Evaluating 2D and 3D visualizations of spatiotemporal information

ACM Transactions on Applied Perception

Volumn 7, Issue 3, 2010, Pages

  Kjellin, Andreas ^a   Pettersson, Lars Winkler ^a   Seipel, Stefan ^a   Lind, Mats ^a  

^a UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DATA VISUALIZATION; EFFICIENCY; THREE DIMENSIONAL COMPUTER GRAPHICS; VEHICLES;

2D AND 3D VISUALIZATION; GEO-SPATIAL DATA; HUMAN PERCEPTION; MOVEMENT HISTORY; OBJECT MOVEMENTS; RELATIVE EFFICIENCY; SPATIOTEMPORAL INFORMATION; TIME VARYING; USER EFFICIENCIES; VISUALIZATION TECHNIQUE;

VISUALIZATION;

EID: 77953974104     PISSN: 15443558     EISSN: 15443965     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1145/1773965.1773970     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. ALVAREZ, G. A., HOROWITZ, T. S., ARSENIO, H. C., DIMASE, J. S., AND WOLFE, J. M. 2005. Do multielement visual tracking and visual search draw continuously on the same visual attention resources? J. Exp. Psych. Human Percept. Perform. 31, 4, 643-667.
2. ANDRIENKO, G., ANDRIENKO, N., AND GITIS, V. 2003. Interactive maps for visual exploration of grid and vector geodata. ISPRS J. Photogrammetry Remote Sens. 57, 5.6, 380-389.
3. ANDRIENKO, N. AND ANDRIENKO, G. 2003. Usability tests with interactive maps. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. ACM, New York, 1153-1157.
4. ANDRIENKO, N., ANDRIENKO, G., AND GATALSKY, P. 2000. Supporting visual exploration of object movement. In Proceedings of the Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces. ACM, New York, 217-220.
5. ANDRIENKO, N., ANDRIENKO, G., AND GATALSKY, P. 2003a. Exploratory spatio-temporal visualization: An analytical review. J. Visual Lang. Comput. 14, 503.541.
6. ANDRIENKO, N., ANDRIENKO, G., AND GATALSKY, P. 2003b. Tools for visual comparison of spatial development scenarios. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Information Visualization. IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 237-244.
7. BERTIN, J. 1983. Semiology of Graphics: Diagrams, Networks, Maps. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI.
8. BINGHAM, G. P. AND LIND, M. 2008. Large continuous perspective transformations are necessary and sufficient for accurate perception of metric shape. Percept. Psychophys. 70, 3, 524-540.
9. BROWN, B. 1972. Resolution thresholds for moving targets at the fovea and in the peripheral retina. Vision Res. 12, 2. 293-304.
10. CHUNG, W., CHEN, H., CHABOYA, L. G., O'TOOLE, C. D., AND ATABAKHSH, H. 2005. Evaluating event visualization: A usability study of cop link spatio-temporal visualizer. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 62, 1, 127-157.
11. FORSELL, C. 2007. Perceptually motivated constraints on 3D visualizations. Ph. D. thesis, Department of Information Science. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.
12. HÄGERSTRAND, T. 1970. What about people in regional science? Pap. Reg. Sci. 24, 1, 6-21.
13. HARROWER, M. 2002. Visualizing change: Using cartographic animation to explore remotelysensed data. Cartograph. Perspect. 39, 30.42.
14. HEATHCOTE, A., POPIEL, S. J., AND MEWHORT, D. J. K. 1991. Analysis of response time distributions: An example using the strop task. Psychol. Bull. 109, 2, 340-347.
15. HOCKLEY, W. E. 1984. Analysis of response time distributions in the study of cognitive processes. J. Exp. Psych. Learn. Memory Cogn. 10, 4, 598-615.
16. HOUSE, D. H., BAIR, A. S., AND WARE, C. AN APPROACH TO THE PERCEPTUAL OPTIMIZATION OF COMPLEX VISUALIZATIONS. IEEE TRANS. VISUAL. COMPUT. GRAPHICS 12, 4, 509-521.
17. ISO 9241-11. 1998. Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs). Part 11: Guidance on usability. ISO 9241-11.
18. ITC-MINARD. 2007. What has ITC done with Minard's map? http://www.itc.nl/personal/kraak/1812/minard-itc.htm.
19. KAPLER, T. AND WRIGHT, W. 2004. Geotime information visualization. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Information Visualization. IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 25-32.
20. KLEIN, F. 1939. Elementary Mathematics from an Advanced Standpoint: Geometry. Dover, New York.
21. KOSARA, R., HEALEY, C. G., INTERRANTE, V., LAIDLAW, D. H., AND WARE, C. 2003. User studies: Why, how, and when? IEEE Comput. Graphics Appl. 23, 4, 20-25.
22. KOUA, E., MACEACHREN, A., AND KRAAK, M. EVALUATING THE USABILITY OF AN EXPLORATORY GEOVISUALIZATION ENVIRONMENT. INT. J. GEOG. INF. SYST. 20, 20, 425-428.
23. KULYK, O., KOSARA, R., URQUIZA, J., AND WASSINK, I. 2007. Human-centered aspects. In Human-Centered Visualization Environments, A. Kerren, A. Ebert, and J. Meyer, Eds. Springer, Berlin, 13-75.
24. LIGHTNER, N. J. 2001. Model testing of users' comprehension in graphical animation: The effect of speed and focus areas. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 13, 1, 53-73.
25. LIND, M., BINGHAM, G. P., AND FORSELL, C. 2003. Metric 3D structure in visualizations. Inf. Visual. 2, 51.57.
26. LIND, M. AND KJELLIN, A. 2005. Faster is better: Optimal speed of animated visualizations for decision makers. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Information Visualisation. IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 896-900.
27. MACKINLAY, J. D. 1999. Automating the design of graphical presentations of relational information. In Readings in Information Visualization, S. K. Card, J. D. Mackinlay, and B. Schneiderman, Eds. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, 66-81.
28. MCCORMACK, P. AND WRIGHT, N. 1964. The positive skew observed in reaction time distributions. Can. J. Psych. 18, 1, 43-51.
29. NORMAN, J. F., TODD, J. T., PEROTTI, V. J., AND TITTLE, J. S. 1996. The visual perception of 3D length. J. Exp. Psych. Hum. Percept. Perform. 22, 1, 173-186.
30. OGAO, P. J. AND KRAAK, M. J. 2002. Defining visualization operations for temporal cartographic animation design. Int. J. Appl. Earth Observ. Geoinf. 4, 1, 23-31.
31. PAILLARD, J. AND AMBLARD, B. 1985. Static versus kinetic visual cues for the processing of spatial relationships. In Brain Mechanisms and Spatial Vision, D. J. Ingle, M. Jeannerod, and D. N. Lee, Eds. Martinus Nijhoff, Amsterdam, 299-330.
32. PETTERSSON, L. W., SPAK, U., AND SEIPEL, S. 2004. Collaborative 3D visualizations of geo-spatial information for command and control. In Proceedings of the Annual SIGRAD Conference.
33. PEUQUET, D. 1994. It's about time: A conceptual framework for the representation of temporal dynamics in geographic information systems. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geographers 84, 3, 441-461.
34. PIZLO, Z. 1994. A theory of shape constancy based on perspective invariants. Vision Res. 34, 12, 1637-1658.
35. PIZLO, Z. AND STEVENSON, A. K. 1999. Shape constancy from novel views. Percept. Psychophys. 61, 7, 1299-1307.
36. PYLYSHYN, Z. W. AND STORM, R. W. 1988. Tracking multiple independent targets: Evidence for a parallel tracking mechanism. Spatial Vision 3, 3, 179-197.
37. SCHIPPER, L. AND VERSACE, J. 1956. Predictions of arrival sequences of simulated radar targets as a function of display size, target size, and target sharpness. WADC Tech. rep. 56-72, Laboratory of Aviation Psychology, Ohio State University.
38. SCHOLL, B. J. 2001. Objects and attention: The state of the art. Cognition 80, 1.46.
39. SIMONS, D. 2000. Current approaches to change blindness. Visual Cogn. 7, 1.3, 1-15.
40. SIMONS, D. AND CHABRIS, C. 1999. Gorillas in our midst: Sustained in attentional blindness for dynamic events. Perception 28, 9, 1059-1074.
41. SIMONS, D. J. AND RENSINK, R. A. 2005. Change blindness: Past, present, and future. Trends Cogn. Sci. 9, 1, 16-20.
42. SUPPES, P. 1977. Is visual space Euclidean? Synthese 35, 4, 397-421.
43. TITTLE, J. S., TODD, J. T., PEROTTI, V. J., AND NORMAN, J. F. 1995. Systematic distortion of a perceived 3D structure from motion and binocular stereopsis. J. Exp. Psych. Hum. Percept. Perform. 21, 3, 663-678.
44. TODD, J. AND BRESSANC, P. 1990. The perception of 3D affine structure from minimal apparent motion sequences. Percept. Psychophys. 48, 5, 419-30.
45. TODD, J. T., CHEN, L., AND NORMAN, J. F. 1998. On the relative salience of euclidean, affine and topological structure for 3D form and discrimination. Perception 27, 3, 273-282.
46. TODD, J. T. AND NORMAN, J. F. 2003. The visual perception of 3D shape from multiple cues: Are observers capable of perceiving metric structure? Percept. Psychophys. 65, 1, 31-47.
47. TODD, J. T., OOMES, A. H., KOENDERINK, J. J., AND KAPPERS, A. M. L. 2001. On the affine structure of perceptual space. Psychol. Sci. 12, 3, 191-196.
48. TRESILIAN, J. 1995. Perceptual and cognitive processes in time-to-contact estimation: Analysis of prediction-motion and relative judgment tasks. Percept. Psychophys. 57, 2, 231-245.
49. ACM TRANSACTIONS ON APPLIED PERCEPTION, VOL. 7, No. 3, Article 19, Publication date: June 2010.
50. TUFTE, E. R. 1983. The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Graphic Press, Cheshire, CT.
51. TUFTE, E. R. Beautiful Evidence. Graphics Press, Cheshire, CT.
52. WARE, C. 2000. Information Visualization: Perception for Design. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA.
53. WEHREND, C. AND LEWIS, S. 1990. A problem-oriented classification of visualization techniques. In Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Visualization. IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 139-143.
54. WIEGMANN, D. A., ESSENBERG, G. R., OVERBYE, T. J., AND SUN, Y. 2005. Human factor aspects of power system flow animation. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 20, 3, 1233-1240.
55. YANTIS, S. 1992. Multielement visual tracking: Attention and perceptual organization. Cogn. Psych. 24, 3, 295-340.
56. YATTAW, N. 1999. Conceptualizing space and time: A classification of geographic movement. Cartography Geogr. Inf. Sci. 26, 2, 85-98.