## 5 Discussion
### Limitations of the Research  
The results of this pilot study should be interpreted with caution due to several methodological limitations. One of the main limitations is the relatively small number of participants, which was a consequence of the testing approach in which each respondent had to use the application in a strictly controlled environment. In particular, all participants used the same hardware and software setup and followed an identical sequence of levels and sublevels during the interaction. While this ensured consistency of test conditions, it may also have led to a learning effect as participants gradually became more familiar with the tasks, possibly leading to better performance in later sublevels. It is also important to note that none of the participants reported any form of disability, which limits the generalizability of the results to more diverse user populations.  
None of the subjects reported a noticeable delay in interacting with the application during the experiment. Given this, we conclude that latency was not a major disruptive factor in the specific context of our study. Regardless, we acknowledge that it will be important in future similar studies to systematically measure and analyze the effects of latency in applications where real-time responsiveness is important. In addition, although demographic data such as age, gender, and education level were collected, they were not included in the statistical analysis. The reason for this was the unbalanced distribution of participants across demographic groups, which limited the ability to draw valid conclusions based on these groups without risking bias or compromising the validity of the results.  
Based on their previous education and background, it can be assumed that all participants had basic computer skills and felt comfortable working with digital interfaces. Informal conversations during the study also indicated that some participants had been exposed to 3D technologies before, for example, through casual gaming, demonstration workshops, trade fairs, or similar events. However, as their experience with 3D interaction technologies was not formally recorded in the questionnaire, these parameters are not included in the analysis. In addition, only one type of hand-tracking device, the Leap Motion controller, and one type of output device, the laptop screen, were used throughout the study. Although this ensured consistency of interaction methods, it limits the transferability of the results to other XR systems with different sensors or input devices. Generalizing these results to other natural interaction technologies would require additional empirical validation.  
To better understand the influences of individual user characteristics and to support the development of universally accessible XR applications, future research should be conducted with a larger and more demographically diverse group of participants.  
Despite these limitations, we believe that these results provide valuable initial insights into how XR applications with 3D scenes and interactions can be designed to support better accessibility and usability for a wide range of users. With further research based on larger and more demographically diverse samples, the principles derived from this study could make a meaningful contribution to the development of inclusive and universally designed XR systems.