Current Practices, Challenges, and Design Implications for Collaborative AR/VR Application Development

Krauß, Veronika; Boden, Alexander; Oppermann, Leif; Reiners, René

doi:10.1145/3411764.3445335

Cited by 68 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 71 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Domain experts stated that they wanted to use existing examples as a starting point as they did not know where or how to start. Recent work on authoring challenges that layperson authors have to face by Krauß et al, 2021 emphasizes that novel authoring tools should enable authors to create VR prototypes quickly and easily. Furthermore, they conclude that tools for domain experts should focus on tasks and goals from a practitioners perspective rather than providing complex feature-bound functionalities.…”

Section: Related Work-virtual Reality Authoring and Toolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…simple tools developed based on tasks and goals" (Krauß et al, 2021) instead of providing a low-level set of more complex and feature-bound functionalities. Particularly, such authoring tools should be designed with specific authoring roles and end-user authors in mind (Ashtari et al, 2020;Krauß et al, 2021), including immersive authoring methodologies in novel authoring tools intended for domain expert authors (Krauß et al, 2021), and providing tools for early-to mid-level prototypes (Ashtari et al, 2020). A lack of facile tools that include the authors' knowledge background was noticed (Conole and Fill, 2005).…”

Section: Related Work-virtual Reality Authoring and Toolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Authoring With Virtual Reality Nuggets—Lessons Learned

Horst

Naraghi-Taghi-Off

Rau

et al. 2022

Front. Virtual Real.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Virtual Reality (VR) systems and VR content are complex, and their creation can mainly be conducted by experts in VR and related areas. That makes the use of VR challenging for experts from other domains, such as educators. In this paper, we build up on existing work and investigate the VR nugget concept—small self-contained VR systems that are built from educational design patterns. Particularly, we extend this concept and introduce structured authoring processes based on VR nuggets that show how standalone, combinable, and reusable VR software can serve as a meta-level guide for various VR applications and involve educators as domain experts. We conduct a user study with VR Forge, a VR-nugget-based authoring software tool, to draw conclusions on how pattern-based VR authoring tools should be designed to support domain experts. We compare our results with those of a related study of the VR nugget tool IN Tiles. Based on the comparative results of usability and hedonic quality measures, both anecdotal evidence and statistically significant results support the concept’s potential for VR authoring conducted by practitioners who are not experts in VR. We derive the recommendation that the design of a VR-nugget-based authoring environment will benefit from using both immersive and desktop user interface (UI) technologies and that the authoring workflow will need authors to frequently alternate between the technologies. We state findings and lessons learned from the development and the studies. We contribute insights in developing reusable and use-case-specific VR content and tools and propose authoring processes that focus on the tasks and goals of domain experts as the primary authoring role within educational VR development. Finally, the relevance of VR-nugget-based authoring is supported by anecdotal evidence gathered from over 3 years of investigating and applying it within three educational institutions and a company providing education services.

show abstract

Section: Related Work-virtual Reality Authoring and Toolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Related Work-virtual Reality Authoring and Toolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Authoring With Virtual Reality Nuggets—Lessons Learned

Horst

Naraghi-Taghi-Off

Rau

et al. 2022

Front. Virtual Real.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…All these key challenges arise, since the creation of a solution capable of streamlining the process of configuring a Pervasive AR experience is still a relatively unexplored topic. Therefore, authoring tools which facilitate the development of these experiences are paramount [ 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing Desktop vs. Mobile Interaction for the Creation of Pervasive Augmented Reality Experiences

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents an evaluation and comparison of interaction methods for the configuration and visualization of pervasive Augmented Reality (AR) experiences using two different platforms: desktop and mobile. AR experiences consist of the enhancement of real-world environments by superimposing additional layers of information, real-time interaction, and accurate 3D registration of virtual and real objects. Pervasive AR extends this concept through experiences that are continuous in space, being aware of and responsive to the user’s context and pose. Currently, the time and technical expertise required to create such applications are the main reasons preventing its widespread use. As such, authoring tools which facilitate the development and configuration of pervasive AR experiences have become progressively more relevant. Their operation often involves the navigation of the real-world scene and the use of the AR equipment itself to add the augmented information within the environment. The proposed experimental tool makes use of 3D scans from physical environments to provide a reconstructed digital replica of such spaces for a desktop-based method, and to enable positional tracking for a mobile-based one. While the desktop platform represents a non-immersive setting, the mobile one provides continuous AR in the physical environment. Both versions can be used to place virtual content and ultimately configure an AR experience. The authoring capabilities of the different platforms were compared by conducting a user study focused on evaluating their usability. Although the AR interface was generally considered more intuitive, the desktop platform shows promise in several aspects, such as remote configuration, lower required effort, and overall better scalability.

show abstract

“…In this context, current research reports that both researchers and practitioners perceive the present situation in MR development as lacking relevant, practical, and applicable design guides [9,83], if they are easily accessible at all.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this paper, we examine the current use and applicability of design recommendations with a particular focus on MR design in practice [57,83]. We compare design recommendations for MR systems originating from both scientific research and industry practice to answer these questions: RQ1 What are the differences between research and practitioner recommendations for AR user interfaces?…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research and Practice Recommendations for Mixed Reality Design – Different Perspectives from the Community

Krauß

Jasche

Saßmannshausen

et al. 2021

Proceedings of the 27th ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the last decades, different kinds of design guides have been created to maintain consistency and usability in interactive system development. However, in the case of spatial applications, practitioners from research and industry either have difficulty finding them or perceive such guides as lacking relevance, practicability, and applicability. This paper presents the current state of scientific research and industry practice by investigating currently used design recommendations for mixed reality (MR) system development. We analyzed and compared 875 design recommendations for MR applications elicited from 89 scientific papers and documentation from six industry practitioners in a literature review. In doing so, we identified differences regarding four key topics: Focus on unique MR design challenges, abstraction regarding devices and ecosystems, level of detail and abstraction of content, and covered topics. Based on that, we contribute to the MR design research by providing three factors for perceived irrelevance and six main implications for design recommendations that are applicable in scientific and industry practice. CCS CONCEPTS• Human-centered computing → User interface design; Mixed / augmented reality.

show abstract

Current Practices, Challenges, and Design Implications for Collaborative AR/VR Application Development

Cited by 68 publications

References 71 publications

Authoring With Virtual Reality Nuggets—Lessons Learned

Authoring With Virtual Reality Nuggets—Lessons Learned

Comparing Desktop vs. Mobile Interaction for the Creation of Pervasive Augmented Reality Experiences

Research and Practice Recommendations for Mixed Reality Design – Different Perspectives from the Community

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About