Perceiving spaces through digital augmentation: An exploratory study of navigational augmented reality apps

Abstract

The study aims to explore effects of navigational augmented reality (AR) apps on the users’ perception of their surroundings, and to analyze in which ways these effects are enabled as well as limited by the performance of AR apps on currently available devices. To answer these questions, an exploratory quasi-experiment has been conducted, consisting of three groups of participants, each group differing in their method for obtaining location information as well as the frequency with which this information is consumed. Semistructured pre- and postexperiment interviews with participants, questionnaires that were filled out by the participants after every app usage, and expert interviews with navigational AR app developers are employed in combination with analyzing the effect of augmented reality on the user’s perception of space. Surprisingly, it was found that AR users actually became less aware of their surroundings than non-AR navigational app users. This is mainly due to the comparatively worse performance of AR apps on currently available smartphones: The overall quality regularly suffers from a cluttered and confusing presentation, leading to considerable amounts of time spent “deciphering” the layout and functionality of the presented results. Erratic result behavior, caused by frequent movement delays and unexpected lag of the virtual objects further decreases the quality of the overall experience. Finally, some initially unexpected issues related to the social acceptability of augmented reality app usage in public places were encountered during the experiment, which are explained by the physically very involved method of interacting with AR apps, namely having to point and hold the device into the direction information is being sought over. Nevertheless, augmented reality was found to have a number of distinct advantages over other navigational apps, namely the ability to improve the users’ understanding of proximity, directions, and spatial relations.

Augmented criminality: How people process in situ augmented reality crime information in relation to space/place

“…While studies of locative technologies recognized their potential for subtly foregrounding certain forms of historical and geographical information alongside place (de Souza e Silva, 2013; Farman, 2013), and understood that meaning is derived from both the augmentation and the features of the place itself (Graham et al, 2013; Hofmann & Mosemghvdlishvili, 2014; Liao & Humphreys, 2015), the specific interaction order for processing and reconciling them was still largely unknown. Where some have argued that mobile media intrudes upon and detracts from people’s physical interactions (Ling, 2008), others have argued that the embodied nature of mobile media renders these binaries obsolete: “our cultural understanding of what ‘co-present’ means has been so vastly overhauled to the point that even the categories themselves become problematic” (Farman, 2013, p. 99).…”

Los escenarios tecnológicos en Realidad Aumentada (RA): posibilidades educativas.

“…Por lo que se refiere a la motivación que despierta en los estudiantes la participación en experiencias de interacción con ob-jetos de RA, señalar que es altamente significativa indicando los estudiantes que les llama la atención, que les muestra confianza y relevancia la interacción con ellos, y que al mismo tiempo despierta satisfacción. Tales hallazgos están en consonancia con los alcanzados en otros trabajos (Bressler y Bodzin, 2013;Kamarainen, Metcalf, Grotzer, Browne, Mazzuca, Tutwiler y Dede, 2013;Di Serio, Ibáñez y Delgado, 2013;Cubillo et al, 2014;Hofmann y Mosemghvdlishvili, 2014;Cózar et al, 2015).…”

Las tecnologías digitales emergentes entran en la Universidad: RA y RV

“…Para ello, vamos a presentar una tabla en la que planteamos algunos elementos comunes que comparten varios autores, en la columna izquierda queda recogida la afirmación realizada por varios estudios y en la columna derecha los autores que la han realizado. Bower et al, 2014;Fowler, 2015;Rasimah et al, 2011. Despierta altos niveles de satisfacción. Cabero, García y Arroyo, 2016;Fonseca, Redondo y Valls, 2016;Han, Jo, Hyun y So, 2015;Hsu, Lin y Yang, 2017;Pérez-López, 2015 Afirmación realizada…”

“…Sin dejar de reconocer que uno de los problemas que tenemos actualmente para la incorporación de estas tecnologías es la falta de investigaciones (Alkhattabi, 2017;Bacca, Baldiris, Fabregat, Graf y Kinshuk, 2014;Bates, 2017;Bower, Howe, McCredie, Robinson y Grover, 2014;Cheng y Tsai, 2013; Di Serio, Ibañez y Delgado, 2013; Kim y Ke, 2016; Lin, Been-Lirn, Wang y Tsa, 2013; Nielsen, Brandt y Swensen, 2016; Saidin, Halim y Yahaya, 2015; Wang, Jeong, Love y Kang, 2013; Wu, Chang y Liang, 2013) y de modelos conceptuales para su incorporación a la enseñanza (Bower et al, 2014;Rasimah, Ahmad y Zaman, 2011), debemos asumir que últimamente se están formulando propuestas a partir de la combinación de diferentes enfoques pedagógicos y teorías de aprendizaje, tales como: el constructivista, experiencial, basado en problemas, situado, inductivo, y el basado en juegos (Bower et al, 2014;Fowler, 2015;Rasimah et al, 2011;Tarng, y Ou, 2012). Dichos estudios están apuntando principios tanto para el diseño de los objetos de aprendizaje como para la búsqueda de estrategias de utilización.…”