.png){kind=icon}
.png){kind=icon}
Return
Evaluating interaction design and user experience in augmented reality: a systematic review
.png){kind=icon}
OA
AI
DOI：10.3389/frvir.2025.1710161.png)
.png){kind=icon}
.png){kind=icon}
Share.png){kind=icon}
Save
Abstract
En 中文
BackgroundAugmented Reality (AR) technologies are rapidly advancing; offering new opportunities for interactive and immersive user experiences. However; the success of AR applications depends significantly on thoughtful interaction design and robust evaluation of user experience (UX). While conventional WIMP (Windows; Icons; Menus; Pointer) interfaces have dominated interface design; they present notable limitations in spatial; embodied environments like AR.ObjectivesThe main purpose of the current paper is to systematically review the state of AR interaction design and UX evaluation; with particular focus on the use of natural versus WIMP-based interaction paradigms. This review aims to assess how different interaction methods are implemented and evaluated; identify underexplored areas; and offer recommendations to guide future AR research and development. Methods: In this systematic review; Compendex; Web of Science; ScienceDirect; ACM Digital; IEEE; and Springer Computer Science were systematically queried for journal articles in order to explore the relationship between interaction design and user experience in AR. Following PRISMA guidelines; 86 peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2013 and 2024 were included based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data were extracted and analyzed in terms of context of use; device types; interaction methods; and UX evaluation strategies.ResultsThe findings show that natural interactions; such as gesture; voice; and gaze; are increasingly favored in AR research due to their alignment with spatial and embodied interaction needs. Hybrid systems combining natural and WIMP elements were the most common; with natural components driving the experiential benefits. UX evaluation in AR remains heavily reliant on self-reported measures; with questionnaires like SUS and NASA-TLX dominating. Objective and physiological assessments were rarely used. Usability and cognitive load were the most frequently evaluated UX aspects; while immersive; social; and emotional dimensions remain significantly underexplored. Head-worn displays (HWDs); particularly HoloLens 2; were the most studied devices; although mobile platforms also played a major role in accessible AR design.ConclusionThis review provides insight into how UX is being considered in AR system development and highlights key trends; strengths; and gaps in current research. It underscores the need for more diverse evaluation methods and a broader focus on underrepresented experiential dimensions. By adopting mixed-method approaches and prioritizing user-centered; context-aware interaction paradigms; future AR systems can become more intuitive; inclusive; and effective across a range of application domains.
AI Summary
Key information extracted from the uploaded paper, including a brief overview, abstract, background, key highlights, visual analysis, and future outlook.
Journal
F
IF:
3.6
Papers:
972
Citations:
2.4K