## 5 Discussion
Therefore, it can be concluded that 360\({}^{\circ}\) and i_VR are the technologies with the most notable results, while perceptions with 360\({}^{\circ}\) rotation are related to functionality, and they do so for i_VR with more emotional aspects. However, it should be highlighted that more significant differences were detected between display technologies for their usage properties than in terms of perceiving a product's features [16]. This should be corroborated in future work because it could mean that users' choice of one display system or another may depend more on the way the display itself is used than on the product to be displayed. Furthermore, the obtained results could depend on the product type, as it was considered in the second part of the research question RQ1. This means that although moresignificant differences were detected in the usage properties between technologies globally than for product type, given the larger sample size, significant differences were detected in _Realism_ and _Usefulness_ for the sideboard and not for both products globally. Therefore, further study should be conducted to analyse the influence of the displayed product type on the assessment of technology properties. The differences found in the perception of properties depending on the specific product were detected especially for the AR technology. The presentation of the gooseneck lamp by the AR technology was perceived as being less realistic, useful, easy, and comfortable than the sideboard. This could be because the sideboard is a large product that must be placed on the ground, while the gooseneck lamp is much smaller and is usually located on a higher surface, such as a table, and close to other elements, such as pencils or a laptop, which could make it difficult to adjust the image by the AR technology. In any case, although the gooseneck lamp location for its correct display may be more complicated, the relation with the other image elements can make size adjustment more accurate. Thus, [PERSON] et al. [16] pointed out that the users who had viewed the sideboard by AR after viewing the real product detected a higher proportion (>80%) of differences in the dimensions between the product perceived with the display technologies and the real one than the users who had displayed the gooseneck lamp. Slightly less than 60% detected significant differences between the dimensions perceived by technologies and the real product. By way of conclusion, the adequacy of a technology's usage properties may also depend on the shown product's features. No significant differences were observed between technologies in the assessments of affective indicators _Decision_ and _Expectations_, which could be related to the lower importance that users attach to more subjective properties because they preferred functionality. Consequently, the answer to the research question RQ3 could not be obtained. One of the main contributions of this work is the presentation of a comparative study of an unusual breadth: five different display technologies were compared across 12 usage properties belonging to 4 different types. This comparison considered not only the assessment but also the level of importance given by the participants to each of them. Two additional variables were taken into account regarding decision and expectations. Additionally, the results obtained confirm that the study of perceptions achieved through display technologies should consider both those generated from the design characteristics of the displayed product and those arising from the usage properties of the technologies. In fact, the characteristics and breadth of this study allow its results to complement those obtained by [PERSON] et al. [16]. As seen in both studies, 360\({}^{\circ}\) rotation stands out as a versatile and multipurpose technology, while i_VR is particularly suitable in some applications, such as in the perception of _Appeal_ or in properties related to media characteristics and _Fun_.