Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published bySybil Hodge Modified over 9 years ago
1
3D vs. 2D Graphs in Representing Lower Dimensional Data Do Irrelevant depth cues affect the comprehension of bar graphs? -Martin M. Fisher(2000) The use or misuse of three-dimensional data to represent lower dimensional data -Michael Siegrist(1996)
2
Simple vs. Fancy
3
2D graphs Less cluttered Faster interpretation Maximum “data-ink” ratio (Tufte1983) 3D displays – “chartjunk” Estimating volume is difficult (Kosslyn1994)
4
3D graphs Fancy details make the graph more attractive Capturing attention Enhancing memorableness of information Enhancing processing speeds (Spence1990) Extra processing time may improve recall (Craik1972)
5
Experiments: 2D vs. 3D Independent variables Bar graphs and Pie charts Characteristics of bars (height, position) Dimension of the frames Dependent Variables Time to interpret information Accuracy of interpretation Memory retrieval time
6
Pie Charts 2D is better than 3D in interpretation accuracy Perspective angle is important
7
Bar Charts (Siegrist) 2D and 3D did not differ in interpretation accuracy Position and height had a significant effect 3D took longer to interpret
8
Bar Charts (Fischer) 3D bars took longer to interpret Dimensionality of frames did not matter for interpretation time Dimensionality of frame may effect recall time
9
From Fischer’s paper
10
Conclusion More 3D graphs are being used 2D is safer Accuracy Time needed for interpretation When using 3D, Be careful! Perspective angle Frame dimensionality
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.