基于鼠标的3D建模的交互式阴影和多视图布局的比较

Siobhan O’Donovan, J. Gain, B. DeRenzi
{"title":"基于鼠标的3D建模的交互式阴影和多视图布局的比较","authors":"Siobhan O’Donovan, J. Gain, B. DeRenzi","doi":"10.1145/2987491.2987531","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"3D user interfaces allow users to view and interact with objects in a 3D scene and form a key component in many modelling applications used in engineering, medicine and design. Most mouse-based interfaces follow the same multi-view layout (three orthogonal, one perspective). This interface is difficult to understand, as it requires users to integrate all four views and build a 3D mental model. An alternative, Interactive Shadows, has been previously proposed that could improve on the multi-view's shortcomings but has never been formally tested.\n This paper presents the first quantitative user evaluation (n = 36) of both the multi-view and interactive shadows interfaces to compare their relative effectiveness and usability. Participants completed three types of tasks designed to be representative of object manipulation in current 3D modelling software.\n Interactive shadows were significantly better (p < 0,05) for tasks requiring participants to estimate distance. This suggests interactive shadows interface might better help users approximate relative object positioning.","PeriodicalId":269578,"journal":{"name":"Research Conference of the South African Institute of Computer Scientists and Information Technologists","volume":"49 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Comparison of Interactive Shadows and Multi-View Layouts for Mouse-based 3D Modelling\",\"authors\":\"Siobhan O’Donovan, J. Gain, B. DeRenzi\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/2987491.2987531\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"3D user interfaces allow users to view and interact with objects in a 3D scene and form a key component in many modelling applications used in engineering, medicine and design. Most mouse-based interfaces follow the same multi-view layout (three orthogonal, one perspective). This interface is difficult to understand, as it requires users to integrate all four views and build a 3D mental model. An alternative, Interactive Shadows, has been previously proposed that could improve on the multi-view's shortcomings but has never been formally tested.\\n This paper presents the first quantitative user evaluation (n = 36) of both the multi-view and interactive shadows interfaces to compare their relative effectiveness and usability. Participants completed three types of tasks designed to be representative of object manipulation in current 3D modelling software.\\n Interactive shadows were significantly better (p < 0,05) for tasks requiring participants to estimate distance. This suggests interactive shadows interface might better help users approximate relative object positioning.\",\"PeriodicalId\":269578,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research Conference of the South African Institute of Computer Scientists and Information Technologists\",\"volume\":\"49 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-09-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research Conference of the South African Institute of Computer Scientists and Information Technologists\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/2987491.2987531\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Conference of the South African Institute of Computer Scientists and Information Technologists","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/2987491.2987531","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

3D用户界面允许用户在3D场景中查看和与对象交互,并在工程,医学和设计中使用的许多建模应用程序中形成关键组件。大多数基于鼠标的界面都遵循相同的多视图布局(三个正交,一个透视图)。这个界面很难理解,因为它需要用户集成所有四个视图并建立一个3D心理模型。另一种选择,交互式阴影,之前已经被提出,可以改善多视角的缺点,但从未正式测试过。本文首次对多视图和交互式阴影界面进行了定量用户评价(n = 36),比较了它们的相对有效性和可用性。参与者完成了三种类型的任务,旨在代表当前3D建模软件中的对象操作。在要求参与者估计距离的任务中,交互阴影显著更好(p < 0.05)。这表明交互式阴影界面可以更好地帮助用户近似物体的相对定位。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Comparison of Interactive Shadows and Multi-View Layouts for Mouse-based 3D Modelling
3D user interfaces allow users to view and interact with objects in a 3D scene and form a key component in many modelling applications used in engineering, medicine and design. Most mouse-based interfaces follow the same multi-view layout (three orthogonal, one perspective). This interface is difficult to understand, as it requires users to integrate all four views and build a 3D mental model. An alternative, Interactive Shadows, has been previously proposed that could improve on the multi-view's shortcomings but has never been formally tested. This paper presents the first quantitative user evaluation (n = 36) of both the multi-view and interactive shadows interfaces to compare their relative effectiveness and usability. Participants completed three types of tasks designed to be representative of object manipulation in current 3D modelling software. Interactive shadows were significantly better (p < 0,05) for tasks requiring participants to estimate distance. This suggests interactive shadows interface might better help users approximate relative object positioning.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信