|
| Expert | Type | Opinion |
|
| E1 | Phone-based AR | (i) For problems in news like AR application users intruded into private or restricted areas, AR application |
| | | developers should prevent these problems beforehand by involving a solution system in their application designing step. |
| | Wearable AR | (i) Concern about sickness when viewing AR virtual contents that are moving at high speed as in most |
| | | first-person shooter games. |
| | | (ii) In practical, weight of the wearable device makes it not suitable for wearing in a long continuous time. |
| | | Wearable AR requires users to carry an additional device which is not convenient. |
| | Projector-based AR | (i) If projector-based AR means users have to carry an additional separated device, it seems not convenient |
| | | and sounds difficult in setting up on the move. But if projector-based AR is an embedded option |
| | | in a smartphone that can be turned on or off at will, it is the most interesting in the three. |
|
| E2 | Phone-based AR | (i) Among three mobile-based AR, phone-based AR seems to be the best going as most users own |
| | | a smartphone. Hence, they are ready to get started with phone-based AR right away. |
| | | (ii) Better algorithms, hardware, and supporting SDK have been available recently, making it a lot easier to develop an AR application (although without in-depth understanding of AR technical details). |
| | | (iii) Usage scenarios of AR are still limited in entertainment or being optional gimmicks to their host applications. |
| | Wearable AR | (i) AR wearable devices like Google Glass are too expensive. |
| | | (ii) Privacy concern about wearable AR like Google Glass. |
| | | (iii) Easier development according to recently available SDK. |
| | Projector-based AR | (i) Effects from projector-based AR seem very exciting for audiences in most exhibitions. |
| | | (ii) High cost regarding setting up and calibrating devices before uses. |
|
| E3 | Phone-based AR | (i) The most well-known type of mobile-based AR with many available software and toolkits that allow |
| | | both designers and developers to easily build an AR application. |
| | | (ii) Still lack of concrete applications that can truly spread across majority of smartphone users. |
| | | (iii) Recent advances in smartphone’s depth sensing ability can significantly boost up AR features in smartphones to the next level. |
| | Wearable AR | (i) Very high price tags and few alternative choices make wearable AR inaccessible for most users and |
| | | developers. |
| | | (ii) Limited choices of devices that come with supporting SDK. Available device with SDK like Microsoft HoloLens (developer edition) is very expensive and still requires improvement in many aspects. For example, too narrow field of view, weight of the device, and variety of gesture commands. |
| | Projector-based AR | (i) Mobile projector is still considered a gadget that most users do not have in their possession. |
| | | (ii) Although many people used to see exhibitions or shows using real-time projection mapping techniques, they are barely aware of the term projector-based AR as well as its applications. |
| | | (iii) Few applications available, especially those with massive usages across end users. |
|
