## 6 Conclusions  
The influence of the product display technology on user perceptions is a common topic in the literature. Yet beyond the perception of a displayed product's features, the convenience of using certain technologies or others may also depend on the usage properties of technologies themselves. In this work, a comparative analysis of the perception of usage properties in different product display technologies was conducted to provide insights for the purpose of user experience optimisation. The scope of this study is highlighted: 12 usage properties classified into four types (functionality, usability, pleasure, and media) were considered, for which the perception of their importance and their assessment in five display product technologies (image rendering, 360\({}^{\circ}\) rotation display, augmented reality, and non-immersive and immersive virtual reality) were studied. Two common and well-known objects but with very different design features were chosen, which made distinguishing their influence on the perceptions of usage properties possible. The usage properties considered to be the most important ones were mostly the functional and reliable ones and were related to a realistic, useful, and comfortable representation. It is highlighted that of the seven most valued properties in terms of importance, significant differences were detected only in three of them. With lesser attached importance came the media and fun properties, for which more significant differences were detected. The 360\({}^{\circ}\) rotation technology obtained notable results for various usage properties, especially for the functionality and usability ones. Immersive virtual reality had good results for media properties and also for _Realism_. Therefore, the general recommendation is similar to that of [PERSON] et al. (2016), who recommended 360\({}^{\circ}\) rotation when looking for general, and not specific, use, while immersive virtual reality seemed better for subjective experiences, but recommendations were based on the perception of product features. It should be noted that the number of significant differences found between technologies based on usage properties is bigger than those identified in [PERSON] et al. (2016) for the same technologies, based on product features' perceptions. This may provide an idea of the importance of considering the perception of usage properties, and not only that of product features, when selecting a display technology to obtain an optimal result. Although fewer significant differences were expected to be identified per product, due to the smaller sample size, differences were occasionally detected between technologies in some properties for the sideboard and were not globally manifested for both products. Additionally, the augmented reality technology stood out for the number of significant differences identified on the usage properties' ratings, depending on product type. These results suggest that further work into the analysis of the influence of usage properties depending on the displayed product type is recommended. No differences were detected between technologies for their influence on either the final decision or user expectations. In any case, the development of technologies may vary some results because these technologies are constantly evolving, and their usage properties continually improve. This study has some limitations. Participants did not use all the technologies considered, but the sample was divided between AR and VR users, so in some analyses, it was not possible to use the data for the entire sample. Considering two different products also causes a limitation in this study. This could have had an influence when finding significant differences. Finally, it should be considered that new display technologies constantly improve their properties, so these results should be verified in the future.