The Community for Technology Leaders
RSS Icon
Issue No.06 - November/December (2009 vol.15)
pp: 1033-1040
Colin Swindells , University of Victoria
Melanie Tory , University of Victoria
Spatialization displays use a geographic metaphor to arrange non-spatial data. For example, spatializations arecommonly applied to document collections so that document themes appear as geographic features such as hills. Many common spatialization interfaces use a 3-D landscape metaphor to present data. However, it is not clear whether 3-D spatializations afford improved speed and accuracy for user tasks compared to similar 2-D spatializations. We describe a user study comparing users’ ability to remember dot displays, 2-D landscapes, and 3-D landscapes for two different data densities (500 vs. 1000 points). Participants’ visual memory was statistically more accurate when viewing dot displays and 3-D landscapes compared to 2-D landscapes. Furthermore, accuracy remembering a spatialization was significantly better overall for denser spatializations. Theseresults are of benefit to visualization designers who are contemplating the best ways to present data using spatialization techniques.
Information interfaces and presentation, screen design, evaluation / methodology, user / machine systems, software psychology, landscape visualization.
Colin Swindells, Melanie Tory, "Comparing Dot and Landscape Spatializations for Visual Memory Differences", IEEE Transactions on Visualization & Computer Graphics, vol.15, no. 6, pp. 1033-1040, November/December 2009, doi:10.1109/TVCG.2009.127
[1] U. Bischoff, N. Diakopoulos, F. Lösch, and Y. Zhou, ThemeExplorer: A Tool for Understanding the History of the Field of Information Visualization. In InfoVisFun 2004, 2004.
[2] U. Brandes and T. Willhalm, Visualization of bibliographic networks with a reshaped landscape metaphor. In Proc. Symp. Data Visualization (VisSym '02), pp. 159-164, 2002.
[3] C.M. Carswell and C.D. Wickens, Information integration and the object display: and interaction of task demands and display superiority. Ergonomics, 30 (3) pp. 511-527, 1987.
[4] M. Chalmers, Using a landscape metaphor to represent a corpus of documents. In Proc. European Conf. Spatial Information Theory (COSIT '93), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 716, pp. 377-390, 1993.
[5] A. Cockburn, Revisiting 2-D vs 3-D Implications on Spatial Memory. In Proc. 5th Australasian User Interface Conference (AUIC 2004), pp. 25-31, 2004.
[6] A. Cockburn and B. McKenzie, 3-D or not 3-D? Evaluating the Effect of the Third Dimension in a Document Management System. In Proc. ACM Conf. Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2001), pp. 434-441, 2001.
[7] A. Cockbrun and B. McKenzie, Evaluating the Effectiveness of Spatial Memory in 2-D and 3-D Physical and Virtual Environments. In Proc. ACM Conf. Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2002), pp. 203-210, 2002.
[8] T. Cribbin and C. Chen, Visual-spatial exploration of thematic spaces: a comparative study of three visualisation models. Electronic Imaging 2001: Visual Data Exploration and Analysis VIII, pp. 199-209, 2001.
[9] C.G. Christou, B.S. Tjan, and H.H. Bülthoff, Extrinsic cues aid shape recognition from novel viewpoints. J. Vision, 3, pp. 183-198, 2003.
[10] S.I. Fabrikant, Spatial metaphors for browsing large data archives, P h.D. thesis, University of Colorado-Boulder, Boulder, CO, 2000.
[11] S.I. Fabrikant, D.R. Montello, and D.M. Mark, The distance-similarity metaphor in region-display spatializations. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 26 (4), pp. 34-44, 2006.
[12] S.I. Fabrikant, D.R. Montello, M. Ruocco, and R.S. Middleton, The distance-similarity metaphor in network-display spatializations. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 31(4), pp. 237-252, 2004.
[13] M. Granitzer, W. Kienreich, V. Sabol, K. Andrews, and W. Klieber, Evaluating a system for interactive exploration of large, hierarchically structured document repositories. In Proc. IEEE Symp. Information Visualization (InfoVis'04), pp. 127-134, 2004.
[14] E. Hetzler and A. Turner, Analysis experiences using information visualization. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 24 (5), pp. 22-26, 2004.
[15] K. Hφrnbæk and E. Frφkjær, Do thematic maps improve information retrieval? In Proc. 7th IFIP Conf. Human-Computer Interaction (INTERACT'99), pp. 179-186, 1999.
[16] S. Ishihara, Tests for Colour-blindness, Kanehara Shuppan, 1977.
[17] H. Lam, R.A. Rensink, and T. Munzner, Effects of 2-D Geometric Transformations on Visual Memory. In Proc. 3rd Symp. Applied Perception in Graphics and Visualization (APVG '06), pp. 119-126, 2006.
[18] K. Misue, P. Eades, W. Lai, K. Sugiyama, Layout Adjustment and the Mental Map. J. Visual Languages and Computing, 6 pp. 183-210, 1995.
[19] D.R. Montello, S.I. Fabrikant, M. Ruocco, and R.S. Middleton, Testing the First Law of Cognitive Geography on Point-Display Spatializations. In Proc. Conf. Spatial Information Theory (COSIT '03), pp. 316-331, 2003.
[20] G.B. Newby, Empirical study of a 3-D visualization for information retrieval tasks. J. Intelligent Information Systems, 18 (1), pp. 31-53, 2002.
[21] L. Nowell, E. Hezler, and T. Tanasse, Change Blindness in Information Visualization: A Case Study. In Proc. IEEE Symp. Information Visualization (InfoVis '01), pp. 15-22.
[22] L. Nowell, R. Schulman, and D. Hix, Graphical Encoding for Information Visualization: An Empirical Study. In Proc. IEEE Symp. Information Visualization (InfoVis'02), pp. 43-50, 2002.
[23] G. Robertson, M. Czerwinski, K. Larson, D. Robbins, D. Thiel, and M. Van Dantzich, Data Mountain: Using Spatial Memory for Document Management. In Proc. User Interface Software and Technology (UIST '98), pp. 153-162, 1998.
[24] W. Schroeder, K. Martin, and W. Lorensen, The Visualization Toolkit. Prentice Hall PTR, second edition, 1998.
[25] A. Skopik and C. Gutwin, Improving Revisitation in Fisheye Views with Visit Wear. In Proc. ACM Conf. Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2005), pp. 771-780, 2005.
[26] R. Spence, Information Visualization. Addison Wesley Publishers, 2000.
[27] M. Tavanti and M. Lind, 2-D vs 3-D, Implications on Spatial Memory. In Proc. IEEE Symp. Information Visualization (InfoVis'01), pp. 139-145, 2001.
[28] M. Tory, D.W. Sprague, F. Wu, W.Y. So, and T. Munzner, Spatialization Design: Comparing Points and Landscapes. IEEE Trans. Visualization and Computer Graphics (Proc. InfoVis 2007), 13 (6), pp. 1262-1269, 2007.
[29] S.J. Westerman and T. Cribbin, Mapping semantic information in virtual space: dimensions, variance and individual differences. International J. Human Computer Studies, 53 (5), pp. 765-787, 2000.
[30] M. Williams and T. Munzner, Steerable, progressive, multidimensional scaling. In Proc. IEEE Symp. Information Visualization (InfoVis'04), pp. 57-64, 2004.
[31] J.A. Wise, J.J. Thomas, K. Pennock, D. Lantrip, M. Pottier, A. Schur, and V. Crow, Visualizing the non-visual: spatial analysis and interaction with information from text documents. In Proc. IEEE Symp. Information Visualization (InfoVis'95), pp. 51-58, 1995.
17 ms
(Ver 2.0)

Marketing Automation Platform Marketing Automation Tool