Brief Overview of the Paper:
The paper presents a design space for mid-air target teleportation and evaluates three techniques. It also establishes design guidelines based on the outcomes of a user study.
Contributions Beyond Previous Work:
In contrast to prior studies, this paper delves into continuous locomotion techniques. It applies frameworks from rotation specification, introduces three distinct approaches, evaluates them, and expands the existing research in this domain.
What I Like About It (and Why):
I appreciate the paper’s comprehensive analysis of both subjective and objective measures, involving a substantial participant pool of 30 individuals. This thorough methodology enhances the study’s credibility and depth of findings.
What I Don’t Like About It (and Why):
The study’s limitation to testing the system in only one town scene could hinder the generalizability of results and design guidelines derived. Moreover, as all participants are experienced VR users, the preferences of novice users, who may lean towards different designs, are not represented.
What Could Have Been Done Differently (and Why):
A more detailed discussion linking and comparing the paper’s results with Zielasko’s study, from which the approaches are derived, would have been beneficial. This comparison could offer deeper insights and bolster the study’s contributions.
What Should Be Done Next (and Why):
Future research should compare these techniques with alternative locomotion methods, like using the world-in-miniature concept for locomotion. Exploring the integration of their approach with other techniques, such as displaying the world-in-miniature instead of a “portal window” or incorporating rotation or height redirection during teleportation, could lead to more adaptable and user-friendly VR navigation methods.