skip to main content
research-article

Flex-ER: A Platform to Evaluate Interaction Techniques for Immersive Visualizations

Published:04 November 2020Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Extended Reality (XR) systems (which encapsulate AR, VR and MR) is an emerging field which enables the development of novel visualization and interaction techniques. To develop and to assess such techniques, researchers and designers have to face choices in terms of which development tools to adopt, and with very little information about how such tools support some of the very basic tasks for information visualization, such as selecting data items, linking and navigating. As a solution, we propose Flex-ER, a flexible web-based environment that enables users to prototype, debug and share experimental conditions and results. Flex-ER enables users to quickly switch between hardware platforms and input modalities by using a JSON specification that supports both defining interaction techniques and tasks at a low cost. We demonstrate the flexibility of the environment through three task design examples: brushing, linking and navigating. A qualitative user study suggest that Flex-ER can be helpful to prototype and explore different interaction techniques for immersive analytics.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

V4issA195.mp4

Supplemental video

References

  1. W. Aigner, S. Hoffmann, and A. Rind. 2013. EvalBench: A Software Library for Visualization Evaluation. Computer Graphics Forum 32, 3pt1 (2013), 41--50. https://doi.org/10.1111/cgf.12091 arXiv:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/cgf.12091Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Caroline Appert and Michel Beaudouin-Lafon. 2006. SwingStates: Adding State Machines to the Swing Toolkit. In Proceedings of the 19th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (Montreux, Switzerland) (UIST '06). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 319--322. https://doi.org/10.1145/1166253.1166302Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Caroline Appert, Stéphane Huot, Pierre Dragicevic, and Michel Beaudouin-Lafon. 2009. FlowStates: Prototypage D'Applications Interactives Avec Des Flots De DonnÉEs Et Des Machines À ÉTats. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Association Francophone D'Interaction Homme-Machine (Grenoble, France) (IHM '09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 119--128. https://doi.org/10.1145/1629826.1629845Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Ferran Argelaguet and Carlos Andujar. 2013. A survey of 3D object selection techniques for virtual environments. Computers Graphics 37, 3 (2013), 121 - 136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cag.2012.12.003Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. B. Bach, R. Sicat, J. Beyer, M. Cordeil, and H. Pfister. 2018. The Hologram in My Hand: How Effective is Interactive Exploration of 3D Visualizations in Immersive Tangible Augmented Reality? IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 24, 1 (Jan 2018), 457--467. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2017.2745941Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Renaud Blanch and Michel Beaudouin-Lafon. 2006. Programming Rich Interactions Using the Hierarchical State Machine Toolkit. In Proceedings of the Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces (Venezia, Italy) (AVI '06). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 51--58. https://doi.org/10.1145/1133265.1133275Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. M. Bostock, V. Ogievetsky, and J. Heer. 2011. D3 Data-Driven Documents. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 17, 12 (Dec 2011), 2301--2309. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2011.185Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Doug A. Bowman, Donald B. Johnson, and Larry F. Hodges. 2001. Testbed Evaluation of Virtual Environment Interaction Techniques. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 10, 1 (2001), 75--95. https://doi.org/10.1162/ 105474601750182333 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1162/105474601750182333Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. W. Broll, I. Lindt, J. Ohlenburg, I. Herbst, M. Wittkamper, and T. Novotny. 2005. An infrastructure for realizing custom-tailored augmented reality user interfaces. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 11, 6 (Nov 2005), 722?733. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2005.90Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. P. W. S. Butcher, N. W. John, and P. D. Ritsos. 2020. VRIA: A Web-based Framework for Creating Immersive Analytics Experiences. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (2020), 1--1.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. W. Büschel, S. Vogt, and R. Dachselt. 2019. Augmented Reality Graph Visualizations. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 39, 3 (2019), 29--40.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Zhutian Chen, Wai Tong, Qianwen Wang, Benjamin Bach, and Huamin Qu. 2020. Augmenting Static Visualizations with PapARVis Designer. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI '20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1--12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831. 3376436Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. J. Choi, D. G. Park, Y. L. Wong, E. Fisher, and N. Elmqvist. 2015. VisDock: A Toolkit for Cross-Cutting Interactions in Visualization. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 21, 9 (Sep. 2015), 1087--1100. https: //doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2015.2414454Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. M. Cordeil, A. Cunningham, B. Bach, C. Hurter, B. H. Thomas, K. Marriott, and T. Dwyer. 2019. IATK: An Immersive Analytics Toolkit. In 2019 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR). 200--209. https://doi.org/10. 1109/VR.2019.8797978Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. M. Cordeil, T. Dwyer, K. Klein, B. Laha, K. Marriott, and B. H. Thomas. 2017. Immersive Collaborative Analysis of Network Connectivity: CAVE-style or Head-Mounted Display? IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 23, 1 (Jan 2017), 441--450. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2016.2599107Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Sarah H. Creem-Regehr, Jeanine K. Stefanucci, William B. Thompson, Nathan Nash, and Michael McCardell. 2015. Egocentric Distance Perception in the Oculus Rift (DK2). In Proceedings of the ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium on Applied Perception (Tbingen, Germany) (SAP '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 47--50. https://doi.org/10.1145/2804408.2804422Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. A. Drogemuller, A. Cunningham, J.Walsh, M. Cordeil,W. Ross, and B. Thomas. 2018. Evaluating Navigation Techniques for 3D Graph Visualizations in Virtual Reality. In 2018 International Symposium on Big Data Visual and Immersive Analytics (BDVA). 1--10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Alexander Eiselmayer, Chat Wacharamanotham, Michel Beaudouin-Lafon, and Wendy E. Mackay. 2019. Touchstone2: An Interactive Environment for Exploring Trade-offs in HCI Experiment Design. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., Vol. 4, No. ISS, Article 195. Publication date: November 2020. 195:18 María-Jesús Lobo et al. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Glasgow, Scotland Uk) (CHI '19). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 217, 11 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300447Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Niklas Elmqvist and Ji Soo Yi. 2015. Patterns for visualization evaluation. Information Visualization 14, 3 (2015), 250--269. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473871613513228 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/1473871613513228Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. R. Englund, S. Kottravel, and T. Ropinski. 2016. A crowdsourcing system for integrated and reproducible evaluation in scientific visualization. In 2016 IEEE Pacific Visualization Symposium (PacificVis). 40--17. https://doi.org/10.1109/ PACIFICVIS.2016.7465249Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Ugo Erra, Delfina Malandrino, and Luca Pepe. 2019. Virtual Reality Interfaces for Interacting with Three-Dimensional Graphs. International Journal of Human?Computer Interaction 35, 1 (2019), 75--88. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318. 2018.1429061Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. R. Etemadpour, E. Monson, and L. Linsen. 2013. The Effect of Stereoscopic Immersive Environments on Projection-Based Multi-dimensional Data Visualization. In 2013 17th International Conference on Information Visualisation. 389--397.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Fiona Fidler and John Wilcox. 2018. Reproducibility of Scientific Results. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (winter 2018 ed.), Edward N. Zalta (Ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. J. A. W. Filho, W. Stuerzlinger, and L. Nedel. 2020. Evaluating an Immersive Space-Time Cube Geovisualization for Intuitive Trajectory Data Exploration. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 26, 1 (2020), 514--524.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Daniel Filonik, Tomasz Bednarz, Markus Rittenbruch, and Marcus Foth. 2016. Glance: Generalized Geometric Primitives and Transformations for Information Visualization in AR/VR Environments. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM SIGGRAPH Conference on Virtual-Reality Continuum and Its Applications in Industry - Volume 1 (Zhuhai, China) (VRCAI '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 461--468. https://doi.org/10.1145/3013971.3014006Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. A. Fonnet and Y. Prié. 2019. Survey of Immersive Analytics. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (2019), 1--1.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. GW French, J Richard Kennaway, and AM Day. 2014. Programs as visual, interactive documents. Software: Practice and Experience 44, 8 (2014), 911--930.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. N. Greffard, F. Picarougne, and P. Kuntz. 2014. Beyond the classical monoscopic 3D in graph analytics: An experimental study of the impact of stereoscopy. In 2014 IEEE VIS International Workshop on 3DVis (3DVis). 19--24.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. B. Hoppenstedt, T. Probst, M. Reichert, W. Schlee, K. Kammerer, M. Spiliopoulou, J. Schobel, M. Winter, A. Felnhofer, O. D. Kothgassner, and R. Pryss. 2019. Applicability of Immersive Analytics in Mixed Reality: Usability Study. IEEE Access 7 (2019), 71921--71932.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. C. Hurter, N. H. Riche, S. M. Drucker, M. Cordeil, R. Alligier, and R. Vuillemot. 2019. FiberClay: Sculpting Three Dimensional Trajectories to Reveal Structural Insights. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 25, 1 (Jan 2019), 704--714. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2018.2865191Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. N.W. Kim, E. Schweickart, Z. Liu, M. Dontcheva,W. Li, J. Popovic, and H. Pfister. 2017. Data-Driven Guides: Supporting Expressive Design for Information Graphics. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 23, 1 (Jan 2017), 491--500. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2016.2598620Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. P. Koytek, C. Perin, J. Vermeulen, E. André, and S. Carpendale. 2018. MyBrush: Brushing and Linking with Personal Agency. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 24, 1 (Jan 2018), 605--615. https://doi.org/10.1109/ TVCG.2017.2743859Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Matthias Kraus, Katrin Angerbauer, Juri Buchmüller, Daniel Schweitzer, Daniel A. Keim, Michael Sedlmair, and Johannes Fuchs. 2020. Assessing 2D and 3D Heatmaps for Comparative Analysis: An Empirical Study. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI '20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1--14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376675Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. M. Kraus, N.Weiler, D. Oelke, J. Kehrer, D. A. Keim, and J. Fuchs. 2020. The Impact of Immersion on Cluster Identification Tasks. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 26, 1 (2020), 525--535.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. O. Kwon, C. Muelder, K. Lee, and K. Ma. 2016. A Study of Layout, Rendering, and Interaction Methods for Immersive Graph Visualization. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 22, 7 (July 2016), 1802-1815. https: //doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2016.2520921Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. H. Lam, E. Bertini, P. Isenberg, C. Plaisant, and S. Carpendale. 2012. Empirical Studies in Information Visualization: Seven Scenarios. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 18, 9 (Sep. 2012), 1520--1536. https: //doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2011.279Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. David Ledo, Steven Houben, Jo Vermeulen, Nicolai Marquardt, Lora Oehlberg, and Saul Greenberg. 2018. Evaluation Strategies for HCI Toolkit Research. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Montreal QC, Canada) (CHI '18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 36, 17 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574. 3173610Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. J. K. Li and K. Ma. 2020. P5: Portable Progressive Parallel Processing Pipelines for Interactive Data Analysis and Visualization. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 26, 1 (2020), 1151--1160. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., Vol. 4, No. ISS, Article 195. Publication date: November 2020. Flex-ER: A Platform to Evaluate Interaction Techniques for Immersive Visualizations 195:19Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. J. Liu, A. Prouzeau, B. Ens, and T. Dwyer. 2020. Design and Evaluation of Interactive Small Multiples Data Visualisation in Immersive Spaces. In 2020 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR). 588--597.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. P. Lubos, G. Bruder, and F. Steinicke. 2014. Analysis of direct selection in head-mounted display environments. In 2014 IEEE Symposium on 3D User Interfaces (3DUI). 11--18. https://doi.org/10.1109/3DUI.2014.6798834Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Wendy E. Mackay, Caroline Appert, Michel Beaudouin-Lafon, Olivier Chapuis, Yangzhou Du, Jean-Daniel Fekete, and Yves Guiard. 2007. Touchstone: Exploratory Design of Experiments. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (San Jose, California, USA) (CHI '07). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1425--1434. https://doi.org/10.1145/1240624.1240840Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Kim Marriott, Jian Chen, Marcel Hlawatsch, Takayuki Itoh, Miguel A. Nacenta, Guido Reina, andWolfgang Stuerzlinger. 2018. Just 5 Questions: Toward a Design Framework for Immersive Analytics. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 259--288. https://doi.org/10.1007/978--3-030-01388--2_9Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Xiaojun Meng, Pin Sym Foong, Simon Perrault, and Shengdong Zhao. 2017. NexP: A Beginner Friendly Toolkit for Designing and Conducting Controlled Experiments. In Human-Computer Interaction - INTERACT 2017, Regina Bernhaupt, Girish Dalvi, Anirudha Joshi, Devanuj K. Balkrishan, Jacki O'Neill, and Marco Winckler (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 132-141.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. T. Munzner. 2009. A Nested Model for Visualization Design and Validation. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 15, 6 (Nov 2009), 921--928. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2009.111Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Brad Myers, Scott E Hudson, and Randy Pausch. 2000. Past, present, and future of user interface software tools. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 7, 1 (2000), 3--28.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Brad A Myers. 1986. Visual programming, programming by example, and program visualization: a taxonomy. ACM sigchi bulletin 17, 4 (1986), 59--66.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Michael Nebeling, Maximilian Speicher, Xizi Wang, Shwetha Rajaram, Brian D. Hall, Zijian Xie, Alexander R. E. Raistrick, Michelle Aebersold, Edward G. Happ, Jiayin Wang, Yanan Sun, Lotus Zhang, Leah E. Ramsier, and Rhea Kulkarni. 2020. MRAT: The Mixed Reality Analytics Toolkit. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI '20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1--12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376330Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Alex Olwal and Steven Feiner. 2004. Unit: Modular Development of Distributed Interaction Techniques for Highly Interactive User Interfaces. In Proceedings of the 2Nd International Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques in Australasia and South East Asia (Singapore) (GRAPHITE '04). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 131--138. https://doi.org/10.1145/988834.988857Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Stephen Oney, Brad Myers, and Joel Brandt. 2014. InterState: A Language and Environment for Expressing Interface Behavior. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (Honolulu, Hawaii, USA) (UIST '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 263--272. https://doi.org/10.1145/2642918.2647358Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. Etienne Peillard, Thomas Thebaud, Jean-Marie Normand, Ferran Argelaguet, Guillaume Moreau, and Anatole Lécuyer. 2019. Virtual Objects Look Farther on the Sides: The Anisotropy of Distance Perception in Virtual Reality. In VR 2019 - 26th IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces. IEEE, Osaka, Japan, 1--10. https://hal.archivesouvertes. fr/hal-02084069Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Emmanuel Pietriga, Caroline Appert, and Michel Beaudouin-Lafon. 2007. Pointing and beyond: an operationalization and preliminary evaluation of multi-scale searching. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. 1215--1224.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Ivan Poupyrev, SuzanneWeghorst, Mark Billinghurst, and Tadao Ichikawa. 1997. A Framework and Testbed for Studying Manipulation Techniques for Immersive VR. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology (Lausanne, Switzerland) (VRST '97). ACM, NewYork, NY, USA, 21--28. https://doi.org/10.1145/261135.261141Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Arnaud Prouzeau, Maxime Cordeil, Clément Robin, Barrett Ens, Bruce H. Thomas, and Tim Dwyer. 2019. Scaptics and Highlight-Planes: Immersive Interaction Techniques for Finding Occluded Features in 3D Scatterplots. In Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2019, May 4--9, 2019, Glasgow, Scotland Uk). Glasgow, United Kingdom. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300555Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. Donghao Ren, Bongshin Lee, and Tobias Höllerer. 2017. Stardust: Accessible and Transparent GPU Support for Information Visualization Rendering. Computer Graphics Forum 36, 3 (2017), 179--188. https://doi.org/10.1111/cgf.13178Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. Maxime Reynal, Euan Freeman, and Stephen Brewster. 2020. Avoiding Collisions When Interacting with Levitating Particle Displays. In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI EA '20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1--7. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3334480.3382965Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. Arvind Satyanarayan and Jeffrey Heer. [n.d.]. Lyra: An Interactive Visualization Design Environment. Computer Graphics Forum 33, 3 ([n. d.]), 351--360. https://doi.org/10.1111/cgf.12391 arXiv:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/cgf.12391 Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., Vol. 4, No. ISS, Article 195. Publication date: November 2020. 195:20 María-Jesús Lobo et al.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. A. Satyanarayan, D. Moritz, K. Wongsuphasawat, and J. Heer. 2017. Vega-Lite: A Grammar of Interactive Graphics. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 23, 1 (Jan 2017), 341--350. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG. 2016.2599030Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. A. Satyanarayan, R. Russell, J. Hoffswell, and J. Heer. 2016. Reactive Vega: A Streaming Dataflow Architecture for Declarative Interactive Visualization. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 22, 1 (Jan 2016), 659--668. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2015.2467091Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  59. R. Sicat, J. Li, J. Choi, M. Cordeil, W. Jeong, B. Bach, and H. Pfister. 2019. DXR: A Toolkit for Building Immersive Data Visualizations. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 25, 1 (Jan 2019), 715--725. https: //doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2018.2865152Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  60. Mark Simpson, Jiayan Zhao, and Alexander Klippel. 2017. Take a walk: Evaluating movement types for data visualization in immersive virtual reality. In Proceedings of Workshop on Immersive Analytics (IA).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. Terece L. Turton, Anne S. Berres, David H. Rogers, and James Ahrens. 2017. ETK: An Evaluation Toolkit for Visualization User Studies. In Proceedings of the Eurographics/IEEE VGTC Conference on Visualization: Short Papers (Barcelona, Spain) (EuroVis '17). Eurographics Association, Goslar Germany, Germany, 43--47. https://doi.org/10.2312/eurovisshort. 20171131Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. Teoman Ulusoy, Kurtis Thorvald Danyluk, and Wesley J Willett. 2018. Beyond the Physical: Examining Scale and Annotation in Virtual Reality Visualizations. Technical Report. Department of Computer Science, University of Calgary.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. J. A.Wagner Filho, C.M.D.S. Freitas, and L. Nedel. 2018. VirtualDesk: A Comfortable and Efficient Immersive Information Visualization Approach. Computer Graphics Forum 37, 3 (2018), 415--426. https://doi.org/10.1111/cgf.13430Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  64. J. A. Wagner Filho, M. F. Rey, C. M. D. S. Freitas, and L. Nedel. 2018. Immersive Visualization of Abstract Information: An Evaluation on Dimensionally-Reduced Data Scatterplots. In 2018 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR). 483--490. https://doi.org/10.1109/VR.2018.8447558Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  65. Y. Yang, T. Dwyer, B. Jenny, K. Marriott, M. Cordeil, and H. Chen. 2019. Origin-Destination Flow Maps in Immersive Environments. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 25, 1 (Jan 2019), 693--703. https://doi.org/10. 1109/TVCG.2018.2865192Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  66. Yalong Yang, Tim Dwyer, Kimbal Marriott, Bernhard Jenny, and Sarah Goodwin. 2020. Tilt Map: Interactive Transitions Between Choropleth Map, Prism Map and Bar Chart in Immersive Environments. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (2020), 1--1. https://doi.org/10.1109/tvcg.2020.3004137Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  67. Yalong Yang, Bernhard Jenny, Tim Dwyer, Kim Marriott, Haohui Chen, and Maxime Cordeil. [n.d.]. Maps and Globes in Virtual Reality. Computer Graphics Forum 37, 3 ([n. d.]), 427--438. https://doi.org/10.1111/cgf.13431 arXiv:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/cgf.13431Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  68. Ji Soo Yi, Youn ah Kang, and John Stasko. 2007. Toward a deeper understanding of the role of interaction in information visualization. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 13, 6 (2007), 1224--1231.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Flex-ER: A Platform to Evaluate Interaction Techniques for Immersive Visualizations

            Recommendations

            Comments

            Login options

            Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

            Sign in

            Full Access

            • Published in

              cover image Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
              Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction  Volume 4, Issue ISS
              ISS
              November 2020
              488 pages
              EISSN:2573-0142
              DOI:10.1145/3433930
              Issue’s Table of Contents

              Copyright © 2020 ACM

              Publisher

              Association for Computing Machinery

              New York, NY, United States

              Publication History

              • Published: 4 November 2020
              Published in pacmhci Volume 4, Issue ISS

              Permissions

              Request permissions about this article.

              Request Permissions

              Check for updates

              Qualifiers

              • research-article

            PDF Format

            View or Download as a PDF file.

            PDF

            eReader

            View online with eReader.

            eReader
            About Cookies On This Site

            We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

            Learn more

            Got it!