Visualization task performance with 2D, 3D, and combination displays

We describe a series of experiments that compare 2D displays, 3D displays, and combined 2D/3D displays (orientation icon, ExoVis, and clip planes) for relative position estimation, orientation, and volume of interest tasks. Our results indicate that 3D displays can be very effective for approximate navigation and relative positioning when appropriate cues, such as shadows, are present. However, 3D displays are not effective for precise navigation and positioning except possibly in specific circumstances, for instance, when good viewing angles or measurement tools are available. For precise tasks in other situations, orientation icon and ExoVis displays were better than strict 2D or 3D displays (displays consisting exclusively of 2D or 3D views). The combined displays had as good or better performance, inspired higher confidence, and allowed natural, integrated navigation. Clip plane displays were not effective for 3D orientation because users could not easily view more than one 2D slice at a time and had to frequently change the visibility of individual slices. Major factors contributing to display preference and usability were task characteristics, orientation cues, occlusion, and spatial proximity of views that were used together.

[1]  K. F Van Orden,et al.  Visuospatial task performance as a function of two- and three-dimensional display presentation techniques , 2000 .

[2]  Harvey S. Smallman,et al.  The Use of 2D and 3D Displays for Shape-Understanding versus Relative-Position Tasks , 2001, Hum. Factors.

[3]  C D Wickens,et al.  Implications of Graphics Enhancements for the Visualization of Scientific Data: Dimensional Integrality, Stereopsis, Motion, and Mesh , 1994, Human factors.

[4]  Roni Yagel,et al.  Interactive Space Deformation with Hardware-Assisted Rendering , 1997, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications.

[5]  Jeffrey C. Woldstad,et al.  Multiple Two-Dimensional Displays as an Alternative to Three-Dimensional Displays in Telerobotic Tasks , 2000, Hum. Factors.

[6]  Melanie Tory,et al.  Comparing ExoVis, Orientation Icon, and In-Place 3D Visualization Techniques , 2003, Graphics Interface.

[7]  Melanie Tory,et al.  Combining 2D and 3D views for orientation and relative position tasks , 2004, CHI.

[8]  M. Sheelagh T. Carpendale,et al.  Tardis: a visual exploration environment for landscape dynamics , 1999, Electronic Imaging.

[9]  R. Shepard,et al.  Mental Rotation of Three-Dimensional Objects , 1971, Science.

[10]  Pak Chung Wong,et al.  Brushing techniques for exploring volume datasets , 1997, Proceedings. Visualization '97 (Cat. No. 97CB36155).

[11]  Harvey S. Smallman,et al.  Tactical Routing Using Two-Dimensional and Three-Dimensional Views of Terrain , 2001 .

[12]  Daniel C. Robbins,et al.  Interactive shadows , 1992, UIST '92.

[13]  Ravin Balakrishnan,et al.  Using deformations for browsing volumetric data , 2003, IEEE Visualization, 2003. VIS 2003..

[14]  Melanie Tory.  Mental registration of 2D and 3D visualizations (an empirical study) , 2003, IEEE Visualization, 2003. VIS 2003..

[15]  Harvey S. Smallman,et al.  Information Availability in 2D and 3D Displays , 2001, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications.

[16]  Nelson L. Max,et al.  A characterization of the scientific data analysis process , 1992, Proceedings Visualization '92.