An ergonomical
approach to Berlin's
method of graphically
displaying
multivariate data
W I M ADAMS
This paper, first presented at
the Information design
conference in December 1986,
discusses Bertin's method of
displaying numerical data by
means of an interactive
graphical matrix. In the study
the need for empirical
verification of theoretical
statements is stressed. The
ergonomical approach that is
chosen for this purpose is
subdivided into three major
stages: visual perception,
motor operations and cognitive
information processing. The
subject of this paper is mainly
restricted to the first stage of
visual perception, which is
elaborated through some
psychophysical experiments
concerning the shape and size
of symbols that are suited to be
used as matrix elements.
Information Design Journal 5:3 (1989), 235–245. DOI 10.1075/idj.5.3.05ada
ISSN 0142–5471 / E-ISSN 1569–979X © John Benjamins Publishing Company
During the past ten years of the information
technology era, systems users have been
working with increasingly complex and
extensive information. As databases and
spreadsheets become more sophisticated,
and their contents more complex, the mass
of information they contain has become
harder to survey and to manage. Information
displayed only in numbers quickly becomes
overwhelming. Graphical means of display-
ing multivariate data were developed to
overcome this problem. First came pie charts
and bar charts, methods originally used to
display just one object or characteristic.
Next, users were able to present a number of
pairwise scatterplots, each displaying the
relation between two variables. Now there
are methods specifically developed to display
data in more dimensions, showing several
characteristics of several objects at the same
time. For example, users employing
complicated plotting symbols can use more
than one of their features at once, with each
feature displaying one object or
characteristic (Chambers et al 1983; Wainer
and Thissen 1983).
Although these methods of displaying
multivariate data can be graphically creative,
some problems do arise.
Firstly, although they can display a larger
number of characteristics than traditional
methods, as the number of features
presented rises the ease with which they can Author's address
be surveyed is reduced. There is a limit to Eindhoven University of Technology
Faculty of Architecture, Building and
the number of characteristics which they Planning
can display and this limit may be too low for P.O. Box 513
5600 MB Eindhoven
large databases. Wainer and Thissen (1981) The Netherlands
mention the representation of up to 18
© Wim Adams
variables using Chernoff faces (drawn faces
with certain distinct features such as size of
235
 WIM ADAMS ■ AN ERGONOMICAL APPROACH TO BERTIN'S METHOD

nose, slanting of eyes, shape of mouth re- message the data structure is trying to convey.
presenting the values of a number of criteria). The selection of symbols is often subjective
Secondly, these methods are more or less and arbitrary.
static and it is difficult to make them more A third problem concerns the level of the
dynamic. Once a decision has been made data that are to be displayed. There are four
about the symbol to be used and the levels of measurement normally distinguished
characteristics that are to be displayed by the in statistics. Some of the above-mentioned
distinct features of the symbol, the form and methods can only display data of higher levels
size of the displayed symbols and structures of measurement (ratio or interval level) and
directly follow the raw data. The relation are not suited for the display of categorical
between the sort and size of the data and the (nominal) or rank ordered (ordinal) data. Other
components or symbols chosen to display methods are unable to display data of different
them is similarly problematic. A particular levels in the same picture.
variable configuration may contradict the Lastly, there is no coherent body of theory.
Most of the above-mentioned methods for
J F M A M J L A S Q N EL,
Books A 10 8 7 ■ ™i 7 6 6 6 8 12 1 6 16 displaying multivariate data resulted from
Newspape_A 8 10 10 10 1 0 14 14 14 10 10 8 8 exploratory approaches. A coherent body of
Periodic A 6 6 8 6 5 14 16 14 8 6 4 4 theory which unites them is still missing.
Books B 6 6 6 7 12 14 14 12 9 7 5 5
Newspape B 14 14 14 12 8 8 6 7 1 1 13 13 14
Periodic B 8 8 8 9 10 10 1 1 1 1 9 8 14 14
Books C 16 12 1 1 1 1 10 16 16 16 10 10 16 16 BERTIN'S METHOD OF THE REORDERABLE
Newspape_C 4 4 4 4 8 8 9 7 8 6 4 4 MATRIX
Periodic C 3 4 5 5 6 15 14 14 1 1 5 3 3
l a Amount of books, newspapers and periodicals sold in oneThe French geographer Jacques Bertin has
year for three different bookshops developed and elaborated a new and inventive
way of displaying multivariate data. His
approach follows a coherent body of theory
concerning the display of information in
Books_A
graphical form and the processing of this
Newspape_A
graphic information (Bertin, 1981, 1983). The
Periodic_A
method he proposes involves the construction
Books_B
of a graphical matrix. It is based on the use of
Newspape_B
simple graphic symbols in maps. An example
Periodic_B of this method is given in Figure 1.
Books_C In maps, the size of a symbol can indicate
Newspape_C the amount of the characteristic it represents.
Periodic C Bertin states that this principle can be
l b Same information displayed in a graphical matrix. This transferred to the table or matrix form, where
figure is made with a computerized version of Bertin's originalsymbol size can represent numeric value.
matrix permutator

INF. DES. J. 5/3 (1989) 235-245

236
 WIM ADAMS . AN ERGONOMICAL APPROACH TO BERTIN'S METHOD

Original x-rods removed exchange columns 1 and

remove x-rods replace x-rods

rods threaded through rows and columns to fix the cells of the matrix
2 Original matrix permutator as developed by Bertin. Rows and columns can be interchanged manually. Intermediate positions
were saved by putting the whole matrix on a photocopier

With this method, characteristics are dis- To permutate two columns, first the x rods
played as rows and objects as columns, just as have to be removed, and then the two
in the matrix of the raw numerical data. The columns can be interchanged. Finally the x
size of a score is represented by the size of rods are replaced. Using this method can
the symbol in the cell, just as in symbolic reveal relations on different levels, as seen in
scatter plots and certain types of cartographic Figure 3. At an elementary level, one can
maps. Data of different levels of
THREE LEVELS OF INFORMATION
measurement can be displayed in separate
elementary intermediate overall
rows. Inapplicable data can be represented by question question question

special signs. There is a direct relation

between the size of the score and the size of
the symbolic representation. Bertin's method
makes a major contribution by introducing a
means of making data more dynamic. His so-
called 'domino' approach introduces the
possibility of permutating matrix rows as
well as columns when searching for certain
relations within the data. Rods are threaded
through rows (x) and columns (y) of small
plastic cubes that have small symbols painted
on top of them, as illustrated in Figure 2. 3 Different levels of the presented information can be
studied (after Bertin, 1981, p.13)

INF. DES. J. 5/3 (1989) 235-245

237
 WIM ADAMS • AN ERGONOMICAL APPROACH TO BERTIN'S METHOD
gather information from the relative size of
the symbol in a certain cell. Taking book
shop sales figures as an example, if the book
shops are shown as row variables and the
months of a year as column variables, you
can see directly roughly how many books a
certain bookshop sold in a particular month
(see also Figure 1).
At an intermediate level, one can detect
relationships between subsets. For example ,
one can easily compare the number of books
sold in successive months, or compare the
sales of different shops, by transferring rows
and columns so that cells of interest appear
next to each other.
At the highest level one can reveal relation­
ships between even larger sets of character­
istics or get an overall view (the relationship
between the characteristics' component and
the objects' component). Two or more objects
can be compared by putting the rows or
colums of the two variables next to each
other. Groups or clusters of graphical symbols
that have the same or opposite characteristics
can be detected. To stick to the bookshop
example, is there a relation between the
season and the amount of books, periodicals
or newspapers sold?
The possibility of changing rows and
columns by permutation offers a second
important advantage in analysing multivariate
data. As well as testing a priori stated
hypotheses by permutating corresponding
rows and columns, one can also try to detect
relationships by just looking at the displayed
data and playing with them, without looking
at the labels of the displayed categories and
objects. This a posteriori or visual method has
the potential to reveal quite unexpected
relationships between characteristics.
INF. DES. J. 5/3 (1989) 235–245
238
MARGINAL NOTES ON THE METHOD OF THE
REORDERABLE MATRIX
Although Bertin's method of the reorderable
matrix is promising, some comment on its use
is required.
1 Obviously the use of symbols of different
size in the x-y plane has its roots in
cartography. Bertin transfers this method to a
quite different context. A symbol still
represents a certain quantitative characteristic
of a certain object (although information of
ordinal or even nominal level can also be
displayed with this technique), but now many
of these objects' characteristics are displayed
simultaneously. In maps, only one or perhaps
two characteristics are normally presented in
one distinct picture.
2 The characteristics that are shown within
the matrix are objectively ordered so that their
position in the whole picture no longer has a
meaning. In a map, the specific positions of
the symbols have a meaning distinct from
their relative distance.
3 In maps, it is possible to use a large range of
symbol sizes. It is also possible to let symbols
partially overlap. In a matrix there is a
restriction to the size of the individual cells.
When using large matrices these cells are
forced to be very small.
4 Although the examples of Bertin in using
the reorderable matrix are very impressive and
his theory is obviously based on a lot of
experience, very little or no empirical
evidence for certain of Bertnťs statements can
be found. For a number of his rules
experimental verification is not mentioned.
 WIM ADAMS • AN ERGONOMICAL APPROACH TO BERTIN'S METHOD
For example: In using circles of
proportional size as quantities Bertin says that
to provide a slight but still perceptible
difference between two succesive circles, the
ratio between their areas must be 1.122
(Bertin, 1981, p. 205). Though this may be
correct Bertin does not mention how he
comes by this ratio.
For these reasons it is not without further
preface correct to use graphical symbols in a
context that is totally different from the one
for which it was originally de-veloped,
without considering the restrictions or
possibilities that perhaps go along with it.
A N ERGONOMICAL (HUMAN FACTORS)
APPROACH TO THE METHOD OF THE
REORDERABLE MATRIX
In investigating the very promising method of
the reorderable matrix more thoroughly an
ergonomical approach was chosen. At the
same time the possibility to automatize and
computerize Bertin's originally manual
domino method can be investigated by using a
computer system with a dynamic display.
This ergonomical approach means that the
human possibilities and restrictions in the
task environment must be taken into account
(Falzon, 1984); this mainly concerns the fields
of visual perception, motor operations and
cognitive information processing. We must
also examine the tasks that are to be per-
formed and the specific requirements that are
needed for the task in question. The results of
this interaction between human operator
characteristics and task requirements must be
seen as a starting point in creating an optimal
INF. DES. J. 5/3 (1989) 235-245
239
interactive system - a system that displays
data on a computer screen dynamically,
executing desired actions of transformation,
ordering and calculation. In this interaction a
need for compatibility between operator and
system can be distinguished which is effective
on three distinct levels: namely, the level of
physiological and perceptual qualities of
people, the level of sensory motor operations
and the level of cognitive processing of
information.
1 Physical compatibility: the sensory
processing depends heavily on physical
characteristics of the display. So on this basic
level the compatibility between physical
characteristics of the system and physiological
and perceptual qualities of people must be
investigated.
2 Operational compatibility: We also need to
investigate the compatibility of the system
with regard to operations people have to or
want to carry out. The computer system must
be tuned in to operations people want to
perform.
3 Cognitive compatibility: the stages of
human information processing (structuring)
and the mental representation must agree
with the structuring of information in the
design of the computer program. The
presentation of the problem must be as
isomorph as possible with the structure of the
interactive system. This issue therefore is not
one of sensory processing and physical
characteristics of the display but rather of the
cognitive processing of the visually presented
display. This is highly dependent upon
characteristics of the human operator and the
tasks to be performed.
 WIM ADAMS ■ AN
Having distinguished between these three
levels of compatibility, we need to develop
criteria to measure the relative effects of
different display methods. At the first level
there is, for example, the extent to which the
display aids in the sensory processing of the
information. At the second level, a possible
criterion could be the degree to which people
are able to carry out elementary operations, or
the rate at which this can be done. A more
general criterion for evaluating the relative
effects of different display methods could be
the extent to which the display provides
scenic realism or gives a visually comfortable
experience.
T H E INVESTIGATION
The investigation discussed here concerns the
possibilities and problems with a reorderable
matrix as a method of graphically displaying
multivariate data. The main interest of this
study concerns the way people see structures
or clusters (which objects in the display
belong together) in a graphically presented
matrix. We are also interested in the kind of
heuristics or strategies people use in trying to
interpret or solve these kind of matrices. By
'solving' we mean checking or testing their a
priori hypotheses as well as attempting to
reveal unknown and unexpected relationships.
Are people consistent and unanimous in
the recognition of a group of symbols as a
coherent structure? What kind of operations
do people want to perform and in what way do
operators expect to manage these operations?
Does the strategy used in solving a matrix
depend on the way people see structures in
INF. DES. J. 5/3 (1989) 235-245
240
APPROACH TO BERTIN'S METHOD
the displayed matrix, and what aspects of the
display are important or perhaps even decisive
in this choice?
These questions relate to the third and
highest level of compatibility and will be
investigated in a later phase of the project. But
before an answer can be given to these un-
doubtly difficult and intricate problems,
questions on a somewhat lower level have to
be answered. We need to be sure that at these
levels the system is optimally tuned in to
h u m a n possibilities and task requirements.
These questions will be investigated in the
first stage of the project.
On the lowest level, we looked at the kind
(shape) and size of symbols that are most
adequate for using in a matrix. We were
interested to see whether certain numerical
values can perhaps be more accurately
presented or certain distinctions made more
clear when other symbols than we normally
tend to use are chosen.
Experiment 1
In this experiment the degree to which people
are able to differentiate among visually
displayed symbols was investigated. Three
kinds of symbols were used: circles, squares
and bars. All symbols were solid black.
The set consisted of 27 circles from which
the area of the 24 largest increased with a
factor of 1.12 (As noted above this factor is
mentioned by Bertin). The enlargement factor
for stimulus pairs 1-2, 2-3 and 3-4 was
respectively: 2.5, 2.0 and 1.4, also in
accordance with Bertin's opinion that smaller
variations between very small circles are
below the threshold of differentiation. The
smallest circle had a diameter of 0.5mm, the
 WIM ADAMS ■ AN ERGONOMICAL APPROACH TO BERTIN'S METHOD

largest had a diameter of 5mm. Squares had
the same areas and factors of enlargement as
circles: with barsit was not area but height
that increased with these factors. All bars had
a width of 5.0mm.
Each symbol was compared with the
nearest three larger and with the nearest three
smaller symbols as well as with a symbol of
the same size.
Symbols of the same shape were presented
pairwise at the same vertical height, the
centres having a horizontal distance of 5mm.
So, the bars were placed alongside and against
each other and the edge of the largest circles
just touching each other.
In this experiment 22 students of the
Faculty of Architecture and Building of the
Eindhoven University of Technology
participated.
Results The results of this experiment are
shown in Figure 4. In the lower part of this
figure can be seen that the selected factor of
1.12 was too small for an adequate discrim-
ination of the symbols. Especially with circles,
in the middle of the range, some comparisons
were judged wrong in half or even more of the
stimulus presentations. The comparisons
between bars was notably easier. This is
possibly due to the way these symbols were
presented.
With a factor of 1.25 (M2) 2 less than 1% of
the comparisons was incorrectly answered.
With a factor of 1.40 (1.12)3 this percentage
decreased to 0.2%.
A second disadvantage of using these small
differences in size between pairs of symbols
can be seen in the upper part of Figure 4.
Subjects tended to see differences in size with
identical symbols.
Conclusion The ratio between the areas of
two successive circles or squares of 1.12 is, in
the range of 0.5 m m to 5.mm diameter, too

4 Percentage incorrect decisions comparing two symbols that have the same size or differing in size (area with circles and
squares, height with bars) with a factor of 1.12

INF. DES. J. 5/3 (1989) 235-245

241
 WIM ADAMS • AN ERGONOMICAL APPROACH TO BERTIN'S METHOD

small for the size difference of pairs of The main purpose of this second
symbols to be seen. Especially with diameters experiment was to investigate the ability of
of 0.5 to about 3mm a larger ratio between subjects to attach numerical values to the size
successive symbolsizes has to be chosen for of presented symbols.
subjects to be able to discriminate them. Interest of this experiment concerned the
amount and direction of underestimation or
Experiment 2 overestimation of the different symbols and
In a second experiment a new set of 16 symbol possible differences in estimation between
sizes was selected which covered the same symbols of different shape. A wide range of
range (0.5 - 5mm) as in the first experiment similar experiments have been published
(see Table 1). (Chang 1977, 1980; Cleveland et al. 1982,
Differences between these sizes were 1983; Cox 1976; Crawford 1973; Flannery
1971; Meihoefer 1969, 1973; Ekman et al.
correctly perceived in over 90% of the
1961a, 1961b. See also Macdonald-Ross 1977).
comparisons in experiment 1.
Chang (1980) found a number of factors of
21 subjects were used, all students of
influence to the judgment of size of presented
several faculties of the Eindhoven University
symbols.
of Technology. The subjects were paid for
participation. 1 The estimation of ratio between areas of
two circles was found to be simpler and more
Size Size direct than estimation of magnitude of a circle
Symbolnr. Area in mm. Height in mm. Value (often based on a common anchor or standard
1 0,196 0,05 1 symbol).
2 0,49 0,13 2,5
2 The instruction given to a subject also had
3! 0,99 0,25 5
4 1,39 7
an influence on the judgment of size of a
0,35
5 1,96 0,5 10
symbol. Emphasizing a real property of circles
6 3,14 0,75 15
resulted in better estimates of circle size.
7 3,92 1 20 3 A third factor was the use of a standard.
8 4,91 1,25 25
Using a more extensive legend (including
9 5,9 1,5 30
largest and smallest circles that are used)
1 0 7,82 2 40
resulted in a better estimation of circle size.
11 9,84 2,5 50
1 2 11,76 3 60
13 13,92 3,5 70
Procedure The symbols were presented in the
14 15,6 4 80
cells of a 6 x 6 matrix (see Figure 6). Size of the
15 17,5 4,5 90 cells was 5mm. square. In each of the matrices
16 19,6 5 100 30 symbols of the same shape were presented,
6 cells were left empty.
Table 1 Beneath the matrix a legend consisting of 5
Set of symbolsizes in cm (height of bars) or cm square (area
of circles and squares) with actual relative values symbols covering the complete range
(including the minimum and maximum size)
INF. DES. J. 5/3 (1989) 235-245

EZS
 WIM ADAMS ■ AN ERGONOMICAL APPROACH TO BERTIN'S METHOD

A B C D E F A B C D E F A B C D E F

5 Examples of the matrices used in experiment 2. These matrices were made with a computerized version of Bertin's
matrixpermutator

was given. Furthermore there were two
conditions; in condition 1, gridlines surround-
ing the cell were projected on the matrix
(Figures 5a and c); in condition 2 these
gridlines were absent leaving only the contour
lines of a square of 3 x 3cm (Figure 5b).
The areas of the smallest circle (see Table
1) and square had an arbitrarily value of 1, as
was the height of the smallest bar.
The value of the largest symbols was 100.
Symbols of different size were randomly
assigned to the cells of the matrix. Symbol
shape as well as condition were counter-
balanced between subjects.
A smaller error of estimation of symbol
size for the bar symbols was expected
compared to circles and squares because the
difference between bars is a unidimensional
one (only height increases, width stays the
same). Because with an increase of the area of
circles and squares height as well as width
increase (Croxton & Stein, 1932), it was
hypothesized that this visually more complex
increase in size would result in larger
estimation errors. A number of studies
demonstrate this (e.g. Ekman & Junge 1961;
Ekman, Junge & William Olsson, 1961)
It was also expected that smaller errors of
estimation for the gridline condition would be
found because in this condition the borders of
the matrix cells can act as a point of reference.
Not only size of different symbols can be
compared with gridlines present, but also the
distance between the edge of the symbol and
the border of the matrix cell.
Results All symbols, except bars in the no-grid
condition, showed a mean overestimation of
the actual size. The symbols looked larger
than they actually were.
T-tests between the mean estimation errors
of the gridline versus no gridline conditions

INF. DES. J. 5 / 3 (1989) 2 3 5 - 2 4 5

243
 WIM ADAMS ■ AN ERGONOMICAL APPROACH TO BERTIN'S METHOD

has a small positive value this means thus a

larger number of underestimations.
Furthermore, no significant difference in
error of estimation between circles and
squares is found. The mean and variance of
the estimation error of bars however is
significantly smaller than those of circles and
squares, as can be seen in Figure 6. It thus
seems that the value (height) of bars is easier
to estimate than the value (area) of circles and
6 A comparison of the mean estimation error and the absolute mean estimation squares.
error for the grid condition and no-grid condition
Although these differences are found to be
significant, they appear to be be very slight
showed a significant effect with all three kind
when we look at the best fitting lines between
of symbols.
value and apparent value.
In contrast with one of the above
For circles, squares and bars these functions
mentioned hypotheses, the degree of
are respectively: y=l.00x + 1.23; y=l.00x +
overestimation of symbol size was larger in
1.57 and y=0.99x + 0.32 (where y : actual value
the gridline conditions. This can be seen in
and x : apparent value). Functions between log
Figure 6. On the left side of this figure the
values of estimation and actual value give
mean estimation errors are shown. The
slopes of respectively 0.97, 0.96 and 0.93.
gridline condition (light-grey bars) shows a
Perceptual height and area are almost exactly
mean estimation error that is distinctly larger
proportional to stimulus height and area.
than the mean error of the no-gridline
condition (dark-grey bars).
However, when we look at the absolute
value (the direction of the estimation error is
no longer of influence, only the size) of the
differences between actual size and apparent
size, the differences between the two
conditions disappear. The means of the
absolute errors are presented in the right part
of Figure 6. There are practically no
differences between the two conditions. The
smaller mean overestimation in the no grid-
line condition was apparently due to a larger
number of underestimations.
Figure 7 illustrates this. The larger variance
of the no-grid condition implies a larger range squa-nogr.
of estimation errors, and when the mean error 7 Comparison of mean and variance of the estimation-errors in the grid and no-
grid condition

INF. DES. J. 5/3 (1989) 235-245

244
 WIM ADAMS ■ AN ERGONOMICAL APPROACH TO BERTIN'S METHOD

Conclusion When linear data are to be levels as is shown in Figure 3, we have to

displayed in graphical form and the size of the
graphical symbols are restricted, bars appear to
give a better graphical format than circles or
squares, although mean errors of estimation
remain quite small. In fact, with exponents
very close to 1.0 a power 1 function is found
with an exponent which draws near on
linearity.
Overall conclusion
Although only lower perceptual processes are
experimentally examined in this study thus
far, the ergonomical approach to Bertin's
theory appears to be a promising one. Because
information presented in a graphical matrix
can be processed and studied on different
attend to a clear, discernible and
comprehensible display of this information at
all levels. In a second phase of the study an
experiment on graphical pattern recognition
has recently been carried out. First results
show that some experimental variables as
distance between displayed symbols and size
ratio of juxtaposed symbols play an important
role in the recognition of graphical patterns.
Note
1 Stevens (1957) described the relation betwen a subjective
stimulus magnitude (R) and the corresponsing stimulus
magnitude (S) by a power function ; which in the simplest
case can be written R=C*S n (C: constant, n: exponent

Bertin J (1981)
Graphics and Graphic
Information Processing De
G ruyter, Berlin/New York
Bertin J (1983)
Semiology of Graphics.
University of Wisconsin Press,
Madison, Wl
Chambers J M, Cleveland W S,
Kleiner B & Tukey P A (1981)
Graphical Methods for Data
Analysis. Wadsworth, Belmont
Chang K T (1978)
Visual Estimation of Graduated
Circles The Canadian
Cartographer, 1978, 1 4 ,
130-138
Chang K T (1980)
Circle Size Judgment and Map
Design The American
Cartographer, 1980, 7,2,
155-162
Cleveland W S, Harris C S &
McGill R (1982)
Judgments of Circle Sizes on
Statistical Maps Journal of
the American Statistical
Association, 1982, 77, 379,
541-547
Cleveland W S, Harris C S &
McGill R (1983)
Experiments on Quantitative
Judgments of Graphs and
Maps The Bell System
Technical Journal, 1983, 6 2 ,
6, 1 6 5 9 - 1 6 7 4
Cox C W (1976)
Anchor Effects and the
Estimation of Graduated
Circles and Squares The
American Cartographer, 1976,
3, 1 , 6 5 - 7 4
Crawford P V (1973)
The Perception of Graduated
Squares as Cartographic
Symbols The Cartographic
Journal, 1973, 1 0 , 88
Croxton F E & Stein H (1932)
Graphic Comparisons by Bars,
Squares, Circles and Cubes
Journal of the American
Statistical Association, 1932,
27, 54-60
Ekman G & Junge K (1961)
Psychophysical Relations in
Visual Perception of Length,
Area and Volume Scandinav.
J. Psychol, 1 9 6 1 , 2, 1-10
Ekman G, Lindman R &
William-Olsson W (1961)
A Psychological Study of
Cartographic Symbols
Perceptual and Motor Skills,
1961, 13,355-368
Falzon P (1984)
From Surface Form to the
Structure of the Interface
Studies of Human Computer
Interaction at INRIA., in: G
Salvendy (ed) Human
Computer Interaction, Elsevier
Science Publishers,
Amsterdam
FlanneryJ J (1971) Stevens S S (1957)
The Relative Effectiveness of On the Psychophysical Law
Some Common Graduated Psychol. Rev., 1957, 6 4 ,
Point Symbols in the 153-181
Presentation of Quantitative
Data Canadian Cartographer, Wainer H & Thissen D (1981)
1 9 7 1 , 8, 9 6 - 1 0 9 Graphical Data Analysis
Annual Review of Psychology,
Macdonald-Ross M (1977). 1981, 32, 191-241.
How Numbers are Shown: A
Review of Research on the
Presentation of Quantitative
Data in Texts Audio-Visual
Comm. Rev., 1977, 2 5 , 4 ,
359-409
Meihoefer H J (1969)
The Utility of the Circle as an
Effective Cartographic Symbol
Canadian Cartographer, 1969,
6, 1 0 5 - 1 1 7
Meihoefer H J (1973)
The Visual Perception of the
Circle in Thematic Maps:
Experimental Results
Canadian Cartographer, 1973,
10, 6 3 - 8 4

INF. DES. J. 5 / 3 (1989) 2 3 5 - 2 4 5

BE