## 3 Results  
### Importance and Perception of Product Design Features  
Regarding participants' experience with the use of display techniques, the most used was 360\({}^{\circ}\) rotation. Only 15.6% of participants said they had never used it. Most of them (36.4%) had used it \"Sometimes\", and 26% had used it \"Often\" or \"Very often\". AR and i_VR were the least-used technologies. Regarding AR, 42.9% said they had never used it, and only 3.9% said they used it often. In relation to i_VR, 67.5% had never used it, and no participant declared they used it often. In contrast, ni_VR was often used by 15.6%, and 57.4% said they had used it once, twice, or had never used it. Table 4 (shaded columns) shows descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) of the importance ratings on the perception of product features. The following columns show the statistics for the assessment achieved by each technique in the perception of each design feature. The last row contains the mean values achieved by each technique in the perception of all the features. According to the participants' assessment, the most important feature to be perceived is the dimensions and general shape of the product, with a high consensus (small SD value), followed by its quality, appeal, and mode of use (all of them with an average importance rating above 4). However, in these features, the diversity in the opinions increases since the SD value does the same. Analyzing the importance provided to perceptions depending on the type of product used in the study, the results of the Mann-Whitney U test show that a significant difference \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Ratings**} & & & & \\ \cline{2-13}  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Importance**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**2D**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**360\({}^{\circ}\)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**AR**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**ni_VR**} & & & \\ \cline{2-13}  & **M** & **SD** & **M** & **SD** & **M** & **SD** & **M** & **SD** & **M** & **SD** & **M** & **SD** \\ \hline
**Dimensions and shape** & 4.62 & 0.54 & 3.81 & 0.74 & 3.92 & 0.84 & 3.78 & 1.17 & 3.63 & 0.75 & 3.67 & 1.12 \\
**Weight** & 3.66 & 0.86 & 3.25 & 0.85 & 3.48 & 0.84 & 3.56 & 1.00 & 3.47 & 0.65 & 3.61 & 0.77 \\
**Materials** & 3.96 & 0.83 & 3.79 & 0.91 & 3.84 & 0.78 & 3.56 & 1.00 & 3.55 & 0.72 & 3.69 & 0.89 \\
**Color** & 3.77 & 1.02 & 4.16 & 0.81 & 4.04 & 0.70 & 3.83 & 0.88 & 3.84 & 0.75 & 3.86 & 0.68 \\
**Finishes** & 3.95 & 0.79 & 3.75 & 0.96 & 3.79 & 0.88 & 3.78 & 0.87 & 3.45 & 0.76 & 3.50 & 1.06 \\
**Details** & 3.75 & 0.83 & 3.73 & 0.93 & 4.04 & 0.85 & 3.67 & 0.93 & 3.08 & 1.19 & 3.22 & 1.31 \\
**Mode of use** & 4.06 & 0.93 & 3.81 & 1.04 & 3.82 & 0.96 & 3.94 & 0.92 & 3.61 & 0.92 & 3.86 & 1.20 \\
**Reliability** & 3.92 & 0.91 & 3.23 & 0.89 & 3.49 & 0.75 & 3.47 & 0.88 & 3.34 & 0.71 & 3.61 & 0.87 \\
**Quality** & 4.42 & 0.65 & 3.68 & 0.98 & 3.71 & 0.79 & 3.47 & 0.84 & 3.50 & 0.80 & 3.69 & 0.95 \\
**Appeal** & 4.27 & 0.82 & 4.09 & 0.99 & 3.88 & 0.95 & 4.03 & 0.84 & 4.11 & 0.69 & 4.33 & 0.76 \\ \hline
**MEAN** & & & 3.73 & 3.80 & 3.71 & 3.56 & 3.71 & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Statistics about the importance of perceiving product features and the level of perception achieved with each technology. The largest mean value in each row is shown in bold and in a green box, while the smallest one is in italics and in a red box. (U = 916.0, \(p\) = 0.047) is only seen for the importance of the perception \"Quality\", which is considered more important by the participants who interacted with the gooseneck lamp (Figure 7). Regarding the ratings of the technologies on each feature, the mean rating values range between 3.08 and 4.33; that is, perceptions are mostly rated between \"Neutral\" and \"Good\".