Skip to main content

Table 2 Statements for soliciting measuring the subjects’ opinions on the value of the MR system for collaborative work

From: Tangible mixed reality for remote design review: a study understanding user perception and acceptance

Questionnaire I Questionnaire II
1. I felt that 3D interactivity in the MR system aided design comprehension. 1. I felt that 3D interactivity in the NavisWorks Roamer aided design comprehension.
2. Overall, compared with NavisWorks Roamer, the AR system better facilitates design collaboration tasks. 2. Overall, compared with AR, the NavisWorks Roamer better facilitates design collaboration tasks.
3. The MR system better facilitated communication. 3. The NavisWorks Roamer better facilitated communication.
4. The MR system better facilitated creativity. 4. The NavisWorks Roamer better facilitated creativity.
5. The MR system better facilitated problem-solving. 5. The NavisWorks Roamer better facilitated problem-solving.
6. The MR system increased the overall quality of output from the collaboration. 6. The NavisWorks Roamer increased the overall quality of output from the collaboration.
7. The MR system better facilitated the quantity of work I could complete in a given amount of time. 7. The NavisWorks Roamer better facilitated the quantity of work I could complete in a given amount of time.
8. The MR system increased the quality of my contribution to the project. 8. The NavisWorks Roamer increased the quality of my contribution to the project.
9. The MR system increased my satisfaction with the outcome of the collaboration. 9. The NavisWorks Roamer increased my satisfaction with the outcome of the project.
10. The MR system increased understanding between my collaborator and me. 10. The NavisWorks Roamer increased understanding between my collaborator and me.