Designing AR Interfaces for Enhanced User Experience
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29070/v8dpf082Keywords:
AR interfaces, augmented reality, biological research, educational technology, UX designAbstract
Augmented Reality (AR) interfaces are transforming biological education and research by providing immersive and interactive learning environments that increase user engagement and learning results. This study analyzes the use of augmented reality (AR) technology in biological sciences, highlighting the importance of User Experience (UX) design concepts in improving AR interfaces for educational effectiveness.
The research provides a comprehensive overview of designing AR interfaces tailored to biological education, highlighting intuitive navigation, interactive feedback mechanisms, and personalized learning experiences. By examining current advancements and future trends in AR technology, the paper identifies key opportunities for innovation in educational settings.
A poll of sixty students was conducted to collect data on demographics, AR usage experience, educational efficacy, user satisfaction, and perceived advantageous features. The data indicate that AR is well-received, with high scores for simulation realism, ease of use, and engagement.
This lecture finishes by bringing together information about augmented reality's transformative potential in biology education and research. It proposes avenues for further research and development to harness the full capabilities of AR technology, shaping the future of learning in the biological sciences.
References
Azuma, R. (1997). A survey of augmented reality. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 6(4), 355-385.
Billinghurst, M., & Kato, H. (1999). Collaborative augmented reality. Communications of the ACM, 45(7), 64-70.
Billinghurst, M., Clark, A., & Lee, G. (2015). A survey of augmented reality. Foundations and Trends in Human-Computer Interaction, 8(2-3), 73-272.
Bowman, D. A., Kruijff, E., LaViola, J. J., & Poupyrev, I. (2008). 3D User Interfaces: Theory and Practice. Addison-Wesley.
Caudell, T. P., & Mizell, D. W. (1992). Augmented reality: An application of heads-up display technology to manual manufacturing processes. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (Vol. 2, pp. 659-669).
Cooper, A., Reimann, R., & Cronin, D. (2007). About Face 3: The Essentials of Interaction Design. Wiley.
DiVerdi, S., Bond, A., Bolas, M., & Debevec, P. (2010). An Augmented Reality Lighting Design Visualization System. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 16(2), 313-325.
Dunleavy, M., Dede, C., & Mitchell, R. (2009). Affordances and limitations of immersive participatory augmented reality simulations for teaching and learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(1), 7-22.
Dumas, J. S., & Redish, J. C. (1999). A Practical Guide to Usability Testing. Intellect Books.
Henry, S. L. (2006). Web Accessibility: Web Standards and Regulatory Compliance. A press.
Höllerer, T., Feiner, S., Terauchi, T., Rashid, G., & Hallaway, D. (1999). Exploring MARS: Developing indoor and outdoor user interfaces to a mobile augmented reality system. Computers & Graphics, 23(6), 779-785.
Höllerer, T., & Feiner, S. (2004). Mobile augmented reality. In Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR 2004) (pp. 205-206).
Kerawalla, L., Luckin, R., Seljeflot, S., & Woolard, A. (2006). "Making it real": Exploring the potential of augmented reality for teaching primary school science. Virtual Reality, 10(3-4), 163-174.
Krevelen, D. W. F., & Poelman, R. (2010). A survey of augmented reality technologies, applications and limitations. International Journal of Virtual Reality, 9(2), 1-20.
Norman, D. A., & Draper, S. W. (1986). User-Centered System Design: New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction. CRC Press.
This work is licensed under a 