Planar or Spatial: Exploring Design Aspects and Challenges for Presentations in Virtual Reality with No-coding Interface
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The proliferation of virtual reality (VR) has led to its increasing adoption as an immersive medium for delivering presentations, distinct from other VR experiences like games and 360-degree videos by sharing information in richly interactive environments. However, creating engaging VR presentations remains a challenging and time-consuming task for users, hindering the full realization of VR presentation's capabilities. This research aims to explore the potential of VR presentation, analyze users' opinions, and investigate these via providing a user-friendly no-coding authoring tool. Through an examination of popular presentation software and interviews with seven professionals, we identified five design aspects and four design challenges for VR presentations. Based on the findings, we developed VRStory, a prototype for presentation authoring without coding to explore the design aspects and strategies for addressing the challenges. VRStory offers a variety of predefined and customizable VR elements, as well as modules for layout design, navigation control, and asset generation. A user study was then conducted with 12 participants to investigate their opinions and authoring experience with VRStory. Our results demonstrated that, while acknowledging the advantages of immersive and spatial features in VR, users often have a consistent mental model for traditional 2D presentations and may still prefer planar and static formats in VR for better accessibility and efficient communication. We finally shared our learned design considerations for future development of VR presentation tools, emphasizing the importance of balancing of promoting immersive features and ensuring accessibility.
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 | 0.012 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".