PolyZoom: Multiscale and Multifocus Exploration
in 2D Visual Spaces
Waqas Javed, Sohaib Ghani, Niklas ElmqvistPurdue UniversityWest Lafayette, IN
USA
Presented By: Sohaib Ghani
ACM CHI 2012May 5-8, 2012 ▪ Austin, Texas
2
Where is Central Park???
3
Where am I ???
4
I foundCentral Park!!!
5
Outline
• Motivation• Demo• Related Work• The PolyZoom Technique– Design Decisions– Layout– PolyZoom: System
• User Studies• Conclusion
6
Motivation
• Multiscale visual space – Example: Google Maps – geospatial dataset
• Large (entire world) and two-dimensional• Multiscale (different data at different levels of detail)
• Navigation in such visual spaces is difficult – Desert fog– Multifocus interaction
7
• PolyZoom is a multiscale multifocus technique for navigating in 2D visual spaces– Allows users to iteratively build a hierarchy of focus regions– Allows maintaining awareness of multiple scales of the visual space
• [Video]
PolyZoom
8
Related Work
• Common Navigation Techniques– Scrolling (Igarashi and Hinckley 2000)
– Pan & Zoom ( Furnas and Bederson 2005)
– Overview + Detail (Hornbæk and Frøkjær 2001)
– Focus + Context (Furnas 1986)
• Multifocus Interaction– Split-screen techniques (Shoemaker and Gutwin 2007)
– Stack zooming (Javed and Elmqvist 2010)
• Multiscale Navigation– Pad (Perlin and Fox 1993)
9
PolyZoom: Design Goals
• Multiscale awareness• Multifocus awareness• No distortion• No overlap
10
PolyZoom: Layout• Layout• Viewport size management• Correlation graphics
11
PolyZoom: System
• Web-based implementation– ActionScript3, Flash, and HTML5
• Google Maps dataset, NASA Universe, a Lunar dataset, and a Martian dataset
12
User Studies
13
Study 1: Multiscale Visual Search
14
Study 1: Multiscale Visual Search
• Participants: 12• Navigation Techniques: 2– P – PolyZoom– S – Simple Pan & Zoom
• Hierarchy Levels L : 3 (3,4,5) • Repetitions: 4• Task
15
Study 1: Multiscale Visual Search• Hypothesis: P will be faster than S• Result: significant main effect of Technique T on completion time • Also significant main effect of Hierarchy Level L on completion time • Completion time was roughly linear with number of hierarchy levels• Levels were significantly different with completion times ordered
3 < 4 < 5 (Tukey HSD, p < .05)• No significant interaction between T and L
16
Study 2: Multifocus Comparison
17
Study 2: Multifocus Comparison
• Participants: 12• Navigation Techniques: 2– P – PolyZoom– S – Simple Pan & Zoom
• Discovery Order D : 5 (1,2,3,4,5) • Repetitions: 2• Task
18
Study 2: Multifocus Comparison• Hypothesis: P will be faster than S• Result: significant main effect of technique T on completion time • Discovery order D had a significant main effect on completion time
• Roughly linear (as expected)• Pairwise differences between orders were significant (Tukey HSD, p < .05)
19
Subjective Ratings• Differences in ratings significant (Friedman test, p < .05)
20
PolyZoom for 20 Years of UIST
21
Conclusion
• Design of a multiscale and multifocus interaction technique called PolyZoom
• Evaluation with 2 user studies– Study 1 for multiscale visual search– Study 2 for multifocus comparisons
• PolyZoom performs better than pan & zoom
22
Thank You!
Contact Information:Sohaib GhaniPurdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA
E-mail: [email protected]
http://engineering.purdue.edu/pivot/
Online demo available:http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~wjaved/projects/stackZoom/
Partially funded by NSF Grant #1123108.
