Organización del Talento Humano de ETRAMAY S.A

6.1 Recap of prototype

results

The results of the prototype test reveal several aspects that can be improved for this training specifically, however these improvements show no serious shortcomings relating to the bigger design choices made in chapter 3. The choices made can serve as a solid foundation for further iterations, to eventually allow the simulation to be integrated in the training curriculum.

The main choices made during the development of the fire-safety training were based on the UX model posited in chapter 2. Throughout the project, this model served as a useful framework to base choices on for a coherent and pleasant user experience. Single-button interaction with controllers was chosen to allow for as much freedom as possible, while still keeping the interaction feel as natural as possible. As a consequence, many virtual objects had to be simplified and redesigned. Although the current prototype solved several of this challenges in a satisfying manner,

98

further development and testing is required to fully allow for the benefits of single-button interaction to flourish for this training.

For this project, the UX model was applied to provide a basis for the fire-safety training. The model should however be more generally applicable. The following section will discuss several possible changes in outcomes when applying the model to different circumstances, to further illustrate the value of the model.

6.2 Discussion

One of the main choices made for this project was the interaction interface. The choice was made to use out-of-the-box controllers and single-button interaction. These choices were possible due to the aim of the training. In case the training had a different goal, a different interaction interface might have been a more logical choice.

In case the operation of the equipment had to be taken into account in the training, this would result in other aspects, such as fine motor skills and haptic feedback, having to play a bigger role in the simulation. One option would be to invest a significant amount of resources in hardware that could accurately emulate these sensory aspects. Another, conclusion could be to step away from a strictly VR solution, and move more towards an AR solution, where strictly natural interaction with the equipment would be possible. A solution tending towards this direction would obviously also come with its own problems and limitations, requiring exhaustive analysis and iteration to overcome.

Chapter 6 - Future Implementation

When briefly attempting to apply the UX model to a different training, different conclusions can be drawn. One of the trainings developed parallel to the fire-safety training at KLM is a jet bridge training. The goal of this training was to train personnel to connect a jet bridge to an aircraft. The jet bridge is operated through a control panel (as seen in Fig.69), with joysticks and buttons to control the speed and direction of the jet bridge. Assuming the interaction with the control panel occurs similar to operating the controls when driving a car, kinaesthetic feedback plays a big part in operation. Normally a driver is able to shift gears almost entirely based on the resistance the gearshift gives. This frees up the visual system for digesting

other information. In this case, immersion needs to be increased to incorporate this kind of feedback to fulfil the user’s expactations. With this solution, a fully physical environment is not needed, as the interactions are confined to the control panel. The rest of the simulation could be mostly audiovisual feedback as VR would allow the trainee to see the entire tarmac (a large environment) within a training room (a small environment).

6.3 Important lessons

One of the main lessons of this project is that blindly striving to maximise immersion and fidelity is not enough to provide a pleasant user experience. Current VR devices and software are technologically not yet in a stage where they can sufficiently emulate the real world, so balanced compromises have to be made in the areas where they lack. These compromises should always be made with the goal of the simulation in mind.

Referring to the proposed solutions as virtual reality should also be reconsidered, as it may be too restricting. For this project the solution to smooth the transition between real world and virtual world should technically be classified as augmented reality. The term Extended reality (XR) encompasses a more broad definition that may be a better fit for future expansion.

Finally, although the UX model provides a framework for making design choices, a lot of testing is still required to validate the assumptions made about the user’s

expectations. The test results can then be used to iterate on the simulation and maximize the overall experience.

99

6.4 Shared conclusions

This section will discuss how the results of this project relate to the results of Jasper Westenbroek’s project. It is a common conclusion written by both parties together. One of the main conclusions of J.

Westenbroek’s project is that the code and assets should be built in a reusable manner. One of T.V. Simons’ main conclusions is that the interaction design should be re-evaluated per training. These two results conflict with each other, considering the fact that J. Westenbroek recommends the re-use of components for future training applications, while T.V. Simons suggests redesigning important components of the simulation completely.

However, considering that this conflict has already occurred throughout the course of the fire-safety project, it is possible to find compromises that can overcome this conflict in a satisfactory manner. In the current prototype, a code library (VRTK [33]) was used that served

100

as a base to develop specific interactions in the form of modular assets. In case a different interaction design concept would have to be applied in future development, such libraries allow developers to regress to a more abstract version of the asset and continue from there, without having to rebuild it from scratch. Conversely, trainings which have a similar goal to the fire safety training, i.e. practicing protocols, can easily reuse the assets built for this training.

A second conclusion of T.V. Simons is that in order to maximize the user experience of a VR simulation, it may be beneficial to purposefully reduce realism in order to allow for more natural interaction in line with users’ expectations. This is complementary to J. Westenbroek’s conclusion on modularity, as a simpler implementation of interactions is able to be applied in a more generic way across the simulation.

An example of this is the choice for tomato presence to solve the problem of hand-object orientation. This concept removes the need for the reorientation of the hand or object when grabbing. In the latter case, pairs of hand- object poses (as were seen in Fig.47) should be incorporated in the simulation, while tomato

presence removes this need by hiding the hand model. This way generic grab behaviour can be applied to all interactable objects, making the entire simulation more modular.

This section was written in collaboration with J. Westenbroek

Chapter 6 - Future Implementation

101

C