Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Procedia Computer Science 00 (2019) 000–000

ScienceDirect www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
Procedia Computer Science 172 (2020) 679–687

9th World Engineering Education Forum, WEEF 2019

Usability Principles for Augmented Reality based Kindergarten

Applications

Neha Tuli, Archana Mantri

Chitkara University Institute of Engineering and Technology,
Chitkara University, Punjab, 140401, India

Abstract

Augmented Reality (AR) overlays digital information over user’s real world. Designing and developing AR applications is a
difficult task. It involves user interface designing, content generation according to the target audience so that the application is
easy to understand, interactive, consistent and ease to use. To design these applications there are many design principles
evidenced in existing literature such as learnability, affordance, simplicity etc. However, there are no studies in the literature
which define most appropriate usability principles/guidelines for designing mobile based AR applications for kindergarten kids.
Age is a significant factor to be considered in developing applications for kids especially when it comes to interaction techniques
to be used in learning applications. The kids may not easily use and interact with the applications developed for the adults.
Therefore, there is a need to identify the principles that should be kept in mind while developing AR applications according to
the kids. The aim of our research is to develop usability principles for mobile based applications for kindergarten kids using AR.
We proposed 23 usability principles by studying the existing literature on usability, design principles for AR applications,
guidelines/principles for tangible interfaces. These principles would help other researcher and developers to create more
interactive, learnable and easy to understand AR applications for kids solving the identified usability problems.
© 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
© 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
This is an open
Peer-review access
under article under
responsibility thescientific
of the CC BY-NC-ND license
committee of the(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).
9th World Engineering Education Forum 2019.
Keywords: augmented reality; usability principles; systematic process; kindergarten

1. Introduction

Augmented Reality (AR) is an upcoming technology which augments computer generated digital data over real
world. The user can see and actively interact with the virtual data in real-time [1]. There have been a lot of
advancements in the field of AR from research and development to availability of AR/VR hardware devices to the
customers. Portable and advanced hardware equipment have evolved with better graphics, affordable size and
accurate registration leading to increasing acceptance of AR technology by the users. AR is being used in almost
every field including Engineering [2] [3], Entertainment [4] [5] and Education [6] [7]. However, there are certain

1877-0509 © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of WEEF 2019

1877-0509 © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 9th World Engineering Education Forum 2019.
10.1016/j.procs.2020.05.089
680 Neha Tuli et al. / Procedia Computer Science 172 (2020) 679–687
2 Neha Tuli, Archana Mantri / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2019) 000–000

AR user experiences and usability issues which need to resolved to make this technology widely acceptable by all
kinds of users [8]. Development of AR applications requires different design and development considerations than
traditional desktop applications. Unlike existing desktop teaching applications, mobile based AR applications face
different issues. Existing AR studies discuss the technology, cognition, performance or hardware devices but lack
the research about usability principles and user convenience [9] [10] [11]. In this paper, we have adopted a
structured approach to identify the usability principles to be considered for developing mobile based AR
applications for kindergarten kids [12].

2. Literature Review

2.1. Usability of Augmented Reality Applications

Swan and Gabbard (2005) [13] conducted their research on AR usability principles and identified only 14.3%
studies on user-centred design with respect to human computer interaction (HCI) and only 7.9% on general use. The
authors characterised user-centred AR experiments into three groups. The first group included AR experiments for
understanding user perception and recognition of AR operations. The second group included AR experiments to
measure user’s task performance. The third group included AR experiments which interacted and communicated
with Augmented Reality users. They concluded that there is a limited research in user interaction and interface
principles. In another study, the author continued the work of Swan and Gabbard and examined the AR-related
studies done till 2007 [9]. They found only 10% of 161 studies which carried user-performed AR experiments. They
identified only 41 papers on actual usability, exclusive of the literature on performance, perception and recognition.
There is insufficient knowledge on evaluating AR experiences, designing AR experiments, applying proper methods
and evaluating the experiment results [12]. The authors of another study [8] proposed the need to find the solution to
the issues of AR usability and user experience. As evidenced in their literature, there were less than 10% of the
published studies based on user study. The literature analysis conducted by the authors of another study [14] pointed
out lack of specific set of heuristics proposed for mobile based AR application.

2.2. Usability of AR applications vs traditional applications in terms of interactivity, digital learning content, device
handling etc.
AR adds digital data over user’s real world. Therefore, interaction with AR demands high motor skills, spatial
cognition, attention control and also requires different conceptualization of virtual experiences [15]. According to
the author [16], there are a lot of differences between the AR based user interface and traditional GUIs. Therefore,
we should develop a better insight to use existing usability principles. The user interface guidelines for desktop/PC
applications have limited applicability to AR due to the variations between non-AR and AR media [17] [18] [19].

2.3. Kids facing the problem of distraction, screen size, functionality, inconsistency, etc. while using mobile-based
AR applications
Age is a significant factor to be considered in developing applications for kids especially when it comes to
interaction techniques to be used in learning applications. There are 4 stages of child development as proposed by
Jean Piaget. These are sensorimotor stage (birth – year 2), preoperational stage (years 2-7), concrete operational
stage (years 7-11) and formal operations stage (age 11 and onward) [20]. There are major changes which take place
when kids shift from the pre-operational stage to the concrete operational stages. The kids learn to use their
imaginations and engage in pretend play while in the pre-operational stage [21]. They see the real-world as ego-
centric where they face difficulty in understanding other person’s view point [20] [21] [15]. In usual schools, the
kids master different concepts in different grades. Thus, the application designers should understand the usability of
target kids as per their grade levels [22] [15]. In addition, according to the development psychology, the
capabilities/abilities of kids vary a lot from the adults [21]. Therefore, the researchers stress considering these
abilities while designing learning applications for the kids [23] [24]. No other work, other than [25], identified the
usability issues experienced by the younger kids (e.g. interaction, understanding, etc.) according to the different age
groups to find how these developmental abilities affect the kid’s ability to play with AR applications. Some of the
usability issues in existing games as pointed out by various researchers are listed in Table 1.
 Neha Tuli et al. / Procedia Computer Science 172 (2020) 679–687 681
Neha Tuli, Archana Mantri / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2019) 000–000 3

Table 1. Examples of the usability issues experienced by kids.

Games/Apps Identified problems Age group (years)
Mountain Rescue [26] [17] young people can easily interact with a system that requires 6-8
holding the device with both hands. When requiring the users
to touch the screen, some issues appear
MapLens [27] users must touch virtual items on screen, indicates that users 7-50
sometimes drop the device while interacting
Spintopia [28] young users occasionally drop the device, and are inaccurate 5-6
in their pointing gestures
Puppy Plus [29] children were observed to put down the device, then perform 6-8
physical manipulation of game pieces then pick up the device
again.
Bacteria Snap [30] users generally unable to perform the interaction without 5-7
assistance

2.4. Existing principles or guidelines to be considered while designing and developing mobile AR applications for
kindergarten kids
Existing literature on application development has stressed the importance of age-appropriate design [25] [31] [32]
[33]. Table 2 highlights the existing literature on the usability of AR applications classified according to the age
factor, devices (mobile/desktop) and technology (AR/non-AR).

Table 2. Examples of the usability issues experienced by kids.

S.No. Year Reference Principles Age Smartphone/Others AR/non-
AR
1 1985 [34] Early Focus On Users, Interactive Design, Early Test, NA NA Non-AR
Users Iterative Design
2 1994 [35] Efficiency, flexibility, error prevention, visibility of the NA Web-pages Non-AR
system status, help and documentation, user control and
freedom, consistency and standards, error prevention,
match between the system and the real world, recognition
rather than recall, aesthetic and minimalistic design,
recover from errors and helping users to recognize
3 2002 [36] Distance conveyance, Selective or multiple cues, NA Computer AR
Eliminate unneeded AR motion, Define rule space, Proper
motion physics Effectiveness testing
4 2004 [37] Personalization, enjoyment, Design for limited and split NA Mobile Non-AR
attention, easy recovery, Error handling and prevention,
Reversal of actions, Design for multimodal interfaces,
Offer informative feedback, Design for “top-down”
interaction, Design for multiple and dynamic contexts,
Reducing memory load, Consistency, Enable frequent
users to use shortcuts, Design dialogs to yield closure
5 2007 [16] Affordance, User satisfaction, Error tolerance, Low NA Any AR systems AR
physical effort, Flexibility, Learnability, Feedback and
Responsiveness, Reducing cognitive overhead
6 2007 [38] Cognition facilitation, System-real world match , NA Software Non-AR
Defaults, Help and documentation, Graphic design,
Learnability, Software-user interaction, System-software
interaction, flexibility, software Consistency, Error
management, , Navigation
7 2008 [39] Consistency, Predictability, Skip non-playable content, NA Games Non-AR
Controls, Game status, Visual representations,
Customizability, Proper views, Input mappings help and
training
8 2008 [40] Familiarity, Accuracy, Efficiency, Learnability - - -
Attractiveness, Feedback, Pleasantness, Controllability,
Durability, Effectiveness, Safety, Error indication, Match
between system and real world, Simplicity, user
682 Neha Tuli et al. / Procedia Computer Science 172 (2020) 679–687
4 Neha Tuli, Archana Mantri / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2019) 000–000

satisfaction, User control, Prevention, Arrangement,

Consistency, Ease, Predictability,, Direct manipulation,
Tolerance
9 2013 [12] hierarchy, Defaults, visibility, enjoyment, multi-modality, NA Mobile AR
familiarity, Recognition, Consistency, Predictability,
Learnability, User control, Error management,
Personalization, Help and documentation, responsiveness,
feedback, direct manipulation, Low physical effort,
context-based, User-Usage, Exiting Navigation
11 2015 [41] Support procedural and semantic memory, , context- NA Smartphones AR
based, feedback about the infrastructure’s behaviour,
relevant content, content privacy
12 2015 [42] neilson+ physical comfort of use, interaction methods and - - AR
controls, information related to virtual objects,
presentation of virtual objects, relationship between
virtual objects and real world.
13 2017 [43] Fit with user environment, Minimize distraction and NA NA AR
overload, alignment of physical and virtual worlds, Fit
with user’s perceptual abilities, Accounting for hardware
capabilities, Adaptation to user position and motion, Fit
with user’s physical abilities, Accessibility of off screen
objects, Form communicates function
14 2018 [44] Reflect the Customer’s Identity, Leave Nothing to Na All Non-AR
Chance, Effortless, , Perform Tasks for the Customer,
Eliminate or Manage Wait Times, Stress-Free, Provide
Prompt, Make Choosing Easy, Consider the Emotions,
Meet Expectations, Reduce Time on Task, Increase
Convenience, Talk the Customer’s Language, Prevent
Errors, Accurate Feedback, Socially Engaging, Satisfy
Our Higher Objectives
15 2019 [14] neilson+ selection driven commands, content NA Mobile Non-AR
organisation, visual representation
1 1985 [34] Early Focus On Users, Interactive Design, Early Test, NA NA Non-AR
Users Iterative Design

Hence, we conclude that the researchers/ designers are still unclear about the usability principles to be used
to develop AR applications for kindergarten kids. The issue is due to the fact that there are no defined usability
guidelines for developing AR applications for kids. The kids also experience issues in using novel technologies due
to their developmental changes with specific ages. Therefore, it is difficult to identify whether the application
developed for adults will be easily used and accepted by the kids. Mobile based AR applications are also new to the
world. There are very limited studies investigating the usability of these applications for kids [25].

3. Development Of Usability Principles For Augmented Reality Application

In our research work we aimed to develop usability principles for mobile based AR applications for kindergarten
kids. The framework for conducting our research is shown in Fig. 1.

Step 2: Screening the Step 3: Classifying the finalised

Step 1: Collecting Usability Principles
identified Principles (Expert
Principles (Literature Review)
Meetings) (Factor Analysis)

Fig. 1. Research framework

In our study, we identified that there is a gap in the literature related to the usability principles for mobile based AR
application for kindergarten kids. Therefore, we developed usability principles for these applications. In the first
step, we conducted a literature review to collect the existing usability principles. In the second step, we conducted a
meeting with the experts to discuss and screen the identified usability principles. In the third step we classified the
 Neha Tuli et al. / Procedia Computer Science 172 (2020) 679–687 683
Neha Tuli, Archana Mantri / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2019) 000–000 5

screened usability principles based on the results of Principal Component Analysis.

3.1. Usability Principles for Augmented Reality Application

We propose the usability principles by considering the factors such as mobile based properties, age factor and AR.
For doing so, we collected the existing principles from 14 literature review of J. D. Gould and C. Lewis [34], J.
Neilson [35], A. Dϋnser et al. [16], C. Furmanski et al. [37], J. Gong and P. Tarasewich [36], B. F. Wheeler
Atkinson et al. [38], D. Pinelle et al. [39], H. J. Kim et al. [40], B. A. Kumar and M. S. Gounder et al. [14], P. E.
Kourouthanassis et al. [41], J. Kalalahti [42], T. C. Endsley [43], S. M. Ko [12]. The identified principles are listed
in the Table 3.

J. D. Gould and C. Lewis [34], proposed 4 usability principles and claimed that the applications developed by
considering these principles would attain good usability points. The principles that they proposed were: early focus
on users, interactive design, early test and user’s iterative design. In another study by J. Neilson [35], the author
proposed 10 usability heuristics including efficiency, flexibility, error prevention, etc. According to the author, the
application design would be better if it is designed according to the user understanding and tasks. The authors C.
Furmanski et al. [37] highlighted some of the issues encountered while developing AR applications and proposed
some usability principles including distance conveyance, selective or multiple cues, etc. that would help developing
effective applications. J. Gong and P. Tarasewich [36] analysed the limitations of exiting mobile applications and
proposed certain guidelines and usability principles for handheld mobile based applications. The proposed principles
are personalization, enjoyment, limited and split attention, multiple and dynamic contexts, design dialogs to yield
closure, etc. A. Dϋnser et al. [16] explored human computer interaction principles for AR based applications and
found that AR based studies primarily focused on the technology and hardware. According to their study, the
literature lacks the literature on usability principles and technical issues of AR applications. Therefore, they
suggested some design principles include affordance, user satisfaction, error tolerance, low physical effort,
flexibility in use, learnability, feedback and responsiveness, reducing cognitive overhead. B. F. Wheeler Atkinson et
al. [38] also selected 12 usability principles which can be used for designing AR based mobile applications. The
authors identified the existing literature and reorganised the overlapping and conceptually related principles. The
principles include cognition facilitation, defaults, graphic design, learnability, software-user interaction, system-
software interaction, flexibility, software consistency, help and documentation, error management, , navigation. D.
Pinelle et al. [39] studied the problems in existing 108 games and proposed new usability heuristics including
consistency, predictability, skip non-playable content, controls, game status, visual representations, customizability,
proper views, input mappings help and training. H. J. Kim et al. [40] suggested principles based on usability of
applications by analysing the existing literature on usability-related studies. Their study can be used as a starting
point for more studies related to user based mobile AR applications In their study they highlighted 25 usability
principles including accuracy, learnability, attractiveness, feedback, controllability, durability, effectiveness,
tolerance, efficiency, safety, error indication, familiarity, match between system and real world, simplicity, size, user
satisfaction, user control, prevention, arrangement, consistency, ease, predictability, direct manipulation. The
authors B. A. Kumar and M. S. Gounder et al. [14] extended the work of Neilson (1994) [35] and proposed 16 new
usability principles from the literature which would allow the researchers to identify the usability problems in the
existing developed applications and evaluate mobile learning application.

Table 3. Examples of the usability issues experienced by kids.

Reference Principles

[34] Early Focus On Users, Interactive Design, Early Test, Users Iterative Design
[35] Efficiency, flexibility, error prevention, visibility of the system status, help and documentation, user control and freedom,
consistency and standards, error prevention, match between the system and the real world, recognition rather than recall,
aesthetic and minimalistic design, recover from errors and helping users to recognize
[36] Distance conveyance, Selective or multiple cues, Eliminate unneeded AR motion, Define rule space, Proper motion physics
Effectiveness testing
[37] Personalization, enjoyment, Design for limited and split attention, easy recovery, Error handling and prevention, Reversal of
actions, Design for multimodal interfaces, Offer informative feedback, Design for “top-down” interaction, Design for multiple
and dynamic contexts, Reduce memory load, Consistency, Enable frequent users to use shortcuts, Design dialogs to yield
closure
[16] Affordance, User satisfaction, Error tolerance, Low physical effort, Flexibility in use, Learnability, Feedback and
684 Neha Tuli et al. / Procedia Computer Science 172 (2020) 679–687
6 Neha Tuli, Archana Mantri / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2019) 000–000

Responsiveness, Reducing cognitive overhead

[38] Cognition facilitation, Navigation and exiting, Defaults, Graphic design, Learnability, Software-user interaction, System-
software interaction, flexibility, software Consistency, Error management, Help and documentation
[39] Consistency, Predictability, Skip non-playable content, Controls, Game status, Visual representations, Customizability, Proper
views, Input mappings help and training
[40] Familiarity, Accuracy, Efficiency, Learnability Attractiveness, Feedback, Pleasantness, Controllability, Durability,
Effectiveness, Safety, Error indication, Match between system and real world, Simplicity, user satisfaction, User control,
Prevention, Arrangement, Consistency, Ease, Predictability,, Direct manipulation, Tolerance
[12] hierarchy, Defaults, visibility, enjoyment, multi-modality, familiarity, Recognition, Consistency, Predictability, Learnability,
User control, Error management, Personalization, Help and documentation, responsiveness, feedback, direct manipulation,
Low physical effort, context-based, User-Usage, Exiting Navigation)
[41] Support procedural and semantic memory, context-based, feedback about the infrastructure’s behaviour, relevant content,
content privacy
[42] neilson+ physical comfort of use, interaction methods and controls, information related to virtual objects, presentation of
virtual objects, relationship between virtual objects and real world.
[43] Fit with user environment, Minimize distraction and overload, alignment of physical and virtual worlds, Fit with user’s
perceptual abilities, Accounting for hardware capabilities, Adaptation to user position and motion, Fit with user’s physical
abilities, Accessibility of off screen objects, Form communicates function
[44] Reflect the Customer’s Identity, Leave Nothing to Chance, Effortless, , Perform Tasks for the Customer, Eliminate or Manage
Wait Times, Stress-Free, Provide Prompt, Make Choosing Easy, Consider the Emotions, Meet Expectations, Reduce Time on
Task, Increase Convenience, Talk the Customer’s Language, Prevent Errors, Accurate Feedback, Socially Engaging, Satisfy
Our Higher Objectives
[14] neilson+ selection driven commands, content organisation, visual representation
[34] Early Focus On Users, Interactive Design, Early Test, Users Iterative Design
[35] Efficiency, flexibility, error prevention, visibility of the system status, help and documentation, user control and freedom,
consistency and standards, error prevention, match between the system and the real world, recognition rather than recall,
aesthetic and minimalistic design, recover from errors and helping users to recognize
[36] Distance conveyance, Selective or multiple cues, Eliminate unneeded AR motion, Define rule space, Proper motion physics
Effectiveness testing
[37] Personalization, enjoyment, Design for limited and split attention, easy recovery, Error handling and prevention, Reversal of
actions, Design for multimodal interfaces, Offer informative feedback, Design for “top-down” interaction, Design for multiple
and dynamic contexts, Reduce memory load, Consistency, Enable frequent users to use shortcuts, Design dialogs to yield
closure
[16] Affordance, User satisfaction, Error tolerance, Low physical effort, Flexibility in use, Learnability, Feedback and
Responsiveness, Reducing cognitive overhead

After studying the existing literature and collecting 131 usability principles, we conducted a meeting with
10 experts having UI/UX experience of 3-4 years to discuss the standards of the collected principles. We selected 23
principles by deleting the duplicate entries and combining the related ones. Finalised Usability Principles after
deleting the duplicates and integrating the related ones are accuracy, effectiveness, efficiency, learnability, user-
satisfaction, reduce short-term memory load, support procedural and semantic memory, user-oriented,
customizability, aesthetic and minimalist design, consistency, relationship between real world and virtual objects,
multi-modality, enjoyment, Interactive design, skip non-playable content, design dialogs to yield closure, simplicity,
context-based, error management, early test, help and documentation, low physical effort.

Next, we classified the obtained principles through a classification system. 189 teachers from 10 different
kindergarten schools with 2-3 years of experience participated in the process. We identified the relationship between
the each usability principle through an inter-relationship matrix. The results were obtained from the exploratory
factor analysis test applied on the 23 obtained principles. In our paper, every factor comprised principles with factor
loading of at least 0.6. The ones with factor loading less that 0.6 is rejected. As a result of principal component
analysis (see Table 4), the principles were categorized into 4 unlike groups namely cognition, orientation, design
and support (Fig. 2). The definition of the created groups is as follows:
1. Cognition: This group includes usability principles related to cognitive and intellectual aspects which
improves thinking skills of the user like learnability, efficiency, reducing short term memory load, etc.
2. Orientation: This group includes the principles which define user’s understanding/interaction with the
application such as enjoyment, customisability, etc.
3. Design: This group includes the principles related to usage of the application by the users like interactive,
simplicity etc.
 Neha Tuli et al. / Procedia Computer Science 172 (2020) 679–687 685
Neha Tuli, Archana Mantri / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2019) 000–000 7

4. Support: This group includes the principles related to the user support including error management, early
test etc.

Table 4. Results Obtained From a Principal Component Analysis with Varimax Rotation.
Principles Components
1 2 3 4
Accuracy .867
Learnability .840
Effectiveness .831
Satisfaction .825
Efficiency .821
Reduce short-term memory load .796
Support procedural and semantic memory .702
User-oriented .825
Multi-modality .810
Aesthetic and minimalistic design .781
Consistency .717
Enjoyment .715
Customisability .683
Relationship between real world and virtual objects .647
Interactive design .896
Skip non-playable content .865
Design dialogs to yield closure .849
Simplicity .847
Context based learning .769
Help and documentation .839
Early test .828
Error management .796
Low physical effort .702
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization

Cognition Orientation Design Support

• accuracy of game content • user-oriented • interactive • error management

• effectiveness to achieve • customizability • skipable non-playable • early test
outcome • aesthetic and minimalist content • help and documentation
• efficiency to learn design • design dialogs to yield • low physical effort
• learnability • consistency closure
• user-satisfaction • relationship between real • simplicity
• short-term memory load world and virtual objects • context-based
• procedural and semantic • multi-modality
memory • enjoyment

Fig. 2. Classified Usability Principles

686 Neha Tuli et al. / Procedia Computer Science 172 (2020) 679–687
8 Neha Tuli, Archana Mantri / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2019) 000–000

4. Conclusion

In this work, the purpose is to identify the existing literature on the usability principles for developing AR
applications and develop usability principles for AR applications for kindergarten kids. In our study, 23 usability
principles were developed for designing AR applications for kindergarten kids. The principles were created by
literature analysis of 14 usability studies on mobile based AR learning applications. We gathered previously
proposed 131 principles, deleted the duplicate entries and integrated the related principles. Finally, exploratory
factor analysis was used to select and classify final 23 principles best suitable for AR applications for kindergarten
kids in 4 categories. It is claimed that our suggested usability principles can be referred for developing kids learning
applications using AR technology. In future, we would develop an AR application using the proposed principles and
validate them through heuristic evaluation.

References

[1] R. Azuma, "A survey of augmented reality," Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 355-385, 1997.
[2] S. J. Henderson and S. Feiner, "Evaluating the benefits of augmented reality for task localization in maintenance of an armored personnel
carrier turret," in 8th IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality, 2009.
[3] J. Irizarry, M. Gheisar, G. Williams and B. N. Walker , "InfoSPOT: A mobile Augmented Reality method for accessing building information
through a situation awareness approach.," Automation in construction, vol. 33, pp. 11-23, 2013.
[4] S. Dow, M. Mehta, E. Harmon, B. MacIntyre and M. Mateas, "Presence and engagement in an interactive drama," in Proceedings of the
SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, 2007.
[5] A.-C. Haugstvedt and J. Krogstie, "Mobile augmented reality for cultural heritage: A technology acceptance study," in IEEE international
symposium on mixed and augmented reality (ISMAR), 2012.
[6] D. Furio, S. González-Gancedo, M. Juan, I. Segui and N. Rando, "Evaluation of learning outcomes using an educational iPhone game vs.
traditional game," Computers & Education, vol. 64, pp. 1-23, 2013.
[7] M. B. Ibanez, A. D. Serio, D. Villaran and C. D. Kloos, "Experimenting with electromagnetism using augmented reality: Impact on flow
student experience and educational effectiveness," Computers and Education, vol. 71, pp. 1-13, 2014.
[8] A. Dey, M. Billinghurst, R. W. Lindeman and J. E. Swan II, "A Systematic Review of 10 Years of Augmented Reality Usability Studies: 2005 to
2014," Frontiers in Robotics and AI, vol. 5, p. 37, 2018.
[9] A. Dünser, R. Grasset and M. Billinghurst, "A survey of evaluation techniques used in augmented reality studies," Human Interface
Technology Laboratory, New Zealand, 2008.
[10] M. A. Livingston, "Evaluating human factors in augmented reality systems," IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 6-
9, 2005.
[11] S. Nilsson and B. Johansson , "User experience and acceptance of a mixed reality system in a naturalistic setting-a case study," in
IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality, 2006.
[12] S. M. Ko, W. S. Chang and Y. G. Ji, "Usability Principles for Augmented Reality Applications in a Smartphone Environment," International
Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 29, no. 8, pp. 501-515, 2015.
[13] J. E. Swan II and J. L. Gabbard, "Survey of user-based experimentation in augmented reality," in In Proceedings of 1st International
Conference on Virtual Reality, Las Vegas.
[14] B. A. Kumar and M. S. Gounder, "Usability heuristics for mobile learning applications," Education and Information Technologies, vol. 24,
no. 2, pp. 1819-1833, 2019.
[15] I. Radu, "Exploring the usability of augmented reality interaction techniques during children's early elementary-school years," Georgia
Institute of Technology, 2016.
[16] A. Dϋnser, R. Grasset, H. Seichter and M. Billinghurst , "Applying HCI principles to AR systems design," HIT Lab NZ, 2007.
[17] I. Radu, "Why should my students use AR? A comparative review of the educational impacts of augmented-reality," in IEEE International
Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR), 2012.
[18] K. R. Bujak, I. Radu, R. Catrambone, B. MacIntyre and R. Zheng, "A psychological perspective on augmented reality in the mathematics
classroom," Computers & Education, vol. 68, pp. 526-544, 2013.
 Neha Tuli et al. / Procedia Computer Science 172 (2020) 679–687 687
Neha Tuli, Archana Mantri / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2019) 000–000 9

[19] I. Radu, "Augmented reality in education: a meta-review and cross-media analysis," Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, vol. 18, no. 6, pp.
1533-1543, 2014.
[20] J. Piaget, Science of education and the psychology of the child, New York: Orion Press, 1970.
[21] R. A. Rosser, Cognitive development: Psychological and biological perspectives, Allyn and Bacon Boston., Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1994.
[22] H. Gelderblom and P. Kotze, "Designing technology for young children: guidelines grounded in a literature investigation on child
development and children's technology," University of South Africa, 2008.
[23] P. Wyeth and H. C. Purchase, "Using developmental theories to inform the design of technology for children," in In Proceedings of the
2003 conference on Interaction design and children, 2003.
[24] T. Bekker and A. Antle, "Developmentally situated design (DSD): making theoretical knowledge accessible to designers of children's
technology," in Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2011.
[25] I. Radu and B. MacIntyre, "Using children's developmental psychology to guide augmented-reality design and usability," in IEEE
international symposium on mixed and augmented reality (ISMAR), Atlanta, GA, USA, 2012.
[26] J. Mott, S. Bucolo, L. Cuttle, J. Mill, M. Hilder, K. Miller and R. M. Kimble, "The efficacy of an augmented virtual reality system to alleviate
pain in children undergoing burns dressing changes: a randomised controlled trial," Burns, vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 803-808, 2008.
[27] A. Morrison, A. Oulasvirta, P. Peltonen, S. Lemmelä, G. Jacucci, G. Reitmayr, J. Näsänen and A. Juustila, "Like bees around the hive: a
comparative study of a mobile augmented reality map," in In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems, 2009.
[28] I. Radu and M. Hewner, "Spintopia," 2011. [Online]. Available: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0poxJKNVLIM. [Accessed 3 August
2019].
[29] I. Radu, E. Hanlon, Y. Xu, B. Gee and W. Whittaker, "Puppy Plus," 2011. [Online]. Available:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArUp1gxUrOU. [Accessed 3 August 2019].
[30] I. Radu and K. Bujak, "Argon Games: Mountain Rescue and Bacteria Snap," 2012. [Online]. Available: http://argon.gatech.edu/games/..
[Accessed 3 August 2019].
[31] M. Baumgarten , "Kids and the internet: a developmental summary," Computers in Entertainment, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1-10, 2003.
[32] J. P. Hourcade, "Interaction design and children," Foundations and Trends® in Human–Computer Interaction, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 277-392,
2008.
[33] T. Bekker and A. N. Antle, "Developmentally situated design (DSD): making theoretical knowledge accessible to designers of children's
technology," in Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2011.
[34] J. D. Gould and C. Lewis, "Designing for usability: key principles and what designers think," Communications of the ACM, 28(3), 300-311,
vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 300-311, 1985.
[35] J. Neilson, Usability engineering, Elsevier, 1994.
[36] J. Gong and P. Tarasewich, "Guidelines for handheld mobile device interface design," in In Proceedings of DSI 2004 Annual Meeting, 2004.
[37] C. Furmanski, R. Azuma and M. Daily, "Augmented-reality visualizations guided by cognition: Perceptual heuristics for combining visible
and obscured information," in Proceedings. International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality, 2002.
[38] B. F. Wheeler Atkinson, T. O. Bennett, G. S. Bahr and M. M. Walwanis Nelson, "Development of a multiple heuristics evaluation table
(MHET) to support software development and usability analysis," in International Conference on Universal Access in Human-Computer
Interaction, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2007.
[39] D. Pinelle, N. Wong and T. Stach, "Heuristic evaluation for games: usability principles for video game design," in Proceedings of the SIGCHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2008.
[40] H. J. Kim, M. H. Kim, J. K. Chio and Y. G. Ji, "A study of evaluation framework for tangible user interface," in Proceedings of the 2nd
International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics AHFE, 2008.
[41] P. E. Kourouthanassis, C. Boletsis and G. Lekakos, "Demystifying the design of mobile augmented reality applications," Multimedia Tools
and Applications, vol. 74, no. 3, pp. 1045-1066, 2015.
[42] J. Kalalahti , "Developing usability evaluation heuristics for augmented reality applications," Lappeenranta University of Technolog, 2015.
[43] T. C. Endsley, K. A. Sprehn, R. M. Brill, K. J. Ryan, E. C. Vincent and J. M. Martin Draper, "Augmented Reality design heuristics: Designing for
dynamic interactions," in Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Los Angeles, 2017.
[44] W. Matt, The ten principles behind great customer experiences, UK: Pearson, 2013.