Individual differences in exploration using desktop VR

Abstract

With advances in computer graphics, a number of innovative approaches to information visualization have been developed (e.g., Card et al, 1991). Some of these approaches create a mapping between information and corresponding structure in a virtual world. The resulting virtual worlds can be fully three dimensional (3D) or they can be implemented as a series of 2D birds-eye "snapshots" that are traversed as if they were in 3D, using operations such as panning and zooming interactively (2.5D). This paper reports a study that contrasted 3D and 2.5D performance for people with differing levels of spatial and structure learning ability. Four data collection methods were employed: search task scoring; subjective questionnaires; navigational activity logging and analysis; and administration of tests for spatial and structure-learning abilities. Analysis of the results revealed statistically significant effects of user abilities, and information environment designs. Overall, this research did not find a performance advantage for using a 3D rather than a 2.5D virtual world. In addition, users in the lowest quartile of spatial ability had significantly lower search performance in the 3D environment. The findings suggest that individual differences in traits such as spatial ability may be important in determining the usability and acceptability of 3D environments. IntroductionAs innovations in user interface design make their way to desktop computing and various information appliances, questions arise as to how well people can adapt to these innovations. Will certain classes or types of people have a disadvantage if newer interfaces place increasing demands or emphasis on particular human assets or capabilities? This type of technology-mediated discrimination has occurred in the past. For instance, the transition from the command line to the graphical user interface was a boon for most users, but was a step backwards for people with visual disabilities who used screen readers (i.e., who heard the interface as synthesized text and other sounds) and for people who had difficulty operating pointing devices such as the mouse. The purpose of this study is to examine whether or not novel information visualization environments may have this type of differential effect on users' ability to navigate through information. We chose to focus on desktop virtual reality (VR) which for many people provides an enjoyable and immersive experience as they interact with information. We designed an experiment to look for possibly differential effects of desktop VR on people with lower levels of spatial ability and information structure learning ability. We used two different implementations of desktop VR to see if possible differential effects might be greater in a full 3D implementation than in a 2.5D environment.Navigation can generally be viewed as purposeful movement, or transformation (Zuberec, 1994), using the metaphor that "information occupies 'space' through which readers 'travel' or 'move'. . ." (McKnight, Dillon, & Richardson, 1991, p....

Controlled user evaluations of information visualization interfaces for text retrieval: Literature review and meta‐analysis

“…For example, text-only equivalents (e.g., Becks et al, 2002;Chung et al, 2005) and existing commercial solutions (e.g., C. Chen et al, 1998;Turetken & Sharda, 2005) allow measurement of the effect of IV tools and provide information about IV acceptance among users. As well, a "featureless" or simplified version of the IV prototype is used as a baseline when the experimental objective is to evaluate and choose between various design options (e.g., Modjeska & Chignell, 2003;Westerman et al, 2005). Two single tool studies sought to measure effects of user experience (Koshman, 2005) or simply to describe an evaluation procedure (Sutcliffe, Ennis, & Hu, 2000).…”

“…Known-item Tree navigation Multiple concepts Query (n ϭ 18) (n ϭ 9) (n ϭ 5) (Similarity) Outliers reformulation Becks, 2002Chung, 2005Barlow, 2001Cribbin, 2001Becks, 2002Veerasamy, 1997Chen, 1998Cribbin, 2001Becks, 2002Rivadeneira, 2003Koshman, 2005 Change query parameters Chung, 2005Grun, 2005Kobsa, 2004Sutcliffe, 2000 Find documents based on search results Cribbin, 2001Kobsa, 2001Plaisant, 2002 Find multiple that are NOT like Eibl, 2002Rivadeneira, 2003Risden, 2000 similar/related the rest of a Grun, 2005Swan, 1998 Navigating and finding documents collection subset Hedman, 2004Turetken, 2005 nodes in a hierachical Koshman, 2005 Westerman, 2000 classification structure Modjeska, 2000Zhang, 2005Modjeska, 2003Perez, 2004Sebrechts, 1999Sutcliffe, 2000Turetken, 2005Veerasamy, 1996Veerasamy, 1997Westerman, 2005Zhang, 2005 Note. N Ͼ 31 since some studies test multiple task types.…”

“…and because three studies did not report their exact collection size. Byrd, 1999Chen, 1998Brajnik, 1996Becks, 2002Barlow, 2001Cribbin, 2001Chung, 2005Eibl, 2002Perez, 2004Kobsa, 2004Koshman, 2005 Modjeska, 2000 Grun 2005Sutcliffe, 2000Plaisant, 2002Osdin, 2002Modjeska, 2003Hedman, 2004Abstracts and/or Hierarchical data Sebrechts, 1999Risden, 2000Kobsa, 2001 full-text documents structures of product Swan, 1998Rivadeneira, 2003Zhang, 2005 not provided by catalogues or Veerasamy, 1996 Robertson, 1998 Short text and TREC or the Web computer files Veerasamy, 1997Turetken, 2005numerical data Westerman, 2000Yang, 2002Westerman, 2005 Note. Studies are shown with first author only.…”

Individual differences and task-based user interface evaluation: a case study of pending tasks in email

“…Users with high spatial ability had overall better performance. Similarly, Modjeska and Chignell (2003) found that people with low spatial ability had significantly slower performance when searching for information in a desktop virtual reality environment.…”

“…software interfaces) to carry out Interacting with Computers 16 (2004) www.elsevier.com/locate/intcom specific tasks. For instance, a virtual reality application might be considered to be reasonably usable for part of the user population, but not for those with low levels of spatial ability (Modjeska and Chignell, 2003). Dillon and Watson (1996) suggested that one goal of user interface design may be to reduce differences between users.…”