Heuristic Guidelines for Playful Wearable Augmented Reality Applications

Gale, Nathan; Mirza-Babaei, Pejman; Pedersen, Isabel

doi:10.1145/2793107.2810309

Cited by 17 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Using AR Specific Usability Heuristics and Guidelines. In a review of the literature, we have found nine heuristic lists, usability principles, and guidelines that have been developed specifically for AR applications and devices (Ko et al, 2013;Franklin et al, 2014;de Paiva Guimarães & Martins, 2014;Gale et al, 2015;Kalalahti, 2015;Santos et al, 2016;Endsley et al, 2017;Aultman et al, 2018;Liang, 2018). Only three of which were validated (Ko et al, 2013;de Paiva Guimarães & Martins, 2014;Liang, 2018).…”

Section: Ar Usability Heuristic Evaluationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Only three of which were validated (Ko et al, 2013;de Paiva Guimarães & Martins, 2014;Liang, 2018). These heuristic lists have added aspects such as user safety and comfort (Ko et al, 2013;Franklin et al, 2014;Gale et al, 2015;Kalalahti, 2015;Endsley et al, 2017), hardware capabilities (Ko et al, 2013;de Paiva Guimarães & Martins, 2014;Endsley et al, 2017), collaboration (Franklin et al, 2014), integrating virtual elements onto the physical environment (Ko et al, 2013;Franklin et al, 2014;Gale et al, 2015;Kalalahti, 2015;Endsley et al, 2017), dealing with interruptions from the physical environment (Ko et al, 2013, Gale et al, 2015, privacy (Franklin et al, 2014), and learnability (Ko et al, 2013;de Paiva Guimarães & Martins, 2014).…”

Section: Ar Usability Heuristic Evaluationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, these heuristics can be too specific for general use. For example, some of these are designed to evaluate AR smartphone apps (Ko et al, 2013;Santos et al, 2016;Aultman et al, 2018), wearable AR (Gale et al, 2015), marker-based AR (Guimãres & Martins, 2014), collaborative systems (Franklin et al, 2014), AR games (Aultman et al, 2018), or AR specifically targeted towards older adult users (Liang, 2018). This can make it difficult to compare results between devices or applications, as the heuristic set may work well for a mobile device, but not a wearable device like an HMD.…”

Section: Ar Usability Heuristic Evaluationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Challenges of Evaluating the Usability of Augmented Reality (AR)

Derby

Chaparro

2021

Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Augmented reality (AR) is a new and emerging technology that could benefit from evaluating its usability to better the user’s experience with the device or application. This is often done through usability testing and heuristic evaluations. However, AR technology presents some challenges when completing these usability evaluations. Practitioners need to keep in mind the hardware limitations of AR devices that may not be present with other computerized technology, consistency of the users’ environment plays a larger role in the AR experience, recognize that a novelty effect may occur and affect subjective scores, and choose heuristic sets that will best evaluate AR applications. Practitioners need to be aware of these challenges and overcome them to accurately assess the usability of these products to gain insights about what should be changed to make the overall experience with the product better.

show abstract

Section: Ar Usability Heuristic Evaluationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Ar Usability Heuristic Evaluationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Ar Usability Heuristic Evaluationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Challenges of Evaluating the Usability of Augmented Reality (AR)

Derby

Chaparro

2021

Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We selected these two test plans based on our previous experience with development for wearable and AR applications [Gale et al 2015]. …”

Section: Roundmentioning

confidence: 99%

More than Meets the Eye

Pedersen

Gale

Mirza-Babaei

et al. 2017

J. Comput. Cult. Herit.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cultural heritage artifacts connect us to past generations and provide links to previous worlds that are beyond our reach. We developed TombSeer, an augmented reality application that aims to immerse the wearer in a museum space engaging two senses (seeing and gesturing) through a holographic heads-up interface that brings virtual, historical artifacts "back to life" through gestural interactivity. This article introduces the TombSeer software prototype and highlights the application of embodied interaction to museum visits using an emerging hardware platform for 3D interactive holographic images (e.g., Meta head-mounted display). This article discusses the TombSeer prototype's development and functionality testing with the Tomb of Kitines exhibit, which was conducted at The Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto, Canada. TombSeer's embodied gestural and visual augmented reality experience functions to aesthetically enhance museum exhibits, cultural heritage sites, and galleries.CCS Concepts: r Human-centered computing → Mixed/augmented reality; r Hardware → Analysis and design of emerging devices and systems Additional

show abstract

“…Heuristics evaluations have been studied and discussed by many researchers in the field of humancomputer interaction that involve different users on various platforms such as websites [38], mobile applications [39], [40] virtual reality [41], [42] augmented reality [43] and game development [44]- [46]. A study by Yeratziotis and Zaphiris [47] developed the heuristic evaluation for deaf web user experience (HE4DWUX) heuristics evaluation for deaf web users and reported that the heuristics could distinguish significant design elements for deaf users and provide a good web experience.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Avatar design types and user engagement in digital educational games during evaluation phase

Nizam

Rudiyansah

Tuah

et al. 2022

IJECE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

<span lang="EN-US">Avatar design types can range from human representations to abstract representations. In digital educational games (DEGs), avatars are frequently used to encourage users to play the game. However, the role of avatar design types and their engagement in digital games are still unclear and empirically under research. Therefore, a bespoke digital educational game in geography was developed and validated by six expert users. Then forty-five users participated in the evaluation phase to investigate engagement and avatar types on digital educational games using the user engagement scale (UES). The results reported aesthetics and satisfaction factors somehow influenced the avatar design types, but none of the UES subscales was influenced by preferred avatar design types. Moreover, the human-cartoon avatar, which was not entirely human and cartoonish, was the most popular avatar design type among young adults. Other issues discussed for future developers and research included incorporating more avatar design selections into the study, integrating social interaction features into the game, using the same drawing style for avatars and provide easy access to the bespoke game during data collection.</span>

show abstract

Heuristic Guidelines for Playful Wearable Augmented Reality Applications

Cited by 17 publications

References 3 publications

The Challenges of Evaluating the Usability of Augmented Reality (AR)

The Challenges of Evaluating the Usability of Augmented Reality (AR)

More than Meets the Eye

Avatar design types and user engagement in digital educational games during evaluation phase

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About