Computer-assisted cartographical 3D imaging techniques

Kraak, M.J.

doi:10.1201/9781003069454-7

Cited by 7 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…With respect to the unavailability of standards or recommendations for the use of 3D technologies, well-focused user feedback helps us to understand the usability aspects and crucial factors involved in 3D geovisualization. Probably the first ever user evaluation dealing with real-3D and pseudo-3D depiction in geovisualization was conducted by Kraak [39] in 1988. The origin of this work corresponded to the first wave of interest in the development of real-3D visualization technologies which engaged stereoscopy [40][41][42].…”

Section: Technologies For 3d Geovisualizationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Based on the meta-analysis by Herman et al [60] these simple tasks are also often used in user testing which includes 3D geovisualization. Regarding user studies which compare real-3D and pseudo-3D visualization, Kraak [39], Kjellin et al [50] and Sprinarova et al [52] employed "identify" tasks, especially as searches for specified objects. Kraak [39] also employed quantitative estimation [55] of values from 3D geovisualization.…”

Section: D Geovisualizations and Spatial Tasksmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Regarding user studies which compare real-3D and pseudo-3D visualization, Kraak [39], Kjellin et al [50] and Sprinarova et al [52] employed "identify" tasks, especially as searches for specified objects. Kraak [39] also employed quantitative estimation [55] of values from 3D geovisualization. Another common group of tasks is spatial understanding (according to Laha et al [55]), which also incorporates the "compare" category (according to Roth [58]), because spatial understanding includes absolute and relative comparisons of given objects and their properties (i.e., height of bars, altitude of objects).…”

Section: D Geovisualizations and Spatial Tasksmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Keeping the level of experimental control high, many previous user studies focused only on isolated issues of visual perception or dealt with non-interactive content. Static perspective views or animations/video were used as stimuli by Kraak [39], Fuhrman et al [49], Kjellin et al [50], Seipel and Carvalho [51] and Seipel [22].…”

Section: D Geovisualizations and Spatial Tasksmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A relatively common aspect in user testing of 3D geovisualizations is the fact that research subjects are generally participants who possess a deeper knowledge of geosciences (geography, geoinformatics, cartography or related fields, students or graduates [39,49,52]. In other studies [22,50,51], the users' experiences or professions have not been screened or described in any detail, which limits the potential re-use of the analysed data and findings.…”

Section: User Aspectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

A Comparison of Monoscopic and Stereoscopic 3D Visualizations: Effect on Spatial Planning in Digital Twins

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

From the user perspective, 3D geospatial data visualizations are one of the bridges between the physical and the digital world. As such, the potential of 3D geospatial data visualizations is frequently discussed within and beyond the digital twins. The effects on human cognitive processes in complex spatial tasks is rather poorly known. No uniform standards exist for the 3D technologies used in these tasks. Although stereoscopic geovisualizations presented using 3D technologies enhance depth perception, it has been suggested that the visual discomfort experienced when using 3D technology outweighs its benefits and results in lower efficiency and errors. In the present study, sixty participants using 3D technologies were tested in terms of their ability to make informed decisions in selecting the correct position of a virtual transmitter in a digital twin and a digital terrain model, respectively. Participants (n = 60) were randomly assigned into two groups, one using 3D technology engaging stereoscopic shutter glasses and the second working with standard computer screen-based visualizations. The results indicated that the participants who used shutter glasses performed significantly worse in terms of response time (W = 175.0; p < 0.001, r = −0.524). This finding verifies previous conclusions concerning the unsuitability of stereoscopic visualization technology for complex decision-making in geospatial tasks.

show abstract

Section: Technologies For 3d Geovisualizationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: D Geovisualizations and Spatial Tasksmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: D Geovisualizations and Spatial Tasksmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: D Geovisualizations and Spatial Tasksmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: User Aspectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A Comparison of Monoscopic and Stereoscopic 3D Visualizations: Effect on Spatial Planning in Digital Twins

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Better Perception of 3D-Spatial Relations by Viewport Variations

Jobst

Döllner

Visual Information Systems. Web-Based Visual Information Search and Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Computer-graphics and especially virtual 3D worlds evolve to important tools for digital cartography, where the main aim of efficient spatial communication rules processes of conception, design and dissemination. This paper investigates the enhancement of visual spatial relations in virtual 3D worlds, which's limitation on standard displays is a main drawback of digital cartography. The main limitations of digital cartography concern the extension of viewing plane and its resolution, which have impact on information depth of the map content, transmitting an overview, thus the highlighting of spatial relations and additional request for cognitive load. These drawbacks are not only limited to 2D maps, but are also existing in virtual 3D environments, where additional geometric characteristics, like perspective distortions, multiple scales or overriding, may influence a correct extraction of spatial-related content. On the other hand these specific geometric disadvantages should be formulated as benefit of 3D, especially when infinite numbers of scale can be combined in a "natural way" or spatial content becomes extracted by naïve interaction. One main limitation of digital presentations generally persists: the limitation of the presentation area on standard displays, which leads to a very restricted overview and fewer visible relations of spatial content. View-port variations that modify perspective and/or orthographic projections are one possibility to enhance rendering methods in a way that the main disadvantages of regular perspective views become decreased and the perceptibility for an overview and spatial relations expanded. These variations cover progressive and degressive central-perspectives as well as progressive and degressive "parallel-perspectives", which provide very specific characteristics in use with spatial information transmission. This contribution focuses on enhancing virtual spatial relations in 3D environments by using view-port variations, that modify perspective and orthographic views in a progressive and degressive way. Provided that standard displays deliver significant limitations for effective and expressive geo-communication with virtual 3D environments, offers by 3D cartography are discussed. An exemplary comparison of actual 3D city models allows to identify "dead values" and gives one clue for the requested modification. The description and exemplary visualization of view-port variations lead to their theoretical communication aspects, which will guide pragmatic (user) studies in future.

show abstract

Spatial Data Handling in the Geosciences

Rhind

1992

Three-Dimensional Modeling With Geoscientific Information Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Computer-assisted cartographical 3D imaging techniques

Cited by 7 publications

References 0 publications

A Comparison of Monoscopic and Stereoscopic 3D Visualizations: Effect on Spatial Planning in Digital Twins

A Comparison of Monoscopic and Stereoscopic 3D Visualizations: Effect on Spatial Planning in Digital Twins

Better Perception of 3D-Spatial Relations by Viewport Variations

Spatial Data Handling in the Geosciences

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About