Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bennett, K. B.
Right arrow Articles by Nittoli, B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Bennett, K. B.
Right arrow Articles by Nittoli, B.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

An Empirical Comparison of Alternative Methodologies for the Evaluation of Configural Displays

Kevin B. Bennett

Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio

Michael Payne

Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio

Jeffery Calcaterra

Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio

Bob Nittoli

Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio

Two different methodologies (visual, memory) were used to evaluate alternative versions of the same configural display. One version (composite display) had several graphical design techniques applied, whereas the other version (baseline display) did not. Two types of information probes (high-level property, low-level data) were administered. When the displays were visible during completion of the probes (visual methodology), the display manipulation had the largest impact on performance (composite display associated with better performance); when the displays were not visible (memory methodology) the probe manipulation had the largest impact on performance (high-level probes associated with better performance). These results are interpreted in light of the mutually interacting constraints introduced by factors in display design, task requirements, and the participants' cognitive and perceptual capabilities/limitations. Implications for both the design and the evaluation of displays and interfaces in general are discussed. Actual or potential applications of this research include design techniques for improving the quality of graphic displays and methodological insights for interpreting previous research and guiding future experimentation.

Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Vol. 42, No. 2, 287-298 (2000)
DOI: 10.1518/001872000779656462
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics SocietyHome page
K. B. Bennett and B. Walters
Configural Display Design Techniques Considered at Multiple Levels of Evaluation
Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, January 1, 2001; 43(3): 415 - 434.
[Abstract] [PDF]