Advertisement

Virtual and Augmented Reality: Innovation or Old Wine in New Bottles?

  • Thomas Alexander
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 822)

Abstract

Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality (VR/AR) have experienced a tremendous increase in attraction and application. Nowadays, VR-headsets are commercially available. They provide a much better resolution and much wider field-of view for a fraction of the original cost. The same development can be observed for AR, including smartphone or hand-held AR solutions. But beyond the fun of new technology, VR and AR are often lacking of a professional use case. They still fail to show their benefits and provide data for a detailed cost/benefit analysis. And with the growing dispersion and implementation into professional applications in modern industrial processes, various training and education applications, or advanced distant learning, there is an increasing need for concrete results and recommendations for usability and human-technology interaction.

They can be taken and applied from early studies in the area of Human Factors and Ergonomics. Although some of them are not important because of higher technological capabilities and performance (e.g. latency, resolution or field-of-view), most of them are still valid. They begin with cue conflicts, visual and multimodal perception and end with system performance, workload and simulator sickness.

This paper presents the relevance of HF/E for a meaningful, effective and efficient application of this technology. It shows also that the topic itself is not totally new and many requirements and results can be transferred from existing studies.

Keywords

VR/AR Usability Training and education 

References

  1. 1.
    Oxford Living Dictionaries: Reality. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definitions/reality. Last Accessed 01 May 2018
  2. 2.
    Oxford Living Dictionaries: Virtual. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definitions/virtual. Last Accessed 01 May 2018
  3. 3.
    Burdea G, Coiffet P (1994) Virtual reality technology. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ellis SR, Kaiser MR, Grunwald AJ (eds) (1991) Pictorial communication in virtual and real environments. Taylor & Francis, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stanney KM (ed) (2002) Handbook of virtual environments. Erlbaum, MahwahGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Alexander T, Goldberg S (2005) Virtual environments for intuitive human-system interaction. RTO-TR-HFM-121-Part-I. NATO RTO, Neuilly-sur-Seine, FranceGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    MR-Continuum (Milgram)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Slater M, Pertaub D, Steed A (1999) Public speaking in virtual reality: facing and audience of avatars. IEEE Comput Graph Appl 19(2):6–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sutherland I (1965) The ultimate display. In: International federation of information processing, vol 2, p 506ffGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bullinger H-J, Brauer W, Braun M (1997) Virtual environments. In: Salvendy G (ed) Human factors and ergonomics. Wiley, New York, pp 1725–1759Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Crux-Neira C, Sandin D, DeFanti T (1993) Surround-screen projection-based virtual reality: the design and implementation of the CAVE. In: Computer graphics (SIGGRAPH’93 proceedings), pp 135–142Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Krüger W, Fröhlich B (1994) The responsive workbench. IEEE Comput Graph Appl 1215Google Scholar
  13. 13.
  14. 14.
    Kennedy RS, Lane NE, Berbaum KS, Lilienthal MG (1993) Simulator sickness questionnaire: an enhanced method for quantifying simulator sickness. Int J Aviat Psychol 3:203–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fraunhofer FKIEBonnGermany

Personalised recommendations