## 5 Testing, Results, and Analysis
### Analysis and Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Experience Zone** &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Interaction** \\ **Object** \\ \end{tabular} & **Expert \#1** & **Expert \#2** & **Expert \#3** & **Expert \#4** & **Expert \#5** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Secondary bedroom} & Door frame & No & No & No & No & No \\  & Walls & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & No \\  & Furniture & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & No \\  & Doors & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & No \\  & Door frame & No & No & No & No & No \\  & Walls & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & No \\ Small bedroom & Furniture & Yes & Yes & Yes & No & No \\  & Doors & No & No & No & No & No \\ Circulation hallway & Walls & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 9: _Cont._For example, the frequent collisions observed at the bathroom door frame--reported across all expert participants--suggest that the minimum width of 0.9 m defined by regulations may not be sufficient in practice. A potential design adjustment, such as increasing the width to 1.0 m or reconsidering door swing direction, could be evaluated using this tool. While this study does not aim to prescribe specific architectural changes, these insights demonstrate the tool's capacity to identify accessibility issues and guide future design decisions. The emphasis remains on validating the methodology and immersive framework as a replicable approach for evaluating functional accessibility in circulation areas. The analysis of the results from the heatmaps and collision tables revealed that areas with a higher number of dwell points frequently coincided with zones where collisions were most prevalent. Rather than applying statistical tests--which are not appropriate given  
Figure 13: Heatmaps of movement during testing—Stage 2. (**a**) Floor plan of the house—Stage 2, (**b**) heatmap of Expert #1 in House 2, (**c**) heatmap of Expert #2 in House 2, (**d**) heatmap of Expert #3 in House 2, (**e**) heatmap of Expert #4 in House 2; (**f**) heatmap of Expert #5 in House 2.  
the limited number of expert participants--this study adopted a triangulated analytical approach to evaluate potential design limitations. This approach integrated three key elements: (1) spatial data derived from the heatmaps (recorded every three seconds), (2) the quantitative record of collisions across each room and element, and (3) qualitative insights provided by the experts during and after the VR experience. Through this integrated analysis, a consistent pattern emerged: areas with extended dwell time, such as the bathroom and small bedrooms, were also the locations with the most frequent collision events. These same zones were independently highlighted by multiple experts as spaces where circulation and maneuverability posed significant challenges. For instance, in the bathroom, narrow transfer zones and constrained turning areas resulted in extended task duration and repeated contact with environmental elements. These findings suggest that increased time spent in specific areas may be indicative of underlying design limitations that hinder autonomous mobility and task execution. Additionally, the non-linear nature of the simulation allowed users to navigate the space freely, resulting in variation in user paths and time spent across scenarios. This design choice, while promoting immersion and natural behavior, also contributed to differences in collision frequency among participants. It is also worth noting that one expert (Expert #5) was unable to complete the full experience due to low familiarity with VR technology, slightly reducing the comparative depth of the data set. The qualitative results are presented in Figures 14-16. These reflect the perceptions of the five experts in the areas of experience realism, the accessibility of the universally accessible housing (UAH), user experience, and symptoms experienced by the experts due to the use of the virtual reality tool.