Layout Effects on Sociogram Perception
This paper describes a within-subjects experiment in which we compare the relative effectiveness of five sociogram drawing conventions in communicating underlying network substance, based on user task performance and usability preference, in order to examine effects of different spatial layout formats on human sociogram perception. We also explore the impact of edge crossings, a widely accepted readability aesthetic. Subjective data were gathered based on the methodology of Purchase et al. Objective data were collected through an online system.
We found that both edge crossings and conventions pose significant affects on user preference and task performance of finding groups, but either has little impact on the perception of actor status. On the other hand, the node positioning and angular resolution might be more important in perceiving actor status. In visualizing social networks, it is important to note that the techniques that are highly preferred by users do not necessarily lead to best task performance.
KeywordsUser Preference Group Task Group Convention Collaboration Network Online System
- 1.Card, S., Mackinlay, J., Shneiderman, B.: Readings in information visualization: using vision to think. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco (1999)Google Scholar
- 2.Brandes, U., Raab, J., Wagner, D.: Exploratory Network Visualization: Simultaneous Display of Actor Status and Connections. Journal of Social Structure 2(4) (2001)Google Scholar
- 4.Di Battista, G., Eades, P., Tamassia, R., Tollis, I.: Graph drawing: algorithms for the visualisation of graphs. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1998)Google Scholar
- 5.Freeman, L.: Visualizing Social Groups. American Statistical Association. In: Proceedings of the Section on Statistical Graphics, pp. 47–54 (1999)Google Scholar
- 6.Ghoniem, M., Fekete, J., Castagliola, P.: A Comparison of the Readability of Graphs Using Node-Link and Matrix-Based Representations. In: Proceedings of the 10th IEEE InfoVis 2004, Austin, TX, pp. 17–24. IEEE Press, Los Alamitos (2004)Google Scholar
- 7.Huang, W., Hong, S., Eades, P.: Layout Effects: Comparison of Sociogram Drawing Conventions (2005), http://www.it.usyd.edu.au/~whua5569/ex/
- 9.Krackhardt, D.: Social Networks and Liability of Newness for Managers. In: Cooper, C.L., Rousseau, D.M. (eds.) Trends in Organizational Behavior, vol. 3, pp. 159–173. John Wiley Sons, Ltd., New York (1996)Google Scholar
- 11.McGrath, C., Blythe, J., Krackhardt, D.: Seeing Groups in Graph Layout. Connections 19(2), 22–29 (1996)Google Scholar
- 12.McGrath, C., Krackhardt, D., Blythe, J.: Visualizing Complexity in Networks: Seeing Both the Forest and the Trees. Connections 25(1), 37–47 (2003)Google Scholar
- 13.Moreno, J.L.: Who shall survive: Foundations of Sociometry, Group Psychother-apy, and Sociodrama. Beacon House Inc. (1953)Google Scholar
- 17.Scott, J.: Social Network Analysis: A Handbook, 2nd edn. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (2000)Google Scholar