Results of data collection and analysis

First experiment: performance and memo ability

Task Performance experiment

  • Time expended
    • Paper (7:47) / WT (8:00)

    • WT modalities vs. paper

      • Context (-67 seconds)

      • Keyboard (+51 seconds)

      • Voice recognition (+55 seconds)
  • Errors

    • Paper (6) / WT (12)

    • WT (errors/corrections)

      • Context (3/3)

      • Keyboard (5/1)

      • Voice recognition (4/1)

Memorability experiment

  • Memo ability: (time to learn)

    • Paper (25:08) / WT (29:38)

    • Context (25:40) / Keyboard (30:35) / Voice (34:02)
  • Memo ability : (Number of errors in the process)

    • Number of error: 7% more using WT than paper

      • Three times fewer using context than when using voice or Keyboard
    • Number of errors corrected: 15% more using WT than paper
  • Memo ability : (Number attempts)

    • Paper (3,25) / WT (3,94)

    • Context (3,57) / Keyboard (4,33) / Voice (4)
  • Memo ability : (Time used in checking the assembly)

    • Paper (2:17) / WT (3:14)

    • Context (1:40) / Keyboard (4:22) / Voice (4:37)
  • Memo ability: (number of errors the day after)

    • People makes less errors when trained using paper

    • Keyboard and Voice provided better results than Context

Mental workload

  • Total: WT 48,56 / Paper 44,74

    • Context (47,69) / Keyboard (43,50) / Voice (49,33)
  • Performance test (50,05) / Learning (47,42)

  • Factors ranking (Paper/WT)

    • Mental demands: 131,79 / 148,08

    • Physical demands: 8,59 / 7,05

    • Temporal demands: 164,23 / 165,90

    • Own performance: 160,77 / 150,64

    • Effort: 88,85 / 90,77

    • Frustration: 84,23 / 116,54
  • Usability questionnaire

    • The top (+) factors

      • Keyboard easy to use

      • Easy to use the system

      • Text based content preferred

      • Text and pictures based content

      • No ridiculous feeling

        • Willing to test future versions

        • No wasting time feeling

        • Colours help searching information

        • Easy to adapt to this technology
    • The top (-) factors

      • If optional at Tekniker: Not even with changes

      • Difficult to read the text

      • No for every day use

      • If optional at Tekniker: Not as is

      • Wires make assembly difficult

      • Heavy gadgets

      • The headset is not easy to wear

      • HMDs make my vision tired
    • What would you add to the system

      • Context: a ‘clear’ warning system

      • Better image quality (bigger fonts, definition, focus, zoom…)

      • HMD: Better fixturing system

      • Audible feedback

      • Integration of the headphone into the glasses
    • What would you remove from the system

      • Wires

      • Weight (computer and HMDs)
    • The best

      • Avoid unnecessary displacement to access information

      • Always the information at hand

      • Easy to use
    • The worst

      • Uncomfortable to use (weight)

      • The adjustment of HMD (vision)

      • Mobility reduction
    • Other potential applications

      • Sports (referees)

      • Laboratory analysis

      • Topographic studies

      • Inspection of plants / security guards

      • Manual electrical wiring

      • Quality control

Second experiment: 3 HMD versus Monitor

  • Performance (seconds to complete)

    • Monitor: 5:56

    • Zeiss see-through: 6:33

    • Microoptical: 7:00

    • Zeiss Look-around: 7:30
  • Preferences

Display mechanism preference
Display mechanism preference
An Integrated Project co-funded by the European Union under the Sixth Framework Programme All the content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons.