Usability Recommendations for Mixed Interactive Systems: Extraction and Integration in a Design Process

  • Emmanuel DuboisEmail author
  • Dominique L. Scapin
  • Syrine Charfi
  • Christophe Bortolaso


Mixed interactive systems (MIS) denote an advanced form of interaction that aims at combining physical and digital worlds, such as mixed and augmented reality, tangible user interfaces, ubiquitous computing, etc. Their main interest relates to the use of physical artifacts from the user’s activity customary context. These can support partly the user communication with the interactive system: personal belongings and everyday physical objects are very familiar to users for smoothly interacting with the system. Initially limited to very specific domains, MIS now appear in many domains, thus motivating the need for adapted design supports. Beyond the technological issues and challenges, the variety of entities involved and the originality of the conditions of use, innovative interaction forms also trigger the need to focus on the elaboration of a solid, structured and common usability knowledge dedicated to MIS. In this chapter, we first report on a systematic review of the literature on MIS evaluation. From that review, usability recommendations were selected and deciphered before reformulating them under a common format. Finally, three different classification schemes of the usability recommendations obtained are proposed to facilitate search and retrieval, but also to better integrate them into the MIS development process.


Virtual Environment Augmented Reality Physical Entity Usability Knowledge Interaction Form 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Bach, C., Scapin, D.L.. Adaptation of Ergonomic Criteria to Human-Virtual Environments Interactions. In Int. Conf. Interact’03, Zurich, IFIP, pp. 880–883, 2003.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bach, Cedric. 2004. (In French) “Elaboration et validation de Critères Ergonomiques pour les Interactions Homme-Environnements Virtuels.”, PhD of the University of Metz, France.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bach, C., Scapin, D.L. (2004) ‘Obstacles and Perspectives for evaluating Mixed Reality ­systems usability’, IUI-CADUI MIXER, Island of Madeira.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bastien, J.M.C., Scapin, D.L. 1993. Ergonomic criteria for the evaluation of human-computer interfaces, Technical report, INRIA.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bortolaso, C., Bach, C., Dubois, E. A combination of a Formal Mixed Interaction Model with an Informal Creative Session. ACM SIGCHI conf. EICS 2011, Italy, 2011, pp. 63–72.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Charfi, S., Dubois, E., Bastide, R. Articulating Interaction and Task Models for the Design of Advanced Interactive Systems. in TAMODIA’07, Vol. 4849, Springer, LNCS, pp. 70–83, 2007.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cohen, A., Vanderdonckt, J., Crow, D., Dilli, I., Gorny, P., Hoffman, H.-J., Iannella, R., et al. (1995). Tools for working with guidelines. ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, 27(2), pp. 30–32. doi: 10.1145/202511.202517 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Coutrix, C. and Nigay, L. Balancing physical and digital properties in mixed objects. Proc. of AVI’08, ACM (2008), pp. 305–308.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dubois, E., Nigay, L., Troccaz, J., “Consistency in Augmented Reality Systems”, EHCI’2001, Canada, 2001, pp. 111–122.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dubois, E., Truillet, P. and Bach. C. 2007. Evaluating Advanced Interaction Techniques for Navigating Google Earth. University of Lancaster, UK.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dünser, A, Grasset, R., Billinghurst, M. 2008. “A survey of evaluation techniques used in augmented reality studies.” ACM SIGGRAPH ASIA 2008 courses, pp. 1–27.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fishkin, K.P. A taxonomy for and analysis of tangible interfaces. Personal Ubiquitous Comput. 8, 5 (2004), pp. 347–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gabbard, J.L., Hix, D.. 1997. “A taxonomy of usability characteristics in virtual environments.” Master thesis, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gabbard, J.L. and J, E.S.I. Usability Engineering for Augmented Reality : Employing User-based Studies to Inform Design. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VISUALIZATION AND COMPUTER GRAPHICS, (2011).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gauffre, G., Charfi, S., Bortolaso, C., Bach, C., Dubois, E. Developing Mixed Interactive Systems: a Model Based Process for Generating and Managing Design Solutions. in The Engineering of Mixed Reality Systems. Springer-Verlag, 10, pp. 183–208, Vol. 14, HCI Series, 2010.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gauffre, G., Dubois, E. Taking Advantage of Model-Driven Engineering Foundations for Mixed Interaction Design. in Model Driven Development of Advanced User Interfaces. Springer-Verlag, 4.1.3, pp. 219–240, Studies in Computational Intelligence, Vol. 340, 1, 2011.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    International Standards Organisation ISO 9241–5, Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals - Part 5: Workstation layout and postural requirements, (1998).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    International Standards Organisation. ISO 14915, Software ergonomics for multimedia user interfaces -- Part 1: Design principles and framework, (2002).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Irawati, S., Green, S., Billinghurst, M., Duenser, A., Ko, H. 2006. An Evaluation of an AR Multimodal Interface Using Speech and Paddle Gestures, ICAT, pp. 272–283.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jacob, R.J., Girouard, A., Hirshfield, L.M., and al. Reality-based interaction: a framework for post-WIMP interfaces. Proc. of CHI’08, ACM (2008), 201–210.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jacob, R.J.K., Ishii, H., Pangaron, G., Patten, J. 2002. A tangible interface for organizing information using a grid, CHI, USA, pp. 339–346.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kato, H., Billinghurst, M., Poupyrev, I., Imamoto, K., Tachibana, K. 2000. Virtual object manipulation on a table-top AR environment, ISAR, pp. 111–119.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kaur, K. 1998. “Designing virtual environments for usability.” PhD Thesis, London City University, Londres, UK.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Leavitt, M O., Shneiderman, B. 2006. Research-Based Web Design and Usability Guidelines. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Leulier, C, Bastien, C., Scapin, D.L.. 1998. Compilation of ergonomic guidelines for the design and evaluation of Web sites. Rocquencourt, France, (INRIA).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Liu, Wei, Adrian David Cheok, Charissa Lim Mei-Ling, et Yin-Leng Theng. 2007. “Mixed reality classroom: learning from entertainment.”, DIMEA’07., Australia: ACM, pp. 65–72.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Looser, Julian, Mark Billinghurst, Raphaël Grasset, et Andy Cockburn. 2007. “An evaluation of virtual lenses for object selection in augmented reality.” Int. conf on Computer graphics and interactive techniques in Australia and Southeast Asia. Australia: ACM, pp. 203–210.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lumsden, J. eds (2009) Handbook of research on User interface design and evaluation for mobile technology. Information Science Reference, Hershey, PA, USA.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mansoux, Benoit, Laurence Nigay, et Jocelyne Troccaz. 2005. “The Mini-Screen: An Innovative Device for Computer Assisted Surgery Systems.” pp. 314–320 dans Medicine Meets Virtual Reality 13: The Magical Next Becomes the Medical Now, vol. 111/2005, Studies in Health Technology and Informatics. IOS Press.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nilsen, T. 2005. Tankwar: AR games at GenCon Indy, ACM-ICAT, NZ, pp. 243–244.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nilsen, T. 2006. Guidelines for the Design of Augmented Reality Strategy Games, Master thesis, Canterbury University.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    RESIM web site: full list of usability recommendations adapted to Mixed Interactive System;, last access November 2011.
  33. 33.
    Scapin, Dominique L. 2006. “Exigences ergonomiques, méthodes, et normes pour la conception de Systèmes d’Information centrés humain.” dans Encyclopédie de l’informatique et des systèmes d’information. VUIBERT.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Scapin, D.L. and Law, E.L. (2007). Review, Report and Refine Usability Evaluation Methods (R3UEMs), COST 294-MAUSE 3rd International Workshop, Greece.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Shaer, O. Tangible User Interfaces: Past, Present, and Future Directions. Foundations and Trends® in Human–Computer Interaction 3, 1–2 (2009), pp. 1–137.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Shaer, O. and Jacob, R.J. A specification paradigm for the design and implementation of tangible user interfaces. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 16, 4 (2009), pp. 1–39.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Siek, K.A., Neely, S., Stevenson, G., Kray, C. and Mulder, I. (2009). Advances in evaluating mobile and ubiquitous systems. IJMHCI vol. 1 (2), pp. 5–14.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Smith, S.L., Mosier, J.N.. 1986. Guidelines for designing user interface software. The MITRE Corporation Technical Report (ESD-TR-86-278).Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Tonnis, M., Sandor, C., Langen C., Bubb, H. 2005. Experimental Evaluation of an Augmented Reality Visualization for Directing a Car Driver’s Attention, ISMAR, pp. 56–59.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Vanderdonckt, Jean. 1999. “Development Milestones Towards a Tool for Working With Guidelines.” Interacting with Computers 12:81–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emmanuel Dubois
    • 1
    Email author
  • Dominique L. Scapin
    • 2
  • Syrine Charfi
    • 3
  • Christophe Bortolaso
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Toulouse, IRIT – ElipseToulouse Cedex 9France
  2. 2.Domaine de Voluceau – RocquencourtNational Research Institute in Computer Science and Control (INRIA)Le Chesnay CedexFrance
  3. 3.Ecole Nationale d’Ingénieurs de TunisTunisTunisia

Personalised recommendations