Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/3565698.3565786acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pageschinese-chiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper

Emotional Design and User Study on Guidance System For MR Distributed Collaboration

Published: 12 February 2024 Publication History

Abstract

In recent years, especially after the outbreak of COVID-19, the applications of distributed collaboration in mixed reality (MR) environment has developed rapidly. Due to the cutting-edge technology and the specialized nature of the equipment, many studies have focused on the design of tutorials in MR, but few studies have taken the factors of emotional design into consideration. Since the perception of the state among users is based on their avatar firstly, which is helpful for users' perceptions about collaborative content in novice guidance. Based on Norman's principles of reflective design and James' theory about the experience self, we built a MR virtual sand-table collaboration system, which contains three guiding parts that are the full practice of theoretical research. Furthermore, We generated three progressive levels of emotional solutions in guidance design and conducted user experience research to explore the impact of three different degrees of emotional design, summarizing the applicable paradigm of novice guidance of emotional design in MR distributed collaborative scenarios. Through the evaluation and analysis of SUS model and task load, we found that novice guidance with a higher emotional design level, which combines static graphics, dynamic hand models and conversational voice would result in a better user experience.

References

[1]
Olson J S, Olson G M. How to make distance work work[J]. Interactions, 2014, 21(2): 28-35.
[2]
Donald A. Norman. 2004. Emotional design. ubiquity 2004, January (January 1- January 30, 2004), 1.
[3]
"Microsoft Hololens Tutorial," 2016 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR-Adjunct), 2016, pp. 572-572. ISMAR-Adjunct.2016.0017.
[4]
Wang P, Bai X, Billinghurst M, AR/MR Remote Collaboration on Physical Tasks: A Review[J]. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 2021, 72: 102071.
[5]
Piumsomboon T, Lee G A, Hart J D, Mini-Me: An Adaptive Avatar for Mixed Reality Remote
[6]
Cohill, A. M., & Williges, R. C. (1985). Retrieval of HELP information for novice users of interactive computer systems. human Factors, 27(3), 335-343.
[7]
Czaja, S. J., Hammond, K., Blascovich, J. J., & Swede, H. (1986). Learning to use a word-processing system as a function of training strategy. Behaviour and Information Technology, 5(3), 203-216.
[8]
S.M. Harrison. A comparison of still, animated, or non-illustrated on-line help with written or spoken instructions in a graphical user interface. In CHI '95 Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, New York, NY, USA, 1995. acm.
[9]
Reinhard Pekrun. 2006. The Control-Value Theory of Achievement Emotions: Assumptions, Corollaries, and Implications for Educational Research and Educational Psychology Review 18, 4 (2006), 315-341.
[10]
Yang J, Sasikumar P, Bai H, The effects of spatial auditory and visual cues on mixed reality Remote collaboration[J]. Journal on Multimodal User Interfaces, 2020, 14(4): 337-352.
[11]
Wang P, Zhang S, Bai X, Head Pointer or Eye Gaze: Which Helps More in MR Remote Collaboration?[C]//2019 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR). Osaka, Japan: IEEE, 2019: 1219-1220.
[12]
Bai H, Sasikumar P, Yang J, A User Study on Mixed Reality Remote Collaboration with Eye Gaze and Hand Gesture Sharing[C]//Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2020: 1-13
[13]
Tractinsky, N. (1997). Aesthetics and apparent usability: empirically assessing cultural and methodological issues. ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human factors in computing systems. (pp. 115-122). ACM.
[14]
Birmingham E, Kingstone A. Human social attention[J]. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 2009, 1156(1): 118-140.
[15]
Hartwick, J., & Barki, H. (1994). Explaining the role of user participation in information system use. management science, 40(4), 440-465.
[16]
Rowe, P. G. (1991). Design thinking. mit press.
[17]
S. Wang. Deeper User Experience-Emotional Design. Advances in Affective and Pleasurable Design, 2018:188.
[18]
Bangor, A., Kortum, P. T., & Miller, J. T. (2009). Determining what individual SUS scores mean: Adding an adjective rating scale. Journal of Usability Studies, 4(3), 114-123.
[19]
HART S G, STAVELAND L E. Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research[J]. Advances in Psychology, 1988, 52: 139-183.

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences
Chinese CHI '22: Proceedings of the Tenth International Symposium of Chinese CHI
October 2022
342 pages
ISBN:9781450398695
DOI:10.1145/3565698
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 12 February 2024

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. Emotional design
  2. MR collaboration
  3. Novice guidance

Qualifiers

  • Short-paper
  • Research
  • Refereed limited

Conference

Chinese CHI 2022
Chinese CHI 2022: The Tenth International Symposium of Chinese CHI
October 22 - 23, 2022
Guangzhou, China and Online, China

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 17 of 40 submissions, 43%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • 0
    Total Citations
  • 30
    Total Downloads
  • Downloads (Last 12 months)30
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)7
Reflects downloads up to 22 Sep 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

View Options

Get Access

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

HTML Format

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media