Institute for Psychology III, Unit of Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtzstrasse 10, 01069 Dresden, Germany.
Appl Ergon. 2012 Jan;43(1):48-56. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2011.03.005. Epub 2011 Apr 16.
This study focuses on the comparison of traditional engineering drawings with a CAD (computer aided design) visualization in terms of user performance and eye movements in an applied context. Twenty-five students of mechanical engineering completed search tasks for measures in two distinct depictions of a car engine component (engineering drawing vs. CAD model). Besides spatial dimensionality, the display types most notably differed in terms of information layout, access and interaction options. The CAD visualization yielded better performance, if users directly manipulated the object, but was inferior, if employed in a conventional static manner, i.e. inspecting only predefined views. An additional eye movement analysis revealed longer fixation durations and a stronger increase of task-relevant fixations over time when interacting with the CAD visualization. This suggests a more focused extraction and filtering of information. We conclude that the three-dimensional CAD visualization can be advantageous if its ability to manipulate is used.
本研究聚焦于在实际应用情境中，比较传统工程图纸与 CAD（计算机辅助设计）可视化在用户表现和眼动方面的差异。25 名机械工程专业的学生在两种不同的汽车发动机部件描述方式（工程图纸与 CAD 模型）中完成了测量搜索任务。除了空间维度，显示类型在信息布局、访问和交互选项方面差异最为显著。如果用户直接操作对象，CAD 可视化的效果更好，但如果以传统的静态方式使用，即仅检查预定义的视图，则效果较差。额外的眼动分析表明，在与 CAD 可视化交互时，注视持续时间更长，并且与任务相关的注视次数随着时间的推移而增加。这表明信息的提取和过滤更加集中。我们的结论是，如果能够充分利用 CAD 可视化的操作能力，那么它将具有优势。
