MAR UX: Framework of User Experience in MAR Services

The two previous sections summarize the most central empirical UX-related results of the thesis.

Here, the various experience characteristics, expected service components and perceived qualities of current applications are visually summarized in a descriptive framework (Figure 12). Reflecting to literature about theory building by Dubin (1978), this framework (1) includes the framing of the area, (2) introduces the central concepts (experience characteristics, service components) in the area, and (3) defines the relations between the concepts to some extent. Such a descriptive framework allows (1) development of design implications for MAR services, (2) operationalization of evaluation measures, and (3) drawing research questions for future qualitative research and hypothesis for experiments.

Application

component Weakness aspect Description

Content Irrelevant (4) Content not localized, hard to identify and find the personally interesting content, either too artistic or too commercial Too much or too little

(18) Excessive content in some areas or does not meet the

expectations with so little content, lack of user-created content or users in general, not having a suitable amount of content

Poor quality (1) Bad reliability or visual quality, content not modifiable Functionality

and performance Imprecise and deficient functionality (13)

Poor user positioning and geo-spatial accuracy, calibration problems, poorly overlayed content and mixed realities Instability (5) Bugs and crashes, lack of stability, failing to operate Hardware deficiencies

(5) Bad GPS and compass, poor camera, requiring special hardware such as the newest smart phones and an internet connection Poor support (2) Not available for all operating systems, development activities not

supported well enough (e.g. bad documentation) Too limited

functionality (11) Lack of social features, no real use for them after the first amazement, not really AR, practically useless functions, inability to operate in all areas (e.g. indoors)

Interaction and

UI Bad usability (17) Loading time and complexity in accessing content layers, inconsistent UI structures, lack of user feedback, hard to reach content, menu structures

Inconvenient and

unaesthetic UI (8) Not convenient for information gathering, not intuitive, cheap UI User-originated

issues Requires special

hardware (6) Requiring high-end smart phones with the necessary sensors, data transfer capabilities and good batteries

No need (2) No actual need for such applications, no utility value

Lack of trust (2) Lack of trust in the service provider (e.g., in terms of privacy)

Figure 12. The MAR UX framework (inspired by Hassenzahl 2003, cf. Figure 3): a summary of the service components, the resulting characteristics ofdesirable (in italics) and undesirable

experiences, and the contextual aspects identified to influence the UX.

Overall, the role of the framework is to summarize central theoretical concepts discussed in the previous sections. It serves as a basis for increasing theoretical understanding of the characteristics and possible sources of UX in the specific field of MAR, and hence drawing practical implications.

In addition to the categorization, the characteristics of experience can be roughly divided into (1)

‘hygiene factor –experiences’ and (2) ‘stimulator experiences’. As pointed out in Section 2.5, usability is often considered as a ’hygiene factor’: if it is missing, it probably causes dissatisfaction. Similarly, some of the experience characteristics above can be regarded to have a corresponding nature: the lack of it can cause dissatisfaction or other ‘contra-experiences’ (i.e., the negative side of the desired experience) but if present, the user might not even notice them. The experience of meaningfulness might not be perceived by the user until there is a lack of it, and ’contra-experiences’ of frustration, anxiety or information overflow can be evoked because of bad service design in terms of personalization, relevance or user control. Similarly, privacy is a desirable experience that, when realized well, might not be perceived or bothered by the user but, when realized badly (e.g., social awkwardness or unwanted sharing of user’s location), it disturbs the user and might strongly hinder other positive experiences or cause reluctance to use the service overall. Trust might be an unnoticed experience when the content and the service are trustworthy but ‘contra-experiences’ like distrust or disturbance can become relatively strong when the content is unreliable or out-of-date. Similarly, intuitiveness can also be seen as a ‘hygiene factor experience’ with a ‘contra-experience’ of, e.g., inconvenience. The flip side of liveliness and change of content over time is the unpredictability of the environment. As for control, it can

partially be seen as the ‘contra-experience’ of captivation or surprise: strong user control can hinder such immersive and technology-initiated experiences to evoke. Overall, the ‘hygiene factor experiences’ can be rather implicit and unconscious for the user, thus hard to be identified as specific experiences.

‘Stimulator experiences’, on the other hand, seem not to have such ‘contra-experiences’ based on these studies. The ‘stimulator experiences’ can stimulate, motivate, inspire or otherwise please the user and thus create explicit moments that users identify as “an experience”: e.g., surprise, amazement, playfulness, captivation, inspiration, motivation, creativity or awareness. When there is a lack of a ‘stimulator experience’, it would not be perceived negatively. Instead, the use might simply feel conventional or dull at most. As shown also in the unsatisfying experiences reported in Paper V, the hygiene factors are often prerequisites for stimulator experiences to be present: oftentimes an efficient and usable performance creates experiences of general pleasure and allows evocation of ‘stimulator experiences’.

Finally, the experiences of empowerment and efficiency can be seen as slightly more generic as ‘allowing novel activities’ relates and contributes to many of the other desirable experience categories.

Regarding the context affecting the formation of experience, three central aspects were identified in the studies. In Paper III, the participants’ technological orientation was found to affect the evaluations of the futuristic MAR scenarios in a statistically significant way. Highly technologically oriented people regarded the scenarios to be more appropriate and were more willing to try out the services than the less technologically oriented. This is a probable result of technologically oriented people putting much emphasis on novelty value of technology, and less technologically oriented assessing more the suitability and usefulness of the technology in their daily activities and needs.

Furthermore, in Paper I, the familiarity of the environment seemed to affect especially the type of experiences that people expect, and thus also the relevance of information. In unfamiliar environments, pragmatic information needs about the ambient environment were more emphasized, whereas in familiar environments, emotional and stimulating aspects like surprise and creativity were expected to be important especially in long-term use. Additionally, the requirements and limitations for what information is considered relevant and desirable at each moment can depend much on the overall situation, the user’s level of engagement with the service, her other activities, as well as her momentary needs for additional information in general.

In retrospect, the framework should not be considered as a ‘model’ that specifies interactions between the elements or accurate categorizations of experiences, or allows prediction of the actual UX in specific circumstances. The earlier sections discuss how the different service elements like AR as an output or information embedding as a functionality enabler are expected to contribute to especially certain experiences. However, with this empirical data, such interactions remain mostly on a hypothetical level, and hence it is important to consider the framework through its comprehensiveness rather than its details. Additionally, the framework is a qualitative consolidation that describes MAR services and applications in general, and not all parts of it are relevant in even all types of MAR applications. As shown in Paper IV, already the two main MAR application types of today (MAR-browsers and image recognition MAR) were evaluated differently.