Hello out there!

Christmas is coming closer, but we have a lot of work to do until then. So yesterday we considered and worked out a plan about how to select state-of-the-art paper that will serve as use cases for the classification of our technology and evaluation criteria.
First we took a look at similar approaches from the literature that we found during our research and collected them. Beside of that we had a look at the art and matter of the visualization of the results too. Thereby we have a scientific basis for our way on selecting the state-of-the-art papers.

We want to select papers from 2015 - 2018. Maybe we will include papers from 2014, if we find too less papers. The libraries from which we want to achieve the papers are the ISMAR Conference Proceedings from IEEE and the CHI from ACM Digital Library and maybe some more venues based on research papers, if the number on papers is too small.
Compared to the research of Duenser et. al (2008), which analysed papers from 15 years (1993 - 2007) and to the research of Edward and Gabbard (2005), which retrieved papers from 12 years (1992 -2004) we set the limit to three years. The reasons therefor are, that we are limited regarding the lapse of time and team members. Furthermore we want to have actual surveys and want to provide an overview over applied evaluation methods and which technologies this surveys deal with. Edward and Gabbard (2005) analysed 1104 articles (266 were related to AR), Duenser et. al (2008) analysed 557 AR related articles compared to this, Carmigniani et al. (2011) analysed ‘only’ 25 papers from 2002 to 2012.
We choose ISMAR Conference Proceedings, because of the suggestion from our supervisor and Edward and Gabbard (2005) retrieved a part of their papers from their too. Our reasons for choosing the ACM Digital Library are that Duenser et. al (2008) used them amongst others and because we get access to the papers through our university.

We have two selection criterias to sort out papers we can not use. First the paper had to be related to augmented reality. Otherwise we can’t retrieve information regarding the used technology or evaluation method. Second the paper had to be available without any costs. For example it had to be available with free online access through our university.

Based on methodologies from the literature we will analyze all papers that fulfill our selection criteria. We will collect the results in a table and visualize the data.

• For the classification of AR technology: We will analyse which technology was used or proposed within the papers of the last years along our technological classification proposal.

• For the classification of AR evaluations: We will analyse which methods were used in the previous years and how often. Based on that we will classify these applications along our proposed evaluation criteria.

Furthermore want to collect both results in a table and want to analyze it, if there are conspicuousness regarding to a classification and the approached evaluation methods.

Last but not least we wish you a nice christmas season

Carmigniani, J., Furht, B., Anisetti, M., Ceravolo, P., Damiani, E., & Ivkovic, M. (2011). Augmented reality technologies, systems and applications. Multimedia Tools and Applications , 51 (1), 341–377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-010-0660-6

Duenser, A., Grasset, R., & Billinghurst, M. (2008). A Survey of Evaluation Techniques Used in Augmented Reality Studies. ACM SIGGRAPH ASIA 2008 … . https://doi.org/10.1145/1508044.1508049

Edward, J., Ii, S., & Gabbard, J. L. (2005). Survey of User-Based Experimentation in augmented Reality. In In 1st International Conference on Virtual Reality, Las Vegas.

Papagiannakis, G., Singh, G., & Magnenat-Thalmann, N. (2008). A survey of mobile and wireless technologies for augmented reality systems. Computer Animation and Virtual Worlds , 19 (1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/cav.221