Re-build-ing Boundaries: The Rolesof Boundaries in Mixed Reality Play

Sultan A. AlharthiPlay & Interactive Experiencesfor Learning LabNew Mexico State UniversityLas Cruces, NM 88001, USAsalharth@nmsu.edu

Zachary O. ToupsPlay & Interactive Experiencesfor Learning LabNew Mexico State UniversityLas Cruces, NM 88001, USAz@cs.nmsu.edu

Authors maintain the copyright.

Workshop on HCI Outdoors: Understanding Human-Computer Interaction inthe Outdoors at CHI 2018, April 21, 2018, Montreal, Canada.

AbstractEmerging outdoor recreation activities such aslocation-based games, spatial mixed reality play, andexergames have proliferated in recent years, raisingquestions around boundaries, immersion, safety, and userexperience. Designers of such outdoor games need to takeinto consideration how they select spaces, and how theirselection effect the experience. In our prior work, wecontribute a set of guidelines and design implications thatsupport designers of outdoor mixed reality play to selectand define boundaries of the physical-world region inwhich the mixed reality is experienced. However, fewoutdoor mixed reality research and games providesufficient information on how they selected outdoorspaces, making it challenging to replicate. To supportdesigners, we call for better reporting of space usage inmixed reality games and research. Future work willexplore ways to bring together best practices, identifyproblems, and develop practical guidelines that canfacilitate further development of outdoor mixed realities.

Author KeywordsHCI outdoors; mixed reality; augmented reality; outdoor;games; space; boundaries; user experience; game design.

ACM Classification KeywordsH.5.1 [Information interfaces and presentation (e.g.,HCI)]: Multimedia Information Systems.

IntroductionRecent advances in mobile and ubiquitous technologies,coupled with the ability to track users outdoors, haveopened countless possibilities for the growth of outdoormixed realities [1, 2, 6]. Systems that connect virtual andphysical reality in some meaningful way through sensors,networks, computers, and databases are mixedrealities [8, 11]. These range from augmented reality, inwhich conformal 3D imagery is integrated with aperspective on the physical world, to augmented virtuality,in which physical-world artifacts and spaces are integratedinto a virtual world [3].

Applications of spatial mixed reality have included tourism(e.g., Westwood Experience [14]), education (e.g.,DERIVE [4]), and games (e.g., Pokemon GO [9]). Spatialmixed realities take place in physical environments thatafford and constrain action through a combination oflayout, size, climate, history, purpose, technology, and/orsocial contracts. Designers of such outdoor games need totake into consideration how they select space and definethe boundaries of the mixed reality game.

Our prior work addresses a number of these considerationthat are important to HCI in the outdoor, including how toselect space and make place [11], which display modalitiesfit best for the outdoors [12], and how to design wearableuser interfaces [2]. These topics are usually considered bydesigners of spatial mixed realities. With this paper, weshed light upon opportunities, challenges, and future workaround building boundaries for outdoor experiences and tofacilitate further development in this domain.

Prior WorkOur prior research has directly addressed how designersselect physical spaces to make places [11]. A space is aphysical area, while a place is a space infused withmeaning [5, 11]. Mixed reality games that make use ofphysical space make and/or alter places. In this work, welooked at prior designers considerations in outdoor spacesthrough a grounded theory analysis of 71 research papersand 17 games. The resulting space-selection frameworkprovides designers with insight into how to select outdoorspaces and places for mixed realities. The framework hastwo axes: space continuity and specificity requirements.

Space continuity considers the boundaries (or lackthereof) of the physical-world region in which a mixedreality can be experienced. In this prior work, we are notdiscussing physical size, but how boundaries are organized(Figure 1), which resulted in four classifications of spacecontinuity:

• individual spaces offer mixed reality in onebounded location;

• isolated spaces connect together multipleindividual spaces without mixed reality in betweenthem;

• continuous spaces provide users with mixed realityalong a route, but in this case this experience iscontinuous; and

• ubiquitous spaces are large-scale and featurepoorly defined or undefined boundaries (possiblyincluding anywhere in the world).

individual

isolated

continuous

ubiquitous

Figure 1: Graphical representation of the space continuitytypes found in the literature [11]. Individual spaces areself-contained, with definite boundaries. Isolated spaces areeach self-contained and experienced in a sequence. Continuousspaces are like isolated spaces, but with mixed reality along apath. Ubiquitous spaces have poorly defined or no boundaries.This style of diagram can easily be used by designers to specifyboundaries in their own spatial mixed realities.

As a second axis, we consider the specificity requirementsfor the researched spatial mixed realities, which accountsfor how generic or specific a space needs to be to supportthe intended experience, including technologicalrequirements. These include:

• open space mixed reality games do not require anyparticular affordances or constraints in the physicalenvironment. These games can be experiencedanywhere;

Figure 2: A map/layout of the outdoor location andboundaries of the mixed reality game PhotoNav [12].The game is designed using isolated and continuousspaces, which enable building mixed realities alongmultiple routs, but disengage the user between them.Such design choice increase safety, since the designercan ensure that players can interact with the game insafe areas, but disengage when it is not safe.

• templated space mixed reality games may becreated anywhere when specific requirements (e.g.,location data sources) are met; and

• place mixed reality games are unique to a specificlocation where the experience cannot be replicatedin a different geographic location.

Combining both axes, designers can define the physicalboundaries of the intended mixed reality, and understandthe affordances, constraints, and design implications ofthe selected space (Figure 2).

Mixed reality systems potentially enhance and areenhanced by the aura of places in which they are set [7].One challenge that designers of mixed reality games mightface is that authentic places, such as museums, are notalways available for mixed reality creation. To overcomethis challenge, places can be constructed, transposed, orevoked through the careful use of the virtual worlds ofmixed reality. Space transforms to place throughwell-designed mixed reality [5].

Certainly, as the physical-world boundaries of a mixedreality experience expand, the level of risk increases withit. The design of a mixed reality experience in terms, ofits space continuity and layout, has significantimplications for safety. The continuity of space drives theneed for virtual data that is linked to a physical-worldlocation: the larger and more continuous the space, thegreater the need for virtual world data and connectivity.

Future WorkWhile the space selection framework [11] supportsdesigners in selecting space to make place, future workneed to address the practical steps designers need to applythe framework during the development process of mixedreality and how designers can define the boundaries of theexperience. The findings from our prior work act as astarting point for further studies in which other variablesthat might effect the selection of spaces can be analyzed,such as day time, seasons, events, player preference, socialfabric, and rules of the selected space [10]. Future workneed to analyze the relation between space selection andits contribution in making a mixed reality experienceengaging. One way to develop more engaging experiencesis to examine mixed reality players behavior in outdoorsettings, such as the reasons players prefer particularoutdoor locations to play [13].

ConclusionDesigners of HCI in outdoor recreation setting can benefitfrom prior experiences of designing and developing spatialmixed realities. However, while conducting our priorresearch, few of the reviewed outdoor mixed realityresearch and games provided sufficient information on howthey selected their outdoor space, space size, and spacetemplate, which can help reproduce the researchperformed and gain insights into design practices. Thus,we encourage future researchers and designers of outdoorrecreation activities to ensure that their work makesavailable maps/layouts, boundaries, size descriptions, andtemplate descriptions for the physical components of thedesigned outdoor experience.

While the development of lightweight computing devicesand wireless networking is increasing, the need for definingand building boundaries for outdoor recreationalexperiences becomes necessary. It can be argued that itwould be beneficial for the designers of such outdoorsystems to understand the boundaries of outdoorrecreational activities and how to select physical spacesfor different experiences instead of just selecting randomlocations, which might impact the experience or cause itto be unsafe or unpleasant1.

References[1] Alharthi, S. A., LaLone, N., Khalaf, A. S., Torres,

R. C., Nacke, L. E., Dolgov, I., and Toups, Z. O.Practical insights into the design of future disasterresponse training simulations. In Proceedings of the15th International Conference on InformationSystems for Crisis Response And Management(2018).

1A Pokemon GO player unknowingly walks into a police stationin search of a Pokemon gym: https://goo.gl/hbwaZN

[2] Alharthi, S. A., Sharma, H. N., Sunka, S., Dolgov, I.,and Toups, Z. O. Designing future disaster responseteam wearables from a grounding in practice. InProceedings of Technology, Mind, and Society,TechMindSociety ’18, ACM (New York, NY, USA,2018).

[3] Benford, S., and Giannachi, G. Performing MixedReality. MIT Press, 2011.

[4] Ernst, H., and Faust, M. Derive: A distributedplatform for mixed reality interaction. In CHI ’02Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in ComputingSystems, CHI EA ’02, ACM (New York, NY, USA,2002), 570–571.

[5] Harrison, S., and Dourish, P. Re-place-ing space:The roles of place and space in collaborative systems.In Proceedings of the 1996 ACM Conference onComputer Supported Cooperative Work, CSCW ’96,ACM (New York, NY, USA, 1996), 67–76.

[6] Khalaf, A. S., Pianpak, P., Alharthi, S. A.,NaminiMianji, Z., Torres, R. C., Tran, S., Dolgov, I.,and Toups, Z. O. An architecture for simulatingdrones in mixed reality games to explore future searchand rescue scenarios. In Proceedings of the 15thInternational Conference on Information Systems forCrisis Response And Management (2018).

[7] MacIntyre, B., Bolter, J. D., and Gandy, M.Presence and the aura of meaningful places.Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 6,2 (2004), 197–206.

[8] Milgram, P., and Kishino, F. A taxonomy of mixedreality visual displays. IEICE Trans. InformationSystems E77-D, 12 (1994), 1321–1329.

[9] Niantic, Inc. Pokemon GO. Game [Mobile], July2016. Niantic, Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA.

[10] Samsonov, P. A., Tang, X., Schoning, J., Kuhn, W.,and Hecht, B. You can’t smoke here: Towardssupport for space usage rules in location-awaretechnologies. In Proceedings of the 33rd AnnualACM Conference on Human Factors in ComputingSystems, CHI ’15, ACM (New York, NY, USA,2015), 971–974.

[11] Sharma, H. N., Alharthi, S. A., Dolgov, I., andToups, Z. O. A framework supporting selecting spaceto make place in spatial mixed reality play. InProceedings of the Annual Symposium onComputer-Human Interaction in Play, CHI PLAY ’17,ACM (New York, NY, USA, 2017), 83–100.

[12] Sharma, H. N., Toups, Z. O., Dolgov, I., Kerne, A.,and Jain, A. Evaluating display modalities using amixed reality game. In Proceedings of the 2016Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interactionin Play, CHI PLAY ’16, ACM (New York, NY, USA,2016), 65–77.

[13] Sifonis, C. M. Attributes of ingress gaming locationscontributing to players’ place attachment. InExtended Abstracts Publication of the AnnualSymposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play,CHI PLAY ’17 Extended Abstracts, ACM (New York,NY, USA, 2017), 569–575.

[14] Wither, J., Allen, R., Samanta, V., Hemanus, J.,Tsai, Y. T., Azuma, R., Carter, W., Hinman, R., andKorah, T. The westwood experience: Connectingstory to locations via mixed reality. In 2010 IEEEInternational Symposium on Mixed and AugmentedReality - Arts, Media, and Humanities (Oct 2010),39–46.