Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Virtual Reality Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. MAVERIK is a publicly available virtual reality system developed by the Advanced Interfaces Group at the University of Manchester (see http://aig.cs.man.ac.uk/maverik/; cited 6 May 2004).

  2. Hereafter, the design guidelines will refer to the proposed design guidelines developed by Marsh and Wright [14], while the implemented guidelines will refer to the physical representation of these guidelines applied to the test virtual environment.

  3. Pictures on the maze walls included works of art by Picasso, Monet and Matisse.

References

  1. Baudisch P, Rosenholtz R (2003) Halo: A technique for visualizing off-screen locations. In: Proceedings of CHI 2003. ACM Press, New York, pp 481–488

  2. Bowman DA, Davies ET, Hodges LF, Badre AN (1999) Maintaining spatial orientation during travel in an immersive virtual environment. Presence 8(6):618–631

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bowman DA, Hodges LF, Allison D, Wineman J (1999) The educational value of an information-rich virtual environment. Presence 8(3):317–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 45–52

  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 142–149

  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 527–535

  7. DIRC—Interdisciplinary Research Collaboration on Dependability of Computer-Based Systems (2001)http://www.dirc.org.uk. Cited on 6 May 2004

  8. INQUISITIVE Project (1998)http://www.cs.york.ac.uk/hci/inquisitive/. Cited on 6 May 2004

  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 636–639

  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 4/1–4/4

  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 85–96

  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 149–154

  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 99–108

  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 123–127

  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):225–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. 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 1278–1282

  18. Nichols S, Haldane C, Wilson JR (2000) Measurement of presence and its consequences in virtual environments. Int J Hum Comput Stud 52(3):471–491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 67–72

  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 11–19

  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 57–72

  22. Spence R (1999) A framework for navigation. Int J Hum Comput Stud 51(5):919–945

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 55–64

  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 514–541

  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 179–186

Download references

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.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Shamus P. Smith

    Present address: Department of Computer Science, University of Durham, Durham DH1 3LE, UK

  2. Tim Marsh

    Present address: Integrated Media Systems Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, University of York, York YO10 5DD, UK

    Shamus P. Smith

  2. Department of Industrial Design, Eindhoven University of Technology, 5600 MB, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

    Tim Marsh

Authors
  1. Shamus P. Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tim Marsh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shamus P. Smith.

Appendix A: Post-study questionnaire

Appendix A: Post-study questionnaire

[*Delete as appropriate]

 

1.

age group *: 18–25, 26–32, 33–39, 40–46, 47–52, over 52

2.

female/ male *

3.

have you any experience of the following:

i.

computer games?

y/n* (if no, go to ii.)

how would you rate your skill level:

novice, experienced, expert *

ii.

virtual reality?

y/n* (if no, go to 4.)

using: Head Mounted Displays (HMD)?

y/n*

using: desktop computer

y/n*

which of the following best applies to the virtual reality products for which you have had experience?

Educational

y/n*

Entertainment

y/n*

other, please specify ____________________________

4.

where did you hear about the study? _______________________

5.

please rate the level of difficulty/effectiveness of using the cursor keys -arrow keys- to move around the corridors?

difficult 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 effective

please comment:

6.

please rate the speed of movement through the corridors?

too slow 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 too fast

please comment:

7.

did you feel disorientated at any time?

y/n*

if yes, please comment on the cause of this disorientation:

8.

how attentive/focused did you feel in the task of moving through the corridors?

not focused 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 totally focused

9.

when moving through the corridors, were you aware of activities external to your task?

y/n*

if yes, what things were you aware of:

10.

when moving through the corridors, did anything break your attention from your task to activities external to your task?

y/n*

if yes, what things were you aware of:

11.

how much of the route through the corridors can you remember?

none at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all the route

12.

please describe as much of the route through the corridors as possible:

13.

if you wish to learn more about the study please write your email below:

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Smith, S.P., Marsh, T. Evaluating design guidelines for reducing user disorientation in a desktop virtual environment. Virtual Reality 8, 55–62 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-004-0137-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-004-0137-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation