# End-Users' Augmented Reality Utilization for Architectural Design Review
## 4 Results
### User Acceptability  
As shown in Table 5, the results show that AR has the highest technology acceptance level across all factors for user acceptability, except for physical comfort. The results indicate that AR was the most physically demanding, while VR was the most mentally demanding. Subjects revealed that the 2D screen was less physically demanding compared to AR and VR, which requires users to wear the device on their head. Mental demand was noticeable with the VR device, with a mean value of 3.3, and the 2D screen was rated better than AR with a mean value of 2.2 and 2.0, respectively. Although the dizziness level was different for each individual, most felt dizzy in the VR environment. However, the difference was insignificant between VR and AR in regard to the physical demand because both systems require an HMD. Moreover, AR subjects were required to walk around while wearing the device on their head to review the model, which is physically demanding.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline  & **2D Screen** & **VR** & **AR** \\ \hline Physical Comfort & 2.10 (0.74) & 2.20 (1.03) & 2.40 (0.97) \\ \hline Mental Comfort & 2.20 (0.92) & 3.30 (1.16) & 2.00 (0.67) \\ \hline Perceived Usefulness & 4.08 (0.66) & 4.13 (1.11) & 4.30 (0.88) \\ \hline Perceived Ease of Use & 3.38 (1.00) & 3.63 (1.15) & 4.28 (0.88) \\ \hline User Satisfaction & 3.97 (0.72) & 3.90 (0.92) & 4.43 (0.77) \\ \hline Behavioral Intention & 3.90 (0.86) & 4.00 (1.15) & 4.60 (0.52) \\ \hline \end{tabular} Note: Mean (standard deviation).  
\end{table}
Table 5: User acceptability.  
Figure 4: Quality of visual presentation with the 2D screen, VR, and AR.  
Although the difference between the three systems for perceived usefulness is not readily noticeable, users recognized that AR (M = 4.3) was better than VR (M = 4.0) and the 2D screen (M = 4.1). Perceived usefulness included four components: performance, productivity, usefulness, and effectiveness. Users perceived that the AR system was the most useful for design review as it improved their performance and efficiency. However, VR was rated as having the highest level of productivity with a mean value of 4.1. For perceived ease of use, subjects felt that AR was the easiest to use compared to VR and the 2D screen. This was predictable, as AR reviewers were only required to wear the device and walk around the deployed model to perform the design review. However, VR reviewers had to walk around the virtual environment using a keyboard to navigate, while 2D screen reviewers used a keyboard and mouse to review the model. Consequently, AR had the highest mean value for all factors, and VR recorded a higher mean than the 2D screen for the learning, skillful, and controlling factors (Figure 5). In addition, interacting with the model in the system was deemed to be more comfortable using the 2D screen compared to VR.  
The mean user satisfaction score was distinctively higher with AR (M = 4.43) than the 2D screen (M = 3.97) and VR (M = 3.90). The results were similar to user confidence and the industry quality factors (shown in Figure 5). The high mental demand of the VR system might have affected system satisfaction, although it provided high visual presentation quality. Lastly, the behavioral intention results were higher with the AR system (M = 4.6), while the VR system (M = 4.0) was slightly higher than the 2D screen system (M = 3.9). This could be interpreted as the users being more willing to use the AR system for aesthetic design review since they were most satisfied with the AR method in terms of both visual presentation quality and technical acceptance level.  
Figure 5: User acceptability with the 2D screen, VR, and AR.