The study examines how individuals interact with magic lens and static peephole interfaces in public spaces compared to laboratory environments. Results show that participants preferred using the magic lens interface due to its enjoyable and novel experience, despite no significant differences in overall usage between the two settings. Future research is suggested to explore less intrusive evaluation methods and different usage contexts.

1. Playing it Real: Magic Lens and Static Peephole Interfaces for
Games in a Public Space
Jens Grubert1, Helmut Munz, Ann Morrison2, Gerhard Reitmayr1
1Institute for Computer Graphics and Vision, Graz University of Technology
2Department of Architecture, Design and Media Technology, Aalborg University

2. Goals
 Picture of smartphone interaction at pt stop
2 Jens Grubert | grubert@icg.tugraz.at

3. (How) do individuals use a
Magic Lens interface in
public space if they can use an
established interface?
3 Jens Grubert | grubert@icg.tugraz.at

4. Research Questions
(How) do individuals use a Magic Lens interface in
public space if they can use an established interface?
Magic Lens Static Peephole
Interfaces can be switched at any time.
Which interface would be used longer?
4 Jens Grubert | grubert@icg.tugraz.at

5. Research Questions
(How) do individuals use a Magic Lens interface in
public space if they can use an established interface?
Reactions from passers‐by?
5 Jens Grubert | grubert@icg.tugraz.at

6. Research Questions
(How) do individuals use a Magic Lens interface in
public space if they can use an established interface?
Differences in usage between public space and laboratory?
6 Jens Grubert | grubert@icg.tugraz.at

7. Study Design
 Quantitative and qualitative methods
7 Jens Grubert | grubert@icg.tugraz.at

8. Study Design
 Quantitative and qualitative methods
 Between‐subjects design
 IV: public space, laboratory
 DV: usage time of interface
8 Jens Grubert | grubert@icg.tugraz.at

9. Study Design
 Quantitative and qualitative methods
 Between‐subjects design
 IV: public space, laboratory
 DV: usage time of interfaces
 Video‐recording and coding, semi‐structured interviews
9 Jens Grubert | grubert@icg.tugraz.at

10. Study Design
 find and select game
in front of A0 poster
 free choice of interface
 switching possible at any time
10 Jens Grubert | grubert@icg.tugraz.at

11. Magic Lens
11 Jens Grubert | grubert@icg.tugraz.at

12. Static Peephole
12 Jens Grubert | grubert@icg.tugraz.at

13. switching interfaces
13 Jens Grubert | grubert@icg.tugraz.at

14. Participants
 16 participants (8 female, 8male), 21‐30 years
 Design, IT, social science background
 Mostly non‐gamers, had contact with AR before
Procedure
Intro Training Game Interviews Performance
15 targets x 8 levels (15-20 min)
14 Jens Grubert | grubert@icg.tugraz.at

15. 15 Jens Grubert | grubert@icg.tugraz.at

16. Data Collection
 Video‐recording for main phase (2 hours per location)
 Questionnaires
 Device logging
 usage times
 tracking data
 touch events
16 Jens Grubert | grubert@icg.tugraz.at

17. Hypotheses
H1: ML will be used less often in the public
setting than in the laboratory
H2: ML will be used less as the game progresses
17 Jens Grubert | grubert@icg.tugraz.at

18. Findings
ML was used most of the time (76% in public, 68% in lab)
18 Jens Grubert | grubert@icg.tugraz.at

19. Findings
H1: ML will be used less often in the public
setting than in the laboratory
H2: ML will be used less as the game progresses
19 Jens Grubert | grubert@icg.tugraz.at

20. Findings
20 Jens Grubert | grubert@icg.tugraz.at

21. Findings
H1: ML will be used less often in the public
setting than in the laboratory
H2: ML will be used less as the game progresses
21 Jens Grubert | grubert@icg.tugraz.at

22. Participants used Magic Lens more
 Enjoyment “you are much more in the game”
 Novelty “I wanted to try out
Augmented Reality [ML], as I
can use the map [SP] view all
the time”.
 Overview
22 Jens Grubert | grubert@icg.tugraz.at

23. Participants used Static Peephole ...
 When tracking failed
 Speed
 Fatigue
23 Jens Grubert | grubert@icg.tugraz.at

24. Public Reactions
691 people passing by
24 Jens Grubert | grubert@icg.tugraz.at

25. Public Reactions
25 Jens Grubert | grubert@icg.tugraz.at

26. Public Reactions
26 Jens Grubert | grubert@icg.tugraz.at

27. Public Reactions
27 Jens Grubert | grubert@icg.tugraz.at

28. Public Reactions
28 Jens Grubert | grubert@icg.tugraz.at

29. Usage beyond Study
29 Jens Grubert | grubert@icg.tugraz.at

30. (How) do individuals use a
Magic Lens interface in
public space if they can use an
established interface?
30 Jens Grubert | grubert@icg.tugraz.at

31. Summary
 Magic Lens used more
 Interfaces combined for various reasons
 Most passers‐by did not notice
 No differences in usage between public space ‐ lab
31 Jens Grubert | grubert@icg.tugraz.at

32. Future Directions
 Less obtrusive
evaluation methodologies
 Longer usage times
 Different tasks
 More usage contexts
 Malls
 Public transportation
32 Jens Grubert | grubert@icg.tugraz.at

33. Thank you
Questions?
This work was supported by the Austrian National
Research Funding Agency (FFG) in the SmartReality project.
33 Jens Grubert | grubert@icg.tugraz.at