We evaluate the performance and usability of mouse-based, touch-based, and tangible interaction for manipulating objects in a 3D virtual environment. This comparison is a step toward a better understanding of the limitations and benefits of these existing interaction techniques, with the ultimate goal of facilitating the integration of different 3D data exploration environments into a single interaction continuum. For this purpose we analyze participants' performance in 3D manipulation using a docking task. We measured completion times, docking precision, as well as subjective criteria such as fatigue, workload, and preference. Our results show that the three input modalities provide similar levels of precision but require different interaction times. We also discuss our qualitative observations as well as people's preferences and put our findings into context of the practical application domain of 3D data analysis environments.
We report results from a formal user study of interactive 3D rotation using the mouse-driven Virtual Sphere and Arcball techniques, as well as multidimensional input techniques based on magnetic orientation sensors. MultidimensionaI input is often assumed to allow users to work quickly, but at the cost of precision, due to the instability of the hand moving in the open air. We show that, at least for the orientation matching task used in this experiment, users can take advantage of the integrated degrees of freedom provided by multidimensional input without necessarily sacrificing precision: using multidimensional input, users completed the experimental task up to 36 faster without any statistically detectable loss of accuracy. We also report detailed observations of common usability problems when first encountering the techniques. Our observations suggest some design issues for 3D input devices. For example, the physical form-factors of the 3D input device significantly influenced user acceptance of otherwise identical input sensors. The device should afford some tactile cues, so the user can feel its orientation without looking at it. In the absence of such cues, some test users were unsure of how to use the device. We present an experimental comparison of multi-touch and tangible user interfaces for basic interface actions. Twelve participants completed manipulation and acquisition tasks on an interactive surface in each of three conditions: tangible user interface; multi-touch; and mouse and puck. We found that interface control objects in the tangible condition were easiest to acquire and, once acquired, were easier more accurate to manipulate. Further qualitative analysis suggested that in the evaluated tasks tangibles offer greater adaptability of control and specifically highlighted a problem of exit error that can undermine fine-grained control in multi-touch interactions. We discuss the implications of these findings for interface design.