Quantitative data graphics in 3D desktop-based virtual environments – an evaluation

Figures & data

Figure 1. Quantitative data and map background (1:25000 © 2014 swisstopo [BA14010]) of the eight different settings (W1–W4, S1–S4) in the 2D (HTML, SVG, and JavaScript, left pairs) and 3D (Google Earth, right pairs) settings.

Table 1. Directed exploratory tasks for Experiment E1 (tasks E1.1–E1.7) and Experiment E2 (task E2.1) referring either to location (L) or, altitude (A), or a combination of location and altitude (LA).

No.	Task	Reference(s)
E1.1	Which area is most often visited by the deer?	Location (L)
E1.2	Which altitude/altitude range is most often visited by the deer?	Altitude (A)
E1.3	Generally, compare the number and distribution of deer visits in the lower areas to the number of deer visits in higher areas?	Altitude (A)
E1.4	Compare the location and altitude of areas with similar deer visit patterns?	Location and altitude (LA)
E1.5	In which area(s) does the number of deer visits increase with increasing altitude?	Location and altitude (LA)
E1.6	Describe the deer visit patterns in relation to altitude and landform (surface/topographic features and undulations?	Altitude (A)
E1.7	Describe the deer visit patterns in relation to location and land cover?	Location (L)
E2.1	Analyze the deer data and describe the deer habits regarding location, altitude, and time of the day?	Location and altitude (LA)

Figure 2. Quantitative data and map background (1:25000 © 2014 swisstopo [BA14010]) of the two different settings (W and S) either in 2D (HTML, SVG, and JavaScript) or 3D (Google Earth).

Table 2. Word categories used to classify an answer/insight into either referring to location, altitude, or a combination of both.

Category	Label	Subcategory	Example words
Location	L	Datum	D3, F4 (grid squares)
	L	Object	Forest, scree, grassy
	L	Relation/description	North, left, south-east
Altitude	A	Datum	1950 m, 2400 m
	A	Object	Mountain, slope, ridge
	A	Relation/description	Steep, lower, highest

Figure 3. Comparison of the performance measures time, confidence, complexity, and plausibility (columns) between 2D and 3D for the Experiments E1 and E2 (rows). No statistically significant differences were found at a significance level of 95%.

Figure 4. Comparison of the performance measures time, confidence, complexity, and plausibility (columns) between the different reference sets of the insights in 2D and 3D for the Experiments E1 and E2 (rows). Generally, no statistically significant differences (at significance level 95%) were found between 2D and 3D for the different reference sets. The only statistically significant difference was in E1 for plausibility ratings with reference set LA (combination of location and altitude) between 2D and 3D (marked with *; χ² = 6.09, df = 2, p-value = 0.048).

Figure 5. Comparison of relative quantities of reference set usage (location L, altitude A, or both LA) in the insights reported in E1 and E2.

Figure 6. Comparison of relative quantities of reference set usage (location L, altitude A, or both LA) in the insights reported in E1 compared to the task references (tasks referring to location [tL], tasks referring to altitude [tA], and tasks referring to a combination of location and altitude [tLA]).

Figure 7. Comparing the performance measures time, confidence, complexity, and plausibility for the different settings (W and S) between 2D and 3D in Experiment E1 and E2.

Figure 8. Comparing the performance measures time, confidence, complexity, and plausibility for the different datasets and settings (W1–W4 and S1–S4) between 2D and 3D.