Re-visiting the Use of Surrogate Walks for Exploring Local Geographies Using Non-immersive Multimedia - Geographic Visualization: Concepts, Tools and Applications - page 135

Then this process was reversed:
1. Groups 1b and 2b were taken on a 'guided tour' of the area.
2. During this time Groups 1a and 2a undertook the evaluation/feedback of the VRML
model.
Candidates were asked to conduct two searches of the three-dimensional model of the study
area, one as a general 'exploration' of the area and the other a task-related search. In the
task-related search they were required to find specific buildings that are typical in the study
area. These searches were (1) naive (the candidates had no knowledge about where they were
located) and (2) primed (they knew the area after a walking tour prior to the evaluation).
They were asked to view two 'virtual tours' of the study area, one as a general 'exploration'
of the area and the other a task-related search. In the task-related search users were asked to
identify the different building types that are typical in the study area. They were also asked
to note the buildings that they thought were the key, or landmark, buildings.
Results
Candidates first considered whether the amount of detail provided was sufficient for them
to understand the general geography of the area. Did it provide sufficient information for
them to be able to make informed comments about potential developments in the area?
1. The amount of detail is sufficient. All groups found that there was sufficient detail to
understand the area.
2. There are adequate landmarks to assist in orienting oneself. Landmarks in the area, as
previously noted are mainly prominent buildings. All found that they had adequate
landmarks to assist, except Group 2a. This group had no prior knowledge of the area,
and they had been on a tour of the area prior to undertaking the evaluation. Here,
the users identified that, even though they had been on a tour, they thought that extra
information was required.
3. Having all buildings in full detail is necessary. All groups except 1a thought that there
was sufficient detail.
4. I could understand the area with less detail in this three-dimensional model, which would
provide me with an adequate mental representation of the area. Group 2b thought that
more detail was required. This group had no prior knowledge of the area and they
had not been on a tour prior to the evaluation. The other part of the 'no knowledge'
group (2a) thought that the level of detail was sufficient, but they did not indicate full
support of the amount of detail. Therefore, when users have little knowledge of the
area, they will respond better to the model if a tour is conducted prior to actually using
the tool.