Developing mobile mixed reality application based on user needs and expectations

2012 International Conference on Innovations in Information Technology, IIT 2012

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 83-88

  Dhir, Amandeep ^a   Olsson, Thomas ^b   Elnaffar, Said ^c  

^a AALTO UNIVERSITY   (Finland)

^b TAMPERE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Finland)

^c UNITED ARAB EMIRATES UNIVERSITY   (United Arab Emirates)

Author keywords

mobile devices; Mobile mixed reality; prototyping; user expectation; user needs; user research

Indexed keywords

IMMERSIVE; MIXED REALITY; PERSONALIZATIONS; PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENTS; POTENTIAL USERS; USER EXPECTATIONS; USER NEED; USER RESEARCH;

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY; MOBILE DEVICES; SOFTWARE PROTOTYPING;

VIRTUAL REALITY;

EID: 84863623157     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1109/INNOVATIONS.2012.6207780     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (23)

1. Gartner Says Worldwide Mobile Device Sales to End Users Reached 1.6 Billion Units in 2010; Smartphone Sales Grew 72 Percent in 2010 http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1543014
2. Bach, C., and Scapin, D. L. 2004 Obstacles and Perspectives for Evaluating Mixed Reality Systems Usability. Acte du Workshop MIXER,IUI-CADUI'04
3. Milgram, P., and Kishino, A. F. A Taxonomy of Mixed Reality visual Displays. vol. E77-D(12), IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems, pp. 1321-1329.
4. Azuma, R. T. 1997 A Survey of Augmented Reality. Presence: Tele- operators and Virtual Environments. vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 355-385.
5. Thomas Olsson, Pirita Ihamäki, Else Lagerstam, Leena Ventä-Olkkonen, and Kaisa Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila. 2009. User expectations for mobile mixed reality services: an initial user study. In European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics, ECCE '09, Article 19, 9 pages.
6. Azuma, R. T. 1997 A Survey of Augmented Reality. Presence: Tele- operators and Virtual Environments. vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 355-385.
7. Colin Ware and Ravin Balakrishnan. 1994. Reaching for objects in VR displays: lag and frame rate. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 1, 4, 331-356.
8. Milgram, P., and Kishino, A. F. A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. vol. E77-D(12), IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems, pp. 1321-1329
9. Dünser, A., Grasset, R., and Billinghurst, M. A survey of evaluation techniques used in augmented reality studies. In ACM SIG-GRAPH ASIA 2008 courses (New York, USA, 2008), SIGGRAPH Asia 08, ACM, 27p
10. Drascic D & Milgram P .1996. Perceptual Issues in Augmented Reality. In: Proc. of the Stereoscopic Displays and Virtual Reality Systems III, SPIE, pp 123-134
11. K. Stanney. 1995. Realizing the full potential of virtual reality: human factors issues that could stand in the way. In Proceedings of the Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium (VRAIS'95) (VRAIS '95). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, 28-34.
12. Vaittinen, T., Karkkainen, T., and Olsson, T. A diary study on annotating locations with mixed reality information. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia (New York, USA, 2010), MUM '10, ACM, pp. 21:1-21:10
13. Gurd, J. Can augmented reality be a commercial success for ecommerce?, March 24 2010. http://econsultancy.com/uk/blog/5637-can-augmented-realitybe-a- commercial-success-for-e-commerce
14. Reilly, T. O., and Battelle, J. Web squared: Web 2.0 five years on. Technical Report, O'Reilly Media, Inc., 2009.
15. van Kleef, N., Noltes, J., and van der Spoel, S. Success factors for Augmented Reality Business Models. Study Tour Pixel 2010 - University of Twente, July 2010. http://www.interactief.utwente.nl/studiereis/pixel/files/indepth/ KleefSpoelNoltes.pdf
16. ISO/IEC. 13407 Human-Centred Design Processes for Interactive Sys- tems, 1999, Switzerland International Organisation for Standardiza-tion(ISO).
17. Jick, T. D. Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly vol. 24, no. 4, Qualitative Methodology (December, 1979), pp. 602-611.
18. Kitzinger, J. The methodology of focus groups: the importance of interaction between research participants. Sociology of Health & Illness vol. 16, no. 1 (1994), pp. 103-121.
19. Flynn, B. B., Sakakibara, S., Schroeder, R. G., Bates, K. A., and Flynn, E. J. Empirical research methods in operations management. Journal of Operations Management vol. 9, no. 2 (1990), pp. 250-284.
20. B ødker, S. Scenarios in User-Centered Design - Setting the Stage for Re ection and Action In Proceedings of the Thirty-Second Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - Volume 3 (Washington, DC, USA, 1999), IEEE Computer Society, pp. 3053-3064.
21. Beyer, H., and Holtzblatt, K. Contextual Design. Defining Customer Systems. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA. pp. 472, 1998.
22. J., N. Heuristic Evaluation, Usability Inspection Methods. Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, USA., 1994, pp. 25-62.
23. Flowella, Nokia rapid prototyping tool, http://www.developer.nokia.com/ Resources/Tools-and-downloads/Other/Flowella/