## 3 Methodology  
This section provides an overview of the research methodology adopted in this study. It describes the systematic approach taken, detailing the planning, data collection, and analysis. By outlining each stage, the methodology illustrates how the research was structured to achieve the study's objectives in five distinct phases:  
* **Phase 1--Preparation:** This initial step involved defining the core research objectives, reviewing related studies, and structuring the questionnaire. The goal was to outline the research questions and ensure that the questionnaire was thoughtfully designed to collect the necessary data. * **Phase 2--Questionnaire:** In this phase, the questionnaire was created, using Google Forms [32] to design and distribute the digital survey. Each question was crafted to try to align it with the research objectives. * **Phase 3--Dissemination:** This phase involved disseminating the survey link through social media messages and in-person requests for participation. The survey was also shared in class with students to further extend its reach. * **Phase 4--Data Analysis:** Once the survey responses were collected, we began the data analysis. Using statistical methods, we examined the data to identify patterns and insights that addressed the research questions. * **Phase 5--Reporting and Documentation:** Finally, we compiled the results of our data analysis, drew conclusions, and interpreted the significance of the findings. This study examined user perceptions of privacy protection strategies in AR using a primarily quantitative research approach, supplemented with qualitative analysis. The aim was to explore user preferences, experiences, and concerns regarding visual obfuscation techniques in AR contexts. The research methodology was structured to address three primary research questions. We sought to identify how different obfuscation techniques (masking, pixelation, and blurring) affect user experience in AR applications. Additionally, we aimed to explore the relationship between demographics (age, education, and occupation) and the perceived security of different obfuscation methods. Finally, we explored the relationship between the level of familiarity with AR and the acceptance of different obfuscation methods. The survey was implemented using Google Forms and was thoughtfully structured with four distinct sections: demographic user information, privacy and obfuscation awareness, obfuscation technique preference in an AR context, and the adoption and application of obfuscation techniques. These built upon each other to provide a comprehensive understanding of user preferences and perceptions. **Demographic information. ** The first section of the SafeAR questionnaire gathered demographic information from participants, including gender identity, age, education level, and current occupation. The questions are visualized in the Appendix in Table A1; these demographic data were essential for analyzing how different population segments perceive and accept various privacy protection methods. Also, questions related to smartphone usage at work and prior AR experience were included to assess participants' familiarity with technology, which could influence their acceptance of and engagement with AR solutions. **Privacy and obfuscation awareness. ** The second section of the questionnaire, detailed in the Appendix in Table A2, focused on participants' habits, concerns, and knowledge related to privacy and obfuscation techniques. This section was designed to capture both behavioral data and awareness levels, providing insight into how participants handle privacy when sharing visual content online and their familiarity with methods used to protect that privacy. Participants were inquired about their prior knowledge of different obfuscation methods and their awareness of potential security vulnerabilities in these techniques. **Obfuscation technique preference in an AR context.