To Slide or Not to Slide: Exploring Techniques for Comparing Immersive Videos

TL;DR

This work adapt and implement five IV comparison techniques across VR and 2D environments, and integrates two established comparison strategies from the literature--toggle and side-by-side--to support IV comparison with greater flexibility.

Abstract

Immersive videos (IVs) provide 360° environments that create a strong sense of presence and spatial exploration. Unlike traditional videos, IVs distribute information across multiple directions, making comparison cognitively demanding and highly dependent on interaction techniques. With the growing adoption of IVs, effective comparison techniques have become an essential yet underexplored area of research. Inspired by the "sliding" concept in 2D media comparison, we integrate two established comparison strategies from the literature--toggle and side-by-side--to support IV comparison with greater flexibility. For an in-depth understanding of different strategies, we adapt and implement five IV comparison techniques across VR and 2D environments: SlideInVR, ToggleInVR, SlideIn2D, ToggleIn2D, and SideBySideIn2D. We then conduct a user study (N=20) to examine how these techniques shape users' perceptions, strategies, and workflows. Our findings provide empirical insights into the strengths and limitations of each technique, underscoring the need to switch between comparison approaches across scenarios. Notably, participants consistently rate SlideInVR and SlideIn2D as the most flexible and favorite methods for IV comparison.

Figures (14)

• Figure 1: Abstract illustration of the three core features of our adapted sliding concept in panels (a)--(d). Two IVs, Video A (pink) and Video B (blue), are shown in overlapping display areas in (a). The concept supports three interactions: extend, from (a) to (b); slide, from (a) to (c); and swap, from (a) where the front layer is Video A to (d) where the front layer is Video B.
• Figure 2: Semantic illustration of our sliding concept in VR. In (e), the two original 360° IVs, Video A (pink) and Video B (blue), are shown as full spheres, with their start and end edges aligned. In (a), two spherical-lune IV display areas are combined. Panels (b)--(d) demo the three interactions supported by sliding: extend, which shrinks Video B’s display area by moving its start edge (b); slide, which rotates Video A so that the overlapping area gradually increases (c); and swap, which changes the front layer from Video A to Video B (d).
• Figure 4: Mapping between the equirectangular IV frame and the spherical-lune display area in SlideInVR for the second tutorial task. Left: a 360° IV VR_church_video from © Grace Church (used with permission) in equirectangular projection, annotated with directions (Front, Back, Left, Right, Top, Bottom) and the predefined ROI (the man in pink shirt). The darker thick rectangle indicates the current display area. Right: the corresponding display area rendered on the lune sphere.
• Figure 5: In (a), two display areas do not overlap, and the user plans to extendVideo A. In (b), the user is extendingVideo A by moving the end edge to the right. In (c), the user stops extending, and the Big Ben in Video A (top layer) is overlaid on the Big Ben in Video B (back layer). In (d), the user is slidingthe display area of Video B by moving it clockwisely. In (e), the position of Video B is updated once the user stops sliding. The two IVs are from © VR Gorilla, used with permission VR_Gorilla_new_londonVR_Gorilla_old_london.
• Figure 6: The hidden radial menu of SlideInVR advanced features surrounding the left controller in (a): ROIs Overlay (top), ROIs SxS (top right; selected and highlighted), Reset Views (right), Set Views 360 ° (bottom right), Restart Videos (bottom), and Open/Close Panel (left). (b) ROIs SxS aligns the ROIs (Big Ben) side by side. (c) ROIs Overlay aligns the same ROIs overlaid. The two IVs are from © VR Gorilla, used with permission VR_Gorilla_new_londonVR_Gorilla_old_london.