EXPERIMENTS WITH NOTARIES ABOUT THE SEMIOLOGY OF 3D CADASTRAL MODELS
J. Pouliot
a
, C. Wang
a
, V. Fuchs
b
, F. Hubert
a
, M. Bédard
c
a Department of Geomatics Sciences, Université Laval, Quebec City, Canada, jacynthe.pouliot; frederic.hubert scg.ulaval.ca and chen.wang.1ulaval.ca
b École supérieure des géomètres et topographes, Le Mans, France, vfuchs07gmail.com c Groupe VRSB, Quebec City, Canada, m.bedardgroupevrsb.com
Commission II, WG II2
KEY WORDS: 3D symbolization and cartography, semiology, visual variables, user
’s requirements, 3D cadastre
ABSTRACT: Based on the hypothesis that 3D cadastral models are helpful for notaries, this study investigates the performance of visual variables
for the visualization of 3D models. The approach undertaken uses face-to-face interviews with notaries involved in co-ownership establishment. A 3D geometric model of a complex condominium building is used as the studied case to which a selection of visual
variables is applied. Thirty visual solutions are tested against six notarial visualization tasks and notaries are asked several questions. Based on the preliminary responses, we can now say that colour is the visual variable most appreciated by notaries, regardless of the
visualization task. The use of transparency is helpful in many cases, more specifically when reading annotation official measures. However, confusion arises when too extensive geometry of 3D lots is viewed simultaneously, and unnecessary when the geometry of
the lots is fully visible. Moving the position of the geometry of a group of lots by floor for example looks also promising. Although this interview-based approach is subjective and empirical, it helps us to better consider the end-user
’s interests and take into consideration their professional opinion and requirements. The 30 visual solutions produced during these first experiments constitute
a useful foundation for further analysis.
1. INTRODUCTION
Visualizing 3D models on a computer display screen is now part of the regular tasks done by a number of users Bleisch
2012; Häberling, et al., 2008; Wood et al., 2005. 3D visualization software usually provides tools to change the
graphical appearance of 3D models e.g. changing the colour of the faces, the size of the borderline, etc.. Viewing tools are
often generic from the perspective of cartographic design aspects while users are free to change the visual aspects of the
3D model. This customizing approach for viewing needs presents some advantages such as enabling the creation and the
combination of custom symbols for a specific purpose, but may also limit the opportunity of having coherent and standardized
3D visual solutions to support decision making MacEachren and Kraak, 2001; Rogowitz et al., 1996. This situation is
estimated more crucial when the application of 3D models is rather novel such as in a cadastral domain where the user-
notaries are not experts in 3D viewing or designing software and not aware of the risk of producing a 3D visual solution that
is inadequate or even incorrect. Consequently, supporting the end-users with respect to
semiology aspects when viewing 3D model appears to be a necessity. Many works exist on 2D mapping design Bertin,
1967, Brewer et al., 1997; Garlandini and Fabrikant, 2009 and some appear in 3D modelling Foss et al., 2005; Häberling et
al.,
2008; Pegg 2009; Trapp et al., 2010. How the semiology influences decision making is a primary concern in these
references. As regards 3D viewing, several questions still require fine-tuning, such as whether or not 2D mapping rules
fully apply to 3D. Do standards for good practices to symbolize 3D models exist? Do other specificities relate to 3D model
visualization? For example, Pegg 2008 concluded that viewing angles and illumination are prominent factors in 3D
models compared to visual variables. Hardisty 2001 suggested reflectance was another visual variable in the theoretical
investigation of 3D visualization and recognized that light sources, cameras and even fog are persuasive visual properties.
Many works in the literature already addressed the advantages of using 3D cadastral models Aien et al. 2011; Ekbäck 2011;
Erba, 2012; Pouliot et al., 2010; Stoter, 2004. Assuming that 3D cadastral models of a condominium may optimize decision
making for notarial purposes, this study will assess some visual variables and enhancement techniques to support this process.
The study will address this question by estimating whether some of the visual variables position, colour, texture, value
and the enhancement technique transparency perform better for notarial decision making within the context of co-ownership
establishment. Assessing 3D visual solutions is done through interviews with civil law notaries; the users targeted for these
first experiments. We view this as a valuable approach to gain a better understanding and integrate the end-users point of view,
not that of the
3D model’s designer. In some ways, this approach appears unique in cadastral applications compared to
other methods observed in the literature. Moreover, few analyses of visual variables and 3D model integrate professional
tasks or users in the assessment. This strategy also has limits that will be discussed in the conclusion.
This study is a follow-up to the preliminary tests conducted last fall with theoretical users, tasks and 3D models Chen et al.,
2012. In the present research, a real case of a complex building was used, with notaries who are currently performing notarial
tasks regarding the condominium e.g. delimitation of property right. The notaries are acting within the context of Quebec civil
Volume XL-2W2, ISPRS 8th 3DGeoInfo Conference WG II2 Workshop, 27 – 29 November 2013, Istanbul, Turkey
This contribution has been peer-reviewed. The peer-review was conducted on the basis of the abstract. 53
law. The ultimate purpose of these research activities is to guide the establishment of 3D cartographic design aspects and to
promote good practices in 3D modelling activities applied to non-conventional domains.
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents the experimental setup for the interviews. Section 3 proposes a
preliminary analysis of the results. Section 4 provides a conclusion and opens up discussions about future works.
2. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP FOR THE INTERVIEWS
