Skip to main content

Diegetic user interfaces for virtual environments with HMDs: a user experience study with oculus rift

Abstract

Research efforts, in the area of virtual reality, have mostly concentrated on the design and implementation of devices supporting user presence in immersive environments. Much can be done, however, to further improve the experience of wearing a head mounted display, in order to forget being at home while playing a computer game or navigating a virtual environment. In fact, with the widespread availability, in the near future, of head mounted displays (such as oculus rift) not only the power of gaming platforms will increase, but also the support to the construction of graphical user interfaces, which more closely resemble reality. Hence, although it may be exciting to navigate a virtual space wearing a head mounted display, user presence still depends on the functional fidelity of virtual objects. Simply said, presence perception is highly influenced by the opportunity of interacting realistically with the environment at hand. Hence, many graphical user interface (GUI) components should be re-engineered adopting a diegetic approach, as simple adaptations may result unnatural, awkward or out of place. Such fact, urges, for example, re-thinking how users receive and interact with information in virtual worlds. Along this direction of work, this contribution moves a step forward analyzing the role of diegetic interfaces. In particular, it describes the design, the implementation and the performance, to the eyes of its users, of three different diegetic interfaces, tested utilizing the oculus rift display. The results that are here presented, although referring to three specific cases, are of wider scope as they have been obtained for two GUI components that are adopted throughout many different entertainment virtual environments, namely a shell and a global control interface.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Notes

  1. http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/diegetic.

  2. https://www.oculus.com/en-us/dk2/.

  3. https://www.leapmotion.com.

  4. http://www.razerone.com/minisite/hydra.

  5. https://www.unity3d.com.

  6. https://developer.leapmotion.com.

  7. http://sixense.com/windowssdkdownload.

  8. http://www.turbosquid.com.

References

  1. Cummings JJ, Bailenson JN (2016) How immersive is enough? A meta-analysis of the effect of immersive technology on user presence. Media Psychol 19(2):272–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Schild J, Bölicke L, LaViola JJ Jr, Masuch M (2013) Creating and analyzing stereoscopic 3d graphical user interfaces in digital games. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pp 169–178, ACM

  3. Kuchera B (2015) Oculus offering a $10 million budget for indie games on the oculus rift. http://www.polygon.com/2015/6/11/8767033/oculus-offering-a-10-million-budget-for-indie-games-on-the-oculus-rift. Accessed 15 Oct 2016

  4. Te Z (2015) Oculus rift vs. morpheus vs. vive VR. http://www.gamespot.com/articles/oculus-rift-vs-morpheus-vs-vive-vr/1100-6427162/. Accessed 15 Oct 2016

  5. Kirby JT (1991) Mimesis and diegesis, foundations of aesthetic theory in plato and aristotle. Helios 18(2):113–128

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cecchi A (2010) Diegetic versus nondiegetic: a reconsideration of the conceptual opposition as a contribution to the theory of audiovision. Worlds of audio vision. http://www-5.unipv.it/wav/pdf/WAV_Cecchi_2010_eng.pdf. Accessed 15 Oct 2016

  7. Galloway AR (2006) Gaming: essays on algorithmic culture, vol 18. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis

    Google Scholar 

  8. Soyluçiçek S (2016) The association of typography with form and content in digital games. Glob J Humanit Soc Sci, 3:216–223

  9. Saunders K, Novak J (2012) Game development essentials: game interface design. Cengage Learning, Boston, Massachusetts, United States

  10. Mestre D, Fuchs P, Berthoz A, Vercher J (2006) Immersion et résence. Le traité de la réalité virtuelle. Ecole des Mines de Paris, Paris, pp 309–338

  11. Lombard M, Ditton T (1997) At the heart of it all: the concept of presence. J Comput Mediat Commun 3(2):0. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997.tb00072.x

  12. Hartmann T, Klimmt C, Vorderer P (2010) Telepresence and media entertainment. In: Immersed in media: telepresence in everyday life, pp 137–157

  13. Tamborini R, Bowman ND (2010) Presence in video games. In: Immersed in media: telepresence in everyday life, pp 87–109

  14. Brown E, Cairns P (2004) A grounded investigation of game immersion. In: CHI’04 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 1297–1300

  15. Wirth W, Hartmann T, Böcking S, Vorderer P, Klimmt C, Schramm H, Saari T, Laarni J, Ravaja N, Gouveia FR et al (2007) A process model of the formation of spatial presence experiences. Media Psychol 9(3):493–525

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Tamborini R, Skalski P (2006) The role of presence in the experience of electronic games. In: Playing video games: motives, responses, and consequences. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, UK, pp. 263–281

  17. Skalski P, Tamborini R, Shelton A, Buncher M, Lindmark P (2010) Mapping the road to fun: Natural video game controllers, presence, and game enjoyment. New Media Soc 13(2):224–242

  18. Jennett C, Cox AL, Cairns P, Dhoparee S, Epps A, Tijs T, Walton A (2008) Measuring and defining the experience of immersion in games. Int J Hum Comput Stud 66(9):641–661

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Santos BS, Dias P, Pimentel A, Baggerman J-W, Ferreira C, Silva S, Madeira J (2009) Head-mounted display versus desktop for 3d navigation in virtual reality: a user study. Multimed Tools Appl 41(1):161–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Csikszentmihalyi M (2013) Flow: the psychology of happiness. Random House, Inc, New York

  21. Schaufeli WB, Salanova M, González-Romá V, Bakker AB (2002) The measurement of engagement and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. J Happiness Stud 3(1):71–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Llorach G, Evans A, Blat J (2014) Simulator sickness and presence using hmds: comparing use of a game controller and a position estimation system. In: Proceedings of the 20th ACM symposium on virtual reality software and technology. ACM, pp 137–140

  23. Moss JD, Muth ER (2011) Characteristics of head-mounted displays and their effects on simulator sickness. Human Factors J Hum Factors Ergon Soc 53(3):308–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Faulkner L (2003) Beyond the five-user assumption: benefits of increased sample sizes in usability testing. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 35(3):379–383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hwang W, Salvendy G (2010) Number of people required for usability evaluation: the 10\(\pm \)2 rule. Commun ACM 53(5):130–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Brockmyer JH, Fox CM, Curtiss KA, McBroom E, Burkhart KM, Pidruzny JN (2009) The development of the game engagement questionnaire: a measure of engagement in video game-playing. J Exp Soc Psychol 45(4):624–634

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Witmer BG, Singer MJ (1998) Measuring presence in virtual environments: a presence questionnaire. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ 7(3):225–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Boyle EA, Connolly TM, Hainey T, Boyle JM (2012) Engagement in digital entertainment games: a systematic review. Comput Hum Behav 28(3):771–780

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Nijhar J, Bianchi-Berthouze N, Boguslawski G (2011) Does movement recognition precision affect the player experience in exertion games?. In: International conference on intelligent technologies for interactive entertainment. Springer, pp 73–82

  30. LaViola JJ Jr, Litwiller T (2011) Evaluating the benefits of 3d stereo in modern video games. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 2345–2354

  31. Takatalo J, Kawai T, Kaistinen J, Nyman G, Häkkinen J (2011) User experience in 3d stereoscopic games. Media Psychol 14(4):387–414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Lewis C (1982) Using the thinking-aloud method in cognitive interface design, report rc 9265. IBM Research, Yorktown Heights

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Catia Prandi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Salomoni, P., Prandi, C., Roccetti, M. et al. Diegetic user interfaces for virtual environments with HMDs: a user experience study with oculus rift. J Multimodal User Interfaces 11, 173–184 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12193-016-0236-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12193-016-0236-5

Keywords

  • Diegetic
  • Stereoscopic three-dimensional interfaces
  • Oculus rift
  • Presence