Desney S. Tan
Darren Gergle
Peter Scupelli
Randy Pausch
ABSTRACT
Large wall-sized displays are becoming prevalent. Although researchers have articulated qualitative benefits of group work on large displays, little work has been done to quantify the benefits for individual users. We ran two studies comparing the performance of users working on a large projected wall display to that of users working on a standard desktop monitor. In these studies, we held the visual angle constant by adjusting the viewing distance to each of the displays. Results from the first study indicate that although there was no significant difference in performance on a reading comprehension task, users performed about 26% better on a spatial orientation task done on the large display. Results from the second study suggest that the large display affords a greater sense of presence, allowing users to treat the spatial task as an egocentric rather than an exocentric rotation. We discuss future work to extend our findings and formulate design principles for computer interfaces and physical workspaces.
- Arthur, K.W. (2000). Effects of field of view on performance with head-mounted displays. Doctoral Dissertation, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Baudisch, P., Good, N., Belloti, V., & Schraedley, P. (2002). Keeping things in context: A comparitive evaluation of focus plus context screens, overviews, and zooming. Proceedings of CHI 2002, 259--266. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Bystrom, K.E., Barfield, W., & Hendrix, C. (1999). A conceptual model of the sense of presence in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 8(2), 241--244. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Carpenter, M., Proffitt, D. (2001). Comparing viewer and array mental rotations in different planes. Memory & Cognition, 29, 441--448.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Chapanis, A., Scarpa, L.C. (1967). Readability of dials at difference distances with constant viewing angle. Human Factors, 9(5), 419--426.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Childs, I. (1988). HDTV-putting you in the picture. IEE Review, 34(7), 261--265.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Chou, P., Gruteser, M., Lai, J., Levas, A., McFaddin, S., Pinhanez, C., Viveros, M., Wong, D., & Yoshihama, S. (2001). BlueSpace: Creating a personalized and context-aware workspace. IBM technical report, RC22281.Google Scholar
- Czerwinski, M., Tan, D.S., Robertson, G.G. (2002). Women take a wider view. Proceedings of CHI 2002, 195--202. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Dillion, A. (1992). Reading from paper versus screens: A critical review of the empirical literature. Ergonomics, 35(10), 1297--1326.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Dudfield, H.J., Macklin, C., Fearnley, R., Simpson, A., & Hall, P. (2001). Big is better? Human factors issues of large screen displays with military command teams. Proceedings of People in Control 2001, 304--309.Google Scholar
- Educational Testing Service. (1994). Practicing to take the GRE test. New Jersey: ETS.Google Scholar
- Elrod, S., Bruce, R., Gold, R., Goldberg, D., Halasz, F., Janssen, W., Lee, D., McCall, K., Pederson, E., Pier, K., Tang, J., & Welch, B. (1992). Liveboard: A large interactive display supporting group meetings, presentations and remote collaboration, Proceedings of CHI 1992, 599--607. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Guilford, J.P., Zimmerman, W.S. (1948). The Guilford-Zimmerman Aptitude Survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32, 24--34.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Guimbretière, F. (2002). Fluid interaction for high resolution wall-size displays. Doctoral Dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
- Infield, S.E. (1991). An investigation into the relationship between navigation skill and spatial abilities. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. Dissertation Abstracts International, 52(5-B), 2800.Google Scholar
- Lin, J.J., Duh, H.B.L., Parker, D.E., Abi-Rached, H., Furness, T.A. (2002). Effects of field of view on presence, enjoyment, memory, and simulator sickness in a virtual environment. Proceedings of IEEE Virtual Reality Conference 2002, 164--171. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mills, C.B., Weldon, L.J. (1987). Reading text from computer screens. ACM Computer Surveys, 19(4), 329--357. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Patrick, E., Cosgrove, D., Slavkovic, A., Rode, J.A., Verratti, T., & Chiselko, G. (2000). Using a large projection screen as an alternative to head-mounted displays for virtual environments. Proceedings of CHI 2000, 478--485. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Prothero, J.D., Hoffman, H.D. (1995). Widening the field of view increases the sense of presence within immersive virtual environments. Human Interface Technology Laboratory Technical Report, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, R-95-4.Google Scholar
- Raskar, R., Welch, G., Cutts, M., Lake, A., Stesin, L., & Fuchs, H. (1998). The office of the future: A unified approach to image-based modeling and spatially immersive displays. Proceedings of SIGGRAPH 1998, 179--188. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Shepard, R.N., Metzler, J. (1971). Mental rotations of three-dimensional objects. Science, 171(3972), 701--703.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Slater, M., Usoh, M. (1993). Presence in Immersive Virtual Environments. Proceedings of the IEEE Conference - Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium, 90--96.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Streitz, N.A., Geißler, J., Holmer, T., Konomi, S., Müller-Tomfelde, C., Reischl, W., Rexroth, P., Seitz, P., & Steinmetz, R. (1999). i-LAND: An interactive landscape for creativity and innovation. Proceedings of CHI 1999, 120--127. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Suzuki, K., Nakata, Y. (1988). Does the size of figures affect the rate of mental rotation? Perception & Psychophysics, 44(1), 76--80.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Swaminathan, N., Sato, S. (1997). Interaction design for large displays. Interactions, 4(1), 15--24. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Tan, D.S., Stefanucci, J.K., Proffitt, D.R., Pausch, R. (2001). The Infocockpit: Providing Location and Place to Aid Human Memory. Workshop on Perceptive User Interfaces 2001. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Tani, M., Masato, H., Kimiya, Y., Koichiro, T., & Futakawa, M. (1994). Courtyard: Integrating shared overview on a large screen and per-user detail on individual screens. Proceedings of CHI 1994, 44--50. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Tlauka, M. (2002). Switching imagined viewpoints: The effects of viewing angle and layout size. British Journal of Psychology, 93, 193--201.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Wraga, M., Creem, S.H., & Proffitt, D.R. (2000). Updating displays after imagined object and viewer rotations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 26(1), 151--168.Google ScholarCross Ref
Index Terms
- With similar visual angles, larger displays improve spatial performance
Recommendations
Physically large displays improve path integration in 3D virtual navigation tasks
CHI '04: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing SystemsPrevious results have shown that users perform better on spatial orientation tasks involving static 2D scenes when working on physically large displays as compared to small ones. This was found to be true even when the displays presented the same images ...
Physically large displays improve performance on spatial tasks
Large wall-sized displays are becoming prevalent. Although researchers have articulated qualitative benefits of group work on large displays, little work has been done to quantify the benefits for individual users. In this article we present four ...
Can users read text on large displays?: Effects of Physical Display Size on Users' Reading Comprehension of Text
CHItaly '15: Proceedings of the 11th Biannual Conference of the Italian SIGCHI ChapterLarge displays are becoming prevalent, but little research has been conducted to quantify their effect on an individual user. We present an experiment in which users' reading comprehension of text displayed on physically large and small displays are ...
Comments