skip to main content
10.1145/3290607.3312933acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
abstract

Opportunities for In-Home Augmented Reality Guidance

Published:02 May 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

The use of Augmented Reality (AR) systems has been shown to be beneficial in guiding users through structured tasks when compared to traditional 2D instructions. In this work, we begin to examine the potential of such systems for home improvement tasks, which present some specific challenges (e.g., operating at both large and small scales, and coping with the diversity in home environments). Specifically, we investigate user performance of a common low-level task in this domain. We conducted a user study where participants mark points on a planar surface (as if to place a nail, or measure from) guided only by virtual cues. We observed that participants position themselves so as to minimize parallax by kneeling, leaning, or side-stepping, and when doing so, they are able to mark points with a high degree of accuracy. In cases where the targets fall above one's line of vision, participants are less able to compensate and make larger errors. We discuss initial insights from these observations and participant feedback, and present the first set of challenges that we believe designers and developers will face in this domain.

References

  1. Hugo Alvarez, Iker Aguinaga, and Diego Borro. 2011. Providing guidance for maintenance operations using automatic markerless augmented reality system. In Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR), 2011 10th IEEE International Symposium on. IEEE, 181--190. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Steven Feiner, Blair Macintyre, and Dorée Seligmann. 1993. Knowledge-based augmented reality. Commun. ACM 36, 7 (1993), 53--62. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Pierre Fite-Georgel. 2011. Is there a reality in industrial augmented reality?. In Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR), 2011 10th IEEE International Symposium on. IEEE, 201--210. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Mika Hakkarainen, Charles Woodward, and Mark Billinghurst. 2008. Augmented assembly using a mobile phone. In Proceedings of the 7th IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality. IEEE Computer Society, 167--168. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Sandra G Hart and Lowell E Staveland. 1988. Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In Advances in psychology. Vol. 52. Elsevier, 139--183.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Steven Henderson and Steven Feiner. 2011. Exploring the benefits of augmented reality documentation for maintenance and repair. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 17, 10 (2011), 1355--1368. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Steven J Henderson and Steven K Feiner. 2011. Augmented reality in the psychomotor phase of a procedural task. In Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR), 2011 10th IEEE International Symposium on. IEEE, 191--200. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Oliver Korn, Albrecht Schmidt, and Thomas Hörz. 2013. The potentials of in-situ-projection for augmented workplaces in production: a study with impaired persons. In CHI'13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 979--984. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Michael R Marner, Andrew Irliti, and Bruce H Thomas. 2013. Improving procedural task performance with Augmented Reality annotations. In Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR), 2013 IEEE International Symposium on. IEEE, 39--48.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Tran Pham, Jo Vermeulen, Anthony Tang, and Lindsay MacDonald Vermeulen. 2018. Scale Impacts Elicited Gestures for Manipulating Holograms: Implications for AR Gesture Design. In Proceedings of the 2018 Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS '18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 227--240. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. PTC Inc. 2018. Vuforia Engine. htps://www.vuforia.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Stephanie Rosenthal, Shaun K Kane, Jacob O Wobbrock, and Daniel Avrahami. 2010. Augmenting on-screen instructions with micro-projected guides: when it works, and when it fails. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM international conference on Ubiquitous computing. ACM, 203--212. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Arthur Tang, Charles Owen, Frank Biocca, and Weimin Mou. 2003. Comparative efectiveness of augmented reality in object assembly. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. ACM, 73--80. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Giles Westerfield, Antonija Mitrovic, and Mark Billinghurst. 2015. Intelligent augmented reality training for motherboard assembly. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 25, 1 (2015), 157--172.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Opportunities for In-Home Augmented Reality Guidance

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CHI EA '19: Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      May 2019
      3673 pages
      ISBN:9781450359719
      DOI:10.1145/3290607

      Copyright © 2019 Owner/Author

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all 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 third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 2 May 2019

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • abstract

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate6,164of23,696submissions,26%

      Upcoming Conference

      CHI '24
      CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      May 11 - 16, 2024
      Honolulu , HI , USA

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader