The effects of peripheral vision and physical navigation on large scale visualization

Large high-resolution displays have been shown to improve user performance over standard displays on many large-scale visualization tasks. But what is the reason for the improvement? The two most cited reasons for the advantage are (1) the wider field of view that exploits peripheral vision to provide context, and (2) the opportunity for physical navigation (e.g. head turning, walking, etc.) to visually access information. Which of these two factors is the key to advantage? Or, do they both work together to produce a combined advantage? This paper reports on an experiment that separates peripheral vision and physical navigation as independent variables. Results indicate that, for most of the tasks tested, increased physical navigation opportunity is more critical to improving performance than increased field of view. Some evidence indicates a valuable combined role.

[1]  Jack M. Loomis,et al.  Locomotion Mode Affects the Updating of Objects Encountered During Travel: The Contribution of Vestibular and Proprioceptive Inputs to Path Integration , 1998, Presence.

[2]  Desney S. Tan,et al.  Women take a wider view , 2002, CHI.

[3]  Chris North,et al.  Realizing embodied interaction for visual analytics through large displays , 2007, Comput. Graph..

[4]  Mary Czerwinski,et al.  Toward Characterizing the Productivity Benefits of Very Large Displays , 2003, INTERACT.

[5]  Peter J. Werkhoven,et al.  Aiding orientation performance in virtual environments with proprioceptive feedback , 1998, Proceedings. IEEE 1998 Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium (Cat. No.98CB36180).

[6]  Chris North,et al.  Move to improve: promoting physical navigation to increase user performance with large displays , 2007, CHI.

[7]  Chris North,et al.  Effects of tiled high-resolution display on basic visualization and navigation tasks , 2005, CHI EA '05.

[8]  Paul Dourish,et al.  Where the action is , 2001 .

[9]  Chris North,et al.  High-resolution gaming: Interfaces, notifications, and the user experience , 2007, Interact. Comput..

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

[11]  Umer Farooq,et al.  Empirical Comparison of Human Behavior and Performance with Different Display Devices for Virtual Environments , 2002 .

[12]  Dennis Proffitt,et al.  Quantifying immersion in virtual reality , 1997, SIGGRAPH.

[13]  S. H. Sato,et al.  Interaction design for large displays , 1997, INTR.

[14]  John F. Lucas,et al.  Exploring the Benefits of Immersion in Abstract Information Visualization , 2004 .

[15]  Terri Simmons What's the Optimum Computer Display Size? , 2001 .

[16]  Ivan Poupyrev,et al.  3D User Interfaces: Theory and Practice , 2004 .

[17]  Chris North,et al.  Evaluation of viewport size and curvature of large, high-resolution displays , 2006, Graphics Interface.

[18]  Patrick Baudisch,et al.  Keeping things in context: a comparative evaluation of focus plus context screens, overviews, and zooming , 2002, CHI.

[19]  Mark Ashdown,et al.  A personal projected display , 2004, MULTIMEDIA '04.

[20]  Gary K. Starkweather DSHARP?a wide-screen multi-projector display , 2003 .