4.1 Article

Presence in blended spaces

期刊

INTERACTING WITH COMPUTERS
卷 24, 期 4, 页码 219-226

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.intcom.2012.04.005

关键词

Presence; User experience; Interaction; Blending theory; Blended spaces

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mixed reality technologies have been around for over 10 years but it is only with the proliferation of smart phones and tablet (computers) that mixed and augmented reality interaction is reaching the mass market. There are now enough examples of mixed reality interactions that we can begin to abstract principles of design and principles of user experience (UX) for these new spaces of interaction. In this paper I develop the notion of mixed reality as a blended space. Mixed reality is a blend of a physical space and a digital space. The term 'blend' here is borrowed from blending theory which is a theory of cognition that highlights the importance of cross domain mappings and conceptual integration to our thought process that are grounded in physically-based spatial schemas. The concept of a blended space is developed by recognizing that physical space and digital space can both be described in terms of the objects and agents who inhabit the space, the structure of the objects' relationships (the topology of the space) and the changes that take place in the space (the volatility, or dynamics of the space). The blended space will be more effective if the physical and digital spaces have some recognizable and understandable correspondences. The issue of presence in this blended space is then discussed and it is suggested that traditional definitions of presence are inadequate to describe the experiences that blended spaces offer. Presence is considered as interaction between the self and the content of the medium within which the self exists, and place is this medium. Blended spaces mean that people have an extended presence: from their physical location into digital worlds. (C) 2012 British Informatics Society Limited. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据