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

Abstract

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.

Losing Its Touch: Understanding User Perception of Multimodal Interaction and Smart Assistance

“…However, for multiple modalities to be benefcially combined, a robust set of design aides is needed [8,35]. Yet, post-wimp (windows, icons, mouse, pointer) interfaces like VUI [8,24,35] or interfaces for Mixed Realities [18] still lack a uniform and acknowledged set of such design guides, in comparison to traditional GUI-based systems.…”

“…A great body of research suggests that non-adoption by users derives oftentimes from high expectations of speech as a natural language modality [7,8,33]. New interaction modalities and their accorded platforms and ecosystems bring conceptual as well as interactional challenges, as so far none to just a few heuristics exist [8,18,24,35]. Previous research on IPAs and Conversational User Interfaces (CUI) [8,23,24,33] discovered several issues that impede long-term adoption [7,8,33], as they are failing natural language processing [14,22,25] and a severe lack of usability, e.g.…”

Conceptual Model of Augmented Reality Mobile Application Design (ARMAD) to Enhance user Experience: An Expert Review

“…As depicted in Table I, most of the existing models focused on the overall AR product development [25], [26], [53], [58], user engagement [28], AR learning [29], [55], [56], games development [27], [28], [57], and user acceptance or adoption of the MAR applications [31], [40]. However, none of these models put an emphasis on the AR design components that may elicit a positive emotional UX, thus need further research [59], [60]. Therefore, it is important to have a model that explores the user emotions and investigate how they are influenced by AR design elements in order to design a positive AR user experience.…”

Simulating Location-Based Experiences in VR

“…However, new installations are often very expensive to build, utilising state-of-the-art technologies. Using new immersive installation setups can mean there is a lack of clear design methods and practices to follow [6]. Virtual Reality can provide a transformative design tool to test and iterate on designs.…”