Usability Principles for Augmented Reality Applications in a Smartphone Environment
Abstract
Through the rapid spread of smartphones, users have access to many types of applications similar to those on desktop computer systems. Smartphone applications using augmented reality (AR) technology make use of users' location information. As AR applications will require new evaluation methods, improved usability and user convenience should be developed. The purpose of the current study is to develop usability principles for the development and evaluation of smartphone applications using AR technology. We develop usability principles for smartphone AR applications by analyzing existing research about heuristic evaluation methods, design principles for AR systems, guidelines for handheld mobile device interfaces, and usability principles for the tangible user interface. We conducted a heuristic evaluation for three popularly used smartphone AR applications to identify usability problems. We suggested new design guidelines to solve the identified problems. Then, we developed an improved AR application prototype of an Android-based smartphone, which later was conducted a usability testing to validate the effects of usability principles.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
[43] and [95] proposed to minimize the interaction with the game tools and the physical effort.
“[43] and [95] proposed to minimize the interaction with the game tools and the physical effort, while we suggested designers apply tangible interaction as an alternative solution and encourage children to interact with the physical objects such as textbooks, maps, and other physical objects.”
From Extracting Design Guidelines for Augmented Reality Serious Games for Children (2022) · cites this paper as [95]
Cites
A mathematical model of the finding of usability problems
Nielsen, J., & Landauer, T. K. (1993) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI '93 · doi:10.1145/169059.169166 · Cited by 1,961 · see citing works
Beyond the five-user assumption: benefits of increased sample sizes in usability testing
Faulkner, L. (2003) · Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers · doi:10.3758/bf03195514 · Cited by 1,053 · see citing works
Like bees around the hive: a comparative study of a mobile augmented reality map
Morrison, A., Oulasvirta, A., Peltonen, P., Lemmela, S., Jacucci, G., Reitmayr, G., Näsänen, J., & Juustila, A. (2009) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/1518701.1518991 · Cited by 199 · see citing works
Web evaluation: Heuristic evaluation vs. user testing
Tan, W.-S., Liu, D., & Bishu, R. (2009) · International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics · doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2008.02.012 · Cited by 170 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…heuristic evaluation with experts to suggest applicability on the result of the study (Desurvire, Caplan, & Toth, 2004; Hvannberg, Law, & Lárusdóttir, 2007; Kostaras & Xenos, 2007; Kurniawan & Zaphiris, 2005; Sutcliffe & Gault, 2004; Tan, Liu, & Bishu, 2009; Tang, Johnson, Tindall, & Zhang, 2006).”
Applying heuristic evaluation to improve the usability of a telemedicine system
Tang, Z., Johnson, T. R., Tindall, R. D., & Zhang, J. (2006) · Telemedicine and e-Health · doi:10.1089/tmj.2006.12.24 · Cited by 102 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…heuristic evaluation with experts to suggest applicability on the result of the study (Desurvire, Caplan, & Toth, 2004; Hvannberg, Law, & Lárusdóttir, 2007; Kostaras & Xenos, 2007; Kurniawan & Zaphiris, 2005; Sutcliffe & Gault, 2004; Tan, Liu, & Bishu, 2009; Tang, Johnson, Tindall, & Zhang, 2006).”
Heuristic evaluation of paper-based Web pages: a simplified inspection usability methodology
Allen, M., Currie, L. M., Bakken, S., Patel, V. L., & Cimino, J. J. (2006) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2005.10.004 · Cited by 95 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Extracting Design Guidelines for Augmented Reality Serious Games for Children
Li, J., Spek, E. V. D., Hu, J., & Feijs, L. (2022) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2022.3184775 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
- Authors
- Ko, S. M., Chang, W. S., & Ji, Y. G.
- Affiliations
- Yonsei University (KR)
- Corresponding author
- Ji, Yong Gu
- ORCID
- Ji, Yong Gu
- Venue
- International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2013-08-03
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 501-515
- ISSN
- 1044-7318 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-7590
- OpenAlex
- W1966275791
- Cited by
- 143
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 2
- FWCI
- 10.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Augmented Reality Applications
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Interactive and Immersive Displays
- Keywords
- augmented reality, mobile application, usability principles, heuristic evaluation, mobile interfaces, tangible user interfaces, location-aware applications, Android, usability testing
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
