A Meta-Taxonomy for Diagram Research

  • Alan Blackwell
  • Yuri Engelhardt


What is the common ground for a science of diagrams? A simple definition of which notations qualify as diagrams, if it were possible to achieve one, is likely to exclude valuable insights. As an alternative we suggest that common ground should be established on a taxonomic basis. A wide range of candidate taxonomies has already been described in several different academic fields. When taxonomies are needed, we propose that the taxonomic precedents should be treated more analytically than simply selecting the most inclusive or rigorous to be extended as necessary.


Visual Representation Graphic Structure Diagrammatic Representation Cognitive Dimension Graphic Design 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Arnheim, R. (1969). Visual thinking. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barnard, P. and Marcel, T. (1978). Representation and understanding in the use of symbols and pictograms. In R. Easterby and H. Zwaga (Eds), Information design. Chichester: Wiley, pp. 37–75.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barthes, R. (1965). Elements de semiologie. Translated by A. Lavers and C. Smith, Elements of semiology. New York: Hill and Wang (1975).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bennett, K.B. and Flach, J.M. (1992). Graphical displays: Implications for divided attention, focused attention and problem solving. Human Factors 34(5):513–533.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bertin, J. (1967). Semiologie graphique: les diagrammes, les reseaux, les cartes. The Hague/Paris: Mouton/Gauthiers-Villars.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bertin, J. (1977). La graphique et le traitement graphique de l’information. Paris: Flammarion.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Blackwell, A.F. (1997). Diagrams about thinking about thinking about diagrams. In M. Anderson (Ed.), Reasoning with diagrammatic representations II: Papers from the AAAI 1997 fall symposium. Technical report FS-97–02. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press, pp. 77–84.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bowman, W.J. (1968). Graphic communication. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bullimore, M.A., Howarth, P.A. and Fulton, E.J. (1995). Assessment of visual performance. In J.R. Wilson and E.N. Corlett (Eds), Evaluation of human work (2nd edn). London: Taylor and Francis, pp. 804–839.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Card, S., Mackinlay J., and Shneiderman, B. (1999). Readings in information visualization: Using vision to think. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 134.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cheng, P.C.-H. (1996). Functional roles for the cognitive analysis of diagrams in problem solving. In Proceedings of 18th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 207–212.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chuah, M.C., and Roth, S.F. (1996). On the semantics of interactive visualizations. In Proceedings of information visualization, IEEE, San Francisco, October 1996, pp. 29–36.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cox, R. and Brna, P. (1995). Supporting the use of external representations in problem solving: The need for flexible learning environments. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 6(2):239–302.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dale, E. (1969). Audiovisual methods in teaching (3rd edn). New York, Holt, Rhinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Doblin, J. (1980). A structure for nontextual communications. In P.A. Kolers, M.E. Wrolstad and H. Bouma (Eds), Processing of visible language 2. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 89–111.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Eco, U. (1985). Producing signs. In M. Blonsky (Ed.), On signs. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, pp. 176–183.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Elkins, J. (1999). The domain of images. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Engelhardt, Y. (1998). Meaningful space: How graphics use space to convey information. In Proceedings of vision plus 4, School of Design, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, pp. 108–126.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Engelhardt, Y., Bruin, J., Janssen, T. and Scha, R. (1996). The visual grammar of information graphics. In N.H. Narayanan and J. Damski (Eds), Proceedings of AID ’96 workshop on visual representation, reasoning and interaction in design, Key Centre for Design Computing, University of Sydney.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Garland, K. (1979). Some general characteristics present in diagrams denoting activity, event and relationship. Information Design Journal 1(1):15–22.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Goldsmith, E. (1984). Research into illustration: An approach and a review. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Goodman, N. (1969). Languages of art: An approach to a theory of symbols. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Green T.R.G. and Petre M. (1996). Usability analysis of visual programming environments: A “cognitive dimensions” approach. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing 7:131–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Green, T.R.G. and Blackwell, A.F. (1998). Design for usability using cognitive dimensions. Tutorial presented at BCS conference on human-computer interaction HCI’98, Sheffield, UK.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hardin, P. (1981). Representational characteristics in diagrams of statements of relationships. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Iowa, UM 812 8401.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Harrison, R.P. (1964). Pictic analysis: Toward a vocabulary and syntax for the pictorial code; with research on facial expression. Unpublished PhD thesis, Michigan State University.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Horn, R.E. (1999). Visual language: Global communication for the 21st century. Bainbridge Island, WA: MacroVU, Inc.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ittelson, W.H. (1996). Visual perception of markings. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 3:171–187.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kandinsky, W. (1921). Fundamental elements of painting [in Russian]. In a report to the People’s Commissariat for Public Education, Moscow. English translation published in Languages in Design 1(3, 1993):267–271.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Karsten, K.G. (1923). Charts and graphs. New York: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Knowlton, J.Q. (1966). On the definition of “picture”. AV Communication Review 14:157–183.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Krampen, M. (1965). Signs and symbols in graphic communication. Design Quarterly 62:1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kress, G. and van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Larkin, J.H. and Simon, H.A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science 11:65–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lohse, G.L., Biolisi, K., Walker, N. and Rueter, H.H. (1994). A classification of visual representations. Communications of the ACM 37(12):36–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    MacEachren, A.M. (1995). How maps work: Representation, visualization, and design. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Macdonald-Ross, M. (1977). Graphics in texts. In L.S. Shulman (Ed.), Review of research in education, Vol. 5. Itasca, IL: Peacock.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Mackinlay, J. (1986). Automating the design of graphical presentations of relational information. ACM Transactions on Graphics 5(2):110–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Marriott, K. and Meyer, B. (1998). The CCMG visual language hierarchy. In K. Marriott and B. Meyer (Eds), Visual language theory. Berlin: Springer, pp. 129–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Martin, J. and McClure, C. (1985). Diagramming techniques for analysts and programmers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Narayanan, N.H. (1997). Diagrammatic communication: A taxonomic overview. In N. Kokinov (Ed.), Perspectives on cognitive science, Vol. 3. Sofia: New Bulgarian University Press.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Netz, R. (1999). The shaping of deduction in Greek mathematics: A study in cognitive history. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Newsham, R. (1995). Symbolic representation in object-oriented methodologies: Modeling the essence of the computer system. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Computer Science, Nottingham Trent University.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Nyerges, T.L. (1991a). Geographic information abstractions: Conceptual clarity for geographic modeling. Environment and Planning A 23:1483–1499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Nyerges, T.L. (1991b). Representing geographical meaning. In B.P. Buttenfield and R.B. McMaster (Eds), Map generalization: Making rules for knowledge representation. Essex, UK: Longman, pp. 59–85.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Owen, C.L. (1986). Technology, literacy, and graphic systems. In M.E. Wrolstad and D.F. Fisher (Eds), Towards a new understanding of literacy. In Proceedingsof the third conference on processing of visual language, 31 May-3 June 1982, Airlie House, Airlie, VA.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Peirce, C.S. (written around 1897, republished in 1932). Elements of logic. In C. Hartshorne and P. Weiss (Eds), The collected papers of C.S. Peirce. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Price, B.A., Baecker, R.M. and Small, I.S. (1993). A principled taxonomy of software visualization. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing 4(3):211–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Rankin, R. (1990). A taxonomy of graph types. Information Design Journal 6(2):147–159.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Richards, C.J. (1984). Diagrammatics. PhD thesis, Royal College of Art, London.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Roth, S.F. and Mattis, J. (1990). Data characterization for intelligent graphics presentation. In Proceedings of the conference on human factors in computing systems (SIGCHI ’90), Seattle, WA, April 1990, pp. 193–200.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Roth, S.F., Kolojejchick, J., Mattis, J. and Goldstein, J. (1994). Interactive graphic design using automatic presentation knowledge. In Proceedings of the CHI’94 conference on human factors in computing systems. New York: ACM Press, pp. 112–117.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Saint-Martin, F. (1987). Semiotics of visual language. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Sampson, G. (1985). Writing systems: A linguistic introduction. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Scaife, M. and Rogers, Y. (1996). External cognition: How do graphical representations work? International Journal of Human Computer Studies 45:185–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Shimojima, A. (1999). The graphic-linguistic distinction - exploring alternatives. Artificial Intelligence Review 13:313–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Stewart, A.H. (1976). Graphic representation of models in linguistic theory. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Strothotte, C. and Strothotte, T. (1997). Seeing between the pixels. Berlin: Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Tversky, B. (1997). Cognitive principles of graphic displays. In M. Anderson (Ed.), Reasoning with diagrammatic representations II: Papers from the AAAI 1997 fall symposium. Technical report FS-97–02. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press, pp. 97–02.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Tweedie, L. (1997). Characterizing interactive externalizations. In Proceedings of the CHI’97 conference on human factors in computing systems. New York: ACM Press, pp. 375–382.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Twyman, M. (1979). A schema for the study of graphic language. In P.A. Kolers, M.E. Wrolstad and H. Bouma (Eds), Processing of visible language, Vol. 1. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 117–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    van der Waarde, K. (1993). An investigation into the suitability of the graphic presentation of patient package inserts. Unpublished PhD thesis, Department of Typography and Graphic Communication, University of Reading, UK.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Wehrend, R. and Lewis, C. (1990). A problem-oriented classification of visualization techniques. In Proceedings of the first IEEE conference on visualization: Visualization 90, October 1990. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE, pp. 139–143.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Werner, H. and Kaplan, B. (1963). Symbol formation: An organismic-developmental approach to language and the expression of thought. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Winn, W. (1989). The design and use of instructional graphics. In H. Mandl and J.R. Levin (Eds), Knowledge acquisition from text and pictures. North-Holland: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Wexelblat, A. (1991). Giving meaning to place: semantic spaces. In M. Benedikt (Ed.), Cyberspace: First steps. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 255–271.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Wood, D. and Fels, J. (1986). Designs on signs: Myth and meaning in maps. Cartographica 23:54–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Wurman, R.S. (1991). Information anxiety. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Zhang, J. (1997). The nature of external representations in problem solving. Cognitive Science 21:179–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alan Blackwell
  • Yuri Engelhardt

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations