Activity Setting

Ten participants viewed a gravity simulation across three modes: a laptop screen, VR on Quest 3, and AR on Quest 3. The simulation featured a 3D scene where multiple balls were placed on the ground, allowing participants to use a mouse or VR controller to select, move, and drop them to observe displacement, acceleration, and collisions. In laptop and VR modes, the scene had a gradient-colored background, while AR mode had passthrough with floor as collision surface.

After the simulation, participants completed a short survey describing their experiences across different platforms and indicating their preferred mode for similar tasks in the future.

Summary

The survey gathered feedback on navigation preferences and the effectiveness of Web, VR, and AR modes in a simulation. Most respondents preferred VR for navigation, followed by AR, with Web being the least preferred.

Participants generally did not feel overwhelmed by the amount of information displayed, except for one respondent who noted inconsistencies in AR and VR object behavior. In AR, 60% found passthrough effects somewhat distracting, mainly due to depth inaccuracies and unrealistic interactions with the real environment. Issues included digital objects not correctly aligning with real-world surfaces and failing to interact naturally with obstacles.

Regarding simulation effectiveness, 70% found AR worse than other modes, citing problems with gravity simulation and depth representation. Many reported that objects did not fall as expected, reducing the realism of the experience. Despite these issues, some appreciated AR’s potential for integrating digital objects into real-world contexts.

[Footnote: The AR mode experienced a glitch in some sessions where gravity was not applied, resulting in inconsistent experiences among users.]

For future simulations, VR was the most preferred mode (60%), followed by AR (40%), with no respondents choosing Web. Additional comments highlighted the need for improved physics interactions in AR, such as realistic collisions and gravity effects.

Some thoughts

I think the glitch in AR mode greatly influenced how participants perceived their AR experience, leading to results that are somewhat biased and do not fully represent the intended AR experience in this activity or its potential. From the additional comments in the survey, some participants expressed interest in AR and believe it is still a promising feature worth exploring for a better simulation-viewing experience.

Overall, I think participants seem to favor AR and VR equally, with each excelling in different use cases. This aligns with the current trend in the tech business to push the blending of augmented and virtual reality.