skip to main content
10.1145/3424616.3424716acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pagesweb3dConference Proceedingsconference-collections
abstract

Investigating the Influence of 2—D presentation versus 3—D rotation presentation formats on user perception

Authors Info & Claims
Published:09 November 2020Publication History

ABSTRACT

When presenting a product through digital media, both designers and retailers aim to communicate with their audience in the most effective way using visual perception. Previous studies have found that a users’ perception and behavior are affected by the visual presentation. The purpose of this study is to discover how a users' perception and evaluation of a product change depending on how the product is presented. In this study, we specifically look at the presentation formats of 2—D orthographic views and 3—D simulated format (360 rotation). This study employs a between-subject design with surveys and an eye—tracking test to determine if 2—D presentation or 3—D presentation resulted in better user evaluation and higher approval to the product design. We found that users have a better understanding of product aesthetics, usefulness, and product ease of use when they were viewing 2—D orthographic images of products versus when they were viewing the 3—D 360 rotation presentation format. Future marketing, design, and theoretical implications as well as future research directions are discussed.

References

  1. H. Li, T. Daugherty, and F. Biocca. 2002. Impact of 3-D advertising on product knowledge, brand attitude, and purchase intention: the mediating role of presence. Journal of Advertising 31(3):43–57.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. A. Mehrabian and J. A. Russel. 1974. An approach to environmental psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. J. Park, L. Stoel, and S. J. Lennon. 2008. Cognitive, affective and conative responses to visual simulation: the effects of rotation in online product presentation. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 7(1), 72–87. doi: 10.1002/cb.237Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. J. Peck and T. L. Childers. 2003. To have and to Hold: The Influence of Haptic Information on Product Judgments. Journal of Marketing, 67(2), 35–48. doi: 10.1509/jmkg.67.2.35.18612Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Deborah Richards and Meredith Taylor. 2015. A Comparison of learning gains when using a 2D simulation tool versus a 3D virtual world: An experiment to find the right representation involving the Marginal Value Theorem. Computers & Education,86, 157-171.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. D. D. Salvucci and J. H. Goldberg. 2000. Identifying fixations and saccades in eye-tracking protocols. Proceedings of the Symposium on Eye Tracking Research & Applications – ETRA 2000. doi: 10.1145/355017.355028Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)7
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

    Other Metrics

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format .

View HTML Format