(Teaching) Regional Geography. Proceedings of 27th Central European Conference. 17th October 2019, BrnoKapitola
Comparison of Static Perspective Views and 2D Maps – the Role of Age, Spatial Abilities, and Task NatureRok vydání: 2020
In this study, we focus on the usability of pseudo-3D thematic maps (static perspective views) compared with their conventional 2D equivalents. A total of 105 study participants were divided into two groups (12–19 years old and 20–27 years old). A Perspective Taking Test measured their spatial abilities and each participant solved 15 tasks using four thematic maps. We compared map variants to determine which is more suitable for individual tasks. We then examined the differences between the two age groups and tried to find any relationship between the user’s spatial abilities and the number of correct answers. We observed a significant difference regarding the map’s visualization dimension only in one particular task and significant differences between the age groups when they worked with 2D maps. We found a positive correlation between the participant’s level of spatial ability and the number of correct answers.
3D cartography, spatial abilities, thematic 3D map, user testing
ARCDATA PRAHA, ZÚ, ČSÚ. (2016). ArcČR 500 – Digital geographic database, v. 3.3. Retrieved from www.arcdata.cz
Bandrova, T., & Konečný, M. (2014). Digital Earth – Young generation's comprehension and ideas. In 8th International Symposium of the Digital Earth (ISDE), IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science (pp. 1–6). Kuching: IOP Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/18/1/012007
Bleisch, S. (2011). Towards Appropriate Representations of Quantitative Data in Virtual Environments. Cartographica, 46(4), 252–261. https://doi.org/10.3138/carto.46.4.252
Carbonell-Carrera, C. et al. (2017). Teaching with AR as a Tool for Relief Visualization: Usability and Motivation Study. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 27(1), 69–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/10382046.2017.1285135
Charvát, K., et al. (2018). Advanced Visualisation of Big Data for Agriculture as Part of DataBio Development. In International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (pp. 415–418). New York: IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/IGARSS.2018.8517556
Hegarty, M., et al. (2009). Naïve cartography: How intuitions about display configuration can hurt performance. Cartographica, 44(3), 171–186. https://doi.org/10.3138/carto.44.3.171
Herman, L., et al. (2018). Evaluation of User Performance in Interactive and Static 3D Maps. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 7(11), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi7110415
Herman, L., & Řezník, T. (2015). 3D Web Visualization of Environmental Information – Integration of Heterogeneous Data Sources when Providing Navigation and Interaction. In ISPRS Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, vol. XL-3/W3 (pp. 479–485). La Grande Motte: Copernicus GmbH. https://doi.org/10.5194/isprsarchives-XL-3-W3-479-2015
Jobs, M., & Germanchis, T. (2007). The Employment of 3D in Cartography — An Overview. In Cartwright W., et al. Multimedia Cartography (pp. 217–228). Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-36651-5_15
Juřík, V., & Šašinka, Č. (2016). Learning in Virtual 3D Environments: All about Immersive 3D Interfaces. In EDULEARN16 Proceedings (pp. 7868–7881). Barcelona: IATED. https://doi.org/10.21125/edulearn.2016.0725
Juřík, V., et al. (2018). Interaction Primitives in 3D Geovisualizations. In H. Svobodová (Ed.), Useful Geography: Transfer from Research to Practice. Proceedings of 25th Central European Conference (pp. 294–303). Brno: Masaryk University.
Kozhevnikov, M., & Hegarty, M. (2001). A Dissociation between Object-manipulation Spatial Ability and Spatial Orientation Ability. Memory and Cognition, 29, 745–756. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200477
Kubíček, P., et al. (2010). Identification of Altitude Profiles in 3D Geovisualizations: the Role of Interaction and Spatial Abilities. International Journal of Digital Earth, 12(2), 156–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/17538947.2017.1382581
Niedomysl, T., et al. (2013). Learning Benefits of Using 2D Versus 3D Maps: Evidence from a Randomized Controlled Experiment. Journal of Geography, 112(3), 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221341.2012.709876
Piaget, J. (1957). Construction of Reality in the Child. 1st ed. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Popelka, S., & Brychtová, A. (2013). Eye-tracking Study on Different Perception of 2D and 3D Terrain Visualisation. Cartographic Journal, 50(3), 240–246. https://doi.org/10.1179/1743277413Y.0000000058
Popelka, S., & Doležalová, J. (2016). Differences between 2D Map and Virtual Globe Containing Point Symbols – an Eye-tracking Study. In SGEM2016 Conference Proceedings (pp. 175–182). Sofia: STEF92 Technology Ltd. https://doi.org/10.5593/SGEM2016/B23/S11.023
Preppernau, C. A., & Jenny, B. (2015). Three-dimensional versus Conventional Volcanic Hazard Maps. Natural Hazards, 78(2), 1329–1347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-015-1773-z
Rautenbach, V., et al. (2014). Towards Evaluating the Map Literacy of Planners in 2D Maps and 3D Models in South Africa. In AfricaGEO 2014 Conference Proceedings (pp. 1–12). Cape Town.
Savage, D. M., et al. (2004). Performance of 2D versus 3D Topographic Representations for Different Task Types. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (pp. 1793–1797). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120404801601
Shepherd, I. (2008). Travails in the Third Dimension: A Critical Evaluation of Three-dimensional Geographical Visualization. In M. Dodge, et al., Geographic Visualization: Concepts, Tools and Applications (pp. 199–222). Chichester: Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470987643.ch10
Sieber, R., et al. (2016). Atlas of Switzerland Goes Online and 3D—Concept, Architecture and Visualization Methods. In G. Gartner, et al., Progress in Cartography (pp. 171–184). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19602-2_11
Šašinka, Č., et al. (2017). The Hypothesis Platform: An Online Tool for Experimental Research into Work with Maps and Behavior in Electronic Environments. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 6(12), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi6120407
Šašinka, Č., et al. (2019). Collaborative Immersive Virtual Environments for Education in Geography. In ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 8(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi8010003
Zsoldi, K. (2011). 3D Methods in Cartography. In 14th IAMG Conference - Mathematical Geosciences at the Crossroads of Theory and Practice (pp. 1471–1478). Salzburg. https://doi.org/10.5242/iamg.2011.0298