006 Spezielle Computerverfahren
Refine
H-BRS Bibliography
- yes (4) (remove)
Departments, institutes and facilities
- Fachbereich Wirtschaftswissenschaften (4) (remove)
Document Type
- Conference Object (3)
- Article (1)
Language
- English (4)
Has Fulltext
- yes (4) (remove)
Keywords
- Augmented Reality (2)
- AR design (1)
- AR development (1)
- AR/VR (1)
- Design Recommendations (1)
- Design Theory and Practice (1)
- Guidelines (1)
- MR (1)
- Mixed Reality (1)
- User Interface Design (1)
- XR (1)
- augmented reality (1)
- authoring (1)
- authoring tools (1)
- interaction design (1)
- interface design (1)
- mixed reality (1)
- practitioners (1)
- prototyping (1)
- virtual reality, XR (1)
Neutral buoyancy has been used as an analog for microgravity from the earliest days of human spaceflight. Compared to other options on Earth, neutral buoyancy is relatively inexpensive and presents little danger to astronauts while simulating some aspects of microgravity. Neutral buoyancy removes somatosensory cues to the direction of gravity but leaves vestibular cues intact. Removal of both somatosensory and direction of gravity cues while floating in microgravity or using virtual reality to establish conflicts between them has been shown to affect the perception of distance traveled in response to visual motion (vection) and the perception of distance. Does removal of somatosensory cues alone by neutral buoyancy similarly impact these perceptions? During neutral buoyancy we found no significant difference in either perceived distance traveled nor perceived size relative to Earth-normal conditions. This contrasts with differences in linear vection reported between short- and long-duration microgravity and Earth-normal conditions. These results indicate that neutral buoyancy is not an effective analog for microgravity for these perceptual effects.
Current research in augmented, virtual, and mixed reality (XR) reveals a lack of tool support for designing and, in particular, prototyping XR applications. While recent tools research is often motivated by studying the requirements of non-technical designers and end-user developers, the perspective of industry practitioners is less well understood. In an interview study with 17 practitioners from different industry sectors working on professional XR projects, we establish the design practices in industry, from early project stages to the final product. To better understand XR design challenges, we characterize the different methods and tools used for prototyping and describe the role and use of key prototypes in the different projects. We extract common elements of XR prototyping, elaborating on the tools and materials used for prototyping and establishing different views on the notion of fidelity. Finally, we highlight key issues for future XR tools research.
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.
Augmented/Virtual Reality (AR/VR) is still a fragmented space to design for due to the rapidly evolving hardware, the interdisciplinarity of teams, and a lack of standards and best practices. We interviewed 26 professional AR/VR designers and developers to shed light on their tasks, approaches, tools, and challenges. Based on their work and the artifacts they generated, we found that AR/VR application creators fulfill four roles: concept developers, interaction designers, content authors, and technical developers. One person often incorporates multiple roles and faces a variety of challenges during the design process from the initial contextual analysis to the deployment. From analysis of their tool sets, methods, and artifacts, we describe critical key challenges. Finally, we discuss the importance of prototyping for the communication in AR/VR development teams and highlight design implications for future tools to create a more usable AR/VR tool chain.