Hyper/Actual Immersiveness Scale to Evaluate Experiences in Mixed Reality Using Design Thinking

  • Fadi ChehimiEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 1044)


Mixed Reality (MR) has steadily proliferated to become one of the most trending technologies now. In order to maintain this progressive momentum, delivering highest degrees of immersion is key. Continuous experimentation helps get there but it must be accompanied by an effective evaluation process. Many researchers have developed subjective and objective methods to measure immersion and presence in MR, but most use fixed analysis criteria. In this paper we introduce a new method that is user-driven, not researcher-driven, that adapts to the varying cognitive and physical states people go through in MR. It utilizes Empathy Maps to capture feelings, thoughts, actions and verbal expressions from a first-person perspective. We also introduce an experience continuum to score those states based on how artificial or realistic they felt.


Augmented Reality Design Thinking Evaluation method Mixed Reality Virtual Reality 


  1. 1.
    Arifina, Y., Sastria, T., Barlian, E.: User experience metric for augmented reality application: a review. Procedia Comput. Sci. 135, 648–656 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Avery, B., Piekarski, W., Warren J., Thomas, B.: Evaluation of user satisfaction and learnability for outdoor augmented reality gaming. In: 7th Australasian User interface conference, pp. 17–24 (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bustamante, E., Spain, R.: Measurement invariance of the Nasa TLX. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, vol. 52, pp. 1522–1526 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dϋnser, D., Grasset, R., Seichter, H., Billinghurst, M.: A survey of evaluation techniques used in augmented reality studies. Technical report, HIT Lab NZ, University of Canterbury (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dϋnser, D., Grasset, R., Seichter, H., Billinghurst, M.: Applying HCI principles to AR systems design. In: 2nd International Workshop at the IEEE Virtual Reality Conference (2017)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dirin, A., Laine, T.: User experience in mobile augmented reality: emotions, challenges, opportunities and best practices. Computers 7, 33 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fenn, J. Raskino, M.: Emerging technologies hype cycle is here. Gartner (2010). Accessed 04 Aug 2018
  8. 8.
    Forni, A.: Gartner identifies three megatrends that will drive digital business into the next decade. Gartner.–08–15-gartner-identifies-three-megatrends-that-will-drive-digital-business-into-the-next-decade. Accessed 04 Aug 2018
  9. 9.
    Gabbard, J., Hix, D., Swan, J.: User-centered design and evaluation of virtual environments. IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl. 19, 51–59 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gabbard, J., Swan, J., Hix, D., Kim, S., Fitch, G.: Active text drawing styles for outdoor augmented reality: a user-based study and design implications. In: IEEE Virtual Reality Conference, pp. 5–42 (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gibbons, S.: Empathy mapping: the first step in design thinking. Nielsen Norman Group. Accessed 29 Jul 2018
  12. 12.
    Irshad, S., Rohaya, D., Rambli, A.: Advances in mobile augmented reality from user experience perspective: a review of studies. In: International Visual Informatics Conference, pp. 466–477 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Irshad, S., Rohaya, D., Rambli, A., Adhani, N., Shukri, S., Omar, Y.: Measuring user experience of mobile augmented reality systems through non-instrumental quality attributes. In: 5th International Conference on User Science and Engineering (2018)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    IKEA place app website. Accessed 31 Aug 2018
  15. 15.
    Kalawsky, R.: The validity of presence as a reliable human performance metric in immersive environments. In: 3rd International Workshop on Presence (2000)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Likert, R.: A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch. Psychol. 22(140), 1–55 (1932)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Macefiel, R.: How to specify the participant group size for usability studies: a practitioner’s guide. J. Usability Stud. 5(1), 34–45 (2009)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Matsuda, K.: Hyper reality website. Accessed 05 Aug 2018
  19. 19.
    Milgram, P., Kishino, F.: Taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. Trans. Inf. Syst. 12(12), 1321–1329 (1994)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mootee, I.: Design Thinking for Strategic Innovation. Wiley, New Jersey (2013)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Moray, N.: Ergonomics. Taylor & Francis, London (2005)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Olsson, T., Ihamäki, P., Lagerstam, E., Ventä-Olkkonen, L., Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, K.: User expectations for mobile mixed reality services: an initial user study. In: European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics (2009)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Olsson, T., Kärkkäinen, T., Lagerstam, E., V-Olkkonen, L.: User evaluation of mobile augmented reality scenarios. J. Ambient Intell. Smart Environ 4(1), 29–47 (2012)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pesudovs, K.: The development of a symptom questionnaire for assessing virtual reality viewing using a head-mounted display. Optom. Vis. Sci. 82, 571 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ridder, M.: Thyssenkrupp unveils latest technology to transform the global elevator service industry: Microsoft HoloLens, for enhancing interventions. Thyssenkrupp. Accessed 29 Jul 2018
  26. 26.
    Ritsos, P., Ritsos, D., Gougoulis, A.: Standards in augmented reality: a user experience perspective. In: 2nd International Workshop on AR Standards (2011)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Riva, G., Davide, F., IJsselsteijn, W.: Being There. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2003)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sheridan, T.: Musings on telepresence and virtual presence. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 1, 120–126 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Skarbez, R., Brooks Jr., F., Whitton, M.: A survey of presence and related concepts. ACM Comput. Surv. 50, 1–39 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Slater, M.: Presence and the sixth sense. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 11, 435–439 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Siegel, J., Bauer, M.: A field usability evaluation of a wearable system. In: 1st IEEE International Symposium on Wearable Computers (1997)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Stuff website: Jaguar blurs the lines between ‘Virtual’ and ‘Reality’ in driving prank. Accessed 28 July 2018
  33. 33.
    Swan, E., Gabbard, J.: Survey of user-based experimentation in augmented reality. In: 1st International Conference on Virtual Reality, pp. 1–9 (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.AccentureLondonUK

Personalised recommendations