## 5 Results
### Subjective Data  
Friedman tests showed statistically significant differences in daily use (\(Chi=14.3\), \(p=0.002\)), interaction naturalness (\(Chi=17.0\), \(p<0.001\)), interaction easiness (\(Chi=22.0\), \(p<0.001\)), interaction accuracy (\(Chi=12.2\), \(p=0.007\)), marking easiness (\(Chi=8.2\), \(p=0.039\)), and ranking (\(Chi=16.2\), \(p<0.001\)). The degrees of freedom was \(11\) in all cases. There were no significant differences in marking naturalness (\(Chi=4.8\), \(p=0.09\)) or marking accuracy (\(Chi=5.8\), \(p=0.053\)). In evaluations for tiredness, there were no significant differences (\(Chi=2.96\), \(p=0.23\), Figure 5, left). Most participants did not feel tired using any of the methods, but the experiment was rather short. In pairwise tests of everyday use using the Wilcoxon signed rank test we found significant differences (Figure 5, right). We found statistically significant differences between the mouse and controller+stylus methods (\(W=7.5\), \(p=0.015\), \(R=0.773\) (\(R\geq 0.5\) is considered a large effect size)) and between the hands and controller+stylus methods (\(W=0.0\), \(p=0.003\), \(R=1.000\)). The degrees of freedom was \(11\) in all pairs, as in all subsequent Wilcoxon signed rank tests. There were no statistically significant differences between the hands and mouse methods (\(W=16.0\), \(p=0.76\)). We asked the participants to evaluate both object manipulation and marking separately. In object manipulation evaluation, there were statistically significant differences in naturalness between controller+stylus and mouse (\(W=0.0\), \(p=0.003\), \(R=1.000\)) and controller+stylus and hands (\(W=4.0\), \(p=0.009\), \(R=0.879\)). There was no statistically significant difference between mouse and hands (\(W=10.0\), \(p=0.13\)). In object manipulation easiness, controller+stylus had a statistically significant difference between mouse and hands (\(W=0.0\), \(p=0.003\), \(R=1.000\) for both methods), see Figure 6. There were no statistically significant differences between mouse and hands (the evaluation values happened to be equal for all participants). In manipulation accuracy evaluation, we found a statistically significant difference between the controller+stylus method and hands method (\(W=0.0\), \(p=0.003\), \(R=1.000\)). There were no statistically significant differences between mouse and controller+stylus (\(W=2.5\), \(p=0.027\)) or hands and mouse (\(W=11.0\), \(p=0.32\)). In the object marking evaluation (Figure 7), the only significant difference was measured between the controller+stylus method and mouse method in easiness (\(W=0.0\), \(p=0.009\), \(R=1.000\)). There were no statistically significant differences between hands and controller+stylus (\(W=6.5\), \(p=0.053\)) or hands and mouse (\(W=20.0\), \(p=0.76\)). Figure 5: Box plot visualizations of the fatigue and daily use evaluations. The evaluation of fatigue (**left**): none of the methods were found to be particularly tiring. The evaluation of possible daily use (**right**): controller+stylus was significantly more usable for daily use than the other methods. Multiple participants commented that the controller interaction felt stable and that it was easy to move and rotate the 3D object with the controller. The participants also commented that holding a physical device in hand so that its weight could be felt increased the feel of naturalness. Not all comments agreed, and one participant felt the VR stylus was accurate while another participant said it felt clumsy. When asked, 11 out of 12 participants ranked controller+stylus the most liked method. The distribution of ranking values is shown in Table 1. The ranking values of the controller+stylus method were statistically significantly different to the mouse (\(W=4.5\), \(p=0.008\), \(R=0.885\)) and hands (\(W=0.0\), \(p=0.003\), \(R=1.000\)). There was no statistically significant difference between mouse and hands (\(W=24.0\), \(p=0.27\)). Figure 6: Box plot visualizations of the interaction method evaluations.