Research on when and how to use three-dimensional (3-D) perspective views on flat screens for operational tasks such as air traffic control is confusing and contradictory. We stepped back to consider the basic qualities and capabilities of two-dimensional (2-D) and 3-D views. In two experiments, we tested the hypothesis that 3-D views are better for shape understanding and 2-D views are better for precisely judging relative positions. Participants viewed simple block shapes in 2-D or 3-D and either performed a shape understanding task (e.g. identification, mental rotation) or a relative position task (e.g. directions and distances between objects). Results confirmed the hypothesis.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndreA. D.WickensC. D. (1995). When users want what's not best for them. Ergonomics in Design, (October), 10–14.
2.
AndreA. D.WickensC. D.MoormanL.BoschelliM. M. (1991). Display formatting techniques for improving situation awareness in aircraft cockpits. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 1, 205–218.
3.
BemisS. V.LeedsJ. L.WinerE. A. (1988). Operator performance as a function of types of display: Conventional versus perspective. Human Factors, 30, 163–169.
4.
BoyerF.CampbellM.MayP.MerwinD.WickensC. D. (1995). Three dimensional displays for terrain and weather awareness in the National Airspace System. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 39th Annual Meeting (pp. 6–10). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
5.
BurnettM. S.BarfieldW. (1991). Perspective versus plan view air traffic control displays: Survey and empirical results. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 35th Annual Meeting (pp. 87–91). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
6.
EllisS. R.McGreeveyM. W.HitchcockR. J. (1987). Perspective traffic display format and airline pilot traffic avoidance. Human Factors, 29, 371–382.
7.
HaskellI. D.WickensC. D. (1993). Two and three-dimensional displays for aviation: A theoretical and empirical comparison. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 3, 87–109.
8.
O'BrienJ. V.WickensC. D. (1997). Free flight cockpit displays of traffic and weather: Effects of dimensionality and data base integration. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 41st Annual Meeting (pp.18–22). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
9.
SchmidtW. J. (1997). The Role of monocular cues in depth perception. Unpublished Master's Thesis. Las Cruces, NM: New Mexico State University.
10.
Van BredaL.VeltmanH. S. (1998). Perspective information in the cockpit as a target acquisition aid. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 4, 55–68.
11.
WareC.LowtherK. (1997). Section using a one-eyed cursor in a fish tank VR environment. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 4, 309–322.
12.
WickensC. D.LiangC.PrevettT.OlmosO. (1996). Electronic maps for terminal area navigation: Effects of frame of reference and dimensionality. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 6, 241–271.
