The first results of our publication analysis (2019-02-21)
Tagged as: augmented reality, publications, analysis, results
Group: G
first results are presented
This blog article will show you an short overview of our results. Before we introduce you the actual numbers, we will give a short introduction on how to work with the data that we conducted from our publication analysis:
We have three main categories: technology section, evaluation section and the lesson learned section.
In the technology section we will present the different results about the area of the publication, display positioning, tracking methods, and user interfaces. For example which display positioning was the most used one or which data could be compared with the results of Dey et al (2016). Furthermore we want to analyze which combinations of displays occurred.
In the evaluation section we will present the different results about the evaluation structure and methods for AR. These include the focus of the evaluation (user-based or system-based), environment, participant (amount, average age, gender and profession), experiment design (within-subject or between-subject), pilot/preliminary study, evaluation area (user performance, perception, collaboration and usability) and evaluation method (objective measurements, subjective measurements, qualitative analysis, usability evaluation, informal evaluations). For example if user-based or system-based evaluations were conducted more, or which evaluation methods occured, how many pilot / preliminary evaluations were conducted, etc. During the analysis of the participants we evaluate the results regarding the frequency of occurrence of detailed information too. Furthermore we want to analyse the combinations of evaluation areas and methods. We want to compare these results with the results of the already conducted surveys our survey is based on.
In lesson learned section we want to present collected issues that appears in the publications in particular for the evaluation methods. We want to mention some issues about the publication categorizing that we had and compare the evaluation methods, that were conducted from our publication analysis, with the findings from our research about the general evaluation methods, where we had an blog article about. You can have a look here.
General Results
3.603 publications are published in the proceedings of CHI(3.281) and ISMAR(322) from 2015 - 2017. During the search after keywords, the amount was reduced to approximately 405 publications, 325 publications from ISMAR and 80 publications from CHI. Approximately 270 publications could be excluded, as they did not belong to the category “Paper” of the conferences' proceedings or did not correspond to the definition of Augmented Reality of Azuma (1997)(48 publications) , resulting in approximately 135 publications to analyze. Finally, each publication was classified based on our technological taxonomy as well as our evaluation taxonomy.
The table above shows the general amount of publications, which were collected during our keyword searching process, distributed by years. From 2015 to 2017 the amounts of ISMAR publications nearly doubled and almost remained constant for CHI publications. The evaluation number in the table is in relation with the included papers. In 2015 29 publications conducted at least one evaluation, in 2016 57 publications and in 2017 37 publications.
That’s it for the brief overview for our results. In the next blog article, we will present more results. Till then, have a nice weekend.
References:
Ronald T. Azuma. 1997. A Survey of Augmented Reality.Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 6, 4 (Aug. 1997), 355–385. https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.1997.6.4.3
Dey, Arindam, Mark Billinghurst, Robert W. Lindeman, und J. Edward Swan II. „A Systematic Review of Usability Studies in Augmented Reality between 2005 and 2014“. In 2016 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR-Adjunct), 49–50. Merida, Yucatan, Mexico: IEEE, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISMAR-Adjunct.2016.0036.
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