3.8 Article

Evaluation for the design of experience in virtual environments: Modeling breakdown of interaction and illusion

Journal

CYBERPSYCHOLOGY & BEHAVIOR
Volume 4, Issue 2, Pages 225-238

Publisher

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/109493101300117910

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

New and emerging media technologies have the potential to induce a variety of experiences in users. In this paper, it is argued that the inducement of experience presupposes that users are absorbed in the illusion created by these media. Looking to another successful visual medium, film, this paper borrows from the techniques used in shaping experience to hold spectators' attention in the illusion of film, and identifies what breaks the illusion/experience for spectators. This paper focuses on one medium, virtual reality (VR), and advocates a transparent or invisible style of interaction. We argue that transparency keeps users in the flow of their activities and consequently enhances experience in users. Breakdown in activities breaks the experience and subsequently provides opportunities to identify and analyze potential causes of usability problems. Adopting activity theory, we devise a model of interaction with VR-through consciousness and activity-and introduce the concept of breakdown in illusion. From this, a model of effective interaction with VR is devised and the occurrence of breakdown in interaction and illusion is identified along a continuum of engagement. Evaluation guidelines for the design of experience are proposed and applied to usability problems detected in an empirical study of a head-mounted display (HMD) VR system. This study shows that the guidelines are effective in the evaluation of VR. Finally, we look at the potential experiences that may be induced in users and propose a way to evaluate user experience in virtual environments (VEs) and other new and emerging media.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available