Embedded Mixed Reality Environments

  • Holger SchnädelbachEmail author
  • Areti Galani
  • Martin Flintham
Part of the Human-Computer Interaction Series book series (HCIS)


The deployment of mixed reality environments for use by members of the public poses very different challenges to those faced during focused lab studies and in defined engineering settings. This chapter discusses and presents examples from a set of case studies that have implemented and evaluated fully functioning mixed reality environments in three different organisational settings. Based on these case studies, common themes that are critical in the engineering of publicly deployed mixed reality are drawn out. Specifically, it is argued how the creation of a mixed reality interaction space depends on the technology as well as the environment, how asymmetric access provided to different sets of participants can be desirable and how social interaction reflects the particulars of the embedded technology, the length of deployment and the existing social organisation.


Mixed reality environments Public deployment Case study Embeddedness Interaction space Asymmetry Social interaction 



We thank the EPSRC for their support of the case studies through the EQUATOR IRC [GR-N-15986]. This research is also supported by the Leverhulme Trust.


  1. 1.
    Azuma R T (1999) The Challenge of Making Augmented Reality Work Outdoors. In: Ohta Y, Tamura H (eds.) Mixed Reality: Merging Real and Virtual Worlds. Springer, New York.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Benford S, Flintham M, Drozd A, Anastasi R, Rowland D, Tandavanitj N, Adams M, Row-Farr J, Oldroyd A, Sutton J (2004) Uncle Roy All Around You: Implicating the City in a Location-based Performance. In Proceedings of: ACE 2004, Singapore, ACM PressGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Billinghurst M, Baldis S, Miller E, Weghorst S (1997) Shared Space: Collaborative Information Spaces. In Proceedings of: HCI International, San Francisco, USA, 7–10Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Billinghurst M, Kato H (1999) Collaborative Mixed Reality. In Proceedings of: International Symposium on Mixed Reality, Yokohama, Japan, 261–284Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Billinghurst M, Kato H, Bee S, Bowskill J (1999) Asymmetries in collaborative wearable interfaces. In Proceedings of: 3rd International Symposium on Wearable Computers, San Francisco, USA, IEEE, 134–140Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bornik A, Beichel R, Kruijff E, Reitinger B, Schmalstieg D (2006) A Hybrid User Interface for Manipulation of Volumetric Medical Data. In Proceedings of: IEEE Symposium on 3D User Interfaces, 29–36Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bowers J, O’Brien J, Pycock J (1996) Practically Accomplishing Immersion: Cooperation in and for Virtual Environments. In Proceedings of: CSCW, Boston, USA, ACM Press, 380–389Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bowers J, Rodden T (1993) Exploding the Interface: Experiences of a CSCW Network. In Proceedings of: Interchi, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, ACM Press, 255–262Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brown B, MacColl I, Chalmers M, Galani A, Randell C, Steed A (2003) Lessons From the Lighthouse: Collaboration in a Shared Mixed Reality System. In Proceedings of: CHI Ft. Lauderdale, USA, ACM Press, 577–584Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chalmers M, Galani A (2004) Seamful Interweaving: Heterogeneity in the Theory and Design of Interactive Systems. In Proceedings of: DIS, Cambridge, USA, ACM Press, 243–252Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Crabtree A, Rodden T (2008) Hybrid Ecologies: Understanding Cooperative Interaction in Emerging Physical–Digital Environments. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 12:481–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Drummond T, Julier S (2008) 7th IEEE and ACM International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality – ISMAR 2008. Vol. 2008. ACM Press, Cambridge, UK Conference web site for ISMAR 2008Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Falk J H, Dierking L D (1992) The Museum Experience. Whalesback Books, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Galani A, Chalmers M (2007) Blurring Boundaries for Museum Visitors. In: Marty P F, Jones K B (eds.) Museum Informatics. Routledge, New York.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Greenhalgh C, Purbrick J, Snowdon D (2000) Inside MASSIVE-3: Flexible Support for Data Consistency and World Structuring. In Proceedings of: CVE, San Francisco, USA, ACM Press, 119–127Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Harper R H R, Hughes J A (1993) “What a F-ing System! Send ‘em all to the same place and then expect us to stop ‘em hitting”: Making technology work in air traffic control. In: Button G (ed.) Technology in Working Order: Studies of Work, Interaction, and Technology. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Heath C, Luff P (1992) Media Space and Communicative Asymmetries: Preliminary Observations of Video-Mediated Interaction. Human Computer Interaction 7:315–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Koleva B, Schnädelbach H, Benford S, Greenhalgh C (2001) Experiencing a Presentation through a Mixed Reality Boundary. In Proceedings of: Group, Boulder, USA, ACM Press, 71–80Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    MacColl I, Millard D, Randell C, Steed A (2002) Shared visiting in EQUATOR City. In Proceedings of: CVE, Bonn, Germany, ACM Press, 88–94Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Milgram P, Kishino F (1994) A Taxonomy of Mixed Reality Visual Displays. IEICE Transactions on Information Systems E77:1321–1329.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Murtagh G M (2002) Seeing the “Rules”: Preliminary Observations of Action, Interaction and Mobile Phone Use. In: Brown B, Green N, Harper R H R (eds.) Wireless World: Social and Interactional Aspects of the Mobile Age. Springer, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nigay L, Coutrix C (2006) Mixed Reality: A Model of Mixed Interaction. In Proceedings of: AVI, Venezia, Italy, ACM Press, 43–50Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Randell C, Muller H (2001) Low Cost Indoor Positioning System. In Proceedings of: UbiComp, Atlanta, USA, Springer, 42–48Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rodden T (2000–2007) EQUATOR Project. Vol. 2008, Nottingham, UKGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rogers Y (2006) Moving on from Weiser’s Vision of Calm Computing: Engaging UbiComp Experiences. In Proceedings of: UbiComp, Orange County, USA, Springer, 404–421Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rudström Å, Höök K, Svensson M (2005) Social positioning: Designing the Seams between Social, Physical and Digital Space. In Proceedings of: Online Communities and Social Computing at HCII, Las Vegas, USA, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schmalstieg D, Fuhrmann A, Szalavari G H Z, Encarnacao L M, Gervautz M, Purgathofer W (2002) The Studierstube Augmented Reality Project. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 11:33–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schmalstieg D, Kaufmann H (2003) Mathematics And Geometry Education With Collaborative Augmented Reality. Computers & Graphics 27:339–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schnädelbach H, Koleva B, Twidale M, Benford S (2004) The Iterative Design Process of a Location-Aware Device for Group Use. In Proceedings of: UbiComp, Nottingham, UK, Springer, 329–346Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schnädelbach H, Penn A, Steadman P (2007) Mixed Reality Architecture: A Dynamic Architectural Topology. In Proceedings of: Space Syntax Symposium, Istanbul, Turkey, Technical University Istanbul, 10601–10614Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Schnädelbach H, Penn A, Steadman P, Benford S, Koleva B, Rodden T (2006) Moving Office: Inhabiting a Dynamic Building. In Proceedings of: CSCW, Banff, Canada, ACM Press, 313–322Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Seichter H, Looser J, Billinghurst M (2008) ComposAR: An intuitive tool for authoring AR applications. In Proceedings of: ISMAR, Cambridge, UK, IEEE, 177–178Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Vogiazou Y, Raijmakers B, Geelhoed E, Reid J, Eisenstadt M (2007) Design for emergence: experiments with a mixed reality urban playground game. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 11:45–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Weiser M (1991) The Computer for the Twenty-First Century. Scientific American 265: 94–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Holger Schnädelbach
    • 1
    Email author
  • Areti Galani
    • 2
  • Martin Flintham
    • 3
  1. 1.Mixed Reality Lab, Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of NottinghamNottinghamUK
  2. 2.International Centre for Cultural and Heritage StudiesNewcastle UniversityNewcastle upon TyneUK
  3. 3.Mixed Reality Lab, Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of NottinghamNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations