# End-Users' Augmented Reality Utilization for Architectural Design Review
## 4 Results  
### Quality of Visual Presentation  
Table 4 summarizes the subjects' responses on the quality of visual presentation in terms of color, texture, size/location, naturalness, and scale of the 3D BIM model during design review using the 2D screen, VR, and AR. Overall, subjects responded by saying that AR provided better visual presentation quality, specifically for texture, size/location, and naturalness, compared to the 2D screen and VR. However, the color of the 3D BIM model was best presented in VR and subjects felt a better sense of scale with the 2D screen compared to other systems.  
The color and texture were measured using three factors: ease of recognition, realism level, and satisfaction level. VR (M = 4.27) presented the color of the model better than the AR (M = 4.20) and 2D screen systems (M = 3.73). Specifically, VR received the highest score for color recognition and satisfaction compared to AR and the 2D screen (Figure 4). It was reported that the color was presented more realistically and vividly in both VR and AR (M = 4.0) compared to the 2D screen system (M = 3.4). In terms of texture review, different to the color, the AR environment obtained the highest mean value of 4.17 compared to the VR and 2D screen environments, with a value of 3.83 and 3.50, respectively. The distinct rating is shown in Figure 4, in that the model deployed through AR was the most realistic and satisfactory, followed by VR and the 2D screen. On the other hand, VR was better for texture recognition (M = 4.1) than AR (M = 3.9) and 2D screen (M = 3.7). While AR and VR had higher ratings in terms of color and texture presentation than the 2D screen system, it is noticeable that AR performed better in providing more realistic color and texture than the other two methods.  
Test subjects were asked to review the ease of size and location recognition of specific building elements (e.g., windows and doors). Size recognition was better in AR (M = 4.8) than with the 2D screen (M = 4.3) or VR (M = 4.2), and the position of elements was also better recognized using AR (M = 4.8) than VR (M = 4.0) and the 2D screen (M = 4.3). The naturalness data shows the order of the three different types (Figure 4). The AR system (M = 4.2) was deemed to be the most natural, followed by VR (M = 3.8) and then the 2D screen (M = 3.5). This implies that VR is presented more naturally than the AR system for the design review task. Participants were required to review not only exterior features but also an indoor space of the model. Two front doors of the building were opened so that 2D screen and AR users could see inside. VR subjects were able to directly walk through the indoor area, while 2D screen users could go inside the area by using zoom in and rotate functions. AR users were only able to review through windows and open doors. Although VR users were able to go inside, the results show that the 2D screen (M = 3.6) was better than AR (M = 3.4) and VR (M = 3.4) in terms of space recognition. Furthermore, users were satisfied most with the 2D screen to review the area (M = 4.1), followed by AR (M = 3.9) and VR (M = 3.8). Some students using the VR system remarked that while reviewing the indoor area, they needed to move their head around, which made them feel dizzy. This discomfort was reflected in the results.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  & **2D Screen** & **VR** & **AR** \\ \hline Color & 3.73 (0.74) & 4.27 (0.78) & 4.20 (0.92) \\ \hline Texture & 3.50 (0.90) & 3.83 (0.87) & 4.17 (0.91) \\ \hline Size/Location & 4.27 (0.64) & 4.20 (0.66) & 4.63 (0.72) \\ \hline Naturalness & 3.50 (0.97) & 3.80 (1.03) & 4.20 (0.63) \\ \hline Scale & 3.85 (0.81) & 3.60 (1.10) & 3.70 (0.96) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: Mean (standard deviation).  
\end{table}
Table 4: Visual presentation quality.