Comparing Dot and Landscape Spatializations for Visual Memory Differences

• Published in: IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics Vol. 15; no. 6; pp. 1033 - 1040
• Main Authors: Tory, M., Swindells, C., Dreezer, R.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States IEEE 01.11.2009; The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE)
• Subjects: Accuracy; Automobiles; Data visualization; Density; Design methodology; Displays; evaluation / methodology; Information interfaces and presentation; landscape visualization; Landscapes; Metaphors; Psychology; screen design; software psychology; Software systems; Surface fitting; Surface topography; Tasks; Three dimensional displays; Two dimensional displays; Uncertainty; user / machine systems; Visual; Visualization
• ISSN: 1077-2626; 1941-0506
• DOI: 10.1109/TVCG.2009.127

Spatialization displays use a geographic metaphor to arrange non-spatial data. For example, spatializations are commonly applied to document collections so that document themes appear as geographic features such as hills. Many common spatialization interfaces use a 3-D landscape metaphor to present data. However, it is not clear whether 3-D spatializations afford improved speed and accuracy for user tasks compared to similar 2-D spatializations. We describe a user study comparing users' ability to remember dot displays, 2-D landscapes, and 3-D landscapes for two different data densities (500 vs. 1000 points). Participants' visual memory was statistically more accurate when viewing dot displays and 3-D landscapes compared to 2-D landscapes. Furthermore, accuracy remembering a spatialization was significantly better overall for denser spatializations. Theseresults are of benefit to visualization designers who are contemplating the best ways to present data using spatialization techniques.