Advertisement

Cognitive Processing

, Volume 13, Issue 4, pp 303–319 | Cite as

How to put things together

  • Marie-Paule DanielEmail author
  • Barbara Tversky
Research Report

Abstract

Instructions for putting things together or understanding how things work are notoriously frustrating. Performance relies on constructing mental models of the object and the actions of the object from text or diagrams or both. Here, we show that instructions can be improved by turning users into designers and deriving design principles from their designs. People first assembled an object and then crafted assembly instructions, using text alone or text and diagrams. Some were required to be brief and to include only the most essential information. Users’ instructions had a narrative structure with an introduction, a middle, and an end. The essential middle described or depicted the step-by-step sequence of actions on parts. Diagrams were regarded as fundamental, and redundancy of depictions and descriptions desirable. These design principles have wide applicability to many kinds of explanations.

Keywords

Assembly instructions Diagrams Spatial ability 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Julie Heiser for her participation in the design, execution, and analyses of the second experiment. The research was aided by the following grants: National Science Foundation HHC 0905417, IIS-0725223, IIS-0855995, and REC 0440103, the Stanford Regional Visualization and Analysis Center, and Office of Naval Research NOOO14-PP-1-O649, N000140110717, and N000140210534.

References

  1. Bauer MI, Johnson-Laird PN (1993) How diagrams can improve reasoning. Psychol Sci 4(6):372–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Carroll JM, Mack RL, Robertson SP, Rosson MB (1994) Binding objects to scenarios of use. Int J Hum Comput Stud 41:243–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cheng PC-H (1996) Functional roles for the cognitive analysis of diagrams in problem solving. In: Cottrell GW (ed) Proceeding of the eighteenth annual conference of the cognitive science society. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 207–212Google Scholar
  4. Daniel M-P, Denis M (2003) The production of route directions: investigating conditions that favor concise spatial discourse. Appl Cogn Psychol 18(1):57–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Daniel MP, Manghi E, Tom A, Denis M (2003) Testing the value of route directions through navigational performance. Spat Cogn Comput 3(4):269–289Google Scholar
  6. Denis M (1997) The description of routes: a cognitive approach to the production of spatial discourse. Curr Psychol Cogn 16:409–458Google Scholar
  7. Dixon P (1987a) The processing of mental plans for following directions. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 13(1):18–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dixon P (1987b) The processing of organizational and component step information in written directions. J Mem Lang 26:24–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ganier F (2004) Factors affecting the processing of procedural instructions: implications for document design. IEEE Trans Prof Commun 47(1):15–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gentner D, Stevens AL (1983) Mental models. Erlbaum, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
  11. Glenberg AM, Langston WE (1992) Comprehension of illustrated text: pictures help to build mental models. J Mem Lang 31:129–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hegarty M, Carpenter PA, Just MA (1990) Diagrams in the comprehension of scientific text. In: Barr R, Kamil ML, Mosenthal P, Pearson PD (eds) Handbook of reading research. Longman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Heiser J, Phan D, Agrawala M, Tversky B, Hanrahan P (2004) Identification and validation of cognitive design principles for automated generation of assembly instructions. In: Proceedings of advanced visual interfaces’04, pp 311–319, ACMGoogle Scholar
  14. Kessell AM, Tversky B (2011) Visualizing space, time, and agents: production, performance, and preference. Cogn Process 12:43–52. doi: 10.1007/s10339-010-0379-3 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Krull R, D’Souza S, Roy D, Sharp DM, Roy D (2004) Designing procedural illustrations: IEEE transactions on professional communication. Acquir Proced Knowl Technol Interface 47(1):27–33Google Scholar
  16. Larkin JH, Simon HA (1987) Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cogn Sci 11(1):65–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Linn MC, Petersen AC (1986) A meta-anaysis of gender differences in spatial ability: Implications for mathematics and science achievement. In: Hyde JS, Linn MC (eds) The psychology of gender: advances through metaanalysis. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp 67–101Google Scholar
  18. Mani K, Johnson-Laird PN (1982) The mental representation of spatial descriptions. Memory Cogn 10:181–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Marcus N, Cooper M, Sweller J (1996) Understanding instructions. J Educ Psychol 88:49–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mijksenaar P, Westendorp P (1999) Open here: the art of instructional design. Thames and Hudson, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Norman DA (1998) The design of everyday things. Doubleday, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Novick LR (2001) Spatial diagrams: key instruments in the toolbox for thought. In: Medin DL (ed) The psychology of learning and motivation, vol 40. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 279–325Google Scholar
  23. Novick LR (2006) Understanding spatial diagram structure. Q J Exp Psychol 59:1826–1856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Novick LR, Morse DL (2000) Folding a fish, making a mushroom: the role of diagrams in executing assembly procedures. Memory Cogn 28(7):1242–1256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Scaife M, Rogers Y (1996) External cognition: how do graphical representations work? Int J Hum Comput Stud 45:185–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schnotz W (2002) Towards an integrated view of learning from text and visual displays. Educ Psychol Rev 14(1):101–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Stenning K, Oberlander J (1995) A cognitive theory of graphical and linguistic reasoning: logic and implementation. Cogn Sci 19:97–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tufte ER (1983) The visual display of quantitative information. Graphics Press, CheshireGoogle Scholar
  29. Tversky B (2001) Spatial schemas in depictions. In: Gattis M (ed) Spatial schemas and abstract thought. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 79–111Google Scholar
  30. Tversky B (2005) Visualspatial reasoning. In: Holyoak K, Morrison R (eds) Handbook of reasoning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 209–249Google Scholar
  31. Tversky B (2011) Visualizations of thought. Top Cogn Sci 3:499–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tversky B, Agrawala M, Heiser J, Lee PU, Hanrahan P, Phan D, Stolte C, Daniel M-P (2007) Cognitive design principles for generating visualizations. In: Allen G (ed) Applied spatial cognition: from research to cognitive technology. Erlbaum, MahwahGoogle Scholar
  33. Tversky B, Corter JE, Yu L, Mason DL, Nickerson JV (2012) Representing category and continuum: visualizing thought. In: Rodgers P, Cox P, Plimmer B (eds) Diagrammatic representation and inference. Springer, Berlin, pp 23–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Vandenberg SG, Kuse AR (1978) Mental rotations, A group test of three-dimensional spatial visualization. Perceptual Motor Skills 47:599–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zacks JM, Tversky B, Iyer G (2001) Perceiving, remembering, and communicating structure in events. J Exp Psychol: Gen 130:29–58Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Marta Olivetti Belardinelli and Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Limsi-CNRSOrsayFrance
  2. 2.Columbia Teachers CollegeStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations