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