# The Usability Testing of VR Interface
## 4 Results and Discussion
### Usability Analysis: QUIS  
A QUIS was used in this paper to realize the subjects' satisfaction with the interface after using the three kinds of interfaces. The scale is measured by five-point Likert scale, where the score closest to 5 means that the subject is more satisfied and the score closest to 1 means the subject is more dissatisfied. QUIS was adopted to understand the differences among the three interfaces based on overall response, interface representation, interface information, and learnability. ANOVA statistical results are shown in Table 4 and Figure 2. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Group** & **Google Street View** & **VeeR VR** & **Sites in VR** \\ \hline Overall response & 4.03 (0.72) & 3.37 (1.00) & 4.03 (0.89) \\ \hline Interface representation & 3.97 (0.72) & 3.33 (1.06) & 3.97 (1.03) \\ \hline Interface information & 3.60 (0.72) & 3.07 (1.01) & 3.83 (0.87) \\ \hline Interface learnability & 4.30 (0.88) & 3.80 (0.96) & 4.13 (0.86) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Mean and standard deviation of Questionnaire for User Interaction Satisfaction (QUIS). (Standard deviation listed in brackets. Likert scale 1–5). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Items** & **Gender** & **Amount** & **Percentage (\%)** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Gender} & Male & 15 & 50\% \\ \cline{2-4}  & Female & 15 & 50\% \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Education} & University & 25 & 83.3\% \\ \cline{2-4}  & Institution & 5 & 16.7\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Questionnaire population structure table. The statistical results of these four usability measures are described as follows:  
_Overall Response:_ The mean result of this item in the interfaces of Google Street View and Sites in VR tended to be positive (M > 4), whereas that of VeeR VR tended to be negative (M < 4), as shown in Figure 2. The results of the ANOVA showed a significance relationship between VeeR VR and the other two interfaces, whereas no significance was observed between Google Street View and Sites in VR. No difference was also observed between these two interfaces in terms of the overall response, and both were significantly higher than VeeR VR, as illustrated in Table 5. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Overall response**} \\ \hline
**Significance** & **Google Street View** & **VeeR VR** & **Sites in VR** \\ \hline Google Street View & & 0.016 * & 1.000 \\ \hline VeeR VR & 0.016 * & & 0.016 * \\ \hline Sites in VR & 1.000 & 0.016 * & \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Interface representation**} \\ \hline Significance & Google Street View & VeeR VR & Sites in VR \\ \hline Google Street View & & 0.040 * & 1.000 \\ \hline VeeR VR & 0.040 * & & 0.040 * \\ \hline Sites in VR & 1.000 & 0.040 * & \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Interface information**} \\ \hline Significance & Google Street View & VeeR VR & Sites in VR \\ \hline Google Street View & & 0.069 & 0.591 \\ \hline VeeR VR & 0.069 & & 0.005 * \\ \hline Sites in VR & 0.591 & 0.005 * & \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Interface learnability**} \\ \hline Significance & Google Street View & VeeR VR & Sites in VR \\ \hline Google Street View & & 0.105 & 0.774 \\ \hline VeeR VR & 0.105 & & 0.362 \\ \hline Sites in VR & 0.774 & 0.362 & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* represents statistical difference; \(p<0.05\).  
\end{table} 
Table 5: Post-hoc test of QUIS: The significance among the three interfaces. Figure 2: QUIS comparison of the three interfaces (unit: Points; five-point Likert scale). Interface Representation:The mean result of this item in the interfaces of Google Street View, VeeR VR, and Sites in VR tended to be negative (M \(<\) 4), as shown as Figure 2. The results of the ANOVA showed a significant relationship between VeeR VR and the other two interfaces, whereas no significant relationship was found between Google Street View and Sites in VR.