Advertisement

Recognizing graphic detail an experiment in user interpretation of data models

  • J. C. Nordbotten
  • M. E. Crosby
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 940)

Abstract

Graphic data models are used as a communication tool between system users and a system analyst to support database design. It is a tacit assumption that users understand graphic models and can confirm that the model correctly depicts important requirements for the system. For this, the data model syntax and style must facilitate understanding of the information elements, interrelationships, and constraints represented. Unfortunately, little is known about how users read and interpret data models, what level of detail is seen, or how model type or graphic style influences model comprehension. Our observations, from a pilot study in graphic data model perception, indicate that many graph details are seen by less than half of the readers and that graphic style influences both the ease with which the models are read and model comprehension.

Keywords

graphic model perception data models database design 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Brooke, J. and Duncan, K., An Experimental Study of Flowcharts as an Aid to the Identification of Procedural Faults. Ergonomics, 23, 1980, 387–399.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cattel,R.G.G. Object Data Management Object-oriented and Extended RDBS. Addison Wesley, 1991.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    ElMasri,R. and S.B.Navathe, Fundamentals of Database Systems,2.ed. Benjamin Cummings 1994.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Just, M., Carpenter, P., A theory of reading: From eye fixation to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87, 1980, pp 329–354.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lohse, G., A Cognitive Model for Understanding Graphical Perception. Human-Computer Interaction, 8, 1993, pp.353–388.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Loomis,M. Data Modeling — the IDEF1X Technique. Proc. IEEE Conf. on Computers and Communications, pp 146–151. March 1986.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    McConkie, G. Eye Movements and Perception During Reading. In K. Rayner (Ed.) Eye Movements in Reading: In Eye Movements in Reading: Perceptual and Language Processes, Academic Press, NY, NY. 1983.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nijssen, G.M. and T.A. Halpin. Conceptual Schema And Relational Database Design — A fact oriented approach. Prentice Hall 1989.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nordbotten, J.C. Modelling Relationships And Constraints In SSM — A Structural Semantic Data Model. Report no. 14, ISSN 0803-6489. Information Science, Univ. of Bergen. 1993.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nordbotten,J.C. & M.E.Crosby. Graphic Model Legibility — An Experiment. Report no. 14, ISSN 0803-6489. Information Science, Univ. of Bergen. 1995.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sheppard, S.B., Kruisi, E., Bailey, J. W. An Empirical Evaluation of Software Documentation Formats. Proceedings Human Factors in Computer Systems, 1982, 121–124.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wolverton, G. & Zola, D. The Temporal Characteristics of Visual Information Extraction During Reading. In K. Rayner (Ed.) Eye Movements in Reading: In Eye Movements in Reading: Perceptual and Language Processes, 1983, New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wright, P. & Reid, F., Written Information: Some Alternatives to Prose for Expressing the Outcome of Complex Contingencies. Journal of Applied Psychology 57, 1973, pp. 160–166.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. C. Nordbotten
    • 1
  • M. E. Crosby
    • 2
  1. 1.Dept. of Information ScienceUniversity of BergenBergenNorway
  2. 2.Dept. of Information and Computer ScienceUniversity of Hawaii at ManoaHonoluluUSA

Personalised recommendations