## 3 Results
### Student Feedback and Reflections  
At the end of the semester, students' familiarity with the use and importance of haptic feedback had significantly increased. Much of this was attributed to the introductory lectures, where they had the opportunity to experience carefully selected interactive applications on different platforms. Most students considered haptic feedback an essential element in their projects, though one student found it distracting in certain scenarios. The general view of the students was that at the beginning of the semester, most felt that haptic feedback was not necessary, but that at that point their experience with haptic feedback was significantly less. This aligns with the assertion that the majority of people may not have enough awareness of the benefits of haptic information, and thus may not fully appreciate the contributions it can make to the VR experience [48]. Most students reported feeling comfortable using haptic feedback, although some expressed a preference for reducing its intensity in certain situations. The general consensus was that, while visual and audio feedback remained more important, well-synchronized haptic feedback enhanced the overall experience. Based on their feedback and the overall findings, it is evident that high-quality haptic effects that are realistic and aligned to events and other feedback systems enhance the transmission of the atmosphere and increase the user's sense of presence in the virtual world. Conversely, haptic effects that are not synchronized with events, or are inadequate in any sense, can have the opposite effect. They may negatively affect the experience, reduce user immersion, or even cause frustration. As shown in Figure 12, data from informal interviews conducted at the beginning and end of the semester indicate that visual elements were consistently described as the most important, with only a slight increase in perceived importance (approximately 1%). Audio feedback saw a more notable rise of 9.7%, while haptic feedback showed the most significant increase, with a 21.8% change in perceived importance. Figure 13 presents the overall user experience ratings of the haptic feedback design tool, based on informal interviews and discussions with seventeen students across three generations, consisting of five, six, and six students, respectively. The first generation showed particularly positive reactions, with all students providing extremely positive  
Figure 12: Change in students’ perception and awareness of importance of visual, audio, and haptic feedback in interactive experiences from the beginning to the end of the semester. Ratings were extracted from informal interviews. Haptic feedback showed the greatest increase in perceived importance, while visual feedback remained highly rated, with only a slight increase. feedback about the tool. It is likely that the high ratings from the first generation reflect not only their satisfaction but also their enthusiasm and appreciation for having access to such a tool, rather than being a fully objective evaluation. In subsequent generations, while the ratings and comments remained positive, they appeared more realistic. This shift may be attributed to students' higher expectations, as well as the increased complexity of their project scenarios and the more sophisticated haptic effects they aimed to implement. In the second generation, one student expressed particular dissatisfaction with the lack of functionality for nesting haptic zones, which required them to manually program the desired behavior in their project. This limitation was addressed and resolved in the version of the tool used by the next generation. All students showed positive experiences regarding the tool, its functionality, ease of use, and usability. They stated that it was easier for them to understand the theory, principles, and importance of haptic feedback for the user experience because they could experience and feel it with examples.