Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMelancon, G.en_US
dc.contributor.authorHerman, I.en_US
dc.contributor.editorW. de Leeuw and R. van Liereen_US
dc.date.accessioned2014-01-30T06:41:31Z
dc.date.available2014-01-30T06:41:31Z
dc.date.issued2000en_US
dc.identifier.isbn3211835156en_US
dc.identifier.issn1727-5296en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.2312/VisSym/VisSym00/003-012en_US
dc.description.abstractWhen dealing with a graph, any visualization strategy must rely on a layout procedure at least to initiate the process. Because the visualization process evolves within an interactive environment the choice of this layout procedure is critical and will often be based on efficiency. This paper compares two popular layout strategies, one based on the extraction of a spanning tree, the other based on edge crossing minimization of directed acyclic graphs. The comparison is made based on a large number of experimental evidence gathered through random graph generation. The main conclusion of these experiments is that, contrary to the popular belief, usage of edge crossing minimization algorithms may be extremely useful and advantageous, even under the heavy requirements of information visualization.en_US
dc.publisherThe Eurographics Associationen_US
dc.titleDAG Drawing from an Information Visualization Perspectiveen_US
dc.description.seriesinformationEurographics / IEEE VGTC Symposium on Visualizationen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record