Issues and benefits of using 3D interfaces

Abstract

Spatial memory is important for locating objects in hierarchical data structures, such as desktop folders. There are, however, some contradictions in literature concerning the effectiveness of 3D user interfaces when compared to their 2D counterparts. This paper uses a task-based approach in order to investigate the effectiveness of adding a third dimension to specific user tasks, i.e. the impact of depth on navigation in a 3D file manager. Results highlight issues and benefits of using 3D interfaces for visual and verbal tasks, and introduces the possible existence of a correlation between aptitude scores achieved on the Guilford-Zimmerman Orientation Survey and Electroencephalographymeasured brainwave activity as participants search for targets of variable perceptual salience in 2D and 3D environments.

Visual Search in 3D: Effects of Monoscopic and Stereoscopic Cues to Depth on the Validity of Feature Integration Theory and Perceptual Load Theory

“…The finding that there was no difference in search RT between the 2D flat and 2D shaded conditions indicates that including monocular cues to depth alone does not affect search efficiency. These results are in contrast to previous findings that visual search was negatively affected by the inclusion of monocular (pictorial) depth cues relative to simply presenting the stimuli in 2D ( Kyritsis et al, 2013 ); they also challenge research showing that search is facilitated – i.e., faster – when the constituent polygons of a target image are presented in the form of an apparently three-dimensional object, such as a cube, rather than rearranged into an abstract shape that appears two-dimensional ( Enns and Rensink, 1990a , b ; Zhang et al, 2015 ). We suggest that these latter findings may be attributed to the semantic meaning imposed by the organisation of the polygons into a recognisable shape, rather than the representation of depth.…”

“…These researchers compared response times to the same set of polygons (squares and diamonds) arranged to give the impression of a 3D cube or a 2D abstract pattern, and reported that search for the visually meaningful 3D cubes was faster and less effortful than search for the 2D shapes. However, others have found that visual search was negatively affected by the inclusion of monocular (pictorial) depth cues relative to simply presenting the stimuli in 2D (Kyritsis et al, 2013). In a closely related body of work using a change blindness paradigm, inclusion of monocular depth cues of relative size, saturation and brightness to a stereoscopic display have been shown to improve visual working memory for perceptually closer items (Qian et al, 2017(Qian et al, , 2018.…”

Conventional displays of structures in data compared with interactive projection-based clustering (IPBC)

“…In general, the displays of information in 3D versus 2D have been debated many times in many scenarios because both display approaches for information visualization have advantages and disadvantages [25][26][27][28]. For example, a 3D interface for browsing an image folder not only does not offer any real benefits to user interaction, but also creates an unnecessary cognitive load on the users, which can lead to a lower performance and frustration [29]. In contrast, 3D shaded displays can add a significant amount of information to the visualization of high-dimensional structures in data [30].…”

Visual Search Fixation Strategies in a 3D Image Set: An Eye-Tracking Study

“…A proposed experimental platform for studying visual search tasks in a WIMP (Windows Icons Menus and Pointers) styled 3D environment was suggested in Kyritsis et al (2013) (figure 3). Item sets were placed on virtual depth planes, which activated depth perception via monocular cues; navigating in and out of the environment (on the z-axis) using the mouse scroll wheel.…”

“…objects being occluded or existing outside the user's field of view (Argelaguet & Andujar, 2013); ii) problems integrating available input devices; iii) problems identifying appropriate interaction techniques (see Jankowski & Hachet, 2013 for a review); and iv) a lack of benefits gained, especially when undertaking search tasks (e.g. looking for a specific file in a folder) (Kyritsis et al, 2013).…”