This study presents two experiments addressing the representation of scientific data, in particular airflows, with a user-centered design approach. Our objective is to provide users feedback to data visualization designers to help them choose an air flow representation that is understandable and attractive for non-experts. The first study focuses on static markers allowing to visualize an airflow, with information characterizing the direction and the intensity. In a second study, carried out in an immersive virtual environment, two information were added, the temporal evolution and the concentration of pollutants in the air. To measure comprehension and attractiveness, participants were asked to answer items on Likert scales (experiment 1) and to answer User Experience Questionnaire (experiment 2). The results revealed that arrows seem to be a very common and understandable form to represent orientation and direction of flow, but that they should be improved to be more attractive by making them brighter and more transparent, as the representation could occlude the scene, especially in virtual reality. To solve this problem, we suggest giving the users the ability to define the specific area where they want to see the air flow, using a cross-sectional view. Vector fields and streamlines could therefore be applied in a virtual reality context.
DonalekCDjorgovskiSGCiocA, et al. Immersive and collaborative data visualization using virtual reality platforms. In: 2014 IEEE international conference on Big Data (Big Data), 2014. New York: IEEE.
2.
GuestJEaglinTSubramanianK, et al. Interactive analysis and visualization of situationally aware building evacuations. Inf Visualization2015; 14(3): 204–222.
3.
AgrawalRKadadiADaiX, et al. Challenges and opportunities with big data visualization. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on management of computational and collective IntElligence in Digital EcoSystems, 2015. MEDES ’15. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
4.
GraingerSMaoFBuytaertW.Environmental data visualisation for non-scientific contexts: Literature review and design framework. Environ Modell Software2016; 85: 299–318.
5.
QuispelAMaesASchilperoordJ.Graph and chart aesthetics for experts and laymen in design: The role of familiarity and perceived ease of use. Inf Vis2016; 15(3): 238–252.
6.
HelbigCBauerHRinkK, et al. Concept and workflow for 3d visualization of atmospheric data in a virtual reality environment for analytical approaches. Environ Earth Sci2014; 72: 3767–3780.
7.
WareCPlumleeM.Designing a better weather display. Inf Vis2013; 12(3–4): 221–239.
8.
HarwoodAWenischPRevellA. A real-time modelling and simulation platform for virtual engineering design and analysis. In: Proceedings of 6th European conference on computational mechanics (ECCM 6) and 7th European conference on computational fluid dynamics (ECFD 7), 2018.
9.
DesjardinsMRHohlAGriffithA, et al. A space time parallel framework for fine-scale visualization of pollen levels across the eastern united states. Cartography Geog Inf Sci2019; 46(5): 428–440.
10.
HohlAGriffithAEppesM, et al. Computationally enabled 4d visualizations facilitate the detection of rock fracture patterns from acoustic emissions. Rock Mech Rock Eng2018; 51.
11.
KnabbKASchulzeJPKuesterF, et al. Scientific visualization, 3d immersive virtual reality environments, and archaeology in jordan and the near east. Near Eastern Archaeol2014; 77(3): 228–232.
12.
KimMYiSJungD, et al. Augmented-reality visualization of aerodynamics simulation in sustainable cloud computing. Sustainability2018; 10(5).
13.
YudinPFedinaMStrizhE, et al. Computational hydrodynamics in air flows modeling : Using the unreal engine based on the numerical solution of the navier-stokes equations. In 2019 International multi-conference on industrial engineering and modern technologies (FarEastCon), 2019. pp. 1–9. IEEE.
14.
HarwoodARRevellAJ.Interactive flow simulation using tegra-powered mobile devices. Adv Eng Softw2018; 115: 363–373.
15.
PostFHVrolijkBHauserH, et al. The state of the art in flow visualisation: Feature extraction and tracking. Comput Graph Forum2003; 22(4): 775–792.
16.
McLoughlinTLarameeRSPeikertR, et al. Over two decades of integration-based, geometric flow visualization. Comput Graph Forum2010; 29(6): 1807–1829.
17.
SalzbrunnTJänickeHWischgollT, et al. The state of the art in flow visualization: Partition-based techniques. In HauserHStraßburgerSTheiselH (eds.) Simulation and visualization 2008 (SimVis 2008), 18–29February2008, Magdeburg. SCS Publishing House e.V., pp. 75–92.
18.
GiraldoGServiresMMoreauG. Perception of multisensory wind representation in virtual reality. In: 2020 IEEE international symposium on mixed and augmented reality (ISMAR), 2020, pp. 45–53. New York: IEEE.
19.
YehCLiuZKaoDL, et al. Animating streamlines with orthogonal advancing waves. Inf Vis2013; 12(3–4): 257–272.
20.
StoneRGuestRPahlS, et al. Exploiting gaming technologies to visualise dynamic thermal qualities of a domestic dwelling: Pilot study of an interactive virtual apartment. In: Simulation and Visualization 2008 (SimVis 2008), 18–29February2008, Magdeburg.
21.
ZannettiP.Is virtual reality the future of air pollution modelling?WIT Trans Ecol Environ1970; 9.
22.
BergerMCristieV.Cfd post-processing in unity3d. Procedia Comput Sci2015; 51: 2913–2922.
23.
FukudaTMoriKImaizumiJ. Integration of cfd, vr, ar and bim for design feedback in a design process – an experimental study. In: Proceedings of the 33rd education and research in computer aided architectural design in Europe (eCAADe), 2015, pp. 665–672. eCAADe.
24.
RitterbuschSRonnåsSWaltschlägerI, et al. Augmented reality visualization of numerical simulations in urban environments. Int J Adv Syst Meas2013; 6(1): 26–39.
25.
ItoKBanYWarisawaS. Alteredwind: manipulating perceived direction of the wind by cross-modal presentation of visual, audio and wind stimuli. In: SIGGRAPH Asia 2019 Emerging Technologies, 2019. SA ’19, New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery, p. 34.
26.
LanYDesjardinsMRHohlA, et al. Geovisualization of covid-19: State of the art and opportunities. Cartographica Int J Geog Inf Geovisualization2021; 56(1): 2–13.
27.
WilsonSBekkerMMJohnsonH, et al. Costs and benefits of user involvement in design: Practitioners’ views. In: SasseMACunninghamJWinderRL (eds.) People and Computers XI, Proceedings of HCI ’96. Springer, pp. 221–240. Springer.
28.
International Organization for Standardization. Ergonomics of human-system interaction Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems. Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization, 2019.
29.
LaugwitzBHeldTSchreppM. Construction and evaluation of a user experience questionnaire. In: HolzingerA (ed.) HCI and usability for education and work. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2008, pp. 63–76.
