## 3 Results
### Usability Test Results  
Table 6 shows the means and standard deviations of the SUS scores. A high SUS score implies good usability. The ANOVA results showed that gender was a significant (\(p<0.0001\)) factor affecting the SUS score. The SUS score of male participants (66.1 \(\pm\) 15.3)  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Gender** & **AR Instruction** & **Video Instruction** & **Printed Manual** \\ \hline Female & 0.40 & 0.70 & 1.50 \\ Male & 0.27 & 0.55 & 1.18 \\ total & 0.33 * & 0.62 & 1.33 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{*}p<0.05\).  
\end{table}
Table 4: Number of errors per participant during performing the task.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Task** & **Gender** & **Instruction** & **Mean** & **SD** \\ \hline Assembly & Female & AR & 872.30 & 253.52 \\  & & Printed manual & 804.10 & 182.90 \\  & & Video & 878.90 & 257.28 \\  & Male & AR & 817.72 & 173.96 \\  & & Printed manual & 797.63 & 333.39 \\  & & Video & 678.45 & 159.66 \\ Disassembly & Female & AR & 657.90 * & 237.49 \\  & & Printed manual & 482.50 & 170.80 \\  & & Video & 404.30 & 82.99 \\  & Male & AR & 519.45 & 77.96 \\  & & Printed manual & 430.09 & 115.07 \\  & & Video & 433.18 & 112.94 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{*}p<0.05\).  
\end{table}
Table 3: Means and standard deviations (SD) of the time(s) to complete the task.  
was significantly higher than that (55.6 \(\pm\) 12.8) of female participants. The effects of instruction type were insignificant. Neither were the effects of task significant.  
The participant indicated the ease of use of the job instruction in Question 3 in the SUS. The ANOVA results of this response showed that both gender and interactions of gender and instruction were statistically significant (\(p\) < 0.05 for both). [PERSON]'s multiple range test results showed that the score of males (3.61 \(\pm\) 1.09) was significantly higher than that of females (3.18 \(\pm\) 0.83). Figure 14 shows the interaction effects of gender and job instruction on the score of ease of use.  
Question 4 in the SUS measures the need of support from a technical person to use a system. The ANOVA results of this response showed that both gender (\(p\) < 0.0001) and job instruction (\(p\) < 0.001) affected this score significantly. All other effects were insignificant.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Table**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Gender**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Instruction**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**SUS**} \\ \cline{3-5}  & & & **Mean** & **SD** \\ \hline Assembly & Females & AR & 52.00 & 12.00 \\  & & Printed manual & 52.75 & 11.87 \\  & & Video & 60.75 & 9.13 \\  & Males & AR & 63.63 & 17.04 \\  & & Printed manual & 66.59 & 15.05 \\ Disassembly & Females & Video & 67.72 & 10.98 \\  & & AR & 52.25 & 15.91 \\  & & Printed manual & 54.00 & 13.29 \\  & & Video & 62.00 & 12.57 \\  & & AR & 73.86 & 14.67 \\  & & Printed manual & 65.68 & 20.55 \\  & & Video & 71.36 & 12.61 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 6: Means and standard deviations (SD) of the SUS score.  
Figure 14: Interaction effects of gender and job instructions on the score of ease of use.  
[PERSON]'s multiple range test results indicated that the score of need of support for female participants (2.95 \(\pm\) 1.13) was significantly higher than their male counterparts (2.09 \(\pm\) 1.05). For job instruction, [PERSON]'s multiple range test results indicated that the score of need of support for AR instruction (3.05 \(\pm\) 1.03) was significantly higher than those of the printed manual (2.36 \(\pm\) 1.18) and video instruction (2.09 \(\pm\) 1.08). The difference of the score of need support between that of printed manual and video display was not significant.  
Question 10 in the SUS measures the need to learn to use a system. The only significant factor was gender (_p_ < 0.0001). The score of females (2.90 \(\pm\) 1.16) was significantly higher than that of males (1.89 \(\pm\) 1.20). Type of job instruction did not affect this score significantly.