skip to main content
10.1145/3311350.3347190acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pageschi-playConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Notification in VR: The Effect of Notification Placement, Task and Environment

Authors Info & Claims
Published:17 October 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

Virtual reality (VR) is commonly used for entertainment applications but is also increasingly employed for a large number of use cases such as digital prototyping or training workers. Here, VR is key to present an immersive secondary world. VR enables experiences that are close to reality, regardless of time and place. However, highly immersive VR can result in missing digital information from the real world, such as important notifications. For efficient notification presentation in VR, it is necessary to understand how notifications should be integrated in VR without breaking the immersion. Thus, we conducted a study with 24 participants to investigate notification placement in VR while playing games, learning, and solving problems. We compared placing notifications using a Head-Up Display, On-Body, Floating, and In-Situ in open, semi-open, and closed VR environments. We found significant effects of notification placement and task on how notifications are perceived in VR. Insights from our study inform the design of VR applications that support digital notifications.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

fp9022.mp4

mp4

72.4 MB

p199-rzayev.mp4

mp4

102.3 MB

References

  1. Ghassem Alaee, Amit P Deasi, Lourdes Pena-Castillo, Edward Brown, and Oscar Meruvia-Pastor. 2018. A User Study on Augmented Virtuality Using Depth Sensing Cameras for Near-Range Awareness in Immersive VR.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Esta A. Berg. 1948. A Simple Objective Technique for Measuring Flexibility in Thinking. The Journal of General Psychology 39, 1 (1948), 15--22. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221309.1948.9918159Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Ann Blandford, Dominic Furniss, and Stephann Makri. 2016. Qualitative Hci Research: Going Behind the Scenes. Morgan & Claypool Publishers. 1--115 pages. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2200/S00706ED1V01Y201602HCI034Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. John Brooke. 1996. SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale. Usability evaluation in industry 189, 194 (1996), 4--7.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Pulkit Budhiraja, Rajinder Sodhi, Brett Jones, Kevin Karsch, Brian Bailey, and David Forsyth. 2015. Where's My Drink? Enabling Peripheral Real World Interactions While Using HMDs. arXiv preprint arXiv:1502.04744 (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Soon Hau Chua, Simon T. Perrault, Denys J. C. Matthies, and Shengdong Zhao. 2016. Positioning Glass: Investigating Display Positions of Monocular Optical See-Through Head-Mounted Display. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Chinese CHI (ChineseCHI2016). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 1, 6 pages. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2948708.2948713Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Fulvio Corno, Luigi De Russis, and Teodoro Montanaro. 2017. XDN: Cross-device Framework for Custom Notifications Management. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Symposium on Engineering Interactive Computing Systems (EICS '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 57--62. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3102113.3102127Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Amit P Desai, Lourdes Pena-Castillo, and Oscar Meruvia-Pastor. 2017. A Window to Your Smartphone: Exploring Interaction and Communication in Immersive VR with Augmented Virtuality. In 14th Conference on Computer and Robot Vision (CRV '17). 217--224. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/CRV.2017.16Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Tilman Dingler, Kai Kunze, and Benjamin Outram. 2018. VR Reading UIs: Assessing Text Parameters for Reading in VR. In Extended Abstracts of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article LBW094, 6 pages. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3170427.3188695Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Thomas Gaubert. 2016. Zephyr. GitHub repository. (2016). https://github.com/ThomasGaubert/zephyr.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Ceenu George, Manuel Demmler, and Heinrich Hussmann. 2018. Intelligent Interruptions for IVR: Investigating the Interplay Between Presence, Workload and Attention. In Extended Abstracts of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article LBW511, 6 pages. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3170427.3188686Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Sarthak Ghosh, Lauren Winston, Nishant Panchal, Philippe Kimura-Thollander, Jeff Hotnog, Douglas Cheong, Gabriel Reyes, and Gregory D. Abowd. 2018. NotifiVR: Exploring Interruptions and Notifications in Virtual Reality. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 24, 4 (2018), 1447--1456. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2018.2793698Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Jeffrey I Gold, Katharine A Belmont, and David A Thomas. 2007. The neurobiology of virtual reality pain attenuation. CyberPsychology & Behavior 10, 4 (2007), 536--544.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Gunnar Harboe and Elaine M. Huang. 2015. Real-World Affinity Diagramming Practices: Bridging the Paper-Digital Gap. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 95--104. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702561Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Hsiu-Mei Huang, Ulrich Rauch, and Shu-Sheng Liaw. 2010. Investigating learners' attitudes toward virtual reality learning environments: Based on a constructivist approach. Computers & Education 55 (11 2010), 1171--1182. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.05.014Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Shamsi T. Iqbal and Brian P. Bailey. 2010. Oasis: A Framework for Linking Notification Delivery to the Perceptual Structure of Goal-directed Tasks. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 17, 4, Article 15 (Dec. 2010), 28 pages. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1879831.1879833Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Jason Jerald. 2016. The VR Book: Human-Centered Design for Virtual Reality. Association for Computing Machinery and Morgan & Claypool, New York, NY, USA.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Kohei Kanamori, Nobuchika Sakata, Tomu Tominaga, Yoshinori Hijikata, Kensuke Harada, and Kiyoshi Kiyokawa. 2018. Obstacle Avoidance Method in Real Space for Virtual Reality Immersion. In IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR '18). IEEE, 80--89. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ISMAR.2018.00033Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Anjuli Kannan, Karol Kurach, Sujith Ravi, Tobias Kaufman, Balint Miklos, Greg Corrado, Andrew Tomkins, Laszlo Lukacs, Marina Ganea, Peter Young, and Vivek Ramavajjala. 2016. Smart Reply: Automated Response Suggestion for Email. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD'16). https://arxiv.org/pdf/1606.04870v1.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Romina Kettner, Patrick Bader, Thomas Kosch, Stefan Schneegass, and Albrecht Schmidt. 2017. Towards Pressure-based Feedback for Non-stressful Tactile Notifications. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (MobileHCI '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 89, 8 pages. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3098279.3122132Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Thomas Kubitza, Alexandra Voit, Dominik Weber, and Albrecht Schmidt. 2016. An IoT Infrastructure for Ubiquitous Notifications in Intelligent Living Environments. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing: Adjunct (UbiComp '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1536--1541. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2968219.2968545Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Owlchemy Labs. 2016. Job Simulator: The 2050 Archives. Game [Microsoft Windows, PlayStation 4]. (5 April 2016). Owlchemy Labs.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Wolf & Wood Interactive Ltd. 2016. A Chair in a Room : Greenwater. Game [Microsoft Windows]. (5 April 2016). Wolf & Wood Interactive Ltd, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Mark McGill, Daniel Boland, Roderick Murray-Smith, and Stephen Brewster. 2015. A Dose of Reality: Overcoming Usability Challenges in VR Head-Mounted Displays. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2143--2152. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702382Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Jason Orlosky, Kiyoshi Kiyokawa, and Haruo Takemura. 2014. Managing Mobile Text in Head Mounted Displays: Studies on Visual Preference and Text Placement. SIGMOBILE Mob. Comput. Commun. Rev. 18, 2 (June 2014), 20--31. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2636242.2636246Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Martin Pielot, Karen Church, and Rodrigo de Oliveira. 2014. An In-situ Study of Mobile Phone Notifications. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Human-computer Interaction with Mobile Devices & Services (MobileHCI '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 233--242. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2628363.2628364Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Martin Pielot and Luz Rello. 2015. The Do Not Disturb Challenge: A Day Without Notifications. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1761--1766. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2702613.2732704Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Martin Pielot and Luz Rello. 2017. Productive, Anxious, Lonely: 24 Hours Without Push Notifications. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (MobileHCI '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 11, 11 pages. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3098279.3098526Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Martin Pielot, Amalia Vradi, and Souneil Park. 2018. Dismissed!: A Detailed Exploration of How Mobile Phone Users Handle Push Notifications. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (MobileHCI '18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 3, 11 pages. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3229434.3229445Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Elizabeth Quinn and Ian Stephen Paul Nation. 1974. Speed reading: A course for learners of English. Oxford University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Sylvia Rothe, Kim Tran, and Heinrich Hussmann. 2018. Dynamic Subtitles in Cinematic Virtual Reality. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM International Conference on Interactive Experiences for TV and Online Video (TVX '18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 209--214. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3210825.3213556Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Rufat Rzayev, Pawel W. Wo´ zniak, Tilman Dingler, and Niels Henze. 2018. Reading on Smart Glasses: The Effect of Text Position, Presentation Type and Walking. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 45, 9 pages. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173619Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Alireza Sahami Shirazi, Niels Henze, Tilman Dingler, Martin Pielot, Dominik Weber, and Albrecht Schmidt. 2014. Large-scale Assessment of Mobile Notifications. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 3055--3064. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557189Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Stefan Schneegass and Rufat Rzayev. 2016. Embodied Notifications: Implicit Notifications Through Electrical Muscle Stimulation. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services Adjunct (MobileHCI '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 954--959. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2957265.2962663Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Susan M. Schneider, Cassandra K. Kisby, and Elizabeth P. Flint. 2011. Effect of virtual reality on time perception in patients receiving chemotherapy. Supportive Care in Cancer 19, 4 (01 Apr 2011), 555--564. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00520-010-0852--7Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Guy Schofield, Gareth Beale, Nicole Beale, Martin Fell, Dawn Hadley, Jonathan Hook, Damian Murphy, Julian Richards, and Lewis Thresh. 2018. Viking VR: Designing a Virtual Reality Experience for a Museum. In Proceedings of the 2018 Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS '18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 805--815. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3196709.3196714Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Thomas Schubert, Frank Friedmann, and Holger Regenbrecht. 2001. The experience of presence: Factor analytic insights. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments 10, 3 (2001), 266--281.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Lior Shapira and Daniel Freedman. 2016. Reality Skins: Creating Immersive and Tactile Virtual Environments. In IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR '16). 115--124. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ISMAR.2016.23Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Ludwig Sidenmark, Nicolas Kiefer, and Hans Gellersen. 2019. Subtitles in Interactive Virtual Reality: Using Gaze to Address Depth Conflicts. In Workshop on Emerging Novel Input Devices and Interaction Techniques.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Adalberto L. Simeone, Eduardo Velloso, and Hans Gellersen. 2015. Substitutional Reality: Using the Physical Environment to Design Virtual Reality Experiences. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 3307--3316. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702389Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Misha Sra, Sergio Garrido-Jurado, Chris Schmandt, and Pattie Maes. 2016. Procedurally Generated Virtual Reality from 3D Reconstructed Physical Space. In Proceedings of the 22Nd ACM Conference on Virtual Reality Software and Technology (VRST '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 191--200. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2993369.2993372Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Bethesda Game Studios. 2018. The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim VR. Game [Microsoft Windows]. (3 April 2018). Bethesda Softworks.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Ubisoft and Red Storm Entertainment. 2017. Star Trek: Bridge Crew. Game [PlayStation 4, Microsoft Windows]. (30 May 2017). Ubisoft and Red Storm Entertainment.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Alexandra Voit, Tonja Machulla, Dominik Weber, Valentin Schwind, Stefan Schneegass, and Niels Henze. 2016. Exploring Notifications in Smart Home Environments. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services Adjunct (MobileHCI '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 942--947. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2957265.2962661Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Dominik Weber, Sven Mayer, Alexandra Voit, Rodrigo Ventura Fierro, and Niels Henze. 2016. Design Guidelines for Notifications on Smart TVs. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Interactive Experiences for TV and Online Video (TVX '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 13--24. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2932206.2932212Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Dominik Weber, Alireza Sahami Shirazi, and Niels Henze. 2015. Towards Smart Notifications Using Research in the Large. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services Adjunct (MobileHCI '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1117--1122. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2786567.2794334Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Dominik Weber, Alexandra Voit, Jonas Auda, Stefan Schneegass, and Niels Henze. 2018b. Snooze!: Investigating the User-defined Deferral of Mobile Notifications. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (MobileHCI '18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 2, 13 pages. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3229434.3229436Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Dominik Weber, Alexandra Voit, and Niels Henze. 2018a. Notification Log: An Open-Source Framework for Notification Research on Mobile Devices. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM International Joint Conference and 2018 International Symposium on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing and Wearable Computers (UbiComp '18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1271--1278. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3267305.3274118Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Dominik Weber, Alexandra Voit, Gisela Kollotzek, Lucas van der Vekens, Marcus Hepting, Florian Alt, and Niels Henze. 2018c. PD Notify: Investigating Personal Content on Public Displays. In Extended Abstracts of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article LBW014, 6 pages. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3170427.3188475Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. Bob G. Witmer, Christian J. Jerome, and Michael J. Singer. 2005. The Factor Structure of the Presence Questionnaire. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 14, 3 (2005), 298--312. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/105474605323384654Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Jacob O. Wobbrock, Leah Findlater, Darren Gergle, and James J. Higgins. 2011. The Aligned Rank Transform for Nonparametric Factorial Analyses Using Only Anova Procedures. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 143--146. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1978963Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. André Zenner, Marco Speicher, Sören Klingner, Donald Degraen, Florian Daiber, and Antonio Krüger. 2018. Immersive Notification Framework: Adaptive & Plausible Notifications in Virtual Reality. In Extended Abstracts of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article LBW609, 6 pages. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3170427.3188505Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Notification in VR: The Effect of Notification Placement, Task and Environment

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        CHI PLAY '19: Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play
        October 2019
        680 pages
        ISBN:9781450366885
        DOI:10.1145/3311350

        Copyright © 2019 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 17 October 2019

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        CHI PLAY '19 Paper Acceptance Rate51of181submissions,28%Overall Acceptance Rate421of1,386submissions,30%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader