# 3D vs. 2D Graphs in Representing Lower Dimensional Data - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

3D vs. 2D Graphs in Representing Lower Dimensional Data

1 / 10
3D vs. 2D Graphs in Representing Lower Dimensional Data

## 3D vs. 2D Graphs in Representing Lower Dimensional Data

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
##### Presentation Transcript

1. 3D vs. 2D Graphsin Representing Lower Dimensional Data Do Irrelevant depth cues affect the comprehension of bar graphs? -Martin M. Fisher(2000) The use or misuse of three-dimensional data to represent lower dimensional data -Michael Siegrist(1996)

2. Simple vs. Fancy

3. 2D graphs • Less cluttered  Faster interpretation • Maximum “data-ink” ratio (Tufte1983) • 3D displays – “chartjunk” • Estimating volume is difficult (Kosslyn1994)

4. 3D graphs • Fancy details make the graph more attractive • Capturing attention • Enhancing memorableness of information • Enhancing processing speeds (Spence1990) • Extra processing time may improve recall (Craik1972)

5. Experiments: 2D vs. 3D • Independent variables • Bar graphs and Pie charts • Characteristics of bars (height, position) • Dimension of the frames • Dependent Variables • Time to interpret information • Accuracy of interpretation • Memory retrieval time

6. Pie Charts • 2D is better than 3D in interpretation accuracy • Perspective angle is important

7. Bar Charts (Siegrist) • 2D and 3D did not differ in interpretation accuracy • Position and height had a significant effect • 3D took longer to interpret

8. Bar Charts (Fischer) • 3D bars took longer to interpret • Dimensionality of frames did not matter for interpretation time • Dimensionality of frame may effect recall time

9. From Fischer’s paper

10. Conclusion • More 3D graphs are being used • 2D is safer • Accuracy • Time needed for interpretation • When using 3D, Be careful! • Perspective angle • Frame dimensionality