Towards a Virtual Operating Environment
Exploring Immersive Virtual Interface Design Using a Simple VR Image
Viewer
Appendices
Required: A small application to test various aspects of interface design on a variety of users.
A SIMPLE DISK-SPACE NAVIGATING IMAGE VIEWER:
This application should provide a good range of interface principles. The program will take two forms: a realworld form and an abstract form.
The user is immersed into an environment that models everyday surroundings. A shelf will hold various books which, when selected, can be paged to quickly browse the images, which can be selected for display in the picture frame (see Figure A1 below).
Figure A1: Sketch of the realworld application
It is planned to keep things simple to avoid confusion about what part of the interface is effective. To select a book or image the hand is used to grab the object, and then it is moved to the relevant place. Paging through the book is done by grabbing a blank part of the page.
This form provides the user with a symbolic representation of disk space. This can either be an amalgamated view (a 3D grid landscape) or a network view (connected nodes with 3D grid landscapes alongside). Figure A2 shows a sketch of the network view. The amalgamated view would have a large single disk space block. Clicking on a block of the grid brings up a container which is used to browse the images or select an image to be displayed in the frame (which is similar to the frame in the realworld application).
Figure A2: Sketch of the abstract application
As with the realworld version simple selection of images, blocks in grids, nodes and containers is done by grabbing with the hand.
The picture frame is envisaged as a fixed structure, whereas the user can move around the collection of nodes to get to different disk spaces (by grabbing a node or possibly using a separate movement widget or hand action).
Hopefully, a better understanding of the 3D human computer link. The basic interactions - grabbing and placing an object, or moving around the network - should give an idea of the best ways to do the simple operations in a 3D environment. The two different interfaces will allow comparison of the effectiveness of representations which are drawn from the real world with those that are drawn from imagination and more abstract associations.
Switching between these forms (which will be added afterwards) will provide a mechanism to test meta-level controls, which are an important part of the operating environment.
Insight into control within an application may be gained from the mechanism for moving between different views in the abstract version.
Matthew Mundell, 23 March 1999
Figure B3: Pressing an image on the book
Figure B4: Pointing to turn the book page
Figure B5: Grabbing the book
Figure B6: The book in the case
Figure B7: Pressing an image on the board
Figure B8: Pointing a new set of images onto the board
Figure B9: Grabbing the ring
Figure B10: The ring sitting on the cylinder
VIRTUAL REALITY QUESTIONNAIRE
IMAGEVIEWER USABILITY EVALUATION
The purpose of this questionnaire is to use the ImageViewer program to test various aspects of virtual reality systems.
Please answer the questions after going through the ImageViewer test run. Where there is a choice mark the block with the option that best suits the question. Don't feel obliged to answer any of them. All information will be treated with complete confidentiality.
Thanks for your assistance, and enjoy the virtual experience.
| Age |
| Sex | M | F |
|---|---|---|
Please give a short description of your computer skill and experience: (e.g. no experience, Computer Science masters student)
| Have you been exposed to any virtual reality (VR) systems before? | Y | N |
If so, please give a brief description:
Feedback Section
How much did you enjoy using the image viewer?
| YAWN... NOT MUCH FUN | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | COOLEST THING I'VE DONE ALL WEEK |
| What was the letter displayed in one of the images from the collection? |
Do you like the way the scene is presented to you when you first start the program?
| DISLIKED | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | LIKED |
Could you suggest a better way to introduce someone to the environment?
How easily did you forget that your environment was not a real one? (i.e. how easy was it to feel like you were immersed in the environment?)
| NOT VERY EASILY | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | VERY EASILY |
What could have been done to improve the feeling of immersion?
How much do you feel the use of objects (things) from every day life contributed towards any feeling of immersion?
| LITTLE CONTRIBUTION | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | MUCH CONTRIBUTION |
Did you experience any problems or discomfort with the physical equipment?
| Headgear | |
| Stick II | |
| Kennel | |
What was the purpose of each of the following objects?
| Hand | |
| File-like Menu | |
| Bookcase | |
| Picture Frame | |
| The Room | |
How long did it take you to figure each of these purposes out? (roughly, in minutes)
| Hand | |
| File-like Menu | |
| Bookcase | |
| Picture Frame | |
| The Room |
What specific problems did you experience while using the different objects?
| Hand | |
| File-like Menu | |
| Bookcase |
Do you have any suggestions for better ways that the objects could be represented?
| Hand | |
| File-like Menu | |
| Bookcase | |
| Picture Frame | |
| Room |
What do you think would be a good way to provide help for the system?
From your experience of the image viewer, what other ways could you suggest for viewing images in a 3D system?
Did you find it strange to interact with a computer imitating a 3D perspective, as opposed to the usual 2D
desktop?
| QUITE STRANGE | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | EASY TRANSITION |
How transparent was your interaction with the computer?
ie Did the absence of a visible computer and monitor distance you from the computer, or did the closeness of the headset display serve as a constant reminder that your interaction was with a computer?
| NORMAL SETUP = MORE TRANSPARENT | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | VR SETUP = MORE TRANSPARENT |
What object was floating behind you?
General Feedback Section
Do you have any other comments about the system?
Do you have any other comments about the testing or questionnaire?
Thanks again for your input !!
Evaluation organiser:
Matthew Mundell
Email: g95m4965@cs.ru.ac.za
VIRTUAL REALITY QUESTIONNAIRE
IMAGEVIEWER II USABILITY EVALUATION
The purpose of this questionnaire is to use the ImageViewer program to test various aspects of virtual reality systems.
Please answer the questions after going through the ImageViewer test run. Where there is a choice mark the block with the option that best suits the question. Don't feel obliged to answer any of them. All information will be treated with complete confidentiality.
Thanks for your assistance, and enjoy the virtual experience.
| Age |
| Sex | M | F |
|---|---|---|
Please give a short description of your computer skill and experience: (e.g. no experience, Computer Science masters student)
| Have you been exposed to any virtual reality (VR) systems before? | Y | N |
If so, please give a brief description:
Feedback Section
How much did you enjoy using the image viewer?
| YAWN... NOT MUCH FUN | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | COOLEST THING I'VE DONE ALL WEEK |
| What was the letter displayed in one of the images from the collection? |
Do you like the way the scene is presented to you when you first start the program?
| DISLIKED | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | LIKED |
Could you suggest a better way to introduce someone to the environment?
How easily did you forget that your environment was not a real one? (i.e. how easy was it to feel like you were immersed in the environment?)
| NOT VERY EASILY | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | VERY EASILY |
What could have been done to improve the feeling of immersion?
Would you have preferred to have used objects that mimic the things we use in everyday life?
| PRESENT OBJECTS | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | EVERYDAY OBJECTS |
Did you experience any problems or discomfort with the physical equipment?
| Headgear | |
| Stick II | |
| Kennel | |
What was the purpose of each of the following objects?
| Hand | |
| Red Board | |
| Ring Tube | |
| Picture Frame | |
How long did it take you to figure each of these purposes out? (roughly, in minutes)
| Hand | |
| Red Board | |
| Ring Tube | |
| Picture Frame |
What specific problems did you experience while using the different objects?
| Hand | |
| Red Board | |
| Ring Tube |
Do you have any suggestions for better ways that the objects could be represented?
| Hand | |
| Red Board | |
| Ring Tube | |
| Picture Frame | |
| The Room |
What do you think would be a good way to provide help for the system?
From your experience of the image viewer, what other ways could you suggest for viewing images in a 3D system?
Did you find it strange to interact with a computer imitating a 3D perspective, as opposed to the usual 2D
desktop?
| QUITE STRANGE | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | EASY TRANSITION |
How transparent was your interaction with the computer?
ie Did the absence of a visible computer and monitor distance you from the computer, or did the closeness of the headset display serve as a constant reminder that your interaction was with a computer?
| NORMAL SETUP = MORE TRANSPARENT | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | VR SETUP = MORE TRANSPARENT |
Was there an object floating behind you?
General Feedback Section
Do you have any other comments about the system?
Do you have any other comments about the testing or questionnaire?
Thanks again for your input !!
Evaluation organiser:
Matthew Mundell
Email: g95m4965@cs.ru.ac.za
| Heading | Meaning |
| Cexp | Computer Experience |
| VRexp | VR Experience |
| Grab, Pnt, Prss | Times for grab, point 'n press actions |
| Pos | Time taken positioning object |
| Tot | Total time taken |
| Init | Satisfaction with initial environment |
| Imm | Level of immersion experienced |
| RWcont | Contribution of realworld objects to immersion |
| Mimic | Prefer mimicking of realworld objects |
| 2vs3 | 2D/3D has stranger interaction? |
| Trn | 2D/3D more distant from computer? |
| Saw | Noticed the rocket in the background |
Table D1: Key to the headings used in the performance data (see questionnaires for more detail)
| Value | Computer Experience |
| -3 | Not Given |
| -2 | None |
| -1 | Little |
| 0 | Literate |
| 1 | Equiv of CS1 |
| 2 | Equiv of CS2 |
| 3 | Equiv of CS3 |
| 4 | Honours |
| 5 | Masters |
| 6 | PreProf (Masters complete) |
| 7 | Prof |
Table D2: Key to Computer Experience (Cexp)
| Value | Virtual Reality Experience |
| 0 | None |
| 1 | Exposure to 1 partial VR system (eg imageviewer) |
| 2 | Exposure to more than 1 partial VR system |
| 3 | Exposure to a full VR system (eg CAVE) |
| 4 | VR Development |
Table D3: Key to Virtual Reality Experience (VRexp)
| # | Age | Sex | Cexp | VRexp | Grab | Pnt | Prss | Pos | Tot | Init | Imm | RWCont | 2vs3 | Trn | Saw |
| 1 | 22 | M | 4 | 2 | 0 | 30 | 60 | 90 | 180 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 4 | Y |
| 2 | 23 | M | 4 | 4 | 0 | 30 | 60 | 90 | 180 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 2 | N |
| 3 | 22 | M | 4 | 1 | 30 | 30 | 60 | 120 | 240 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | N |
| 4 | 23 | M | 5 | 4 | 0 | 30 | 60 | 90 | 180 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 4 | N |
| 5 | 22 | M | 4 | 0 | 10 | 90 | 139 | 0 | 239 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 2 | N |
| 6 | 21 | M | 3 | 0 | 41 | 79 | 90 | 0 | 210 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | N |
| 7 | 20 | M | 5 | 2 | 0 | 30 | 30 | 60 | 120 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 5 | N |
| 8 | 20 | M | -3 | 0 | 15 | 165 | 60 | 0 | 240 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 4 | N |
| 9 | 20 | M | 2 | 0 | 0 | 60 | 60 | 0 | 120 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 1 | N |
| 10 | 20 | M | 1 | 0 | 60 | 50 | 130 | 0 | 240 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 1 | N |
| 11 | 19 | M | 1 | 0 | 60 | 120 | 60 | 0 | 240 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 4 | N |
| 12 | 18 | M | -2 | 0 | 3 | 60 | 120 | 60 | 243 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 5 | N |
| 13 | 17 | M | -1 | 0 | 300 | 240 | 60 | 0 | 600 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 3 | N |
| 14 | 20 | M | 1 | 0 | 20 | 140 | 180 | 0 | 340 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 5 | N |
| 15 | 19 | M | 2 | 1 | 240 | 60 | 240 | 300 | 840 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | N |
Table D4: Realworld Viewer Data
| # | Age | Sex | Cexp | VRexp | Grab | Pnt | Prss | Pos | Tot | Init | Imm | Mimic | 2vs3 | Trn | Saw |
| 1 | 21 | M | 3 | 1 | 97 | 22 | 106 | 104 | 329 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 3 | ? |
| 3 | 24 | M | 5 | 4 | 113 | 55 | 30 | 54 | 252 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | ? |
| 4 | 24 | M | 5 | 1 | 77 | 83 | 178 | 0 | 338 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | N |
| 5 | 24 | M | 5 | 1 | 152 | 511 | 125 | 0 | 788 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | ? |
| 6 | 21 | F | 3 | 0 | 150 | 132 | 91 | 0 | 373 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 4 | N |
| 7 | 21 | F | 3 | 0 | 244 | 168 | 62 | 0 | 474 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | N |
| 8 | 22 | M | 1 | 1 | 170 | 76 | 8 | 79 | 333 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 3 | N |
| 9 | 22 | M | 2 | 0 | 327 | 23 | 111 | 0 | 461 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 4 | ? |
| 10 | 21 | M | 3 | 0 | 122 | 97 | 45 | 0 | 264 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 4 | ? |
| 11 | 21 | M | 0 | 0 | 106 | 50 | 63 | 11 | 334 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | N |
| 12 | 21 | M | 4 | 4 | 30 | 60 | 3 | 0 | 93 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | N |
| 13 | 25 | M | 4 | 4 | 30 | 118 | 39 | 30 | 217 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 4 | ? |
| 14 | 20 | F | 0 | 0 | 195 | 418 | 163 | 0 | 776 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 4 | N |
| 15 | 24 | F | 4 | 0 | 250 | 165 | 361 | 0 | 776 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 5 | N |
| 16 | 22 | M | 3 | 0 | 337 | 354 | 205 | 0 | 896 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 4 | N |
Table D5: Abstract Viewer Data
Fifteen people with VR experience levels ranging from very little experience to CoRgi developers helped with the testing of the image viewer. Some new ideas and a lot of problems and room for improvement for the program came out the questionnaire. These are summarised in Section 1 below. Section 2 gives numeric results recorded during testing. This is followed by Section 3 - issues which became apparent from observation of the testers during the test.
Program bugs can really make gathering results difficult, but at the same time they help to uncover issues you normally wouldn't notice. Section 4 deals with how this affected the testing.
A number in brackets alongside a comment shows agreement amongst that number of testers.
Problems with the objects:
Problems with the help provided during the test:
Suggestions for improvements to the program:
Some of the testers experienced problems with the equipment:
This is the feedback gleaned from observation of the testers.
One of the testers was quite nervous and asked how you do things with the hand straight away, and once he had grabbed the book he wanted to know how to open it. Perhaps a new VR user would be uncertain and unkeen to experiment, like this tester was.
Another interesting situation was when the tester assumed that the hand couldn't pass through the book, so he spent a while trying to get to the pictures after the book opened very near to his perspective.
Here are the summaries of other observations that were made:
Some of the testers tried to move their heads forward to get a closer look at the objects and images. Very few of the users (2, I think) looked around to see if the picture was anywhere in the room.
Collision Detection
Really sensitive collision detection meant that a collision only occurred when two specific parts of two objects collided. This really makes it difficult for the tester, who'll assume that the gesture or action has no effect and try something else.Book Selecting and PositioningWith good collision detection it should be really easy to select an object from the book or grab the book. Also the book will be able to be placed anywhere on (or around) the bookcase's shelves.
The difficult positioning of the book caused hassles for many of the testers and made timing of the action discovery harder. The program needs to be fixed to position the open book according to the position that the closed book was held at when released. Also the position of the closed book in the hand when grabbed must be tidied by setting it explicitly.Drop Bug
A few times the book was dropped but it didn't open. Mostly the tester just picked it up and carried on normally but twice the program had to be restarted - I'm not sure what's causing this.Broken Thumb
The thumb movement in the wrong direction on the hand was mentioned by many of the tester, and one guy found it quite irritating.
These are the full feedback and observation recordings for the abstract image viewer. As in the realworld results above a number in brackets alongside a point indicates agreement among that number of testers.
Summarisation of the tester feedback is divided into several sections, which follow.
An interesting comment from a tester with no VR experience was that she expected to feel like she was inside computer, interacting directly with the files and disks.
Problems experienced with the test:
Suggestions for improvement:
Problems with
Some of the users' immediate reaction was to ask questions about what they should and how, while others were happy to explore without being told to do so.
Possible improvement to the help during testing:
Suggestions for ways to improve the program or system:
Feedback about the equipment:
Head mounted display (HMD)
Here follows summary of tester observation during the testing process.
One tester looked around a bit, while 2 others took a good look around the room.
A few tester were lost at first, while others went straight to the cylinder of rings. Many of the testers thought the frame itself was important, and started there. It was almost out of reach, which caused problems for some.
Often it seems like the tester ignores approaching the situation logically, and rather expects the system to be illogical.
Every tester works at his own pace, sometime the guy who takes it really slow finishes faster than the guy who rushes things.
The hand passing through the object really confused one of the testers, who couldn't seem to come terms with this.
One tester was unsure of what to do with the grabbed ring and had to be prompted, but the others pretty quickly assumed that they should try drop it somewhere.
Almost always the board was pointed at in an series of attempts at getting something to happen, and this would reveal the picture of the D to tester. A few times the tester would not notice the change for a while (perhaps because of the angle of the board, or because the point is effective at a distance), and continue with the attempts to get something to happen.