## 3 Results
### Case Study 2: VR Interface  
The participants' main information is as follows: 40.00% of the participants were female, while the remaining 60.00% were male. This work aimed to cover a wide age range, including 10.00% under 18 years old, 10.00% between 18 and 40 years old, 30.00% between 40 and 55 years old, 40.00% between 55 and 70 years old, and 10.00% over 70 years old. In terms of education level, 40.00% indicated basic studies, 50.00% indicated bachelor's studies, and 10.00% indicated post-graduate studies. Moreover, 60.00% of the participants reported previous experience with metaverse services, while the remaining 40.00% had no experience. Additionally, 70.00% of the participants mentioned using the internet (websites, apps, etc.) habitually to organize their trips, while 30.00% indicated organizing trips without internet usage. As for guided visits during trips, only 20.00% of the participants always used them, 70.00% occasionally used them, and 10.00% never used them. Finally, 10.00% of the participants reported being users of PC peripheral devices such as keyboards, mice, joysticks, gamepads, etc., while 90.00% occasionally or never used such devices.  
Figure 4 illustrates the results of the PQ. Specifically, for participants who used the VR interface, Figure 4 displays the mean standard deviation for each PQ question, while Figure 4 shows the total percentage for each PQ subscale.  
Note that the Involvement score was 78.00%, indicating that participants were properly immersed in the virtual reality environment and participated well in it. The Sensor Fidelity score was 84.05%, signifying that participants could observe from multiple perspectives and interact with the elements of the virtual environment readily and with no issues. Notably, participants using the VR-based interface seemed to have greater ease of interaction compared to those using the PC-based interface. The Immersion score was  
Figure 5: SUS results (mean and standard deviation) for case studies 1 and 2. (**a**) Case study 1. (**b**) Case study 2.  
84.29% for PC-based participants, suggesting that participants quickly and easily adapted to the virtual environments, enabling them to perform tasks without distractions. However, the Interface Quality score was 59.52%, indicating that users perceived some failures or malfunctions in the applications during tasks. This can be attributed to the relative novelty and unfamiliarity of many participants with VR interfaces. While VR headsets offer a unique immersive experience, navigating through these platforms can be challenging for those not accustomed to them. Particularly, using controllers to move within virtual space can be disorienting for new participants. Unlike PC interfaces, which most people have been using for years, VR interfaces require a completely different form of interaction that takes time to learn and master. This learning curve can lead to perceived errors or malfunctions in the application during tasks, affecting the Interface Quality score.  
With respect to the SUS questionnaire, the global perceived usability was 78.25 out of 100 (min: 52.5, max: 100; SD: 13.02), indicating that the proposed interfaces have achieved a good level of usability. Figure 5 presents the results obtained for the SUS questions, see Table 3.  
Most users expressed a willingness to frequently use this interface and found it easy to use. As before, they also felt that the functionalities of the interface are well integrated. Additionally, the users felt confident using the interface and found it consistent.