Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
(significantly for gentle learning curve, user-friendliness and ease of editing).
There was no clear winner for effectiveness.
The VE was also rated positive for statements to do with graphics (“high fidelity”),
geography (accuracy) and the professional context, though not significantly. CAD
also rated positively for the professional, graphic and geographic statements. For GIS,
the professional practice statements elicited positive responses overall, but surpris-
ingly not geographic accuracy.
The VE-specific results are very interesting in the context of this study:
through positively-rated spatial awareness, navigation and provision of design
context results, we can see that geography is effectively being transferred into
the VE. From the participants' comments, the addition of a draped orthophoto
was key in providing this positional, orientation, navigational and design con-
text. On top of that, 3D is working and is desired over 2D. This overcomes one
of the key criticisms of the VE used for the 2011 study, that use of the VE led
to geographic confusion (Zhang and Moore
2014
). The graphics results rein-
force the equivalent satisfaction-based feedback of the comparative study too,
as well as addressing the other chief concern of the 2011 study. Finally, there
is evidence that the online VR is working as it should: its real-time operation
is successful and a sense of user presence in the VE is being felt. Above all, the
participants can envisage using VR for their future professional work. However,
the ability to perform accurate and precise modification (in some way a meas-
ure of manipulating geography) scored weakest (yet was still positive) and was
highlighted in the comments as a critical focus of attention for VR to be a useful
tool in practice.
Also from the comments, there is evidence of a desired subdisciplinary focus
for the various tools. While CAD has a definite role in road and infrastructure
design, the use of GIS in analysis and visualization of future effects of develop-
ments was scoped. Both roles would be effective in a 3D sense, suggesting the
need for a unified 3D tool. Given the apparent usability of VR, it may be a good
starting point, building in drafting and analysis functionality in a way that does
not compromise VR's ease-of-use (perhaps gearing it to support geodesign tasks
too—Goodchild
2010
). Unlike CAD and GIS, originally built with profession-
als and specialists in mind (only recently has GIS in particular mass-entered the
public realm) and with relatively little attention paid to the user experience, the
VR interface comes from a social media/gaming background, where user-friend-
liness is paramount. This is reinforced by the study feedback and scores for ease
of use. However, before this can happen, there is non-familarity (only 2 out of
16 had tried VR before the study, confirming Axford et al.'s (
2007
) observed
reluctance to adopt VR in the field, also encountered by Lopes and Lindstrom
(
2012
)) and in some cases, inertia to address (one opinion expressed that urban
design could suffice with just its “traditional tools”). Despite this, the results for
VR should be regarded as especially impressive, given that the vast majority of
participants were VR novices, compared with being experienced in use of GIS
and CAD.
