Advertisement

Assessing the Suitability of Using Google Glass in Designing 3D Geographic Information for Navigation

  • Kelvin Wong
  • Claire Ellul
Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography book series (LNGC)

Abstract

No longer are we bound by traditional 2D physical representations; there is a steady shift towards three-dimensional (3D) data. Existing research recognises landmarks to be important navigationally but specific requirements for geometric and semantic attributes in 3D have not been identified. This study assesses the suitability of using Google Glass in real-world experiments investigating the saliency of environmental objects which facilitate pedestrian navigation. From the experiment carried out with fourteen participants, initial results show geometric and semantic detail for navigation are most pertinent between 1.65–7.5 m for buildings. Visual characteristics such as colour, shape and texture are more relevant than function and use.

Keywords

Navigation Google glass Landmarks User-centred design 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This project was funded and supported by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) and Ordnance Survey.

References

  1. Applied Science Laboratories. (2015). Mobile eye-XG eye tracking glasses. http://www.asleyetracking.com/Site/Products/MobileEyeXGGlasses/tabid/70/Default.aspx
  2. Bartie, P., Mackaness, W., Petrenz, P., & Dickinson, A. (2014). Clustering landmark image annotations based on tag location and content. In Proceedings of RefNet Workshop on Psychological and Computational Models of Reference Comprehension and Production, 31st August 2014Google Scholar
  3. Chan, E., Baumann, O., Bellgrove, M. A., & Mattingley, J. B. (2012). From objects to landmarks: the function of visual location information in spatial navigation. Frontiers in Psychology, 3.Google Scholar
  4. Downs, R. M., & Stea, D. (1974). Image and environment: Cognitive mapping and spatial behavior. Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  5. Goldin, S. E., & Thorndyke, P. W. (1982). Simulating navigation for spatial knowledge acquisition. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 24, 457–471.Google Scholar
  6. Golledge, R. G. (1995). Path selection and route preference in human navigation: A progress report. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  7. Google. (2014). Google Glass UK. “Google Glass Explorer” Program. https://www.google.co.uk/intl/en/glass/start/. Retrieved August 17, 2014.
  8. Google. (2015). Google Glass UK. https://www.google.co.uk/intl/en/glass/start/. Retrieved August 18, 2015.
  9. Hölscher, C., Meilinger, T., Vrachliotis, G., Brsamle, M., & Knauf, M. (2006). Up the down staircase: Wayfinding strategies in multi-level buildings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26, 284–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Iaria, G., Palermo, L., Committeri, G., & Barton, J. J. S. (2009). Age differences in the formation and use of cognitive maps. Behavioural Brain Research, 196, 187–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jazayeri, I., Rajabifard, A., & Kalantari, M. (2014). A geometric and semantic evaluation of 3D data sourcing methods for land and property information. Land Use Policy, 36, 219–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kolbe, T. H., Gröger, G., Plümer, L. (2005). CityGML—interoperable access to 3D city models. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Geo-information for Disaster Management, 21st–23rd March 2005, Delft, Netherlands.Google Scholar
  13. May, A. J., Ross, T., Bayer, S. H., & Tarkiainen, M. J. (2003). Pedestrian navigation aids: Information requirements and design implications. Personal Ubiquitous Computing, 7, 331–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Miller, J., & Carlson, L. (2011). Selecting landmarks in novel environments. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 18, 184–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Moffat, S. D., Elkins, W., & Resnick, S. M. (2006). Age differences in the neural systems supporting human allocentric spatial navigation. Neurobiology of aging, 27, 965–972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Musliman, I. A., Rahman, A. A., & Coors, V. (2006). 3D navigation for 3D-GIS—initial requirements. In Proceedings from 3DGeoInfo 2006.Google Scholar
  17. Nothegger, C., Winter, S., & Raubal, M. (2004). Selection of salient features for route directions. Spatial Cognition and Computation, 4, 113–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Partala, T., Nurminen, A., Vainio, T., Laaksonen, J., Laine, M., & Vnnen, J. (2010). Salience of visual cues in 3D city maps. In Proceedings of the 24th BCS Interaction Specialist Group Conference (pp. 428–432).Google Scholar
  19. Peponis, J., Zimring, C., & Choi, Y. K. (1990). Finding the building in wayfinding. Environment and Behavior, 22, 555–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Richter, K.-F., & Winter, S. (2014). Landmarks: GIScience for intelligent services. Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  21. Satalich, G. A. (1995). Navigation and wayfinding in virtual reality: Finding the proper tools and cues to enhance navigational awareness. University of Washington.Google Scholar
  22. Saucier, D. M., Green, S. M., Leason, J., Macfadden, A., Bell, S., & Elias, L. J. (2002). Are sex differences in navigation caused by sexually dimorphic strategies or by differences in the ability to use the strategies? Behavioural Neuroscience, 116, 403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sensomotoric Instruments. (2015). SMI Eye Tracking Glasses 2 Wireless. http://eyetracking-glasses.com/
  24. Tobii. (2015). Mobile eye tracking—Tobii Glasses 2. http://www.tobii.com/en/eye-tracking-research/global/products/
  25. Witmer, B. G., Bailey, J. H., Knerr, B. W., & Parsons, K. C. (1996). Virtual spaces and real world places: transfer of route knowledge. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 45, 413–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wong, K. (2012). 3D geographic information and solar panel positioning. MSc Dissertation (unpublished), University College London.Google Scholar
  27. Xia, J., Packer, D., & Dong, C. (2009). Individual differences and tourist wayfinding behaviours. In 18the World IMACS/MODSIM Congress (1272–1278).Google Scholar
  28. Zandbergen, P. A. (2009). Accuracy of iPhone locations: A comparison of assisted GPS, WiFi and cellular positioning. Transactions in GIS, 13, 5–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity College LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.Department of Civil, Environmental and Geomatic EngineeringUniversity College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations