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.

[1]  Stefan Seipel,et al.  Collaborative 3D Visualizations of Geo-Spatial Information for Command and Control , 2004 .

[2]  Colin Ware,et al.  Information Visualization: Perception for Design , 2000 .

[3]  Yoshifumi Kitamura,et al.  Interactive stereoscopic display for three or more users , 2001, SIGGRAPH.

[4]  Greg Welch,et al.  Table-top spatially-augmented realty: bringing physical models to life with projected imagery , 1999, Proceedings 2nd IEEE and ACM International Workshop on Augmented Reality (IWAR'99).

[5]  Mats Lind,et al.  Visualizations of symbols in a horizontal multiple viewer 3D display environment , 2005, Ninth International Conference on Information Visualisation (IV'05).

[6]  Ronald Azuma,et al.  A Survey of Augmented Reality , 1997, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[7]  Mats Lind,et al.  Simple 3D glyphs for spatial multivariate data , 2005, IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization, 2005. INFOVIS 2005..

[8]  Mats Lind,et al.  Simple 3D glyphs for spatial multivariate , 2005 .

[9]  Carolina Cruz-Neira,et al.  Surround-Screen Projection-Based Virtual Reality: The Design and Implementation of the CAVE , 2023 .

[10]  Hong Hua,et al.  Scape: supporting stereoscopic collaboration in augmented and projective environments , 2004, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications.

[11]  Steve Benford,et al.  What You See Is Not What I See: Subjectivity in Virtual Environments , 2000 .

[12]  Oliver Bimber,et al.  The Virtual Showcase , 2001, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications.

[13]  David S. Ebert,et al.  Realizing 3D visualization using crossed-beam volumetric displays , 1999, CACM.

[14]  Bernd Fröhlich,et al.  The Responsive Workbench: A Virtual Work Environment , 1995, Computer.

[15]  Gareth Smith,et al.  Using subjective views to enhance 3D applications , 1997, VRST '97.

[16]  Bernd Fröhlich,et al.  The two-user Responsive Workbench: support for collaboration through individual views of a shared space , 1997, SIGGRAPH.