CS 6724: 3D Interaction

Navigation menu: General course information Announcements Schedule Projects Homework Participation Discussions Links

An example of poor literature survey style (using the same references as the example above): Note how there is no organization to this writing (the paragraphs don’t indicate different categories or themes), how the author doesn’t analyze any of the literature, and how he simply lists the existing projects and papers. There are several existing examples of display comparison experiments in the literature. Brooks [7] said that such experiments were important. One group compared a desktop display to a CAVE for an oil-drilling application [11]. Arthur [2] studied the effect of field of view in an HMD on performance in searching and walking tasks. Another study [25] looked at five different displays for construction-related tasks. Bowman et al. [3] looked at users’ preferences for real and virtual turning in HMDs and CAVEs. A CAVE and a semi-immersive curved display were compared by Kjeldskov [15], and he used over 40 different 3D interaction techniques with the displays. Military applications on different displays were compared by Swan and his colleagues [28]. A comparison between a CAVE and a monitor has also been performed for a statistical analysis application [1]. A SIGGRAPH panel considered the relative advantages and disadvantages of HMDs and surround-screen displays [16]. An example of good literature survey style (from a paper on comparisons of VE displays): Note how the literature is divided into several categories, how the author makes several points of his own, and how he constructs an argument demonstrating the limitations of the existing research. Many authors have noted the importance of studying the differences between displays and the effects of displays on users, applications, and tasks [e.g. 7, 16]. Few, however, have provided empirical evidence of these effects. One type of display comparison study found in the literature is a comparison of desktop and immersive displays for a particular task or application [e.g. 1, 11]. These studies attempt to demonstrate the effects of immersion, as opposed to the effects of a particular type of display. A second type of experiment compares the value of multiple VE displays for common tasks [e.g. 25, 28]. This is closer to the intent of our work, but is not explicitly focused on 3D interaction. A few studies have looked at the effects of particular display characteristics on interaction performance or usability. For example, Arthur [2] studied the effect of field of view in an HMD on performance in searching and walking tasks. The prior research most similar to ours involves studies that compare users’ behavior and performance when interacting with VEs using different displays. Kjeldskov [15] reports an ambitious study on the usability of 40 common 3D interaction techniques in a semi-immersive curved display and a fully-immersive surround-screen display. He found qualitative differences in the usability of particular techniques between displays, but no quantitative data was collected. Our own prior work [3] did demonstrate a statistically significant difference in users’ behavior between an HMD and a CAVE during a navigation task.