COURSE LEARNING GOALS

before after

----  ----

 1   | 5 | Goal 1: articulate VR visualization software tool goals, requirements, and capabilities;

 1   | 4 | Goal 2: construct meaningful evaluation strategies for software libraries, frameworks, and applications; strategies include surveys, interviews, comparative use, case studies, and web research;

 2   | 4 | Goal 3: execute tool evaluation strategies;

 0   | 3 | Goal 4: build visualization software packages;

 1   | 5 | Goal 5: comparatively analyze software tools based on evaluation;

 2   | 5 | Goal 6: be familiar with a number of VR software tools and hardware;

 1   | 5 | Goal 7: think critically about software;

 1   | 4 | Goal 8: communicate ideas more clearly;

 0   | 4 | Goal 9: be familiar with different models/formats of VR data visualization;

PROPOSALS

Project 1 Proposal: Link

Presentation for Project 1 Proposal: Link

End Presentation for Project 1: Link

Project 2 Proposal: Link

Presentation for Project 2 Proposal: Link

Poster: Link

In-class Activity: Link

Public Demo: Link

ALL OTHER WIKI CONTRIBUTIONS

CONTRIBUTION 1 [Intro to Google Arts & Culture]: Link

CONTRIBUTION 2 [Intro to CyArk]: Link

CONTRIBUTION 3 [Intro to Open Heritage 3D]: Link

CONTRIBUTION 4 [VRchaeology]: Link

CONTRIBUTION 5 [Overview of VR's applications in Archaeology]: Link

CONTRIBUTION 6 [Comparison of data visualization on different platforms]: Link

HOURS journal

1/27/23 - 2 Hour

• Set up my journal page.

• Join Slack.

• Read through the previous projects and data sets on Wiki.

• Read Kenny Gruchalla's bio and write my question.

1/28/23 - 3 Hours

• Propose 9 changes:

  • 10-min level

    • 1. Add product images to some pages under the "VR Hardware" section.

    • 2. Add more detailed pricing information to most of the hardware pages, since different price ranges reflect different product positioning.

    • 3. Add more details to the "Unreal Engine" page since currently only very basic information and tutorials are included.

  • 1-hour level

    • 1. Under the "Related Technology" section, add a page to conclude the history of the breakthroughs that happened to the underlying technologies, such as from 3DoF to 6DoF.

    • 2. On the "History of VR" page, add some visual graphs that go through the evolution of VR and have all the related product introduction pages linked here.

    • 3. Under the "VR Hardware" section, many of the important or iconic devices are not yet included, such as Hololens, Pico, etc.

  • 10-hour level

    • 1. Under the "Related Technology" section, add a "Current Problems/Difficulties" page to conclude the frontier VR tech problems that teams around the world are trying to tackle since it's still a rapidly growing industry.

    • 2. Under the "Applications of VR" section, add a "VR in Game Industry" page. Since the performing arts page is included, as one of the fields that are impacted by VR the most, the game industry shouldn't be ignored.

    • 3. Similar to the "Comparisons" section under "VR Development Software", add a section under "VR Hardware" to compare all the existing devices.

  • Try to complete my first 10-min level change -- adding images to pages -- but realize it's more time-consuming than I imagined, so just complete the first half and leave the second half to tomorrow.

1/29/23 - 4 Hours

• • Complete the latter half of my first 10-min level change.

  • Do some more detailed research about the "VR Visualization Software" section of the Wiki since it's brand new to me. Read articles and watch tutorial videos.

  • Read through a linked outside website about "Virtual Tour".

2/1/23 - 4.5 Hours

• • Pick 2-5 potential pieces of software

    • The Wild

    • Yulio

    • Arthur

    • Lithodomos

    • hubs

  • Create 3-5 potential project ideas

    • Compare VR software tools for collaborative architecture building.

    • Analyze VR applications in Archaeology to reconstruct ancient environments/civilizations.

    • Compare VR software on creating an immersive collaborative workspace.

    • Analyze VR applications for physics education.

    • How NASA uses VR to train astronauts (how any jobs be trained by VR in general).

2/2/23 - 1.5 Hours

• • Finish the comparison of the Google Earth VR version and the Web version. 

  • Install DinoVR.

A tour from Greg dorm to Nelson fitness center

2/3/23 & 2/4/23 - 4 Hours

• • Review wiki/web to solidify your 3-5 project ideas

    • Compare VR software tools for collaborative architecture building.

      • 3 things I'll do: 1. mapping all VR tools for architecture and converge to 3-5 of them to research on; 2. using an existing dataset and trying these tools out in order to form the 1st draft of software valuation & comparison; 3. collecting all forms of user feedback and revising the valuation & comparison to be less subjective.

      • 1 class activity: invite classmates to try to use the different VR tools and collect their feedback.

      • potential deliverables: a more detailed wiki section presenting current VR applications on architecture and a list of related software; an architecture data VR representation work.

    • Analyze VR applications in Archaeology to reconstruct ancient environments/civilizations.

      • 3 things I'll do: 1. mapping all VR tools the current archaeology teams are using and converge to 3-5 of them to research on; 2. using an existing dataset and trying these tools out in order to form the 1st draft of software valuation & comparison; 3. collecting all forms of user feedback and existing VR archaeology works and revising the valuation & comparison to be less subjective.

      • 1 class activity: invite classmates to view the VR archaeology scenes constructed by different tools and compare.

      • potential deliverables: a more detailed wiki section presenting current VR applications on archaeology and a list of related software; an archaeology data VR representation work.

    • Compare VR software for creating an immersive collaborative workspace.

      • 3 things I'll do: 1. mapping all VR tools that can create collaborative workspaces and converge to 3-5 of them to research on; 2. using these tools to create different workspaces and do both quantitative and qualitative research about their performances; 3. collecting all forms of user feedback and existing user data and revising the valuation & comparison to be less subjective.

      • 1 class activity: invite classmates to work in these collaborative virtual workspaces and give feedback.

      • potential deliverables: a wiki page using scientific rubrics to evaluate and compare VR collaborative workspace applications; build a virtual workspace that classmates can use.

    • Analyze VR applications for physics education.

      • Eliminate this option for now since according to my current research, the applications of physics education are a too limited topic. I'm thinking to build a VR physics education application on my own but that requires more VR developing skills so it's more suitable for project 2.

    • How NASA uses VR to train astronauts (how any jobs be trained by VR in general).

      • Eliminate this option for now since only focusing on NASA makes the project too narrow but generalizing it to all job training makes it too broad.

2/5/23 - 2 Hours

• Brainstorm software evaluation metrics

  • Cost

  • Supported platforms

  • Installation & setup complexity

  • Hardware requirements

  • User skillset prerequisite

  • Community support

  • Security

  • UIUX design

  • Extensible functionality

  • Data input/output complexity

  • Documentation

2/8/23 - 3 Hours

• Complete Dino VR Activity

• Select one project and create a plan.

  • Project: Analyze VR applications in Archaeology for reconstructing ancient environments/civilizations.

  • In-class activity: Explore and compare different VR reconstructions of ancient environments, and collect classmates' feedback on satisfaction rate.

  • Milestones:

    • 2/14 - Mapping software tools that can be used for Archaeology research purposes.

    • 2/16 - Mapping current Archaeology research teams that adapt VR technologies and the tools they use.

    • 2/23 - Converge to 3 software tools to deeply research on.

    • 2/28 - Finish developing the evaluation rubric.

    • 3/02 - Able to launch in-class activity.

    • 3/07 - Finish software evaluating and comparing based on my own experience.

    • 3/09 - Integrate classmates' and online users' feedback to generate the final conclusion. The deliverables are a Wiki section and also an article/poster/presentation of my research.

2/11/23 - 8 Hours

• Revised Project Plan

2/15/23 - 4 Hours

• Journal self-evaluation:

  • Journal activities are explicitly and clearly related to course deliverables = 4

  • deliverables are described and attributed in wiki = 3

  • report states total amount of time = 4

  • total time is appropriate = 3

• 2/14 milestone completion:

  • Software mapping:

    • Application layer:

      • Google Arts & Culture and its YouTube VR Channel

      • A game made by Wessex Archaeology Studio

      • VRchaeology

      • National Geographic Explore VR

      • Travel The World | Oculus

    • Creation layer:

      • CyArk

      • Ancient World

      • Unreal Engine

    • Databases:

      • Open Heritage 3D

      • AVROD 

  • Conclusion on application layer's collaboration: there isn't any current publicly available product that allows collaborations between multiple users. However, there're collaborative applications for internal usage or haven't been published. 

2/16/23 - 1 Hour

• Complete installation steps for Paraview + Ben's Volume Rendering tutorial.

2/17/23 - 5 Hour

• 2/14 milestone completion:

  • Research teams mapping:

    • Data collection:

      • CyArk

      • APAAME 

      • American University of Madaba

      • Calidos

      • Maldives Heritage Survey

      • Maritime Asia Heritage Survey

    • Application (emails sent to request for internal software):

      • Shackelford VR Lab

      • Wessex Archaeology Studio

2/21/23 & 2/22/23 - 10 Hour

• 2/23 milestone completion:

  • Applications brief evaluations:

    • Google Arts & Culture and its YouTube VR Channel: Not satisfying VR experience. No interactions allowed. Performs fine on computers.

    • National Geographic Explore VR: The experience is good but not specifically for Archaeology, more for general geology.

    • Travel The World | Oculus: Doesn't support Quest 2.

    • CyArk: Doesn't really support VR experience. Works nicely on a computer. Can be used as a comparison with the VR experience.

    • Ancient World: Supports VR experience but performs poorly. No supported interactions using controllers. The resolution is very low.

    • Open Heritage 3D: Although it's a dataset platform, it provides a surprisingly good VR experience for data visualization, especially in the PointCloud service provided by UCSD.

    • AVROD: Not usable. The experience can be expected to be good but seems not to integrate Oculus Quest 2 well. Similar problem was found in the comments on Steam but has not been solved since the software was developed in 2021 and no updates recently.

    • A game made by Wessex Archaeology Studio: No access yet.

    • VRchaeology: No access yet.

  • Open Dataset: Open Heritage 3D

  • 3 Products I'll work on:

    • Open Heritage 3D

    • CyArk

    • Ideally VRchaeology; otherwise Google Arts & Culture

2/24/23 & 2/26/23 - 10 Hour

• Reached out to the research teams listed above to try to get access to their internally used products.

• 2/28 milestone completion:

  • Application evaluation rubric:

    • General Product Experience:

      • What platform does it support?

        • Scale 1-3: symboling the number of platforms it supports.

      • Any monetary cost to get access?

      • Difficulty and time commitment to learn how to use it.

        • Scale 1-5: based on user feedback collection.

      • Installation & setup complexity.

        • Scale 1-5: based on user feedback collection.

      • Software latency.

        • Scale 1-5: based on user feedback collection.

      • Additional usage barriers exist.

    • Visual Experience:

      • How realistic is the visual experience (subjectively speaking as a user)?

        • Scale 1-5: based on user feedback collection.

      • How detailed is the visual experience?

        • Scale 1-5: based on user feedback collection.

      • The capability to represent scientific data.

        • Scale 1-5: based on user feedback collection and the types of data used.

    • Interactive Experience:

      • The freedom users have in the virtual environment.

        • Scale 1-5: based on user feedback collection.

      • Difficulty in navigating, rotating, scaling, etc.

        • Scale 1-5: based on user feedback collection.

    • Special Features:

      • Features that make the experience particularly good.

• Researched how teams collaboratively reconstruct ancient environments and turn them into applications.

• Decided the example site for in-class activity: Osun Osogbo Sacred Groves

  • CyArk: https://www.cyark.org/projects/osun-osogbo-sacred-groves/overview

  • Google Arts & Culture: https://artsandculture.google.com/story/sQWRN_dy9PVT3g

  • Open Heritage: https://openheritage3d.org/project.php?id=hevx-jf76

3/4/23 & 3/5/23 - 12 Hour

• Concluded research on the three products and contributed 3 wiki pages: Google Arts & Culture, CyArk, and Open Heritage 3D under the "VR in Archaeology" section.

• Completed the Feedback Form.

• Complete the preparation and the document for my In-class Activity.

3/10/23 & 3/12/23 - 10 Hour

• Summarized the research and made a final wiki page for it.

• Contributed 2 more wiki pages: Overview of VR's applications in Archaeology, and VRchaeology 

3/19/23 & 3/20/23 - 6 Hour

• Read 7 scenarios paper.

• Complete the draft of my Project 2 Plan:

  • Project: Analyze collaborative working experience and data visualization capacity in different VR products.

  • Objective: To explore and evaluate the collaborative working experience and data visualization capabilities of various VR products, including Sinespace, Prospect, Spatial, Meta Horizon, and FrameVR, comparing their effectiveness in supporting teamwork, communication, and visualization of complex data.

  • In-class activity: Explore and compare different VR products, and collect classmates' feedback based on the collaborative working experience and data visualization evaluation rubric (might include general satisfaction rating, collaborative features rating, data visualization rating, and user experience on different devices).

  • Milestones:

    • 4/04 - Mapping the key features and functionalities of the selected VR products, focusing on their collaborative working experience and data visualization capacity.

    • 4/06 - Research and identify relevant use cases, testimonials, or research papers highlighting the collaborative and visualization aspects of the chosen VR products.

    • 4/11 - Converge to 3 VR products for in-depth analysis. Assess the potential of these products in supporting teamwork, communication, and complex data visualization in various industries.

    • 4/13 - Finish developing the evaluation rubric, considering factors such as ease of collaboration, visualization capabilities, interaction design, and overall user experience.

    • 4/18 - Conduct initial evaluations of the chosen VR products based on the developed rubric, focusing on collaborative and data visualization aspects.

    • 4/20 - Refine the evaluation rubric based on feedback from initial evaluations.

    • 4/25 - Conduct a second round of evaluations of the chosen VR products based on the refined rubric.

    • 4/27 - Complete the evaluation of VR products based on personal experiences, classmates' feedback, and online user reviews to generate a comprehensive comparison.

    • 5/02 - Create a draft of the final deliverable, highlighting the collaborative working experience and data visualization capabilities of the selected VR products, their strengths and weaknesses, and offering recommendations for potential users.

    • 5/04 - Revise and finalize the deliverable based on feedback from peers and instructors, and submit it for evaluation.

  • The Seven Scenarios paper principles applied in the project plan:

    • Choosing a focus: This project focuses on process-based evaluation scenarios, specifically the Collaborative Data Analysis (CDA) and Visual Data Analysis and Reasoning (VDAR) scenarios (Sections 6.3 and 6.4).

    • Picking suitable scenarios: Based on the project's objective, CDA and VDAR scenarios are chosen to analyze the collaborative working experience and data visualization capabilities of the selected VR products.

    • Considering applicable approaches: Following the descriptive examples in the paper, the project employs a combination of personal experience, classmates' feedback, and online user reviews as evaluation methods.

    • Creating evaluation design and planned analyses: The evaluation rubric is designed to assess the collaborative working experience and data visualization capabilities of the VR products, taking inspiration from the examples provided in the Seven Scenarios paper.

  • Risks/challenges:

    • Limited access to some of the VR products due to subscription or hardware requirements.

    • Difficulty in providing an immersive experience for all classmates during the in-class activity.

    • Ensuring a fair comparison of the products despite potential differences in industry focus and target user groups.