A conceptual framework to compare two paradigms of augmented and mixed reality experiences

Augmented and Mixed Reality mobile technologies are becoming an emerging trend in the development of play and learning experiences for children. This tendency requires a deeper understanding of their specificities to adequately inform design. To this end, we ran a study with 36 elementary school children to compare two AR/MR interaction paradigms for mobile technologies: (1) the consolidated "Window-on-the-World" (WoW), and (2) the emerging "World-as-Support" (WaS). By analyzing children's understanding and use of space while playing an AR/MR mystery game, and analyzing the collaboration that emerges among them, we show that the two paradigms scaffold children's attention differently during the experience and elicit different forms of collaboration. We conclude by presenting a conceptual framework to distinguish the strengths, weaknesses, and potential of the two AR/MR paradigms, as well as the comparison between marker-based and marker-less technical solutions. This study aims at helping practitioners in taking design decisions for AR/MR technologies for children.

[1]  Ivan Poupyrev,et al.  Motionbeam: a metaphor for character interaction with handheld projectors , 2011, CHI.

[2]  Paul F. M. J. Verschure,et al.  A location-based Augmented Reality system for the spatial interaction with historical datasets , 2015, 2015 Digital Heritage.

[3]  Jérémy Frey,et al.  Pointing in Spatial Augmented Reality from 2D Pointing Devices , 2015, INTERACT.

[4]  Roman Rädle,et al.  Virtual Objects as Spatial Cues in Collaborative Mixed Reality Environments: How They Shape Communication Behavior and User Task Load , 2016, CHI.

[5]  James Steele,et al.  Pokémon Go: mobile app user guides , 2016, British Journal of Sports Medicine.

[6]  Laura Malinverni,et al.  The World-as-Support: Embodied Exploration, Understanding and Meaning-Making of the Augmented World , 2017, CHI.

[7]  Douglas C. Schmidt,et al.  Addressing Challenges with Augmented Reality Applications on Smartphones , 2010, MOBILWARE.

[8]  Simon Robinson,et al.  Performative technologies for heritage site regeneration , 2014, Personal and Ubiquitous Computing.

[9]  Marlien Herselman,et al.  Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) , 2015 .

[10]  Carey Jewitt,et al.  Multimodal methods for researching digital technologies , 2013 .

[11]  Chia-Chen Chen,et al.  Animating eco-education: To see, feel, and discover in an augmented reality-based experiential learning environment , 2016, Comput. Educ..

[12]  Laura Malinverni,et al.  Towards methods for evaluating and communicating participatory design: A multimodal approach , 2016, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[13]  Andreas Dünser,et al.  An interactive augmented reality coloring book , 2012, 3DUI.

[14]  Ivan Poupyrev,et al.  SideBySide: ad-hoc multi-user interaction with handheld projectors , 2011, UIST.

[15]  Sara Price,et al.  A multimodal approach to examining 'embodiment' in tangible learning environments , 2013, TEI '13.

[16]  Laura Malinverni,et al.  Learning about the past through situatedness, embodied exploration and digital augmentation of cultural heritage sites , 2018, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[17]  Xiang Cao,et al.  Interactive Environment-Aware Handheld Projectors for Pervasive Computing Spaces , 2012, Pervasive.

[18]  Kenny Mitchell,et al.  Augmented creativity: bridging the real and virtual worlds to enhance creative play , 2015, SIGGRAPH Asia Mobile Graphics and Interactive Applications.

[19]  Fumio Kishino,et al.  Augmented reality: a class of displays on the reality-virtuality continuum , 1995, Other Conferences.

[20]  Eva Eriksson,et al.  Intermediate-Level Knowledge in Child-Computer Interaction: A Call for Action , 2017, IDC.

[21]  Moshe Mahler,et al.  HideOut: mobile projector interaction with tangible objects and surfaces , 2013, TEI '13.

[22]  Sara Price,et al.  Mobile Experiences of Historical Place: A Multimodal Analysis of Emotional Engagement , 2016 .