ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
3D or not 3D?: evaluating the effect of the third dimension in a document management system
Full text PdfPdf (797 KB)
Source Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems archive
Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems table of contents
Seattle, Washington, United States
Pages: 434 - 441  
Year of Publication: 2001
ISBN:1-58113-327-8
Authors
Andy Cockburn  Department of Computer Science, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
Bruce McKenzie  Department of Computer Science, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
Sponsor
SIGCHI: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 25,   Downloads (12 Months): 157,   Citation Count: 16
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   review   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/365024.365309
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

Several recent research systems have provided interactive three-dimensional (3D) visualisations for supporting everyday work such as file and document management. But what improvements do these 3D interfaces offer over their traditional 2D counterparts? This paper describes the comparative evaluation of two document management systems that differ only in the number of dimensions used for displaying and interacting with the data. The 3D system is heavily based on Robertson et al.'s Data Mountain, which supports users in storing, organising and retrieving “thumbnail” representations of documents such as bookmarked Web-pages. Results show that our subjects were faster at storing and retrieving pages in the display when using the 2D interface, but not significantly so. As expected, retrieval times significantly increased as the number of thumbnails increased. Despite the lack of significant differences between the 2D and 3D interfaces, subjective assessments showed a significant preference for the 3D interface.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

1
 
2
Carswell, C., Frankenberger, S., and Bernhard, D. Graphing in depth: Perspectives on the use of threedimensional graphs to represent lower-dimensional data. Behavior and Information Technology 10, 6, 459-474. 1991.
 
3
Cockburn, A. and McKenzie, B. An evaluation of cone trees. In People and Computers XV (Proceedings of the 2000 British Computer Society Conference on Human- Computer Interaction.), University of Sunderland, September 2000, Springer-Verlag, In Press.
4
5
6
7
 
8
Spence, I. Visual psychophysics of simple graphical elements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 16, 4, 683-692, 1990.
9

CITED BY  16


REVIEW

"Edouard J. Desautels : Reviewer"

Document management systems have traditionally shown directories in text form, as lists of filenames, sometimes organized into trees. Some programs (Data Mountain, for example) use thumbnails instead of mere text names, arranged in two-dimensional  more...

Collaborative Colleagues:
Andy Cockburn: colleagues
Bruce McKenzie: colleagues