Abstract

It is becoming popular to render art exhibitions in Virtual Reality (VR). Many of these are used to deliver at-home experiences on peoples’ own mobile devices, however, control options on mobile VR systems are necessarily less flexible than those of situated VR fixtures. In this paper, we present a study that explores aspects of control in such VR exhibitions - specifically comparing ‘on rails’ movement with ‘free’ movement. We also expand the concept of museum audio guides to better suit the VR medium, exploring the possibility of embodied character-guides. We compare these controllable guides with a more traditional audio-guide. The study uses interviews to explore users’ experience qualitatively, as well as questionnaires addressing both user experience and simulator sickness. The results suggest that users generally prefer to have control over both their movement and the guide, however, if relinquishing movement control, they prefer the uncontrolled guide. The paper presents three key findings: (1) users prefer to be able to directly control their movement; (2) this does not make a notable difference to simulator sickness; (3) embodied guides are potentially a good way to deliver additional information in VR exhibition settings.

Highlights

  • The term ‘Virtual Reality’ (VR) was coined by Jaron Lanier in the late 1980s, defined as a three-dimensional, computer-generated environment, in which people can immerse, explore and interact [32]

  • It can be seen that most users preferred the blue room, where they had control of both movement and the audio guide information

  • A similar pattern of results was revealed by the User Experience Questionnaire (UEQ): the blue room created the best user experience, with most scales falling into the ‘Excellent’ category

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The term ‘Virtual Reality’ (VR) was coined by Jaron Lanier in the late 1980s, defined as a three-dimensional, computer-generated environment, in which people can immerse, explore and interact [32]. Both are tethered to high-end PCs with cables, with a wide 110-degree field of view and high-resolution displays. Two typical examples are the Samsung Gear VR and the Google Cardboard These are wireless, lightweight and low-cost options, but are essentially cases with lens arrangements for mobile phones. They suffer from two key challenges: first, the refresh rates and resolutions are restricted by the mobile phone platforms on which they are delivered - and while we can assume this issue will go away as the technology miniaturises, the second issue is more likely to persist: limited options are available to control the device. As the cheapest and most available form of VR, it is worth considering how we might interact with and control experiences in this limited context

Objectives
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call