1. Kira Lawrence

2.  Specialized 3D stereoscopic display  Silver-coated screen  Dual projector setup with filtering  Layers two monitor images atop one another

3.  Glasses create “passive” 3D effect ◦ Each eye sees a different monitor  UW – Agriculture building in WYGIS  Only one UW professor uses it

4.  GeoWalls help students understand trends/patterns effectively  GeoWalls in place in 400+ universities

5.  Faculty may be ◦ Unaware GeoWall exists / available ◦ Uncertain how to access / use GeoWall ◦ Intimidated by poor interface / controls

6.  Point-click input for 3D imagery  Current input unsatisfactory for 3D movement  Navigating /manipulating 3D more difficult than 2D

7.  If we can… ◦ Find a better input device ◦ Improve interface for software ◦ Faculty more comfortable using GeoWall ◦ Faculty more likely to use GeoWall

8.  Found no identical research  GeoWalls in education  3D interaction techniques / input devices ◦ 3D mice/ wands ◦ Touch ◦ Voice

9.  Nyko Wii Remote ◦ Positive research exists ◦ Less buttons to remember ◦ Cheaper interface implementation ◦ Extensible to classroom use

10.  alternative input device interface  ESRI ArcGIS Software  Bluetooth USB connect Wii Remote to PC  GlovePIE programmable input emulator

11.  Mapped keyboard / mouse input to Wii Remote  Basic navigation ◦ Panning ◦ Zooming ◦ Rotating  Mouse – joystick

12.  Pre-evaluation focused on ◦ Attitude ◦ Encouragement of students toward GeoWall use ◦ Knowledge ◦ Interest

13.  Post-evaluations focused on ◦ Attitude ◦ Encouragement of students toward GeoWall use ◦ Usability ◦ Comfort with system

14.  three faculty participants  one Atmospheric Science  two Geography

15.  Scores out of seven  Only three faculty evaluated  Two of three never seen / used Wii Remote ◦ Lower learnability, ease of use, comfort scores Efficiency4.00 +/- 0.82 Ease of Use3.82 +/- 1.85 Learnability3.88 +/- 1.83 User Comfort3.88 +/- 1.72 Errors / Problems6.33 +/- 0.47

16.  Overall attitude change within standard deviation  Not statistically significant  High errors ◦ Interference / unfamiliarity Efficiency4.00 +/- 0.82 Ease of Use3.82 +/- 1.85 Learnability3.88 +/- 1.83 User Comfort3.88 +/- 1.72 Errors / Problems6.33 +/- 0.47

17.  Most faculty totally unaware of GeoWall  One asked about booking  One commented positively on 3D quality

18.  No attitude change  Study itself may have increased awareness  Less Wii Remote experience = greater difficulty  Average usability  System neither ineffective nor effective

19.  Full-scale evaluation  Fix interference issues  Fix counter-intuitive implementation ◦ Zooming ◦ Panning  Inform faculty of GeoWall before evaluation

21.  EPSCoR  Neera Pradhan, Treschiel Ford, Alisa Maas  Dr. Amy Ulinski  Dr. Jacqueline Shinker  WYGIS  3D Interactions and Agents lab  Computer Science faculty

22.  [1] Johnson, A.; Leigh, J.; Morin, P.; Van Keken, P.;, "GeoWall: Stereoscopic Visualization for Geoscience Research and Education," Computer Graphics and Applications, IEEE, vol.26, no.6, pp.10-14, Nov.-Dec. 2006. DOI = http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=4012558&isnumber=4012551 http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=4012558&isnumber=4012551  [2] Teather, R.J.; Stuerzlinger, W.;, "Assessing the Effects of Orientation and Device on 3D Positioning," Virtual Reality Conference, 2008. VR '08. IEEE, pp.293-294, 8-12 March 2008. DOI = http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=4480807&isnumber=4480728 http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=4480807&isnumber=4480728  [3] Fountain, Henry. "GeoWall Project Expands the Window into Earth Science." New York Times, March 2005. DOI= http://search.proquest.com/docview/433028618?accountid=14793http://search.proquest.com/docview/433028618?accountid=14793  [4] Frohlich, B.; Hochstrate, J.; Kulik, A.; Huckauf, A.;, "On 3D input devices," Computer Graphics and Applications, IEEE, vol.26, no.2, pp. 15- 19, March-April 2006. doi: 10.1109/MCG.2006.45 URL: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=1607915&isnumber=33767 http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=1607915&isnumber=33767  [5] Kelly, Michael M., and Nancy R. Riggs. (2006). “Use of a virtual environment in the geowall to increase student confidence and performance during field mapping: An example from an introductory-level field class.” Journal of Geoscience Education vol.54, no.2 pp.158-164, DOI=  http://search.proquest.com/docview/202781162?accountid=14793 http://search.proquest.com/docview/202781162?accountid=14793  [6] Brooke, J. (1996). “SUS: a “quick and dirty” usability scale”. In P.W. Jordan, B. Thomas, B.A. Weerdmeester, & A.L. McClelland. Usability Evaluation in Industry. London: Taylor and Francis. DOI= http://www.usabilitynet.org/trump/documents/Suschapt.docwww.usabilitynet.org/trump/documents/Suschapt.doc