Executive Dashboard Widgets: A Performance-Based Comparative Analysis

Abstract

Executive dashboards have become popular in enterprise software applications. Consequently, much advice has been offered by private consulting firms on how best to design dashboards. This paper details a couple of studies testing the advice given by the dashboard experts. The results suggest that some of the notions about how dashboard widgets should be designed might be incorrect. The results indicate that colored widgets are not necessarily inferior to simpler, colorless widgets. Similarly, fancy widgets (i.e., those with three dimensional characteristics) were not demonstrated to be inferior to plainer widgets. While some methodological challenges must be overcome in similar future studies, the results of the described studies do not support some popular ideas about executive dashboards (and data visualization in general), and suggest that the area of interest is ripe for further investigation.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aretz

A. J.

Calhoun

G. L.

(1982). Computer generated pictorial stores management displays for fighter aircraft. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 26th Annual Meeting (Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society), 455–459.

Carswell

C. M.

Frankenberger

Bernhard

(1991). Graphing in depth: Perspectives on the use of three-dimensional graphs to represent lower-dimensional data. Behaviour & Information Technology 10, 459–474.

Casali

J. G.

Gaylin

K. B.

(1988). Selected graph design variables in four interpretation tasks: A microcomputer-based pilot study. Behaviour & Information Technology 7, 31–49.

Few

(2006). Information dashboard design: The effective visual communication of data. O'Reilly Media.

Fischer

M. H.

(2000). Do irrelevant cues affect the comprehension of bar graphs? Applied Cognitive Psychology 14, 151–162.

Fisher

S. H.

Dempsey

J. V.

Marousky

R. T.

(1997). Data visualization: Preference and use of two-dimensional and three-dimensional graphs. Social Science Review 15, 256–263.

Green

(1988). Human Factors and Gauge Design: A Literature Review (Technical Report UMTRI8837). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute. (NTIS as PB 90 141334/AS)

Resnick

M. L.

(2003). Situation Awareness Applications to Executive Dashboard Design. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 47th Annual Meeting (pp. 449–453). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

Shutz

H. G.

(1961b). An evaluation of methods for presentation of graphic multiple trends- experiment III. Human Factors, (July), 108–119.

10.

Siegrist

(1996). The use or misuse of three-dimensional graphs to represent lower dimensional data. Behaviour & Information Technology 15, 96–100.

11.

Techniques for Accessibility Evaluation and Repair Tools W3C Working Draft, 26 April 2000. Retrieved January 16, 2007 from http://www.w3.org/TR/AERT

12.

Tufte

E. R.

(1983). The visual display of quantitative information. Cheshire, Connecticut: Graphics Press.

13.

Zacks

Levy

Tversky

Schiano

D. J.

(1998). Reading bar graphs: Effects of extraneous depth cues and graphical context. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 4, 119–138.