# An ARCore-Based Augmented Reality Campus Navigation System
## 6 Evaluation
### Results and Analysis  
For the purpose of determining the differences between the proposed mobile AR-based system and traditional media, five levels of the Likert rating scale (Extremely satisfied (5 score), very satisfied (4 score), somewhat satisfied (3 score), not so satisfied (2 score) and not at all satisfied (1 score)) were applied to each assessment question. After the students finished the questionnaire, the agreement rate of user experience is calculated. For example, fourteen people chose somewhat satisfied (3 score), and sixteen people chose very satisfied (4 score). Considering that the max score is 5 and that there were 30 people in total, the performance score is computed as \((14\times 3+16\times 4)/(30\times 5)\ \approx 71\%\). Statistical tests were also used to search for differences between four different groups. Here, the \(t\)-test is used to judge whether significant differences exist between group A and group C for outdoor navigation. As showed in Figure 10a, for outdoor campus navigation, five conclusions are obtained as follows:  
* It is encouraging that more than 71% of participants in each group agreed that the proposed system was better than conventional media in all five aspects;
* Freshmen possess superior evaluation than senior students for outdoor campus navigation in all aspects, which may be attributed to the fact that freshmen are not as familiar with the campus layout, resulting in increased reliance on the outdoor campus navigation system;
* The demand for the outdoor campus navigation system was not urgent by the senior students, which may be due to the fact that they are more familiar with the campus layout and are not completely dependent on the navigation system.
* The \(p\)-values of the attitudes towards aesthetic and interactive for group A and C are greater than 0.05, suggesting that the difference of the above aspects between group A and C is insignificant;
* The \(p\)-values of the attitudes related to efficiency, usability and recommendationality for group A and C are greater than 0.01 and smaller than 0.05, indicating that the difference of the above aspects between group A and C is significant.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Group A** & **Group B** & **Group C** & **Group D** \\ \hline Participant & 30 & 30 & 30 & 30 \\ Freshman & No & No & Yes & Yes \\ Navigation & AR Outdoor & AR Indoor & AR Outdoor & AR Indoor \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: The differences between Group A, B, C and D.  
Considering that traditional media (e.g., Gaode map) cannot provide indoor navigation, the proposed mobile AR-based system is more practical. Meanwhile, The \(t\)-test is also used to judge whether significant differences exist between group B and D for indoor navigation. As shown in Figure 10b, four conclusions are obtained as follows for indoor campus navigation:  
* It is encouraging that more than 81% of participants in each group agreed that the proposed system is better than conventional media in all five aspects;
* Not only freshmen but also senior students have higher evaluations for indoor campus navigation with respect to all aspects. Although the senior students are more familiar with the campus layout, they are not very clear about the indoor distribution, such as the exact location of the magazines and books in the library. Therefore, the differences between freshmen and senior students for the demand of indoor campus navigation system are negligible.
* The \(p\)-values of the attitudes towards usability, aesthetics, interactiveness and recommendationability for group B and D are bigger than 0.05, showing that the differences relative to the above aspects between group B and D are insignificant.
* The \(p\)-value of the attitude towards efficiency for group B and D is greater than 0.01 and smaller than 0.05, indicating that the difference relative to the above aspect between group B and D is significant.