For more than 60 years, researchers have sought techniques for image depiction that are best able to facilitate our understanding of electronically processed spatial information.

In this paper, the authors undertake a study of how three display modalities affect individual and group decision-making processes. Central to this study are the theories of cognitive fit and cognitive load.

The study centers on group decision making in relation to an architectural model that is presented to each group in one of three different ways. In one case, groups are presented with a bird’s-eye 2D model (floor plan). In the second case, participants see a 3D view, with the option of selecting one of four different vantage points. In the third case, participants are presented with an “immersive” 3D model, which enables full support for interaction.

The paper is well structured and the content is presented in a readily accessible manner. The results and conclusions make for interesting reading. However, the prospective reader should note that the third scenario, which refers to an “immersive” 3D presentation, does not represent a fully immersive virtual reality experience (or even a semi-immersive one, such as those available via technologies such as the CAVE). Instead, it appears to employ a standard form of display screen. A further restriction, which is acknowledged by the authors, is that each group was provided with only a single display modality; in practice, a group decision-making process might be better carried out using a mixed-mode technique in which, for example, users would be able to move between display modalities.

However, these limitations do not detract from the interesting work reported in this paper; they simply demonstrate opportunities for further work.