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