Next Article in Journal
Measurement of Opportunity Cost of Travel Time for Predicting Future Residential Mobility Based on the Smart Card Data of Public Transportation
Next Article in Special Issue
Collaborative Immersive Virtual Environments for Education in Geography
Previous Article in Journal
From Global Goals to Local Gains—A Framework for Crop Water Productivity
Previous Article in Special Issue
Determining Optimal Video Length for the Estimation of Building Height through Radial Displacement Measurement from Space
Open AccessArticle

Evaluation of User Performance in Interactive and Static 3D Maps

1
Department of Geography, Faculty of Science, Masaryk University, 611 37 Brno, Czech Republic
2
Department of Psychology, Faculty of Arts, Masaryk University, 602 00 Brno, Czech Republic
3
Department of Applied Mathematics, Faculty of Science, Humanities and Education, Technical University of Liberec, 461 17 Liberec, Czech Republic
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2018, 7(11), 415; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi7110415
Received: 4 September 2018 / Revised: 19 October 2018 / Accepted: 23 October 2018 / Published: 26 October 2018
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Cognitive Aspects of Human-Computer Interaction for GIS)
Interactive 3D visualizations of geospatial data are currently available and popular through various applications such as Google EarthTM and others. Several studies have focused on user performance with 3D maps, but static 3D maps were mostly used as stimuli. The main objective of this paper was to identify differences between interactive and static 3D maps. We also explored the role of different tasks and inter-individual differences of map users. In the experimental study, we analyzed effectiveness, efficiency, and subjective preferences, when working with static and interactive 3D maps. The study included 76 participants and used a within-subjects design. Experimental testing was performed using our own testing tool 3DmoveR 2.0, which was based on a user logging method and open web technologies. We demonstrated statistically significant differences between interactive and static 3D maps in effectiveness, efficiency, and subjective preferences. Interactivity influenced the results mainly in ‘spatial understanding’ and ‘combined’ tasks. From the identified differences, we concluded that the results of the user studies with static 3D maps as stimuli could not be transferred to interactive 3D visualizations or virtual reality. View Full-Text
Keywords: 3D geovisualizations; 3D map; 3DmoveR; level of interactivity; map tasks; map users; OSIVQ; user’s performance; user study 3D geovisualizations; 3D map; 3DmoveR; level of interactivity; map tasks; map users; OSIVQ; user’s performance; user study
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Herman, L.; Juřík, V.; Stachoň, Z.; Vrbík, D.; Russnák, J.; Řezník, T. Evaluation of User Performance in Interactive and Static 3D Maps. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2018, 7, 415.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop