Presence for Information Architects

A talk by T. Zachary Frazier

When we walk these streets what will we find?

Chronozoom

H. G. Wells Vannevar Bush

Screens are leaving the tops of our desks and getting closer to our eyes.

Presence

A virtual realityless presentation.

Ceci n’est pas une PowerPoint.

Tools and Tests

PRESENCE

“… THE SENSE OF BEING PRESENT IN TIME OR SPACE AT A PARTICULAR LOCATION. THUS, PRESENCE IS A COGNITIVE STATE WHICH OCCURS WHEN THE BRAIN PROCESSES AND MAKES USE OF THE MYRIAD OF STIMULUS INFORMATION IMPINGING ON THE HUMAN SENSORY SYSTEM.”

Whoa!

INTERNATIONALSOCIETY FORPRESENCERESEARCH

[1] Presence (a shortened version of the term “telepresence”) is a psychological state or subjective perception in which even though part or all of an individual’s current experience is generated by and/or filtered through human-made technology, part or all of the individual’s perception fails to accurately acknowledge the role of the technology in the experience. Except in the most extreme cases, the individual can indicate correctly that s/he is using the technology, but at *some level* and to *some degree*, her/his perceptions overlook that knowledge and objects, events, entities, and environments are perceived as if the technology was not involved in the experience. Experience is defined as a person’s observation of and/or interaction with objects, entities, and/or events in her/his environment; perception, the result of perceiving, is defined as a meaningful interpretation of experience.[2] All experience of the physical world is mediated by the human senses and complex perceptual processes. This experience, identified by some scholars as “first order” mediated experience, is the “normal” or “natural” way we perceive the physical world and provides a subjective sensation of being present in our environment (constituting a broader conception of the term “presence” – i.e., not a shortened version of “telepresence”). Although this “first order” mediated experience generally provides perceptions that correspond to the true nature of the physical world, it can also provide perceptions that do not correspond to the true nature of the physical world; presence refers to the subset of human experience in which this misperception involves, at least in part, the actual role of technology in the experience: Presence occurs when part or all of an individual’s experience is mediated not only by the human senses and perceptual processes but also by human-made technology (i.e., “second order” mediated experience) while the person perceives the experience as if it is only mediated by human senses and perceptual processes (i.e., “first order mediated experience). Thus, presence requires researchers to compare human perceptions and responses in the context of technology with human perceptions and responses in contexts that do not involve technology (often referred to as “face-to-face” or “interpersonal” contexts or, somewhat confusingly, “nonmediated” or “real” contexts).[3] Technology is defined as a machine, device, or other application of human industrial arts. It includes traditional and emerging electronic media such as television, radio, film, the telephone, computers, virtual reality, and simulation rides; traditional print media such as newspapers, books, and magazines; and traditional arts such as painting and sculpture. Technologies used to correct deficiencies in “normal” perception of the physical world (e.g., eye-glasses and hearing-aids) as well as those designed to augment or enhance perception are included. Most technologies provide stimuli to the human sense apparatus, but this definition also includes technologies that provide stimuli directly to the human neural processing system.[4] Presence is a property of an individual and varies across people and time; it is not a property of a technology or one of the technologies commonly referred to as a medium, although technologies or media with specific constellations of characteristics are likely to evoke a similar set of presence responses across individuals and across time (e.g., an IMAX 3D presentation typically produces greater presence in viewers than a small television presentation)[5] A person’s sense of presence can vary in degree: Presence does not occur when a technology user’s perceptions fully and accurately acknowledge the role of technology in an experience (e.g., a television viewer might accurately perceive that s/he is watching a human-made technology and that the images on the small box in her/his living room are merely representations of objects, events, and people that may or may not exist elsewhere). Presence is greater, but not maximized, when a technology user’s perceptions only partially acknowledge the actual role of technology in the experience (e.g., the user of an advanced virtual reality system may simultaneously be consciously aware of – i.e., think about – the nature of the technology that is generating her/his experience, accurately acknowledging the technological channel through which the experience has been generated, but nevertheless also perceive that s/he is inside the technology-generated environment). Presence is maximized when a technology user’s perceptions fail to accurately acknowledge any role of the technology in the experience (e.g., the user of a sophisticated flight simulator may, at least for short periods, be completely unaware of the technological channel through which the experience has been generated and perceive that s/he is actually flying an aircraft).[6] Presence occurs during an encounter with technology and not before or after this encounter (although the consequences/effects of presence can occur after the encounter). Presence occurs in an “instant by instant” manner. Although it appears that presence is a continuous rather than dichotomous variable, it has not been determined whether 1) presence can exist in varying degrees at each instant (as it seems) or 2) our sense that presence is continuous is the result of the cumulative effect of instants, which may be as short as milliseconds, in which presence either does or does not exist.In either case, as a misperception regarding the role of technology in an experience, presence can be “broken” by external events or internal mental processes that bring the true nature of the experience to the person’s conscious awareness, at which point presence is reduced or extinguished.7] Presence is a multi-dimensional concept; i.e., there are different types of presence. Little is currently known concerning which types exist but several (in many cases nonorthogonal or overlapping) dimensions have been proposed by different scholars; researchers are beginning to empirically test the validity of some of these dimensions. Some argue that the types should be divided into those that involve perceptions of physical environments, those that involve perceptions of social interaction, and those that involve both of these. In identifying dimensions of presence it is important to distinguish between antecedents/causes of presence, presence itself, and consequences/effects of presence. Major proposed dimensions include:[7a] “Spatial presence,” “physical presence,” “a sense of physical space,” “perceptual immersion,” “transportation” and “a sense of being there” occur when part or all of a person’s perception fails to accurately acknowledge the role of technology that makes it appear that s/he is in a physical location and environment different from her/his actual location and environment in the physical world.An example: A variety of stimuli provided by a virtual reality system can cause the user to perceive that s/he is moving through and interacting with the environment created by the technology rather than the user’s actual physical environment; the user may comment, “It seemed as if I was someplace else!”[7b] “Sensory presence,” “perceptual realism,” “naturalness,” “ecological validity”, and “tactile engagement” occur when part or all of a person’s perception fails to accurately acknowledge the role of technology that makes it appear that s/he is in a physical location and environment in which the sensory characteristics correspond to those of the physical world, i.e., s/he perceives that the objects, events, and/or people s/he encounters look, sound, smell, feel, etc. as they do or would in the physical world. Note that although technology-generated environments that look, sound, etc. the same as environments in the physical world are more likely to evoke this, and perhaps other, type(s) of presence, it is the *perception* that the sensory characteristics of the technology-generated environment and those of the physical world correspond that defines this type of presence rather than the *actual* correspondence of the characteristics.An example: Because it provides large, high resolution, three-dimensional images and high fidelity, dimensional sound, a 3D IMAX film presentation can cause the viewer to perceive that s/he is in an environment that looks and sounds as the viewer believes it does or would in the physical world; the user may comment, “It seemed so real!”[7c] “Social realism” occurs when part or all of a person’s perception fails to accurately acknowledge the role of technology that makes it appear that s/he is in a physical location and environment in which the social characteristics correspond to those of the physical world, i.e., s/he perceives that the objects, events, and/or people s/he encounters do or could exist in the physical world. Note that although technology-generated environments in which objects, people, and events act as they do in the physical world are more likely to evoke this, and perhaps other, type(s) of presence, it is the *perception* that the social characteristics of the technology-generated environment and those of the physical world correspond that defines this type of presence rather than the *actual* correspondence of the characteristics.

An example: A well written, well acted, filmed version of events that have occurred in the physical world can lead the film viewer to perceive that s/he is in an environment in which objects, events, and people act and/or respond in the way(s) the viewer believes they did or would in the physical world; the user may comment, “It seemed so realistic!”[7d] “Engagement,” “involvement,” and “psychological immersion” occur when part or all of a person’s perception is directed toward objects, events, and/or people created by the technology, and away from objects, events, and/or people in the physical world. Note that the person’s perception is not directed toward the technology itself but the objects, events and/or people the technology creates.An example: A virtual reality system, 3D IMAX film, or a well written and acted film can cause the user or viewer to devote all of her/his mental effort to processing the stimuli created by the technology and ignore stimuli (e.g., other people, equipment, furniture, etc.) in her/his actual physical environment; the user may comment, “It was so involving!”[7e] “Social presence” (distinct from social *realism*) occurs when part or all of a person’s perception fails to accurately acknowledge the role of technology that makes it appear that s/he is communicating with one or more other people or entities.“Social actor within the medium” and “parasocial interaction” occur when part or all of a person’s perception fails to accurately acknowledge the role of technology in her/his perception that s/he is engaged in two-way communication with another person or people, or with an artificial entity (e.g., a computer “agent”), when the communication is in fact one-way, from the technology to the person without feedback from the person to the other entity(ies).An example: Those who create and appear in television programs use a variety of techniques (e.g., direct address and sincerity) that can lead the viewer to feel that s/he is interacting with and/or in a “relationship” with the personalities and characters s/he encounters; the user may comment, “It seemed like we were interacting!”“Co-presence” and “transportation: shared space” occur when part or all of a person’s perception fails to accurately acknowledge the role of technology in her/his perception that the person or people with whom s/he is engaged in two-way communication is/are in the same physical location and environment when in fact they are in a different physical location.An example: Advanced video-conferencing systems can create for a user the illusion that s/he is in a face-to-face meeting in which all the participants are in the same room; the user may comment, “It felt like we were all together there!”

“Medium as social actor” occurs when part or all of a person’s perception fails to accurately acknowledge the role of technology in her/his perception that s/he is engaged in communication with another entity when in fact the other entity is merely a technology or medium (e.g., computer, television, etc.).An example: The ability of a computer to interact with a user in real-time, use human (rather than machine or technical) language, and fill a social role (e.g., bank teller or teacher) can lead even an experienced user to follow social norms (e.g., regarding gender stereotypes and third-party evaluations) that are usually reserved for human-human interaction; the user might not be aware of this phenomenon, but if s/he is, s/he may comment, “It seemed like a person!”[8] There is currently disagreement regarding whether presence that occurs in the context of non-interactive (“passive” or “audio-visual”) technologies (e.g., television and film) is comparable with presence that occurs in the context of interactive (“active” or “motor”) technologies (e.g., computers and virtual reality).

[9] A number of types of misperceptions of the physical world seem to be examples of presence (short for “telepresence”) as defined here: the hearing of voices by schizophrenics; perceptions during dreams and daydreams, and less clearly, perceptions during role-playing games and perceptions that result from the use of various drugs. While these types of misperceptions typically do not fit the definition of presence (short for “telepresence”) because they do not involve a misperception regarding the role of human-made technology in experience (i.e., the distinction between “first order” and “second order” mediated experience), they are related to the broader conception of the term “presence” (i.e., not a shortened version of “telepresence”) because they concern misperceptions in “first order” mediated experience, the subjective sensation of being present in a certain environment, and as such they are worthy of study.[10] The exact nature and location of the processing that results in presence is not known. It is likely that our initial and immediate responses to external stimuli (i.e., sensations) are identical when the external stimuli are created by or filtered through technology and when the external stimuli are not created by or filtered through technology (i.e., the role of technology is not acknowledged in the former situation). It may be that in some cases processing continues “automatically” and the possible role of technology in generating the experience is not evaluated, while in other cases a “higher order” or “active” or “conscious” evaluation is made regarding the possible role of technology (a role which may or may not be accurately recognized). It may be that parallel streams of processing occur during perception, so that when we have a sense of presence we simultaneously acknowledge the role of technology in one stream and fail to do so in another, thus we can be “aware” that we are using a technology (e.g., a virtual reality system) but simultaneously perceive objects, entities, and events we encounter (e.g., sharp objects, avatars, etc.) as if no technology was involved. It is also possible that people encourage or discourage their own sense of presence by directing their attention away from aspects of their experience that serve to remind them of the role of technology in it (e.g., when virtual reality is used in treatment of psychological phobias).[11] A large number of possible causes of some or all of the different types of presence have been proposed; the causes may function individually or in various interactions to evoke presence. Although the causes are of particular interest to those who study the role of technology in experience, many of them are relevant to presence-related phenomena that occur in the context of “first order” mediated experience (see [2] above) – i.e., experience in which technology plays no role, as well. These causes include but are not limited to:Characteristics of media/technology *form* such as the number and consistency of sensory outputs, image size and quality, viewing distance, use of motion and color, audio volume and fidelity, visual and aural dimensionality, subjective camera techniques such as direct address, obtrusiveness of the technology, technology size and shape, and a number of variables related to interactivity.Characteristics of media/technology *content* such as social realism (i.e., believability), quality of writing, quality of acting, physical appearance of actors/personalities, fame or notoriety of actors/personalities, use of media conventions, and the nature of the task or activity.Characteristics of the media/technology *user* such as her/his willingness to suspend disbelief, knowledge of and prior experience with the technology, age, and gender.[12] A large number of possible consequences of some or all of the different types of presence have been proposed and serve as motivations for further study of presence. The consequences may occur individually or in various combinations and depend on a large number of complex interacting factors (see 11 above]. Although the consequences are of particular interest to those who study the role of technology in experience, all of them can occur in the context of “first order” mediated experience (see [2] above) – i.e., experience in which technology plays no role, as well. These consequences include but are not limited to:Increases or decreases in physiological arousal; feelings of self-motion (vection), motion sickness, enjoyment, empathy, learning, improved task performance and skill training, psychological desensitization, connectedness (involvement, mutuality, engagement) with other people (e.g., media personalities), parasocial relationships, a number of different emotional responses, persuasion, and distorted memory and social judgments. 

[1] Presence (a shortened version of the term “telepresence”) is a psychological state or subjective perception in which even though part or all of an individual’s current experience is generated by and/or filtered through human-made technology, part or all of the individual’s perception fails to accurately acknowledge the role of the technology in the experience.

PresenceThe Subjective experience of being in one place or environment, even when one is physically situated in another. – Witmer and Singer (1998)

INFORMATION ARCHITECTURE IN VIRTUAL AND MIXED REALITY

PROBLEM 1

VR Ascendant?

The outlook is mixed.

Got …

Google has put Virtual Reality in your pocket!

Got…

Then you have VR.

Recent ArticlesShanon Marks – MU/DAI

Joe Sokhol - Regular Joe Consulting

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN INFORMATION STOPS BEING POLITE … AND STARTS BEING REAL?

Battle for users attention in virtual environments.

Information needs arise out of user interactions.

Jamie

There has to be a way to unlock the door…what is it?

Taylor

Why can’t I find what I need?

Jean

I have to replace that couch before Tuesday!

THE IMMERSION SPECTRUMPROBLEM 2

VR Headset Comparison

Information and image from Newatlas.com

Left image from slide deck by Samantha Starmer

DOING THINGS WITH PRESENCE

PRESENCE IS MORE THAN JUST BEING THERE. – MALCOM FORBES

Presence!Huh?What is it good for?Absolutely everything!

A small sample of named concepts in Information Architecture:

• Affordance• Channel• Content• Context• Data• Ecosystem• Experience• Facet

• Frame• Information• Interface• Meaning• Navigation• Placemaking• User• Etc.

We know what it is to be a body in space.

THINKING ABOUT TIME

FINDING PRESENCE

Cognitive Walk Through

Formative Tests

Demo and Interview

Is exactly what it sounds like.

Heuristic Guidelines

Post Experience Questionnaires

Eye Tracking

Resources from the ISPRhttps://ispr.info/about-presence-2/tools-to-measure-presence/ispr-measures-compendium/

TOOLS AND TAKEAWAYS

Example

LANDS, HUBS, AND WIENIES: PLACEMAKING LESSONS FROM THE MAGIC

KINGDOM

Focusing Question:• How does this enhance the users

sense of presence?

Make information findable at a glance.

The Return of the Paperclip

Recap• Define Presence • Theoretical problems with the lack of a concept of presence

in virtual, mixed, and augmented• The problems of multiple immersion factors in virtual reality

and mixed reality devices• How presence effects the practice of information architecture• Using measures and tests to discover presence in virtual and

mixed reality• Tools can be used to facilitate presence and avoiding the

presence Noid

T. Zachary Frazier

PhD Student at University of South Carolina

Research focuses on information behavior and creativity in design

Twitter: @wildbookchase

THANK YOU!FIN

Thank You!• A special thanks to: The IA Summit Committee,

Adam Polansky, all those who encouraged me to submit, the Dutchess, Jessica Dame, Dr. Samantha K. Hastings, Dr. Chuck Curran, Dr. Paul Solomon, George Shaw, Dr. R. David Lankes, The School of Library and Information Science at The University of South Carolina for their financial support, and I am sure the IMLS was involved in this somehow.

Further ReadingBachelard, G., Danielewski, M. Z., & Kearney, R. (2014). The Poetics of Space. (M.

Jolas, Trans.) (Revised ed. edition). Penguin Classics.Barfield, W., & Furness, T. A. (1995). Virtual environments and advanced interface

design. New York: Oxford University Press.Benedikt, M. (1994). Cyberspace: first steps. Cambridge, Mass. [u.a.: MIT Press.*Hinton, A. (2015). Understanding context: environment, language, and information

architecture.Michael Heim. (1994). The Metaphysics of Virtual Reality. New York: Oxford

University Press.Waterworth, J. A., & Hoshi, K. (2016). Human-experiential design of presence in

everyday blended reality: living in the here and now.

*Added based on advice from an audience member

ReferencesAre there standard metrics to measure “immersion” or “presence?” • r/virtualreality. (n.d.). Retrieved March 29, 2017, from

https://www.reddit.com/r/virtualreality/comments/2s6tpd/are_there_standard_metrics_to_measure_immersion/Barfield, W., Zeltzer, D., Sheridan, T., & Slater, M. (1995). Presence and perfomance within virtual environments. In W. Barfield & T. A. Furness (Eds.), Virtual environments and advanced interface design (pp.

473–513). New York: Oxford University Press.Belkin, N. J. (1980). Anomalous states of knowledge as a basis for information-retrieval. Canadian Journal of Information Science-Revue Canadienne Des Sciences De L Information, 5(MAY), 133–143.Bowman, D. A., Gabbard, J. L., & Hix, D. (2002). A survey of usability evaluation in virtual environments: classification and comparison of methods. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 11(4),

404–424.Brookecamarsh. (2013, March 5). Lynch’s Five Elements. Retrieved from https://bcamarsharchi525.wordpress.com/2013/03/05/lynchs-five-elements/Cole, C. (2012). Information Need: A Theory Connecting Information Search to Knowledge Formation (first printing). Medford, New Jersey: Information Today, Inc.Grasset, R., Mulloni, A., Billinghurst, M., & Schmalstieg, D. (2011). Navigation techniques in augmented and mixed reality: Crossing the virtuality continuum. In Handbook of Augmented Reality (pp. 379–407).

Springer.Hinton, A. (2015). Understanding context: environment, language, and information architecture.Ibáñez, J., & Delgado-Mata, C. (2011). Lessons from research on interaction with virtual environments. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 34(1), 268–281.Jorge Arango. (2016, May). Lands, Hubbs, and Wienies: Placemaking lessons from the magic kingdom. Presented at the IA Summit, Atlanta. Retrieved from http://2016.iasummit.org/schedule/1321/lands-

hubs-and-wienies-placemaking-lessons-from-magic-kingdomLynch, K. (9999). The image of the city. The MIT Press.ISPR. (2009, October 12). Prence Defined [website]Retrieved March 29, 2017, from https://ispr.info/about-presence-2/about-presence/Modjeska, D., & Waterworth, J. (2000). Effects of desktop 3D world design on user navigation and search performance. In Information Visualization, 2000. Proceedings. IEEE International Conference on (pp.

215–220). IEEE.Murray, C. D., Fox, J., & Pettifer, S. (2007). Absorption, dissociation, locus of control and presence in virtual reality. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1347–1354.Nash, E. B., Edwards, G. W., Thompson, J. A., & Barfield, W. (2000). A review of presence and performance in virtual environments. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 12(1), 1–41.Riva, G., Davide, F., & IJsselsteijn, W. (2003). 7 Measuring Presence: Subjective, Behavioral and Physiological Methods. Being There: Concepts, Effects and Measurement of User Presence in Synthetic

Environments, 110–118.Schuemie, M. J., Van Der Straaten, P., Krijn, M., & Van Der Mast, C. A. (2001). Research on presence in virtual reality: A survey. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 4(2), 183–201.Slater, M., & Wilbur, S. (1997). A framework for immersive virtual environments (FIVE): Speculations on the role of presence in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 6(6),

603–616.Waterworth, J. A., & Hoshi, K. (2016). Human-experiential design of presence in everyday blended reality: living in the here and now.Witmer, B. G., & Singer, M. F. (1994). Measuring presence in virtual environments. DTIC Document.Witmer, B. G., & Singer, M. J. (1998). Measuring presence in virtual environments: A presence questionnaire. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 7(3), 225–240.

Image Citations by Slide Number1. Vincepal. (2009). Existence 1 [Photo]. Retrieved from https://www.flickr.com/photos/vincepal/3526479580/ 2. 1041uuu. (2016). cityscape 豊井祐太 [GIF]. Retrieved from http://1041uuu.tumblr.com/post/1199240629083. Microsoft Research (2012). Chronozoom [Still Image from Video] Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXLnEvSw4SU 4. Technologies, I. S. for L. (2007). A 16mm jacket dupe microfiche. Retrieved from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Microfiche_card.JPG5. Unknown. (1922). English: Portrait of H. G. Wells. Retrieved from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Portrait_of_H._G._Wells.jpg 5. Office of Emergency Management. (n.d.). Portrait of Vannevar Bush [photo]. Retrieved from https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasciculus:Vannevar_Bush_portrait.jpg6.. Low., L. (2006). Augmented reality. Retrieved from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Augmented_reality_-_heads_up_display_concept.jpg

Image Citations 27. Gizmodo Japan. (2017). Holo Lens Gate [GIF]. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/gizmodojapan/status/841231523227553794/photo/1 8. Pixabay. (2012). Free stock photo of boy, books, brown [Photo]. Retrieved from https://www.pexels.com/photo/books-boy-brown-children-267595/ 9. Oberger, B. (2016). English: Pokémon Go på Träskända gård i Esbo, Finland [Photo]. Retrieved from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pokemon_Go_Tr%C3%A4sk%C3%A4nda_g%C3%A5rd.jpg 10. Vincepal. (2009). Existence 1 [Photo]. Retrieved from https://www.flickr.com/photos/vincepal/3526479580/11. Stenger, N. (2012). English: Stenger with VPL gear. Retrieved from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nicole_Stenger_Virtual_Reality.jpg 12. Magritte, R. (1929). The treachery of images [Painting]. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_of_Images#/media/File:MagrittePipe.jpg

Image Citations 313. Daderot. (2012). English: Exhibit in the Arppeanum, Helsinki, Finland. Photography was permitted in the museum without restriction[Photo]. Retrieved from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chemistry_laboratory_-_Arppeanum_-_DSC05242.JPG 15. 20th Century Fox UK. (2009) Avatar Splash Image. Retrieved from http://www.fox.co.uk/avatar16. Frazier, T. (2017) Presence/Immersion Venn Diagram.18. Herek, S. (1989) Still from Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure [Still Image from Motion Picture]. Retrieved from http://www.lightsremoteaction.com/2014/10/top-5-films-featuring-keanu-reeves.html24. Arhn.eu. (2016). Historia konsoli Virtual Boy – Time warp [Still Image from Video]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lvBJUF8psU 25. Dalbéra, J.-P. (2016). Le casque HoloLens de Microsoft (Salon Viva Technology, Paris) [Photo]. Retrieved from https://www.flickr.com/photos/dalbera/27951552382/

Image Citations 426. Heavy. (2016) VR gifts [Image]. Retrieved from https://heavyeditorial.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/vr-gifts.jpg?quality=65&strip=all 27. Viking9173. (2012). English: The most classical android. Retrieved from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Android_sample.svg 27. Janoff, O. R. (1978). Deutsch: Logo des Unternehmens Apple Inc.English: Logo of the company Apple Inc.Français : Logo de la société Apple Inc.Українська: Логотип компанії Apple Inc.Hrvatski: Logo tvrtke Apple. Retrieved from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Apple_logo_black.svg 28. Evan-Amos. (2015). A Google Cardboard VR headset, shown assembled and with a phone (iPhone 6s) in the visor slot. Made as a cheap, open standard by Google to encourage use and development of Virtual Reality, Google Cardboard is an inexpensive container and plastic lenses designed to turn a phone or small tablet into a VR headset. This particular model came free with the New York Times as part of a promotion on November 8th, 2015. Retrieved from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Google-Cardboard.jpg 29. Nikotaf. (2016). Ελληνικά: Javascript badge. Retrieved from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Javascript_badge.svg 30. ModzillaVR (n.d.) WebVR Logo. Retrieved from https://www.xda-developers.com/webvr-and-gamepad-apis-are-available-in-androids-chrome-56-beta-channel/

Image Citations 531. Anonymous.(n.d). Shanon Marks [Photo]. Retrieved from https://ideamensch.com/shanon-marks/31. Anonymous. (2017). Joe Hololens [Photo]. Retrieved from http://interactions.acm.org/blog/view/from-stereoscopes-to-holograms-the-latest-interaction-design-platform 33. Clip Art Library. (n.d.) Tug of War. [Clip Art]. Retrieved fromhttp://clipart-library.com/clipart/6ir5dkd4T.htm 34. Davidson, S., Gambrell, D., & Pearce A. (2015). Banner Devider 2. [GIF]. Retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-click-fraud/35. Nam Nguyen. (n.d.) Fail. [GIF]. Retrieved from http://gph.is/1Zy2dDX 36. Anonymous (n.d.) Wifi Banner 1 [Clip Art]. Retrieved from http://www.activistpost.com/2016/07/smart-meter-wi-fi-microwave-radiation-information-consumers-need-know.html

Image Citations 637. Microsoft Researcher. (n.d.). Hololens Design Environment [Still image from video]38. Maurizio Pesce. (2015). Razer OSVR Open-Source Virtual Reality for Gaming. [Photo]. Retrieved from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Razer_OSVR_Open-Source_Virtual_Reality_for_Gaming_(16863422875).jpg 39. Anonymous. (n.d.) Syren Screen Grab. [Screen Capture]. Retrieved from http://virtualrealityonestopshop.com/2017/02/syren-review/40. Vogt, Kristin. (2016). Women Wearing Black Fedora Hat. [Stock Image]. Retrieved from https://www.pexels.com/photo/fashion-woman-outside-hat-68721/41. K Zero. (2007). House of Sweden Screen Capture. Retrieved fromhttp://www.kzero.co.uk/blog/the-second-house-of-sweden/ 42. Pohorecki, Roman. (2014) Hiker on Mountain. [Stock Image]. Retrieved from https://www.pexels.com/photo/hiker-mountain-person-15390/

Image Citations 743. Anonymous (2016). Wayfair demo. [Photo] Retrieved from: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601664/how-stores-will-use-augmented-reality-to-make-you-buy-more-stuff/ 44. Wired. (2016). Turning off. [Image] Retrieved from https://www.wired.com/2014/02/outsourcing-humanity-apps/ 46. Heavy.com. (2016). VR Comparison 2016 B 2. Retrieved from http://heavy.com/tech/2016/11/top-best-vr-headset-virtual-reality-oculus-rift-htc-vive-christmas-gifts-gaming-guide-review/ 46. Heavy.com. (2016). VR Comparison 2016 B 22. Retrieved from http://heavy.com/tech/2016/11/top-best-vr-headset-virtual-reality-oculus-rift-htc-vive-christmas-gifts-gaming-guide-review/ 47. Starmer, S., (2016). Cross Channel User Experience. [Slide]https://www.slideshare.net/sstarmer/uxi-workshop-scrubbed-light/15-omni_channel_experience_B_A 47. Anonymous (n.d.) Responsive Web Design. [Image]

Image Citations 851. Garreta, D. A. (2011). Meat Boy [Photo]. Retrieved from https://www.flickr.com/photos/parap/5439408794/ 52. Keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk (n.d.). Keep Calm it’s just Wibbly Wobbly Timey Whimey. [Poster] http://www.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/p/keep-calm-its-just-wibbly-wobbly-timey-wimey-stuff-2/53. 55. Enslin, R. (2009). CCF storyboard (visitor registration) [Photo]. Retrieved from https://www.flickr.com/photos/doos/4174319172/56. Chan C. C. (2010) ST13 Figure 5.5 [Image]. Retrieved from https://www.flickr.com/photos/rosenfeldmedia/445997822457. Loong, L. H. (2016). English: Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong trying out a VR headset. Retrieved from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Prime_Minister_Lee_Hsien_Loong_VR_headset.jpg

Image Citations 958. Jurvetson, S. (2015). Elon Musk interview at Stanford FutureFest [Photo]. Retrieved from https://www.flickr.com/photos/jurvetson/23625744202/59. Alverez, J. (n.d) Checklist. [Clip Art] Retrieved from https://clipartfest.com/download/f21a5cd25c94f77d9c165eb2e0e8a66ffa86ef4c.html 60.Anonymus. (2001). Homepage Usability: 50 websites deconstructed. [Bookcover] https://www.nngroup.com/books/homepage-usability/ 61. Tungilik. (2014). English: This is a online survey/questionnaire/quiz icon/logo. Retrieved from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Online_Survey_Icon_or_logo.svg 62. Anonymous (2017) SMI Social Eye GIF. [GIF] Retrieved from http://www.coolwearable.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/16/gaze.gif 65. Anonymous (1960). The image of the city. [Book Cover] retrieved from http://a.co/cSRJmz

Image Citations 1066. Lynch K. (1960) Image of the city elements. [Illustration]. retrieved from https://bcamarsharchi525.wordpress.com/2013/03/05/lynchs-five-elements/ 67. Euro IA Summit. (2016). Jorge Arango. [Photo]. retrieved from http://2016.euroia.org/sessions/lands-hubs-and-wienies 68. Anonymous. (n.d.). Avoid the Noid. [Image]. Retrieved from http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/theflophouse/images/3/3c/Avoid_the_noid_1000x1000.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20141102010009 70. Anonymous (2015). Aaron’s Talk 2. [Screen Capture]. retrieved from http://www.roadtovr.com/convrge-social-vr-experience-notes-from-the-forest/ 71. Dikun, N. (2015). Valid.JPG. [Image]. Retrieved from http://nadikun.com/user-friendly-form-validation/72. Anonymous. (2016). Hyper-Reality. [Still image from video]

Image Citations 1173. Anonymous (n.d.) Pip Boy. [Image]. Retrieved from http://www.applegazette.com/apple-watch/gear-up-for-fallout-4-with-a-pip-boy-apple-watch/ 74. . Atteberry, K. (n.d.) Clippit the Paperclip. [Image]. Retrieved from https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3C6mvFWQAQuted.jpg 76. Dame, J. (2016). Zachary Frazier 1 [Photo]76. University of South Carolina., (2015). [College of Information and Communication Logo]. Retrieved from http://www.sc.edu/study/colleges_schools/cic/about/news/whats_in_a_name.php#.WNS3XxIrJE4

Copyright notice• This presentation is an educational

work. Images reproduced within this presentation are displayed in conjunction with the fair use doctrine. When possible the images are cited. Copyright remains with the creators of the image, or image owners.