1 / 19

Debates: Overview+Detail vs. Focus+Context 2-D vs. 3-D

Debates: Overview+Detail vs. Focus+Context 2-D vs. 3-D. cs5984: Information Visualization Chris North. Overview+Detail vs. Focus+Context. Today. Hornbaek, “Fisheye vs. Overview+Detail”, web Luhui, Shumei. 2-D vs. 3-D. Multi-Dimensional data. Variety of studies:

guinyard
Download Presentation

Debates: Overview+Detail vs. Focus+Context 2-D vs. 3-D

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Debates:Overview+Detail vs. Focus+Context2-D vs. 3-D cs5984: Information Visualization Chris North

  2. Overview+Detail vs. Focus+Context

  3. Today • Hornbaek, “Fisheye vs. Overview+Detail”, web • Luhui, Shumei

  4. 2-D vs. 3-D

  5. Multi-Dimensional data • Variety of studies: • Merwin, Wickens, Boyle, Boyer, Hollands, Barfield • data plots, air traffic control, … • E.g: 2 2D views vs. 1 3D view vs. 2D+color

  6. Results • Hard to make sense of it all… • In general: • 2D: better accuracy, efficiency • 3D: better overview, trends • Architects know this! • Orthographic 3d for overview • Plan, profile, section (?) for exact measurements

  7. Ware et al. • Node+link graph structures in 3D space • 4 versions: • Static 2D = 3D graph projected onto 2D, static • Stereo 3D • Rotation 3D (head-coupled) • Stereo+Rotation 3D • Task: path finding • Exist path of length 2 between 2 highlighted nodes?

  8. Results • Error rates different, Response times same • Static 2D worst • Stereo 3D: 1.6x better • Rotation 3D: 2.2x better • Stereo+Rot: 3.0x better • Method of rotation not important

  9. So…? • Static 3D beat static 2D • 3D good for revealing complex structure? • Better to see things that are 3D in 3D! (Hubona) • 2D = 3D - stereo - rotation • Of course it’s the worst! • What about 2D interaction, alternative layouts? • Springs, aggregation, focal nodes, hierarchization,…

  10. Modjeska • Hierarchical data in VR • 2 UIs: • 3D fly through (6 dof, VRML) similar to SGI FSN • 2D map-view (top view of VR) with zoom/pan like Pad++

  11. Results • Number of search targets found: • 3D: 11.0 • 2D: 13.6 (sig) • 3D navigation cumbersome • 3D version is basically 2D!

  12. Carr et al. • 3D visualizations for Hierarchical data: • Landscape: like 3D in Modjeska • InfoCube: 3D containment, boxes in boxes, transparency • CamTree: like ConeTree • VRML 6 dof navigation only • Tasks: • Search • Count • Compare

  13. Results • 3 Tasks: Search, Count, Compare • Best to worst (perf time & errors): • Landscape • CamTree • InfoCube • Landscape: users used as 2D! • Bird’s eye, then zoom in

  14. So…? • 3D (6 dof) navigation cumbersome • Custom interaction techniques more important • When doing 3D Vis, don’t just do 6 dof VR • E.g. ConeTree directory rotations, pruning, DQ, etc. • VR can beat PR! (Physical Reality) • Need overview map for 3D • Disorientation problem • e.g. Harmony web browser

  15. Conflicting Results? • Design of 3D navigation controls • Head tracking (natural) vs. control panel (unnatural) • “Look at” vs. “Be in” • Fish-tank VR vs. Immersive VR • Fish-tank: 2 dof, never lost, easier • Immersive: 6 dof, disorientation, harder • Multi-D vs. Graph vs. Tree • Tree can be done well in 2D

  16. Summary • Interaction design more important than 2D/3D • Can make good displays in 2D or 3D • Interaction makes or breaks • Currently: 2D interaction designs more advanced • Fisheye, F+C, O+D, zoom/pan,… • Fish-tank 3D: • Promising results for visualizing complex structure • E.g: Networks, biology molecules

  17. To Do • Compare good 2D Vis. to good 3D Vis. • E.g: HyperbolicTree vs. ConeTree • Theory • Cost structure of information access (Card et al.) • Calculate clicks/time to access info • What about Immersive VR? • Tool builders + evaluators • Builders don’t test their good tools • Evaluators do good tests on lame tools

  18. Assignment • Tues: fun stuff • Project presentations, paper

  19. Project Presentations • Dynamic Data Visualization • Umer, Dilshad, Satyajit • Multi-Dimensional Parameter Space Visualization • Ravi, Prasuna, Ashwini, Vijay • Web Snap • Sanjini, Joy, Aarthi • Data Structure Visualization Evaluation • Priya, Gowri, Fanye, Aejaaz • Data Structure Visualization Tool • Sumithra, Luhui, Shumei (and Matt, Sam) • Biotech Visualization • Margaret, Josh, Matt, Yuying • Chat Log Visualization • Marcus, Marty, Purvi • Menu Visualization • Chris • Data Density and Distraction Evaluation • Maulik, Ajay, Denzil Thursday,April 26 Tuesday,May 1

More Related