Abstract-We present results from a user study that compared six visualization methods for two-dimensional vector data. Users performed three simple but representative tasks using visualizations from each method: 1) locating all critical points in an image, 2) identifying critical point types, and 3) advecting a particle. Visualization methods included two that used different spatial distributions of short arrow icons, two that used different distributions of integral curves, one that used wedges located to suggest flow lines, and line-integral convolution (LIC). Results show different strengths and weaknesses for each method. We found that users performed these tasks better with methods that: 1) showed the sign of vectors within the vector field, 2) visually represented integral curves, and 3) visually represented the locations of critical points. Expert user performance was not statistically different from nonexpert user performance. We used several methods to analyze the data including omnibus analysis of variance, pairwise t-tests, and graphical analysis using inferential confidence intervals. We concluded that using the inferential confidence intervals for displaying the overall pattern of results for each task measure and for performing subsequent pairwise comparisons of the condition means was the best method for analyzing the data in this study. These results provide quantitative support for some of the anecdotal evidence concerning visualization methods. The tasks and testing framework also provide a basis for comparing other visualization methods, for creating more effective methods and for defining additional tasks to further understand the tradeoffs among the methods. In the future, we also envision extending this work to more ambitious comparisons, such as evaluating two-dimensional vectors on two-dimensional surfaces embedded in three-dimensional space and defining analogous tasks for three-dimensional visualization methods.

We present the results from a qualitative and quantitative user study comparing fishtank virtual-reality (VR) and CAVE displays. The results of the qualitative study show that users preferred the fishtank VR display to the CAVE system for our scientific visualization application because of perceived higher resolution, brightness and crispness of imagery, and comfort of use. The results of the quantitative study show that users performed an abstract visual search task significantly more quickly and more accurately on the fishtank VR display system than in the CAVE. The same study also showed that visual context had no significant effect on task performance for either of the platforms. We suggest that fishtank VR displays are more effective than CAVEs for applications in which the task occurs outside the user's reference frame, the user views and manipulates the virtual world from the outside in, and the size of the virtual object that the user interacts with is smaller than the user's body and fits into the fishtank VR display. The results of both studies support this proposition.

No abstract