An evaluation of methods for linking 3D views

ABSTRACT

It is common for 3D visualization systems to provide multiple points of view to a user, but there have been many solutions to the problem of linking these views so that users can understand the spatial relationships between them. Toward developing guidelines for view-linking devices, we have carried out two experiments that compare the utility of three different classes of linking devices: a directional proxy, tethers from one view to another, and a track-up map coupling. The task we apply them to is what we call the multi-perspective identification task: subjects are asked to identify an item seen in a local, forward-looking view in the context of a global, overhead view. Our results indicate that the directional proxy is the most beneficial device, and that the track-up map coupling is also beneficial. The results suggest that tethers provide little benefit. The results also suggest that when multiple local views are present, it may be beneficial to emphasize one window as being of primary interest.

References

1. ARETZ, A. J. 1991. The Design of Electronic Map Displays. Human Factors, 33, 1, 85--101.
2. ARETZ, A. J. AND WICKENS, C. D. 1992. The Mental Rotation of Map Displays. Human Performance, 5, 4, 303--328.
3. DARKEN, R. P. AND CEVIK, H. 1999. Map Usage in Virtual Environments: Orientation Issues. Proceedings of IEEE Virtual Reality 99, 133--140.
4. DARKEN, R. P. AND SIBERT, J. L. 1996. Wayfinding Strategies and Behaviors in Large Virtual Worlds. Human Factors in Computing Systems CHI '96 Proceedings, ACM Press/Addison Wesley, New York, 142--149.
5. ELEY, M. G. Determining the Shape of Land Surfaces from Topographical Maps. 1988. Ergonomics, 31, 3, 355--376.
6. LEVINE, M., MARCHON, I, AND HANLEY, G. 1984. The Placement and Misplacement of You-Are-Here Maps. Environment and Behavior, 16, 2, 139--157.
7. MACKINLAY, J. D., ROBERTSON G. G., AND DELINE, R. 1994. Developing Calendar Visualizers for the Information Visualizer. Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST '94), ACM Press, New York, 109--118.
8. RISCH, J. S., REX, D. B., DOWSON, S. T., WALTERS, T. B., MAY, R. A., AND MOON, B. D. 1997. The STARLIGHT Information Visualization System. Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Information Visualization, London, 42--49.
9. SEIGEL, A. W. AND WHITE, S. H. 1975. The Development of Spatial Representations of Large-Scale Environments. In H. W. Reese (ed.), Advances in Child Development and Behaviour, Academic Press, London, 9--55.
10. STOAKLEY, R., CONWAY, M. J., AND PAUSCH, R. 1995. Virtual Reality on a WIM: Interactive Worlds in Miniature. Human Factors in Computing Systems CHI '95 Proceedings, ACM Press/Addison Wesley, New York, 265--272.
11. THORNDYKE, P. W. AND HAYES-ROTH, B. 1982. Differences in Spatial Knowledge Acquired from Maps and Navigation. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 560--589.
12. WARE, C. AND LEWIS, M. The DragMag Image Magnifier. 1995. Human Factors in Computing Systems CHI '95 Companion, ACM Press/Addison Wesley, New York, 407--408.
13. YAMAASHI, K., COOPERSTOCK, J. R., NARINE, T., AND BUXTON, W. Beating the Limitations of Camera-Monitor Mediated Telepresence with Extra Eyes. 1996. Human Factors in Computing Systems CHI '96 Proceedings, ACM Press/Addison Wesley, New York, 50--57.