Abstract
Interactive 3D visualizations of geospatial data are currently available and popular through various applications such as Google EarthTM 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.
Highlights
Buchroithner and Knust [5] distinguished between two basic types of 3D visualization: Real-3D and pseudo-3D visualization
We addressed three research questions (RQ), which were further defined by nine hypotheses (H)
We analyzed the influence of the observed factors and the interaction effects of the factors on the participants’ performance
Summary
Buchroithner and Knust [5] distinguished between two basic types of 3D visualization: Real-3D and pseudo-3D visualization. Real-3D visualizations engage both binocular and monocular depth cues into geovisualizations using the principles of stereoscopy. Pseudo-3D visualizations are usually displayed on planar media (e.g., computer screens or widescreen projections), and are perceived by engaging only monocular depth cues [5]. This paper examines pseudo-3D visualization in more detail, studying 3D maps presented on planar media. Other definitions describe the specifics of the 3D map creation process (generalization, symbolization). Haeberling, Bär, and Hurni [7] define a 3D map as the generalized representation of a specific area using symbolization to illustrate its physical features. Bandrova [8] defines a 3D map as a computer generated, mathematically defined, three-dimensional, highly-realistic virtual representation of the world’s surface, which includes the objects and phenomena in nature and society. Schobesberger and Patterson [9] characterize a 3D map as the depiction of terrain with faux three-dimensionality containing perspective that diminishes the scale of distant areas
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
