Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Rudolf C. Hegemann Garcia

dblp:336/4293 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2022
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 1 · 1 since 2021Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 1 · 1 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper
Immersive interaction · 77% Usability and user experience research · 23%
Computer graphics and multimedia
1 paper
Visualization and visual analytics · 100%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Visualization and visual analytics › interactive visualization
out-of-view object visualization
0.612022
Arrow, Bézier Curve, or Halos? - Comparing 3D Out-of-View Object Visualization Techniques for Handheld Augmented Reality · ISMAR 2022
Immersive interaction › augmented reality
handheld augmented reality
0.612022
Arrow, Bézier Curve, or Halos? - Comparing 3D Out-of-View Object Visualization Techniques for Handheld Augmented Reality · ISMAR 2022

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

user study · 1.1case study · 1.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2022 Arrow, Bézier Curve, or Halos? - Comparing 3D Out-of-View Object Visualization Techniques for Handheld Augmented Reality
abstract
Handheld augmented reality (AR) applications allow users to interact with their virtually augmented environment on the screen of their tablet or smartphone by simply pointing its camera at nearby objects or “points of interest” (POIs). However, this often requires users to carefully scan their surroundings in search of POIs that are out of view. Proposed 2D guides for out-of-view POIs can, unfortunately, be ambiguous due to the projection of a 3D position to 2D screen space. We address this by using 3D visualizations that directly encode the POI’s 3D direction and distance. Based on related work, we implemented three such visualization techniques: (1) 3D Arrow, (2) 3D Bézier Curve, and (3) 3D Halos. We confirmed the applicability of these three techniques in a case study and then compared them in a user study, evaluating performance, workload, and user experience. Participants performed best using 3D Arrow, while surprisingly, 3D Halos led to poor results. We discuss the design implications of these results that can inform future 3D out-of-view object visualization techniques.
Jonathan Wieland, Rudolf C. Hegemann Garcia, Harald Reiterer, Tiare M. Feuchtner
ISMAR2