Vr or Not? Investigating Interface Type and User Strategies for Interactive Design Space Exploration

Abstract

Computational design tools allow the generation of vast numbers of possible designs, entrusting the human designer with describing constraints or specifications to guide exploration of the design space. Designers can have many different decision considerations when conducting this type of exploration, including form, function, users, or context. In this work, we investigate strategies that emerge when people are tasked with exploring a large design space within either a non-immersive (2D) or immersive (VR) interface and equipped with action-based interactions to set or envision specifications related to their considerations. Results from a 28 participant user study uncovers that people have varying strategies to enact their decision considerations that are not unique to the type of interface. However, the interfaces differ in perceptions of enabling breadth or depth of exploration holistically, with preference towards 2D interfaces to compare options, and VR to understand single designs. These results have implications for the user experience of systems that allow designers to explore the outputs of large design spaces, both at the interaction and interface levels.

A comparative study of VR CAD modelling tools for design

“…Seybold and Mantwill (2021) examined 3D sketching in VR and observed that the same solution quality can be obtained using VR while achieving faster development times. Nandy et al ( 2023) investigated the design space across immersive and non-immersive interfaces using pre-designed design elements. They found that 2D interface for modelling enabled users to explore a larger range of designs, whereas VR was more useful in exploring the advantages and disadvantages of single-design solutions.…”

Mixed reality prototyping: a framework to characterise simultaneous physical/virtual prototyping

“…While the merging of physical and digital into a single interface is well-studied, the recent maturation of MR-capable technologies has enabled their application in domains ranging from education (Hallmann et al, 2023), to architecture (Kim and Hyun, 2022), to design (Verlinden and Horváth, 2009). Several works have highlighted the importance of the viewing interface for design performance (Berni et al, 2023;Horvat et al, 2022;Nandy et al, 2023) noting differences when using XR compared to traditional modes. Benefits of XR implementation for design have been shown to be broad, including enhanced spatial reasoning (Horvat et al, 2022), divergence (Sopher et al, 2022), confidence and satisfaction with outcomes (Kim and Hyun, 2022), and collaboration (Bisson et al, 2023).…”

“…References for works: A(Scurati et al, 2023), B(Hu et al, 2023), C(Latif et al, 2023), D(Trump and Shealy, 2023), E(Nanjappan et al, 2023), F(Steinhauser et al, 2023), G(Horvat et al, 2022), H(Berni et al, 2023), I(Nandy et al, 2023), J(Hireche et al, 2023), K(Bisson et al, 2023), L(Hallmann et al, 2023), M(Harlan et al, 2023), N(Brunzini et al, 2021), O(Yengui and Stechert, 2021), P(Seybold and Mantwill, 2021), Q(Porro et al, 2022), R(Goethem et al, 2021), S(Mariani et al, 2021), T(Romero et al, 2021), U(Kujur et al, 2022), V(Melo et al, 2022) 3 See https://tinyurl.com/DMFdrill, https://tinyurl.com/DMFcontroller, https://dmf-lab.co.uk/our-lab/…”

Design a Virtual Reality Interface to Enhance the User Experience of Intangible Cultural Heritage Protection

“…However, due to the particularity of virtual reality technology, traditional human-computer interaction methods may not be fully applicable to virtual reality environments (Nandy et al, 2023). For example, the traditional way of mouse and keyboard interaction may not be intuitive and natural enough in a VR environment.…”