This Article 
   
 Share 
   
 Bibliographic References 
   
 Add to: 
 
Digg
Furl
Spurl
Blink
Simpy
Google
Del.icio.us
Y!MyWeb
 
 Search 
   
Visualization Task Performance with 2D, 3D, and Combination Displays
January/February 2006 (vol. 12 no. 1)
pp. 2-13

Abstract—We describe a series of experiments that compare 2D displays, 3D displays, and combined 2D/3D displays (orientation icon, ExoVis, and clip planes) for relative position estimation, orientation, and volume of interest tasks. Our results indicate that 3D displays can be very effective for approximate navigation and relative positioning when appropriate cues, such as shadows, are present. However, 3D displays are not effective for precise navigation and positioning except possibly in specific circumstances, for instance, when good viewing angles or measurement tools are available. For precise tasks in other situations, orientation icon and ExoVis displays were better than strict 2D or 3D displays (displays consisting exclusively of 2D or 3D views). The combined displays had as good or better performance, inspired higher confidence, and allowed natural, integrated navigation. Clip plane displays were not effective for 3D orientation because users could not easily view more than one 2D slice at a time and had to frequently change the visibility of individual slices. Major factors contributing to display preference and usability were task characteristics, orientation cues, occlusion, and spatial proximity of views that were used together.

[1] M.S.T. Carpendale, D.J. Cowperthwaite, M. Tigges, A. Fall, and F.D. Fracchia, “The Tardis: A Visual Exploration Environment for Landscape Dynamics,” Proc. Visual Data Exploration and Analysis VI, 1999.
[2] K.P. Herndon, R.C. Zeleznik, D.C. Robbins, D.B. Conner, S.S. Snibbe, and A. van, Dam “Interactive Shadows,” Proc. User Interface Software and Technology, pp. 1-6, 1992.
[3] Y. Kurzion and R. Yagel, “Interactive Space Deformation with Hardware-Assisted Rendering,” IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 66-77, Sept./Oct. 1997.
[4] M.J. McGuffin, L. Tancau, and R. Balakrishnan, “Using Deformations for Browsing Volumetric Data,” Proc. IEEE Visualization Conf., pp. 401-408, 2003.
[5] S.H. Park and J.C. Woldstad, “Multiple Two-Dimensional Displays as an Alternative to Three-Dimensional Displays in Telerobotic Tasks,” Human Factors, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 592-603, 2000.
[6] R.N. Shepard and J. Metzler, “Mental Rotation of Three-Dimensional Objects,” Science, vol. 171, pp. 701-703, 1971.
[7] H.S. Smallman, M. St. John, H.M. Oonk, and M.B. Cowen, “Information Availability in 2D and 3D Displays,” IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 51-57, Sept./Oct. 2001.
[8] R.R. Springmeyer, M.M. Blattner, and N.L. Max, “A Characterization of the Scientific Data Analysis Process,” Proc. IEEE Visualization Conf., pp. 235-242, 1992.
[9] M. St. John, M.B. Cowen, H.S. Smallman, and H.M. Oonk, “The Use of 2D and 3D Displays for Shape-Understanding versus Relative-Position Tasks,” Human Factors, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 79-98, 2001.
[10] M. St. John, H.S. Smallman, T.E. Bank, and M.B. Cowen, “Tactical Routing Using Two-Dimensional and Three-Dimensional Views of Terrain,” Technical Report 1849, SSC San Diego Technical Reports, 2001.
[11] M. Tory, “Mental Registration of 2D and 3D Visualizations (an Empirical Study),” Proc. IEEE Visualization Conf., pp. 371-378, 2003.
[12] M. Tory, T. Möller, M.S. Atkins, and A.E. Kirkpatrick, “Combining 2D and 3D Views for Orientation and Relative Position Tasks,” Proc. Conf. Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI), pp. 73-80, 2004.
[13] M. Tory and C. Swindells, “Comparing ExoVis, Orientation Icon, and In-Place 3D Visualization Techniques,” Proc. Graphics Interface Conf., pp. 57-64, 2003.
[14] K.F. Van Orden and J.W. Broyles, “Visuospatial Task Performance as a Function of Two and Three-Dimensional Display Presentation Techniques,” Displays, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 17-24, 2000.
[15] C.D. Wickens, D.H. Merwin, and E.L. Lin, “Implications of Graphics Enhancements for the Visualization of Scientific Data: Dimensional Integrality, Stereopsis, Motion, and Mesh,” Human Factors, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 44-61, 1994.
[16] P.C. Wong and R.D. Bergeron, “Brushing Techniques for Exploring Volume Datasets,” Proc. IEEE Visualization Conf., pp. 429-432, 1997.

Index Terms:
User interfaces, graphical user interfaces (GUI), screen design, evaluation/methodology, picture/image generation, display algorithms, CAD, medical imaging.
Citation:
Melanie Tory, Arthur E. Kirkpatrick, M. Stella Atkins, Torsten M?ller, "Visualization Task Performance with 2D, 3D, and Combination Displays," IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 2-13, Jan.-Feb. 2006, doi:10.1109/TVCG.2006.17
Usage of this product signifies your acceptance of the Terms of Use.