Eye-tracking Study on Different Perception of 2D and 3D Terrain Visualisation

Abstract The use of computer-generated perspective views, often named as three-dimensional (3D) maps, is growing. These terrain visualisations should be more understandable for users without cartographic education, which are not familiar with contour lines. Within the study, two eye-tracking experiments and online questionnaire were used for investigating the difference between user cognition of classical two-dimensional (2D) visualisation with contour lines and perspective 3D view. Questionnaire was focused on maps understandability, suitability and aesthetics. Results of the questionnaire shows, that the majority of participants prefer 3D visualisation. First eye-tracking experiment was designed as a pair of maps in one stimulus. One shows 2D visualisation, the other 3D visualisation. No significant differences between user preferences of 2D and 3D visualisation were found, but the results were influenced with the order of the maps in the stimuli. Because of that another experiment was designed. In this case stimuli contained only one of two possible visualisations (2D and 3D). ScanPath comparison of this experiment results confirmed that users have different strategies for cognition of 2D and 3D visualisation, although statistically significant difference between both types of visualisation was found in the ScanPath length metric only.

[1]  Claudia Mello-Thoms,et al.  What attracts the eye to the location of missed and reported breast cancers? , 2002, ETRA.

[2]  Tomasz Opach,et al.  EVALUATING THE USABILITY OF CARTOGRAPHIC ANIMATIONS WITH EYE-MOVEMENT ANALYSIS , 2011 .

[3]  Joseph H. Goldberg,et al.  Eye tracking in web search tasks: design implications , 2002, ETRA.

[4]  Alzbeta Brychtova,et al.  Advanced Map Optimalization Based on Eye-Tracking , 2012 .

[5]  Christian Haeberling,et al.  3D Map Presentation – A Systematic Evaluation of Important Graphic Aspects , 2002 .

[6]  Sven Fuchs,et al.  Evaluating cartographic design in flood risk mapping , 2009 .

[7]  Kenneth Holmqvist,et al.  Eye tracking: a comprehensive guide to methods and measures , 2011 .

[8]  Theodore Steinke Eye Movement Studies In Cartography And Related Fields , 1987 .

[9]  Lukas Zebedin,et al.  Towards 3D map generation from digital aerial images , 2006 .

[10]  Manfred F. Buchroithner,et al.  3D DISPLAY TECHNIQUES FOR CARTOGRAPHIC PURPOSES: SEMIOTIC ASPECTS , 2000 .

[11]  Sven Fuhrmann,et al.  Investigating Hologram‐Based Route Planning , 2009 .

[12]  Eric N. Wiebe,et al.  Performance of 2D versus 3D Topographic Representations for Different Task Types , 2004 .

[13]  Gennady Andrienko,et al.  Novel Method to Measure Inference Affordance in Static Small-Multiple Map Displays Representing Dynamic Processes , 2008 .

[14]  Philippe De Maeyer,et al.  Can experts interpret a map's content more efficiently? , 2011 .

[15]  Alphonse Chapanis Evaluating usability , 1991 .

[16]  Claudio M. Privitera,et al.  Algorithms for Defining Visual Regions-of-Interest: Comparison with Eye Fixations , 2000, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[17]  Anne R. Haake,et al.  eyePatterns: software for identifying patterns and similarities across fixation sequences , 2006, ETRA.

[18]  Arzu Çöltekin,et al.  Evaluating the Effectiveness of Interactive Map Interface Designs: A Case Study Integrating Usability Metrics with Eye-Movement Analysis , 2009 .

[19]  C. Häberling CARTOGRAPHIC DESIGN PRINCIPLES FOR 3 D MAPS A CONTRIBUTION TO CARTOGRAPHIC THEORY , 2005 .