On the Role of Visual References in Collaborative Visualization

Multi-Viewer Display Environments (MVDE) provide unique opportunities to present personalized information to several users concurrently in the same physical display space. MVDEs can support correct 3D visualizations to multiple users, present correctly oriented text and symbols to all viewers and allow individually chosen subsets of information in a shared context. MVDEs aim at supporting collaborative visual analysis, and when used to visualize disjoint information in partitioned visualizations they even necessitate collaboration. When solving visual tasks collaboratively in a MVDE, overall performance is affected not only by the inherent effects of the graphical presentation but also by the interaction between the collaborating users. We present results from an empirical study where we compared views with lack of shared visual references in disjoint sets of information to views with mutually shared information. Potential benefits of 2D and 3D visualizations in a collaborative task were investigated and the effects of partitioning visualizations both in terms of task performance, interaction behavior and clutter reduction. In our study of a collaborative task that required only a minimum of information to be shared, we found that partitioned views with a lack of shared visual references were significantly less efficient than integrated views. However, the study showed that subjects were equally capable of solving the task at low error levels in partitioned and integrated views. An explorative analysis revealed that the amount of visual clutter was reduced heavily in partitioned visualization, whereas verbal and deictic communication between subjects increased. It also showed that the type of the visualization (2D/3D) affects interaction behavior strongly. An interesting result is that collaboration on complex geo-time visualizations is actually as efficient in 2D as in 3D.

[1]  Menno-Jan Kraak,et al.  The space - time cube revisited from a geovisualization perspective , 2003 .

[2]  Oliver Bimber,et al.  The virtual showcase , 2006, SIGGRAPH Courses.

[3]  Chandrajit L. Bajaj,et al.  Distributed and collaborative visualization , 1994, Computer.

[4]  Alan J. Dix,et al.  A Taxonomy of Clutter Reduction for Information Visualisation , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[5]  Zygmunt Pizlo,et al.  A theory of shape constancy based on perspective invariants , 1994, Vision Research.

[6]  Carl Gutwin,et al.  Design for individuals, design for groups: tradeoffs between power and workspace awareness , 1998, CSCW '98.

[7]  Mats Lind,et al.  Different Levels of 3D: An Evaluation of Visualized Discrete Spatiotemporal Data in Space-Time Cubes , 2010, Inf. Vis..

[8]  Mats Lind,et al.  Effects of Layer Partitioning in Collaborative 3D Visualizations , 2006, ISVC.

[9]  Mats Lind,et al.  Faster is better: optimal speed of animated visualizations for decision makers , 2005, Ninth International Conference on Information Visualisation (IV'05).

[10]  Takeshi Naemura,et al.  Lumisight table: a face-to-face collaboration support system that optimizes direction of projected information to each stakeholder , 2004, CSCW.

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

[12]  Carl Gutwin,et al.  A Descriptive Framework of Workspace Awareness for Real-Time Groupware , 2002, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[13]  Takeshi Naemura,et al.  Lumisight Table: an interactive view-dependent tabletop display , 2005, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications.

[14]  L. Cooper Mental rotation of random two-dimensional shapes , 1975, Cognitive Psychology.

[15]  J. Hoffmann,et al.  Implementing Multi-Viewer Time-Sequential Stereo Displays Based on Shuttered LCD Projectors , 2004 .

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

[17]  Gennady L. Andrienko,et al.  Interactive analysis of event data using space-time cube , 2004, Proceedings. Eighth International Conference on Information Visualisation, 2004. IV 2004..

[18]  Mats Lind,et al.  Displaying meta-information in context , 2001, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[19]  B. Marx The Visual Display of Quantitative Information , 1985 .

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

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

[22]  William Wright,et al.  GeoTime Information Visualization , 2004, IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization.

[23]  Torsten Hägerstraand WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE IN REGIONAL SCIENCE , 1970 .

[24]  Andreas Kjellin Visualizing Dynamics –The Perception of Spatiotemporal Data in 2D and 3D , 2008 .

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

[26]  M. Sheelagh T. Carpendale,et al.  Roles of Orientation in Tabletop Collaboration: Comprehension, Coordination and Communication , 2004, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[27]  Niklas Elmqvist,et al.  A Taxonomy of 3D Occlusion Management Techniques , 2007, 2007 IEEE Virtual Reality Conference.

[28]  M. Sheelagh T. Carpendale,et al.  Interactive Tree Comparison for Co-located Collaborative Information Visualization , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[29]  Tovi Grossman,et al.  Exploring and reducing the effects of orientation on text readability in volumetric displays , 2007, CHI.

[30]  Robert Harper,et al.  Avian Flu Case Study with nSpace and GeoTime , 2006, 2006 IEEE Symposium On Visual Analytics Science And Technology.

[31]  Larry S. Davis,et al.  Exact and Approximate Solutions of the Perspective-Three-Point Problem , 1992, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[32]  Mary Czerwinski,et al.  Text in 3D: some legibility results , 2000, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[33]  Lars Winkler Pettersson,et al.  Collaborative Visualization : Designing and evaluating systems for co-located work , 2008 .

[34]  Daniel J. Wigdor,et al.  Table-centric interactive spaces for real-time collaboration , 2006, AVI '06.

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

[36]  Regan L. Mandryk,et al.  System Guidelines for Co-located, Collaborative Work on a Tabletop Display , 2003, ECSCW.

[37]  I. V. Ramakrishnan,et al.  Toward a Multi-Analyst, Collaborative Framework for Visual Analytics , 2006, 2006 IEEE Symposium On Visual Analytics Science And Technology.

[38]  Donald A. Norman,et al.  Things That Make Us Smart: Defending Human Attributes In The Age Of The Machine , 1993 .

[39]  Robert E. Kraut,et al.  Action as language in a shared visual space , 2004, CSCW.

[40]  Daniel J. Wigdor,et al.  Empirical Investigation into the Effect of Orientation on Text Readability in Tabletop Displays , 2005, ECSCW.

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

[42]  J. Norman,et al.  Reading rotated words. , 1985, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[44]  M. Tinker Effects of angular alignment upon readability of print. , 1956 .

[45]  M. Sheelagh T. Carpendale,et al.  Collaborative coupling over tabletop displays , 2006, CHI.

[46]  M. Sheelagh T. Carpendale,et al.  An exploratory study of visual information analysis , 2008, CHI.

[47]  Yuanzhen Li,et al.  Measuring visual clutter. , 2007, Journal of vision.

[48]  Takeshi Naemura,et al.  Behavioral analysis of asymmetric information sharing on Lumisight table , 2006, First IEEE International Workshop on Horizontal Interactive Human-Computer Systems (TABLETOP '06).