Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-9knnw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-22T17:09:15.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Improving Mixed-Reality Prototyping through a Classification and Characterisation of Fidelity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 May 2022

C. Cox ,
B. Hicks  and
J. Gopsill
C. Cox*
Affiliation:
University of Bristol, United Kingdom
B. Hicks
Affiliation:
University of Bristol, United Kingdom
J. Gopsill
Affiliation:
University of Bristol, United Kingdom
*
christopher.cox@bristol.ac.uk

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Prototyping is a vital activity in product development. For reasons of time, cost and level of definition, low fidelity representations of products are used to advance understanding and progress design. With the advent of Mixed Reality prototyping, the ways in which abstractions of different fidelities can be created have multiplied, but there is no guidance on how best to specify this abstraction. In this paper, a taxonomy of the dimensions of product fidelity is proposed so that both designers and researchers can better understand how fidelity can be managed to maximise prototype value.

Keywords

prototypingvirtual prototypingdesign toolsontologyaugmented reality (AR)

Information

Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 2: DESIGN2022 , May 2022 , pp. 353 - 362
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2022.

References

Azmandian, M. et al. . (2016) ‘Haptic Retargeting: Dynamic Repurposing of Passive Haptics for Enhanced Virtual Reality Experiences’, in Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York, NY, USA (CHI ’16), pp. 1968–1979. https://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bordegoni, M. and Ferrise, F. (2013) ‘Designing interaction with consumer products in a multisensory virtual reality environment, Virtual and Physical Prototyping, 8(1), pp. 51–64. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17452759.2012.762612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camburn, B. et al. . (2017) ‘Design prototyping methods: State of the art in strategies, techniques, and guidelines’, Design Science, 3(Schrage 1993), pp. 1–33. https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2017.10.Google Scholar
Fink, C.D. and Shriver, E.L. (1978) Simulators for Maintenance Training: Some Issues, Problems and Areas for Future Research. Available at: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA060088 (Accessed: 26 October 2021).Google Scholar
Harris, D.J. et al. . (2021) ‘Exploring sensorimotor performance and user experience within a virtual reality golf putting simulator’, Virtual Reality, 25(3), pp. 647–654. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10055-020-00480-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iribe, B. (2014) Oculus Connect Videos and Presentations Online. Available at: https://www.oculus.com/blog/oculus-connect-videos-and-presentations-online (Accessed: 23 June 2021).Google Scholar
Janusz, J. (2019) ‘Toward The New Mixed Reality Environment for Interior Design’, IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 471, p. 102065. https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/471/10/102065.Google Scholar
Kelly, A. et al. . (2018) ‘ARcadia: A Rapid Prototyping Platform for Real-time Tangible Interfaces’, in Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York, NY, USA pp. 1–8. Available at: 10.1145/3173574.3173983 (Accessed: 14 November 2021).Google Scholar
Kent, L. et al. . (2021) ‘Mixed reality in design prototyping: A systematic review’, Design Studies, 77, p. 101046. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2021.101046.Google Scholar
Kent, L. (2021) ‘OurLab - Mixed Reality Lab Designer’, DMF Labs. Available at: https://dmf-lab.co.uk/our-lab/ (Accessed: 14 November 2021).Google Scholar
Lederman, S.J. and Klatzky, R.L. (1987) ‘Hand Movements: A window into Haptic Object Recognition’, Cognitive Psychology, 19, pp. 342–368.Google ScholarPubMed
Maurya, S. et al. . (2019) ‘A mixed reality tool for end-users participation in early creative design tasks’, International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing (IJIDeM), 13(1), pp. 163–182. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12008-018-0499-z.Google Scholar
McCurdy, M. et al. . (2006) ‘Breaking the fidelity barrier: an examination of our current characterization of prototypes and an example of a mixed-fidelity success’, in Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery (CHI ’06), pp. 1233–1242. https://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1124772.1124959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milgram, P. et al. . (1995) ‘Augmented reality: a class of displays on the reality-virtuality continuum’, in Telemanipulator and Telepresence Technologies. Telemanipulator and Telepresence Technologies, SPIE, pp. 282–292. https://dx.doi.org/10.1117/12.197321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milgram, P. and Kishino, F. (1994) ‘A TAXONOMY OF MIXED REALITY VISUAL DISPLAYS’, p. 15.Google Scholar
Mohr, P. et al. . (2015) ‘Retargeting Technical Documentation to Augmented Reality’, in Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery (CHI ’15), pp. 3337–3346. https://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702490.Google Scholar
O'Hare, J.A. et al. . (2018) ‘EXPLORING THE PERFORMANCE OF AUGMENTED REALITY TECHNOLOGIES IN CO-CREATIVE SESSIONS: INITIAL RESULTS FROM CONTROLLED EXPERIMENTS’, in. 15th International Design Conference, pp. 405–416. https://dx.doi.org/10.21278/idc.2018.0391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oxford University Press (2021) ‘Definition of fidelity [online]’, Oxford University Press. Available at: https://www.lexico.com/definition/fidelity (Accessed: 14 November 2021).Google Scholar
Peng, H. et al. . (2018) ‘RoMA: Interactive Fabrication with Augmented Reality and a Robotic 3D Printer’, in Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York, NY, USA: pp. 1–12. Available at: 10.1145/3173574.3174153 (Accessed: 14 November 2021).Google Scholar
Piccione, J., Collett, J. and De Foe, A. (2019) ‘Virtual skills training: the role of presence and agency’, Heliyon, 5(11), p. e02583. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02583.Google ScholarPubMed
Ranney, T.A. (2011) Psychological Fidelity: Perception of Risk. Available at: https://trid.trb.org/view/1114732 (Accessed: 14 November 2021).Google Scholar
Razzaque, S. (2005) Redirected Walking. Ph.D. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Available at: www.proquest.com/docview/305393643/abstract/5A2E4AEA8E1445DDPQ/1 (Accessed: 23 June 2021).Google Scholar
Reipschläger, P. and Dachselt, R. (2019) ‘DesignAR: Immersive 3D-Modeling Combining Augmented Reality with Interactive Displays’, in Proceedings of the 2019 ACM International Conference on Interactive Surfaces and Spaces. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery (ISS ’19), pp. 29–41. https://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3343055.3359718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulrich, K. and Eppinger, S. (2015) Product design and development. McGraw-Hill Higher Education.Google Scholar