Leonel Merino

Leonel Merino, Magdalena Schwarzl, Matthias Kraus et al.

We present a systematic review of 458 papers that report on evaluations in mixed and augmented reality (MR/AR) published in ISMAR, CHI, IEEE VR, and UIST over a span of 11 years (2009-2019). Our goal is to provide guidance for future evaluations of MR/AR approaches. To this end, we characterize publications by paper type (e.g., technique, design study), research topic (e.g., tracking, rendering), evaluation scenario (e.g., algorithm performance, user performance), cognitive aspects (e.g., perception, emotion), and the context in which evaluations were conducted (e.g., lab vs. in-the-wild). We found a strong coupling of types, topics, and scenarios. We observe two groups: (a) technology-centric performance evaluations of algorithms that focus on improving tracking, displays, reconstruction, rendering, and calibration, and (b) human-centric studies that analyze implications of applications and design, human factors on perception, usability, decision making, emotion, and attention. Amongst the 458 papers, we identified 248 user studies that involved 5,761 participants in total, of whom only 1,619 were identified as female. We identified 43 data collection methods used to analyze 10 cognitive aspects. We found nine objective methods, and eight methods that support qualitative analysis. A majority (216/248) of user studies are conducted in a laboratory setting. Often (138/248), such studies involve participants in a static way. However, we also found a fair number (30/248) of in-the-wild studies that involve participants in a mobile fashion. We consider this paper to be relevant to academia and industry alike in presenting the state-of-the-art and guiding the steps to designing, conducting, and analyzing results of evaluations in MR/AR.

Leonel Merino, Mircea Lungu, Christoph Seidl

In immersive augmented reality (IAR), users can wear a head-mounted display to see computer-generated images superimposed to their view of the world. IAR was shown to be beneficial across several domains, e.g., automotive, medicine, gaming and engineering, with positive impacts on, e.g., collaboration and communication. We think that IAR bears a great potential for software engineering but, as of yet, this research area has been neglected. In this vision paper, we elicit potentials and obstacles for the use of IAR in software engineering. We identify possible areas that can be supported with IAR technology by relating commonly discussed IAR improvements to typical software engineering tasks. We further demonstrate how innovative use of IAR technology may fundamentally improve typical activities of a software engineer through a comprehensive series of usage scenarios outlining practical application. Finally, we reflect on current limitations of IAR technology based on our scenarios and sketch research activities necessary to make our vision a reality. We consider this paper to be relevant to academia and industry alike in guiding the steps to innovative research and applications for IAR in software engineering.

Leonel Merino, Ekaterina Kozlova, Oscar Nierstrasz et al.

Although many tools have been presented in the research literature of software visualization, there is little evidence of their adoption. To choose a suitable visualization tool, practitioners need to analyze various characteristics of tools such as their supported software concerns and level of maturity. Indeed, some tools can be prototypes for which the lifespan is expected to be short, whereas others can be fairly mature products that are maintained for a longer time. Although such characteristics are often described in papers, we conjecture that practitioners willing to adopt software visualizations require additional support to discover suitable visualization tools. In this paper, we elaborate on our efforts to provide such support. To this end, we systematically analyzed research papers in the literature of software visualization and curated a catalog of 70 available tools that employ various visualization techniques to support the analysis of multiple software concerns. We further encapsulate these characteristics in an ontology. VISON, our software visualization ontology, captures these semantics as concepts and relationships. We report on early results of usage scenarios that demonstrate how the ontology can support (i) developers to find suitable tools for particular development concerns, and (ii) researchers who propose new software visualization tools to identify a baseline tool for a controlled experiment.