etsi industry specification group on augmented reality ... · 10/16/2018 · reconstruction, cloud...
TRANSCRIPT
Presented by: For:
© ETSI 2018
ETSI Industry Specification Group on Augmented Reality Framework (ISG ARF)
Use Case Survey Results
Muriel Deschanel and Nicole Le MinousChairman and secretary of ISG ARF
ISMAR Enterprise AR functional requirements workshop
© ETSI 2018 2
The context
AR is a growing and promising market with high revenue forecast e.g. 110$B by 2021
Clear and long-term RoI benefits based on improvements and efficiency gains
Acquisition of AR solutions by large companiesRisk of control of AR technologies by only a few large actors -> siloes
A set of common key components: Tracking, localization, pose estimation, 3D reconstruction, cloud storage and more
Lack of standards adoption:Adoption of standards bring interoperability
Creation of an Industry Specification Group at ETSI - a European standards organisation with a global impact
© ETSI 2018 3
Overall Objective of the ISG ARF
ADD SECTION NAME
Defining a framework for the interoperability of AR applications and services, in order to prevent market fragmentation and enable providers to offer part of an overall AR solution
To encourage an ecosystem with a diverse range of solution providers including smaller players, new entrants and academicsTo define a modular architecture and achieve interoperability at the interface of building blocks
The focus is on interfaces, no standardisation of core technologiesThe building blocks can be open source, proprietary or standardised technologies
Achieving Interoperability:Will give end-users confidence to invest in and use (future proof) AR solutionsCan prevent lock-in situation with a single vendorCan ease technology swapping, e.g. to improve applications performance and services
© ETSI 2018 4
ARF Members and Participants
BasinLogic
© ETSI 2018 5
ISG ARF Workplan
RequirementsFor
Interoperability
Needs for standards
Work item 1AR standards
Landscape
Work Item 3 AR Framework
Architecture
Use Case Survey
Work item 2AR industrialUse cases
Define new ETSI Specifications
Recommendexistingstandards
Definerequirements to extend existingstandards
© ETSI 2018 6
Benefits to the ecosystem
A reference interoperability framework for AR applications and services taking into account existing AR models and compliant with relevant AR specifications
Availability of high performance AR components portable between different hardware vendors, different providers of software solutions and platforms
A diverse range of solution providers including smaller players, new entrants and academics
AR services and platforms simpler to design, deploy and operate
© ETSI 2018 7
Do get involved!
ToR : Terms of Reference
If your company is an ETSI member, you can join the ISG ARF after signing the ARF member agreement; no additional cost
If your company is not an ETSI member, you can participate after signing the ARF participant agreement
Participation to online conference calls and subscription to mailing list are freeA fee of 200€ per day per physical meeting (F2F/online participation) per delegate; (capped to 700€)
Initial duration of the ISG is 2 years
© ETSI 2018
Questionnaire on AR use
cases
© ETSI 2018 9
Questionnaire analysis : table of contents
• Context and participants profiles
• Focus on predominant use cases
• AR Challenges according to participants
© ETSI 2018
Context and Participants
profiles
© ETSI 2018 11
Context
• Survey online using Surveymonkey.com
• Published by ETSI
• Online between 28/02/2018 – 01/05/2018
© ETSI 2018 12
Participants profileWithout academics
55% of the participants define themselves as Technology PROVIDERS over Technology USERS
AR technology user38%
AR technology provider
55%
None7%
AR technology user AR technology provider None
© ETSI 2018 13
A rather homogeneous distributionof responses that illustrates theholistic nature of the uses ofaugmented reality.
Training is identified as the mainbenefit of Augmented Reality.
Participants AR expected benefitsWithout academics
© ETSI 2018
Use cases
© ETSI 2018 15
AR use-cases identified as the most relevantWithout academics
Logist
ics
Inspecti
on / Quali
ty
Man
ufacturin
gSale
s
Mark
eting
Training
Worke
r safety
Main
tenance
Factory
layout
Innovation
Operation
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
Among those possible use-cases please select the most relevant for your company/institution
Maintenance & Inspection Quality are identified as the top two use cases for AR in the Industry
© ETSI 2018 16
AR use-cases Profiles
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
inspection / quality Maintenance Training ManufacturingTech Provider Tech User
Without academics
© ETSI 2018 17
AR use-cases - Accuracy
Do the augmentations need to be precisely located relatively to a real equipment or object ?
14%
40%
88%43%
100%
60%43%
13%
inspection / quality Maintenance Training Manufacturing
under 1 millimeter a few millimeter a few centimeter up to 10 centimeter
Without academics
© ETSI 2018 18
From which type of sources will the augmentations come from?
ADD SECTION NAME
AR use-cases - DataWithout academics
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
inspection / quality
Maintenance
Training
Manufacturing
Office Document Knowledge Base ERP DCC CAD
© ETSI 2018 19
Does this use-case involve collaboration or sharing of the screen between multiple users ?
ADD SECTION NAME
AR use-cases - Sharing
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%
inspection /quality
Maintenance Training Manufacturing
Yes No I don't know
Without academics
© ETSI 2018 20
AR use-cases – Hands-free
Without academics
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
inspection /quality
Maintenance Training Manufacturing
Yes No
Is it mandatory for the user of the AR system to have his hands free ?
© ETSI 2018 21
Please describe the size of the area of interest (space where augmentations may occur).
AR use-cases – Scale
Without academics
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
inspection /quality
Maintenance Training Manufacturing
World scaleWarehouse scaleRoom ScaleDesktop ScaleLetter scale
© ETSI 2018 22
Please describe the size of the area of interest (space where augmentations may occur).
AR use-cases – Scale
Without academics
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
inspection /quality
Maintenance Training Manufacturing
World scaleWarehouse scaleRoom ScaleDesktop ScaleLetter scale
Predominant size
© ETSI 2018 23
AR use-cases – Operating systems
iOS Android Windows Linux Other / I don't know
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%
50.00%
If some mobile devices (tablets, smartphone, smartglasses...) are already deployed for AR applications in
your company, what are the corresponding operating systems?
Responses Total
Android is the most deployed operating systemsupporting AR experiences
Without academics
© ETSI 2018
Challenges
© ETSI 2018 25
1.38%
2.07%
3.45%
4.14%
4.14%
6.90%
6.90%
8.97%
8.97%
8.97%
9.66%
10.34%
11.72%
12.41%
Other (please specify)Equipment cost
User security while using AR solutionAR Devices robustness
Incompatibility with protective equipmentsBattery lifetime of the AR system
User interaction methods with the AR solutionTracking robustness issues
Availability or adaptation of the data (3D models, 2D…User acceptance (perceived reliability, utility, usability,…
Authoring time/cost of the AR applicationMethods for initial spatial positioning of augmentations
Ergonomics of the AR display solution (weight, comfort ...)Tracking accuracy issues
Mentioned challenges of ARWithout academics
© ETSI 2018 26
1.38%
2.07%
3.45%
4.14%
4.14%
6.90%
6.90%
8.97%
8.97%
8.97%
9.66%
10.34%
11.72%
12.41%
Other (please specify)Equipment cost
User security while using AR solutionAR Devices robustness
Incompatibility with protective equipmentsBattery lifetime of the AR system
User interaction methods with the AR solutionTracking robustness issues
Availability or adaptation of the data (3D models, 2D…User acceptance (perceived reliability, utility, usability,…
Authoring time/cost of the AR applicationMethods for initial spatial positioning of augmentations
Ergonomics of the AR display solution (weight, comfort ...)Tracking accuracy issues
Tracking30%
Mentioned challenges of ARWithout academics
© ETSI 2018 27
1.38%
2.07%
3.45%
4.14%
4.14%
6.90%
6.90%
8.97%
8.97%
8.97%
9.66%
10.34%
11.72%
12.41%
Other (please specify)Equipment cost
User security while using AR solutionAR Devices robustness
Incompatibility with protective equipmentsBattery lifetime of the AR system
User interaction methods with the AR solutionTracking robustness issues
Availability or adaptation of the data (3D models, 2D…User acceptance (perceived reliability, utility, usability,…
Authoring time/cost of the AR applicationMethods for initial spatial positioning of augmentations
Ergonomics of the AR display solution (weight, comfort ...)Tracking accuracy issues
Ergonomy27%
Mentioned challenges of ARWithout academics
© ETSI 2018 28
1.38%
2.07%
3.45%
4.14%
4.14%
6.90%
6.90%
8.97%
8.97%
8.97%
9.66%
10.34%
11.72%
12.41%
Other (please specify)Equipment cost
User security while using AR solutionAR Devices robustness
Incompatibility with protective equipmentsBattery lifetime of the AR system
User interaction methods with the AR solutionTracking robustness issues
Availability or adaptation of the data (3D models, 2D…User acceptance (perceived reliability, utility, usability,…
Authoring time/cost of the AR applicationMethods for initial spatial positioning of augmentations
Ergonomics of the AR display solution (weight, comfort ...)Tracking accuracy issues
Cost : 11%
Mentioned challenges of ARWithout academics
© ETSI 2018 29
1.38%
2.07%
3.45%
4.14%
4.14%
6.90%
6.90%
8.97%
8.97%
8.97%
9.66%
10.34%
11.72%
12.41%
Other (please specify)Equipment cost
User security while using AR solutionAR Devices robustness
Incompatibility with protective equipmentsBattery lifetime of the AR system
User interaction methods with the AR solutionTracking robustness issues
Availability or adaptation of the data (3D models, 2D…User acceptance (perceived reliability, utility, usability,…
Authoring time/cost of the AR applicationMethods for initial spatial positioning of augmentationsErgonomics of the AR display solution (weight, comfort…
Tracking accuracy issues
-Tracking30%-Ergonomy27%
-Cost : 11%-Data availability: 9%
Mentioned challenges of ARWithout academics
© ETSI 2018 30
THANK YOUand let’s keep in touch
Muriel Deschanel: Chairman of the Industry Specification Group ARF [email protected]
Nicole Le Minous: Secretary of the Industry Specification Group ARF [email protected]
© ETSI 2018 31ADD SECTION NAME
Participants• 77 participants
• Location :
43% from Germany
24% from France
5% from Canada
5% from USA
5% from Spain
5% from Italy
…
• 85% of them have an interest in implementing an AR based device use case
• ~60% of the participants started their AR activities in 2015 or later (oldest : 1990)
• The average number of people working on AR in their company or institution is 12 (min : 1 / max : 100)