Which Aesthetic Has the Greatest Effect on Human Understanding

Purchase, Helen C. (1998) Which Aesthetic Has the Greatest Effect on Human Understanding. In: Graph Drawing 5th International Symposium, GD '97, September 18–20, Rome, Italy , pp. 248-261 (Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/3-540-63938-1_67).

Full text not available from this repository.


In the creation of graph drawing algorithms and systems, designers claim that by producing layouts that optimise certain asthetic qualities, the graphs are easier to understand. Such aesthetics include maximise symmetry, minimise edge crosses and minimise bends. A previous study aimed to validate these claims with respect to three aesthetics, using paper-based experiments [11]. The study reported here is superior in many ways: five aesthetics are considered, attempts are made to place priority order on the relative importance of the aesthetics, the experiments are run on-line, and the ease of understanding the drawings is measured in time, as well as in the number of errors. In addition, greater consideration is given to the possible effect of confounding factors in the graph drawings. The results indicate that reducing the number of edge crosses is by far the most important aesthetic, while minimising the number of bends and maximising symmetry have a lesser effect. The effects of maximising the minimum angle between edges leaving a node and of fixing edges and nodes to an orthogonal grid are not statistically significant. This work is important since it helps to demonstrate to algorithm and system designers the aesthetic qualities most important for aiding human understanding, the most appropiate compromises to make when there is a conflict in aesthetics, and consequently, how to build more effective systems.

Item Type:Conference Paper
Additional Information:10.1007/3-540-63938-1_67
Classifications:D Aesthetics > D.001 General
ID Code:84

Repository Staff Only: item control page


C. Batini, M. Talamo, and R. Tamassia. Computer aided layout of entity-relationship diagrams. Journal of Systems and Software, 4:163-173, 1984.

S. Bhanji, H.C. Purchase, R.F. Cohen, and M.I. James. Validating graph drawing aesthetics: A pilot study. Technical Report 336, University of Queensland Department of Computer Science, 1995.

J. Blyth, C. McGrath, and D. Krackhardt. The effect of graph layout on inference from social network data. In F. Brandenbueg, editor, Proceedings of Graph Drawing Symposium 1995. Springer-Verlag, Passau, Germany, 1995. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1027.

G. Booch. Object-Oriented Design. Benjamin-Cummings, 1990.

P. Eades. A heuristic for graph drawing. Congressus Numerantium, 42:149-160, 1984.

D. Ferrari and L. Mezzalira. On drawing a graph with the minimum number of crossings, Technical Report 69-11, Istituto di Elettrotecnica ed Elettronica, Politecnico di Milano, 1969.

R. Gottsdanker. Experimenting in Psychology. Prentice-Hall, 1978.

M. Himsolt. GRAPHED user manual. Universität Passau, 1990.

P.R. Hinton. Statistics Explained. Routledge, 1995.

R. Lipton, S. North, and J. Sandberg. A method for drawing graphs. In Proc. ACM Symp. on Computational Geometry , pages 153-160, 1985.

H.C. Purchase, R.F. Cohen, and M. James. An experimental study of the basis for graph drawing algorithms. ACM Journal of Experimental Algorithmics, 2(4), 1997.

H.C. Purchase and D. Leonard. Graph drawing aesthetic metrics. Technical Report 361, University of Queensland Department of Computer Science, 1996.

R. Tamassia. On embedding a graph in the grid with the minimum number of bends. SIAM J. Computing, 16(3):421-444, 1987.

R. Tamassia, G. Di Battista, and C. Batini. Automatic graph drawing and readability of diagrams. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, SMC- 18(1):61-79, 1988.

H. Trickey. Drag: A graph drawing system. In Proc. Int. Conf. on Electronic Publishing, pages 171-182. Cambridge University Press, 1988.