As part of our module in Principles Of Interactive Media Design, it is a requirement that we present an area of the field that we have a particular interest. Last week myself and two other colleagues shared our research into user interfaces and user centered design techniques for augmented reality and virtual reality. We chose to explore virtual and augmented reality (VR and AR) due to its recent emergence into the mainstream areas of gaming, mobile applications and various other systems. We felt it important to distinguish between VR and AR in both areas of interaction design and user interface evaluation and creation techniques. As it is a topic of great passion for us we wanted to instill the possibilities that this medium has to offer for interaction designers and UI developers. The nature of the hardware means there are a lot of alterations needed for standard design practices. Making a VR / AR app work is not just a technical matter, but one that introduces multiple new modes of usability analysis and user interface development. We were excited to give people an insight into, what we believed to be, interfaces of the very near future.

Within our presentation I assumed the responsibility of discussing previous case studies and experiments. Interestingly, I chose two studies that had a significant time gap between them (dating from 2001-2015). I wanted to illustrate that such innovation with technology has been in existence for quite sometime. In the run up to the presentation I researched many published papers; focusing on experiments whereby user interaction with UIs were evaluated. I chose one case study each to cover AR and VR. Firstly, I discussed the design and evaluation of menu systems for immersive virtual environments. In 2001, Bowman and Wingrove conducted experiments using Pinch Gloves/V8 head mounted displays and tested how users interacted with menus that virtually existed on their fingertips. Secondly, I discussed experiments undertaken in augmented reality UIs for indoor navigation. These experiments tested how users perceived superimposed information on to their real world physical surroundings i.e. directional arrows, distance monitoring, elevation promoting, query images etc. Our presentation went well in terms of factual information gathered. The timing and flow of the presentation was just right, the field of AR and VR can get overwhelming and overly-technical when dealing with the biology of users and how VR affects them. The two videos that were shown complimented our presentation, bringing the theory we discussed into reality. During the videos, there were some looks of awe at the technology shown. You can view our slides below to get an idea of what we covered.

After our presentation we gave some prototyping design tasks. Before the prototyping began, we presented to the group two current AR and VR interfaces (one of each) that were currently available to download for mobile devices. We ensured that we had the required applications downloaded to present to the group. Firstly we presented an application that used the Google Cardboard. This piece of hardware allowed us to give the participants first hand experience of Virtual Reality interaction. We placed an iPhone 6 within the Google Cardboard whilst an application called Vanguard V was running. Vanguard V is a virtual reality action game whereby the user feels immersed within the game and can use motion tracking to interact.  Users simply looked in a direction and the game reacted (in this case, they were avoid meteors that approached the screen). Secondly we showcased an AR application provided by Mercedes Benz called C-Class. The app involves pointing the device’s camera to a printed-out target image, where a 3D model of the car comes to life directly on the device screen. The superimposed car could then be rotated, rescaled and given new colours. Users were able to experience and appreciate the attributes of the automobile a whole new way from their handheld device thus giving them an idea how reality can be augmented through our current technologies.

Once we finished our short demonstration of AR/VR products, we carefully explained to them what we expected them to complete within a specific time frame and then split them into groups. In total we formed 4 groups (3 groups of 2 and a group of 3). Each group was allocated a topic whereby they needed to design a suitable interface for. These topics composed of messaging, navigation, notifications and photo/video. We encouraged the participants to be as innovative as possible and to imagine themselves in a scenario whereby they would be using such interfaces prompting them to imagine how such an interface can increase usability.

Our second activity was centered around digital prototyping for AR interfaces. The groups were introduced to the prototyping software Justinmind. The quick tutorial at the start of the session introduced them to designing the visual elements in the software, covering from shapes to text and icons, opacity and borders. Adding interactive elements to test their concepts was covered with the features of the prototyping software. Each group had a computer each. Tasked with bringing their concept to a digital platform, they worked together. Any question from the group was answered at their computer, showing them the solution with a detailed and concise explanation. At the end of the 30 minutes, the groups saved their projects to the shared drive. These projects were opened on the projector for the whole class to see. Each group presented their prototype with their design decisions and interactive elements.

By completing a miniature design session it was shown to the students how challenging it can be to design for a different medium; especially one that on the surface seems familiar in terms of technical capabilities and initial user interface elements. It is the interaction that matters most; for it to remain usable is something that we aimed to illustrate through the design activity as something that cannot be written off as being able to reuse existing techniques to achieve a goal for a different medium. We were keen to monitor how people could attempt to transfer their knowledge of 2D interface design to a 3D interface which needs to take depth perception into account. From this we could collectively learn what techniques are non transferable and decipher effective ways to prototype for 3D space for future practises. We expected the activity to be difficult to prototype and this was something we wanted the students to see for themselves; that there is not yet a set methodology to designing virtual and augmented interfaces.

On a personal level, my interest in Augmented Reality has significantly grown. I wish to continue my research in the field with the hopes that I can incorporate augmented reality attributes to my thesis product idea. I have never created an application that has such capabilities so I am skeptical whether I am capable of learning the new skill within my given timeframe but I will pursue the idea and calculate if it is a wise choice.