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