Two user studies on creation and evaluation of use scenarios for mixed reality communication

Mixed reality (MR) technologies and applications, including interpersonal communication, are rapidly evolving. Despite its promise, peoples' actual needs concerning the advanced uses of MR are less studied. To address this knowledge gap, we conducted two focus group user studies in which we explored people's perceptions, expectations, and ideas concerning remote interpersonal MR communication and collaboration. In the first study we examined people's perceptions of MR and the study participants collaboratively created 21 scenarios for MR communication. For the second study, the most promising of these scenarios were selected and refined to develop three different types of scenarios one with emotional content, one emphasizing entertainment and one focused on work-related situations. The scenarios were evaluated by the participants of the second study in the context of a specific MR communication system that uses near-eye displays. The results indicate that the expected advantages of MR in communication are its efficiency, richness and the increased feeling of presence over distance. However, concerns were raised about the technical reliability, usability and accessibility of advanced MR applications. Work and entertainment use contexts were preferred over emotional communication. Maintaining close emotional relationships was perceived to require real physical presence and interaction instead of being technology-mediated.

[1]  John M. Carroll,et al.  Five reasons for scenario-based design , 2000, Interact. Comput..

[2]  Holger Regenbrecht,et al.  MagicMeeting: A Collaborative Tangible Augmented Reality System , 2002, Virtual Reality.

[3]  D. Morgan Focus groups as qualitative research / by Morgan, David L. , 1988 .

[4]  Mark Billinghurst,et al.  A Wizard of Oz study for an AR multimodal interface , 2008, ICMI '08.

[5]  Michael Burmester,et al.  AttrakDiff: Ein Fragebogen zur Messung wahrgenommener hedonischer und pragmatischer Qualität , 2003, MuC.

[6]  Mel Slater,et al.  The impact of avatar realism and eye gaze control on perceived quality of communication in a shared immersive virtual environment , 2003, CHI '03.

[7]  Margarita Anastassova,et al.  Prototype Evaluation and User-Needs Analysis in the Early Design of Emerging Technologies , 2007, HCI.

[8]  Mark Billinghurst,et al.  A survey of evaluation techniques used in augmented reality studies , 2008, SIGGRAPH 2008.

[9]  P. Milgram,et al.  A Taxonomy of Mixed Reality Visual Displays , 1994 .

[10]  Hirokazu Kato,et al.  Advanced Interaction Techniques for Augmented Reality Applications , 2009, HCI.

[11]  Julian Looser,et al.  Motivations for Augmented Reality Gaming , 2004 .

[12]  Charles Woodward,et al.  Mixed reality in virtual world teleconferencing , 2010, 2010 IEEE Virtual Reality Conference (VR).

[13]  Kaisa Väänänen,et al.  User expectations for mobile mixed reality services: an initial user study , 2009, ECCE.

[14]  Hirokazu Kato,et al.  Collaborative augmented reality , 2002, CACM.

[15]  Ronald Azuma,et al.  Recent Advances in Augmented Reality , 2001, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications.

[16]  Desney S. Tan,et al.  Tiles: A Mixed Reality Authoring Interface , 2001, INTERACT.

[17]  Laurence Nigay,et al.  Mobile and Collaborative Augmented Reality: A Scenario Based Design Approach , 2002, Mobile HCI.