Abstract
Ubiquitous, situated, and physical visualizations create entirely new possibilities for tasks contextualized in the real world,such as doctors inserting needles. During the development of situated visualizations, evaluating visualizations is a core requirement.However, performing such evaluations is intrinsically hard as the real scenarios are safety-critical or expensive to test. To overcomethese issues, researchers and practitioners adapt classical approaches from ubiquitous computing and use surrogate empiricalmethods such as Augmented Reality (AR), Virtual Reality (VR) prototypes, or merely online demonstrations. This approach’s primaryassumption is that meaningful insights can also be gained from different, usually cheaper and less cumbersome empirical methods.Nevertheless, recent efforts in the Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) community have found evidence against this assumption, whichwould impede the use of surrogate empirical methods. Currently, these insights rely on a single investigation of four interactive objects.The goal of this work is to investigate if these prior findings also hold for situated visualizations. Therefore, we first created a scenariowhere situated visualizations support users in do-it-yourself (DIY) tasks such as crafting and assembly. We then set up five empiricalstudy methods to evaluate the four tasks using an online survey, as well as VR, AR, laboratory, and in-situ studies. Using this studydesign, we conducted a new study with 60 participants. Our results show that the situated visualizations we investigated in this studyare not prone to the same dependency on the empirical method, as found in previous work. Our study provides the first evidence thatanalyzing situated visualizations through different empirical (surrogate) methods might lead to comparable result
Links and resources
Tags
community
