Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
69 lines (44 loc) · 2.71 KB

Ar Vs Browser For Citizen Science-Gandhi.md

File metadata and controls

69 lines (44 loc) · 2.71 KB
Raw

#notesFromPaper Year : 2021 Tags : #AR Authors: [[Gandhi]] [[Josh|Miller]] [[Spatharioti]] [[Apte]] [[Fatehi]] [[Wylie]] [[Cooper]]

PAPER PREPRINT

[[citizen science]] gamifies itself for retention. Could [[AR]] be useful for this?

AR can

  • increase exploration of the physical world
  • engage children
  • augment physical games

[[tileoscope]] AR is an AR implementation of the [[memory game]]. Also tileoscope grid for browser comparison purposes.

RQs

  • diff in engagement?
  • useful for different niches?
  • how do these modalities interact with [[citizen science]]?

Pilot

22 participants, tweaked image set difficulty, UI elements, interview questions, and decided not to use time as a metric of engagement.

Study

Participants were mostly young, even gender split (slight male leaning)

When asked directly, 71% of participants preferred AR over browser.

Major theme: AR is a leisurely toy

  • The browser game is more fast, familiar, and accessible
  • Physicality slows down AR play
  • AR affords and demands spatial processing
  • The AR novelty has toy qualities

The browser game is more fast, familiar, and accessible

Browser based affordances allowed participants to pick up the game quicker and play the game quicker. Also, since the browser game requires no play space or printed tiles, there's a lower barrier of entry

Physicality slows down AR play

Matches took 4x longer in the AR version without an increase in accuracy. About half the players mentioned increased critical thinking and reflection about citsci thanks to the slow play, approx half mentioned tedium and frustration

AR affords and demands spatial processing

Increased cognitive load for some, better physical affordances for others. Many players "[[gameplay subversion|broke the game]]" or used the tiles in ways they wanted to, which would be impossible with the hardcoded digital game.

The AR novelty has toy qualities

More engagement, though for many it started to wear off even within the 15-20 mins of play. Maybe AR could be useful for museums and classrooms?

Some (descriptive only) increases in the IMI for AR

Back to research questions. Results & Future Work:

  • engagement
    • AR generally more engaging
    • Long term effects? Would participants play for longer or shorter in a more naturalistic environment? Would participants come back to this game?
  • Niches
    • AR could be useful for museums and classrooms
    • Future work should explore this and multiplayer.
  • Citsci interaction
    • AR slower and allowed for more reflection, plus it being more "real" made participants feel it more
    • Could AR be used explicitly for education?