The Microsoft Hololens 2 device (HL2) is an augmented reality (AR) headset which projects digital information in three-dimensions to the user wearing the device. The device tracks the user’s hands which allows them to directly interact with the “holograms” without any additional accessories. One of the biggest strengths of the HL2 is its potential for communication and collaboration. The introduction of information presented in three-dimensions and potential for haptic data interaction makes the HL2 an interesting device to study computer-mediated communication. The “Aluminum Grains” is a HL2 application developed for Lehigh’s Nano | Human Initiative at Lehigh University. The app is designed to teach students about grain geometries in materials science. In its current development iteration, the app can support up to ten users at a time. The app connects users into one shared holographic space where they can play with several simulated models of aluminum columnar grains. This study seeks foremost to understand how we can modify the design of the application to help users communicate easier, especially users who may be “remote.” While this study focuses on the Aluminum Grains application, we are hoping it will offer more insight into how users can or cannot communicate using gestures and holograms.

We chose a usability test format for this study so that users will have a more structured experience. We designed three tasks to test how users are connecting the virtual and real environments, their ability to communicate over the holographic medium, and how well they interact with the holograms. Users will be asked to “think aloud” so that the technician can gain a better insight into how the user is perceiving usefulness and usability. For this study, users will participate in groups of three with one user participating in a different room. Three groups will be tested for a total of nine participants.

The results of the different tasks varied amongst each group. We found that without the ability to communicate verbally, the “remote” user severely struggled to communicate just using holograms. Another observation is that the “in-person” participants would often not use the HL2 to communicate information even though they were looking at the same holograms. This behavior may reflect the principle in CMC that face-to-face interaction is preferred by users over other types of communication. This may also explain the difficultly the “remote” user often faced when attempting to communicate with the other two users. Without video or audio channels to communicate the users were limited to what essentially became a game of Charades in order to communicate simple ideas.

It became obvious that some users were having difficulty sharing holograms with other users. This could reflect the effect that personalization has on users’ expectations and their ability to collaborate in a partially digital environment. In the same way users may not want to type on a computer keyboard with another person at the same time, users may feel uncomfortable sharing holograms they perceive as “personal.” Besides these negative experiences, users did indeed have an overall positive experience with the education application. When reminded to “think-aloud,” user’s thoughts were often excited and happy. At the end of the tasks, the technician asked if the users would prefer the AR application to an analogous computer application. All nine participants said that they preferred AR.

For future redesigns, a vocal channel should be added to the application for remote users. In order to better encourage users to collaborate using the holographic medium, the menu should be placed in a static spot in the room where it cannot be moved. The initial issue with the menu is that users perceived it as a personal device to control the virtual environment. By making a static feature in the room, users may think of it as a shared object instead of a personal object. This may also increase feelings of immersion and embodiment in the augmented environment.