Evaluation of User Performance in Interactive and Static 3D Maps

被引:27
|
作者
Herman, Lukas [1 ]
Jurik, Vojtech [2 ]
Stachon, Zdenek [1 ]
Vrbik, Daniel [3 ]
Russnak, Jan [1 ]
Reznik, Tomas [1 ]
机构
[1] Masaryk Univ, Fac Sci, Dept Geog, CS-61137 Brno, Czech Republic
[2] Masaryk Univ, Fac Arts, Dept Psychol, Brno 60200, Czech Republic
[3] Tech Univ Liberec, Fac Sci Humanities & Educ, Dept Appl Math, Liberec 46117, Czech Republic
关键词
3D geovisualizations; 3D map; 3DmoveR; level of interactivity; map tasks; map users; OSIVQ; user's performance; user study; CARTOGRAPHIC DESIGN; COGNITIVE-STYLE; VISUALIZATION; 2D; PRINCIPLES; FRAMEWORK; IMAGERY; TERRAIN;
D O I
10.3390/ijgi7110415
中图分类号
TP [自动化技术、计算机技术];
学科分类号
0812 ;
摘要
Interactive 3D visualizations of geospatial data are currently available and popular through various applications such as Google Earth (TM) and others. Several studies have focused on user performance with 3D maps, but static 3D maps were mostly used as stimuli. The main objective of this paper was to identify differences between interactive and static 3D maps. We also explored the role of different tasks and inter-individual differences of map users. In the experimental study, we analyzed effectiveness, efficiency, and subjective preferences, when working with static and interactive 3D maps. The study included 76 participants and used a within-subjects design. Experimental testing was performed using our own testing tool 3DmoveR 2.0, which was based on a user logging method and open web technologies. We demonstrated statistically significant differences between interactive and static 3D maps in effectiveness, efficiency, and subjective preferences. Interactivity influenced the results mainly in 'spatial understanding' and 'combined' tasks. From the identified differences, we concluded that the results of the user studies with static 3D maps as stimuli could not be transferred to interactive 3D visualizations or virtual reality.
引用
收藏
页数:25
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] TECHNIQUE OF CREATION INTERACTIVE VISUALIZATION OF 3D MAPS WITHIN THE UNIVERSITY CAMPUS
    Kakimzhanov, Yerkin
    Kozhaev, Zhenis
    Bektemirova, Saute
    INFORMATICS, GEOINFORMATICS AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL I (SGEM 2015), 2015, : 845 - 850
  • [22] Interactive 3D reconstruction method of fuzzy static images in social media
    Niu, Xiaomei
    JOURNAL OF INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS, 2022, 31 (01) : 806 - 816
  • [23] The effect of animated transitions on user navigation in 3D tree-maps
    Bladh, T
    Carr, DA
    Kljun, M
    NINTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON INFORMATION VISUALISATION, PROCEEDINGS, 2005, : 297 - 305
  • [24] IMPROVING USER EXPERIENCE WITH "web 2.5": INTERACTIVE 3D AND HIGH DEFINITION
    Oprea, Anatol
    Malureanu, Cosmin
    Jurcoane, Aurelian
    Hazi, Mihai
    Sandulache, Claudiu
    ADVANCED DISTRIBUTED LEARNING IN EDUCATION AND TRAINING TRANSFORMATION, 2010, : 91 - 96
  • [25] Embodied interaction and user experience: Interactive, 3D graphics in procedural instructions
    Sharp, D. Michael
    Bidwell, Jonathan
    2006 IEEE INTERNATIONAL PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION CONFERENCE, 2006, : 243 - +
  • [26] An Interactive In-Game Approach to User Adjustment of Stereoscopic 3D Settings
    Tawadrous, Mina
    Hogue, Andrew
    Kapralos, Bill
    Collins, Karen
    STEREOSCOPIC DISPLAYS AND APPLICATIONS XXIV, 2013, 8648
  • [27] A multi-user interactive 3D presentation system via the Internet
    Sablatura, J
    Huang, SHS
    22ND INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON DISTRIBUTED COMPUTING SYSTEMS WORKSHOP, PROCEEDINGS, 2002, : 279 - 284
  • [28] Eye-tracking evaluation of 3D thematic maps
    Popelka, Stanislav
    EYE TRACKING AND VISUALIZATION (ETVIS 2018), 2018,
  • [29] Objective and subjective evaluation of static 3D mesh compression
    Berjon, Daniel
    Moran, Francisco
    Manjunatha, Shankar
    SIGNAL PROCESSING-IMAGE COMMUNICATION, 2013, 28 (02) : 181 - 195
  • [30] EVALUATION OF THE USER STRATEGY ON 2D AND 3D CITY MAPS BASED ON NOVEL SCANPATH COMPARISON METHOD AND GRAPH VISUALIZATION
    Dolezalova, J.
    Popelka, S.
    XXIII ISPRS CONGRESS, COMMISSION II, 2016, 41 (B2): : 637 - 640