Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Augmented Reality: Beyond Usability


Published on

Presentation to WorldComp12: Engagement is the new standard of usability. Identity project as task-based versus experientially-based, then design for Flow and Narrative Transportation using research-based techniques. Introduces the Positive Engagement Evaluation Model.

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

Augmented Reality: Beyond Usability

  1. 1. Augmented Reality:Beyond UsabilityDr. Pamela RutledgeDirector, Media Psychology Research CenterJuly 16, 2012WORLDCOMP EEE12 - The 2012 International Conference on e-Learning, e-Business, Enterprise Information Systems, and e-Government @pamelarutledge
  2. 2. Augmented Reality: Virtual informationsuperimposed over reality to add value or ‘augment’ experience
  3. 3. Virtual information: Down lines, player number, 3rd & 5arrow added to enhance viewer experience of game
  4. 4. What Drives Success?
  5. 5. Success Depends upon User ExperienceUser Experience > Usability
  6. 6. 1st Wave: Hardware2nd Wave: Software 3rd Wave: Usability 4 th Wave: Engagement Source: HFI International
  7. 7. Usabilityis no longer akey differentiator
  8. 8. The future isengagement
  9. 9. Overview:1. Define engagement2. Need for holistic evaluation3. The 3-brain model4. How brain theory fits with Flow5. Story to achieve optimal engagement6. Flow versus narrative immersion7. The Positive Engagement Evaluation Model
  10. 10. Usability is not what gets acustomer or user to buy or act Engagement Persuasion Trust Motivation Transaction
  11. 11. What isengagement?And why does it matter?
  12. 12. 21st Century Infrastructure: Mobile
  13. 13. You use technology to satisfy your needs. You design technology tofacilitate human behaviors and goals.
  14. 14. People process Goalsexperience Beliefs Emotionsholistically Experience Instincts Senses
  15. 15. Engagement starts here
  16. 16. Three in OneConscious New BrainSubconscious Emotional Brain Reptilian Brain
  17. 17. SightSoundTasteSmellTouch
  18. 18. Goals arenarrative structures
  19. 19. My Store: AR Dressing Room
  20. 20. AR College Recruiting Brochure
  21. 21. Old: Instinct and Emotion • Relevance • Pain or Gain/Threat or Reward • Control • Pattern Recognition • Feelings and Attachment • Creates emotional context • Activates memories
  22. 22. New Brain: Conscious Thought • Identity and sense of self • Skill-building and logic • Social collaboration • Empathy • Planning • Validation
  23. 23. Nature OLD BRAIN NEW BRAIN Emotions Skill-building Visual images Responsive feedback Pain and gain Participation, ownership User-centric, personal Social validation Certainty Empathy Narrative Nurture
  24. 24. Benefit for Designers:Model identifies how totarget each part of thebrain for maximum impact
  25. 25. AR Amplifies Effects• Expands the user’s sensory perceptions• Creates immediacy and relevance• Shifts locus of control• Enhances meaning and engagement• Triggers macro- and micro-persuasive effects
  26. 26. Flow:The theory of optimalengagement • Challenging activity requiring skill • Merging of action and awareness • Clear goals with feedback • Concentration on activity • Sense of control • Loss of self-consciousness and time
  27. 27. Emotional Dimensions of FlowChallenge Arousal Anxiety Flow Worry Control Relaxation Apathy Boredom Skill
  28. 28. Challenge High FlowArousal Anxiety Channel Boredom LowArousal Skill
  29. 29. Challenge HighArousal Anxiety Notional User Path Flow Channel Boredom LowArousal Skill
  30. 30. Challenge HighArousal Anxiety Flow State Increasing Decreasing Skills Challenge Increasing Challenge Less Demanding Skills Boredom LowArousal Skill
  31. 31. Challenge HighArousal Anxiety Flow Exit Point Flow Exit Flow Point Channel Boredom LowArousal Skill
  32. 32. Flow vs. Narrative Identity- Enhancing Overt Narrative Activity Loss Of Sense And Characters Of Time Sense Of Emotion-Enhancing Accomplishment Lack Of Self Activity Consciousness and Physical Empathy Clear Goal Surroundings Experience Of Place FLOW NARRATIVEConscious Directed Focus Conscious Sense of Presence
  33. 33. Design ObjectivesTask-Based FlowExperience-Based Narrative
  34. 34. Evaluation Model Assumptions• Attention comes before engagement• Designers need guidelines to identify psychological drivers underlying Flow and Narrative engagement• Flow increases focus on task-based goals• Narrative increases focus on experiential goals• Engagement is a holistic experience
  35. 35. Device Properties:  Interaction Design  Functionality  Content  Narrative Structure Unconscious ProcessingAttention: Movement, novelty, pattern recognition, threat, rewardPerception: Sensory activation, Sensory stimuli congruent with content Conscious Processing Task-Based Narrative-BasedSelf-Relevance Self-Relevance • Goal importance • Image enhancementConcentration Concentration • Challenge manageable • Creative ambiguity • Feedback • Feedback • Action = Expectations • Action = Discovery • Self-efficacy • Self-efficacyImmersion Immersion • Directed focus • Emotional activation • Social validation • Narrative transportation • Social connection OPTIMAL USER EXPERIENCE
  36. 36. 8 Domains:1. Goals2. Attention3. Concentration4. Interaction5. Content6. Identity7. Social Connection8. Emotional Outcome
  37. 37. User ExperienceDesigner Intention
  38. 38. Summary• User experience = engagement• Usability is no longer a differentiator• Singularly focused assessment approaches aren’t enough• 3-brain model applies neuroscience to design• Flow is a framework for optimal engagement in task-based projects• Narrative theory is a framework for optimal engagement in experiential-based projects• AR amplifies the impact of design decisions (better & worse)• The distinction between task and narrative based product goals makes a difference• Evaluation must embrace a holistic, user-centric approach
  39. 39. ResourcesThis presentation was based on the following papers.Neal, M. (2012). Creating and Maintaining a Psychological Flow State in Augmented Reality Applications. Paper presented at the 2012 EEE International Conference on e-Learning, e- Business, Enterprise Information Systems, and e-Government, Las Vegas, NV.Rutledge, P. B. (2012). Augmented Reality: Brain-based Persuasion Model. Paper presented at the 2012 EEE International Conference on e-Learning, e-Business, Enterprise Information Systems, and e-Government, Las Vegas, NV.Rutledge, P. B., & Neal, M. (2012). A New Model for the Evaluation of Interactive and Immersive Media. Paper presented at the 2012 EEE International Conference on e-Learning, e-Business, Enterprise Information Systems, and e-Government, Las Vegas, NV.
  40. 40. Thank YouDr. Pamela RutledgeDirector, Media Psychology Research CenterFor copies of the slides or papers, please or send me an DMvia Twitter @pamelarutledgeJuly 16, 2012