## 3 Results
### Final Product High-Fidelity Testing (FP)  
Control vs. validity: In the real environment, social hindrances were noted in the experience. The presence of other people and contextual noise made it harder to focus on the content. When there is a group present, this might create a social barrier to entry. The participants reported that the visual effect was the same as in VR, but the feeling was different. VR felt more like a test, while real-life testing enabled full control over the environment;  
Presence and realism: The participants felt present in the final product test. The participants reported that the spatial feeling was similar in VR and real life. This scenario yielded the highest level of realism but resulted in a neutral experience due to some uncomfortable contextual factors (heat, ambient noise, etc.). The implications of the ambient noise and sunlight were also difficult to assess in VR along with contextual estimations about the real environment. All in all, it remained difficult to assess beforehand what aspects would be realistic in VR and which would not;  
\"I am not gonna say it is the same, it looks the same.\" (Expert on content creation)  
Functionality and interactivity: During the interview with the experts attention was brought to the comparison between the VR version and the final physical box. In real life, people tend to be less disoriented since they are not using teleportation as a method of displacement. This might cause the VR visualization to appear smaller than the real box.  
Some parallels between VR and real life were clear like walking past certain interfaces. A lack of understanding of the general user flow and doubts were encountered with the new interaction types;  
\"In VR everything seemed closer together and the prototype looked smaller. Also, pressing buttons made it unnatural for some people\" (Expert on project management)  
Usability: Many changes regarding content and user flow were proposed by the participants. Some tests were difficult to perform in VR, like tests with people with limited mobility or perception. For example, an experience in VR becomes almost impossible for a wheelchair user. Overall, people could perform the physical test and commented on the user-friendliness of the interactions. The functions were ready to use, and the look and feel were rated as good. In the view of the participants, VR functioned as a good teaser, but many waited until the box was delivered to form their final opinion. This means that VR can be useful for collecting insights, but it might be beneficial to follow VR tests with another more physical test;  
FP in NPD: The final product test made less sense to the participants since little changes regarding the design needed to happen. In hindsight, to some of the participants, VR seemed like an experience they had to complete. A multi-person user test should have happened in advance. The participants reported that the social aspect might have been neglected during testing. Physical testing remains the most useful. The lab in the field was criticized for requiring displacement in the initial stages of the project where it produced little findings. In real life, people share more stories and first-hand experiences.  
\"It was very noisy and warm inside. I felt more uncomfortable in real life. The VR test itself was realistic, but there might have been too little focus on the social context.\" (Participant final test)