## 4 Experiment  
This research was approved by the Ethics Committee of UFPE. The individuals who participated in the research signed the informed consent form and provided permission for the use of their image and testimonial. A total of 15 participants were involved in the research, divided into two analysis groups with distinct objectives. Group 1 consisted of nine participants and focused on the awareness stage, while Group 2 had six participants and focused on evaluating the prescribed artifact as a mediating tool. Their participation contributed to the development of heuristics and project requirements, as well as the understanding of the surrounding behavioral conjectures. The participants were professionals working in the scenographic industry, involved in theater projects, both in the production line (project execution) and in the creative activities of the sector (project development). Figure 4: Tests of the tangible board—Sheets 3 and 4. In this context, the proposed artifact was tested under conditions similar to those observed in the scenographic warehouses using the observation framework. The demonstration setup encompassed the main spatial characteristics, including natural/artificial lighting, a restricted workspace (a 75 cm support table), and evaluation periods during both day and night. Working with augmented reality in low-light environments was considered a challenge, as it could cause the virtual model to shift in the real world. Figure 5 shows the arrangement of the augmented TD, composed of four sheets printed on A3 75 g paper, along with the tangible manipulation board with a printed usable area of 20 \(\times\) 20 cm, attached to a rigid cardboard panel. The demonstration of the four sheets was performed using the Galaxy S10 Plus, with a 4G connection. The demonstration of Sheet 1--Introduction to the model--verified important parameters for the execution of AR, such as estimation of the real distance of the 3D model in scale in the real world, estimated by ARCore. This capability was confirmed by measuring the model in real size projected with a ruler placed under the object (with a margin of error of 0.5 to 1 cm). In terms of the capability to track occluded objects, the platform was able to recognize objects and surfaces with delays of 1 to 2 s when exposed in the foreground, i.e., closer than the positioning of the artifact--generally quite satisfactory. Regarding the functional integration, the artifact can (in the demonstration) maintain the  
Figure 5: Setup of the controlled environment for the experiment. same conventional reading behaviors of the physical design template, except for the fact that it is viewed through the smartphone, resulting in little change in the operating mode. Figure 6 demonstrates the use of AR for Sheet 1, visualizing the projected product in the real world, while Figure 7 demonstrates how the person manipulated the cell phone for visualization of the augmented TD. Figure 8 demonstrates the AR experience using a female reference model measuring 1.70 m. The tests positively evaluated the responsiveness of the algorithm in interpreting foreground objects, further integrating the projected 3D model and the intended use of the artifact. The use of the ergonomic reference contributed to the understanding of the product, as there was an initial perception that the artifact would be excessively smaller or in a reduced scale. Sheet 2 addressed important aspects of spatial capabilities. The folding animation of the model on the conventional sheet of the TD allowed for instruction and assistance in the assimilation process of more complex products through the tool. Figure 9 shows the static primitive interaction (rotation and scale of the projected TD) and dynamic interaction (exploration from different angles and positioning of the mobile device). Figure 6: Demonstration of Sheet 1—Introduction to the Model. Overall analysis of the product and purpose. Inference of real scale and occlusion of objects in the foreground.