The visual display of quantitative information
The visual display of quantitative information
External cognition: how do graphical representations work?
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies
Readings in information visualization: using vision to think
Readings in information visualization: using vision to think
Visualization of search results: a comparative evaluation of text, 2D, and 3D interfaces
Proceedings of the 22nd annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval
3D or not 3D?: evaluating the effect of the third dimension in a document management system
Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Cognitive Science Approaches To UnderstandingDiagrammatic Representations
Artificial Intelligence Review
Learning to Think and Communicate with Diagrams: 14 Questions to Consider
Artificial Intelligence Review
Diagrams'06 Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Diagrammatic Representation and Inference
Twelve years of diagrams research
Journal of Visual Languages and Computing
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
In linguistics, it is quite common to use tree diagrams for immediate constituent analysis of sentences. Traditionally, these trees are binary and two-dimensional. However, phenomena such as coordination and right node raising, have led to the view that a simple hierarchical approach of sentences is inadequate: some linguistic phenomena rather seem to involve non-subordination and multiple dependencies. The central question of the present research is this: what are workable alternative tree-like diagrams that can accommodate to this view? An experiment has been set up to test five different types of tree visualizations, including three-dimensional trees. Subjects were asked to respond to various questions concerning coordination and (non-constituent) right node raising constructions, and to mark their preference for each tree visualization. This paper will discuss the representation problems, and present the experiment and its results. It turned out that the tree most rich in information was the least usable one, whereas the tree, most close to the traditional syntax tree, but with colour enrichment, performed best.