Comparative evaluation of display technologies for collaborative design review

Évaluation comparative de technologies d’affichage dans le cadre d’un examen concerté de la conception

PDF

Authors
  1. Hou, M.
  2. Holland, J.G.
  3. Scipione, A.
  4. Magee, L.
  5. Greenley, M.
Corporate Authors
Defence R&D Canada - Toronto, Toronto ONT (CAN);CAE Professional Services, Ottawa (ON)
Abstract
The effectiveness of five display technologies for supporting a collaborative workspace design review was compared. Participants searched for design flaws in a model of the front dashboard of a vehicle including an in-vehicle navigation system. The display types were: 2D CRT, 3D CRT, 3D via Curved plasma display, large DataWall display, and a Cave Automatic Virtual Environment (CAVE). Detection accuracy, time, and usability measures were obtained. The results indicated that detection accuracy was higher for 3D CRT and Curved displays than the 2D display or more immersive DataWall and CAVE displays. Additionally, a speed-accuracy trade-off was observed such that detection time was longer for 3D CRT and Curved displays than for 2D, or the more immersive displays. Subjective measures revealed that participants’ comfort and confidence level was lower with the 2D displays than the 3D displays. Lack of sufficient training time is likely to have affected detection accuracy with the more immersive 3D displays. Overall, the use of the 3D CAD model on a standard CRT or a Curved display was most cost-effective for collaborative design review.

Il y a un résumé en français ici.

Keywords
display technology;collaborative design review;2D display;3D display;CAVE;plasma display;DataWall;immersive environment;immersive technology;virtual reality;in-vehicle navigation system;flaw detection;usability measure
Report Number
DRDC-TORONTO-SL-2009-013 — Scientific Literature
Date of publication
01 Apr 2009
Number of Pages
14
DSTKIM No
CA032673
CANDIS No
531855
Format(s):
Electronic Document(PDF)

Permanent link

Document 1 of 1

Date modified: