Expanding Interaction Potentials within Virtual Environments: Investigating the Usability of Speech and Manual Input Modes for Decoupled Interaction

Table 3

Input device usability statements.

Interaction mode
Speech	Handheld device
(i) I liked the novelty factor of using speech input, but, as it failed to recognise my voice, it became frustrating. Easier with someone else navigating so I did not have to use speech so much; (ii) Unlike the handheld device, one was able to control looking up or down. Although it was more limited, it made it a lot harder to get disorientated; (iii) Bad for navigation, good for discrete tasks; (iv) Not good for navigation, felt natural for tasks other than movement. Speech was really good for interacting with the VE, thought it carried out the wrong command at times which confused me; (v) Did not respond quickly enough, had to repeat some commands several times, and sometimes wrong action was carried out; (vi) It was hands free; all the required interaction with the environment was possible; (vii) It did not recognise my voice; small precise adjustments were not possible; (viii) I liked novelty, disliked errors, found it difficult to recall available functions (need a constant menu?)	(i) I like everything about the device; it was comfortable, reasonably intuitive, but has the potential to be more so; (ii) The only thing I found myself wanting to do is use the up and down “keys” on the control to move forward and backward; (iii) The navigation system was poor as it was based on rotating in two axes; once I had left the floor, it was hard to regain the orientation; (iv) I liked the display; the only problem was a slight delay in the acceptance of links on the handheld device which lead to incorrect selection from the menu a couple of times; (v) Use seemed very natural and very easy to learn; (vi) It was consistent with natural heuristics to move. Performing the task was more frustrating as one had to  navigate a menu hierarchy with no short cuts