Inclusion tree layout convention: an empirical investigation

Authors:
Kevin Pulo;Masahiro Takatsuka
Affiliations:
School of Information Technologies, University of Sydney, NSW, Australia, 2006;School of Information Technologies, University of Sydney, NSW, Australia, 2006
Venue:
APVis '03 Proceedings of the Asia-Pacific symposium on Information visualisation - Volume 24
Year:
2003

Citing 5
Cited 4

A translation approach to portable ontology specifications

Knowledge Acquisition - Special issue: Current issues in knowledge modeling
Exact Solution of the Two-Dimensional Finite Bon Packing Problem

Management Science
Readings in information visualization: using vision to think

Readings in information visualization: using vision to think
Tree-Maps: a space-filling approach to the visualization of hierarchical information structures

VIS '91 Proceedings of the 2nd conference on Visualization '91
Putting ontologies to use

The Knowledge Engineering Review

A component-oriented software authoring system for exploratory visualization

Future Generation Computer Systems
A component-oriented software authoring system for exploratory visualization

Future Generation Computer Systems
JBeanStudio: a component-oriented visual software authoring system for a problem solving environment–supporting exploratory visualization

ICCS'03 Proceedings of the 2003 international conference on Computational science: PartIII
Quantifying the space-efficiency of 2D graphical representations of trees

Information Visualization

Quantified Score

Hi-index	0.00

Visualization

Abstract

The inclusion tree layout convention involves drawing trees as nested rectangles rather than the more common node-link diagrams. Finding good inclusion layouts presents some unique challenges, for example, the quantification of what is meant by the "size" of a rectangle. This paper empirically evaluates and investigates several rectangle size measures for their usefulness in the inclusion tree layout convention. We find that the area size measure, commonly used in graph drawing, is very poorly suited to the inclusion layout convention, whilst size measures based on the aspect ratio of the layout are more appropriate and give better results.