Upgrade to Pro — share decks privately, control downloads, hide ads and more …

Standards for Augmented Reality - A User Experience Perspective

Standards for Augmented Reality - A User Experience Perspective

An introduction to UX in AR

Panagiotis D. Ritsos

February 17, 2011

More Decks by Panagiotis D. Ritsos

Other Decks in Research


    User Interfaces and Human Factors
    with contributions from
    PEREY Research & Consulting

    View Slide

  2. User Experience In AR

    A person’s perceptions and responses that result from
    the use or anticipated use of a product, system or

    All technological aspects discussed here have a direct or
    indirect effect on UX in AR – so UX concerns all ‘players’ of AR

    So, why not establish a recommendation (standard?) for UX?

    Why not define ‘ideal AR’ and use it as a reference to build
    better products and services

    Why not use this reference as a theoretical background for
    assessments on UX in AR scenarios

    View Slide

  3. A UX Framework
    Enables us to define standards for…

    UX requirements in various AR flavours (use cases)

    ideal scenarios that serve as a goal for innovators,
    developers, researchers (ideal AR)

    health & safety regulation

    security and integrity standards

    assessment and evaluation methodologies

    View Slide

  4. We have started creating such a framework…

    …but we need more feedback and assessments to fill in the
    A UX Framework primer…

    View Slide

  5. Use Cases

    Guide, Create & Play (already defined by the community)

    UX requirements per use case have common elements

    ...but can also be different

    Combination of use cases may also introduce additional
    requirements to achieve complex goals

    Definition of the above must be derived from experimentation
    with representative paradigms from each use case.

    View Slide

  6. Input - I

    Visual : CV, marker-based, marker-less etc.
     Ease of use, responsiveness, accuracy
     Privacy & social comfort of usage
     Transparency to the user (say, for passive CV)
     Occlusion, lighting conditions, required fidelity
     Calibration

    Auditory: direct voice commands, passively inferring user’s
    context (say from ambient noise levels, etc)
     Ease of use, responsiveness, accuracy
     Noise cancellation

    View Slide

  7. Input - II

    Kinæsthetic: gestures using CV, ‘smart’ textiles, Kinect etc.
     Ease of use, responsiveness, accuracy
     Use of additional apparatus and equipment (for example Kinect)
     Environmental sensors, wearables, environmental factors
    (lighting, interference etc. )
     Error compensation and reversing operations, design for error
     Standardisation of gestures like sign language
     Abstraction of ‘real world behaviour’ – simplification of tasks
     Calibration

    View Slide

  8. Input - III

    Tactile: chord keyboards, joysticks, touch-screens/pads
     Ease of use, responsiveness, accuracy
     Obtrusiveness

    Sensory modalities: Active, Inertial, Hybrid (‘active
    badges’, gyros etc)
     Ease of use, responsiveness, accuracy
     Need for installation, additional equipment thus obtrusiveness
     In case of hybrid seamless switching between/combination of

    View Slide

  9. Output - I

    Visual – HMDs, Handhelds, 3D screens, 2D/3D content
     Probably the most important yet challenging interface
     Type of information ranges from simple annotations and crude
    abstractions to realistic 3D reconstructions and humanoid modelling
     High fidelity and realism not always needed
     Health and safety implications – for example ocular and non-ocular
    symptoms of HMD use
     Resolution, Field-of-View, Depth-of-view, focus, inter-ocular distance,
    focus, size, brightness, contrast, light-additive systems failing at ‘black’,
    arm position for handhelds
     Registration – angular and positional errors become apparent easily
     Synthetic world stability, ‘shake’, spatial consistency
     Ergonomic considerations, ease of use, obtrusiveness, FPS

    View Slide

  10. Output - II

     Simpler to implement as we can easily create high-fidelity,
    directional sound
     Relatively non-obtrusive gear (headphones etc)
     Privacy & social comfort of usage considerations
     Health and safety aspects

     Rare examples – mostly force feedback encountered in
    gaming console controllers and some medical applications
     The ‘ideal AR’ would include haptics to enhance considerably
    the sense of being there

    View Slide

  11. Context Awareness

    Contextual and in situ nature of AR intertwined with Context

    Extracting location, posture, direction of gaze, intentions,
    environmental features, tethering has direct consequence on
    synthesis of composite world

    Where are you, who are you with, what resources are nearby

    Human perception is extremely sensitive to discrepancies

    Specific consideration must be given to assessing CA from
    users, irrespectively of the underlying mechanics mentioned

    View Slide

  12. Health & Safety

    Any standard concerning globally a technology needs to
    cater for health & safety

    HMD usage symptoms, antennae's radiated emissions etc

    Obtrusive devices and disruptive output can lead to

    Wearable devices need to adhere to consumer electronics

    View Slide

  13. Integrity, Privacy & Security

    Nowadays AR currently remains a ‘personal’ experience

    However we live in the era of social interaction and MMOs
    with enormous implications regarding interaction

    The ultimate incarnation of the Play use case is a shared
    virtual environment

    Shared information must be consistent for all participants

    Private information must be unreachable

    Users must choose what to share and what not

    View Slide

  14. Sense of Immersion

    Probably the most ‘inclusive’ term for Ux4AR

    Sense of being there, sense of presence varies with each
    use case

    It is worthwhile to explore the correlation of immersion to
    assessment scores and specific (aforementioned) issues to
    determine their impact on designs

    Many have tried to define metrics for it

    Explore alternatives or define new and subsequently

    View Slide

  15. The next step

    Assess the proposed theoretical framework and enhance &
    streamline it with feedback from the community

    Devise assessment methodologies for specific use cases based
    on the framework

    Conduct said assessments with field studies, questionnaire-
    based evaluations etc

    Determine underlying factors and correlations of aspects that
    affect Ux4AR

    Re-evaluate framework with findings

    Rinse and repeat…

    View Slide

  16. Summary

    We must overcome the ‘wow!’ point and offer a consistently
    appealing experience

    We must prove AR is not a gimmick or tech-hype by
    introducing new interaction paradigms and push the envelope
    when it comes to implementations

    In order to do that we must ‘formulate’ UX requirements and

    A UX framework can serve as a roadmap for development, a
    reference for standardisation and a methodology for

    Enhancing Ux4AR will enhance the field’s technological and
    marketing reality

    View Slide

  17. Thank You

    View Slide