- Alright, like you've all read,
my supervisor told me to introduce myself.
So, I'm Eva.
And this paper was part of my honors project
for Edinburgh the University
with my supervisor Augusto Esteves.
And the goal of the study is to start a body of knowledge
that describes the effect of different types of AR
approaches and user experience
and the effects on their performance.
So, to not look at AR as a single entity
with uniform characteristics.
So, background is AR.
So, a system that layers digital information
over the real world.
And there's three common approaches.
The first one is an optical see through,
translucent, head mounted display
which we didn't use because it's not quite as accessible
as the other two ways.
So, we compared a video see through
where a digital layer is displayed or a video
and projection where a digital layer is projected
onto the physical world.
So, due to the recent developments in handheld
and devices and high definition video capture
that have contributed to an increased availability of AR
and especially handheld and projected AR approaches
it is quite common newly.
And the most common application of AR in mobile devices
either through GPS and motion sensors,
so, location based.
And for our project we used surface tracking.
So, a marker where then something will
be displayed on top of that.
The other one is projection,
that tends to be more relying on an optical approach
when deciding where to put display information
either through visual markers or through vision techniques
that estimate the areas of interest.
So, our motivation is that despite
the increased pervasive nature
very few studies have looked at
different types of augmented reality.
It tends to be compared to other technologies
like the actual reality or desktop systems.
So, a lot of exciting systems
have been developed and researched
but not quite different in different AR approaches.
So, some of the work that has been done is that
is a comparative study that proves that AR interfaces
are better suited for collocated collaboration
than generic computer interfaces are.
And they're less likely to introduce an artificial seam
between the real world and the shared digital task
that participants are trying to solve.
And that enables more natural communication
and includes non verbal communication
more so than computer interface.
And other examples describe how remote collaboration
through AR can increase users' sense of presence
when compared to a desktop setup.
And how users can achieve more effective collaboration
in AR than in similar VR counterparts.
And the effects of our AR in collocated collaboration
in classrooms are especially increased.
So, finally there's, I'm not going to try to pronounce
the name but that study provides an interesting insight
in collaboration with users in different positions
on the mixed reality continuum.
So, our study focused on a projected view
and a mobile view.
And we did a study with the goal of understanding
the benefits and limitations of each approach.
And in the context of a collocated collaboration.
And these types of AR systems
present very different constraints and possibilities
in terms of development and deployment.
And so, since it's quite specific,
insights are mostly useful
for people looking to adopt AR
in a shared collaborative scenario.
So, a classroom or general teaching.
So, we set up a game, a collaborative game.
And the collaborative task was based on the traditional
merry go match pairs.
So, in the traditional version you'd have cards
and they're usually arranged in a grid.
You turn over two in one go.
And then if they match they either stay that way
or get removed from the table
and they get turned back over.
And the goal is to have all cards turned.
The game ends either if all of them are facing upwards
or when the player runs out of time.
Or turns depending on the rules.
And so, to make this a collaborative task
we adjusted the settings so each player flips one card
a single card in each turn.
So, they take turns flipping the first card
but the second person in that turn
needs to match the card that the first person turned over.
So, they need to agree on how to find the pairs.
The mobile application was developed using
Unity and Vuforia and Photon
for AR and networking to connect them.
And the projected version was developed
using the processing programming environment
with the input being provided by a webcam
that captured the color caps
that were placed on participants' index fingers
to find where they were pointing at.
And the output being a projector.
So, for the studies to explore some of the effects
of the two implementations of our collaboration game
we conducted a study with eight pairs of participants.
Following within subject design,
so, adhered to the aesthetics in common handheld AR.
The mobile version had 3D figure as well.
The projected version was obviously two dimensional.
So, once the game was completed
we asked participants to complete
these engagement scale short form
to measure self reported user engagement.
And we also measured general metrics such as game duration
and the number of card flips needed to finish the game
to measure the participants' success.
And the preference for which game they preferred
was also noted as well they were recorded
so later analysis could be more in depth
of what they did.
So, from the video captured, the main takeaway
was that in the handheld version
because they had less options of non verbal communication
of just pointing at a card, like pick that one,
that's the one that we need.
They developed different strategies
of talking about card position.
The first one was game references.
So, they talked about the card.
When they had already turned over a card
they referenced that before so,
the one that was over the shark
or to the left of the horse or whatever.
And the second was a grid reference
where they tried from the start
to develop a technique to talk about
which position they were aiming for.
So, they either numbered all of the cards on the table
or they tried to make a grid of A to D and one to four.
And that sometimes had some issues.
So, they went over to player references.
So, they tried to explain card position
in relation to themselves or their partner.
So, they said the row closest to you to the left.
Which then led to another problem.
Because they were sitting across from each other.
So, their left was the other person's right.
Which led to my left, your left.
Which then led to them developing spatial references.
So, they said the one closest to the door
instead of the one to the left.
So, they switched quite a lot between those strategies
to communicate card position.
Because they failed with one of them
so they switched to another one.
And they were often accompanied by gestures
as you can see in the picture.
Although that usually didn't help them
because they had slightly different angles.
So, they weren't actually pointing out
the right card for the other person.
But I'm assuming it's just intuitive movement
to try to point to whatever
you're trying to explain to the other person.
So, the results from, we expected them to be
different in engagement.
Because they're quite different means of interaction.
And the aesthetics of the games are quite different.
But there were no significant differences
in engagement between the two different conditions.
And preference wise nine preferred the handheld experience,
describing it as more intuitive and more familiar.
And six preferred the projected game
due to its novelty and it being more innovative.
And because it made it easier
to communicate card position to their partners.
One participant didn't report their preference.
And interestingly, several handheld experience,
several participants described the handheld experience
as more intuitive and familiar
despite the projected version being closer to what
the physical game would actually be like.
And this did not only speak to the adoption of mobile AR
and people being used to interacting with a mobile device.
But it also supports the idea that physical,
knowledge of how we interact with the physical world
can't necessarily be adopted
to interactions with digital items.
And all of these results so far
it suggests that there's not really
a significant difference between the two
but the results for their success rate
suggests a more complex relationship.
So, the participants for the handheld version
for the projected version was significantly fast.
So, they finished way faster than the projected condition.
Yeah, they finished faster in the projected condition.
Sorry.
Which seems logical.
Because it's a better interface for the task.
And it supports collaboration more so
because it's a shared display.
However user feedback and the engagement results
suggests that participants did not consider one interface
to be particularly more usable than the other.
If anything the handheld system was often described
as more intuitive and familiar.
And as such it could be suggested
that the handheld condition
had a negative effect on participants' collaboration.
And that the use of individual and private viewpoints
that are described as a key to collaborative AR
create a seam between the task and the communication space,
similar to what we would observe
during a desktop based collaborative task.
So, that suggests that the independence and individuality
features of collaborative AR are task dependent
and arguably more suited for tasks
requiring visual search or spatial manipulation.
Which could be explored in future work.
So, additionally although they were
a lot faster in the projected view
they also took a lot more flips.
So, they were a lot more trial and error.
They didn't really consider or think about
where they thought they remembered the cards being.
They just went for it
because it was straight in front of them.
So, it produced the tasks memory demands
but it required a higher degree of coordination
and better support for the projected condition.
And that changes the implications of the cognitive load
during a collocated collaborative task in AR.
So, for future work the next step
would be quantifying collaboration,
different types of tasks.
So, spatial manipulation like a jigsaw puzzle
or something like that.
And they would include AR systems where users interact
by not tapping but manipulating real objects
like actual match pairs and physical cards.
Also, it should be considered to adapt
things that are already used in desktop collaboration
like knowing where the other person is pointing.
For example, in normal collaborative documents
you would see where the other person's cursor is.
So, that should be translated to a collaborative
AR environment as well if it's on a mobile device
to see where other people are pointing.
And it should be a consideration
if we should share viewpoints of the participants.
So, allow users to peek into
what the other person's viewpoint is
by having a tracker on their back
or sharing the viewpoint of whoever is speaking at the time.
Thank you.
(audience clapping)
- [Man] You're welcome.
The end of the session but do we have questions
from the audience?
- [Man] Thanks for a nice talk.
- Thank you.
- [Man] What, do you think there'd be any difference
in the AR condition had you chosen 2D imagery
as opposed to three dimensional imagery?
- We tried.
We did both and it didn't really have an effect.
Before we did the study we did the comparison
and didn't really change.
- [Man] Okay.
Because it seems, I'd imagine there's a bit of occlusion
that might if you have that really large
I don't know what it was, a rhinoceros or whatever
I don't know, it seemed to me that perhaps
you might be less inclined to talk about the card behind it
or maybe 'cause it's a rhino
and it's taking up a lot of space
you're loathe to flip it over, you know?
Just some qualitatively.
But you aren't seeing those differences?
- No, yeah we tried both.
Because at first we tried to use the given chances for it.
So, make it 3D and for the projection make it move.
And because that isn't as comparable
we changed it to the separate ones.
But the results didn't change.
- [Man] Okay, okay.
- Thanks.
- [Man] So, maybe one last question for me.
As far as I understood you had quite many
confounding variables inside
like the representation of the content
from the cards was different.
The display brightness was different, of course.
The size of the displays was different.
Their placement was it individual or social displace.
2D versus 3D and so on and so forth.
So, I'm wondering
and didn't got that clear from your talk
what is the result which you believe
which we can take as a message?
- I say the result is that you need to consider
the different aspects of different AR applications.
So, in my case which might not be
as scientifically proof as it could be,
it showed that for a task where you just need speed
it might be easier to have a projected shared screen.
But if you require precision
it would be an individual screen.
So, basically the takeaway for me
was just that you need to consider AR
as different technologies and not just one
that you can compare to VR
and then that's the same and all done.
- [Man] I guess that's something we can all agree on.
Thank you very much.
- Thanks.
(audience clapping)