SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Journal of Metaverse / 2026 / Issue: 6

Comparative Study of Handheld and Head-Mounted Displays in Early Phases of Design Using Spatial Computing Environment for Mass Study

Leman Figen Gül(İSTANBUL TEKNİK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-9374-4620
Süheyla Müge Halıcı(İSTANBUL TEKNİK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-3202-0562
Sema Alaçam(İSTANBUL TEKNİK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-5979-3282
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-01-08
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings revealed that architects using head-mounted displays and controllers experienced greater control and more precise perception of their designs compared to those using handheld devices.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This research investigates the ergonomics and effectiveness of spatial computing (SC) systems in the early stages of architectural design.
📊
Key Findings & Data:SC encompasses advanced digital tools such as augmented reality (AR), mixed reality (MR), and extended reality (XR), facilitating interaction with both physical and digital environments.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings revealed that architects using head-mounted displays and controllers experienced greater control and more precise perception of their designs compared to those using handheld devices.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Mixed reality · Ergonomics · Handheld interface

Abstract

This research investigates the ergonomics and effectiveness of spatial computing (SC) systems in the early stages of architectural design. SC encompasses advanced digital tools such as augmented reality (AR), mixed reality (MR), and extended reality (XR), facilitating interaction with both physical and digital environments. We developed an SC application serving as a spatial interface, enabling designers to access and manipulate virtual and physical design models simultaneously. Our study involved twelve experiments comparing two types of SC systems: handheld interfaces (Samsung tablet) and head-mounted displays (Magic Leap). The findings revealed that architects using head-mounted displays and controllers experienced greater control and more precise perception of their designs compared to those using handheld devices. Additionally, architects reported higher engagement levels with head-mounted displays. The study highlights the potential of SC technologies to enhance architectural design processes, emphasizing the advantages of head-mounted displays in improving interaction, control, and engagement in hybrid design environments. This research fills a gap in the literature by providing a comparative analysis of handheld and head-mounted SC technologies, offering insights into their impact on designer behavior and the efficacy of spatial interfaces during the early design phases. The results underscore the importance of integrating advanced SC technologies to bridge the gap between abstract concepts and tangible architectural solutions, ultimately enhancing the design process and stakeholder communication.

🔖

Cite This Article

Gül, L. F., Halıcı, S. M., Alaçam, S. (2026). Comparative Study of Handheld and Head-Mounted Displays in Early Phases of Design Using Spatial Computing Environment for Mass Study. Journal of Metaverse, Issue: 6. https://doi.org/10.57019/jmv.1703771

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (56)

  1. Alizadehsalehi, S., Hadavi, A., & Huang, J. C. (2020). From BIM to extended reality in AEC industry. Automation in Construction, 116, 103254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2020.103254
  2. Alp, N. C., Yazici, Y. E., & Oner, D. (2023). Augmented reality experience in an architectural design studio. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 82(29), 45639–45657. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-023-15476-w
  3. Azuma, R. T. (1997). A survey of augmented reality. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 6(4), 355–385. https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.1997.6.4.355
  4. Brown, D. C., & Blessing, L. (2005). The relationship between function and affordance. In Proceedings of the ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference (Vol. 5, pp. 155–160). American Society of Mechanical Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2005-85017
  5. Çağıltay, K. (2011). Human–Computer Interaction and Usability Engineering: From Theory to Practice. ODTU Vakfı Yayıncılık, Ankara. Çağıltay, K. (2011). Human–computer interaction and usability engineering: From theory to practice. ODTÜ Vakfı Yayıncılık.
  6. Chandrasekera, T., & Yoon, S. Y. (2018). Augmented Reality, Virtual Reality and Their Effect on Learning Style in the Creative Design Process. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 23(1). https://doi.org/10.24377/DTEIJ.article1521
  7. Chun Hin Fong, J., Poon, A. L. W., Sze Ngan, W., Hei Ho, C., Goepel, G., & Crolla, K. (2023). Augmenting craft with mixed reality. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Conference of the Association of Computer Aided Design in Architecture (ACADIA) (pp. 436–444). https://doi.org/10.52842/conf.acadia.2020.1.436
  8. Cutolo, F., Meola, A., Carbone, M., Sinceri, S., Cagnazzo, F., Denaro, E., Esposito, N., Ferrari, M., & Ferrari, V. (2017). A new head-mounted display-based augmented reality system in neurosurgical oncology: A study on phantom. Computer Assisted Surgery, 22(1), 39–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/24699322.2017.1358400
  9. Cutting, J. E. (1997). How the eye measures reality and virtual reality. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 29(1), 27–36. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200563
  10. Das, A., Fich, L. B., & Madsen, C. B. (2023). A comparative analysis of architectural experience in the reality continuum based on embodiment, tactility and affordance. In Human Centric: Proceedings of the 28th International Conference of the Association for Computer-Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia (CAADRIA) (pp. 69-78). https://doi.org/10.52842/conf.caadria.2023.2.069
  11. Delikanlı, B. (2020). The role of digital model-making for design education. In Architectural models as learning tools (Chapter 2, pp. 15–22). Caleidoscópio.
  12. Donath, D., & Regenbrecht, H. (1995). VRAD (Virtual Reality Aided Design) in the early phases of the architectural design process. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Computer-Aided Architectural Design Futures (pp. 313–322). https://doi.org/10.52842/conf.ecaade.2000.235
  13. Donath, D. (1999). Using immersive virtual reality systems for spatial design in architecture. In AVOCAAD: 2nd International Conference (pp. 307–318). https://papers.cumincad.org/cgi-bin/works/paper/fd35
  14. Dunn, N. (2014). Architectural modelmaking (2nd ed.). Laurence King.
  15. El-Jarn, H., & Southern, G. (2020). Can co-creation in extended reality technologies facilitate the design process? Journal of Work-Applied Management, 12(2), 191–205. https://doi.org/10.1108/JWAM-04-2020-0022
  16. Evans, J. S. B. & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-Process Theories of Higher Cognition: Advancing the Debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3):223–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612460685
  17. Gibson, J. J. (1986). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. The Psychology Press Classic Editions.
  18. Greenwold, S. (2003). Spatial computing (PhD thesis). MIT.
  19. Hajirasouli, A., Banihashemi, S., Drogemuller, R., Fazeli, A., & Mohandes, S. R. (2022). Augmented reality in design and construction: Thematic analysis and conceptual frameworks. Construction Innovation, 22(3), 412–443. https://doi.org/10.1108/CI-01-2022-0007
  20. Hoang, D., Naderi, E., Cheng, R., & Aryana, B. (2019). Adopting immersive technologies for design practice: The internal and external barriers. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED) (pp. 1903–1912). doi:10.1017/dsi.2019.196
  21. Ihara, K., Faridan, M., Ichikawa, A., Kawaguchi, I., & Suzuki, R. (2023). Holobots: Augmenting holographic telepresence with mobile robots for tangible remote collaboration in mixed reality. In Proceedings of the 36th annual ACM symposium on user interface software and technology (pp. 1-12). https://doi.org/10.1145/3586183.3606727
  22. Kent, L., Snider, C., Gopsill, J., & Hicks, B. (2021). Mixed reality in design prototyping: A systematic review. Design Studies, 77, 101046. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2021.101046
  23. Kharvari, F., & Kaiser, L. E. (2022). Impact of extended reality on architectural education and the design process. Automation in Construction, 141, 104393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2022.104393
  24. Kim, M. J., & Maher, M. L. (2008). The impact of tangible user interfaces on spatial cognition during collaborative design. Design Studies, 29(3), 222–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2007.12.006
  25. Kruijff, E., Swan, J., & Feiner, S. (2010). Perceptual issues in augmented reality revisited. In IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (pp. 3–12). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISMAR.2010.5643530
  26. Law, T., Lam, D., Endang, J., & Chan, M. (2020). How rad(-ical) is VRAD (Virtual Reality-Aided Design)? In Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Visualisation (IV) (pp. 751–756). doi: 10.1109/IV51561.2020.00133.
  27. Lee, B., Sedlmair, M., & Schmalstieg, D. (2024). Design patterns for situated visualization in augmented reality. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 30(1), 1324–1335. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2023.3327398
  28. Letter, M., Kurzweg, M., & Wolf, K. (2023). Comparing screen-based version control to augmented artifact version control for physical objects. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 14142, pp. 391–415). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-42280-5_25
  29. Luo, J., Mastrokalou, E., Aldabous, R., Aldaboos, S., & Lopez Rodriguez, A. (2023). Fabrication of complex clay structures through an augmented reality assisted platform. In Proceedings of the 28th Conference on Computer Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia (CAADRIA), Volume 1 (pp. 413–422). https://doi.org/10.52842/conf.caadria.2023.1.413
  30. Maier, J. R., & Fadel, G. M. (2003). Affordance-based methods for design. In Proceedings of the ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference (Vol. 3, pp. 785–794). https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2003/DTM-48673
  31. Milgram, P., & Kishino, F. (1994). A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. IEICE TRANSACTIONS on Information and Systems, 77(12), 1321-1329. https://globals.ieice.org/en_transactions/information/10.1587/e77-d_12_1321/_p
  32. Milovanovic, J., & Moreau, G. (2017). Virtual and augmented reality in architectural design and education: An immersive multimodal platform to support architectural pedagogy. In G. Çağdaş, M. Özkar, L. F. Gül, & E. Gürer (Eds.), CAAD Futures 2017: 17th International Conference on Computer-Aided Architectural Design Futures (pp. 1–14). https://papers.cumincad.org/cgi-bin/works/Show?cf2017_513
  33. Narin, Z. S., & Ünal, F. C. (2023). An evaluation of sketching processes in physical and immersive environments. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Education and Research in Computer Aided Architectural Design in Europe (eCAADe) (Vol. 1, pp. 201–210). https://doi.org/10.52842/conf.ecaade.2023.1.201
  34. Nielsen, J. (1994). Usability engineering. Morgan Kaufmann.
  35. Nielsen, J. (2005). Ten Usability Heuristics. Technical report.
  36. Nielsen, J. (2012). How many test users in a usability?
  37. Nielsen, J., & Landauer, T. (1993). A mathematical model of the finding of usability problems. In Proceedings of the INTERACT '93 and CHI '93 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 206–213). ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/169059.169166
  38. Robertson, B. F., & Radcliffe, D. F. (2009). Impact of CAD tools on creative problem solving in engineering design. Computer-Aided Design, 41(3), 136–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2008.06.007
  39. Samancı, B., Taşpınar, O., Karcı, Y. E., Cengiz, B., Ozdogan, S., Yıldız, D., & Bittermann, M. S. (2023). Mock-up versus CAD modeling preferences of architecture students in the early design phase. Journal of Computational Design, 4(2), 245–272. https://doi.org/10.53710/jcode.1307294
  40. Santos, M., Polvi, J., & Taketomi, T. (2015). Toward standard usability questionnaires for handheld augmented reality. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 35(5), 66–75. doi: 10.1109/MCG.2015.94.
  41. Seeliger, A., Netland, T., & Feuerriegel, S. (2022). Augmented reality for machine setups: Task performance and usability evaluation in a field test. Procedia CIRP, 107, 570–575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2022.05.027
  42. Shneiderman, B., Plaisant, C., Cohen, M., & Jacobs, S. (2016). Designing the user interface: Strategies for effective human–computer interaction (6th ed.). Pearson.
  43. Shouman, B., Othman, A. A. E., & Marzouk, M. (2022). Enhancing users’ involvement in architectural design using mobile augmented reality. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 29(6), 2514–2534. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-02-2021-0124
  44. Song, Y., Agkathidis, A., & Koeck, R. (2023). HoloBrick: A contextual design and analysis workflow for parametric masonry façade utilizing augmented reality. In SIGraDi 2023: Accelerated Landscapes (pp. 695–704). https://papers.cumincad.org/cgi-bin/works/Show?sigradi2023_2
  45. Sun, L., Fukuda, T., Tokuhara, T., & Yabuki, N. (2013). Difference between a physical model and a virtual environment as regards perception of scale. In Open Systems - Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Computer-Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia, CAADRIA 2013, pages 457–466. https://web.archive.org/web/20220609152815id_/http://papers.cumincad.org/data/works/att/caadria2013_129.content.pdf
  46. Surwade, R., Khas, K. S., & Bangre, A. (2023). Model-making and its practices improve design process for beginner students of architecture product design. Journal for ReAttach Therapy and Developmental Diversities, 6(1), 1312–1319. https://doi.org/10.53555/jrtdd.v6i1.2602
  47. Swan II, J. E., Hix, D., & Gabbard, J. L. (2003). Perceptual and ergonomic issues in mobile augmented reality for urban operations. U.S. Army Research Laboratory (Technical Report).
  48. Tanaya, M., Yang, K. K., Christensen, T., Li, S., O’Keefe, M., Fridley, J., & Sung, K. (2017). A framework for analyzing AR/VR collaborations: An initial result. In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Virtual Environments for Measurement Systems and Applications (CIVEMSA) (pp. 111–116). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/CIVEMSA.2017.7995311
  49. Thompson, A. (2012). Architectural design procedures. Routledge.
  50. Veas, E., & Kruijff, E. (2008). Vesp'R: Design and evaluation of a handheld AR device. In Proceedings of the 7th IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR 2008) (pp. 43–52). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISMAR.2008.4637322
  51. Vuletic, T., McTeague, C., Campbell, G., Hay, L., & Grealy, M. (2023). Effects of activity time limitation on gesture elicitation for form creation. Journal of Engineering Design, 34(11), 963–985. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2023.2271773
  52. Vyas, D., Chisalita, C. M., & Van der Veer, G. C. (2006). Affordance in interaction. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (INTERACT 2006) (pp. 92–99). https://doi.org/10.1145/1274892.12749
  53. Wang, X., Ong, S. K., & Nee, A. Y. (2016). A comprehensive survey of augmented reality assembly research. Advances in Manufacturing, 4(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40436-015-0131-4
  54. Wang, Y., & Lin, Y. S. (2023). Public participation in urban design with augmented reality technology based on indicator evaluation. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 4, 1071355. https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2023.1071355
  55. Willett, W., Jansen, Y., & Dragicevic, P. (2017). Embedded data representations. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 23(1), 461–470. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2016.2598608.
  56. Zhan, T., Yin, K., Xiong, J., He, Z., & Wu, S. T. (2020). Augmented reality and virtual reality displays: Perspectives and challenges. iScience, 23(8), 101397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2020.101397