Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
However, few studies have been carried out in this field. Hofstra et al. per-
formed a theoretical overview, which showed the potential applicability of
interactive surfaces to some of the process in disaster risk management in
the Netherlands (Hofstra et al. 2008). They only tested pan and zoom fea-
tures, which are definitively not representative of the complexity of a GIS,
but this study was done to design a commercial product (Geodan Eagle
2008) for crisis risk management. The hardware setup is based on the Mi-
crosoft Surface and the software reposes on the Microsoft's Citizen Safety
architecture. Users can both visualize and navigate in 2D and 3D scenes,
but they cannot add/edit geographical data into the live database. Users can
also change modes to get messages from ground operatives in a different
window.
Another research project uses an interactive tabletop for Emergency
Operation Centers (EOC) for supporting both team and individual work
(Bader et al. 2008). This system provides three main features: a) a second
large display is used to provide extra information; b) each participant can
use a tablet that can be placed at arbitrary locations on the tabletop to pro-
vide personalized perspectives in the information space; c) 16 gestures can
be performed on the surface of the tabletop (but the authors do not indicate
how they are used, except for navigational gestures). Using these gestures
requires an initial learning phase. This may be problematic during a crisis
situation as some users may have limited technical experience.
2.3 Our interactive and collaborative setup
2.3.1 Hardware setup
Our setup is based on an Immersion Ilight multi-touch tabletop (Immersion
2008). This technology provides a display of 72x96cm (1400x1050 pix-
els), which is suitable for the visualization of relatively large amounts of
geographical data. The size of the Ilight tabletop is optimal for efficient
collaborations (Ryal et al. 2004) because it is not too large (this would
make it difficult for participants to communicate), nor too small (partici-
pants would not have enough private space). For instance,
Figure 1
shows
several participants positioned face to face around the table during a meet-
ing where they share information and take decisions.
