Virtual Reality

, Volume 8, Issue 1, pp 55–62 | Cite as

Evaluating design guidelines for reducing user disorientation in a desktop virtual environment

Original Article

Abstract

Navigation in virtual environments can be difficult. One contributing factor is user disorientation. Two major causes of this are the lack of navigation cues in the environment and problems with navigating too close to or through virtual world objects. Previous work has developed guidelines, informed by cinematography conventions, for the construction of virtual environments to aid user comprehension of virtual space to reduce user disorientation. To validate these guidelines, two user studies have been performed where users of a desktop virtual environment are to complete a navigation task in a virtual maze. In an initial study [12], collision detection with the maze walls was not enabled and the results indicated that the guidelines were effective for reducing disorientation but not for developing the user’s awareness of the environment space. A second study has been performed where collision detection was enabled. Results suggest that the use of the guidelines can help reduce the incidences of user disorientation and aid navigation tasks. However, the guidelines have little impact on users’ ability to construct cognitive maps of the desktop virtual environment.

Keywords

Navigation Virtual environment User disorientation Design guidelines Evaluation study 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by the UK EPSRC INQUISITIVE project [8], Grant GR/L53199, and the UK EPSRC DIRC project [7], Grant GR/N13999. The authors would like to thank the subjects who participated in the study, Alistair Edwards for comments on an earlier draft of this paper and the journal reviewers for their constructive comments.

References

  1. 1.
    Baudisch P, Rosenholtz R (2003) Halo: A technique for visualizing off-screen locations. In: Proceedings of CHI 2003. ACM Press, New York, pp 481–488Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bowman DA, Davies ET, Hodges LF, Badre AN (1999) Maintaining spatial orientation during travel in an immersive virtual environment. Presence 8(6):618–631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bowman DA, Hodges LF, Allison D, Wineman J (1999) The educational value of an information-rich virtual environment. Presence 8(3):317–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bowman DA, Koller D, Hodges LF (1997) Travel in immersive virtual environments: an evaluation of viewpoint motion control techniques. In: Proceedings of the virtual reality annual international symposium (VRAIS’97). IEEE Press, New York, pp 45–52Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Darken RP, Sibert JL (1996) Wayfinding strategies and behaviours in large virtual worlds. In: Proceedings of CHI 96: human factors in computing systems. ACM Press, New York, pp 142–149Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kaur Deol K, Sutcliffe AG, Maiden NAM (1999) Towards a better understanding of usability problems with virtual environments. In: Sasse MA, Johnson C (eds) Proceedings of human-computer interaction (INTERACT’99). IFIP/IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 527–535Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    DIRC—Interdisciplinary Research Collaboration on Dependability of Computer-Based Systems (2001)http://www.dirc.org.uk. Cited on 6 May 2004
  8. 8.
    INQUISITIVE Project (1998)http://www.cs.york.ac.uk/hci/inquisitive/. Cited on 6 May 2004
  9. 9.
    Kaur K (1997) Designing virtual environments for usability. In: Howard S, Hammond J, Lindgaard G (eds) Proceedings of human-computer interaction (INTERACT’97). Chapman & Hall, London, pp 636–639Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kaur K, Sutcliffe A, Maiden N (1998) Improving interaction with virtual environments. In: Leevers DFA, Benest ID (eds) Proceedings of the 3D interface for the information worker. IEE Press, London, pp 4/1–4/4Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Marsh T (2003) Staying there: an activity-based approach to narrative design and evaluation as an antidote to virtual corpsing. In: Riva G, Davide F, Ijsselsteijn WA (eds) Being there: concepts, effects and measurement of user presence in synthetic environments. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 85–96Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Marsh T, Smith SP (2001) Guiding user navigation in virtual environments using awareness of virtual off-screen space. In: Paelke V, Volbracht S (eds) Proceedings of the workshop on guiding users through interactive experiences—usability centred design and evaluation of virtual 3D environments: User guidance in virtual environments. Shaker, Aachen, pp 149–154Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Marsh T, Wright P (1999) Co-operative evaluation of a desktop virtual reality system. In: Harrison M, Smith S (eds) Proceedings of the workshop on user centered design and implementation of virtual environments. University of York, UK, pp 99–108Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Marsh T, Wright P (2000) Using cinematography conventions to inform guidelines for the design and evaluation of virtual off-screen space. In: Butz A, Krüger A, Olivier P (eds) Proceedings of the AAAI 2000 spring symposium series “Smart Graphics”. AAAI Press, Menlo Park, CA, pp 123–127Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Marsh T, Wright P, Smith S (2001) Evaluation for the design of experience in virtual environments: modelling breakdown in interaction and illusion. Cyberpsychol Behav 4(2):225–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    GNU MAVERIK—Manchester Virtual Environment Interface Kernel (1999) AIG Group, University of Manchester, UK.http://aig.cs.man.ac.uk/maverik/. Cited on 6 May 2004
  17. 17.
    Neale DC (1997) Factors influencing spatial awareness and orientation in desktop virtual environments. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 41st annual meeting. Human Factors and Ergonomic Society, Albuquerque, NM, pp 1278–1282Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nichols S, Haldane C, Wilson JR (2000) Measurement of presence and its consequences in virtual environments. Int J Hum Comput Stud 52(3):471–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Persson P (1998) A comparative study of digital and cinematic space with special focus on navigation. In: Hollnagel E (ed) Proceedings of the 9th European conference on cognitive ergonomics EACE—ECCE98. University of Limerick, Limerick, UK, pp 67–72Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Roberson G, Czerwinski M, van Dantzich M (1997) Immersion in desktop virtual reality. In: Proceedings of the 10th annual ACM symposium on user interface software and technology (UIST’97). ACM Press, New York, pp 11–19Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Smith S, Duke D, Wright P (1999) Using the resources model in virtual environment design. In: Harrison M, Smith S (eds) Proceedings of the workshop on user centered design and implementation of virtual environments. University of York, UK, pp 57–72Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Spence R (1999) A framework for navigation. Int J Hum Comput Stud 51(5):919–945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Volbracht S, Domik G (2000) Developing effective navigation techniques in virtual 3D environments. In: Mulder JD, van Liere R (eds) Virtual Environments 2000. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 55–64Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wickens CD, Baker P (1995) Cognitive issues in virtual reality. In: Barfield W, Furness TA III (eds) Virtual environments and advanced interface design. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, pp 514–541Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Xiao D, Hubbold R (1998) Navigation guided by artificial force fields. In: Karat C-M, Lundi A, Coutaz J, Karat J (eds) Proceedings of CHI’98: human factors in computing systems. ACM Press, New York, pp 179–186Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of YorkYork YO10 5DDUK
  2. 2.Department of Industrial DesignEindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of DurhamDurham DH1 3LEUK
  4. 4.Integrated Media Systems CenterUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations