Building Usable AR Interfaces
5 likes1,348 views
This document discusses building usable augmented reality interfaces. It emphasizes understanding user needs through methods like focus groups and observations. Both virtual and physical interface elements must be considered, along with the interaction metaphor. Rapid prototyping and user testing are important to develop compelling AR experiences. Evaluation of AR applications is also discussed. The goal is to design AR that effectively merges virtual and real information while addressing usability issues.
Building Usable AR Interfaces
- 1. Building Usable AR Interfaces Mark Billinghurst HIT Lab NZ University of Canterbury
- 2. The Vision of AR
- 3. To Make the Vision Real.. Hardware/software requirements Contact lens displays Free space hand/body tracking Speech/gesture recognition Etc.. Most importantly Usability
- 4. Usability Issues Perception How to make images appear part of real world? Interaction How to pick content in mid air? Social Do I look stupid? Cultural Wave up or down? Cognitive How do I remember where everything is?
- 5. “The product is no longer the basis of value. The experience is.” Venkat Ramaswamy The Future of Competition.
- 6. Gilmore + Pine: Experience Economy experiences Emotion services Value products/tools Function components
- 7. Build Experiences NOT Applications!
- 8. Building Compelling AR Experiences ?? experiences Usability applications Interaction tools Authoring components Tracking, Display Sony CSL © 2004
- 9. The Interaction Design Process
- 10. Understand Your Users Workshops or focus groups Group interviews/activities Observations Spending time with users in day to day tasks Questionnaires Looking for specific information Interviews Good for exploring issues, using props Documentation Procedures and rules written down in manuals
- 11. Consider the Whole User
- 12. AR as Perception Problem Goal of AR to fool human senses – create illusion that real and virtual are merged Depth Size Occlusion Shadows Relative motion Etc..
- 14. TAT Augmented ID
- 17. AR Rapid Development Prototyping and User Testing Low Fidelity Prototyping Sketches Paper Prototyping Post-It Prototyping PowerPoint Prototyping High Fidelity Prototyping Wikitude, Junaio, Layar, BuildAR etc
- 18. POST IT PROTOTYPING Camera View with 3D First Dra) Second Dra) Third Dra) • Selec8on highlighted in • Home bu=on added for blue easy naviga8on to main menu
- 19. POWERPOINT PROTOTYPING Benefits • Used for User Tes8ng • Interac8ve • Func8onali8es work when following the story of Scenario 1 • Quick • Easy arrangement of slides User Tes8ng • Par8cipants found • 15 minute sessions screen captured • ‘ Talk Allowed’ technique used • Notes taken • Post-‐Interview
- 20. BuildAR http://www.buildar.org/ Stand alone application Visual interface for AR model viewing application Enables non-programmers to build AR scenes
- 21. Interface Components Physical components Display elements - Visual/audio Interaction metaphor Physical Display Elements Elements Interaction Metaphor Input Output
- 22. AR Design Space Reality Virtual Reality Augmented Reality Physical Design Virtual Design
- 23. AR Lens Design Principles Physical Components Lens handle - Virtual lens attached to real object Display Elements Lens view - Reveal layers in dataset Interaction Metaphor Physically holding lens
- 24. AR Chemistry (Fjeld 2002) Tangible AR chemistry education
- 25. Case Study: LevelHead Block based game
- 26. Case Study: LevelHead Physical Components Real blocks Display Elements Virtual person and rooms Interaction Metaphor Blocks are rooms
- 28. Goal: An AR application to test molecular structure in chemistry Physical Components Real book, rotation cube, scoop, tracking markers Display Elements AR atoms and molecules Interaction Metaphor Build your own molecule
- 29. AR Chemistry Input Devices
- 31. Natural Hand Interaction Using bare hands to interact with AR content MS Kinect depth sensing Real time hand tracking Physics based simulation model
- 32. Evaluation Need for more evaluation 2008 -10% AR papers in IEEE, ACM had any evaluation Informal Pilot, ‘quick and dirty’ Formal Lab studies, field studies, heuristic
- 33. 2D vs. AR Navigation? VS
- 34. HIT Lab NZ Test Platform – AR View
- 35. HIT Lab NZ Platform – Map View
- 36. Distance and Time No significant differences
- 37. Paths Travelled Red – AR Blue – AR + Map Yellow - Map
- 38. Navigation Behaviour Depends on interface Map doesn’t show short cuts
- 39. Survey Responses
- 40. User Comments AR “you don't know exactly where you are all of the time.” “using AR I found it difficult to see where I was going” Map “you were able to get a sense of where you were” “you are actually able to see the physical objects around you” AR+MAP “I used the map at the beginning to understand where the buildings were and the AR between each point” “You can choose a direction with AR and find the shortest way using the map.”
- 41. Building Usable AR Interfaces Understand user needs Consider whole user needs - Physical, emotional, cognitive, social, cultural Perceptual issues Design for those needs Rapid prototyping Virtual, physical elements, interaction metaphor Test your design Formal, informal testing
- 42. More Information • Mark Billinghurst – mark.billinghurst@hitlabnz.org • Website – www.hitlabnz.org – www.buildar.org