Unterschiede

Hier werden die Unterschiede zwischen zwei Versionen angezeigt.

Link zu dieser Vergleichsansicht

lehre:ws18:fsm_18ws:group_g:2019-02-07_big_update_incoming [07.02.2019 07:54]
Marlena Wolfes Erstellt mit dem Formular lehre:ws18:fsm_18ws:group_g
lehre:ws18:fsm_18ws:group_g:2019-02-07_big_update_incoming [07.02.2019 08:34] (aktuell)
Marlena Wolfes
Zeile 7: Zeile 7:
 tags_               : blog, update, classification,​ technologie,​ evaluation methods tags_               : blog, update, classification,​ technologie,​ evaluation methods
 ----  ---- 
 +
 +
 +Today we want to present you a few updates we had to make regarding our classification of technologies and evaluation methods.
 +
 +====== Classification of technologies ======
 +During our analysis and also through a meeting with our supervisor, we noticed that some phrases in the schemas are not well chosen and one category ​ was arranged in the false supercategory (3D-structured light).
 +Here are our final schemas for the classification of AR technologies after Display, Interface and Tracking.
 +
 +{{ :​lehre:​ws18:​fsm_18ws:​group_g:​display_final.png?​900 |}}
 +
 +{{ :​lehre:​ws18:​fsm_18ws:​group_g:​tracking_final.png?​900 |}}
 +
 +
 +Further we decided to classify the area of an AR application too and determined the following categories:
 +
 +  * Assembly and Inspection\\ ​
 +(Dey et al., 2016; Papagiannakis,​ Singh, & Magnenat-Thalmann,​ 2008; Van Krevelen and Poelman, 2010)
 +  * Education\\
 +(Billinghurst,​ Clark, & Lee, 2015; Carmigniani et al., 2011; Dey et al., 2016; Papagiannakis et al., 2008; Van Krevelen and Poelman, 2010)
 +  * Culture, Arts and Architecture\\
 +(Billinghurst,​ Clark, & Lee, 2015;​Papagiannakis,​ Singh, & Magnenat-Thalmann,​ 2008)
 +  * Collaboration\\
 +(Dey et al., 2016; Papagiannakis,​ Singh, & Magnenat-Thalmann, ​ 2008; Van Krevelen and Poelman, 2010)
 +  * Entertainment and Gaming\\ ​
 +(Billinghurst,​ Clark, & Lee, 2015; Carmigniani et al., 2011; Dey et al., 2016; Papagiannakis et al., 2008; Van Krevelen and Poelman, 2010)
 +  * Interaction\\
 +(Papagiannakis,​ Singh, & Magnenat-Thalmann, ​ 2008)
 +  * Medical\\
 +(Carmigniani et al., 2011; Dey et al., 2016;  Van Krevelen and Poelman, 2010)
 +  * Navigation and Driving\\
 +(Dey et al., 2016; Papagiannakis,​ Singh, & Magnenat-Thalmann,​ 2008; Van Krevelen and Poelman, 2010)
 +  * Advertising and commercial\\
 +(Billinghurst,​ Clark, & Lee, 2015; Carmigniani et al., 2011;  Van Krevelen and Poelman, 2010)
 +  * Tourism and exploration\\  ​
 +(Dey et al. ,2016)
 +  * Science\\
 +(Billinghurst,​ Clark, & Lee, 2015)
 +
 +
 +====== Classification of evaluation (methods) ======
 +Regarding the classification of evaluation methods we made a lot of changes and improvements.
 +  * We don’t classify only the evaluation method anymore. We added items that are in our paper classification table already (we presented in our last blog). For example informations about the participants,​ the evaluation subject etc.
 +  * The classification is not separated into three layers anymore, rather the layout and organisation is adapted from the classification schema for the AR technologie. ​
 +  * Before the update our schema was mainly based on the survey Duenser et al. (2008) conducted. Now we include three additional references, including two AR surveys.
 +
 +
 +{{ :​lehre:​ws18:​fsm_18ws:​group_g:​final_evaluation_hierachie_01.png?​600 |}}
 +
 +{{ :​lehre:​ws18:​fsm_18ws:​group_g:​final_evaluation_hierachie_03.png?​600 |}}
 +
 +
 +Also this schema will be adapted by us during our analysis, so we will add the exact method (last item by “evaluation method”) in the correct category.
 +Examples:
 +We add every particular questionnaire as subcategories under this item ( evaluation method → subjective measurements → questionnaire). At the moment we found following questionnaires that were conducted:
 + 
 +  * Likert-Scales
 +  * matching question (left) to the answer (right)
 +  * open-ended questions
 +  * Social Presence in Gaming Questionnaire (SPGQ) ​
 +  * System Usability Scale (SUS)
 +  * user experience questionnaire
 +  * Attrakdiff questionnaire
 +  * before-after comparison: z.B: lernverhalten
 +  * UTAUT2 model
 +  * Game Experience Questionnaire (GEQ)
 +  * Task Load Index (TLX)  ​
 +
 +We add the subcategory “informal discussion” under the supercategory “informal evaluations”.
 +
 +
 +
 +====== Missing categories ======
 +If we found further categories for the area of an AR application,​ for the technologies or the evaluation methods, during our paper analysis we will add the additional category in our schemas and collect them. 
 +We will present them in our paper as a lesson learned aspect and will discuss them in our analysis of the results of the state-of-the-art paper analysis.
 +Maybe it is possible to draw conclusions when we compare our results to the already conducted AR related surveys.
 +
 +====== References ======
 +===== Classification of AR technologies =====
 +
 +Azuma, R. T. (1997). A Survey of Augmented Reality. Presence: Teleoper. Virtual Environ., 6(4), 355–385. https://​doi.org/​10.1162/​pres.1997.6.4.355
 +
 +Billinghurst,​ M., Clark, A., & Lee, G. (2015). A Survey of Augmented Reality. Foundations and Trends® in Human–Computer Interaction,​ 8(2–3), 73–272. https://​doi.org/​10.1561/​1100000049
 +
 +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
 +
 +Milgram, P., Takemura, H., Utsumi, A., & Kishino, F. (1995). Augmented reality: a class of displays on the reality-virtuality continuum. In H. Das (Hrsg.) (S. 282–292). Gehalten auf der Photonics for Industrial Applications,​ Boston, MA. https://​doi.org/​10.1117/​12.197321
 +
 +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
 +
 +Schmalstieg,​ D., & Höllerer, T. (2016). Augmented Reality: Principles and Practice. Addison-Wesley Professional. Abgerufen von https://​proquest.tech.safaribooksonline.de/​9780133153217
 +
 +Van Krevelen, R., & Poelman, R. (2010). A Survey of Augmented Reality Technologies,​ Applications and Limitations. International Journal of Virtual Reality (ISSN 1081-1451), 9, 1.
 +
 +===== Classification of AR application area =====
 +Billinghurst,​ M., Clark, A., & Lee, G. (2015). A Survey of Augmented Reality. Foundations and Trends® in Human–Computer Interaction,​ 8(2–3), 73–272. https://​doi.org/​10.1561/​1100000049
 +
 +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
 +
 +Dey, A., Billinghurst,​ M., Lindeman, R. W., & Swan II, J. E. (2016). A Systematic Review of Usability Studies in AugmentedReality between 2005 and 2014. In 2016IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR-Adjunct) (S. 49–50). Merida,​Yucatan,​ Mexico: IEEE.https://​doi.org/​10.1109/​ISMAR-Adjunct.2016.0036
 +
 +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
 +
 +Van Krevelen, R., & Poelman, R. (2010). A Survey of Augmented Reality Technologies,​ Applications and Limitations. International Journal of Virtual Reality (ISSN 1081-1451), 9, 1.
 +
 +===== Classification of AR evaluation =====
 +
 +Edward, J., Ii, S., & Gabbard, J. L. (2005).Survey of User-Based Experimentation in augmented Reality. In In 1st International Conference on VirtualReality,​ Las Vegas
 +
 +Dünser,A., Grasset, R., & Billinghurst,​ M. (2008). A survey of evaluation techniques used in augmented reality studies. In ACM SIGGRAPH ASIA 2008 courses on - SIGGRAPH Asia’08 (S. 1–27). Singapore: ACMPress.https://​doi.org/​10.1145/​1508044.1508049
 +
 +Dünser,A., & Billinghurst,​ M. (2011). Evaluating Augmented Reality Systems. In B.Furht (Hrsg.), Handbook of Augmented Reality (S. 289–307).New York, NY: Springer New York.https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​978-1-4614-0064-6_13
 +
 +Dey, A., Billinghurst,​ M., Lindeman, R. W., & Swan II, J. E. (2016). A Systematic Review of Usability Studies in Augmented Reality between 2005 and 2014. In 2016IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR-Adjunct) (S. 49–50). Merida,​Yucatan,​ Mexico: IEEE.https://​doi.org/​10.1109/​ISMAR-Adjunct.2016.0036
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +