Usability Studies with Virtual and Traditional Computer Aided Design Environments
For both the CAVETM and the adaptable technology possessed by the University of New Orleans, crystal eye glasses are used to produce a stereoscopic view, and an ascension flock of birds tracking system is employed for tracking of the user's head position and position of a wand in 3D space. It...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Others |
| Published: |
ScholarWorks@UNO
2006
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://scholarworks.uno.edu/td/477 http://scholarworks.uno.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1477&context=td |
| Summary: | For both the CAVETM and the adaptable technology possessed by the University of New Orleans, crystal eye glasses are used to produce a stereoscopic view, and an ascension flock of birds tracking system is employed for tracking of the user's head position and position of a wand in 3D space. It is argued that with these immersive technologies along the use of gestures and hand movements should provide a more natural interface with the immersive virtual environment. This allows a more rapid and efficient set of actions to recognize geometry, interaction with a spatial environment, the ability to find errors, or navigate through an environment. The wand interface is used to provide an improved means of interaction. This study quantitatively measures the differences in interaction when compared with traditional human computer interfaces. This work uses competitive usability in four different Benchmarks: 1) navigation, 2) error detection/correction, 3) spatial awareness, and 4) a “shopping list†of error identifications. This work expands on [Butler & Satter's, 2005] work by conducting tests in the CAVETM system, rather than principally employing workbench technology. During testing, the testers are given some time to “play around†with the CAVETM environment for familiarity before undertaking a specific exercise. The testers are then instructed regarding tasks to be completed, and are asked to work quickly without sacrificing accuracy. The research team timed each task, counted errors, and recorded activity on evaluation sheets for each Benchmark test. At the completion of the testing scenarios involving Benchmarks 1, 2, 3, or 4, the subjects were given a survey document and asked to respond by checking boxes to communicate their subjective opinions. |
|---|