Have a personal or library account? Click to login
User Preferences of Perspective and Dimensionality of Tourism Space Geovisualisation Supporting Orientation in a Non-Immersive Virtual Reality Cover

User Preferences of Perspective and Dimensionality of Tourism Space Geovisualisation Supporting Orientation in a Non-Immersive Virtual Reality

Quaestiones Geographicae
Volume 43 (2024): Issue 3 (September 2024)
By: Alina Zajadacz and  Łukasz Halik  
Open Access
|Aug 2024

Figures & Tables

Fig. 1.

Three variations of reference frames. Left: No reference frame. Middle: Egocentric reference frame or simulated Computer Automated Virtual Environment (CAVE). Right: Allocentric reference frame or simulated room according to Nguyen-Vo et al. (2017, p. 207).
Three variations of reference frames. Left: No reference frame. Middle: Egocentric reference frame or simulated Computer Automated Virtual Environment (CAVE). Right: Allocentric reference frame or simulated room according to Nguyen-Vo et al. (2017, p. 207).

Fig. 2.

Six plans for a large-scale building subjected to a user preference survey. A) 2D plan of the building in passerby perspective, B) 2D plan of the building in bird-eye view perspective, C) 2D plan of the building in top-down view perspective, D) 3D plan of the building in passerby perspective, E) 3D plan of the building in bird-eye view perspective, F) 3D plan of the building in top-down view perspective.
Six plans for a large-scale building subjected to a user preference survey. A) 2D plan of the building in passerby perspective, B) 2D plan of the building in bird-eye view perspective, C) 2D plan of the building in top-down view perspective, D) 3D plan of the building in passerby perspective, E) 3D plan of the building in bird-eye view perspective, F) 3D plan of the building in top-down view perspective.

Fig. 3.

Experimental setup.
Experimental setup.

Fig. 4.

The preferences of the respondents regarding the presentation perspective in terms of gender and the results of the Santa Barbara Sense of Direction and mental rotation tests.
The preferences of the respondents regarding the presentation perspective in terms of gender and the results of the Santa Barbara Sense of Direction and mental rotation tests.

Fig. 5.

The preferences of the respondents regarding the dimensionality of the presentation in terms of gender and the results of the Santa Barbara Sense of Direction and mental rotation tests.
The preferences of the respondents regarding the dimensionality of the presentation in terms of gender and the results of the Santa Barbara Sense of Direction and mental rotation tests.

Fig. 6.

Preferences in terms of plans, including independent variables (gender and Santa Barbara Sense of Direction and mental rotation tests results).
Preferences in terms of plans, including independent variables (gender and Santa Barbara Sense of Direction and mental rotation tests results).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.14746/quageo-2024-0027 | Journal eISSN: 2081-6383 | Journal ISSN: 2082-2103
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 77 - 86
Submitted on: Jul 19, 2023
Published on: Aug 12, 2024
Published by: Adam Mickiewicz University
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 issues per year
Keywords:
user preferences,
PC monitor,
cartographic perspective,
two-dimensional vs. three-dimensional,
building plan
Related subjects:
Geosciences,
Geography

© 2024 Alina Zajadacz, Łukasz Halik, published by Adam Mickiewicz University
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 43 (2024): Issue 3 (September 2024)Next article