skip to main content
10.1145/3377290.3377296acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmindtrekConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Scalable and responsive information for industrial maintenance work: developing XR support on smart glasses for maintenance technicians

Published:06 February 2020Publication History

ABSTRACT

This paper describes the process and results of bringing responsive and scalable technical documentation to smart glasses to support industrial maintenance. Development and testing was done in four development cycles to discover how maintenance information can be delivered to smart glasses to support maintenance technicians. Test case was elevator maintenance, and several user tests were performed in a real or realistic environment by real maintenance experts. The concept of using smart glasses to view technical information during a maintenance task was received very well by the test users. This study confirms that DITA XML is a good candidate for the creation of technical information content for smart glasses, but information design is needed to ensure the scalability and usability of the information.

References

  1. ASD-STE100 official home page. Accessed 6 November 2019. Available at: http://www.asd-ste100.org/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Janelle L Aitken and Hayden A Ross. 2019. Mixed Reality Training Method: Performance Benefits for Routine Vehicle Maintenance Tasks. In Volume 436 of DTA report Defence Technology Agency. 26 pages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Dawn M. Armfield, Ann Hill Duin and Isabel Pedersen. 2018. Experiencing Content: Heuristics for Human-Centered Design for Augmented Reality. In 2018 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference (ProComm), 241--247. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Laura Bellamy, Michelle Carey and Jenifer Schlotfeldt. 2012. DITA Best Practices: A Roadmap for Writing, Editing, and Architecting in DITA. IBM Press, Upper Saddle River, N.J.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Alisa Burova, John Mäkelä, Jaakko Hakulinen, Tuuli Keskinen, Hanna Heinonen, Sanni Siltanen and Markku Turunen. 2020. Utilizing VR and Gaze Tracking to Develop AR Solutions for Industrial Maintenance. In CHI '20, April 25--30, 2020, Honolulu, HI, USA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Iñigo Fernández del Amo, John Ahmet Erkoyuncu, Rajkumar Roy, Stephen Wilding. 2018. Augmented Reality in Maintenance: An information-centred design framework. In Procedia Manufacturing, vol 19, 148--155. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Markus Funk, Thomas Kosch, Scott W. Greenwald, and Albrecht Schmidt. 2015. A benchmark for interactive augmented reality instructions for assembly tasks. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia (MUM '15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 253--257. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Ray Gallon and Andy McDonald. 2016. Context Sensing and Information 4.0. In TC World, November 1, 14--18, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Michele Gattullo, Antonio E. Uva, Michele Fiorentino, Giulia Wally Scurati and Francesco Ferrise. 2017. From Paper Manual to AR Manual: Do We Still Need Text? In Procedia Manufacturing, vol 11, 1303--1310. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Steven Henderson and Steven Feiner. 2011. Exploring the Benefits of Augmented Reality Documentation for Maintenance and Repair. In IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, vol 17, issue 10, 1355--1368. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Robert R. Johnson. 1998. User-centered technology: a rhetorical theory for computers and other mundane artifacts. State University of New York Press, Albany.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Eija Kaasinen, Susanna Aromaa, Antti Väätänen, Ville Mäkelä, Jaakko Hakulinen, Juho Hella, Tuuli Keskinen, and Markku Turunen. 2018. Mobile Service Technician 4.0: Knowledge-Sharing Solutions for Industrial Field Maintenance. In Interaction Design and Architecture(s) Journal, N. 38, 6--27.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Christian Knopfle, Jens Weidenhausen, Laurent Chauvigne and Ingo Stock. 2005. Template based authoring for AR based service scenarios. In IEEE Proceedings. VR 2005. Virtual Reality, 2005., Bonn, 237--240. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Peter Mohr, Bernhard Kerbl, Michael Donoser, Dieter Schmalstieg and Denis Kalkofen. 2015. Retargeting Technical Documentation to Augmented Reality. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 3337--3346. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Riccardo Palmarini, John Ahmet Erkoyuncu, Rajkumar Roy, Hosein Torabmostaedi. 2018. A systematic review of augmented reality applications in maintenance. In Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing, vol 49, 215--228. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Michael Prilla, Marc Janssen and Timo Kunzendorff,. 2019. How to Interact with Augmented Reality Head Mounted Devices in Care Work? A Study Comparing Handheld Touch (Hands-on) and Gesture (Hands-free) Interaction. In AIS Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction, vol 11, issue 3, 157--178. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Eric Ries. 2011. The Lean Startup: How Today's Entrepreneurs Use Continuous Innovation to Create Radically Successful Businesses. Crown Publ. Group.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Michael J. Salvo. 2001. Ethics of engagement: User-centered design and rhetorical methodology. In Technical Communication Quarterly, vol 10, issue 3, 273--290. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Christopher A Sanchez and Jennifer Wiley. 2009. To Scroll or Not to Scroll: Scrolling, Working Memory Capacity, and Comprehending Complex Texts. In Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, (December 10, 2009), 730--738. DOI:/10.1177/0018720809352788.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Giulia Wally Scurati, Michele Gattullo, Michele Fiorentino, Francesco Ferrise, Monica Bordegoni and Antonio Emmanuele Uva. 2018. Converting maintenance actions into standard symbols for Augmented Reality applications. In Industry 4.0. Comput. Ind., 98, 68--79. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Antonio E Uva, Michele Gattullo, Vito M. Manghisi, Daniele Spagnulo, Giuseppe L Cascella and Michele Fiorentino. 2018. Evaluating the effectiveness of spatial augmented reality in smart manufacturing: a solution for manual working stations. In The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 94 (Jan 2018). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Jenni Virtaluoto, Tytti Suojanen and Suvi Isohella. 2021. Minimalism heuristics revisited: Developing a Practical Review Tool. Preprint for Technical Communication Feb 2021.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Hui Xue, Puneet Sharma and Fridolin Wild. 2018. User Satisfaction in Augmented Reality-Based Training Using Microsoft HoloLens. Preprint. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Scalable and responsive information for industrial maintenance work: developing XR support on smart glasses for maintenance technicians

        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 Other conferences
          AcademicMindtrek '20: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Academic Mindtrek
          January 2020
          182 pages
          ISBN:9781450377744
          DOI:10.1145/3377290

          Copyright © 2020 ACM

          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: 6 February 2020

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          AcademicMindtrek '20 Paper Acceptance Rate24of45submissions,53%Overall Acceptance Rate110of207submissions,53%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader