Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Wearable AR in Everyday Contexts: Insights from a Digital Ethnography of YouTube Videos

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Wearable AR in everyday life is currently dominated by media consumption and gaming, with productivity held back by hardware and app gaps.

desk verdict A solid, transparent digital ethnography of early wearable AR use, but the headline percentages are AVP-driven and the 'consistent across devices' claim is contradicted by the paper's own Ray-Ban data. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.06191 v2 pith:V6HTDMOQ submitted 2025-02-10 cs.HC

Tram Thi Minh Tran , Shane Brown , Oliver Weidlich , Soojeong Yoo , Callum Parker This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords wearableaugmentedrealityeverydayARdigitalethnographyYouTubevideoanalysisearlyadoptersmediaconsumptionproductivityspatialcomputing
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that wearable augmented reality has entered everyday life primarily as an entertainment technology: in a coded analysis of 112 YouTube videos by early adopters, media consumption accounted for 29.7% of use cases and gaming 15.9%, while work enhancement made up 13.4%. The authors argue that productivity remains a strongly desired use case that current hardware — comfort, battery life, input precision, low-light performance — and a thin ecosystem of native applications prevent from becoming routine. Users, they find, seek continuity with their existing digital lives, running familiar apps like YouTube, Safari, and FaceTime rather than AR-native experiences. If the claim holds, the path to everyday AR runs through entertainment first and through closing the gap between desired productivity and the limitations of current devices.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is a qualitative content analysis of user-generated YouTube videos, treated as digital ethnography. The analysis applies an inductively and deductively built coding framework with dimensions for device type, channel type, duration of use, video content type, use case category, context of use, applications, and strong user sentiments; two coders resolved disagreements on a 10% sample before coding the full dataset. The inclusion criteria — videos that explicitly document sustained use over hours, weeks, or months, and exclude first-time experiences, reviews, tutorials, and sponsored content — are what turn the videos into evidence about everyday use rather than first impressions. The device spectrum from audio-only glasses to immersive mixed-reality headsets lets the authors compare how augmentation level shapes use.

What would settle it

Compare these self-reported video findings against actual device telemetry — for instance, Apple Vision Pro or Meta Quest usage logs of app categories by time — or a longitudinal diary study of early adopters. If measured daily use shows productivity or communication apps occupying more time than media and gaming, the paper's central claim that media consumption and gaming dominate everyday wearable AR use would be contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that when early adopters actually wear AR headsets and smart glasses in daily life, they use them overwhelmingly for media consumption and gaming, not for the productivity scenarios that dominate research and marketing. The analysis of 27 hours of video shows media consumption (29.7%) and gaming (15.9%) as the top use cases across devices, with work enhancement trailing at 13.4% and concentrated on immersive mixed-reality headsets. The paper also finds that users want continuity: they reach for the same applications they use on phones, tablets, and computers, and they judge the current app ecosystem immature because few native AR applications exist. Compelling experiences cluster around immersive presence, focused escape, effortless audio interaction, spatial manipulation of objects, and the transformation of mundane tasks, suggesting where AR's unique value may lie.

Load-bearing premise

The study assumes the YouTube videos it analyzed are honest records of everyday use rather than performative, selectively shared content staged for an audience, a limitation the authors acknowledge.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Entertainment is the beachhead: media consumption and gaming are the use cases that already work in daily life, so near-term everyday AR products should treat them as the foundation for adoption.
  • Productivity use will grow only as hardware barriers — weight and comfort, battery life, precise input, low-light tracking — and missing native applications are addressed, not by marketing alone.
  • Users expect AR to feel continuous with smartphones, tablets, and computers, so familiar apps and services are adoption enablers; AR-native reimaginings are the longer-term differentiators.
  • Audio-only and lightweight glasses demonstrate that everyday AR does not require visual overlays; hands-free communication and media capture while staying present are already valued.
  • Bystander-facing privacy indicators, such as recording LEDs, currently fail at their job and need redesign before pervasive use becomes socially acceptable.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the dataset skews toward the Apple Vision Pro and toward creators who choose to share, the observed entertainment dominance may overstate what a broader, less visible population does; telemetry from device manufacturers would be a stronger test.
  • The 'continuity' finding suggests a testable prediction: apps that mirror familiar phone and tablet workflows will see higher retention in headset app stores than AR-native experiences until the ecosystem matures.
  • A direct extension of the hardware-limitation finding is that lightweight audio-only glasses, not full mixed-reality headsets, may be the form factor that first crosses into mainstream daily use.
  • The paper's privacy findings imply that future AR hardware should treat recording indicators as core safety features and consider mechanical or equally trustworthy alternatives to LEDs.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports a digital ethnography of 112 YouTube videos to characterize how early adopters use consumer wearable AR devices in everyday contexts. Using qualitative content analysis with a coding framework, the authors identify entertainment uses (media consumption and gaming) as the most frequent, with productivity desired but constrained by hardware and the application ecosystem. They supplement the video analysis with device-level breakdowns, context-of-use analysis, and triangulation against two external AVP usage surveys. The paper contributes a transparent methodology, reproducibility scripts, and a set of design implications for everyday AR.

Significance. If the central claim is accepted, the paper provides a timely empirical benchmark for HCI research on consumer AR adoption. Its strengths include a detailed and reproducible method (inclusion/exclusion criteria, two-step screening, pilot-coded framework, OSF scripts), explicit ethical treatment, and triangulation with external surveys. The device-by-device results (Table 3) and the qualitative excerpts on compelling experiences are genuinely informative. However, the headline generalization to 'wearable AR' depends on an unweighted sample in which the Apple Vision Pro dominates; this compositional issue is load-bearing for the abstract's central claim and requires either re-scoping or a sensitivity analysis.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.4.1, Table 3] The aggregate percentages that support the abstract's claim ('primarily used for media consumption and gaming') are computed over a sample in which the Apple Vision Pro contributes 57.1% of videos. The paper's own device-level data show that the ordering is not consistent across devices: for Ray-Ban, Media Capture (40.9%) and Communication (22.7%) lead and Gaming is 0%, while for AVP, Gaming ranks fourth behind Work Enhancement, Communication, and Media Consumption. Section 4.4.1 states that 'this pattern was consistent across devices,' which Table 3 directly contradicts. The authors should either restrict the central claim to the AVP-dominated sample or provide a sensitivity analysis that re-weights by device installed base (e.g., Ray-Ban's 700,000+ units, reported in Section 2.2). Without such an analysis, the headline conclusion overgeneralizes from an unrepresentative video distribution.
  2. [§3.1.1, §3.2.3] The inclusion criteria require videos that explicitly mention sustained use over hours, days, or months and exclude first-time experiences, general reviews, and short-form content. This selection systematically filters out abandoned-use and short-term adoption narratives, which, together with the performativity acknowledged in Section 2.3, is likely to overrepresent positive sustained-use stories. Since the central claim is a frequency statement over coded use cases, the authors should explicitly frame the findings as describing early adopters who choose to document sustained use on YouTube, not the general population of wearable AR users.
  3. [§6] The limitations section acknowledges the AVP skew (57.1% of videos) but does not assess its quantitative impact on the headline percentages. Because the device-level distributions differ markedly (e.g., Ray-Ban is dominated by media capture and communication), the authors should add a brief scenario analysis—for example, recomputing aggregate use-case shares after excluding the AVP or weighting by reported device sales—to show whether the media-consumption/gaming ranking persists under alternative assumptions. This is a prerequisite for claiming the finding applies to wearable AR generally.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 3] The Gaming row for the AVP column shows only '(11.3%)' without the corresponding count (20); please add the count for consistency with the other columns.
  2. [§4.4.1] The phrase 'This pattern was consistent across devices' is contradicted by the data in Table 3; consider replacing it with a device-by-device summary that highlights the variation.
  3. [§4.2] The statement that gender was 'assessed based on visual appearance alone' would benefit from an explicit caveat about the reliability of this coding, even if brief.
  4. [§3.3] The paper does not report inter-coder reliability statistics; adding a simple agreement coefficient (e.g., Cohen's kappa) for the 10% pilot sample would strengthen the methodology section.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the headline ranking is an empirical summary of coded video data, not an artifact of fitted parameters, definitions, or load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's central claim about media consumption and gaming is a descriptive summary of the coded use-case categories in Table 3, derived from qualitative content analysis of 112 YouTube videos. No equation, fitted parameter, normalization, or self-citation forces this ranking. The inclusion criteria (Section 3.1.1) require sustained-use videos but do not pre-specify media consumption or gaming as the dominant categories, so the result is not self-definitional. The coding framework (Appendix C) was developed inductively from a subset of videos, and the paper reports device-level distributions that vary substantially (e.g., Ray-Ban's top use case is media capture at 40.9%, not gaming at 0%), which is consistent with an empirical finding rather than a construction. The two self-citations ([87] on research trends and [91] on video-analysis methodology) are background or methodological precedents, not load-bearing evidence for the headline claim. The acknowledged Apple Vision Pro skew in Section 6 is a threat to external generalizability, but it does not make the derivation circular: the percentages are honest summaries of the sample, and the paper explicitly admits the sample may be skewed. No circular step can be exhibited from the paper's own derivations, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters or invented entities are present, as this is a qualitative empirical study. The main axioms are domain assumptions about the authenticity and representativeness of user-generated YouTube content and the reliability of the qualitative coding process.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption YouTube videos featuring early adopters provide authentic, representative insights into everyday wearable AR use.
    The study relies on user-generated content as a proxy for real-world behavior. The authors acknowledge risks such as performative or staged content in Section 2.3 and Section 6.
  • domain assumption The coding framework's categories (use cases, contexts, duration of use) are exhaustive and valid for capturing the range of usage.
    The framework was refined through pilot coding, but no inter-coder reliability metric is reported (Section 3.3). Some categories, such as treating 'a day' of use as medium-term (weeks), involve interpretive judgments documented in Appendix C.
  • domain assumption Self-reported durations and usage descriptions in the videos are accurate.
    The study categorizes Duration of Use based on creators' claims, with no independent verification. Appendix C notes that terms like 'a day' or 'travel' may refer to video content rather than actual device usage duration.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Wearable AR in Everyday Contexts: Insights from a Digital Ethnography of YouTube Videos." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V6HTDMOQ

@misc{pith2026250206191,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Wearable AR in Everyday Contexts: Insights from a Digital Ethnography of YouTube Videos},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V6HTDMOQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.06191}
}
read the original abstract

With growing investment in consumer augmented reality (AR) headsets and glasses, wearable AR is moving from niche applications to everyday use. However, current research primarily examines AR in controlled settings, offering limited insights into its use in real-world daily life. To address this gap, we adopt a digital ethnographic approach, analysing 27 hours of 112 YouTube videos featuring early adopters. These videos capture usage ranging from continuous periods of hours to intermittent use over weeks and months. Our analysis shows that currently, wearable AR is primarily used for media consumption and gaming. While productivity is a desired use case, frequent use is constrained by current hardware limitations and the nascent application ecosystem. Users seek continuity in their digital experience, desiring functionalities similar to those on smartphones, tablets, or computers. We propose implications for everyday AR development that promote adoption while ensuring safe, ethical, and socially-aware integration into daily life.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.06191 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The chart categorises the duration of device use at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An example of a realistic day in the life of an AVP user, illustrating diverse applications and contexts where the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Vid2Coach: Transforming How-To Videos into Task Assistants

    cs.HC 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Vid2Coach converts how-to videos into a real-time, wearable task assistant that helps blind and low vision people cook with fewer errors.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

91 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Melvin Abraham, Mark Mcgill, and Mohamed Khamis. 2024. What You Expe- rience is What We Collect: User Experience Based Fine-Grained Permissions for Everyday Augmented Reality. In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI ’24). Associ- ation for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 772,...

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Apple. 2024. Apple Vision Pro arrives in new countries and regions begin- ning June 28. https://www.apple.com/au/newsroom/2024/06/apple-vision-pro- arrives-in-new-countries-and-regions-beginning-june-28/

    2024

  3. [3]

    Ronald Azuma. 2015. Location-Based Mixed and Augmented Reality Storytelling. In Fundamentals of Wearable Computers and Augmented Reality (2 ed.), Woodrow Barfield (Ed.). CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA, Chapter 11, 259–275. doi:10.1201/ b18703

    2015

  4. [4]

    Ronald T. Azuma. 2017. Making Augmented Reality a Reality. In Imaging and Applied Optics 2017 (3D, AIO, COSI, IS, MATH, pcAOP) . Optica Publishing Group, San Francisco, California, United States, JTu1F.1. https://opg.optica.org/abstract. cfm?URI=AIO-2017-JTu1F.1

    2017

  5. [5]

    Ronald T Azuma. 2019. The road to ubiquitous consumer augmented reality systems. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies 1, 1 (2019), 26–32

    2019

  6. [6]

    Yahia Baashar, Gamal Alkawsi, Wan Nooraishya Wan Ahmad, Moham- mad Ahmed Alomari, Hitham Alhussian, and Sieh Kiong Tiong. 2023. Towards wearable augmented reality in healthcare: a comparative survey and analysis of head-mounted displays. International journal of environmental research and public health 20, 5 (2023), 3940

    2023

  7. [7]

    Kiseung Bang, Youngjin Jo, Minseok Chae, and Byoungho Lee. 2021. Lenslet VR: thin, flat and wide-FOV virtual reality display using fresnel lens and lenslet array. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 27, 5 (2021), 2545–2554

    2021

  8. [8]

    Mark Billinghurst. 2021. Grand Challenges for Augmented Reality. Frontiers in Virtual Reality 2 (2021), 1–4. doi:10.3389/frvir.2021.578080

    work page arXiv 2021

Show all 91 references
  1. [9]

    Mark Blythe and Paul Cairns. 2009. Critical methods and user generated content: the iPhone on YouTube. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Boston, MA, USA) (CHI ’09). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1467–1476. d...

    2009

  2. [10]

    Jolie Bonner, Florian Mathis, Joseph O’Hagan, and Mark Mcgill. 2023. When Filters Escape the Smartphone: Exploring Acceptance and Concerns Regarding Augmented Expression of Social Identity for Everyday AR. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software an...

    2023

  3. [12]

    Bowman, Ernst Kruijff, Joseph J

    Doug A. Bowman, Ernst Kruijff, Joseph J. LaViola, and Ivan Poupyrev. 2004. 3D User Interfaces: Theory and Practice . Addison Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., USA

    2004

  4. [13]

    Alisa Burova, John Mäkelä, Jaakko Hakulinen, Tuuli Keskinen, Hanna Heinonen, Sanni Siltanen, and Markku Turunen. 2020. Utilizing VR and Gaze Tracking to Develop AR Solutions for Industrial Maintenance. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Sys...

    2020

  5. [14]

    Yuanzhi Cao, Xun Qian, Tianyi Wang, Rachel Lee, Ke Huo, and Karthik Ramani

  6. [15]

    Stuart K. Card. 2018. The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction (1 ed.). CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA. 488 pages. doi:10.1201/9780203736166

    2018 doi

  7. [16]

    Shakiba Davari, Feiyu Lu, and Doug A. Bowman. 2022. Validating the Benefits of Glanceable and Context-Aware Augmented Reality for Everyday Information Access Tasks. In 2022 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR). IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 436–444. doi:...

    2022

  8. [17]

    Day Ahead. 2024. Day Ahead. https://apps.apple.com/us/app/day-ahead/ id6476853500. Accessed: 2024-09-15

    2024

  9. [18]

    Tamara Denning, Zakariya Dehlawi, and Tadayoshi Kohno. 2014. In situ with bystanders of augmented reality glasses: perspectives on recording and privacy- mediating technologies. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Toronto, Ontario, Can...

    2014 doi

  10. [19]

    Andreas Dünser, Raphaël Grasset, Hartmut Seichter, and Mark Billinghurst. 2007. Applying HCI Principles to AR Systems Design. In Proceedings of the 2nd In- ternational Workshop on Mixed Reality User Interfaces: Specification, Authoring, Adaptation (MRUI’07) at IEEE Virtual Rea...

    2007

  11. [20]

    Dyson. 2024. Dyson CleanTrace: The augmented reality tool that shows where you’ve vacuumed. https://www.dyson.com.au/newsroom/updates/dyson- cleantrace Accessed: 2024-09-12

    2024

  12. [21]

    Chloe Eghtebas, Francisco Kiss, Marion Koelle, and Paweł Woźniak. 2021. Ad- vantage and Misuse of Vision Augmentation – Exploring User Perceptions and Attitudes using a Zoom Prototype. In Proceedings of the Augmented Humans International Conference 2021 (Rovaniemi, Finland) (A...

    2021

  13. [22]

    Chloe Eghtebas, Gudrun Klinker, Susanne Boll, and Marion Koelle. 2023. Co- Speculating on Dark Scenarios and Unintended Consequences of a Ubiquitous(ly) Augmented Reality. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (Pittsburgh, PA, USA)(DIS ’23). A...

    2023

  14. [23]

    Sangjun Eom, David Sykes, Shervin Rahimpour, and Maria Gorlatova. 2022. NeuroLens: Augmented Reality-based Contextual Guidance through Surgical Tool Tracking in Neurosurgery. In Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR) . IEEE,...

    2022

  15. [24]

    European Commission. 2018. EU Data Protection Rules. https://commission. europa.eu/law/law-topic/data-protection/eu-data-protection-rules_en. https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/data-protection/eu-data- protection-rules_en Accessed: 20 August 2024

    2018

  16. [26]

    Johnson, Tommy Sharkey, Yuanyuan Feng, Ru Wang, Zhuoqun Robin Xu, Enrique Zavala, Yifei Zhang, Wanze Xie, Xinming Zhang, Konrad Davis, Michael Yip, and Nadir Weibel

    Danilo Gasques, Janet G. Johnson, Tommy Sharkey, Yuanyuan Feng, Ru Wang, Zhuoqun Robin Xu, Enrique Zavala, Yifei Zhang, Wanze Xie, Xinming Zhang, Konrad Davis, Michael Yip, and Nadir Weibel. 2021. ARTEMIS: A Collaborative Mixed-Reality System for Immersive Surgical Telementori...

    2021

  17. [27]

    Michele Gattullo, Alessandro Evangelista, Antonio E Uva, Michele Fiorentino, and Joseph L Gabbard. 2020. What, how, and why are visual assets used in indus- trial augmented reality? A systematic review and classification in maintenance, assembly, and training (from 1997 to 201...

    2020

  18. [28]

    Andrew Glassner. 2003. Everyday computer graphics. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 23, 6 (2003), 76–82

    2003

  19. [29]

    Jens Grubert, Tobias Langlotz, Stefanie Zollmann, and Holger Regenbrecht. 2016. Towards pervasive augmented reality: Context-awareness in augmented reality. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 23, 6 (2016), 1706–1724

    2016

  20. [30]

    Jens Grubert, Eyal Ofek, Michel Pahud, and Per Ola Kristensson. 2018. The office of the future: Virtual, portable, and global. IEEE computer graphics and applications 38, 6 (2018), 125–133

    2018

  21. [31]

    Takumi Hamasaki and Yuta Itoh. 2019. Varifocal occlusion for optical see-through head-mounted displays using a slide occlusion mask. IEEE transactions on visual- ization and computer graphics 25, 5 (2019), 1961–1969

    2019

  22. [32]

    Steven Henderson and Steven Feiner. 2010. Exploring the benefits of augmented reality documentation for maintenance and repair. IEEE transactions on visual- ization and computer graphics 17, 10 (2010), 1355–1368

    2010

  23. [33]

    Teresa Hirzle, Jan Gugenheimer, Florian Geiselhart, Andreas Bulling, and Enrico Rukzio. 2019. A Design Space for Gaze Interaction on Head-mounted Displays. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Glasgow, Scotland Uk) (CHI ’19). Associa...

    2019

  24. [34]

    Hsiu-Fang Hsieh and Sarah E Shannon. 2005. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative health research 15, 9 (2005), 1277–1288

    2005

  25. [35]

    Apple Inc. 2024. Health Sensing Retention Band. https://image-ppubs.uspto. gov/dirsearch-public/print/downloadPdf/20240090818 Accessed: 2024-12-05

    2024

  26. [36]

    Hye-Young Jo, Laurenz Seidel, Michel Pahud, Mike Sinclair, and Andrea Bianchi

  27. [37]

    Marion Koelle, Katrin Wolf, and Susanne Boll. 2018. Beyond LED Status Lights - Design Requirements of Privacy Notices for Body-worn Cameras. In Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (Stockholm, Sweden) (TEI ’18). As...

    2018

  28. [38]

    Aida Komkaite, Liga Lavrinovica, Maria Vraka, and Mikael B. Skov. 2019. Un- derneath the Skin: An Analysis of YouTube Videos to Understand Insertable Device Interaction. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Glasgow, Scotland Uk) (CHI...

    2019

  29. [39]

    Veronika Krauß, Pejman Saeghe, Alexander Boden, Mohamed Khamis, Mark McGill, Jan Gugenheimer, and Michael Nebeling. 2024. What Makes XR Dark? Examining Emerging Dark Patterns in Augmented and Virtual Reality through Expert Co-Design. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 31, 3, Ar...

    2024 doi

  30. [40]

    Tom Krikorian. 2024. Vision Pro AR/VR Discussion. https://www.linkedin.com/ posts/tomkrikorian_visionpro-ar-vr-activity-7237095705612316673-zQHS/ Ac- cessed: 2024-09-07

    2024

  31. [41]

    Kwok, Peter Kiefer, Victor R

    Tiffany C.K. Kwok, Peter Kiefer, Victor R. Schinazi, Benjamin Adams, and Martin Raubal. 2019. Gaze-Guided Narratives: Adapting Audio Guide Con- tent to Gaze in Virtual and Real Environments. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Glasg...

    2019

  32. [42]

    Facebook Reality Labs. 2020. Inside Facebook Reality Labs Research: The Future of Audio. https://tech.facebook.com/reality-labs/2020/09/inside-facebook-reality- labs-research-the-future-of-audio/. Accessed: 2024-09-13

    2020

  33. [44]

    Jingya Li. 2024. Beyond Sight: Enhancing Augmented Reality Interactivity with Audio-Based and Non-Visual Interfaces. Applied Sciences 14, 11 (2024), 4881

    2024

  34. [45]

    Zhen Li, Michelle Annett, Ken Hinckley, Karan Singh, and Daniel Wigdor. 2019. HoloDoc: Enabling Mixed Reality Workspaces that Harness Physical and Digital Content. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Glasgow, Scotland Uk) (CHI ’19)....

    2019

  35. [46]

    Pedro Lopes, Sijing You, Alexandra Ion, and Patrick Baudisch. 2018. Adding Force Feedback to Mixed Reality Experiences and Games using Electrical Muscle Stimulation. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Montreal QC, Canada) (CHI ’18)...

    2018

  36. [48]

    Feiyu Lu, Shakiba Davari, Lee Lisle, Yuan Li, and Doug A. Bowman. 2020. Glance- able AR: Evaluating Information Access Methods for Head-Worn Augmented Re- ality. InProceedings of the 2020 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Inter- faces (VR). IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, U...

    2020

  37. [49]

    Feiyu Lu and Yan Xu. 2022. Exploring Spatial UI Transition Mechanisms with Head-Worn Augmented Reality. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New Orleans, LA, USA) (CHI ’22). Asso- ciation for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, A...

    2022

  38. [50]

    Zhaoyang Lv, Nicholas Charron, Pierre Moulon, Alexander Gamino, Cheng Peng, Chris Sweeney, Edward Miller, Huixuan Tang, Jeff Meissner, Jing Dong, Kiran Somasundaram, Luis Pesqueira, Mark Schwesinger, Omkar Parkhi, Qiao Gu, Renzo De Nardi, Shangyi Cheng, Steve Saarinen, Vijay B...

    2024 arXiv

  39. [52]

    Davis L Masten and Tim MP Plowman. 2003. Digital ethnography: The next wave in understanding the consumer experience. Design Management Journal (Former Series) 14, 2 (2003), 75–81

    2003

  40. [53]

    Florian Mathis. 2024. Everyday Life Challenges and Augmented Realities: Explor- ing Use Cases For, and User Perspectives on, an Augmented Everyday Life. In Proceedings of the Augmented Humans International Conference 2024 (Melbourne, VIC, Australia) (AHs ’24). Association for ...

    2024

  41. [54]

    Keiichi Matsuda. 2016. Hyper-Reality. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v= YJg02ivYzSs. Accessed: 2024-12-09

    2016

  42. [55]

    Daniel Medeiros, Mark McGill, Alexander Ng, Robert McDermid, Nadia Pantidi, Julie Williamson, and Stephen Brewster. 2022. From Shielding to Avoidance: Passenger Augmented Reality and the Layout of Virtual Displays for Productivity in Shared Transit. IEEE Transactions on Visual...

    2022

  43. [56]

    Abraham Hani Mhaidli and Florian Schaub. 2021. Identifying Manipulative Advertising Techniques in XR Through Scenario Construction. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Yokohama, Japan) (CHI ’21). Association for Computing Machinery,...

    2021

  44. [57]

    Paul Milgram and Fumio Kishino. 1994. A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. IEICE TRANSACTIONS on Information and Systems 77, 12 (1994), 1321– 1329

    1994

  45. [58]

    Alexander Ng, Daniel Medeiros, Mark McGill, Julie Williamson, and Stephen Brewster. 2021. The Passenger Experience of Mixed Reality Virtual Display Layouts in Airplane Environments. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR) ...

    2021

  46. [59]

    Jakob Nielsen. 10. Usability heuristics for user interface design

  47. [60]

    Skov, Karl Damkjær Hansen, and Aleksandra Kaszowska

    Sara Nielsen, Mikael B. Skov, Karl Damkjær Hansen, and Aleksandra Kaszowska

  48. [62]

    Joseph O’Hagan, Pejman Saeghe, Jan Gugenheimer, Daniel Medeiros, Karola Marky, Mohamed Khamis, and Mark McGill. 2023. Privacy-enhancing technology and everyday augmented reality: Understanding bystanders’ varying needs for awareness and consent. Proceedings of the ACM on Inter...

    2023

  49. [63]

    Using User-Generated YouTube Videos to Understand Unguided Interac- tions with Robots in Public Places. J. Hum.-Robot Interact. 12, 1, Article 5 (feb 2023), 40 pages. doi:10.1145/3550280

    2023 doi

  50. [64]

    Leonardo Pavanatto, Feiyu Lu, Chris North, and Doug A. Bowman. 2025. Multi- ple Monitors or Single Canvas? Evaluating Window Management and Layout Strategies on Virtual Displays. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 31, 3 (2025), 1713–1730. doi:10.1109/TVCG...

    2025

  51. [65]

    Bowman, Carmen Badea, and Richard Stoakley

    Leonardo Pavanatto, Chris North, Doug A. Bowman, Carmen Badea, and Richard Stoakley. 2021. Do We Still Need Physical Monitors? An Evaluation of the Usability of AR Virtual Monitors for Productivity Work. InProceedings of the 2021 IEEE Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR...

    2021

  52. [66]

    Jeni Paay, Jesper Kjeldskov, and Mikael B. Skov. 2015. Connecting in the Kitchen: An Empirical Study of Physical Interactions while Cooking Together at Home. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (Vancouver, BC, Can...

    2015 doi

  53. [67]

    Lucas Plabst, Sebastian Oberdörfer, Francisco Raul Ortega, and Florian Niebling

  54. [68]

    Zainab Rasheed, Sameh Ghwanmeh, and Aziz Almahadin. 2024. A Critical Review of AI-Driven AR Glasses for Realtime Multilingual Communication. In Proceed- ings of the 2024 Advances in Science and Engineering Technology International Conferences (ASET). IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, USA,...

    2024

  55. [69]

    Siyou Pei, Alexander Chen, Jaewook Lee, and Yang Zhang. 2022. Hand Inter- faces: Using Hands to Imitate Objects in AR/VR for Expressive Interactions. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New Orleans, LA, USA) (CHI ’22). Association f...

    2022

  56. [70]

    Holger Regenbrecht, Alistair Knott, Jennifer Ferreira, and Nadia Pantidi. 2024. To See and be Seen—Perceived Ethics and Acceptability of Pervasive Augmented Reality. IEEE Access 12 (2024), 32618–32636

    2024

  57. [71]

    Patrick Reipschlager, Tamara Flemisch, and Raimund Dachselt. 2021. Personal Augmented Reality for Information Visualization on Large Interactive Displays. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 27, 2 (2021), 1182–1192. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2020.3030460

    2021

  58. [72]

    Katitza Rodriguez and Rory Mir. 2020. Augmented Reality Must Have Augmented Privacy. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/10/augmented-reality-must-have- augmented-privacy. Accessed: 2024-09-13

    2020

  59. [73]

    Kishore Rathinavel, Gordon Wetzstein, and Henry Fuchs. 2019. Varifocal occlusion-capable optical see-through augmented reality display based on focus- tunable optics. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 25, 11 (2019), 3125–3134

    2019

  60. [74]

    Rogers, Arvind Singhal, and Margaret M

    Everett M. Rogers, Arvind Singhal, and Margaret M. Quinlan. 2014. Diffusion of Innovations. In An Integrated Approach to Communication Theory and Research . Routledge, New York, NY, USA, 432–448

    2014

  61. [75]

    Dariusz Rumiński. 2015. An experimental study of spatial sound usefulness in searching and navigating through AR environments. Virtual Reality 19, 3 (2015), 223–233

    2015

  62. [76]

    Martin Runz, Maud Buffier, and Lourdes Agapito. 2018. MaskFusion: Real-Time Recognition, Tracking and Reconstruction of Multiple Moving Objects. InProceed- ings of the 2018 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR). IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 10–20. d...

    2018

  63. [77]

    Salvador Rodriguez. 2023. How Meta’s Smart Ray-Ban Glasses Spawned a Sili- con Valley Hit. https://www.wsj.com/tech/how-metas-smart-ray-ban-glasses- spawned-a-silicon-valley-hit-3fca3acd Accessed: 2024-11-18

    2023

  64. [78]

    Martin Schmitz, Sebastian Günther, Dominik Schön, and Florian Müller. 2022. Squeezy-Feely: Investigating Lateral Thumb-Index Pinching as an Input Modality. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New Orleans, LA, USA) (CHI ’22). Associa...

    2022

  65. [79]

    Jan-Henrik Schröder, Daniel Schacht, Niklas Peper, Anita Marie Hamurculu, and Hans-Christian Jetter. 2023. Collaborating Across Realities: Analytical Lenses for Understanding Dyadic Collaboration in Transitional Interfaces. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Fa...

    2023

  66. [80]

    McGuffin, and Tobias Isenberg

    Mickael Sereno, Xiyao Wang, Lonni Besançon, Michael J. McGuffin, and Tobias Isenberg. 2022. Collaborative Work in Augmented Reality: A Survey. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 28, 6 (2022), 2530–2549. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2020.3032761

    2022

  67. [81]

    Transport Me Away

    Anastasia Ruvimova, Junhyeok Kim, Thomas Fritz, Mark Hancock, and David C. Shepherd. 2020. "Transport Me Away": Fostering Flow in Open Offices through Virtual Reality. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI ’20)...

    2020

  68. [82]

    XRAI Spotlight. 2024. Vision Pro Usage Survey: Daily Essential or Future Ar- tifact? https://xraispotlight.substack.com/p/vision-pro-usage-survey-daily- essential Published: May 31, 2024. Accessed: 2024-09-07

    2024

  69. [83]

    Thad Starner, Steve Mann, Bradley Rhodes, Jeffrey Levine, Jennifer Healey, Dana Kirsch, Rosalind W Picard, and Alex Pentland. 1997. Augmented reality through wearable computing. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments 6, 4 (1997), 386–398

    1997

  70. [84]

    Julian Steil, Marion Koelle, Wilko Heuten, Susanne Boll, and Andreas Bulling

  71. [85]

    Jack Shepherd. 2024. 23 Essential YouTube Statistics You Need to Know in 2024. https://thesocialshepherd.com/blog/youtube-statistics

    2024

  72. [86]

    TikTok. 2024. TikTok. https://apps.apple.com/us/app/tiktok/id835599320. Ac- cessed: 2024-09-15

    2024

  73. [87]

    Tram Thi Minh Tran, Shane Brown, Oliver Weidlich, Mark Billinghurst, and Callum Parker. 2023. Wearable Augmented Reality: Research Trends and Future Directions from Three Major Venues. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 29, 11 (2023), 4782–4793. doi:10.11...

    2023

  74. [88]

    Katrin Wolf, Karola Marky, and Markus Funk. 2018. We Should Start Think- ing About Privacy Implications of Sonic Input in Everyday Augmented Real- ity!. In Proceedings of Mensch und Computer 2018 - Workshopband (GI-Edition) . Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V., Dresden, Germany,...

    2018

  75. [89]

    Xuhai Xu, Anna Yu, Tanya R. Jonker, Kashyap Todi, Feiyu Lu, Xun Qian, João Marcelo Evangelista Belo, Tianyi Wang, Michelle Li, Aran Mun, Te-Yen Wearable AR in Everyday Contexts CHI ’25, April 26-May 1, 2025, Yokohama, Japan Wu, Junxiao Shen, Ting Zhang, Narine Kokhlikyan, Fult...

    2025

  76. [90]

    The Verge. 2024. College Students Used Meta’s Smart Glasses to Dox People in Real Time. The Verge. https://www.theverge.com/2024/10/2/24260262/ray-ban- meta-smart-glasses-doxxing-privacy Accessed: 2024-11-27

    2024

  77. [91]

    Xinyan Yu, Marius Hoggenmüller, Tram Thi Minh Tran, Yiyuan Wang, and Martin Tomitsch. 2024. Understanding the Interaction between Delivery Robots and Other Road and Sidewalk Users: A Study of User-generated Online Videos. J. Hum.-Robot Interact. 13, 4, Article 59 (Oct. 2024), ...

    2024 doi

  78. [92]

    Jianhua Zhang, Mengping Gui, Qichao Wang, Ruyu Liu, Junzhe Xu, and Shengy- ong Chen. 2019. Hierarchical topic model based object association for semantic SLAM. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 25, 11 (2019), 3052–3062

    2019

  79. [93]

    a day",

    Zoom Video Communications. 2024. Zoom Launches New App for Apple Vision Pro to Make Hybrid Collaboration More Immersive. https://news.zoom.us/zoom-launches-new-app-for-apple-vision-pro-to- make-hybrid-collaboration-more-immersive/ Accessed: 2024-09-12. A Devices used as search...

    2024

  80. [95]

    YouTube. 2021. Fair Use on YouTube. https://support.google.com/youtube/ answer/9783148?hl=en. https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9783148? hl=en Accessed: 20 August 2024

    2021

  81. [2019]

    In Proceedings of the 11th ACM Sym- posium on Eye Tracking Research & Applications (Denver, Colorado) (ETRA ’19)

    PrivacEye: privacy-preserving head-mounted eye tracking using egocentric scene image and eye movement features. In Proceedings of the 11th ACM Sym- posium on Eye Tracking Research & Applications (Denver, Colorado) (ETRA ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, ...

  82. [2020]

    In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI ’20)

    An Exploratory Study of Augmented Reality Presence for Tutoring Machine Wearable AR in Everyday Contexts CHI ’25, April 26-May 1, 2025, Yokohama, Japan Tasks. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI ’20). Associa...

    2025

  83. [2022]

    In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Symposium on Spatial User Interaction (Online, CA, USA) (SUI ’22)

    Push the Red Button: Comparing Notification Placement with Augmented and Non-Augmented Tasks in AR. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Symposium on Spatial User Interaction (Online, CA, USA) (SUI ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 17, 11 pages. d...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.