To cite this article: Sang Min Ko , Won Suk Chang & Yong Gu Ji (2013) Usability Principles for Augmented Reality
Applications in a Smartphone Environment, International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 29:8, 501-515, DOI:
10.1080/10447318.2012.722466
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2012.722466
1. INTRODUCTION
Augmented reality (AR) is a view of a real-world environment that is modified by a computer. It is a subset of
virtual reality (VR) but differs from VR in that it offers a
greater sense of realism to its users. The difference between
AR and VR is that AR overlaps virtual information with reality,
whereas VR substitutes reality. This technology offers information delivery, acquisition, and application by observing objects.
Early AR-related technologies were developed and studied for
use with industry, military readiness, surgery training, computer games, and computer-supported collaboration. Research
on AR-related technology is ongoing as the spread of small
handheld devices and smartphones increases (Azuma et al.,
A preliminary version of this article was published in Korean in
the Journal of Korean Institute of CALS/EC, 16, 3547, 2011. This
work was supported by Basic Science Research Program through the
National Research Foundation of Korea funded by the Ministry of
Education, Science and Technology (2012R1A1A2006949).
Address correspondence to Yong Gu Ji, Department of Information
and Industrial Engineering, Yonsei University, 262 Seongsanno,
Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, 120-749, Korea. E-mail: yongguji@
yonsei.ac.kr
501
502
S. M. KO ET AL.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Augmented Reality
Concepts and Characteristics of Augmented Reality
AR overlaps virtual information with reality, whereas VR
provides three-dimensional (3D) images based on computer
information. Thus, AR provides a greater sense of realism
than VR can. Studies on AR began after Ivan Sutherland published his 1968 article A Head-Mounted Three Dimensional
Display. The term augmented reality is reputed to have been
used for the first time in the early 1990s by Tom Caudell at
Boeing in his system development research of wire assembly
work for flight manufacturers (Caudell & Mizell, 1992).
When comparing the concept of VR to the concept of
AR, AR is closer to reality because VR can only offer virtual information to users. There have been many arguments
for and against the efficiency of AR. In 1994, Paul Milgram
differentiated reality from virtuality. He divided AR from augmented virtuality (AV) between virtuality and reality. Milgram
and Kishino (1994) distinguished virtuality, reality, and
in the middle of virtuality and reality by using the term the
realityvirtuality continuum (Milgram & Colquhoun, 1999;
Milgram & Kishino, 1994; see Figure 1). Since then, AR has
been recognized as an independent field of study.According to
the concept of the realityvirtuality continuum, users recognize
less and less information in reality as they get closer to virtuality. Mixed reality (MR), which is between virtuality and reality,
can be roughly divided into two categories: AR and AV. AV is
distinguished from AR by the fact that insertion and background
in AV is reflected by the computer-generated environment.
In 1997, Ronald Azuma published a survey on AR and he
defined AR in 2001 as follows: An AR system supplements
the real world with virtual (computer-generated) objects that
appear to coexist in the same space as the real world (p. 34).
He also defined three representative properties of AR: the necessity of combination between reality and virtuality, the necessity
of interaction in real time, and the necessity of observing the
real world in 3D. To date, the definition of AR by Milgram
and Azuma is accepted by many researchers and is the most
important standard for AR.
The concept of AR can be applied to many fields, but most
research has focused on human eyesight. Through AR systems,
FIG. 1.
RealityVirtuality Continuum (modified from Milgram & Kishino, 1994; 1999) (color figure available online).
information by identifying the properties of objects and tracking them after identification. These methods have the advantage
of being able to track objects by recognizing them without a
marker but have the disadvantage of being difficult to implement because they require real-time image processing and
augmentation.
Smartphone AR applications are used in providing locationbased services (LBS), which make use of the location information of the mobile device. Virrantaus et al. (2001) defined
LBS as services accessible with mobile devices through the
mobile network and utilizing the ability to make use of the
location of the terminals (p. 66). These characteristics of
smartphone AR applications have some limitations. In the
marker-based AR method, the marker should be installed additionally. In the vision-based AR method, there are some technical limitations such as real-time video processing and object
recognition.
One of the currently best-known applications is called Layer.
This application provides LBS through smartphones and is
used worldwide in iPhones and Android phones. This application augments digital contents related to camera images using
location and direction information (Shin et al., 2010; VaughanNichols, 2009). Each layer refers to a function such as allowing
users to search for a coffee shop nearby. It also allows users to
create custom layers and share them with other users.
503
504
S. M. KO ET AL.
FIG. 2.
TABLE 1
Collected Usability Principles
References
Atkinson et al. (2007)
Usability Principles
Cognition facilitation, Consistency, Defaults, Error management, Graphic design, Help and
documentation, Learnability, Navigation and exiting, Software-user interaction, System-real
world match, System-software interaction, User control and software flexibility
Affordance, Error tolerance, Flexibility in use, Learnability, Low physical effort, Reducing
cognitive overhead, Responsiveness and feedback, User satisfaction
Allow for personalization, Consistency, Design dialogs to yield closure, Design for top-down
interaction, Design for enjoyment, Design for limited and split attention, Design for multimodal
interfaces, Design for multiple and dynamic contexts, Design for speed and recovery, Enable
frequent users to use shortcuts, Error prevention and simple error handling, Offer informative
feedback, Reduce short-term memory load, Reversal of actions, Support internal locus of control
Accuracy, Arrangement, Attractiveness, Consistency, Controllability, Direct manipulation,
Durability, Ease, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Error indication, Familiarity, Feedback, Graspability,
Learnability, Match between system and real world, Pleasantness, Predictability, Prevention,
Safety, Simplicity, Size, Subject satisfaction, Tolerance principle, User control
505
TABLE 2
Deleted and Integrated Usability Principles
Availability, Consistency, Context-based, Defaults, Direct
manipulation, Enjoyment, Error management, Exiting,
Familiarity, Feedback, Help and documentation, Hierarchy,
Learnability, Low physical effort, Multimodality,
Navigation, Personalization, Predictability, Recognition,
Responsiveness, User control, Visibility
506
S. M. KO ET AL.
TABLE 3
Results Obtained From a Principal Component Analysis With
Varimax Rotation
Factors
Principles
Multimodality
Enjoyment
Familiarity
Visibility
Hierarchy
Defaults
Recognition
Predictability
Learnability
Consistency
Error management
Help and
documentation
User control
Personalization
Feedback
Direct manipulation
Responsiveness
Low physical effort
Context based
Exiting
Navigation
Availability
.884
.819
.817
.789
.681
.619
.905
.886
.880
.853
.870
.853
.744
.652
FIG. 3.
.925
.707
.701
.282
.822
.816
.603
.603
507
TABLE 4
Usability Principles Developed for the Evaluation and for the Development of AR Application
Principles
User-Information
Definition
Defaults
Enjoyment
Familiarity
Hierarchy
Multi-modality
User-Cognitive
Visibility
Consistency
Learnability
Predictability
Recognition
User-Support
Error management
Help and documentation
Personalization
User control
User-Interaction
Direct manipulation
Feedback
Low physical effort
User-Usage
Responsiveness
Availability
Context-based
Exiting
Navigation
The initial establishment should be operated easily by the users. Also, the
frame designating the input space and the instances related to the form of
input should be provided.
An aesthetic design including colors should be used to provide exciting
experiences to users.
Not only familiar metaphors and icons but also user-centered languages
should be used.
If the quantity of information is large, the information should provide a
phased design to the users to make it easier to utilize.
A modality such as sound as well as a visual screen should be provided
when information is provided.
The graphic factors should be designed properly.
The generally used terms and interfaces should be maintained consistently
to prevent confusion.
The functions and the features of the application should be effective and
easy to learn for users.
The functions and the features of the application should be effective and
easy to learn for users.
Necessary information should be provided properly so users dont have to
use short-term memory.
The errors that occur while using applications should be supported by the
method of prevention and solution.
Appropriate Help should be provided to support user applications.
The interface should be easy enough to be modified by the users tastes and
specialties.
It should make the users feel that they are controlling the system and the
system is responding to their actions.
When the users control the device, the information appearing on the screen
and the action of the users should be matched intuitively.
The sequence of the process and the state of system should be consistently
provided to the users.
It should minimize the effort of operating the application and the tiredness
of the users.
It should react quickly to the action of the users.
The application should have rapid initial operating speed and the previous
working state and options should remain the same after reoperation.
The user-interface should be designed considering various kinds of
environments and designed to correspond to the using environments.
To stop working or to go back to previous working parts should be easy.
The users should be allowed to navigate freely on the application when they
are performing their work.
508
S. M. KO ET AL.
As a result of heuristic evaluation, we drew 208 problems from the three applications. After exclusion of duplicated
problems, 96 problem lists remained. The importance of each
problem was estimated by scoring its seriousness: 3 (serious), 2
(normal) and 1 (trivial). The top problems of the applications in
order of importance are as shown in Table 6.
The three applications had six common problems out of
the top ten problems. The six common problems are shown in
Table 7.
In this study, we presented design guidelines to improve
the problems analyzed from the experts problem lists. These
design guidelines were made based on the cause of the problems along with context and related usability principles. The
completed guidelines are as in Table 8.
The purpose of this study was to develop usability principles
for smartphone AR application properties based on previous
usability-related studies. To accomplish this, we reviewed previous HCI usability studies and smartphone environments. Our
study also referred to studies that applied previous usability
principles to mobile devices. To understand the TUI properties
of AR, we reviewed studies of TUI usability and smartphone
GUIs. We developed usability principles that will take on two
roles in the application development process. One role will
be to determine the direction of smartphone AR application
TABLE 6
Final Usability Problem Lists and Obtained Measurement of Importance Drawn From Heuristic Evaluation
Applications
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Problem Lists
Difficulties of selection and expression on icons and text occur when presenting the result of
searching positional information because the application shows duplicate results on the screen.
Only limited essential information is provided to the users when they see the result of searching
positional information.
Confusion can result due to lack of explanation of icons which are unfamiliar to the users.
When the users search for positional information, they are not provided with functions to
expand their search range. They are also provided with insufficient options.
Sometimes explanation about a menu is located in other place like options and sometimes there
is a lack of explanation about the menu. These problems make beginner users uncomfortable.
When the application is expected to be operated by one hand (especially the left hand), menus
are located on one side (e.g., left side) and icons are too small to operate.
Complicated technical terms make the users frustrated and cause misunderstanding when they
are trying to set the options.
When the users want to obtain additional information by adjusting their smartphones to the
special object, their smartphones dont react as the users intended or they require a deliberate
process to obtain additional information.
A method of going back to the previous screen without selecting any themes in the theme menu
does not exist.
When selecting the category for search location, items which could be plurally selected could be
mixed up with items which could not be plurally selected. This problem can lead to a
cancellation of the users operation and cause confusion to the users.
15
17
11
10
9
7
9
6
5
8
10
10
509
Expected Difficulties
Developers used
unfamiliar icons or
didnt consider the
touching environment
which doesnt have the
mouse-over function.
Problem Context
Description
Context-based, Error
management, Hierarchy,
Low physical effort,
Visibility
Context-based,
Personalization,
Visibility
Related Usability
Principles
Consistency, Error
management,
Familiarity, Help and
documentation,
Learnability,
Navigation,
Recognition, Visibility
Problem 4
The problem of
It is difficult for the users When expanding the
The application is not
Availability,
Expanding the
expression and function
to expand the searching
search range because
provided with adequate
Context-based,
range of searching supporting the
range, find a function, or the users are not
icons, functions,
Familiarity,
expansion of the
operate the function.
satisfied with the result.
expression methods or
Learnability,
searching range.
function for expanding
Personalization,
searching range
Recognition,
Responsiveness,
Visibility,
Problem 5 Help
Misallocation of Help
The users have trouble
When the users are
Contents are insufficient
Error management, Help
menu
menu and problem of
with finding the location
curious about or want to
or Help menu is located
and documentation,
content.
of Help menu and
try a specific function.
in the option menu.
Hierarchy, Learnability,
comprehending the
contents of it.
When user wants to
The function of moving or Context-based, Defaults,
Problem 6
Absence of functions and Menus are tilted on the
options for one-handed
one side. That makes it
operate with only one
magnifying the menu is
Low physical effort,
One-handed
operation.
difficult to operate the
hand (especially the left
not provided.
Personalization,
operation
menus and makes the
hand) in mobile
Visibility
icons too small to
environment.
operate.
Problem 3
Unfamiliar icon
expression
Problem 1
Duplicated
expression of
information
Problem 2
Providing limited
information
Problem
TABLE 7
Detailed Information: Common Factors in the Top 10 Problems
510
S. M. KO ET AL.
TABLE 8
Guidelines for Improving the Top 10 Problems
No.
1
2
3
Problem
Guideline
Duplicated expression
of information
Providing limited
information
Unfamiliar icon
expression
Expanding the range of
searching
Help menu
One-handed operation
aspect: how they express information to users. This problem occurs when providing too much information on a small
smartphone screen. For the usability testing, we developed a
user interface improved prototype. This prototype was based on
guidelines designed to solve the problem of duplicate information (Problem 1) and to solve the problem of providing limited
information (Problem 2).
To reduce duplicate information (Problem 1) we designed
the prototype to not require any additional tapping operations. We provided bar-shaped duplicate search results as the
camera spontaneously moves around the center of the screen.
To improve the problem of providing limited information
(Problem 2), we made a distance indicator on the bar as shown
in Figure 4. In addition, we provided a distance-indication
setting on the basic search results screen. We provided a manual distance indicator to users so that they can use prototypes
511
TABLE 9
Applications for the Usability Testing
Operating Screen
App
Prototype
TABLE 10
Tasks for the Usability Testing
Task 1
Task 2
512
S. M. KO ET AL.
TABLE 11
Results Obtained From the Usability Testing
M of Rating Score (SD)
Dimension
App A
App B
Prototype
Usability Principles
Context-based
Error management
Hierarchy
Low physical effort
Personalization
Visibility
Total
3.05 (1.19)
3.10 (0.97)a,b
3.20 (1.28)a,b
3.25 (1.29)a
2.55 (1.23)a
3.25 (1.37)a
3.07 (0.90)a
3.00 (0.97)
2.75 (1.20)a
2.90 (0.97)a
2.95 (1.05)a
2.40 (0.88)a
2.80 (0.89)a
2.80 (0.61)a
3.65 (1.35)
3.90 (1.33)b
4.10 (1.71)b
4.80 (1.20)b
4.45 (0.81)b
4.70 (1.08)b
4.25 (0.99)b
ASQ
Amount of time
Ease of completing
2.70 (1.22)a
3.50 (1.32)a
2.95 (1.15)a
3.20 (1.20)a
5.05 (1.23)b
5.00 (1.52)b
task to the participant, the test was conducted by observation of and the questionnaire from the participant. Twenty
people participated in this test. The participants were undergraduate students, graduate students, and company employees
(10 male, 10 female; average age = 27.05). These participants
included 12 who had previously used AR applications on their
smartphone.
Each participant was asked to fill out the pretask questionnaire on their personal smartphone background after listening to
the outline and the method of the experiment. The participants
were then asked to answer six questions based on the usability
principles related to Problems 1 and 2. They were then asked to
answer eight questions including two questions from the After
Scenario Questionnaire. While conducting this experiment, the
observer was asked to record the elapsed time and any errors
(Lewis, 1991).
The explanation of the experiment required about 10 min
on average. Progression and response took 5 min each. It took
about 40 min to finish the entire experiment. Because this was
a comparison experiment, we randomly chose the sequence of
the task progression order of application.
Results of Usability Testing
We conducted a repeated analysis of variance to analyze the
results of the questionnaire. The Greenhouse-Geisser method
was applied to revise the assumption violation of sphericity.
As a result of applying a one-way analysis of variance by using
application as an independent variable, there was a meaningful
difference in visibility, F(2, 38) = 24.51, p < .001; personalization, F(2, 38) = 28.35, p < .001; error management, F(1.53,
29.323) = 6.496, p = .007; hierarchy, F(2, 38) = 6.58, p = .004;
low physical effort, F(2, 38) = 18.17, p < .001, of usability
principles and total sum, F(2, 38) = 24.93, p < .001, that
depended on application. No difference was found in the case
of context based. There were significant differences both on the
satisfaction about the usefulness of the task, F(1.56, 29.540) =
15.777, p < .001, and satisfaction about the elapsed time to
finish the task, F(2, 38) = 27.91, p < .001. After analyzing
the effects of sex and possession of smartphones, no meaningful main effect was found. The average, standard deviation and
the result of analysis through the Tukey examination of each
question item are presented in Table 11.
As a result of postexamination using the Tukey test, error
management and hierarchy appeared to have meaningful differences between application B and the prototype using average
scores. However, there was no significant difference between
application A and application B or between application A
and the prototype. This result can be interpreted to mean
that the composition of application B, which is based on an
Android environment, is lower than application A or the prototype, which are both based on the iOS environment. In the
case of context based, there was no significant difference
between application A and application B. In terms of task
time, satisfaction with application B appeared to be higher
than with application A. This result was expected because
there is no function to indicate distance on the search result in
application A.
For all the question items except satisfaction about the
elapsed time to complete the task, it appeared that users were
most highly satisfied with the applications in the order of
prototype, application A, and application B. There were significant differences between prototype and applications A and B
except from context based, which showed no significant difference between the three aspects. In addition, difference between
application A and B was not encounter.
FIG. 5.
513
REFERENCES
Allen, M., Currie, L. M., Bakken, S., Patel, V. L., & Cimino, J. J.
(2006). Heuristic evaluation of paper-based Web pages: A simplified
inspection usability methodology. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 39,
412423.
Atkinson, B. F. W., Bennett, T. O., Bahr, G. S., & Nelson, M. M. W. (2007).
Development of a multiple heuristics evaluation table (MHET) to support software development and usability analysis. Paper presented at the
Proceedings of the 4th International conference on Universal Access in
HumanComputer Interaction: Coping With Diversity (pp. 563572). July
2227, 2007, Beijing, China.
Azuma, R. T. (1997). A survey of augmented reality. Presence-Teleoperators
and Virtual Environments, 6, 355385.
Azuma, R., Baillot, Y., Behringer, R., Feiner, S., Julier, S., & MacIntyre, B.
(2001). Recent advances in augmented reality. Computer Graphics and
Applications, IEEE, 21, 3447.
Billinghurst, M., Belcher, D., Gupta, A., & Kiyokawa, K. (2003).
Communication behaviors in colocated collaborative AR interfaces.
International Journal of HumanComputer Interaction, 16, 395423.
Bruns, E., Brombach, B., & Bimber, O. (2008). Mobile phone-enabled
museum guidance with adaptive classification. IEEE Computer Graphics
and Applications, 28, 98102.
Caudell, T. P., & Mizell, D. W. (1992). Augmented reality: An application of heads-up display technology to manual manufacturing processes.
Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Hawaii International Conference on the
System Sciences, 1992, 2, 659669.
Chincholle, D., Goldstein, M., Nyberg, M., & Eriksson, M. (2002). Lost
or found? A usability evaluation of a mobile navigation and locationbased service. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 4th International
Symposium on Mobile HumanComputer Interaction (pp. 211224).
September 1820, 2002, Pisa, Italy.
514
S. M. KO ET AL.
Milgram, P., & Kishino, F. (1994). Taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays.
IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems, E77D, 13211329.
Miyashita, T., Meier, P., Tachikawa, T., Orlic, S., Eble, T., Scholz,
V., . . . Lieberknecht, S. (2008). An Augmented Reality museum guide.
Proceedings of the 7th IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Mixed and
Augmented Reality, 103106.
Morrison, A., Oulasvirta, A., Peltonen, P., Lemmel, S., Jacucci, G., Reitmayr,
G., . . . Juustila, A. (2009). Like bees around the hive: A comparative study
of a mobile augmented reality map. Proceedings of the 27th international
conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 18891898.
Nassar, M. A., & Meawad, F. (2010). An Augmented Reality exhibition guide
for the iPhone. Proceedings of the 2010 International Conference on User
Science and Engineering (iUSEr), 157162.
Nielsen, J., & Landauer, T. K. (1993). A mathematical model of the finding of usability problems. Proceedings of the INTERACT 93 and CHI
93 conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 206213.
Nielsen, J., & Mack, R. L. (1994). Usability inspection methods (pp. 2564).
New York, NY: Wiley.
Nilsson, S., & Johansson, B. (2006). User experience and acceptance of a mixed
reality system in a naturalistic settingA case study. Proceedings of the 5th
IEEE and ACM International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality,
247248.
Park, H., & Park, J.-I. (2010). Invisible markerbased augmented reality.
International Journal of HumanComputer Interaction, 26, 829848.
Rau, P.-L. P., & Liang, S.-F. M. (2003). Internationalization and localization: evaluating and testing a Website for Asian users. Ergonomics, 46,
255270.
Shin, C., Oh, Y., Suh, Y., & Woo, H. Y. (2010). A survey on mobile augmented
reality services and an outlook toward a sustainable content ecosystem.
Korea Information Science Society Review, 28, 4350.
Shneiderman, B. (2010). Designing the user interface: Strategies for effective
humancomputer interaction (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Sutcliffe, A., & Gault, B. (2004). Heuristic evaluation of virtual reality applications. Interacting with Computers, 16, 831849.
Sutherland, I. E. (1968). A head-mounted three dimensional display.
Proceedings of the December 911, 1968, fall joint computer conference,
Part I, 757764.
Swan, J. E., & Gabbard, J. L. (2005). Survey of user-based experimentation
in augmented reality. Proceedings 1st International Conference on Virtual
Reality (pp. 19). July 2227, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA.
Tan, W.-s., Liu, D., & Bishu, R. (2009). Web evaluation: Heuristic evaluation vs.
user testing. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 39, 621627.
Tang, Z., Johnson, T. R., Tindall, R. D., & Zhang, J. (2006). Applying heuristic
evaluation to improve the usability of a telemedicine system. Telemedicine
Journal & E-Health, 12, 2434.
Thomas, B., Close, B., Donoghue, J., Squires, J., Bondi, P. D., & Piekarski,
W. (2002). First person indoor/outdoor augmented reality application:
ARQuake. Personal Ubiquitous Computing, 6, 7586.
Ullmer, B., & Ishii, H. (2000). Emerging frameworks for tangible user interfaces. IBM Systems Journal, 39, 915931.
Vaughan-Nichols, S. J. (2009). Augmented Reality: No longer a novelty?
Computer, 42, 1922.
Virrantaus, K., Markkula, J., Garmash, A., Terziyan, V., Veijalainen,
J., Katanosov, A., & Tirri, H. (2001). Developing GIS-supported
location-based services. Proceedings of the Second International
Conference on Web Information Systems Engineering, 2001, 6675.
Wiedenmaier, S., Oehme, O., Schmidt, L., & Luczak, H. (2003). Augmented
Reality (AR) for assembly processes design and experimental evaluation. International Journal of HumanComputer Interaction, 16,
497514.
515