Mobile Augmented Reality: Collaborative use of mobile augmented reality with paper maps

TLDR: Two pioneering field trials where MapLens, a magic lens that augments paper-based city maps, was used in small-group collaborative tasks are reviewed, finding place-making and use of artefacts to communicate and establish common ground as predominant modes of interaction in AR-mediated collaboration with users working on tasks together despite not needing to.

About: This article is published in Computers & Graphics.The article was published on 2011-08-01 and is currently open access. It has received 91 citations till now. The article focuses on the topics: Mixed reality & Computer-mediated reality.

Figures

Fig. 3. DigiMap application, similar to Google Map with icons.

Table 1 Questionnaire items showing statistically significant differences between MapLens1 (M1) and DigiMap (D) groups. Presence (P) results on a 5-point Likert scale, Flow (F) and Motivation (M) on a 7-point Likert scale.

Table 2 Questionnaire items showing statistically significant differences in between solo users (S), single-device (SD) and multi-device (MD) teams for MapLens2. Presence (Px) results are on a 5-point Likert scale, Flow (Fx) and Motivation (Mx) on a 7-point Likert scale.

Fig. 10. Using M2 while walking. (Left) Walking and using M2 was possible with a folded map. (Right) Walking and browsing photos in M2 did not require usage of the paper map.

Fig. 4. Tasks for environmental awareness game. Interconnections indicate sequential tasks. Tasks outside the museum generally require AR.

Fig. 5. Kitbags contained 7 items that needed to be managed: sunlight photographs, map, phone, water testing kits, voucher for Internet use, clue booklet and pen.

Frequently asked questions

Q1. What are the contributions in "Collaborative use of mobile augmented reality with paper maps" ?

The authors review data from two pioneering field trials where MapLens, a magic lens that augments paper-based city maps, was used in small-group collaborative tasks. 

Q2. What is the role of maps in multimodal discourses?

The maps act as mediation objects for multimodal discourses providing resources such as a context and facilitation for embodied communication. 

Q3. How many users were recruited in the maplens1 trial?

The authors recruited 37 users; where 24 shared MapLens grouped in nine teams, 11 used DigiMap in 5 teams and 2 used MapLens solo in an urban game over three trials. 

Q4. What did the authors find efficient use of the map?

The authors found that because of (1) the space around the physical map and how much movement that allowed for players;(2) the size of the map itself and how much hovering device space that allowed; and (3) teams choosing to discuss and work on problems together rather than dividing up tasks and working solo over time; the more efficient use that emerged over time, was with one or two devices over the map. 

Q5. What is the new tracking technology for maplens2?

The new tracking technology supports camera distances from the map between 10 cm and 2 m. MapLens2 operates on A1 printouts of Google Maps satellite images with street overlays. 

Q6. What were the biggest obstacles brought about by weather conditions?

sun on the screen for MapLens1 and the map being caught by the wind for MapLens2, were the biggest obstacles brought about by weather conditions. 

Q7. What were the main tasks that were used outside the museum?

For tasks outside the museum, players could use the paper map alone to navigate the city and the phone (without AR) to take photos or to browse the Web. 

Q8. How often did multi-device teams share screens?

In multi-device teams the intentional sharing of screens happened less, typically only a couple of times during the game, and only for a few seconds. 

Q9. What was the first field study to test the synchronous use of multiple mobile devices?

For their second study, the authors improved MapLens’ interface design and underlying technology (see 3.2) and conducted one of the first field studies to test the synchronous use of multiple mobile devices by adding multiple devices as the new comparative condition, in addition to collaboration through sharing devices and solo use. 

Q10. What is the effect of the switching of attention between the surface and background?

The study showed switching of attention between the surface and background affects task performance, yet static peephole and magic lens clearly outperform joystick navigation. 

Q11. What is the conclusion of the mapLens study?

Their conclusion is that although MapLensrequires more cumbersome use for an individual, cooperative group work benefits from the sharing of tasks and place-making that MapLens elicits and common ground that it supports. 

Q12. What was the dominant player's behavior in the multi-device teams?

In the controller teams the dominant player often hid the device from the other players while using it and put it back in their pocket afterwards. 

Q13. What were the different types of props used in the game?

Solutions varied where for example, a tree, a team mate or a near-by bench might be used as a steadying, leaning or resting prop. 

Q14. What were the common activities of multi-device players?

In addition, pointing to the screen of another team member, and looking and pointing to the environment and the map were more common for single-device players (Fig. 9). 

Q15. How many users were recruited for the MapLens2 study?

For the MapLens2 study the authors compared three conditions recruiting 37 users, where 21 had their own MapLens devices in seven multi-device teams, 12 shared MapLens in four teams and 4 used MapLens solo in an urban game over two trials.