Visualization {Blog}. Available at https://eagereyes.org/blog/2010/the-difference-between-infographics-and-visualizationGoogle Scholar
- Y. Engelhardt (2002). The Language of Graphics: A framework for the analysis of syntax and meaning in maps, charts and diagrams. PhD Thesis, Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
- J. Fiske (1990). Introduction to Communication Studies (Studies in Culture and Communication). Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
- R. Bestley and I. Noble (2001). We Interrupt the Programme. Mamara University, Istanbul.Google Scholar
- G. Bateson (1972). Steps to an Ecology of Mind: Collected essays in Anthropology, Psychiatry, Evolution, and Epistemology. Jason Aronson Inc.Google Scholar
- J. Sweller (1988). Cognitive Load During Problem Solving. Cognitive Science, Vol 12, Issue 2, pp:257-285.Google Scholar
- L. H. Sullivan (1896). Available at https://archive.org/details/tallofficebuildi00sull/page/n9Google Scholar
- K. Rowland (1973). A History of the Modern Movement: Art Architecture Design. (3rd impression 1980), Chapter 3, Page 40. Ginn and Company Ltd.Google Scholar
- C. E. Shannon (1948). The Bell System Technical Journal, Vol. 27, pp. 379–423, 623–656, July, October 1948.Google ScholarCross Ref
- E. Tufte (1983). The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Graphics Press, USA. Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Chandler and J. Sweller (1992). The Split-Attention Effect as a Factor in the Design of Instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology.Google Scholar
- M. Eysenck and M. Brysbaert (2018). Fundamentals of Cognition. Routledge.Google ScholarCross Ref
- S. Kosslyn, M. M.N. Alpert, W. L. Thompson, V. Maljkovic, S. B. Weise, C.F. Chabris, S. E. Hamilton, S. L. Rauch, and F. S. Buonanno (1993). Visual Mental Imagery Activates Topographically Organized Visual Cortex: PET Investigations. Harvard University.Google Scholar
- M. Borkin (2015). Beyond Memorability: Visualization Recognition and Recall. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (Proceedings of InfoVis 2015), 22, 1, pp: 519-528.Google Scholar
- R. Barthes (1964). Rhetoric of the Image {online}. Available from: https://faculty.georgetown.edu/irvinem/theory/Barthes-Rhetoric-of-the-image-ex.pdfGoogle Scholar
- J. Kennedy (1982). Metaphor in Pictures. Perception, 1982, Vol 11, PP: 589-605.Google Scholar
- T. Jappy (2013) Introduction to Peircean Visual Semiotics. Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
- A. Ojha (2015). Visual Metaphor and Cognition. LAP Lambert Academic Publishing.Google Scholar
- P. A. Nobel and R. M. Shiffrin (2001). Retrieval Processes in Recognition and Cued Recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory and Cognition. Mar,27(2) pp:384-413.Google ScholarCross Ref
- D. Kahneman (2012). Thinking Fast and Slow. Penguin.Google Scholar
- K. E. Stanovich (1999) Who Is Rational?: Studies of individual Differences in Reasoning. Psychology Press.Google ScholarCross Ref
- C. Ware (2008). Visual Thinking: for Design. Morgan Kauffman. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Kolb (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
- H. Witkin and J. Berry (1975). Psychological Differentiation in Cross-Cultural Perspective. ETS, Volume 1975, Issue 1, pp: i-100.Google Scholar
Recommendations
InfoNice: Easy Creation of Information Graphics
CHI '18: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing SystemsInformation graphics are widely used to convey messages and present insights in data effectively. However, creating expressive data-driven infographics remains a great challenge for general users without design expertise. We present InfoNice, a ...
Reflections on how designers design with data
AVI '14: Proceedings of the 2014 International Working Conference on Advanced Visual InterfacesIn recent years many popular data visualizations have emerged that are created largely by designers whose main area of expertise is not computer science. Designers generate these visualizations using a handful of design tools and environments. To better ...
Form and materiality in interaction design: a new approach to HCI
CHI EA '11: CHI '11 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing SystemsThis paper is motivated by the increasing significance of form in design and use of interactive artifacts. The objective of this paper is to conceptualize what we mean by form in the context of interaction design and HCI research and how we can approach ...
Comments