Personal and Ubiquitous Computing

, Volume 9, Issue 4, pp 238–249 | Cite as

HMD versus PDA: a comparative study of the user out-of-box experience

Original Article


The out-of-box experience (OOBE) has been identified as a significant factor contributing to user perception and acceptance of products and technologies. Whilst there has been considerable emphasis placed on formalising methodological procedures for evaluating the OOBE and on the creation of positive user experiences through appropriate interfaces and applications, relatively little work has been undertaken examining how the OOBE is impacted when the experience itself covers a range of (possibly interconnected) devices. In this paper we report the results of an empirical study which examined the OOBE when a Personal Digital Assistant (PDA) and Head Mounted Device (HMD) were configured and then connected for inter-operability purposes. Our findings show that type of device has a considerable impact on the OOBE, with the ask of interconnecting devices having a detrimental effect on the OOBE. The OOBE, however, is in main unaffected by user type and gender.


OOBE Head mounted display Personal digital assistant Interconnection User type Gender 


  1. 1.
    Buyukkokten O, Garcia-Molina H, Paepcke A, Winograd T (2000) Power brower: efficient web browsing for PDAs. In: Proceedings of ACM CHI 2000, pp 430–437Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fulk M (2001) Improving web browsing on handheld devices. In: Proceedings of ACM CHI 2001, pp 395–396Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    MacKay B (2003) The gateway: A navigation technique for migrating to small screens. In: Proceedings of CHI 2003, pp 384–385Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Waycott J, Kukulska-Hulme A (2003) Students’ experience with PDAs for reading course materials. Personal Ubiquitous Computing 7(1):30–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    EoURoundtable (2001) Ease of use/pc quality roundtable: internet communications design revision 1.0. (retrieved 10 March 2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    EoURoundtable (2002) Ease of use/pc quality roundtable: unmanaged wireless networking, revision 1.0. (retrieved 18 February 2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    IBMa (2004) Ease of use—user-centered design process (retrieved 20 March 2004)Google Scholar
  8. 7.
    IBMb (2004) Ease of use—defining users (retrieved 20 March 2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fouts JW (2000) An “Out-of-Box” experience. Communications of the ACM 43(11):28–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Weiser M (1998) The future of ubiquitous computing on campus. Commun ACM 41(1):41–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kim L, Albers MJ (2001) Web design issues when searching for information in a small screen display. In: Proceedings of ACM SIGDOC 2001, pp 193–200Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fulk M (2001) Improving web browsing on handheld devices, GVU Center & College of Computing. Georgia Institute of Technology. In: ACM CHI 2001, pp 395–396Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jones M, Marsden G, Mohd-Nasir N, Boone K, Buchanan G (1999) Improving web interaction on small displays. In: Proceedings of 8th international WWW conference, pp 51–59Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pham T, Schneider G, Goose S (2000) A situated framework for mobile and ubiquitous multimedia access using small screen and composite devices. In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM international conference on Multimedia, pp 323–331Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gips J, DiMattia P, Curran FX, Olivieri P (1996) Using eagleeyes – an electrodes based device for controlling the computer with your eyes – to help people with special needs. In: 5th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP 1996), Linz, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Xybernaut (2003) Xybernaut Corporation, (retrieved 10 July 2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bowman D, Datey A, Ryu Y, Farooq U, Vasnaik O (2002) Empirical comparison of human behavior and performance with different display devices for virtual environments. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting, pp 2134–2138Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lantz E (1997) Future directions in visual display systems. Computer Graphics 31(2):38–45Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Regan EC (1995) An investigation into nausea and other side-effects of head-coupled immersive virtual reality. Virtual Reality 1(1):17–32Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cobb S, Nichols S, Wilson JR (1995) Health and safety implications of virtual reality: In search of and experimental methodology. In: proceedings of framework for immersive virtual environments (FIVEi95)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kennedy RS, Lanham DS, Drexler JM, Massey CJ, Lilienthal MG (1995) Cybersickness in several flight simulators and VR devices: a comparison of incidences, symptom profiles, measurement techniques and suggestions for research. In: Proceedings of framework for immersive virtual environments (FIVEi95)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kolasinki EM (1995) Simulator sickness in virtual environments. Technical Report 1027, U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behaviour and social Sciences, Alexandria, VAGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Geelhoed E, Falahee M, Latham K (2000) Safety and comfort of eyeglasses displays. Publishing systems and solutions laboratory, HP Laboratories, BristolGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pablo Research Group (2002) Intelligent information spaces. (retrieved 8 June 2003)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ebina O, Owada N, Ohinata Y, Adachi K, Fukushima M (2002) Wearable internet appliances and their applications. Hitachi Rev 51(1):7–11Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    EoURoundtable (2000) Improving ease of use: a report from ease of use/PC quality roundtable. Ease of use roundtable, (retrieved 2 March 2004)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Thurrott P (2000) Preview: Windows ME “Out-of-Box” Experience (OOBE), (retrieved 16 April 2003)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    McMurtrey K (2001) Defining the Out-of-the-Box Experience: a case study. STC Proceedings–000101.PDF (retrieved 15 January 2004)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Brown B, Brown M (2002) PC ease of use: getting better—or worse?,3973,1157156,00.asp (retrieved 12 November 2003)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Stephen P, Hornby S (1997) Simple statistics for library and information professionals. Library Association, LondonGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lawton CA (1994) Gender differences in way-finding strategies: relationship to spatial ability and spatial anxiety. Sex Roles 30:765–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Information Systems and ComputingBrunel UniversityMiddlesexUK

Personalised recommendations