## 3 Results  
We analyzed the value given to each of the statements described on the Table 2 and decided to compare the users based on their background (professionals and students) and within each group, by gender (female and male) to see if there are any differences, as previous work [44] has proved that there is a significant difference between these factors. In the present study, we only chose users that were related to the architectural field. Separating professionals from students, we then separated them by gender. In both groups (male and female) of the professional group, statement #5 obtained the lowest value in both groups, while statements #8 and #3 shared the next lowest value (Figure 6). However, the highest values were different. Male users valued statements #4, #  
To estimate the probability that profiles by group are significantly similar, we used the Student's \(t\)-test ([PERSON], 1908), using a null hypothesis (H\({}_{0}\)) that stated that there were no differences in scores between groups. Statistical significance (two-tailed) obtained was \(p=0.2812\), which exceeded the threshold of 0.05, which meant a low probability that the responses based on gender for the professional users were different.  
Comparing both groups there were no significant differences. It was barely noticeable that 80% of the statements obtained a higher valuation from the male group, where statements #2 and #3 are the exceptions, were more valued by women (Figure 7). The lowest values were found in the statement #5 with a global average of 4.10 (SD: 0.79) followed by #8 with an average of 4.19 (SD: 0.78), while at the opposite end with averages of 4.51 (SD: 0.66) and 4.49 (SD: 0.77), we found statements #9 and #4).  
In the students' group and comparing the global results between male and female students, we did not find a significative difference (\(p=0.8262\)) either, see Figure 8.  
The lowest values was in statement #8 with a global average of 3.55 (SD: 0.99) followed by #9 with an average of 3.63 (SD: 0.90), while at the opposite end we found statements #6 and #7 with averages of 4.16 (SD: 0.74) and 4.01 (SD: 0.68)), as shown in Figure 9.  
Figure 8: Answers of males and females in the students’ group.  
Figure 7: Comparison between male, female and global results in the professionals’ group.  
When we grouped all professionals together and all students together, the first relevant fact was that the differences between the two groups were statistically significant (\(p=0.000\)), which indicated that both groups had clearly differentiated responses as shown in Figure 10.  
The global level for the professionals surveyed, regardless of gender, stood at 4.44 (SD: 0.12), while for students, the overall value was significantly lower (Av: 3.82, SD: 0.19). While the lowest values were grouped into the statements #5 and #8 for both groups, confirming these statements as the perceived ones of less importance and impact at both the educational and professional level. The highest values were distributed differently between groups, being #9 (statement with the greatest difference between groups, of 0.87 points) and #4 for professionals and #6 and #7 for students. The statements were more similar as averages (both with differences that were not statistically significant).  
Differences by gender from the same age group were minimal, and there was no gender gap in the use and potential perceived utility of the systems studied, as well as the improvement for compression of the space. However, the age gap was very clear. Professionals saw these systems with great potential and usefulness, while students still did not value them.