Advertisement

Mixed prototypes for the evaluation of usability and user experience: simulating an interactive electronic device

  • Fernanda Gomes Faust
  • Tiago Catecati
  • Isabella de Souza Sierra
  • Fernanda Steinbruch Araujo
  • Alejandro Rafael García Ramírez
  • Elton Moura Nickel
  • Marcelo Gitirana Gomes Ferreira
Original Article
  • 7 Downloads

Abstract

Mixed prototyping technology can be used to represent and simulate the behavior of interactive products at low cost and with great flexibility. This preliminary experimental research intends to verify the suitability of using this technology in the evaluation of usability and user experience of interactive products. Users and experts evaluate the mixed prototype of an image projector with regard to its own usability, and also with respect to its ability to be used to evaluate usability and user experience aspects of the real projector. Users perform tasks on both the real projector and its mixed prototype. In regard to these comparative performance evaluations, time to perform the task and number of errors show a clear positive relationship with the difficulty of the task for both mixed prototype and real projector. In regard to more subjective UX evaluations, the results show to be congruent. However, we realize that emotions assigned to the mixed prototype are influenced by the “fascination” that augmented reality arises in individuals. Experts evaluate the mixed prototype with respect to aspects of the interaction with the product that it is able to simulate, and with respect to the classes of products best suited to be prototyped. They highlighted the possibility of using the technology to evaluate product performance, ergonomics, and operation. In regard to the classes of products to be prototyped, experts’ suggestions coincided with the classes of products that have already been used in research: household appliances, information and communication devices, and automotive parts and accessories.

Keywords

Product prototyping Augmented reality Mixed prototyping Usability User experience 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank CNPq, CAPES, and FAPESC (Brazilian government agencies for scientific and technological development) for the financial support that makes this research possible.

Supplementary material

10055_2018_356_MOESM1_ESM.docx (37 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 36 kb)
10055_2018_356_MOESM2_ESM.docx (520 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 519 kb)

References

  1. Aoyama H, Kimishima Y (2009) Mixed reality system for evaluating designability and operability of information appliances. Int J Interact Des Manuf 3(3):157–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bangor A, Kortum P, Miller J (2009) Determining what individual SUS scores mean: adding an adjective rating scale. J Usab Stud 4(3):114–123Google Scholar
  3. Barbieri L, Angilica A, Bruno F (2013) Mixed prototyping with configurable physical archetype for usability evaluation of product interfaces. Comput Ind 64(3):310–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bordegoni M, Caruso G (2012) Mixed reality distributed platform for collaborative design review of automotive interiors. Virtual Phys Prototyp 7(4):243–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bordegoni M, Cugini U, Caruso G, Polistina S (2009) Mixed prototyping for product assessment: a reference framework. Int J Interact Des Manuf 3(3):177–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bordegoni M, Ferrise F, Covarrubias M, Antolini M (2011) Geodesic spline interface for haptic curve rendering. IEEE Trans Haptics 4(2):111–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brooke J (1996) SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale. Usab Eval Ind 189(194):4–7Google Scholar
  8. Bruno F, Angilica A, Cosco F, Muzzupappa M (2013) Reliable behaviour simulation of product interface in mixed reality. Eng Comput 29(3):375–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Caicedo DG, Desmet PM (2009) Designing the new PrEmo: an empirical research on how to improve the emotion measuring tool. Delf University of Technology, DelfGoogle Scholar
  10. Choi YM (2015) Utilizing end user input in early product development. Procedia Manuf 3:2244–2250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Desmet PM (2003) Measuring emotions: development and application of an instrument to measure emotional responses to products. In: Blythe MA, Overbeeke K, Monk AF, Wright PC (eds) Funology: from usability to enjoyment. Springer, Berlin, pp 111–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Faust FG, Roepke G, Catecati T, Araujo F, Gomes Ferreira MG, Albertazzi D (2012) Use of augmented reality in the usability evaluation of products. Work (Reading, Mass.) 41(1):1164–1167Google Scholar
  13. Ferrise F, Bordegoni M, Graziosi S (2013) A method for designing users’ experience with industrial products based on a multimodal environment and mixed prototypes. Comput Aided Des Appl 10(3):461–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ferrise F, Graziosi S, Bordegoni M (2015) Prototyping strategies for multisensory product experience engineering. J Intell Manuf 28(7):1–13Google Scholar
  15. Jo DS, Yang UY, Son WH (2008) Design evaluation system with visualization and interaction of mobile devices based on virtual reality prototypes. ETRI J 30(6):757–764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jordan PW (2002) The personalities of products. In: Green WS, Jordan PW (eds) Pleasure with products: beyond usability. Taylor & Francis, London, pp 17–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Landa J, Procházka D (2013) Usage of Microsoft Kinect for augmented prototyping speed-up. Acta Univ Agric Silvicult Mendel Brun 60(2):175–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Laurans G, Desmet P (2012) Indroducing PREMO2: new directions for the non-verbal measurement of emotion in design. Central Saint Martins College Of Arts & Design, London, p 13Google Scholar
  19. Lee JY, Rhee GW, Park H (2009) AR/RP-based tangible interactions for collaborative design evaluation of digital products. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 45(7–8):649–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lee YG, Park H, Woo W, Ryu J, Kim HK, Baik SW et al (2010) Immersive modeling system (IMMS) for personal electronic products using a multi-modal interface. CAD 42(5):387–401Google Scholar
  21. Lu SY, Shpitalni M, Gadh R (1999) Virtual and augmented reality technologies for product realization. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 48(2):471–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Oikawa MA, de Souza Almeida I, Taketomi T, Yamamoto G, Miyazaki J, Kato H (2012) Augmented prototyping of 3D rigid curved surfaces. In: Mixed and augmented reality (ISMAR), 2012 IEEE international symposium on mixed reality 2012, pp 307–308Google Scholar
  23. Park H, Moon HC (2013) Design evaluation of information appliances using augmented reality-based tangible interaction. Comput Ind 64(7):854–868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Park H, Son JS, Lee KH (2008) Design evaluation of digital consumer products using virtual reality-based functional behaviour simulation. J Eng Des 19(4):359–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Park H, Moon HC, Lee J (2009) Tangible augmented prototyping of digital handheld products. Comput Ind J 60(2):114–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Park H, Park SJ, Jung HK (2013) Note on tangible interaction using paper models for ar-based design evaluation. J Adv Mech Des Syst Manuf 7(5):827–835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Park H, Jung H-K, Park SJ (2014) Tangible AR interaction based on fingertip touch using small-sized nonsquare markers. J Comput Des Eng 1(4):289–297Google Scholar
  28. Park M, Lim K, Kook Seo M, Jon S (2015) Spatial augmented reality for product appearance design evaluation. J Comput Des Eng 2:38–46Google Scholar
  29. Regenbrecht HT, Wagner M, Baratoff G (2002) Magicmeeting: a collaborative tangible augmented reality system. Virtual Real 6(3):151–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rubin J, Chisnell D (2008) Handbook of usability testing: How to plan, design, and conduct effective tests, 2nd edn. Wiley, IndianapolisGoogle Scholar
  31. Takahashi H, Kawashima T (2010) Touch-sensitive augmented reality system for development of handheld information appliances. Int J Interact Des Manuf 4(1):25–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tullis T, Albert B (2013) Measuring the user experience: collecting, analysing, and presenting usability matrics. MK Elsevier, LondonGoogle Scholar
  33. Unger R, Chandler C (2009) A project guide to UX design: for user experience designers in the field or in the making. New Riders, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  34. Verlinden J, Horvath I (2010) The enablers for interactive augmented prototyping. Int J Prod Dev 1(1):62–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Verlinden J, Horváth I (2008) Enabling interactive augmented prototyping by a portable hardware and a plug-in-based software architecture. Strojniski Vestnik J Mech Eng 54(6):458–469Google Scholar
  36. Verlinden J, Horváth I (2009) Analyzing opportunities for using interactive augmented prototyping in design practice. Artif Intell Eng Des Anal Manuf 23:289–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Verlinden JC, de Smit A, Peeters AW (2003) Development of a flexible augmented prototyping system. J WSCG 11(3):496–503Google Scholar
  38. Verlinden J, Horváth I, Edelenbos E (2006). Treatise of technologies for interactive augmented prototyping. In: Proceedings of tools and methods of competitive engineering (TMCE), pp 523–536Google Scholar
  39. Verlinden J, Horváth I, Nam TJ (2009) Recording augmented reality experiences to capture design reviews. Int J Interact Des Manuf (IJIDeM) 3(3):189–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Viganò G, Mottura S, Greci L, Sacco M, Boër CR (2004) Virtual reality as a support tool in the shoe life cycle. Int J Comput Integr Manuf 17(7):653–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fernanda Gomes Faust
    • 1
  • Tiago Catecati
    • 1
  • Isabella de Souza Sierra
    • 2
  • Fernanda Steinbruch Araujo
    • 2
  • Alejandro Rafael García Ramírez
    • 3
  • Elton Moura Nickel
    • 2
  • Marcelo Gitirana Gomes Ferreira
    • 2
  1. 1.Departamento de Engenharia de Produção e SistemasUniversidade Federal de Santa CatarinaFlorianópolisBrazil
  2. 2.Departamento de DesignUniversidade do Estado de Santa CatarinaFlorianópolisBrazil
  3. 3.Departamento de Computação AplicadaUniversidade do Vale do ItajaíFlorianópolisBrazil

Personalised recommendations