Lights, Headset, Tablet, Action: Exploring the Use of Hybrid User Interfaces for Immersive Situated Analytics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While augmented reality (AR) headsets provide entirely new ways of seeing and interacting with data, traditional computing devices can play a symbiotic role when used in conjunction with AR as a hybrid user interface. A promising use case for this setup is situated analytics. AR can provide embedded views that are integrated with their physical referents, and a separate device such as a tablet can provide a familiar situated overview of the entire dataset being examined. While prior work has explored similar setups, we sought to understand how people perceive and make use of visualizations presented on both embedded visualizations (in AR) and situated visualizations (on a tablet) to achieve their own goals. To this end, we conducted an exploratory study using a scenario and task familiar to most: adjusting light levels in a smart home based on personal preference and energy usage. In a prototype that simulates AR in virtual reality, embedded visualizations are positioned next to lights distributed across an apartment, and situated visualizations are provided on a handheld tablet. We observed and interviewed 19 participants using the prototype. Participants were easily able to perform the task, though the extent the visualizations were used during the task varied, with some making decisions based on the data and others only on their own preferences. Our findings also suggest the two distinct roles that situated and embedded visualizations can have, and how this clear separation might improve user satisfaction and minimize attention-switching overheads in this hybrid user interface setup. We conclude by discussing the importance of considering the user's needs, goals, and the physical environment for designing and evaluating effective situated analytics applications.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".