Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
97 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
53 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
44 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
5 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
47 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Exploring users' sense of safety in public using an Augmented Reality application (2402.13688v1)

Published 21 Feb 2024 in cs.HC

Abstract: Nowadays, Augmented Reality (AR) is available on almost all smartphones creating some exciting interaction opportunities but also challenges. For example, already after the famous AR app Pokemon GO was released in July 2016, numerous accidents related to the use of the app were reported by users. At the same time, the spread of AR can be noticed in the tourism industry, enabling tourists to explore their surroundings in new ways but also exposing them to safety issues. This preliminary study explores users' sense of safety when manipulating the amount and UI elements visualization parameters of Point of Interest (POI) markers in a developed AR application. The results show that the amount of POI markers that are displayed is significant for participants' sense of safety. The influence of manipulating UI elements in terms of transparency, color, and size cannot be proven. Nevertheless, most tested people stated that manipulating transparency and size somehow influences their sense of safety, so a closer look at them should be taken in future studies.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (24)
  1. D. Buhalis, “Technology in tourism-from information communication technologies to etourism and smart tourism towards ambient intelligence tourism: a perspective article,” Tourism Review, 2019.
  2. J. L. Nasar and D. Troyer, “Pedestrian injuries due to mobile phone use in public places,” Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 57, pp. 91–95, 2013.
  3. A. Smith, “More than half of cell owners affected by ‘distracted walking’,” Pew Research Center: Washington, DC, USA, 2014.
  4. A. Rovira, A. Fatah gen Schieck, P. Blume, and S. Julier, “Guidance and surroundings awareness in outdoor handheld augmented reality,” PLOS ONE, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 1–14, 03 2020.
  5. T. Olsson, E. Lagerstam, T. Kärkkäinen, and K. Väänänen, “Expected user experience of mobile augmented reality services: A user study in the context of shopping centres,” Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, vol. 17, 02 2011.
  6. W. Dong, Y. Wu, T. Qin, X. Bian, Y. Zhao, Y. He, Y. Xu, and C. Yu, “What is the difference between augmented reality and 2d navigation electronic maps in pedestrian wayfinding?” Cartography and Geographic Information Science, vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 225–240, 2021.
  7. Z. Yovcheva, D. Buhalis, and C. Gatzidis, “Smartphone augmented reality applications for tourism,” e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 63–66, 2012. [Online]. Available: http://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/20219/
  8. A. Ajanki, M. Billinghurst, H. Gamper, T. Järvenpää, M. Kandemir, S. Kaski, M. Koskela, M. Kurimo, J. Laaksonen, K. Puolamäki et al., “An augmented reality interface to contextual information,” Virtual reality, vol. 15, no. 2-3, pp. 161–173, 2011.
  9. S. Julier, M. Lanzagorta, Y. Baillot, L. Rosenblum, S. Feiner, T. Hollerer, and S. Sestito, “Information filtering for mobile augmented reality,” in Proceedings IEEE and ACM International Symposium on Augmented Reality (ISAR 2000).   IEEE, 2000, pp. 3–11.
  10. A. Tang, C. Owen, F. Biocca, and W. Mou, “Comparative effectiveness of augmented reality in object assembly,” in Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ser. CHI ’03.   New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2003, p. 73–80.
  11. Z. Yovcheva, D. Buhalis, C. Gatzidis, and C. P. van Elzakker, “Empirical evaluation of smartphone augmented reality browsers in an urban tourism destination context,” International journal of mobile human computer interaction, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 10–31, 2014.
  12. J. Jankowski, K. Samp, I. Irzynska, M. Jozwowicz, and S. Decker, “Integrating text with video and 3d graphics: The effects of text drawing styles on text readability,” in Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2010, pp. 1321–1330.
  13. J. L. Gabbard and J. E. Swan II, “Usability engineering for augmented reality: Employing user-based studies to inform design,” IEEE Transactions on visualization and computer graphics, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 513–525, 2008.
  14. B. Bell, S. Feiner, and T. Höllerer, “View management for virtual and augmented reality,” in Proceedings of the 14th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology, 2001, pp. 101–110.
  15. T. Franke, C. Attig, and D. Wessel, “A personal resource for technology interaction: development and validation of the affinity for technology interaction (ati) scale,” International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 456–467, 2019.
  16. J. Billieux, M. Van der Linden, and L. Rochat, “The role of impulsivity in actual and problematic use of the mobile phone,” Applied Cognitive Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, vol. 22, no. 9, pp. 1195–1210, 2008.
  17. D. J. Kuss, L. Harkin, E. Kanjo, and J. Billieux, “Problematic smartphone use: Investigating contemporary experiences using a convergent design,” International journal of environmental research and public health, vol. 15, no. 1, p. 142, 2018.
  18. M. A. Throuvala, H. M. Pontes, I. Tsaousis, M. D. Griffiths, M. Rennoldson, and D. J. Kuss, “Exploring the dimensions of smartphone distraction: development, validation, measurement invariance, and latent mean differences of the smartphone distraction scale (sds),” Frontiers in psychiatry, vol. 12, p. 199, 2021.
  19. S. Park and B. Kim, “Development and validation of a novel instrument to measure pedestrians’ smartphone use: The smombie scale,” Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour, vol. 82, pp. 440–449, 2021.
  20. M. Schrepp, A. Hinderks, and J. Thomaschewski, “Design and evaluation of a short version of the user experience questionnaire (ueq-s).” IJIMAI, vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 103–108, 2017.
  21. M. M. Bradley and P. J. Lang, “Measuring emotion: the self-assessment manikin and the semantic differential,” Journal of behavior therapy and experimental psychiatry, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 49–59, 1994.
  22. J. Brooke et al., “Sus-a quick and dirty usability scale,” Usability evaluation in industry, vol. 189, no. 194, pp. 4–7, 1996.
  23. [Online]. Available: https://online.stat.psu.edu/stat503/lesson/4/4.3
  24. R. Van Krevelen and R. Poelman, “A survey of augmented reality technologies, applications and limitations,” International Journal of Virtual Reality (ISSN 1081-1451), vol. 9, p. 1, 06 2010.
User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (6)
  1. Maurizio Vergari (12 papers)
  2. Tanja Kojić (32 papers)
  3. Nicole Stefanie Bertges (1 paper)
  4. Francesco Vona (13 papers)
  5. Sebastian Möller (77 papers)
  6. Jan-Niklas Voigt-Antons (28 papers)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Summarize Now
X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Tweets