notesum.ai

Published at November 7

An Equitable Experience? How HCI Research Conceptualizes Accessibility of Virtual Reality in the Context of Disability

cs.HC

Released Date: November 7, 2024

Authors: Kathrin Gerling¹, Anna-Lena Meiners¹, Louisa Schumm¹, Jan Rixen¹, Marvin Wolf¹, Zeynep Yildiz¹, Dmitry Alexandrovsky¹, Merlin Opp¹

Aff.: ¹Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany

Arxiv: http://arxiv.org/abs/2411.04489v1

Refer to caption

	Category	Definition	Examples
RQ1	C1: Definition of accessibility	Definition of the term accessibility, for example on a general level, aligning with previous work (see section 2.1), or tailored to the context of the specific research.	There were no examples in the data. We would have expected definitions along the lines of those presented in section 2.1.
RQ1	C2: Operationalization of accessibility	Explanation how accessibility can be achieved in the given context, for example, as part of research questions guiding the work, as rationale for design decisions, or as outcome measures in user studies.	”We maintained the core implementation of these techniques and augmented them with haptic and auditory cues (e.g., collisions represented with sound and vibrations) to support accessible navigation.” [P11, p. 4]
RQ2	C3: Design for experience	Mention of the intended experience when describing design decisions, for example, drawing upon the pillars of VR, i.e., immersion, presence, and body ownership illusion (see section 2.2.2), other relevant constructs given a specific context, e.g., player experience.	”This ensured that we delivered not only high-fidelity information but also a highly personalized and accurate experience tailored to each individual user’s preferences, for better immersion and engagement.” [P7, p. 6]
RQ2	C4: Evaluation of experience	Assessment of experience (see previous category for examples) in user studies, for example, using quantitative measures such as questionnaires, or as part of qualitative studies, e.g., in interviews.	Reference to enjoyment and invitations to describe experience through interview questions [P9]; “[…] the main goal of Study 1/2 is to evaluate the performance and user experience […]” [P17]
RQ2	C5: User perspectives on experience	Reports of instances relevant to experience that were offered by the research participants, for example, comments on core constructs of VR, also without prompt, or remarks that touch upon their individual experience, e.g., expressing (lack of) enjoyment.	”P1 remarked that “[VT] is easiest to use, but less immersive than [EE].”” [P7, p. 11]; ”Participants discussed the immersion-enhancing potential of spatial audio in VR, as it offers directional sounds and a sense of placement” [P15, p. 8]
RQ2	C6: Researchers’ reflections on experience	Reflection on VR experience by research teams in the discussion of their work, for example, appraisal of the experiences an artifact offered to users, discussion of relevance of experience in the context of accessibility, or acknowledgment of limitations with respect to experience.	”These findings demonstrate the importance and complexity of balancing tradeoffs among the original VR experience, accessibility, and developers’ effort […].” [P16, p. 11]; ”We did not measure if the presented method has an effect on the participants’ immersion in the VR environment.” [P19, p. 8]