## 5 Discussions
### [Objective #2] Do Users Have Preferred Gesture Types Depending on TV and XR Environments? The findings of this study indicated that based on the UEQ-S-derived UX scores, notable differences among gesture types were predominantly evident in the case of mid-air gestures (Table 5). However, significant variations emerged when examining the participants' rank order preferences for gesture types in specific environmental contexts (Figure 9). Specifically, the participants showed the highest preference for the Surface-Touch gesture in the TV environment, whereas the mid-air gesture was most preferred in the XR environment. Conversely, the mid-air gesture received the lowest evaluations in the TV environment, and notably, the Surface-Touch gesture was least favored in the XR environment. Such contrasts were further reflected in the qualitative user experiential insights gathered from the participant interviews (see \"Related Interviews\" in Table 8). For instance, participant [P06] commented, \"There seems to be a substantial spatial difference between TV and XR environments, influencing gesture preferences. For TV environments, comfortable gestures for a lean-back situation are preferable, whereas in XR environments, gestures enabling more active selection and manipulation of virtual objects are relatively preferred.\" Also, further analytical commentary by participant [P15] highlighted that the flat, two-dimensional nature of the TV environment naturally aligns with the Surface-Touch gesture. In contrast, participant [P15] commented that gestures utilizing a three-dimensional spatial sense, such as the mid-air gesture, appeared more intuitive and fitting for the XR environment due to its inherent spatial characteristics. Additionally, the participant preferences indicated a clear inclination towards using multiple gesture types rather than a single type exclusively, depending on the given context (Figure 14). Specifically, the majority of the participants preferred mixed usage of gesture types across both environments--over 80% in the TV environment and more than 60% in the XR environment. These findings suggest that users do not rigidly adhere to one gesture type but instead adaptively combine multiple types based on their personal physical comfort and contextual needs. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c p{142.3 pt}} \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Analysis Results and Participant Feedback**} \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Analysis Results} & In the TV environment, all indicators of the UEQ-S showed significance (see Section 4.1), whereas in the XR environment, significance was found only in the hedonic dimension (see Section 4.2). \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Related Interviews} & [P23] “XR makes me feel like my movements become larger compared to TV. Maybe that’s why the gesture interaction experience feels different between TV and XR.” \\ \cline{2-3}  & [P25] “We’re so used to the remote control when using a TV, so gestures feel awkward. But with XR, there’s no pre-learned control method, so using gestures felt more natural and comfortable.” \\ \cline{2-3}  & [P26] “I think the difference in gesture interaction experience comes from the contrast between the flat surface of the TV and the spatial aspect of XR.” \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Analysis results and related interview answers for Objective #1. These findings suggest the following considerations for gesture interface design and future UX research:  
1. Environment-specific gesture design is crucial. Developing gestures optimized for each unique environmental context will significantly enhance user experiences. 2. Consideration of spatial awareness is necessary. Gesture designs must thoughtfully incorporate the characteristics of the interaction space, effectively utilizing either two-dimensional or three-dimensional elements according to the specific environmental setting. 3. UX research should examine both categorical preferences and usage behavior, including combinations and context-based adaptations.