# Augmented Reality for PCB Component Identification and Localization
## 5 Results
### Experiment 1
#### 5.1.4. Usability and User Experience  
Qualitative Feedback: Survey responses were collected from all 10 participants after completing the localization tasks using both methods. The feedback revealed mixed perceptions regarding the usability of the AR system using HoloLens(tm). Approximately half of the participants found the system useful and intuitive, while the others expressed neutral or negative opinions. Notably, challenges with navigation and interaction were frequently reported, particularly by participants with limited or no prior exposure to augmented reality. This suggests that familiarity with AR may influence user experience, with more experienced users generally showing greater comfort and engagement with the system (see Questionnaire S1 in Supplementary Materials).  
Task Efficiency and Speed: When asked if the HoloLens(tm) system felt faster than the traditional method, participants were divided. This indicates that, while the AR-based approach offered an alternative method for component localization, it did not provide a clear advantage in terms of perceived task efficiency or speed.  
Precision and Marker Visibility: Participants generally considered the precision of the 3D markers adequate for completing the tasks. However, several suggestions for improvement were made to enhance marker visibility and usability.  
Feedback emphasized the need for the following:  
* Increasing marker size and contrast.
* Adding features like blinking or brighter colors for easier identification. Specific comments highlighted these limitations:
* \"The contrast of the designated area should be higher\".
* \"The marker should blink or shine brighter\".  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Group** & **Method** & **Mean (s)** & **Median (s)** &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Wilcoxon Test** \\ **(Statistic, \(p\)-Value)** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Entire Population (\(n\) = 10)} & Traditional & 16.61 & 10 \\  & HoloLens(tm) & 21.57 & 13.5 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Experts (\(n\) = 6)} & Traditional & 14.87 & 8 \\  & HoloLens(tm) & 23.60 & 16.5 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Non-Experts (\(n\) = 4)} & Traditional & 19.23 & 16.5 \\  & HoloLens(tm) & 18.53 & 10 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 4: Comparison of Localization Times Across Methods and Expertise.  
User Interface Challenges: The user interface was identified as a limiting factor in the system's usability. Participants reported difficulties with the digital keyboard and precise positioning of AR windows, particularly due to a lack of familiarity with AR-based interactions. Comments included the following:  
* \"It was difficult to place windows exactly where needed\".
* \"The biggest challenge was getting used to the system. Once familiar, it felt more manageable\".  
Key Areas for Improvement: Participants suggested the following enhancements to improve the system's overall usability:  
* Better marker visibility (e.g., improved size, contrast, and dynamic visual cues like blinking).
* Refinements to the interface for smoother navigation and interaction.
* Improved tools for managing AR elements like windows and input mechanisms.  
While the AR system demonstrated potential, usability challenges, particularly related to marker visibility, user interface interaction, and unfamiliarity with AR environments, limited its effectiveness. Addressing these areas through system refinements could significantly enhance its practical application and overall user experience.