Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A comparative study on user gestural inputs for navigation in NUI-based 3D virtual environments

  • Long Paper
  • Published:
Universal Access in the Information Society Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper describes the results of a case study intended to compare three different user movement paradigms (metaphoric, symbolic and natural) designed to control the visit of virtual environments for a NUI-based museum installation. It also evaluates the effects of previous expertise with 3D video games in the results for users that took part in the study. The study evaluates the performance of each movement scheme for the navigation of the environment, the degree of intuitiveness perceived by the users, and the user experience. The analysis is based on the data collected in an experiment with 28 participants sorted into two groups, separating users with less previous expertise in 3D videogames from those who considered themselves as frequent players. During the experiment, the participants completed two different tasks with every movement scheme in random order. During the course of the test, the system monitored and recorded the user movements in order to extract relevant data about time to complete the task, number of collisions and time spent in a collision condition. A post-task questionnaire was carried out immediately after completion of every task. At the end of the session, users also took a test questionnaire. In addition, the authors asked users for general comments and recommendations for improvement. The results show that the natural movement scheme stands out as the most adequate for the contemplation of the virtual environment and the most balanced at a general level for the three variables considered. The symbolic scheme proved the most efficient. The natural movement scheme and symbolic scheme appear to be the most appropriate to navigate such digital environments as those present in museum installations for any kind of user.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Desvallées, A., Mairesse, F.: Key Concepts Of Museology. International Council of Museums. Armand Colin, Paris (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ross, M.: Interpreting the new museology. Mus Soc 2(2), 84–103 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Vergo, P.: New Museology. Reaktion books, United Kingdom (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Hooper-Greenhill, E: Counting visitors or visitors who count? In: The museum time machine, 221–240. Routledge (2003).

  5. Doering, Z.D.: Strangers, guests, or clients? visitor experiences in museums . Curator 42(2), 74–87 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hernández Ibáñez, L. A., Mihura López, R., Barneche Naya, V.: Nuevas tecnologías en los museos, de la contemplación a la experiencia. In: Cómo se cuelga un cuadro virtual?Las exposiciones en la era digital, 19–100. Gijón: Trea (2009).

  7. Lun, R., Zhao, W.: A survey of applications and human motion recognition with microsoft kinect. Int. J. Pattern Recognit Artif Intell. 29(05), 1555008 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Pletinck,D., Capurro, C., Ferdani, D., and Pescarin, S.: Deliverable Report. D 8.9, European Virtual Museum Observatory. https://www.vmust.net/library/documents/d89-eu-virtual-museumobservatory-evmo-Report.html, pp. 6, 16–18. (2015). Last accessed 2019/11/21.

  9. Ray, C., Pescarin, S., Pagano, A.: Deliverable Report. D7.1 Virtual Museum Quality Label. https://www.v-must.net/sites/default/files/D7. 1c%20Quality_v2.pdf, pp. 32–39. (2015). Last accessed 2019/11/21.

  10. Sheng, W., Ishikawa, K., Tanaka, H.T., Tsukamoto, A., Tanaka, S.: Photorealistic VR space reproductions of historical kyoto sites based on a next-generation 3D game engine. J Adv Simulat Sci Eng 1(1), 188–204 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Lercari, N., Mortara, M., Forte, M.: Unveiling California History through Serious Games: Fort Ross Virtual Warehouse. Games and Learning Alliance, pp.236–251. Springer International Publishing (2014).

  12. Pietroni, E., Adami, A.: Interacting with virtual reconstructions in museums: The Etruscanning Project. J Comput Cult Herit (JOCCH) 7(2), 9 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Richards-Rissetto, H., Robertsson, J., von Schwerin, J., Agugiaro, G., Remondino, F., Girardi, G.: Geospatial virtual heritage: a gesture-based 3D gis to engage the public with ancient maya archaeology. Archaeol Digit Era 7, 118–130 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Cappelletto, E., Zanuttigh, P., Cortelazzo, G.M.: 3D scanning of cultural heritage with consumer depth cameras. Multimed Tools Appl 7, 1–24 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Fanini, B., d’Annibale, E., Demetrescu, E., Ferdani, D., Pagano, A.: Engaging and shared gesture-based interaction for museums the case study of K2R international expo in Rome. Digital Heritage 1, 263–270 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Bowman, D. A., Johnson, D. B., Hodges, L. F.: Testbed evaluation of virtual environment interaction techniques. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 10(1), pp. 75–95. (2001).

  17. Bowman, D.A., Koller, D., Hodges, L.F.: A methodology for the evaluation of travel techniques for immersive virtual environments. Virtual Real 3(2), 120–131 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hernández-Ibáñez, L. A., Barneche-Naya, V., Mihura-López, R.: A comparative study of walkthrough paradigms for virtual environments using kinect based natural interaction. In Virtual System & Multimedia (VSMM), 2016 22nd International Conference, pp. 1–7. IEEE. (2016).

  19. Burigat, S., Chittaro, L.: Navigation in 3D virtual environments: Effects of user experience and location-pointing navigation aids. Int. J. Hum Comput Stud. 65(11), 945–958 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Smith, S., Du'Mont, S: Measuring the effect of gaming experience on virtual environment navigation tasks. IEEE 3D User Interfaces-3DUI 2009, 3–10. (2009).

  21. Creswell, J.W.: Research design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 3rd edn. Sage publications, NY (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Macaranas, A., Antle, A.N., Riecke, B.E.: What is intuitive interaction? Balancing users’ performance and satisfaction with natural user interfaces. Interact. Comput. 27(3), 357–370 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Holland S.: Asymmetrical Multi-User Co-operative Whole Body Interaction in Abstract Domains. CHI’10. Whole Body Interaction Workshop, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. ACM Press. (2010)

  24. Antle, A.N., Corness, G., Droumeva, M.: What the body knows: exploring the benefits of embodied metaphors in hybrid physical environments. Interact. Comput. 21, 66–75 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hurtienne, J., Weber, K., Blessing, L.: Prior experience and intuitive use: image schemas in user-centered design. In: Langdon, P., Clarkson, J.P., Robinson, P. (eds.) Designing inclusive futures, pp. 107–116. Springer, Berlin (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  26. Celentano, A., Dubois, E.: Metaphors, analogies, symbols: in search of naturalness in tangible user interfaces. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Intelligent Human Computer Interaction. Paris, France. (2014).

  27. Sperka, M.: Past and future of Human-Computer interaction. Proceedings of the International Conference on Current Issues of Science and Research in the Global World. Vienna Austria. (2014).

  28. Ministerio de Cultura: Conociendo a todos los públicos. ¿Qué imágenes se asocian a los museos? Secretaría General Técnica de la Subdirección General de Publicaciones, Información y Documentación (Ministerio de Cultura). https://sede.educacion.gob.es/publiventa/descarga.action?f_codigo_agc=14315C. (2012). Last accessed 2019/12/01.

  29. Sauro, J., Lewis, J. R.: Quantifying the user experience: Practical statistics for user research. Morgan Kaufmann (2012).

  30. Spool J.M.: What makes a design seem ‘intuitive’? User Interface Eng. https://www.uie.com/articles/design_intuitive/ (2005)

  31. Albert, W., Tullis, T.: Measuring the user experience: collecting, analyzing, and presenting usability metrics. Newnes. (2013).

  32. ISO 9241–11:2018: Ergonomics of human-system interaction-Part 11: Usability: Definitions and concepts. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso: std: iso: 9241:-11:ed-2:v1:en:en. Last accessed 2019/12/01.

  33. Lindgaard, G., Dudek, C.: What is this evasive beast we call user satisfaction? Interact. Comput. 15(3), 429–452 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Shackel B: Usability–context, framework, design and evaluation. Artikkeli teoksessa Shackel, B, Richardson S (eds) Human Factors for Informatics Usability. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 21, p38. (1991).

  35. Seffah, A., Donyaee, M., Kline, R.B., Padda, H.K.: Usability measurement and metrics: a consolidated model. Software Qual. J. 14(2), 159–178 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Hassenzahl, M.: Hedonic, emotional, and experiential perspectives on product quality. In: Encyclopaedia of Human Computer Interaction, pp.266–272. IGI Global. (2006).

  37. Sauro, J., Dumas, J. S.: Comparison of three one-question, post-task usability questionnaires. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pp. 1599–1608. ACM. (2009).

  38. Norman, D.: The design of everyday things: Revised and expanded edition. Basic books. (2013).

  39. Rubin, J., Chisnell, D.: Handbook of usability testing: how to plan, design and conduct effective tests. Wiley (2008).

  40. Csikszentmihalyi, M.: Flow. The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper & Row. (1990).

  41. Barneche-Naya, V. & Hernandez-Ibáñez, L.A. UX Aspects of Kinect-based Movement Schemes inside Virtual Envoronments for Museum Installations. In Learning and Collaboration Technologies. Ubiquitous and Virtual Environments for Learning and Collaboration. pp 133–150. Springer (2019)

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Videalab, Universidade da Coruña, A Coruña, Spain

    Viviana Barneche-Naya & Luis A. Hernández-Ibañez

Authors
  1. Viviana Barneche-Naya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Luis A. Hernández-Ibañez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luis A. Hernández-Ibañez.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Barneche-Naya, V., Hernández-Ibañez, L.A. A comparative study on user gestural inputs for navigation in NUI-based 3D virtual environments. Univ Access Inf Soc 20, 513–529 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-020-00766-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-020-00766-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation