pith. sign in

arxiv: 2607.00518 · v1 · pith:HIUSGD2Qnew · submitted 2026-07-01 · 💻 cs.HC

Draped Surfaces: A Contour-Adaptive Interface Overlaid on the Physical Environment for Mixed Reality Workspaces

SoonUk Kwon , Barrett Ens , Pourang Irani This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-07-02 06:35 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC
keywords mixed realitydraped surfacescontour-adaptive interfacesMR workspaceshand movementtext legibilityvirtual overlaysphysical environment
0
0 comments X

The pith

Draping virtual windows onto physical surfaces in mixed reality reduces hand-movement detours while preserving text legibility.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper introduces a contour-adaptive interface that drapes virtual windows directly onto nearby physical surfaces rather than floating them in mid-air. This design seeks to reduce occlusion of the real environment and enable more direct reaches toward physical objects during mixed reality work. Controlled user studies establish that the draping shortens unnecessary hand paths compared with flat surfaces and that the resulting deformations leave reading performance statistically unchanged. A reader would care because conventional cockpit-style MR layouts often block sight of the workspace and force extra movements. The contribution is a concrete alternative that keeps digital content usable while restoring awareness of the surrounding physical items.

Core claim

CAMEO drapes virtual windows onto physical surfaces to integrate digital content with the environment, thereby reducing hand-movement detours relative to flat mid-air surfaces while controlled window deformation does not significantly impair text legibility when compared to flat surfaces.

What carries the argument

Contour-Adaptive Mixed Environment Overlays (CAMEO), the mechanism that conforms virtual windows to physical surface contours to support direct interaction and environmental visibility.

If this is right

  • Users reach physical objects with shorter hand trajectories when windows conform to surfaces instead of remaining flat.
  • Visual access to background items remains open because windows no longer fully occlude the workspace.
  • Text remains readable at comparable speeds and accuracy levels even after the windows are deformed to fit contours.
  • MR workspaces can combine digital content with physical items without forcing a choice between immersion and environmental awareness.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same draping principle could be tested on moving or curved surfaces such as tabletops that users rearrange during a task.
  • Automatic surface detection might allow the system to choose drape targets without explicit user placement.
  • Longer sessions or multi-user scenarios could reveal whether reduced detours accumulate into lower fatigue over time.

Load-bearing premise

The specific tasks and physical setups used in the two controlled lab studies are representative of real mixed-reality workspace conditions.

What would settle it

A field study in varied real offices or workshops in which participants perform everyday multi-window tasks and show either longer hand paths or measurably poorer reading performance with draped windows than with flat ones.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.00518 by Barrett Ens, Pourang Irani, SoonUk Kwon.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: A: The flat interface is represented. B: The interface is being “ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: (a) Initialization of the initial interface [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Adaptive effect of 𝐷max with respect to interface size, visualized by varying an arbitrary 𝛿 in 𝐷max = 𝐷min + 𝛿 as an illustrative example to aid the understanding of Eq. 2. (a) A 4cm × 3cm folder icon placed excessively far when 𝛿 = 30 cm, making the icon largely distorted. (b) The icon using adaptive 𝐷max in Eq. 2, making the icon less distorted. (c) A 30cm × 20cm window placed excessively close when 𝛿 =… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Operation of the boundary condition (B.C.). Blue [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Examples of calculating Screen Entropy ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: A (Part I): Example scene of the simulation environment and differences in interface occlusion and foreground volume [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The environment for interacting with nearby tar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Results of User Study I. For Hand Movement, the box plot includes Bonferroni-corrected significance and Cohen’s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Hand movement trajectory. For each path, the mean [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Test environments for each Task-Read / Task￾Match in User Study II. (a) The empty desk environment setup. This example shows an interface shape draped over the Cap under the Snug condition. For the legibility evalu￾ation, participants are asked to find the words in the text that have been intentionally replaced with incorrect ones. (b) 6 objects are placed for a 6-multiple-choice matching task. The corner… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Results of objective and subjective measures in Task- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Design opportunities emerging from CAMEO. A1: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Conventional Mixed Reality (MR) workspaces are frequently organized in cockpit-like layouts, where multiple floating windows surround the user. While this configuration facilitates access to digital content, it often induces occlusion, reducing understanding of the physical environment and limiting access to real-world objects. To overcome this challenge, we present the Contour-Adaptive Mixed Environment Overlays (CAMEO), a contour-adaptive MR interface that drapes virtual windows onto physical surfaces. This design integrates digital content with nearby items, thereby improving users' visual access to background objects and supporting interaction with them. We evaluate CAMEO in two controlled studies. The first demonstrates that draping reduces hand-movement detours relative to flat mid-air surfaces, enabling more direct interaction with nearby items. The second shows that controlled window deformation does not significantly impair text legibility when compared to flat surfaces. Together, these findings contribute a novel design paradigm for MR workspaces that balances immersion, readability, and environmental understanding.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces Contour-Adaptive Mixed Environment Overlays (CAMEO), a draping technique for mixed-reality workspaces in which virtual windows conform to physical surface contours rather than remaining flat mid-air planes. It reports two controlled user studies: the first claims that draping reduces hand-movement detours relative to flat surfaces and thereby facilitates interaction with nearby physical objects; the second claims that controlled deformation preserves text legibility at levels statistically indistinguishable from flat surfaces. The work positions these results as evidence for a new design paradigm that improves environmental understanding while maintaining readability and interaction efficiency.

Significance. If the empirical claims are substantiated with adequate methodological detail and the benefits prove robust, the contribution would be a concrete, testable alternative to conventional cockpit-style MR layouts. The emphasis on direct physical-environment integration and the use of controlled user studies to quantify movement and legibility trade-offs are strengths that could influence future interface guidelines.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the two studies are described only as 'controlled' with 'positive outcomes' and no accompanying sample sizes, statistical tests, exclusion criteria, or effect sizes. These omissions are load-bearing because the central claims rest entirely on the studies' results; without the numbers it is impossible to evaluate whether the data support the stated conclusions.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract (Study 1 description): the claim that draping 'reduces hand-movement detours' is presented without any indication of how movement was recorded, what the baseline flat-surface condition consisted of, or whether the physical layout was varied. This detail is required to assess whether the measured benefit is an artifact of the specific lab setup.
  3. [Abstract] Abstract (Study 2 description): the assertion that 'controlled window deformation does not significantly impair text legibility' lacks any report of the deformation parameters, viewing distances, or legibility metric used. These parameters directly determine whether the null result generalizes beyond the tested conditions.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Title / Abstract] The title uses 'Draped Surfaces' while the body introduces the acronym CAMEO; a consistent primary name would improve clarity.
  2. [Abstract] The abstract states that the interface 'supports interaction with' nearby items but does not specify whether this refers to direct physical touching, mid-air gestures, or another mechanism.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for highlighting the need for greater specificity in the abstract. We agree that the abstract should include key quantitative and methodological details to allow readers to assess the strength of the empirical claims. We will revise the abstract accordingly while preserving its conciseness.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the two studies are described only as 'controlled' with 'positive outcomes' and no accompanying sample sizes, statistical tests, exclusion criteria, or effect sizes. These omissions are load-bearing because the central claims rest entirely on the studies' results; without the numbers it is impossible to evaluate whether the data support the stated conclusions.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract would be strengthened by reporting sample sizes, statistical tests, and effect sizes. In the revised version we will add these details (sample sizes, test statistics or p-values, and effect sizes) drawn directly from the studies. Exclusion criteria and other procedural details appear in the Methods sections; we will also summarize the most relevant ones in the abstract. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (Study 1 description): the claim that draping 'reduces hand-movement detours' is presented without any indication of how movement was recorded, what the baseline flat-surface condition consisted of, or whether the physical layout was varied. This detail is required to assess whether the measured benefit is an artifact of the specific lab setup.

    Authors: We will revise the abstract to state that hand movement was recorded via the headset's built-in hand tracking, that the baseline condition used flat mid-air windows in the identical physical environment, and that the physical layout was held constant across conditions in the controlled laboratory setup. These clarifications should address concerns about setup-specific artifacts. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (Study 2 description): the assertion that 'controlled window deformation does not significantly impair text legibility' lacks any report of the deformation parameters, viewing distances, or legibility metric used. These parameters directly determine whether the null result generalizes beyond the tested conditions.

    Authors: We will update the abstract to report the deformation parameters (range of surface contour adaptation), approximate viewing distances used, and the legibility metric (reading performance measure). These values are defined and justified in the full paper; a concise summary will be added to the abstract. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical user studies with no derivation chain

full rationale

The paper introduces the CAMEO system and supports its claims exclusively through two controlled user studies measuring hand-movement detours and text legibility. No equations, first-principles derivations, fitted parameters, or predictions appear in the provided text. Claims rest on experimental outcomes rather than any self-referential reduction or self-citation chain. This matches the default case of an empirical paper that is self-contained against external benchmarks, warranting score 0 with no steps.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Review is based solely on the abstract; no equations or detailed methods are available to identify free parameters or invented entities.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Reducing occlusion in MR workspaces improves understanding of the physical environment and access to real-world objects.
    Stated as the core motivation in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5701 in / 1140 out tokens · 20867 ms · 2026-07-02T06:35:41.280235+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

116 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Helmut Alt. 2009. The Computational Geometry of Comparing Shapes.Efficient Algorithms5760 (2009), 235–248

    2009

  2. [2]

    Borbála Berki. 2019. Desktop VR as a virtual workspace: a cognitive aspect. Acta Polytechnica Hungarica16, 2 (2019), 219–231

    2019

  3. [3]

    Michael L Bernard, Barbara S Chaparro, Melissa M Mills, and Charles G Hal- comb. 2003. Comparing the effects of text size and format on the readibility of computer-displayed Times New Roman and Arial text.International Journal of Human-Computer Studies59, 6 (2003), 823–835

    2003

  4. [4]

    Xiaojun Bi and Ravin Balakrishnan. 2009. Comparing usage of a large high- resolution display to single or dual desktop displays for daily work. InPro- ceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1005–1014

    2009

  5. [5]

    Jiang Bian, Dayong Tian, Yuanyan Tang, and Dacheng Tao. 2019. Trajectory data classification: A review.ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (TIST)10, 4 (2019), 1–34

    2019

  6. [6]

    1976.Graph theory with applications

    John Adrian Bondy, Uppaluri Siva Ramachandra Murty, et al. 1976.Graph theory with applications. Vol. 290. Macmillan London

    1976

  7. [7]

    2010.Product design for manufacture and assembly

    Geoffrey Boothroyd, Peter Dewhurst, and Winston A Knight. 2010.Product design for manufacture and assembly. CRC press

    2010

  8. [8]

    Anaelle Braine and François Georges. 2023. Emotion in action: When emotions meet motor circuits.Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews155 (2023), 105475

    2023

  9. [9]

    Yolandi Brink, Quinette Louw, Karen Grimmer, and Esmè Jordaan. 2014. The spinal posture of computing adolescents in a real-life setting.BMC musculoskele- tal disorders15, 1 (2014), 212

    2014

  10. [10]

    Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM). 2019. The International System of Units (SI) - 9th edition. https://www.bipm.org/documents/20126/ 41483022/SI-Brochure-9-EN.pdf. Accessed: 2025-09-07

    2019

  11. [11]

    Jessica R Cauchard, Markus Löchtefeld, Pourang Irani, Johannes Schoening, Antonio Krüger, Mike Fraser, and Sriram Subramanian. 2011. Visual separation in mobile multi-display environments. InProceedings of the 24th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology. 451–460

    2011

  12. [12]

    Gokhan Cetin, Wolfgang Stuerzlinger, and John Dill. 2018. Visual analytics on large displays: exploring user spatialization and how size and resolution affect task performance. In2018 International Symposium on Big Data Visual and Immersive Analytics (BDV A). IEEE, 1–10

    2018

  13. [13]

    Honghua Chen, Zhiqi Li, Mingqing Wei, and Jun Wang. 2023. Geometric and learning-based mesh denoising: a comprehensive survey.ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications and Applications20, 3 (2023), 1–28

    2023

  14. [14]

    Jian Chen, Pardha S Pyla, and Doug A Bowman. 2004. Testbed evaluation of nav- igation and text display techniques in an information-rich virtual environment. InIEEE Virtual Reality 2004. IEEE, 181–289

    2004

  15. [15]

    Yifei Cheng, Yukang Yan, Xin Yi, Yuanchun Shi, and David Lindlbauer. 2021. Semanticadapt: Optimization-based adaptation of mixed reality layouts leverag- ing virtual-physical semantic connections. InThe 34th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. 282–297

    2021

  16. [16]

    Yi Fei Cheng, Christoph Gebhardt, and Christian Holz. 2023. Interactionadapt: Interaction-driven workspace adaptation for situated virtual reality environ- ments. InProceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. 1–14

    2023

  17. [17]

    Yi Fei Cheng, Tiffany Luong, Andreas Rene Fender, Paul Streli, and Christian Holz. 2022. ComforTable user interfaces: Surfaces reduce input error, time, and exertion for tabletop and mid-air user interfaces. In2022 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR). IEEE, 150–159

    2022

  18. [18]

    Guillaume Chevet, Thierry Baccino, Annie Vinter, and Véronique Drai-Zerbib

  19. [19]

    What breaks the flow of reading? A study on characteristics of attentional disruption during digital reading.Frontiers in Psychology13 (2022), 987964

    2022

  20. [20]

    Robbe Cools, Matt Gottsacker, Adalberto Simeone, Gerd Bruder, Greg Welch, and Steven Feiner. 2022. Towards a desktop-AR prototyping framework: Prototyping cross-reality between desktops and augmented reality. In2022 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality Adjunct (ISMAR-Adjunct). IEEE, 175–182

    2022

  21. [21]

    Daniel Cotting and Markus Gross. 2006. Interactive environment-aware display bubbles. InProceedings of the 19th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology. 245–254

    2006

  22. [22]

    Mary Czerwinski, Greg Smith, Tim Regan, Brian Meyers, George G Robertson, and Gary K Starkweather. 2003. Toward characterizing the productivity benefits of very large displays.. InInteract, Vol. 3. 9–16

    2003

  23. [23]

    Iain Darroch, Joy Goodman, Stephen Brewster, and Phil Gray. 2005. The effect of age and font size on reading text on handheld computers. InIFIP conference on human-computer interaction. Springer, 253–266

    2005

  24. [24]

    Shakiba Davari, Feiyu Lu, and Doug A Bowman. 2020. Occlusion management techniques for everyday glanceable AR interfaces. In2020 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces Abstracts and Workshops (VRW). IEEE, 324–330

    2020

  25. [25]

    Mathieu Desbrun, Mark Meyer, Peter Schröder, and Alan H Barr. 1999. Implicit fairing of irregular meshes using diffusion and curvature flow. InProceedings of the 26th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques. 317–324

    1999

  26. [26]

    Michele Di Donato, Michele Fiorentino, Antonio E Uva, Michele Gattullo, and Giuseppe Monno. 2015. Text legibility for projected Augmented Reality on industrial workbenches.Computers in Industry70 (2015), 70–78

    2015

  27. [27]

    Elisabeth Dittrich, Stefan Brandenburg, and Boris Beckmann-Dobrev. 2013. Legibility of letters in reality, 2d and 3d projection. InVirtual Augmented and Mixed Reality. Designing and Developing Augmented and Virtual Environments: 5th International Conference, V AMR 2013, Held as Part of HCI International 2013, Las Vegas, NV, USA, July 21-26, 2013, Proceedi...

    2013

  28. [28]

    Stephen DiVerdi, Tobias Hollerer, and Richard Schreyer. 2004. Level of de- tail interfaces. InThird IEEE and ACM international symposium on mixed and augmented reality. IEEE, 300–301. Draped Surfaces: A Contour-Adaptive Interface Overlaid on the Physical Environment for Mixed Reality Workspaces CHI ’26, April 13–17, 2026, Barcelona, Spain

    2004

  29. [29]

    Neil A Dodgson. 2004. Variation and extrema of human interpupillary distance. InStereoscopic displays and virtual reality systems XI, Vol. 5291. SPIE, 36–46

    2004

  30. [30]

    Ruofei Du, Alex Olwal, Mathieu Le Goc, Shengzhi Wu, Danhang Tang, Yinda Zhang, Jun Zhang, David Joseph Tan, Federico Tombari, and David Kim. 2022. Opportunistic interfaces for augmented reality: Transforming everyday objects into tangible 6dof interfaces using ad hoc ui. InCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts. 1–4

    2022

  31. [31]

    Alex Endert, Lauren Bradel, Jessica Zeitz, Christopher Andrews, and Chris North. 2012. Designing large high-resolution display workspaces. InProceedings of the International Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces. 58–65

    2012

  32. [32]

    Barrett Ens, Juan David Hincapié-Ramos, and Pourang Irani. 2014. Ethereal planes: a design framework for 2D information space in 3D mixed reality envi- ronments. InProceedings of the 2nd ACM symposium on Spatial user interaction. 2–12

    2014

  33. [33]

    Barrett Ens, Eyal Ofek, Neil Bruce, and Pourang Irani. 2016. Shared façades: Surface-embedded layout management for ad hoc collaboration using head- worn displays.Collaboration meets interactive spaces(2016), 153–176

    2016

  34. [34]

    Barrett M Ens, Rory Finnegan, and Pourang P Irani. 2014. The personal cock- pit: a spatial interface for effective task switching on head-worn displays. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 3171–3180

    2014

  35. [35]

    Shariff AM Faleel, Michael Gammon, Kevin Fan, Da-Yuan Huang, Wei Li, and Pourang Irani. 2021. Hpui: Hand proximate user interfaces for one-handed interactions on head mounted displays.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics27, 11 (2021), 4215–4225

    2021

  36. [36]

    Anis Farshian, Markus Götz, Gabriele Cavallaro, Charlotte Debus, Matthias Nießner, Jón Atli Benediktsson, and Achim Streit. 2023. Deep-learning-based 3-d surface reconstruction—a survey.Proc. IEEE111, 11 (2023), 1464–1501

    2023

  37. [37]

    Steven Feiner, Blair MacIntyre, Marcus Haupt, and Eliot Solomon. 1993. Win- dows on the world: 2D windows for 3D augmented reality. InProceedings of the 6th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology. 145–155

    1993

  38. [38]

    Michael S Floater and Kai Hormann. 2005. Surface parameterization: a tutorial and survey.Advances in multiresolution for geometric modelling(2005), 157–186

    2005

  39. [39]

    Sean Follmer, Daniel Leithinger, Alex Olwal, Akimitsu Hogge, and Hiroshi Ishii

  40. [40]

    InUist, Vol

    inFORM: dynamic physical affordances and constraints through shape and object actuation.. InUist, Vol. 13. 2501–988

  41. [41]

    Douglas J Funke, Jeannette G Neal, and Rajendra D Paul. 1993. An approach to intelligent automated window management.International Journal of Man- Machine Studies38, 6 (1993), 949–983

    1993

  42. [42]

    Joseph L Gabbard, Divya Gupta Mehra, and J Edward Swan. 2018. Effects of AR display context switching and focal distance switching on human performance. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics25, 6 (2018), 2228–2241

    2018

  43. [43]

    Joseph L Gabbard, J Edward Swan, and Deborah Hix. 2006. The effects of text drawing styles, background textures, and natural lighting on text legibility in outdoor augmented reality.Presence15, 1 (2006), 16–32

    2006

  44. [44]

    Michele Gattullo, Antonio E Uva, Michele Fiorentino, and Joseph L Gabbard

  45. [45]

    Legibility in industrial AR: text style, color coding, and illuminance.IEEE computer graphics and applications35, 2 (2015), 52–61

    2015

  46. [46]

    Designing Screen Interfaces for VR

    GoogleIO2017 2017. Designing Screen Interfaces for VR. Video, Google I/O ’17. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ES9jArHRFHQ

    2017

  47. [47]

    Saul Greenberg, Murray Peterson, and Ian Witten. 1986. Issues and experiences in the design of a window management system. (1986)

    1986

  48. [48]

    Jens Emil Grønbæk, Majken Kirkegaard Rasmussen, Kim Halskov, and Mari- anne Graves Petersen. 2020. KirigamiTable: Designing for proxemic transitions with a shape-changing tabletop. InProceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–15

    2020

  49. [49]

    Violet Yinuo Han, Hyunsung Cho, Kiyosu Maeda, Alexandra Ion, and David Lindlbauer. 2023. BlendMR: A Computational Method to Create Ambient Mixed Reality Interfaces.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction7, ISS (2023), 217–241

    2023

  50. [50]

    David Harris, Mark Wilson, and Samuel Vine. 2020. Development and validation of a simulation workload measure: the simulation task load index (SIM-TLX). Virtual Reality24, 4 (2020), 557–566

    2020

  51. [51]

    Chris Harrison, Hrvoje Benko, and Andrew D Wilson. 2011. OmniTouch: wear- able multitouch interaction everywhere. InProceedings of the 24th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology. 441–450

    2011

  52. [52]

    Sandra G Hart and Lowell E Staveland. 1988. Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. InAdvances in psychology. Vol. 52. Elsevier, 139–183

    1988

  53. [53]

    Marc Hassenzahl. 2001. The effect of perceived hedonic quality on product appealingness.International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction13, 4 (2001), 481–499

    2001

  54. [54]

    Keiko Hayashi. 1999. Reading strategies and extensive reading in EFL classes. RELC journal30, 2 (1999), 114–132

    1999

  55. [55]

    Fengming He, Xiyun Hu, Xun Qian, Zhengzhe Zhu, and Karthik Ramani. 2024. AdapTUI: Adaptation of Geometric-Feature-Based Tangible User Interfaces in Augmented Reality.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction8, ISS (2024), 44–69

    2024

  56. [56]

    Steven Henderson and Steven Feiner. 2009. Opportunistic tangible user inter- faces for augmented reality.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics16, 1 (2009), 4–16

    2009

  57. [57]

    Andreas Hinderks. 2017. Design and evaluation of a short version of the user ex- perience questionnaire (UEQ-S).International Journal of Interactive Multimedia and Artificial Intelligence(2017)

    2017

  58. [58]

    Kai Hormann, Ulf Labsik, and Günther Greiner. 2001. Remeshing triangulated surfaces with optimal parameterizations.Computer-Aided Design33, 11 (2001), 779–788

    2001

  59. [59]

    Christophe Hurter, Bernice Rogowitz, Guillaume Truong, Tiffany Andry, Hugo Romat, Ludovic Gardy, Fereshteh Amini, and Nathalie Henry Riche. 2024. Mem- ory recall for data visualizations in mixed reality, virtual reality, 3D and 2D.IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics30, 10 (2024), 6691–6706

    2024

  60. [60]

    Muhammad Hussain and Jaehyun Park. 2024. Effect of transparency levels and real-world backgrounds on the user interface in augmented reality environments. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction40, 16 (2024), 4265–4274

    2024

  61. [61]

    Keita Ichihashi and Kaori Fujinami. 2019. Estimating visibility of annotations for view management in spatial augmented reality based on machine-learning techniques.Sensors19, 4 (2019), 939

    2019

  62. [62]

    Jacek Jankowski, Krystian Samp, Izabela Irzynska, Marek Jozwowicz, and Stefan Decker. 2010. Integrating text with video and 3d graphics: The effects of text drawing styles on text readability. Inproceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1321–1330

    2010

  63. [63]

    Kyeong Ah Jeong, Jungmin Han, Nooree Na, and Hyeon-Jeong Suk. 2017. Do consumers prefer curved monitors? Assessment of preferred curvature and readability performance.Journal of Information Display18, 2 (2017), 67–72

    2017

  64. [64]

    Roberts, William Verplank, David Canfield Smith, Charles H

    Jeff Johnson, Teresa L. Roberts, William Verplank, David Canfield Smith, Charles H. Irby, Marian Beard, and Kevin Mackey. 1989. The xerox star: A retrospective.Computer22, 9 (1989), 11–26

    1989

  65. [65]

    Daekun Kim, Nikhita Joshi, and Daniel Vogel. 2023. Perspective and Geom- etry Approaches to Mouse Cursor Control in Spatial Augmented Reality. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–19

    2023

  66. [66]

    Isik Ates Kiral and Sevilay Demirkesen. 2023. Assessing the impact of peripheral vision on construction site safety.Engineering, construction and architectural management30, 9 (2023), 4435–4463

    2023

  67. [67]

    Isik Ates Kiral and Sevilay Demirkesen. 2024. Evaluating the impact of different hard hats on the peripheral vision of construction workers.International journal of occupational safety and ergonomics30, 2 (2024), 436–449

    2024

  68. [68]

    Ernst Kruijff, J Edward Swan, and Steven Feiner. 2010. Perceptual issues in augmented reality revisited. In2010 IEEE international symposium on mixed and augmented reality. IEEE, 3–12

    2010

  69. [69]

    Advay Kumar, Stephanie Simangunsong, Pamela Carreno-Medrano, and Akansel Cosgun. 2025. Mixed Reality Outperforms Virtual Reality for Remote Error Res- olution in Pick-and-Place Tasks. In2025 20th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, 511–519

    2025

  70. [70]

    Daniel Leithinger, Sean Follmer, Alex Olwal, Samuel Luescher, Akimitsu Hogge, Jinha Lee, and Hiroshi Ishii. 2013. Sublimate: state-changing virtual and physical rendering to augment interaction with shape displays. InProceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1441–1450

    2013

  71. [71]

    Zhen Li, Michelle Annett, Ken Hinckley, Karan Singh, and Daniel Wigdor

  72. [72]

    InProceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    Holodoc: Enabling mixed reality workspaces that harness physical and digital content. InProceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–14

    2019

  73. [73]

    Zhipeng Li, Christoph Gebhardt, Yves Inglin, Nicolas Steck, Paul Streli, and Christian Holz. 2024. SituationAdapt: Contextual UI Optimization in Mixed Reality with Situation Awareness via LLM Reasoning. InProceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. 1–13

    2024

  74. [74]

    David Lindlbauer, Anna Maria Feit, and Otmar Hilliges. 2019. Context-aware online adaptation of mixed reality interfaces. InProceedings of the 32nd annual ACM symposium on user interface software and technology. 147–160

    2019

  75. [75]

    Lars Lischke, Sven Mayer, Katrin Wolf, Niels Henze, Harald Reiterer, and Al- brecht Schmidt. 2016. Screen arrangements and interaction areas for large display work places. InProceedings of the 5th ACM International Symposium on Pervasive Displays. 228–234

    2016

  76. [76]

    Janneke Lommertzen, Eliana Costa e Silva, Raymond H Cuijpers, and Ruud GJ Meulenbroek. 2008. Collision-avoidance characteristics of grasping: Early signs in hand and arm kinematics. InWorkshop on Anticipatory Behavior in Adaptive Learning Systems. Springer, 188–208

    2008

  77. [77]

    Feiyu Lu and Yan Xu. 2022. Exploring spatial ui transition mechanisms with head-worn augmented reality. InProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–16

    2022

  78. [78]

    Márcio CF Macedo and Antonio L Apolinario. 2021. Occlusion handling in augmented reality: Past, present and future.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics29, 2 (2021), 1590–1609

    2021

  79. [79]

    Daniel Medeiros, Mark McGill, Alexander Ng, Robert McDermid, Nadia Pantidi, Julie Williamson, and Stephen Brewster. 2022. From shielding to avoidance: Passenger augmented reality and the layout of virtual displays for productivity CHI ’26, April 13–17, 2026, Barcelona, Spain Kwon et al. in shared transit.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Gra...

    2022

  80. [80]

    Tao Ni, Doug A Bowman, and Jian Chen. 2006. Increased display size and resolution improve task performance in information-rich virtual environments. InProceedings of Graphics Interface 2006. Citeseer, 139–146

    2006

Showing first 80 references.