Comparison of User Experiences Based on Watching 360° Immersive Video and Reality – A Case Study of a Scooter Ride

  • Fei-Hui Huang Oriental Institute of Technology
Keywords: riding experience, traffic experience, immersive environment, 360-degree panoramic videos

Abstract

This paper compares the user experiences (UXs) while riding a scooter on the road to watching a 360° immersive scooter ride video in a laboratory using a Head-mounted Display (HMD) projection system. The aim of this study is to determine whether watching through an HMD projection system produces similar feelings of attractiveness, practicality, and enjoyment for the riding experience as riding on a real scooter. The data were collected from an experiment involving a total of 59 individual scooter commuters. The participants were asked to watch a 360° immersive video and to complete a user experience questionnaire (UEQ). The results verified that a virtual reality (VR) service with an HMD and panoramic scooter riding video content may be used as an experience tool to create reality-like scooter riding experiences for the users. Furthermore, the important factors that influence a user’s continued usage of watching 360° immersive video services were found to be attractiveness and pragmatic quality. Based on these results, a number of suggestions are proposed for the design of related VR services to strengthen the advantages of 360° immersive video in simulated two-wheeler ride experiences and providing road safety education.

Author Biography

Fei-Hui Huang, Oriental Institute of Technology

Assistant Professor of Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, Department of Marketing and Distribution Management, Oriental Institute of Technology, Pan-Chiao, Taiwan, R.O.C., 22061

References

TEDS-9.0. Taiwan Emission Data System Version 9.0. Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China: Environmental Protection Administration; 2016.

Huang FH. Exploring the environmental benefits associated with battery swapping system processes. Advances in Environmental Biology. 2015;9(26 SI): 87-93.

Huang FH. Measuring User Experience of Using Battery Swapping Station. In: International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics. Springer, Cham; 2017. p. 656-664.

Huang FH. System Acceptability Evaluation of Battery Swapping System for Electric Two Wheelers. In: Advances in Ergonomics Modeling, Usability & Special Populations. Springer, Cham; 2017. p. 325-337.

Millar M, Thomas R. Discretionary activity and happiness: The role of materialism. Journal of Research in Personality. 2009;43(4): 699-702.

Nicolao L, Irwin JR, Goodman JK. Happiness for sale: Do experiential purchases make consumers happier than material purchases?. Journal of Consumer Research. 2009;36(2): 188-198.

Carter TJ, Gilovich T. I am what I do, not what I have: The differential centrality of experiential and material purchases to the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2012;102(6): 1304.

Keller KL. Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. The Journal of Marketing. 1993: 1-22.

Rauschenberger M, Schrepp M, Cota MP, Olschner S, Thomaschewski J. Efficient measurement of the user experience of interactive products. How to use the user experience questionnaire (UEQ). Example: Spanish language version. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Multimedia. 2013;2(1): 39-45.

Weiss P, Kizony R, Feintuch U, Katz N. Virtual reality in neurorehabilitation. In: Selzer M, Cohen L, Gage F, Clarke S, Duncan P. (eds.) Textbook of Neural Repair and Rehabilitation. Cambridge University Press; 2006. p. 82-97.

Burdea G, Coiffet P. Virtual reality technology. Hoboken, NJ: J. Wiley-Interscience; 2003.

Biocca F. Can the engineering of presence tell us something about consciousness? Paper presented at: The 2nd International Conference on "Towards a Scientific Basis of Consciousness 1996", Tuscon AZ, 8-13 April 1996.

Hawkins D. Virtual reality and passive simulators: The future of fun. In: Biocca F. Levy MR. (ed.) Communication in the Age of Virtual Reality. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum; 1995. p. 159-189.

Gibson JJ. The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems. Boston: Houghton Mifflin; 1966.

Villa C, Labayrade R. Multi-objective optimisation of lighting installations taking into account user preferences–a pilot study. Lighting Research & Technology. 2013;45(2): 176-196.

Biocca F. The cyborg's dilemma: progressive embodiment in virtual environments. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 1997;3(2).

Steuer JS. Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence. Journal of Communication. 1992;42(4): 73-93.

Walczak K. Beh-VR: Modeling behavior of dynamic virtual reality contents. In: International Conference on Virtual Systems and Multimedia. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; October 2006. p. 40-51.

LaViola Jr JJ, Kruijff E, McMahan RP, Bowman D, Poupyrev IP. 3D user interfaces: Theory and practice. Addison-Wesley Professional; 2017.

Gutierrez M, Vexo F, Thalmann D. Stepping into virtual reality. Springer Science & Business Media; 2008.

Lai Z, Hu YC, Cui Y, Sun L, Dai N, Lee HS. Furion: Engineering high-quality immersive virtual reality on today's mobile devices. IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing. IEEE; 2019.

Boos K, Chu D, Cuervo E. Flashback: Immersive virtual reality on mobile devices via rendering memoization. In: Proceedings of the 14th Annual International Conference on Mobile Systems, Applications, and Services. ACM; 2016. p. 291-304.

World Health Organization. Global status report on road safety 2015. World Health Organization; 2015.

ISO 9241-11. Ergonomic requirements for Office Work with Visual Display Terminals (VDTs), Part 11: Guidelines for Specifying and Measuring Usability. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization; 1997.

Harrington HJ. Business process improvement: The breakthrough strategy for total quality, productivity, and competitiveness. McGraw Hill Professional; 1991.

Ryan RM, Deci EL. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist. 2000;55(1): 68.

Watson D, Clark LA, Tellegen A. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1988;54(6): 1063.

Ortony A, Clore GL, Collins A. The cognitive structure of emotions. Cambridge University Press; 1990.

Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly. 1989;13(3): 319-340.

Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly. 2003;27(3): 425-478.

Laugwitz B, Held T, Schrepp M. Construction and evaluation of a user experience questionnaire. In: Symposium of the Austrian HCI and Usability Engineering Group. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2008. p. 63-76.

Hair JF, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. PLS-SEM: Indeed A Silver Bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice. 2011;19(2): 139-150.

Latan H, Ghozali I. Partial Least Squares: Concept. Technique and Application SmartPLS. BP UNDIP; 2012.

Published
2020-03-26
How to Cite
1.
Huang F-H. Comparison of User Experiences Based on Watching 360° Immersive Video and Reality – A Case Study of a Scooter Ride. PROMET [Internet]. 2020Mar.26 [cited 2020Apr.4];32(2):207-1. Available from: http://traffic.fpz.hr/index.php/PROMTT/article/view/3232
Section
Articles