PHASE 4 – IDEATING, PROTOTYPING & PLAYTESTING
This week I developed two prototypes and further clarified the stakeholders’ scope through experiments with users. My research has made breakthrough progress, narrowing the problem to a very specific position, and clarifying the improvements that can be brought to the stakeholder.
I used Unity to develop these prototypes. Google Cardboard has a Unity-based SDK and instructions. It’s very easy to export the effects you need to Google Cardboard while following the same game development steps.
1. Prototype1 – City Driver
City Driver is a parkour game.
The game is distributed in both WebGL(traditional video game) and Android(Google Cardboard VR experience).
For the tangible input device, a USB OTG adapter is required to convert the type-c to a USB interface. Then the mouse, keyboard, and controller are all connected to the Android phone.
Users need to wear the Google Cardboard with the phone while using these input devices.
The purpose of this prototype is to understand the user’s preference for input devices (tangible or intangible). And how much they like playing games with Google Cardboard compared to the traditional video game.
1.1 Game Rules
In this game, the player only needs to control the car to move left or right. Players need to avoid colliding with other cars while collecting as many coins as possible.
City Driver – Game Screenshot
1.2 Input Devices
As far as possible, I have provided different types of input devices and interaction methods. In the current development, the interactive devices provided and how to use them to complete the game are as follows.
| Tangible | Intangible |
|
|
In addition to these, the phone’s built-in sensors will track the direction of rotation of the phone. With Google Cardboard, users can rotate their heads to simulate the real rotation effect.
1.3 Implementation
The silver device on the right is the USB OTG converter, through which other physical input devices (like a mouse) will be connected to the phone.
The user feels the visual effect. This is the effect taken through a mobile phone, but it is similar to the perception of the human eye.
2. Prototype2 – Renaissance Museum
Renaissance Museum is an educational application.
The application is distributed in both Windows(traditional video game) and Android(Google Cardboard VR experience).
The purpose of this prototype is to understand how users feel about educational applications with some gamification. Whether the GC app can give them a more interesting experience than traditional web, video, and educational games.
2.1 Museum Introduction
Renaissance Museum – Application Screenshot
We mainly built a museum of Renaissance paintings and sculptures. The museum contains 8 works of art and 2 sculptures.
2.2 Input Devices and Interaction
Museums use intangible input devices. We want to minimize the curve of player-learning interactions. Additional guidance has also been added to guide users on how to interact.
The existing interactions are
- Users can roam throughout the museum, rotating their bodies and pressing buttons to move.
- When the user looks at an object and presses a button, there will be a voice introduction about the exhibit.
2.3 Implementation
We provide a GC that can be worn on the head. After opening the app, the user plugs the phone into the GC. All you need to do is use the extra Button in the upper right corner to complete all interactions.
3. Research Finding
3.1 Questionnaire Data
A total of 16 valid responses were collected.
- 70% of people say they had heard of GC.
- 50% of people say they had used GC.
- 60% of people say, that compared to the normal way of using a phone, GC is more immersive.
- 70% of people think the interactivity of GC is not that different or even less than the normal way of using a phone.
- All of them are willing to have more input devices and interactions if using GC.
- 87.5% of people are willing to buy a GC given the price is less than $10.
I have provided some potential options for the desired interaction. Different people have differences in the functions they like, so there is also a big difference in distribution. But according to the questionnaire people tend to have small games or events to actively play around the environment.
In terms of usage scenarios, 90% mentioned that they want to use it to play games, and 50% indicated that they want to use GC to learn certain knowledge.
3.2 Interview Data
I specifically interviewed 3 people about their views on GC. Here are some excerpts from the interview.
What do you think of the Google Cardboard experience?
- I don’t think the display is very good, I can see the pixels. But considering that it costs only $10, that seems acceptable. Plus I hate apps that keep me walking, they make me feel dizzy. I think those immersive environments still make people feel good.
- Before I felt that VR was a very distant thing, after experiencing it, I found that it could be so close to me. It is very convenient to use and has an immersive effect.
- Very real, entertaining, interesting, and vivid. The sense of substitution is strong
Do you feel dizzy about using these apps? or part of them?
- Use time is not very long, and the game to the back is not particularly comfortable
- Short-time use is OK, long-time use is not clear, and not very heavy
Which groups do you think are more suitable for use? Kids, Teenagers, Adults, Elder People?
- I think children and young people are more suitable because they can accept new things more quickly. The ability of old people to accept new things is not very high.
- The audience will be differentiated according to the content of the app
Which app or use case do you prefer the most? Game? Education? or others?
- Educational is better
- I like playing games, but I think the quality brought by GC is not enough and the experience is not as good as that of playing games by myself. Maybe a simpler game or an app that incorporates small games would be better
- I prefer to go to a real museum, but if you are considering the epidemic or other circumstances and can not go out to see it, then I think this is also a good form
Do you prefer the tangible input device or the intangible input device?
- I prefer the intangible input device. I first had to plug my phone into Google Cardboard and play with my GC. I feel weird if I have to connect a converter to my phone and then a mouse, keyboard, etc. Instead, go to the computer or use Quest3. I feel that the ability to move my head and look at things makes it more natural for me to use. It might be more convenient if we could have voice control.
- Intangible devices are better. It’s easier for me to ignore the elements of the real world and be more immersed.
- It’s better to just wear a Google Cardboard
What do you think are the advantages and disadvantages of GC compared to other VR devices?
- If you want to compare with the more expensive ones, the Google Cardboard is almost impossible to compare. Something like Quest uses those visual algorithms to identify the ground, and it also has more precise controllers and rendering effects to enrich the experience. But the equipment is really expensive. If the family conditions are relatively harsh, I think some children will be interested in VR, but can not afford high equipment, then Google Cardboard seems to be a super cheap means.
- GC is very light, cheap, and easy to obtain, but less effective
3.3 Prototype
What do you think of City Driver
- The game experience is very strong. A sense of distance helps you decide what to do next.
- The visual effect is good, the picture can be a little richer
What do you think of Renaissance Museum
- Has many functions and richer experiences. But the scene is small.
- It’s like going back in time to the Renaissance
- I like the quizzes, which allow the children to review what they have learned, and it is even better if they can talk about the artifacts
4. Result and Analysis
Based on questionnaires, interviews, and feedback from my two prototypes. I’ve outlined some of the opinions people have about GC.
- GC is a very convenient tool to watch VR at any time. This is a good opportunity for people who want to visit and study, such as during the pandemic or because they cannot afford to travel.
- Compared with the pure entertainment brought by computer games and the large number of operation requirements on the input system, GC is more suitable for those products that have no particularly complex interaction but have a strong sense of graphic and immersive education and fun.
- Those intangible devices enhance immersion significantly compared to using physical devices
4.1 Not that good for the game
After the sharing in class last week and the questionnaire feedback collected later, I have obtained the following data and gains.
First of all, the image quality of Google Cardboard is very low. Because it uses a lens to magnify directly based on the phone, the pixels that are not visible to the naked eye on the original phone are enlarged to the degree of visibility. So the overall visual perception is that the resolution is very low. This has nothing to do with the rendering effect of the application itself, and the best rendering effect will be greatly reduced due to low resolution.
Second, people are less willing to add additional physical interactive devices to Google Cardboard, which makes them feel difficult and cumbersome. Users prefer to experience all content directly with intangible devices. Because of this, highly manipulative games may not be suitable for such a medium, and Google Cardboard will not provide good high-definition graphics and coherent operation.
4.2 Immersion, Inexpensive, and Portability
In surveys and interviews, people remain positive about Google Cardboard immersion and engagement. Google Cardboard still provides an immersive virtual environment like mainstream VR devices. This means that it is still friendly for applications such as scene experiences.
In addition, almost everyone who understands the price of Google Cardboard said that they can pay and buy. And they can understand some of the flaws behind such cheap devices. Some people pointed out that given the price of Google Cardboard, they would not ask for a very beautiful image quality, as long as they can give them a different experience than directly using the phone, they will consider buying one.
In addition, some users mentioned that Google Cardboard is lightweight, “like a mobile phone, you can travel casually in your bag, and you can use it at any time when you want to use it”. They are willing to use Google Cardboard when they are traveling or playing with friends, or to experience some environments that are not currently physically accessible through Google Cardboard.
5. Final Direction
After determining the stakeholders, I finally determined the research direction.
This UX Research project plans to design and develop a Virtual Renaissance Museum app can be combined with Google Cardboard to provide fantastic VR experiences. It offers easy-to-learn inputs, fun and rich interactions, and an immersive and free environment where children aged 6-12 who cannot go to the Louvre can virtually learn Renaissance paintings and sculptures.
5.1 5W1H Cont (Stakeholder Definition)
Based on the above research and analysis, I define Stakeholders as follows
- What: An educational and entertaining experience. Able to learn knowledge interactively.
- Who: kids aged 6-12, whose families are not not very rich. It is difficult for those families to meet the opportunities for their children to travel and visit outside
- Where & When: Home, anytime, anywhere
- How: Simple interactions that favor game-like experience. Simple and easy to learn.
- This will be discussed in the later phases
- Why: Using GC is a much more interesting and immersive experience than using your phone directly. And these families can’t afford expensive VR devices or take their kids on trips. Using GC is more of an alternative. In addition, the interesting knowledge interaction will make the child more interested in exploring and learning.
5.2 User Profile
The user profile of the stakeholder was changed to a child between 6 to 12 years old from a family with average financial means. These children and families generally do not have more financial means to buy expensive VR devices or computers. Mobile phones are now a basic household necessity, and you can expect every family to have at least one Android phone. In addition, although the family’s economic ability is average, it can also afford the cost of Google Cardboard.
5.3 Use Case
The requirement scenario is changed to a VR lightweight interactive application focused on education and tours. These programs do not require the complex real-time feedback of games but focus more on simple and entertainment interactions, spatial simulation, and knowledge provision. Some possible applications are history museums, a virtual reconstruction of a scenic spot, art galleries, aquariums, or science and technology education museums.
5.4 Benefits
The reasons for redefining these are:
- Children with average family economic ability pay a lower level and are willing to buy cheap products
- Compared with 2D devices such as mobile phones, simply modifying 2D devices to VR effects and adding some basic interactions to them is more conducive to stimulating children’s interest in playing and experiencing
- Families of modest means may not be able to afford long-distance travel and educational trips to museums and children’s palaces, but these kinds of virtual reality applications can approximate the experiences of children through immersion and engagement
- The lightweight interaction and content presentation of these virtual venues will help children learn more and broaden their horizons in a different way than books and videos