## 5 Discussion  
In this work, a wide range of usage properties of display technologies was analysed, and the level of assessment and importance of the functionality, usability, pleasure, and media properties were obtained for the 2D, 360\({}^{\circ}\), AR, ni_VR, and i_VR technologies. The described results have provided a comprehensive overview of the most suitable display technologies based on the properties that we wish to prioritise. Some preliminary results have been previously shown [26]. However, the publication focused on other objectives, and only four variables were considered for four display technologies. In the present work, a much more extensive study was carried out by considering fourteen variables (twelve usage properties and two global indicators) and properties' importance for five different display technologies. First of all, regarding participants' preferences, the desire to obtain a realistic representation of the displayed object stood out, followed by other properties related to functionality and reliability. The next properties were related to usability and pleasure, while those related to media characteristics obtained scores below 4. Lastly, _Fun_ was located in the least important position. Thus, it would seem that users prioritise the achievement of properties related to the most basic levels of Jordan's pyramid [25] when perceiving an object's features. These results address the research question RQ2. When looking at the technologies that can achieve these properties, it was found that 360\({}^{\circ}\) obtained the best overall score, with the first or second score for the seven most important properties (the importance of all of them was over 4 points). Therefore, it is distinguished as a multipurpose display technology because it seems to please users with its varied properties, which are related mainly to functionality and usability. In any case, for these seven most valued properties in terms of importance, significant differences were detected only for _Angle_, _Easiness_, and _Comfort_. Regarding media properties, i_VR stood out for having the best score for _Interactivity_, _Immersivity_, and _Tangibility_ and also for _Fun_ and its use. These properties were rated with less than 4 points in importance, for which many significant differences have generally been detected, with 2D being the worst rated for properties like _Interactivity_, _Immersivity_, or _Tangibility_ but the best one for _Availability_. Although i_VR stood out in media properties, it also obtained the best score for the property considered the most important: _Realism_. Globally, 2D was the display system with the most significant differences from the other technologies. The differences found in the perceptions of the usage properties depending on the display technology answer the first part of the research question RQ1. When looking at the factors considered by the TAM [22], _Usefulness_ and _Easiness_ both obtained their highest ratings for 360\({}^{\circ}\) and 2D, while the new XR technologies had lower ratings. The ratings obtained for _Tangibility_ (in increasing order, 2D, 360\({}^{\circ}\), AR, ni_VR, and i_VR) agree with the results reported in [PERSON] et al. [24], where tangibility was assessed for three display types. The lowest rating was for pictures, followed by 360 spin rotation, and the highest rating was for virtual mirrors. Generally, the results were also related to those of [PERSON] et al. [16] because it showed that the 360\({}^{\circ}\) technology was also the most versatile and best valued by overall product perception, and also for general and detailed physical features and functional aspects (_Dimensions and Shape_, _Materials_, _Finishes_, _Details_, _Quality_). i_VR stood out especially in the perception of the aesthetic and affective dimension (_Appeal_).