Instructor Interaction Techniques for Immersive
Download
Report
Transcript Instructor Interaction Techniques for Immersive
Kira Lawrence
Specialized 3D
stereoscopic display
Silver-coated screen
Dual projector setup
with filtering
Layers two monitor
images atop one
another
Glasses create
“passive” 3D effect
◦ Each eye sees a
different monitor
UW – Agriculture
building in WYGIS
Only one UW
professor uses it
GeoWalls help students understand
trends/patterns effectively
GeoWalls in place in 400+ universities
Faculty may be
◦ Unaware GeoWall
exists / available
◦ Uncertain how to
access / use GeoWall
◦ Intimidated by poor
interface / controls
Point-click input for
3D imagery
Current input
unsatisfactory for 3D
movement
Navigating
/manipulating 3D
more difficult than 2D
If we can…
◦ Find a better input device
◦ Improve interface for software
◦ Faculty more comfortable using GeoWall
◦ Faculty more likely to use GeoWall
Found no identical
research
GeoWalls in
education
3D interaction
techniques / input
devices
◦ 3D mice/ wands
◦ Touch
◦ Voice
Nyko Wii Remote
◦ Positive research exists
◦ Less buttons to
remember
◦ Cheaper interface
implementation
◦ Extensible to classroom
use
alternative input
device interface
ESRI ArcGIS Software
Bluetooth USB
connect Wii Remote
to PC
GlovePIE
programmable input
emulator
Mapped keyboard /
mouse input to Wii
Remote
Basic navigation
◦ Panning
◦ Zooming
◦ Rotating
Mouse – joystick
Pre-evaluation
focused on
◦ Attitude
◦ Encouragement of
students toward
GeoWall use
◦ Knowledge
◦ Interest
Post-evaluations
focused on
◦ Attitude
◦ Encouragement of
students toward
GeoWall use
◦ Usability
◦ Comfort with system
three faculty participants
one Atmospheric Science
two Geography
Efficiency
Scores out of seven
4.00 +/- 0.82
Ease of Use
3.82 +/- 1.85
Learnability
3.88 +/- 1.83
User Comfort
3.88 +/- 1.72
Errors / Problems
6.33 +/- 0.47
Only three faculty
evaluated
Two of three never
seen / used Wii
Remote
◦ Lower learnability,
ease of use, comfort
scores
Efficiency
4.00 +/- 0.82
Ease of Use
3.82 +/- 1.85
Learnability
3.88 +/- 1.83
User Comfort
3.88 +/- 1.72
Errors / Problems
6.33 +/- 0.47
Overall attitude
change within
standard deviation
Not statistically
significant
High errors
◦ Interference /
unfamiliarity
Most faculty totally
unaware of GeoWall
One asked about
booking
One commented
positively on 3D
quality
No attitude change
Study itself may have increased awareness
Less Wii Remote experience = greater
difficulty
Average usability
System neither ineffective nor effective
Full-scale evaluation
Fix interference
issues
Fix counter-intuitive
implementation
◦ Zooming
◦ Panning
Inform faculty of
GeoWall before
evaluation
EPSCoR
Neera Pradhan, Treschiel Ford, Alisa Maas
Dr. Amy Ulinski
Dr. Jacqueline Shinker
WYGIS
3D Interactions and Agents lab
Computer Science faculty
[1] Johnson, A.; Leigh, J.; Morin, P.; Van Keken, P.; , "GeoWall: Stereoscopic Visualization for Geoscience Research
and Education," Computer Graphics and Applications, IEEE , vol.26, no.6, pp.10-14, Nov.-Dec. 2006. DOI =
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=4012558&isnumber=4012551
[2] Teather, R.J.; Stuerzlinger, W.; , "Assessing the Effects of Orientation and Device on 3D Positioning," Virtual
Reality Conference, 2008. VR '08. IEEE , pp.293-294, 8-12 March 2008. DOI =
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=4480807&isnumber=4480728
[3] Fountain, Henry. "GeoWall Project Expands the Window into Earth Science." New York Times, March 2005.
DOI= http://search.proquest.com/docview/433028618?accountid=14793
[4] Frohlich, B.; Hochstrate, J.; Kulik, A.; Huckauf, A.; , "On 3D input devices," Computer Graphics and
Applications, IEEE , vol.26, no.2, pp. 15- 19, March-April 2006. doi: 10.1109/MCG.2006.45 URL:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=1607915&isnumber=33767
[5] Kelly, Michael M., and Nancy R. Riggs. (2006). “Use of a virtual environment in the geowall to increase student
confidence and performance during field mapping: An example from an introductory-level field class.” Journal of
Geoscience Education vol.54, no.2 pp.158-164, DOI=
http://search.proquest.com/docview/202781162?accountid=14793
[6] Brooke, J. (1996). “SUS: a “quick and dirty” usability scale”. In P.W. Jordan, B. Thomas, B.A. Weerdmeester , &
A.L. McClelland. Usability Evaluation in Industry. London: Taylor and Francis. DOI=
http://www.usabilitynet.org/trump/documents/Suschapt.doc