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



    and Human Factors By with contributions from PEREY Research & Consulting
  2. User Experience In AR  A person’s perceptions and responses

    that result from the use or anticipated use of a product, system or service  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
  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
  4.  We have started creating such a framework…  …but

    we need more feedback and assessments to fill in the gaps! A UX Framework primer…
  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.
  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
  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
  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 considerations  In case of hybrid seamless switching between/combination of modalities
  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
  10. Output - II  Auditory  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  Haptic  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
  11. Context Awareness  Contextual and in situ nature of AR

    intertwined with Context Awareness  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 before
  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 accidents  Wearable devices need to adhere to consumer electronics regulations
  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
  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 standardise.
  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…
  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 assessments  A UX framework can serve as a roadmap for development, a reference for standardisation and a methodology for assessment  Enhancing Ux4AR will enhance the field’s technological and marketing reality