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.
References
Bauer MI, Johnson-Laird PN (1993) How diagrams can improve reasoning. Psychol Sci 4(6):372–378
Carroll JM, Mack RL, Robertson SP, Rosson MB (1994) Binding objects to scenarios of use. Int J Hum Comput Stud 41:243–276
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 207–212
Daniel M-P, Denis M (2003) The production of route directions: investigating conditions that favor concise spatial discourse. Appl Cogn Psychol 18(1):57–75
Daniel MP, Manghi E, Tom A, Denis M (2003) Testing the value of route directions through navigational performance. Spat Cogn Comput 3(4):269–289
Denis M (1997) The description of routes: a cognitive approach to the production of spatial discourse. Curr Psychol Cogn 16:409–458
Dixon P (1987a) The processing of mental plans for following directions. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 13(1):18–26
Dixon P (1987b) The processing of organizational and component step information in written directions. J Mem Lang 26:24–35
Ganier F (2004) Factors affecting the processing of procedural instructions: implications for document design. IEEE Trans Prof Commun 47(1):15–26
Gentner D, Stevens AL (1983) Mental models. Erlbaum, Hillsdale
Glenberg AM, Langston WE (1992) Comprehension of illustrated text: pictures help to build mental models. J Mem Lang 31:129–151
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 York
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, ACM
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
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):27–33
Larkin JH, Simon HA (1987) Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cogn Sci 11(1):65–99
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 67–101
Mani K, Johnson-Laird PN (1982) The mental representation of spatial descriptions. Memory Cogn 10:181–187
Marcus N, Cooper M, Sweller J (1996) Understanding instructions. J Educ Psychol 88:49–63
Mijksenaar P, Westendorp P (1999) Open here: the art of instructional design. Thames and Hudson, London
Norman DA (1998) The design of everyday things. Doubleday, New York
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 279–325
Novick LR (2006) Understanding spatial diagram structure. Q J Exp Psychol 59:1826–1856
Novick LR, Morse DL (2000) Folding a fish, making a mushroom: the role of diagrams in executing assembly procedures. Memory Cogn 28(7):1242–1256
Scaife M, Rogers Y (1996) External cognition: how do graphical representations work? Int J Hum Comput Stud 45:185–213
Schnotz W (2002) Towards an integrated view of learning from text and visual displays. Educ Psychol Rev 14(1):101–120
Stenning K, Oberlander J (1995) A cognitive theory of graphical and linguistic reasoning: logic and implementation. Cogn Sci 19:97–140
Tufte ER (1983) The visual display of quantitative information. Graphics Press, Cheshire
Tversky B (2001) Spatial schemas in depictions. In: Gattis M (ed) Spatial schemas and abstract thought. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 79–111
Tversky B (2005) Visualspatial reasoning. In: Holyoak K, Morrison R (eds) Handbook of reasoning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 209–249
Tversky B (2011) Visualizations of thought. Top Cogn Sci 3:499–535
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, Mahwah
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 23–34
Vandenberg SG, Kuse AR (1978) Mental rotations, A group test of three-dimensional spatial visualization. Perceptual Motor Skills 47:599–604
Zacks JM, Tversky B, Iyer G (2001) Perceiving, remembering, and communicating structure in events. J Exp Psychol: Gen 130:29–58
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Daniel, MP., Tversky, B. How to put things together. Cogn Process 13, 303–319 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-012-0521-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-012-0521-5