Designing and developing Virtual Environments: methods and applications

1
Designing and developing Virtual Environments
methods and applications 

• Helen Neale Dr. Sarah Nichols
• Virtual Reality Applications Research Team
  (VIRART)

2
Presentation Outline

• Approaches to VE evaluation
• Case Study 1 Development of web-based
  entertainment preview application
• Case Study 2 Development of the Virtual City
• Conclusions and recommendations

3
Virtual Reality Applications Research Team

• Multi-disciplinary research team based in
  University of Nottingham
• Ergonomists, psychologists, engineers, computer
  scientists
• Established in 1991

4
Aim of VE Evaluation
Virtual Environment
VR System
VR/VE development team
Implementation
Participant Experience of VE use
Evaluation
Nichols (1999)Neale Nichols (in press)
5
Comparison between conventional GUI design and VE
design

• Not just differences between hardware - software
  differences also determine appropriate evaluation
  approach
• Interface characteristics (e.g. dimensionality)
• Interface standards
• Serial and parallel tasks
• Concept of navigation
• Input device
• User population (skills, expectations, context of
  use)

6
Methods applied within VIRART

• User-centred design specification
• Participatory design
• Storyboards
• Focus groups
• Evaluation methods
• Observation
• Questionnaires
• Expert reviews
• Interviews
• Error analysis
• Analysis methods
• Theme-based content analysis
• Multiple activity analysis
• Quantitative data analysis

7
Case Study 1 Development of web-based
entertainment preview application

• Potential for VR to be used as interface to
  preview view at sports or entertainment events
• Structured usability evaluation performed
• Expert walkthrough - HCI/VE experts
• Redesign
• User trial 1
• User trial 2
• Expert walkthrough - ticket vendors

8
Case study 1 Methods applied Interviews
Comment
Problem/Issue Identified
Suggested Change
Maybe confusion on up and down arrows (used
to get nearer or further from track). Add
pictogram to show direction in which viewpoint
will move.
Add pictogram to show where track is and/or use
'3D' arrows.
Confusion on using arrows on a 2D plane to
represent a movement in the third dimension.
Group arrows together in one coloured block to
show that they are all to do with checking the
view.
Some users did not appreciate which arrows could
be used to check their view.
Arrows grouped together
9
Case Study 1 Methods applied

• Error analysis
• Questionnaires
• Comparison between 3D and 2D versions of
  interfaces
• Ratings of ease of use of icons

10
Changes made to VE from usability analysis
Grouping of related controls
11
Changes made to VE from usability analysis
2D vs 3D interaction
12
Case Study 2 Development of a Virtual City

• Aim - to allow the people with learning
  disabilities to practise daily living skills
• 1 year project
• National Lottery Charities Board
• University of Nottingham, Metropolitan Housing
  Trust, Shepherd School
• Limitations of standard methods for this project
• End users
• New/innovative project

13
User-centred Development Process
14
User-Centred Design Specification

• User group
• 15 users, support workers, facilitator
• discussion, brainstorming and storyboarding
• Steering group
• professionals from community groups
• refine storyboards with this group
• learning objectives included and prioritised

15
(No Transcript)
16
Expert and User Reviews

• Informal reviews - early on in the design life
  cycle
• 2/3 users with a VE developer (direct feedback)
• informal review of unfinished VE
• detects major discrepancies
• More formal reviews - later in design life cycle
• professionals - learning disabilities services
• structured questionnaires
• focus on content not design

17
Experimental Study

• Aims of the study
• Usability
• Enjoyment
• Skill learning
• Skill transfer
• Method
• 15 representative users and their support worker
• Complete set of tasks related to learning
  objectives

18
Data Collected

• Observational Measures
• Task
• Number of attempts at task
• level of support given
• tasks completed
• Interaction
• positive and negative reactions and
  verbalisations
• support worker comments

• User Information
• User
• background demographics
• background domain information
• post session feelings
• Support worker
• pre and post rating of user performance
• post experiment open questions about VE

19
Multiple Activity Analysis

• Break the task down into sub-components
• Quantitative and qualitative measures for each
  task component

20
Multiple Activity Analysis

• Usability information about each task
• Group information for each type of task
• Refer back to raw data in order to explain why
  difficulty occurred

21
Usability Reports
22
Conclusions Recommendations

• Select methods appropriate to
• Application
• Technology
• User group
• Resources
• Application of multiple methods
• Feedback to development team completion of
  iteration loop
• Involvement of all team members in all stages of
  development and evaluation
• Understanding of different roles within team

23
Conclusions and Recommendations

• Guidelines for VE developers?
• Sheer size and complexity of design space
• Lack of consistency between applications
• But would be very valuable if appropriate