4.6 Article

Characterization of Quality Attributes to Evaluate the User Experience in Augmented Reality

Journal

IEEE ACCESS
Volume 10, Issue -, Pages 112639-112656

Publisher

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3216860

Keywords

User experience; Augmented reality; Indexes; Computer science; User experience; Systematics; User interfaces; Augmented reality (AR); category; quality attributes; user experience (UX); user interface (UI)

Funding

  1. Universidad del Norte
  2. Program Convocatoria 785 Doctorados Nacionales 2017''

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study proposes a classification of quality attributes for applications that use augmented reality from the perspective of user experience. The identification of attributes was based on primary studies from the IEEE Xplore, Scopus, and ACM repositories. Two categories, objective and subjective, were found, along with their respective subcategories and attributes. This document presents all these criteria in a single place for the first time, serving as input for designing a comprehensive quality assurance tool for user experience in augmented reality.
This study proposes a characterization of quality attributes for applications that use augmented reality. This classification is done from the perspective of the user experience. The attribute identification was based on primary studies of the IEEE Xplore, Scopus, and ACM repositories. From an initial set of 1165 papers, 101 documents were selected. The document proposes two categories: objective and subjective. In the objective category 4 subcategories and 40 attributes were found, and in the subjective one 5 subcategories and 54 attributes were found. This is the first time that all these criteria are presented in a single document, which is the input for designing a comprehensive quality assurance tool for user experience in augmented reality.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available