Comparison of 2D and 3D representations for visualising telecommunication usage

This paper describes an empirical evaluation of one two-dimensional (2D), and two three-dimensional (3D) representations. These representations were developed to present customer behaviour information on telecommunications usage. The goal of the study was to investigate how the properties of these different but informationally equivalent representations supported information retrieval and problem solving using the database. Thirty-six participants performed a number of information retrieval and problem solving tasks, in one of three experimental conditions: 2D graph, 3D graph and 3D helix plot. Measures included performance time and accuracy and user attitudes concerning the usability of the displays. Despite certain navigational problems associated with the 2D representation, the results indicated a performance advantage for the 2D display compared with both 3D representations. Generally, the analyses revealed that the differences in representational characteristics have a significant effect on the level of cognitive effort required to perform the tasks.

[1]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  On the Forms of Mental Representation , 1978 .

[2]  Allen Newell,et al.  The psychology of human-computer interaction , 1983 .

[3]  K. A. Ericsson,et al.  Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data , 1984 .

[4]  David Meister.  Human Factors Testing and Evaluation , 1986 .

[5]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  Why a Diagram is (Sometimes) Worth Ten Thousand Words , 1987 .

[6]  Jock D. Mackinlay,et al.  Cone Trees: animated 3D visualizations of hierarchical information , 1991, CHI.

[7]  A. N. Oppenheim,et al.  Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Measurement , 1992 .

[8]  Hugh Coolican.  Research Methods and Statistics in Psychology , 1993 .

[9]  S. Palmer,et al.  Rethinking perceptual organization: The role of uniform connectedness , 1994, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[10]  Jiajie Zhang,et al.  Representations in Distributed Cognitive Tasks , 1994, Cogn. Sci..

[11]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  Graph-Task Dependencies in Three-Dimensional Data: Influence of Three-Dimensionality and Color , 1995 .

[12]  Yvonne Rogers,et al.  External cognition: how do graphical representations work? , 1996, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[13]  Yvonne Rogers,et al.  How can interactive multimedia facilitate learning , 1998 .

[14]  Mary Czerwinski,et al.  Data mountain: using spatial memory for document management , 1998, UIST '98.

[15]  Mary Czerwinski,et al.  An initial examination of ease of use for 2D and 3D information visualizations of web content , 2000, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[16]  Andy Cockburn,et al.  3D or not 3D?: evaluating the effect of the third dimension in a document management system , 2001, CHI.

[17]  Martin J. Hicks.  A helix metaphor for customer behaviour visualisation , 2001, Proceedings Fifth International Conference on Information Visualisation.

[18]  Donald A. Norman,et al.  Emotion & design: attractive things work better , 2002, INTR.

[19]  Michael Scaife,et al.  Cognitive Science Approaches To Understanding Diagrammatic Representations , 2001, Artificial Intelligence Review.

[20]  Judith Good,et al.  Learning to Think and Communicate with Diagrams: 14 Questions to Consider , 2001, Artificial Intelligence Review.