ABSTRACT
VR has been primarily driven by technology. Design of VR systems does need considerable improvement (Bolas, 1994); furthermore, the support for the user’s perception, navigation, exploration, and engagement is often inadequate (Wann & MonWilliams, 1996). Significant usability problems with current VEs have been reported by Miller (1994); Kaur, Maiden, and Sutcliffe (1996), in a field study of design practice, found that designers lacked a coherent approach to interaction design, were not aware of usability concepts underlying VEs, and did not use conventional HCI methods or guidelines. VE applications have radically different interaction styles from standard GUIs, as illustrated in the work of Bowman, Koller, and Hodges (1997), and Poupyrev and Ichikawa (1999); and this means that standard HCI design guidelines (e.g., ISO, 1997) are unlikely to be applicable. Very little HCI design advice for VR has been produced, apart from the research of Debbie Hix (Hix et al., 1999), who collated guidelines from the available experimental evidence (Gabbard, Hix, &Swan, 1999). The problem with most new technologies is that they outpace the experimentalists’ ability to test them. Hence there is little experimental psychological evidence on which guidelines can be based. However, several studies have been conducted on topics ranging from navigation (Darken & Sibert, 1996) to the effectiveness of different interaction techniques and the sense of presence (Slater, Usoh, & Steed, 1995).
