Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Advances in Information Systems Development pp 481–492Cite as

What Makes a Good Diagram? Improving the Cognitive Effectiveness of Diagrams in IS Development

  • Conference paper

Diagrams play a critical role in IS development. Despite this, ISD practitioners receive little or no instruction on how to produce “good” diagrams. In the absence of this, they are forced to rely on their intuition and experience, and make layout decisions that distort information or convey unintended meanings. The design of ISD graphical notations is ad hoc and unscientific: choice of conventions is based on personal taste rather than scientific evidence. Also, existing notations use a very limited graphic vocabulary and thus fail to exploit the potential communication power of diagrams. This paper describes a set of principles for producing “good” diagrams, which are defined as diagrams that communicate effectively. These provide practical guidance for both designers and users of ISD diagramming notations and are soundly based on theoretical and empirical evidence from a wide range of disciplines. We conclude that radical change is required to ISD diagramming practices to achieve effective user-developer communication.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ambler, S.W., The Elements of UML 2.0 Style. 2005, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Antes, J.R. and S.W. Mann, Global-Local Precedence in Picture Processing. Psychological Research, 1984. 46 247-259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Baddeley, A. and G. Hitch, Working Memory, In The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Volume 8, G.H. Bower, Editor. 1974, Academic Press: London.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Baldwin, C.Y. and K.B. Clark, Design Rules Volume 1: The Power of Modularity. 2000, Cambridge, Massachuesetts, USA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bertin, J. , Semiology of Graphics: Diagrams, Networks, Maps. 1983, Madison, Wisconsin, USA: University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Blankenship, J. and D.F. Dansereau, The Effect of Animated Node-Link Displays on Information Recall. The Journal of Experimental Education, 2000. 68(4): p. 293-308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Britton, C. and S. Jones, The Untrained Eye: How Languages for Software Specification Support Understanding by Untrained Users. Human Computer Interaction, 1999. 14: p. 191-244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Britton, C., S. Jones, M. Kutar, M. Loomes, and B. Robinson. Evaluating the Intelligibility of Diagrammatic Languages Used in the Specification of Software. in Proceedings of of the First International Conference on the Theory and Application of Diagrams (Diagrams 2000). 2000. Edinburgh, Scotland.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Cleveland, W.S. and R. McGill, Graphical Perception: Theory, Experimentation and Application to the Development of Graphical Methods. Journal of the American Statistician Association, 1984. 79(387): p. 531-554.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Ericsson, K.A., W.G. Chase, and S. Faloon, Acquisition of a Memory Skill. Science, 1980. 208: p. 1181-1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Grant, E.R. and M.J. Spivey. Guiding Attention Produces Inferences in Diagram- Based Problem Solving. in First International Conference on the Theory and Application Application of Diagrams (Diagrams 2000). 2000. Edinburgh, Scotland.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Gurr, C.A., Effective Diagrammatic Communication: Syntactic, Semantic and Pragmatic Issues. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, 1999. 10: p. 317-342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hitchman, S., Practitioner Perceptions On The Use Of Some Semantic Concepts In The Entity Relationship Model. European Journal of Information Systems, 1995. 4(1): p. 31-40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. . HitchmanŞ .Ţ he Details of Conceptual Modelling Notations are Important- A Comparison of Relationship Normative Language. Communications of the AIS, 2002. 9(10).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Imhof, E., Positioning Names on Maps. The American Cartographer, 1975. 2: p. 128-144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kim, J., J. Hahn, and H. Hahn, How Do We Understand a System with (So) Many Diagrams? Cognitive Integration Processes in Diagrammatic Reasoning. Information Systems Research, 2000. 11(3): p. 284-303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. . Kimball, R., Is ER Modeling Hazardous to DSS? DBMS Magazine, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kosslyn, S.M., Understanding Charts And Graphs. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 1989. 3: p. 185-226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. . Larkin, J.H. and H.A. Simon, Why a Diagram is (Sometimes) Worth Ten Thousand Words. Cognitive Science, 1987. 11(1).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Lipowski, Z.J., Sensory And Information Inputs Overload: Behavioural Effects. Compre-hensive Psychiatry, 1975. 16(3): p. 105-124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Lohse, G.L., A Cognitive Model for Understanding Graphical Perception. Human-Computer Interaction, 1993. 8(4): p. 353-388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Lohse, G.L., The Role of Working Memory on Graphical Information Processing. Behaviour and Information Technology, 1997. 16(6): p. 297-308.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Lohse, G.L., D. Min, and J.R. Olson, Cognitive Evaluation of System Representation Diagrams. Information & Management, 1995. 29: p. 79-94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. . Mackinlay, J., Automating the Design of Graphical Presentations of Relational 141.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Mayer, R.E. and R. Moreno, Nine Ways to Reduce Cognitive Load in Multimedia Learning. Educational Psychologist, 2003. 38(1): p. 43-52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Miller, G.A., The Magical Number Seven, Plus Or Minus Two: Some Limits On Our Capacity For Processing Information. The Psychological Review, 1956. 63: p. 81-97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. . Moody, D.L. Complexity Effects On End User Understanding Of Data Models: An Experimental Comparison Of Large Data Model Representation Methods. In 2002. Gdansk, Poland.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Nordbotten, J.C. and M.E. Crosby, The Effect of Graphic Style on Data Model Interpretation. Information Systems Journal, 1999. 9(2): p. 139-156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. . OMG, Unified Modeling Language Version2.0: Superstructure.2005: Object Management Group (OMG).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Palmer, S. and I. Rock, Rethinking Perceptual Organisation: The Role of Uniform Connectedness. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 1994. 1(1): p. 29-55.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Patrignani, M., Visualization of Large Graphs, in Dottorato di Ricerca (Doctoral Dissertation), Ingegneria Informatica. 2003, Università degli Studi di Roma: La Sapienza, Italy.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Peirce, C.S., Charles S. Peirce: The Essential Writings (Great Books in Philosophy), ed. E.C. Moore. 1998, Amherst, USA: Prometheus Books.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Petre, M., Why Looking Isn’t Always Seeing: Readership Skills and Graphical Programming. Communications of the ACM, 1995. 38(6): p. 33-44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Pinker, S., A Theory of Graph Comprehension, In Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Testing, R. Freedle, Editor. 1990, Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates: Hillsdale, New Jersey, USA. p. 73-126.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Robinson, A.H., J.L. Morrison, P.C. Muehrcke, A.J. Kimerling, and S.C. Guptill, Elements of Cartography (6th Edition). 1995, New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Scaife, M. and Y. Rogers, External Cognition: How Do Graphical Representations Work? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 1996. 45: p. 185-213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Shanks, G.G., The Challenges Of Strategic Data Planning In Practice: An Interpretive Case Study. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 1997. 6(1): p. 69-90.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  38. Siau, K., Informational and Computational Equivalence in Comparing Information Modelling Methods. Journal of Database Management, 2004. 15(1): p. 73-86.

    Google Scholar 

  39. . Tasker, D., Worth 1,000 Words? Ha! Business Rules Journal, 2002. 3(11).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Tinker, M.A., Legibility of Print. 1963, Ames, Iowa, USA: Iowa State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Treisman, A. and G.A. Gelade, A Feature Integration Theory of Attention. Cognitive Psychology, 1980. 12: p. 97-136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Verdi, M.P., J.T. Johnson, W.A. Stock, R.W. Kulhavy, and P. Whitman-Ahern, Organized Spatial Displays And Texts: Effects Of Presentation Order And Display Type On Learning Outcomes. The Journal of Experimental Education, 1997. 65(4): p. 303-317.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Wallgren, A., B. Wallgren, R. Persson, U. Jorner, and J.-A. Haaland, Graphing Statistics & Data: Creating Better Charts. 1996, London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Watts-Perotti, J. and D.D. Woods, How Experienced Users Avoid Getting Lost in Large Display Networks. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 1999. 11(4): 169-299.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Weber, R.A., Are Attributes Entities? A Study Of Database Designers’ Memory Structures. Information Systems Research, 1996. 7(2): p. 137-162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. . Wertheimer, M., Laws of Organization in Perceptual Forms, In A Source Book of Gestalt Psychology, W. Ellis, Editor. 1938, Routledge and Kegan Paul (originally published in 1923 in German as Untersuchungen zur Lehre von der Gestalt II, in Psycologische Forschung, 4, 301-350): London. p. 71-88.

    Google Scholar 

  47. White, A.W., The Elements of Graphic Design: Space, Unity, Page Architecture and Type. 2002, New York: Allworth Press.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Winn, W.D., Encoding and Retrieval of Information in Maps and Diagrams. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 1990. 33(3): p. 103-107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Winn, W.D., A Theoretical Framework for Research on Learning from Graphics. International Journal of Educational Research, 1990. 14: p. 553-564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Winn, W.D., Learning from Maps and Diagrams. Educational Psychology Review, 1991. 3: p. 211-247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Winn, W.D., An Account of How Readers Search for Information in Diagrams. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 1993. 18: p. 162-185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Yeh, M. and C.D. Wickens, Attention Filtering in the Design of Electronic Map Displays: A Comparison of Colour Coding, Intensity Coding and Decluttering Techniques. Human Factors, 2001. 43(4): p. 543-562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Information Systems and Change Management, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands

    Daniel Moody

Authors
  1. Daniel Moody
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Boise State University, 1910 University Drive, 83725, Boise, Idaho, USA

    Wita Wojtkowski  & W. Gregory Wojtkowski  & 

  2. University of Maribor, SI-6400, Presernova, Slovenia

    Jože Zupancic

  3. Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Muegyetem rkp. 1-3, HU-1111, Budapest, Hungary

    Gabor Magyar  & Gabor Knapp  & 

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2007 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this paper

Cite this paper

Moody, D. (2007). What Makes a Good Diagram? Improving the Cognitive Effectiveness of Diagrams in IS Development. In: Wojtkowski, W., Wojtkowski, W.G., Zupancic, J., Magyar, G., Knapp, G. (eds) Advances in Information Systems Development. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-70802-7_40

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-70802-7_40

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-387-70801-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-0-387-70802-7

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation