On the Usability and Usefulness of 3d (Geo)visualizations – A Focus on Virtual Reality Environments

Abstract

ABSTRACT:Whether and when should we show data in 3D is an on-going debate in communities conducting visualization research. A strong opposition exists in the information visualization (Infovis) community, and seemingly unnecessary/unwarranted use of 3D, e.g., in plots, bar or pie charts, is heavily criticized. The scientific visualization (Scivis) community, on the other hand, is more supportive of the use of 3D as it allows 'seeing' invisible phenomena, or designing and printing things that are used in e.g., surgeries, educational settings etc. Geographic visualization (Geovis) stands between the Infovis and Scivis communities. In geographic information science, most visuo-spatial analyses have been sufficiently conducted in 2D or 2.5D, including analyses related to terrain and much of the urban phenomena. On the other hand, there has always been a strong interest in 3D, with similar motivations as in Scivis community. Among many types of 3D visualizations, a popular one that is exploited both for visual analysis and visualization is the highly realistic (geo)virtual environments. Such environments may be engaging and memorable for the viewers because they offer highly immersive experiences. However, it is not yet well-established if we should opt to show the data in 3D; and if yes, a) what type of 3D we should use, b) for what task types, and c) for whom. In this paper, we identify some of the central arguments for and against the use of 3D visualizations around these three considerations in a concise interdisciplinary literature review.

An Exploratory Study Investigating Gender Effects on Using 3D Maps for Spatial Orientation in Wayfinding

“…This might be partly because 3D representations did not become popular until technological advances in 3D data acquisition, modeling and rendering have been made in recent years [3,4]. By providing a familiar view of the world through three dimensions, it is believed that 3D representations can be easier to interpret than conventional 2D representations [24].…”

“…It is important to note that aside from representation type and gender, many other factors, such as age, cultural background, spatial ability, and domain knowledge can affect spatial behavior [4,14,22,79,80]. In this study, the participants' spatial ability, map reading ability, and experiences of using maps for wayfinding were reported by the participants during the questionnaire phase (as described in Section 3.7).…”

“…The influences of human factors such as gender, age, expert knowledge and cultural background have been largely ignored during the creation and evaluation of 3D representations [5]. Whether the 3D representations are welcomed by different groups of users and suited for various purposes is still not well documented [4].…”

“…Compared to two-dimensional (2D) representations, 3D representations are believed to provide a familiar view of the natural world, making interpretation easier, especially for novice users [1,2]. However, it seems that the popularity of 3D representations is largely motivated by technical advances such as 3D data acquisition, modeling and the increasing processing power and speed of hardware [3,4]. The influences of human factors such as gender, age, expert knowledge and cultural background have been largely ignored during the creation and evaluation of 3D representations [5].…”

Persistent challenges in geovisualization – a community perspective

“…Furthermore, challenge of working with 'real world' users, finding representative tasks, identifying appropriate measures and outcomes as well as unintended potential effects of tool and design choices were mentioned. Thus, generating theories and design guidelines through user studies is a long-standing challenge, perhaps specifically complex for geovisualization user studies, in comparison to, for example, spatial cognition research in psychology, because stimuli (maps, 3D virtual cities) are rarely free from possible confounding variables (Çöltekin, Lokka, & Zahner, 2016).…”