## 5 Evaluation  
The evaluation of the artifact took place in two dimensions:  
* Analysis of workload indices (NASA-TLX pre- and post-experiment tests);
* Evaluation of the behavioral intention to use the technology. Figure 12: Tangible board demonstration—Sheet 3. To assess the acceptance, intention, and use of the technology, as well as the workload, an empirical study was conducted using the artifact. The study was carried out in two scenography companies in Recife--Balaarte (Recife, Brazil) and Ceno Mais (Recife, Brazil). Four evaluations were conducted in one scenography, and two evaluations in the other. The data were compiled as a single evaluation group, comprising a total of six participants in this final evaluation. In each scenography, activities of reading and interpreting the TD were carried out for the evaluation designed for the use of Augmented TD--the mediation tool. The evaluation sessions were recorded or documented in the form of images and videos, respecting the users' comfort regarding the recording methods. In addition to observations, acceptance, intention, and technology usage questionnaires were administered to the participants, as well as the NASA TLX, to obtain specific data in a systematic manner. The following describes the empirical evaluations carried out in the scenography environments. Subsequently, the evaluated data are presented. The evaluation involved participants from different sectors of scenography, such as executive management, production coordination, carpentry, machine control, and 3D modeling. Each participant was instructed to read and interpret the Augmented TD, which included the proposed study piece--a plywood chair executed with CNC Routter. The four physical forms in A3 format were provided to each participant in their respective work environment for observation and behavioral analysis of their interactions with the artifact. The first 30 s of reading and manipulation of each sheet were narratively guided to help participants understand the tool's usage possibilities and the different types of applied AR. The A3 format forms were well accepted due to the better dimension of the information contained, compared to the conventional A4 format used in the environment. In general, conventional form readings were quickly performed by participants when compared to exploration using AR triggers, due to the novelty effect [16] and the work factor [17] of using the platform. One of the most frequently used features of the platform to assist in understanding the chair project was the use of AR to verify the real size of the model and comprehend the purpose of the product, which also encompasses the structural and functional perception of the model. It was observed that all participants had little to no prior experience with AR technology. Therefore, brief instructions were provided on the interaction gestures to position, rotate, and scale the object in AR. Sheet 2--Orthographic Views received positive feedback from participants due to the fact that it displayed the TD itself in AR. This allowed them to scale the physical form to the desired dimension and interact with the animated 3D model on top of it. Participants responded positively to the technique of viewing and pausing the model animation, stating that it facilitated memorizing the relationships of each object side to the TD. The exploration of the exploded model in AR preferably involved placing it on the floor rather than the table, considering the distance between the model items. Participants also used this configuration to better understand the product's fittings, as the animated stages did not have labeling of the components. The direct hand interaction approach using the tangible board in Sheets 3 and 4 made a great impression on the participants, with positive feedback and comments about the ease of manipulating the 3D model, exploring it from any angle--it was even considered easier than on-screen interaction, which was also possible in Sheets 1 and 3.