Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T11:01:32.477Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Considering multiscale scenes to elucidate problems encumbering three-dimensional intellection and navigation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 October 2011

Michael Glueck  and
Azam Khan
Michael Glueck*
Affiliation:
Autodesk Research, Toronto, Canada
Azam Khan
Affiliation:
Autodesk Research, Toronto, Canada
*
Reprint requests to: Michael Glueck, Autodesk Research, 210 King Street East, Toronto, ON M5A1J7, Canada. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Virtual three-dimensional (3-D) environments have become pervasive tools in a number of professional and recreational tasks. However, interacting with these environments can be challenging for users, especially as these environments increase in complexity and scale. In this paper, we argue that the design of 3-D interaction techniques is an ill-defined problem. This claim is elucidated through the context of data-rich and geometrically complex multiscale virtual 3-D environments, where unexpected factors can encumber intellection and navigation. We develop an abstract model to guide our discussion, which illustrates the cyclic relationship of understanding and navigating; a relationship that supports the iterative refinement of a consistent mental representation of the virtual environment. Finally, we highlight strategies to support the design of interactions in multiscale virtual environments, and propose general categories of research focus.

Keywords

CameraIntellectionMultiscaleNavigationPerceptionThree-Dimensional
Type
Special Issue Articles
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 25 , Issue 4: Representing and Reasoning About Three-Dimensional Space , November 2011 , pp. 393 - 407
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bingham, G.P., & Lind, M. (2008). Large continuous perspective transformations are necessary and sufficient for accurate perception of metric shape. Perception & Psychophysics 70, 524–540.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brooks, F.P. (1988). Grasping reality through illusion—interactive graphics serving science. Proc. SIGCHI Conf. Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ‘88 (O'Hare, J.J., Ed.), pp. 1–11. New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Burelli, P., & Yannakakis, G.N. (2010). Combining local and global optimisation for virtual camera control. Proc. IEEE Conf. Computational Intelligence and Games.Google Scholar
Burtnyk, N., Khan, A., Fitzmaurice, G., & Kurtenbach, G. (2006). ShowMotion: camera motion based 3D design review. Proc. 2006 Symp. Interactive 3D Graphics and Games, I3D ‘06, pp. 167–174. New York: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlbom, I., & Paciorek, J. (1978). Planar geometric projections and viewing transformations. ACM Computer Survey 10(4), 465–502.Google Scholar
Christie, M., Olivier, P., & Normand, J.-M. (2008). Camera control in computer graphics. Computer Graphics Forum 27, 2197–2218.Google Scholar
Cutting, J.E., & Vishton, P.M. (1995). Perceiving layout and knowing distances: the integration, relative potency, and contextual use of different information about depth. In Handbook of Perception and Cognition. Volume 5: Perception of Space and Motion (Epstein, W., & Rogers, S., Eds.), pp. 69–117. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Donath, D., Kruijff, E., & Regenbrecht, H. (1999). Spatial knowledge implications by using a virtual environment during design review. Proc. ACADIA 1999.Google Scholar
Durand, F. (2002). An invitation to discuss computer depiction. Proc. 2nd Int. Symp. Non-Photorealistic Animation and Rendering, NPAR ‘02, pp. 111–124. New York: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eastman, C., Teicholz, P., Sacks, R., & Liston, K. (2007). BIM Handbook: A Guide to Building Information Modeling for Owners, Managers, Designers, Engineers and Contractors, pp. 108. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Eby, D.W., & Braunstein, M.L. (1995). The perceptual flattening of three-dimensional scenes enclosed by a frame. Perception 24(9), 981–993.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elmqvist, N., & Tsigas, P. (2008). A taxonomy of 3D occlusion management for visualization. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 14(5), 1095–1109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fitzmaurice, G., Matejka, J., Mordatch, I., Khan, A., & Kurtenbach, G. (2008). Safe 3D navigation. Proc. 2008 Symp. Interactive 3D Graphics and Games, I3D ‘08, pp. 7–15. New York: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glueck, M., Crane, K., Anderson, S., Rutnik, A., & Khan, A. (2009). Multiscale 3D reference visualization. Proc. 2009 Symp. Interactive 3D Graphics and Games, I3D ‘09, pp. 225–232. New York: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hachet, M., Decle, F., Knödel, S., & Guitton, P. (2009). Navidget for 3D interaction: camera positioning and further uses. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies 67(3), 225–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hailemariam, E., Glueck, M., Attar, R., Tessier, A., McCrae, J., & Khan, A. (2010). Toward a unified representation system of performance-related data. Proc. eSim 2010 Conf. IBPSA–Canada eSim Conf., pp. 117–124.Google Scholar
Herndon, K.P., van Dam, A., & Gleicher, M. (1994). The challenges of 3D interaction: a CHI ‘94 workshop. SIGCHI Bulletin 26(4), 36–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Infinity. (n.d.) Multiscale video game. Accessed at http://www.infinity-universe.comGoogle Scholar
Jul, S. (2003). “This is a lot easier!”: constrained movement speeds navigation. Proc. CHI ‘03 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ‘03, pp. 776–777. New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Jul, S., & Furnas, G.W. (1998). Critical zones in desert fog: aids to multiscale navigation. Proc. 11th Annual ACM Symp. User interface Software and Technology, UIST ‘98, pp. 97–106. New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Juricevic, I., & Kennedy, J.M. (2006). Looking at perspective pictures from too far, too close, and just right. Journal of Experimental Psychology 135(3), 448–461.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Khan, A., Mordatch, I., Fitzmaurice, G., Matejka, J., & Kurtenbach, G. (2008). ViewCube: a 3D orientation indicator and controller. Proc. 2008 Symp. Interactive 3D Graphics and Games, I3D ‘08, pp. 17–25. New York: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kopper, R., Ni, T., Bowman, D.A., & Pinho, M. (2006). Design and evaluation of navigation techniques for multiscale virtual environments. Proc. IEEE Conf. Virtual Reality, VR, pp. 175–182. Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
Lee, S., Eisemann, E., & Seidel, H. (2010). Real-time lens blur effects and focus control. Proc. ACM SIGGRAPH 2010 Papers, SIGGRAPH ‘10 (Hoppe, H., Ed.), pp. 1–7. New York: ACM.Google Scholar
McCrae, J., Glueck, M., Grossman, T., Khan, A., & Singh, K. (2010). Exploring the design space of multiscale 3D orientation. Proc. Int. Conf. Advanced Visual interfaces, AVI ‘10 (Santucci, G., Ed.), pp. 81–88. New York: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCrae, J., Mordatch, I., Glueck, M., & Khan, A. (2009). Multiscale 3D navigation. Proc. 2009 Symp. Interactive 3D Graphics and Games, I3D ‘09, pp. 7–17. New York: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McInerney, T., & Broughton, S. (2006). HingeSlicer: interactive exploration of volume images using extended 3D slice plane widgets. Proc. Graphics Interface 2006, ACM Int. Conf. Proc. Series, Vol. 137, pp. 171–178. Toronto: Canadian Information Processing Society.Google Scholar
Milgram, P., & Colquhoun, H. (1999). A taxonomy of real and virtual worlds display integration. In Mixed Reality—Merging Real and Virtual Worlds, pp. 1–16. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Mintz, F.E., Trafton, J.G., Marsh, E., & Perzanowski, D. (2004). Proc. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Perception and Performance, Vol. 48, pp. 1933–1937.Google Scholar
Oskam, T., Sumner, R.W., Thuerey, N., & Gross, M. (2009). Visibility transition planning for dynamic camera control. Proc. 2009 ACM SIGGRAPH/Eurographics Symp. Computer Animation, SCA ‘09 (Fellner, D., & Spencer, S., Eds.), pp. 55–65. New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Plumlee, M.D., & Ware, C. (2006). Zooming versus multiple window interfaces: cognitive costs of visual comparisons. ACM Transactions on Computer–Human Interaction 13(2), 179–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potmesil, M., & Chakravarty, I. (1981). A lens and aperture camera model for synthetic image generation. Proc. 8th Annual Conf. Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, SIGGRAPH ‘81, pp. 297–305. New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Salomon, B., Garber, M., Lin, M.C., & Manocha, D. (2003). Interactive navigation in complex environments using path planning. Proc. 2003 Symp. Interactive 3D Graphics, I3D ‘03, pp. 41–50. New York: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoakley, R., Conway, M.J., & Pausch, R. (1995). Virtual reality on a WIM: interactive worlds in miniature. Proc. SIGCHI Conf. Human Factors in Computing Systems (Katz, I.R., Mack, R., Marks, L., Rosson, M.B., & Nielsen, J., Eds.), pp. 265–272. New York: ACM Press/Addison–Wesley.Google Scholar
Tan, D.S., Gergle, D., Scupelli, P., & Pausch, R. (2006). Physically large displays improve performance on spatial tasks. ACM Transactions on Computer–Human Interaction 13(1), 71–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tory, M., Kirkpatrick, A.E., Atkins, M.S., & Moller, T. (2006). Visualization task performance with 2D, 3D, and combination displays. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 12(1), 2–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trapp, M., & Doellner, J. (2008). Relief clipping planes for real-time rendering. Proc. ACM SIGGRAPH Asia 2008—Sketch Program, Singapore.Google Scholar
Tversky, B. (1993). Cognitive maps, cognitive collages, and spatial mental models. Proc. COSIT ‘93, Spatial Information Theory: A Theoretical Basis for GIS (Frank, A.U., & Campari, I., Eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 716, pp. 14–24.Google Scholar
Wanger, L. (1992). The effect of shadow quality on the perception of spatial relationships in computer generated imagery. Proc. 1992 Symp. Interactive 3D Graphics, I3D ‘92, pp. 39–42. New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Weiskopf, D., Engel, K., & Ertl, T. (2003). Interactive clipping techniques for texture-based volume visualization and volume shading. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 9, 298–312.Google Scholar
Yang, Z., & Purves, D. (2003). A statistical explanation of visual space. Nature Neuroscience 6, 632–640.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, X. (2005). Space-scale animation: enhancing cross-scale understanding of multiscale structures in multiple views. Proc. Coordinated and Multiple Views in Exploratory Visualization, CMV, pp. 109–120. Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society.CrossRefGoogle Scholar