Effects of Layer Partitioning in Collaborative 3D Visualizations
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.
KeywordsAugmented Reality Display Surface Stereoscopic View Visual Clutter Independent View
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 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
- 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.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
- 9.Azuma, R.: A survey of augmented reality. Presence, Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 6(4), 355–385 (1997)Google Scholar
- 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
- 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.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.Ware, C.: Information Visualization: Perception for Design. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco (2004)Google Scholar