Effects of Layer Partitioning in Collaborative 3D Visualizations

  • Lars Winkler Pettersson
  • Andreas Kjellin
  • Mats Lind
  • Stefan Seipel
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4291)


Display technologies that support multiple independent views of the same co-located 3D visualization volume make new forms of collaboration possible. In this field of research, until now most efforts have focused on technical solutions and their applications. The main contribution of this paper is the results from a study comparing integral and partitioned 3D content in a head coupled stereoscopic environment through independent views of a shared 3D visualization.

In our study we used a geospatial task that was solved by ten pairs of collaborating individuals (dyads). We measured task performance by time and error rate for the dyads in two main conditions: a) an integral visualization that presented a map in the display surface and four layers at different depths below the display surface to each of the observers, and b) a partitioned visualization, where two mutually exclusive subsets of the layers were presented to each of the observers together with the map in the display surface.

The results from the study showed significant differences in regard to performance times between the two conditions. Task performance was significantly better in the condition with layer partitioning. Partitioned visualizations can thus, at least in some cases, improve performance in tasks requiring collaboration between users.


Augmented Reality Display Surface Stereoscopic View Visual Clutter Independent View 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Krüger, W., Bohn, C.A., Fröhlich, B., Schüth, H., Strauss, W., Wesche, G.: The responsive workbench: A virtual work environment. Computer 28(7), 42–48 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cruz-Neira, C., Sandin, D.J., De Fanti, T.A.: Surround-screen projection-based virtual reality: the design and implementation of the cave. In: SIGGRAPH 1993: Proceedings of the 20th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques, pp. 135–142. ACM Press, New York (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ebert, D., Bedwell, E., Maher, S., Smoliar, L., Downing, E.: Realizing 3d visualization using crossed-beam volumetric displays. Commun. ACM 42(8), 100–107 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Raskar, R., Welch, G., Chen, W.C.: Table-top spatially-augmented reality: Bringing physical models to life with projected imagery. In: IWAR 1999: Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE and ACM International Workshop on Augmented Reality, p. 64. IEEE Computer Society Press, Washington (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Agrawala, M., Beers, A.C., McDowall, I., Fröhlich, B., Bolas, M., Hanrahan, P.: The two-user responsive workbench: support for collaboration through individual views of a shared space. In: Proceedings of the 24th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques, pp. 327–332. ACM Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing Co (1997)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bimber, O., Fröhlich, B., Schmalstieg, D., Encarnação, L.M.: The virtual showcase. IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl. 21(6), 48–55 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kitamura, Y., Konishi, T., Yamamoto, S., Kishino, F.: Interactive stereoscopic display for three or more users. In: Proceedings of the 28th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques, pp. 231–240. ACM Press, New York (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hua, H., Brown, L.D., Gao, C.: Scape: supporting stereoscopic collaboration in augmented and projective environments. Computer Graphics and Applications, IEEE 24(1), 66–75 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Azuma, R.: A survey of augmented reality. Presence, Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 6(4), 355–385 (1997)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Snowdon, D., Greenhalgh, C., Benford, S.: What you see is not what i see: Subjectivity in virtual environments. In: Framework for Immersive Virtual Enviroments (FIVE 1995), QMW University of London (1995)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Smith, G., Mariani, J.: Using subjective views to enhance 3d applications. In: VRST 1997: Proceedings of the ACM symposium on Virtual reality software and technology, pp. 139–146. ACM Press, New York (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pettersson, L.W., Spak, U., Seipel, S.: Collaborative 3d visualizations of geo-spatial information for command and control. In: Proceedings of SIGRAD 2004, pp. 41–47 (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pettersson, L.W., Lind, M., Spak, U., Seipel, S.: Visualizations of symbols in a horizontal multiple viewer 3d display environment. In: Information Visualisation, 2005. Proceedings. Ninth International Conference, pp. 357–362 (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ware, C.: Information Visualization: Perception for Design. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Forsell, C., Seipel, S., Lind, M.: Simple 3d glyphs for spatial multivariate data. In: INFOVIS 2005: Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization, pp. 119–124. IEEE Computer Society, Washington (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lars Winkler Pettersson
    • 1
  • Andreas Kjellin
    • 2
  • Mats Lind
    • 2
  • Stefan Seipel
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Dept. of Information TechnologyUppsala University 
  2. 2.Dept. of Information ScienceUppsala University 
  3. 3.Dept. of Mathematics, Natural and Computer SciencesUniversity of Gävle 

Personalised recommendations