## 6 Practical Application and Results
### Prototyping and Evaluation
#### 6.4.2 Simulation Testing
Overall, the developed AR and MR interfaces effectively enabled participants to achieve the higher levels of SA: level 2--comprehension and level 3--projection. The [PERSON]'s exact test was used to assess whether the AR and MR interfaces differed significantly in achieving SA. This nonparametric test was suitable for the experimental design, which involved two independent conditions (AR and MR) and categorical outcomes with a small sample size. Table 9 presents the test results, showing that all _p_-values exceed 0.05, indicating no statistically significant differences between AR and MR in enabling SA for the addressed goal. Although Figure 9 visually suggests some differences between AR and MR results, these differences were not statistically significant and cannot be confidently attributed to the type of immersive interface used. SAGAT identifies the design concepts that need improvement to better support SA. In this regard, low-scored SA requirements from queries 5, 6, 8, and 9 in Figure 9 were analyzed and amendments were proposed. Starting with the \"name of the constraint not removed\", the AR interface presented this information in a drop-down box displaying the constraint's name and details. However, apart from color, no major format distinguished the constraint's name from other SA requirements. Similarly, in MR, only color differentiated the constraint's name from the rest of the text in the information box. To improve visibility, the visualization design concept should emphasize the constraint's name by using distinctive techniques, such as the use of bold or larger text and icons, among others. Additionally, fixing it at one point in the box would aid the user to see the constraint name constantly. Regarding the \"estimated removal date\", both AR and MR interfaces displayed this information next to the scheduled removal date. This might have confused participants when selecting the correct one. To address this issue, the dates could be separated. The \"estimated removal date\", which is the new proposed date for constraint removal, could be included in the \"comments on the constraint removal\" along with any contextual details supporting the estimated removal date. The \"comment on the constraint removal\" in the MR interface was displayed as a paragraph, sometimes occupying much of the information box. It may have caused information overload, hindering participants from quickly understanding the idea. A better approach could be to display key comments as bullet points. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c} \hline \hline
**Query** & _p_**-Value** \\ \hline
1. Constraint’s current status & 0.500 \\
2. Name of the planned task on review & 1.000 \\
3. Number of constraints removed & 0.500 \\
4. Number of constraints not removed & 0.661 \\
5. Name of the constraint not removed & 0.352 \\
6. Estimated removal date & 0.500 \\
7. Type/nature of the constraint & 0.500 \\
8. Comments on the constraint removal & 0.126 \\
9. Name of the individual responsible & 0.500 \\
10. Reliability in the responsible of the constraint & 0.500 \\
11. Probability of removing constraint in time & 0.324 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: statistically significant difference when \(p\) < 0.05.  
\end{table} 
Table 9: [PERSON]’s exact test results—AR versus MR.  
Lastly, participants had difficulty in recalling the \"name of the responsible individual for the constraint removal\" in both interfaces. This may be due to the nature of this SA requirement, as it aims to activate the field manager's mental schema on the reliability of the responsible individual by reading their name, which is easier in real construction scenarios. Adding a photograph could facilitate this process. These proposed changes were included in the design matrix for further prototyping and evaluation.