Abstract
This chapter describes an approach to the development of virtual representations of real places. The work was funded under the European Union’s €20 m Future and Emerging Technologies theme of the 5th Framework Programme, “Presence”. The aim of the project, called BENOGO, was to develop a novel technology based on real-time image-based rendering (IBR) for representing places in virtual environments. The specific focus of the work presented here concerned how to capture the essential features of real places, and how to represent that knowledge, so that the team developing the IBR-based virtual environments could produce an environment that was as realistic as possible. This involved the development and evaluation of a number of virtual environments and the evolution of two complementary techniques; the Place Probe and Patterns of place.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alexander, C. (1977). A pattern language. New York: Oxford University Press.
Benyon, D. R. (2012). Presence in blended spaces. Interacting with Computers, 24(4), 219–226.
Benyon, D. (2013). Designing interactive systems (3rd ed.). London: Pearson.
Benyon, D., Smyth, M., O’Neill, S., McCall, R., & Carroll, F. (2006). The place probe: Exploring a sense of place in real and virtual environments. Presence: The Journal of Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 15(6), 668–687.
Borchers, J. (2001). A pattern approach to interaction design. Chichester: Wiley.
Casey, E. S. (1997). The fate of place. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Dourish, P. (2001). Where the action is. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R. & Vlissides, J. (1995). Design patterns: Elements of reusable object oriented software (Addison-Wesley professional computing series).
Gaver, B., Dunne, T., & Pacenti, E. (1999). Design: Cultural probes. Interactions, 6(1), 21–29.
Graham, I. (2003). A pattern language for Web usability. Harlow: Pearson.
Gustafson, P. (2001). Meanings of place: Everyday experience and theoretical conceptualizations. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 5–16.
Jorgensen, B. S., & Stedman, R. C. (2001). Sense of place as an attitude: Lakeshore owner’s attitudes towards their properties. Journal of Enviromental Psychology, 21, 233–248.
Lawson, B. (2001). The language of space. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Lessiter, J., Freeman, E., Keogh, E. & Davidoff, J. (2000). Development of a new cross-media questionnaire: The ITC-sense of presence, In Proceedings of 3rd international workshop on presence. Available at http://ispr.info/presence-conferences/previous-conferences/presence-2000/
Lombard, M. & Ditton, T. (1997). At the heart of it all: The concept of presence. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(2). http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol3/issue2/lombard.html
McCall R, O’Neill S, Benyon D, Smyth M. (2004). A method for designing virtual places. In Proceedings of the seventh annual international workshop presence 2004, Universidad Politecnica de Valencia, Spain. Available at http://ispr.info/presence-conferences/previous-conferences/
McCall, R., O’Neill, S., Carroll, F., Benyon, D., & Smyth, M. (2005). Responsive environments, place and presence. Psychnology, 3(1), 34–74.
O’Neill, S. & Benyon, D. (2003) A Semiotic approach to the investigating presence, In Proceedings of COSIGN2003, University of Teesside, Middlesbrough. Available at http://www.cosignconference.org/conference/2003/
O’Neill, S. J., McCall, R., Smyth, M., & Benyon, D. R. (2004). Probing the sense of place. In Proceedings of the seventh annual international workshop presence 2004, Universidad Politecnica de Valencia, Spain. Available at http://ispr.info/presence-conferences/previous-conferences
Relph, E. (1976). Place and placelessness. London: Pion Books.
Riva, G., Waterworth, J., Waterworth, E., & Mantovani, F. (2011). From intention to action: The role of presence. New Ideas in Psychology, 21(1), 24–37.
Shum, S. B. H., Chan, S., & Kang, S. B. (2007). Image-based rendering. New York: Springer.
Smyth, M. (2005). Articulating the sense of place experienced by visitors to the Jencks Landform. In P. Turner & E. Davenport (Ed.), Spaces, spatiality and technology (pp. 249–260). London: Springer.
Tidwell, J. (2005). Designing interfaces: Patterns for effective interface design. Sebastepol, CA: O’Reilly.
Tuan, Y.-F. (1977). Space and place: The perspective of experience. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Turner, P. & Turner, S. (2003, September 8–12). Two phenomenological studies of place. In Proceedings of the British Computer Society annual conference on human-computer interaction (BCS-HCI). Bath, United Kingdom.
Turner, P., & Turner, S. (2006). Place, sense of place, and presence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 15(2), 204–217.
Turner, S., Turner, P., Carroll, F., O’Neill, S., Benyon, D., McCall, R., & Smyth, M. (2003). Re-creating the Botanics: Towards a sense of place in virtual environments. The 3rd UK Environmental Psychology Conference, June 2003, Aberdeen, UK
Turner, P., Turner, S., & Carroll, F. (2005). The tourist gaze: Contextualised virtual environments. In P. Turner & E. Davenport (Eds.), Spaces, spatiality and technology (pp. 281–297). Dordrecht: Springer.
van Duyne, D. K., Landay, J. & Hong, J. I. (2002). The design of sites: Principles, processes and patterns for crafting a customer-centered Web experience. Boston: Addison Wesley.
van Welie, M. (2006). Patterns in interaction design. Online: http://www.welie.com
Vorderer, P., Wirth, W., Gouveia, F. R., Biocca, F., Saari, T., Jäncke, F., Böcking, S., Schramm, H., Gysbers, A., Hartmann, T., Klimmt, C., Laarni, J., Ravaja, N., Sacau, A., Baumgartner, T., & Jäncke, P. (2004). MEC Spatial Presence Questionnaire (MEC-SPQ): Short documentation and instructions for application. Report to the European Community, Project Presence: MEC (IST-2001-37661). Online. Available from http://www.ijk.hmt-hannover.de/presence
Westerlund, B., Lindquist, S., & Sundblad, Y. (2001, September 13–14). Cooperative design of communication support for and with families in Stockholm using communication maps, communication probes and low-tech prototypes. First Equator IRC Workshop on Ubiquitous Computing in Domestic Environments, Nottingham.
Witmer, B. G., & Singer, M. J. (1998). Measuring presence in virtual environments: A presence questionnaire. Presence: The Journal of Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 7(3), 225–240.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank all members of the BENOGO project for their input and co-operation with the studies mentioned in this paper. Funding for this project was provided by the European Union under grant number IST-2001-39184.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix: The Place Probe
Appendix: The Place Probe
10.1.1 Instructions
Please read the following questions carefully and answer all parts of the booklet. It should take around 10 min to complete. Once finished please return the booklet to the researchers. Thank you for your co-operation.
10.1.2 Background Information
Age: Sex:
Nationality:
First time visitor/Regular visitor:
10.1.3 Description
Please write a paragraph of description telling us about your experience of being in the place you have just visited.
10.1.4 Map
Please draw us a map of the place you have just visited. Indicate the most important features that you remember and the best place to stand to see them.
10.1.5 Features
Pick 3 features of the environment that you remember and rank them in order of importance:
1
2
3
10.1.6 Pictures
From the photographs provided, please select one that best captures your experience of being in the place you have just visited. Write down the number from the back of the photograph onto this page and tell us why you chose it (if no photographs are provided skip this section).
10.1.7 Sounds
Please describe any sounds that you remember from the environment you have just visited.
10.1.8 Words
Please write down six individual words that best capture your experience of being in the place you have just visited.
On the tables provided in each question below, please mark a cross in the box that best describes your experience in relation to the adjectives provided at either side. Below is an example for an experience that was ‘quite bad’ and ‘very light’.
-
(Example)
Very | Quite | Neither | Quite | Very | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Good | x | Bad | ||||
Light | x | Dark |
-
Did the images that were displayed seem?
Very | Quite | Neither | Quite | Very | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Grainy | Clear | |||||
Realistic | Unrealistic | |||||
Unbelievable | Believable | |||||
Distorted | Accurate |
-
Did the movement of the images seem?
Very | Quite | Neither | Quite | Very | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Smooth | Jerky | |||||
Broken | Unbroken | |||||
Slow | Fast | |||||
Consistent | Erratic |
-
Did you feel that you were?
Very | Quite | Neither | Quite | Very | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Passive | Active | |||||
Free | Restricted | |||||
Disorientated | Oriented | |||||
Inside | Outside | |||||
Mobile | Immobile |
-
Did you feel that the environment was?
Very | Quite | Neither | Quite | Very | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Small | Big | |||||
Empty | Full | |||||
Light | Dark | |||||
Enclosed | Open | |||||
Permanent | Temporary | |||||
Colorless | Colorful | |||||
Static | Moving | |||||
Responsive | Inert | |||||
Far | Near | |||||
Untouchable | Touchable |
-
Did you feel that the environment was?
Very | Quite | Neither | Quite | Very | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ugly | Beautiful | |||||
Pleasant | Unpleasant | |||||
Stressful | Relaxing | |||||
Harmful | Harmless | |||||
Exciting | Boring | |||||
Interesting | Uninteresting | |||||
Memorable | Forgettable | |||||
Meaningful | Meaningless | |||||
Confusing | Understandable | |||||
Significant | Insignificant |
Please answer the following questions by placing a tick in the box that best expresses your feelings.
-
1 = I totally disagree
-
2 = I disagree
-
3 = I neither agree nor disagree
-
4 = I agree
-
5 = I totally agree
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
Q1.1 I devoted my whole attention to the [medium]. | |||||
Q1.2 I concentrated on the [medium]. | |||||
Q1.3 The [medium] captured my senses. | |||||
Q1.4 I dedicated myself completely to the [medium]. | |||||
Q2.1 I was able to imagine the arrangement of the spaces presented in the [medium] very well. | |||||
Q2.2 I had a precise idea of the spatial surroundings presented in the [medium]. | |||||
Q2.3 I was able to make a good estimate of the size of the presented space. | |||||
Q2.4 Even now, I still have a concrete mental image of the spatial environment. | |||||
Q3.1 I felt like I was actually there in the environment of the presentation. | |||||
Q3.2 It was as though my true location had shifted into the environment in the presentation. | |||||
Q3.3 I felt as though I was physically present in the environment of the presentation. | |||||
Q3.4 It seemed as though I actually took part in the action of the presentation | |||||
Q4.1 I had the impression that I could be active in the environment of the presentation. | |||||
Q4.2 I felt like I could move around among the objects in the presentation. | |||||
Q4.3 The objects in the presentation gave me the feeling that I could do things with them. | |||||
Q4.4 It seemed to me that I could do whatever I wanted in the environment of the presentation. | |||||
Q5.1 I thought most about things having to do with the [medium]. | |||||
Q5.2 I thoroughly considered what the things in the presentation had to do with one another. | |||||
Q5.3 The [medium] presentation activated my thinking. | |||||
Q5.4 I thought about whether the [medium] presentation could be of use to me. | |||||
Q6.1 I concentrated on whether there were any inconsistencies in the [medium]. | |||||
Q6.2 I didn’t really pay attention to the existence of errors or inconsistencies in the [medium]. | |||||
Q6.3 I took a critical viewpoint of the [medium] presentation. | |||||
Q6.4 It was not important for me whether the [medium] contained errors or contradictions. | |||||
Q7.1 I am generally interested in the topic of the [medium]. | |||||
Q7.2 I have felt a strong affinity to the theme of the [medium] for a long time. | |||||
Q7.3 There was already a fondness in me for the topic of the [medium] before I was exposed to it. | |||||
Q7.4 I just love to think about the topic of the[medium]. | |||||
Q8.1 When someone shows me a blueprint, I am able to imagine the space easily. | |||||
Q8.2 It’s easy for me to negotiate a space in my mind without actually being there. | |||||
Q8.3 When I read a text, I can usually easily imagine the arrangement of the objects described. | |||||
Q8.4 When someone describes a space to me, it’s usually very easy for me to imagine it clearly |
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Smyth, M., Benyon, D., McCall, R., O’Neill, S., Carroll, F. (2015). Patterns of Place: An Integrated Approach for the Design and Evaluation of Real and Virtual Environments. In: Lombard, M., Biocca, F., Freeman, J., IJsselsteijn, W., Schaevitz, R. (eds) Immersed in Media. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10190-3_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10190-3_10
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-10189-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-10190-3
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)