Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparing Screen-Based Version Control to Augmented Artifact Version Control for Physical Objects

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Human-Computer Interaction – INTERACT 2023 (INTERACT 2023)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 14142))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 649 Accesses

Abstract

Besides referring to digital twins, the iterative development of physical objects cannot be easily managed in version control systems. However, physical content also could benefit from versioning for structured work and collaborative uses, thereby increasing equality between digital and physical design. Hence, it needs to be investigated what kind of system is most suitable for supporting a physical object version control. Focusing on the visualization of differences between states of a physical artifact, two systems were compared against each other in a lab study: a screen-based solution optimized for 3D models as baseline and an approach that augments a physical artifact with digital information as hypothesis. Our results indicate that the Augmented Artifact system is superior in task completion time but scores a lower usability rating than the baseline. Based on the results, we further provide design considerations for building a physical object version control system.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Anshuman, S., Kumar, B.: Architecture and HCI: a review of trends towards an integrative approach to designing responsive space. Int. J. IT Archit. Eng. Constr. 2(4), 273–284 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Atlassian: Sourcetree. https://www.sourcetreeapp.com/ (2023). Accessed 23 Jan 2023

  3. Axosoft: GitKraken. https://www.gitkraken.com/ (2023). Accessed 23 Jan 2023

  4. Bangor, A., Kortum, P.T., Miller, J.T.: An empirical evaluation of the system usability scale. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 24(6), 574–594 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1080/10447310802205776

  5. Bay, H., Tuytelaars, T., Van Gool, L.: SURF: speeded up robust features. In: Leonardis, A., Bischof, H., Pinz, A. (eds.) ECCV 2006. LNCS, vol. 3951, pp. 404–417. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/11744023_32

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Brooke, J., et al.: Sus-a quick and dirty usability scale. Usability Eval. Ind. 189(194), 4–7 (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Büttner, S., Prilla, M., Röcker, C.: Augmented reality training for industrial assembly work - are projection-based AR assistive systems an appropriate tool for assembly training? In: Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2020, pp. 1–12. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2020). https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376720

  8. Denning, J.D., Pellacini, F.: MeshGit: diffing and merging meshes for polygonal modeling. ACM Trans. Graph. 32(4), 35:1–35:10 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1145/2461912.2461942

  9. Doboš, J., Mitra, N.J., Steed, A.: 3d timeline: reverse engineering of a part-based provenance from consecutive 3d models. In: Computer Graphics Forum. vol. 33, pp. 135–144. Wiley Online Library, Computer Graphics Forum (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Doboš, J., Steed, A.: 3D Diff: an interactive approach to mesh differencing and conflict resolution. In: SIGGRAPH Asia 2012 Technical Briefs, pp. 1–4. SA 2012, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, November 2012. https://doi.org/10.1145/2407746.2407766

  11. Doboš, J., Steed, A.: 3d revision control framework. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on 3D Web Technology, Web3D 2012, pp. 121–129. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2012). https://doi.org/10.1145/2338714.2338736

  12. Doboš, J.: 3D Repo. https://www.3drepo.io/ (2023 (initial 2014)). Accessed 01 Sep 2022

  13. Doboš, J., Fan, C., Friston, S., Wong, C.: Screen space 3D diff: a fast and reliable method for real-time 3D differencing on the web. In: Proceedings of the 23rd International ACM Conference on 3D Web Technology, Web3D 2018, pp. 1–9. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, June 2018. https://doi.org/10.1145/3208806.3208809

  14. Ettehadi, O., Anderson, F., Tindale, A., Somanath, S.: Documented: embedding information onto and retrieving information from 3D printed objects. In: Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2021, pp. 1–11. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, May 2021. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445551

  15. Fender, A.R., Holz, C.: Causality-preserving asynchronous reality. In: CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2022, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2022). https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3501836

  16. Frankjær, R., Dalsgaard, P.: Understanding craft-based inquiry in HCI. In: Proceedings of the 2018 Designing Interactive Systems Conference, pp. 473–484 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Funk, M., Kosch, T., Schmidt, A.: Interactive worker assistance: comparing the effects of in-situ projection, head-mounted displays, tablet, and paper instructions. In: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing, UbiComp 2016, pp. 934–939. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, September 2016. https://doi.org/10.1145/2971648.2971706

  18. Gibson, I., Kvan, T., Wai Ming, L.: Rapid prototyping for architectural models. Rapid Prototyping J. 8(2), 91–95 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. GitHub, I.: GitHub Desktop. https://desktop.github.com/ (2023). Accessed 23 Jan 2023

  20. Google: Chrome. https://www.google.com/intl/en_us/chrome/ (2023). Accessed 23 Jan 2023

  21. Gulay, E., Kotnik, T., Lucero, A.: Exploring a feedback-oriented design process through curved folding. In: Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2021, pp. 1–8. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, May 2021. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445639

  22. Gulay, E., Lucero, A.: Integrated workflows: generating feedback between digital and physical realms. In: Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2019, pp. 1–15. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, May 2019. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300290

  23. Henderson, S.J., Feiner, S.K.: Augmented reality in the psychomotor phase of a procedural task. In: 2011 10th IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality, pp. 191–200, October 2011. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISMAR.2011.6092386

  24. Inc., G.: GoogleForms. https://docs.google.com/forms (2023). Accessed 23 Jan 2023

  25. Inc., S.: GrabCAD. https://grabcad.com/workbench (2023). Accessed 23 Jan 2023

  26. Ishii, H.: Tangible bits: beyond pixels. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction, TEI 2008, pp. xv–xxv. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2008). https://doi.org/10.1145/1347390.1347392

  27. Kalkofen, D., Sandor, C., White, S., Schmalstieg, D.: Visualization techniques for augmented reality. In: Furht, B. (ed.) Handbook of Augmented Reality, pp. 65–98. Springer, New York, New York, NY (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-0064-6_3, http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-1-4614-0064-6_3

  28. Letter, M., Wolf, K.: Tangible version control: exploring a physical object’s alternative versions. In: CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts, CHI EA 2022, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2022). https://doi.org/10.1145/3491101.3519686

  29. Lewis, J.R., Sauro, J.: Item benchmarks for the system usability scale. J. Usability Stud. 13(3), 158–167 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Lowe, D.G.: Distinctive image features from scale-invariant keypoints. Int. J. Comput. Vis. 60(2), 91–110 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Mecabricks: Mecabricks. https://mecabricks.com/en/workshop (2023). Accessed 23 Jan 2023

  32. Microsoft: mixed reality ToolKit. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/mixed-reality/mrtk-unity/packages/mrtk-packages (2023). Accessed 23 Jan 2023

  33. Microsoft: HoloLens. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/hololens (2023 (initial 2015)), Accessed 01 Sep 2022

  34. Onshape: Onshape. https://www.onshape.com/en/features/data-management (2023). Accessed 23 Jan 2023

  35. Peng, H., et al.: RoMA: interactive fabrication with augmented reality and a robotic 3D printer. In: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2018, pp. 1–12. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, April 2018. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174153

  36. Perteneder, F., Grossauer, E.M., Xu, Y., Haller, M.: Catch-up 360: digital benefits for physical artifacts. In: Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction, TEI 2015, pp. 105–108. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2015). https://doi.org/10.1145/2677199.2680564

  37. Reipschläger, P., Dachselt, R.: DesignAR: immersive 3D-modeling combining augmented reality with interactive displays. In: Proceedings of the 2019 ACM International Conference on Interactive Surfaces and Spaces, ISS 2019, pp. 29–41. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, November 2019. https://doi.org/10.1145/3343055.3359718

  38. Ruparelia, N.B.: The history of version control. SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes 35(1), 5–9 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1145/1668862.1668876

  39. Särmäkari, N.: Digital 3d fashion designers: cases of atacac and the fabricant. Fashion Theor. 27(1), 85–114 (2023)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Sauro, J., Dumas, J.S.: Comparison of three one-question, post-task usability questionnaires. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2009, pp. 1599–1608. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2009). https://doi.org/10.1145/1518701.1518946

  41. Song, H., Guimbretière, F., Hu, C., Lipson, H.: ModelCraft: capturing freehand annotations and edits on physical 3D models. In: Proceedings of the 19th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology, UIST 2006, pp. 13–22. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, October 2006. https://doi.org/10.1145/1166253.1166258

  42. Strauss, A., Corbin, J.M.: Grounded Theory in Practice. Sage, Newcastle upon Tyne (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  43. Tseng, T., Tsai, G.: Process products: capturing design iteration with digital fabrication. In: Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction, TEI 2015, pp. 631–636. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, January 2015. https://doi.org/10.1145/2677199.2687891

  44. Weichel, C., Hardy, J., Alexander, J., Gellersen, H.: ReForm: integrating physical and digital design through bidirectional fabrication. In: Proceedings of the 28th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software & Technology, UIST 2015, pp. 93–102. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, November 2015. https://doi.org/10.1145/2807442.2807451

  45. Weichel, C., Lau, M., Kim, D., Villar, N., Gellersen, H.W.: MixFab: a mixed-reality environment for personal fabrication. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2014, pp. 3855–3864. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, April 2014. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557090

  46. Yamaoka, J., Kakehi, Y.: MiragePrinter: interactive fabrication on a 3D printer with a mid-air display. In: ACM SIGGRAPH 2016 Studio, SIGGRAPH 2016, pp. 1–2. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, July 2016. https://doi.org/10.1145/2929484.2929489

  47. Zijlstra, F.: Efficiency in Work Behavior: A Design Approach for Modern Tools. Delft University Press, Delft, 01, 1993

    Google Scholar 

  48. Zünd, F., Poulakos, S., Kapadia, M., Sumner, R.W.: Story version control and graphical visualization for collaborative story authoring. In: Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Visual Media Production (CVMP 2017), CVMP 2017, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/3150165.3150175

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Berlin University of Applied Sciences and Technologies (BHT), Berlin, Germany

    Maximilian Letter, Marco Kurzweg & Katrin Wolf

Authors
  1. Maximilian Letter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marco Kurzweg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Katrin Wolf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maximilian Letter .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of West London, London, UK

    José Abdelnour Nocera

  2. Reykjavik University, Reykjavik, Iceland

    Marta Kristín Lárusdóttir

  3. University of York, York, UK

    Helen Petrie

  4. University of Bari Aldo Moro, Bari, Italy

    Antonio Piccinno

  5. Université Côte d’Azur, Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France

    Marco Winckler

1 Electronic supplementary material

Appendix

Appendix

Full results for the dependent variables Usability, Error Rate, Task Completion Time, and Mental Load. Only comparable tasks were tested against each other, variables were not compared cross-task. As no individual conditions were compared, but systems per task, a threshold of p < 0.05 is used for significance. Significant results are displayed in bold (Tables 1, 2, 3, 4 and Figs. 5, 6, 7 and 8).

Table 1. Results for the System Usability of Wilcoxon Signed Rank tests.
Full size table
Fig. 5.
figure 5

Boxplots visualizing System Usability data. Left: comparing the two systems 2D and AA. Right: task-wise comparison of systems.

Full size image
Table 2. Results for the Error Rate of Wilcoxon Signed Rank tests.
Full size table
Fig. 6.
figure 6

Boxplots visualizing Error Rate data. Left: comparing the two systems 2D and AA. Right: task-wise comparison of systems.

Full size image
Table 3. Results for the Task Completion Time of Wilcoxon Signed Rank tests.
Full size table
Fig. 7.
figure 7

Boxplots visualizing Task Completion Time data. Left: comparing the two systems 2D and AA. Right: task-wise comparison of systems.

Full size image
Table 4. Results for the Mental Load of Wilcoxon Signed Rank tests.
Full size table
Fig. 8.
figure 8

Boxplots visualizing Mental Load data. Left: comparing the two systems 2D and AA. Right: task-wise comparison of systems.

Full size image

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Letter, M., Kurzweg, M., Wolf, K. (2023). Comparing Screen-Based Version Control to Augmented Artifact Version Control for Physical Objects. In: Abdelnour Nocera, J., Kristín Lárusdóttir, M., Petrie, H., Piccinno, A., Winckler, M. (eds) Human-Computer Interaction – INTERACT 2023. INTERACT 2023. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 14142. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-42280-5_25

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-42280-5_25

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-42279-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-42280-5

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation