=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2246/GHItaly18_paper_04
|storemode=property
|title=Things from Another World. VR, UI and UX through Run of Mydan
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2246/GHItaly18_paper_04.pdf
|volume=Vol-2246
|authors=Ilaria Mariani,Alan Mattiassi
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/avi/MarianiM18
}}
==Things from Another World. VR, UI and UX through Run of Mydan==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2246/GHItaly18_paper_04.pdf
Things from Another World.
VR, UI and UX through Run of Mydan
Ilaria Mariani Alan Mattiassi
Department of Design, Dipartimento di Economia
Politecnico di Milano "Marco Biagi", Università degli
Milan, Italy Studi di Modena e Reggio Emilia
ilaria1.mariani@polimi.it Modena, Italy
alan.mattiassi@unimore.it
ABSTRACT headsets and some must-have contents (revenue up from
When it comes to games in Virtual Reality (VR), User 1.8 in 2016, to 2.2B in 2017, and it is estimated to grow to
Interfaces (UI) require peculiar attention, since they imply 4.5B in 2018 [23]). The main profile devices are
different interactions and uses than games experienced on PlayStation VR, Oculus Rift and HTC Vive.
two dimensional screens. Through the examination of the
case study Run of Mydan, a first person single-player and What changes – and what is also challenged – in
multiplayer flying VR shooter, we discuss and ruminate on comparison with the traditional way of playing video
VR UI, and its influence on players in terms of UX (user games, is the player sense of interaction and immersion.
experience). Drawing specific attention on affordances, Experiencing VR games, players interact with their
usability, discoverability and feedback, we analyse how the surroundings (artificial environment) through senses and
developers of this game dealt with the UI as embedded into limbs, and the information flow is bidirectional: through
the environment or displayed on the avatar’s body. We senses, it goes from the environment to players; through
focus on how a diegetic interface facilitates the player in limbs, it goes backward. Conceptually, this way of
effortlessly understanding the virtual world and reaching interacting with the virtual world is more realistic than the
immersion. Based on the findings, we conclude that UX mouse-and-keyboard (for pc games) or pad/joystick (for
benefits from the intuitive diegetic solutions that the consoles and arcades games) mediated way: indeed, players
developers adopted, providing support for the “zero use motor schemes that have been previously acquired in
interface” approach in conveying information in virtual, the naturalistic setting of the physical environment to
three dimensional environments. perform everyday actions. On the contrary, traditional ways
of mediating interaction involve acquiring motor patterns
Author Keywords that are only loosely related with the resulting in-game
Games; Virtual Reality; User Interface; User Experience; meaning (as pressing the “w” key for moving the avatar
Immersion. forward) and often suffer from cross-modality interferences
ACM Classification Keywords (as using buttons on the left to have the avatar perform
K.8.0. Personal Computing: General – Games; H.5.m. actions on the right [13]). However, even by taking realism
Information interfaces and presentation (e.g., HCI): into account, there are recurrent perceptual UX problems.
Miscellaneous. Ever since their conception in the 60’s, VR via head-
mounted systems has been involved firstly in visual and
INTRODUCTION secondary auditory senses [24], revealing a quite persistent
Virtual reality (VR) is a system of principles, methods and lack of coverage on other senses. In particular, the absence
techniques intended to give the player a more realistic way of haptic stimuli and of a physicality of the virtual world
of perceiving and experiencing the surroundings by impacts on VR realism and immersion [15,16]. Although
reproducing via modelling and simulation an artificial, the use of wearable technology, physical props, and the
three-dimensional space. Especially speaking of games, VR possibility of having players walking while navigating VR
is now on the rise, benefitting from price cuts on VR environments (e.g.: [5]), the problem is still far from an
easy solution. In fact, such approaches cannot fully nor
smoothly recreate the experience of touching objects.
That said, we are in front of haptic and proprioception
issues, where the first refers to the sensory domain of touch,
that have already been mentioned, while the second relates
to those stimuli that are produced and perceived because of
GHItaly18: 2nd Workshop on Games-Human Interaction, May 29th, 2018, the position of our body in the environment/space and its
Castiglione della Pescaia, Grosseto (Italy)
Copyright © 2018 for the individual papers by the papers' authors. Copying
locomotion. Indeed, our brain continuously checks the
permitted for private and academic purposes. This volume is published and proprioceptive and visual consequences of motor
copyrighted by its editors. commands (e.g.: [2]). In some cases, a mismatch occurs,
such as when patients with an amputated limb try to move throughout its design process (from the first demo to the
it. The majority of these patients experience the vivid current version). We used variable methods: informal
presence of a “phantom limb” associated with extreme pain. interviews, direct observation, participant observation via
Crucially, by restoring the visual feedback, the pain is also moderate participation in the design phase (impacting on
instantly reduced [19], suggesting that the sensorimotor the implementation of the game) and playing with the
mismatch may be interpreted by the brain as pain [18]. current version, collective discussions, and self-analysis. As
Similarly, when looking at virtual reality, the matching a matter of fact, one of the authors of this paper has been
between what is being perceived via visual and non-visual the first playtester of the early access release, the first
channels may evoke bizarre experiences. One such public version of the game. The benefits of conducting
experience is known as the cybersickness or VR sickness, a observation and interacting over an extend span of time
feeling that closely resembles motion sickness. (about 1 year, at the time of writing) lies in the collection of
Interestingly, while for motion sickness vestibular those reasonings that are not influenced by a posteriori fact,
stimulation is necessary, with visual stimulation being a but rather progressive improvements, for example how
possible contributing factor, in VR sickness only the visual discrepancies have been resolved.
stimulation occurs [11]. In line with the phantom limb
According to Howell [7], we conducted the research: 1)
example, this suggests that the mismatch between the
Establishing encounters with the developer team before
information flowing through the visual channel and that
starting the study; 2) In the field, entering the community
elaborated through another channel (in this case,
since the game was in a demo phase; 3) Recording
proprioceptive information) is the triggering factor. This
observations and data via (a) field notes and (b) semi-
issue is still being dealt with.
structured interviews, being aware of possible subjective
In developing the first VR contents, multiple UX problems biases and prejudices [1,6,21]; 4) Analyzing data by (a)
popped out concerning UI. To lessen its impact, answering thematic and (b) narrative analysis.
the necessity of delivering complex information, a design
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
solution can be embedding information into the Run of Mydan is a first person single-player and multiplayer
environment, following the idea that the best interface is no flying VR shooter. The two game modes differ not only in
interface [10] – trying not to expose it, and not even to refer the number of players involved but also in the navigation
to the way it is used in two dimensional games. A three- mechanics. Thus, we go from describing common features
dimensional environment offers different affordances than a to vetting into the main differences. Finally, we analyse the
two-dimensional one, including those that refer to our menu interface and its UI, as an element deliberately
innate perception-action patterns (since we live in a three
designed as separate from the game environment. The game
dimensional space) [4,14,17]. Taking advantage of this, VR
can be played either with the HTC Vive VR system or with
designers could approach UX problems simply demanding the Oculus Rift one, alongside a pair of controllers and
the interaction learning to already known patterns. turrets to track the player. In the following, we embrace a
In the light of this reasoning, our research question regards twofold perspective: the one of the player who experiences
how players grasp information from the VR environment, the game, and the one of the developers who took specific
and hence understand how to interact with the game decisions in terms of interaction, aesthetics and so on.
elements. Sense-making issues (as wayfinding or General features
interaction with the environment), complications with The entire gameplay is based on a singular assumption: the
actual navigation in real spaces, and interaction with the UI player’s avatar and the enemies can be damaged until they
(techniques from handheld to full-body), are just some of die. As such, the main goal of the player is to survive and
the main problems. Recognizing their existence, as well as kill enemies. In Run of Mydan players can perform the
the inconsistencies and discrepancies that tag along, we following actions: moving, attacking (with the currently
propose to go through a case study for ruminating how selected weapon) or blocking (by generating and using a
hands-on experiences can serve to unpack some recurrent shield). Depending on the game mode, these actions have
problem and overcome frequent usability issue. Then, based different effects in terms of gameplay, since can affect
on our observations we discuss the game affordances as different game elements.
usability, discoverability, feedback, and what kind of
information the UI convey to those who play. Acknowledging Lee and colleagues’ research on avatars’
spatial navigation of virtual environments [12], and relying
METHODOLOGY on the concept of peripersonal space alongside the
From a methodological perspective, the research conducted extrapersonal and personal ones, we draw our attention on
on the artifact is based on qualitative research on Virtew’s its implication in terms of interactions between avatar,
Run of Mydan (2017) as our case study. The analysis player, and environment. According to the authors,
follows how the investigation of the game experience navigating the space with their avatar, players tend to
according to user-centered approach resulted into ignore visual stimuli located “outside of the avatars’
implications and implementations of the VR game,
peripersonal spaces in which the avatars cannot interact,
thereby irrelevant informational space” [12]. To increase configurations are irrelevant to the current rumination, what
immersivity, the game uses no head-up display (HUD) to concerns us is that in the multiplayer mode, the interaction
convey information, but it is either embeded it in the with others consists of fights and occurs just through
environment or embodied it in the three-dimensional weapons – not barehanded harm can be provided. When
elements themselves. Following the "zero interface" damage is received, the avatar health decreases
principle of the VR medium, the UI and its elements have proportionally to the hits; recovery starts few seconds after
been made contextual to the environment itself, therefore the last hit. When the avatar dies, it respawns with full
fluidly merged with the it or with the avatar, as explained health, and a point is given to the opposing enemy/team.
below. In terms of affordances, embedded or embodied UIs
Single-player mode
have an impact on usability: they do not communicate their The single-player mode differs from the multiplayer mode
presence to players, but players get to intuitively know mainly because it does not allow “free flight” movement:
about their existence and function. Run of Mydan UI mainly the avatar is indeed enchained to a floating platform. As
relies on discoverability, as the degree of ease with which such, the movement system previously seen for the
the player discovers the elements and features of the game multiplayer mode only moves the platform slightly on the
system as far as they are first encountered, and on the game left or right or makes it accelerate or slow down; the
ability to contextually and timely provide understandable platform follows an invisible path (a sort of rail) over which
feedback of what is going on. For example, if the flying the player has little control. However, the player can move
modes are grounded on quite intuitive and graspable across the two-dimensional plane of the platform,
interactions, especially because they rely on the well-known
corresponding to about 2.5x2.5 meters. By walking around
Ironman and Superman imaginary with equally clear
the tracked area, the movement, centered on the avatar, is
affordances, the use of weapons is otherwise based on a recreated in the VR space. Because of some chains, which
different and “less natural” reasoning and affordances that are a simple, narrative-based and very effective visual
require to start a learning process – as discussed below. stratagem to communicate the game affordances, the player
Multiplayer mode(s) is led to know that the platform is the only walkable space.
The multiplayer mode features a 3D, gravity free As such, the player is informed that by being on the
environment in which player’s avatar floats and moves. platform s/he can move as if s/he was affected by gravity
Such environment is a finished world, and its extension is (even if the platform is not, since it moves floating along an
signaled by an invisible wall that appears once encountered: invisible rail). This aspect alongside the properties of some
when a player reaches such border, a visual effect that environmental elements and enemies are a source of
could be described as a disintegrating net of floating ambiguity, since some elements are inexplicably subject to
orange-stroked triangles appears. If the avatar does not gravity or not. This is certainly an unresolved issue that
touch such fringe, nothing signals its existence neither its produces a cognitive dissonance, due to the environmental
proximity: matter-of-factly players are allowed to see the physics; however, the chain expedient provides a diegetic
rest of the world through such net, but they cannot reason to the player who cognitively matches what s/he sees
reach/explore it. This brings to a situation that provides to what s/he understands of the world: in-game position and
situated information just when it is needed, and in the locomotion, as well as the feeling of gravity itself.
meanwhile it is providing enhancing player’s feeling of
Focusing on the interaction with the world, the player
being in a full world rather than in a mere portion.
simultaneously needs to 1) defend from environmental
Then, focusing on in-game locomotion, players can perform perils and assaults/offences by standard enemies as well as
360 movements to navigate the environment. Movements giant end-level bosses, through the use of shields and flying
can be performed in two modalities, selected in the settings. skills, and 2) attack such enemies or dangerous
Selecting the Ironman mode, for moving players need to environmental elements using the available weapons. In
point the controllers at the direction that they want to be certain occasions, players also need to use an appropriate
pushed from (i.e., pointing in front of myself to be combination of attack, defense and movement. In this
propelled backwards); in the Superman mode, players point mode, enemies do not recover from damage, but the
at the direction they want to be pulled in (i.e., pointing in player’s avatar does. Then, when the avatar dies, it
front of myself to go forward). In the early design phases, respawns in a previous checkpoint, full health. However,
the Ironman mode was the only modality. However, tests checkpoints presence and position are not communicated,
ran users showed that such modality of fly was not easily and players are not aware of their existence, until the avatar
grasped and handled by all those who played it. In answer dies and respawns. This choice undermines the player’
to such issue, the “superman” mode has been introduced. sense of consistency of actions, since s/he is not informed
about a mechanic that is available in the game.
That said, we switch from the interaction with the
environment to the one with other online players. Players Menu UI and player UX
can enter several configurations (1 on 1 deathmatch, team The menu on which the player selects the game mode,
vs team deathmatch, dominion, etc), however while such configures settings, customizes avatars and so on is located
in a separate space from the one in which the the gameplay facilitating the path from engagement to engrossment and
occurs. By entering this space (fig. 1), the player leaves the total immersion [3]. In fact, all the information regarding
game environment and a new nightly environment appears, in-game meaningful statuses are embedded with
with a menu consisting of a set of three-dimensional appropriately diegetic representations [8]. Recognizing the
buttons and writings spanning 180° of the visual field and central role of immersion, in the following we expand some
being centered on the player (fig. 1). The menu appears in of the concepts that contribute to it (and its maintenance).
the peripersonal space [12], so that buttons are reachable by The first point regards information overload, possibly due
extending the hand with no need for additional movements to an excessive amount of informative elements that could
such as steps. However, by not having physicality nor affect in a negative way the player decision-making
haptic feedback, the virtual hand can use the same space process. In fact, dealing with a virtual representation, we
occupied by the button. The interaction with the buttons undergo a peculiar contradiction that stands “between our
requires to have the virtual index finger “inside” the virtual impression of virtually unlimited perceptual content and the
button, where the status of “being pressed” is signaled by a existence of severe attentional limitations” [22]. To reduce
rather unexpected reaction: the button becomes partially the information overload and smoot as much as possible the
transparent. This interaction results counterintuitive and play experience, the game developers firstly developed an
unrealistic, and produces a certain ambiguity. effective navigation system for both the single and
multiplayer modes, fitting the game general coherence and
timely providing answers to the task to accomplish in the
game space. Then the 3D environment has been designed
for balancing (and ameliorating) how information is
provided. Aptly, the way in which the game system shows
visual information should regard only the items needed to
accomplish a task (at hand), coherently and timely, instead
of forming an extended, detailed representation of the full
variety of objects in the surrounding environment [20]. The
UI should enable to handle multiple and dynamic
information, also exploiting our spatial cognition
capabilities. Just the player’s damage information is
traditionally provided, responding to the very habits of
Figure 1. The menu and its UI. players: when the player is repeatedly hit and damaged, the
vision of the world turns red with a contrast that gets
stronger the more serious the damage is. When life is
recovered the colour returns to normal and the life bar on
the forearm fills up. That said, during the gameplay, the
player is provided with some information that rather than
being overlaid on the screen, are wisely situated into the
virtual space. This allows players to bypass them by
“walking across the information themselves”, providing the
conceptual, and cognitive, implication that they are part of
the VR world. According to our direct experience, the way
in which the UI has been embedded in the avatar’s body as
well as in the environment itself contributes to increase
immersivity rather than producing a sort of detachment due
Figure 2. The button getting transparent when being presses.
overlay of information. Indeed, recognizing the
Moreover, to perform every choice here mediated by these potentialities of the avatar’s body in being a diegetic
three-dimensional buttons (fig. 2), the player has to push element that can be used for providing supplementary
the trigger on the controller with the index finger. In so information, basic information as health and weapon
doing, we obtain a sensorimotor mismatch: even if the readiness states are displayed on the arm of the avatar (in
player is pressing the button on the controller, the virtual line with how it has been done in Dead Space 2, a solution
hand does not move, and the button does not look as “being already discussed in [9], [8] and [25]).
pressed”. According to our experience, this mismatch is
On the contrary, more advanced information is conveyed by
perceived as a friction with the interaction, resulting into a
means of several intuitive affordances. For example, the
fracture of the immersion [3,15].
avatar status is represented on the arm and the line of fire
UI embedded in the gameplay can be inferred by aligning a set of three-dimensional
The UI has been designed and implemented to let the floating triangles resembling the behaviours of aiming with
player’s experience be as immersive as possible by a shotgun (fig. 3). From an UX point of view, these UI
design choices result as consistent as meaningful, in overall manipulation. Reducing the number of choices to a
addition to be diegetic. They allow players to behave in a maximum of three weapons to be selected among all those
natural way, and simply check their arm for information present in the game while in the the menu space, the
about their health and weapon recharge states, or point their cognitive load is relatively low and the manipulation
weapon using triangles to aim, rather than adding layers of happening directly on the interested hand keeps the
information in the environment – as a non-diegetic life bar selection intuitive. This iteration certainly took into
or aiming cross in the middle of the field of view. consideration the principle of discoverability, while the
second and third ones could not be described as user-
friendly, even if we recognise the attempt to maintain a
diegetic coherence. In Run of Mydan, the first playtests
highlighted troublesome interactions, showing a persistent
discrepancy between perceived affordances and unexpected
results. To obtain a coherence between perceived and real
affordances, the developers modified certain interactions
(as the weapon selection one) and introduced specific
feedback that are consistent throughout the gameplay [4],
but also meaningful in narrative terms.
Figure 3. The avatar arm with the health and weapon
readiness state, and the weapon pointing system. Finally, to convey further information they introduced the
haptic feedback. Controllers vibrate when a player uses a
Like navigation, also the interaction with the environment
weapon to shoot, but also when some weapons are ready or,
occurs through movements of the upper part of the body:
conversely, when some other weapons are fully discharged.
pushing the controller buttons, or orienting them as an
Additionally, vibration occurs also in one instance in which
extension of the player’ arms in the space to fly or shoot,
the shield is broken. In our experience, while vibration feels
avoiding complications due to composite actions. The
like a nice feature of these few actions, the coherence with
weapon selection currently involves the use of a dedicated
which it is implemented conveys little meaning.
button on the controller that can be pressed with each
thumb to change the selected weapon on the corresponding CONCLUSION
virtual hand. The selected weapon is communicated by an We analysed the use of UI in a three dimensional, virtual
icon on the back of the corresponding hand of the avatar, environment in the game Run of Mydan, in which the
becoming in turn an embedded information. While no developer’s attempt was to adopt the diegetic approach to
visual feedback in the VR space corresponds to the thumb facilitate both players’ immersion and their understanding
movement, this design solution solves a number of issues of the game world. While the resulting product reaches this
that were detected during the playtest sections. The first goal in many aspects, some issues are still left to be
iteration to select the weapon was a swipe on the controller satisfyingly solved. In fact, the diegetic informative
pad, that provided no feedback, but the appearance of the elements embedded in the environment/body are coherent
selected weapon in the avatar hand in a following moment with both the design and psychological guidelines that
than the selection itself. The second iteration involved the suggest to use intuitive patterns and affordances. These, in
appearance of a semi-transparent fan-like panel presenting turn, trigger already known motor patterns and facilitate the
the possible choices on the back of the hand on which the learning process, while rendering the gameplay more
weapon was being selected. In this case, the player had to intuitive and the immersion deeper. Along with these
reach the back of that hand with the opposing hand, and act benefits, the sensorimotor matching and the cognitive
on it with a complex manipulation involving a spline match between the bodily feelings and the visual
generated on the wrist that needed to be connected with the stimulation are taken into account and exploited with
weapon icon. Then, after performing such a complex diegetic solutions. The result is a game in which most of the
manipulation with the opposing hand, the weapon was information is conveyed in an intuitive and straightforward
selected for the hand that was not manipulating. Playtesters manner, and players can quickly grasp it and effortlessly
reported this solution as very counterintuitive. The third interact with the world. However, a number of issues
iteration of the weapon-choice interface involved less remain open: non-diegetic elements present various degrees
manipulation by the opposing hand. The panel of choices of interference with total immersion. A great deal of work
was placed on the back of the shield: in so doing, to change has been devoted to the weapon-selection interface, but the
the weapon on one hand the player had to press the “non-diegetic button press” solution still leaves the
controller shield button (a thumb press) with that hand. cognitive load low while representing the current status in a
However, the problem remained, as the hand performing diegetic way. On the opposite, the menu interface is by
the selection still wasn’t the one being affected by it. The definition non-diegetic, in that the game needs to be paused
second and third iterations did not solve the issue, since to access it. However, in this space the UI is represented in
they produced expectations later disappointed. The last and a three dimensional space with convenient affordances. In a
current iteration simplifies the problem by limiting the sense, while the menu space is separate from the game
space, both have their own diegetic, but incompatible, http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1017723/CraftingDestru
meanings. Unfortunately, the interaction with the menu ction-The-Evolution-of
breaks the immersion, forcing the player to use body 10. Golden Krishna. 2015. The Best Interface is No
movements with no in-game reconstruction and based on Interface: The Simple Path to Brilliant Technology.
the counterintuitive assumption that two objects may New Riders, USA.
occupy the same spatial position. This analysis suggests
that the diegetic, no interface is the best interface approach 11. Joseph J. and LaViola Jr. 2000. A Discussion of
[10] is useful in providing a barrier-less path to total Cybersickness in Virtual Environments. SIGCHI Bull.
immersion in VR. However, while single case studies are 32, 1: 47-56.
useful in exploring state-of-the-art solutions, whereas 12. Jooyeon Lee, Manri Cheon, Seong-Eun Moon and
evidence-based directions for UI and UX design are Jong-Seok Lee. 2016. Peripersonal Space in Virtual
required the topic needs further quantitative-methods Reality. Proceedings of the 29th Annual Symposium on
explorations. User Interface Software and Technology, ACM, 207-
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
208.
We thank Virtew and its team for their time and valuable 13. Alan Mattiassi. 2017. Command Systems and Player-
contribution, for providing us with materials, screenshots Avatar Interaction in Successful Fighting Games in
and access to the game. Light of Neuroscientific Theories and Models. GHItaly
CEUR Proceedings.
REFERENCES
1. Anne-Marie Ambert, Patricia A. Adler, Peter Adler, 14. Joanna McGrenere and Wayne Ho. 2000. Affordances:
and Daniel F. Detzner. 1995. Understanding and Clarifying and evolving a concept. Graphics Interface,
Evaluating Qualitative Research. Journal of Marriage 179-186.
and Family 57, 4: 879–893. 15. Alison McMahan. 2003. Immersion, engagement and
2. S. J. Blakemore and J. Decety. 2001. From the presence. In The Video Game Theory Reader, Mark JP
perception of action to the understanding of intention. Wolf and Bernard Perron (eds.). Routledge,
Nature Reviews. Neuroscience 2, 8: 561–567. London/New York, 67-86.
3. Emily Brown and Paul Cairns. 2004. A Grounded 16. Janet Horowitz Murray. 1997. Hamlet on the
Investigation of Game Immersion. CHI ’04 Extended Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace. MIT
Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Press, Cambridge, MA.
ACM, 1297–1300. 17. Donald A. Norman. 1999. Affordance, Conventions,
4. Cardona-Rivera Rogelio Enrique and Young R. and Design. Interactions 6, 3: 38-43.
Michael. 2014. A Cognitivist Theory of Affordances 18. Vilayanur S. Ramachandran and Eric L. Altschuler.
for Games. DiGRA Conference. 2013. 2009. The use of visual feedback, in particular mirror
5. Lung-Pan Cheng, Thijs Roumen, Hannes Rantzsch, et visual feedback, in restoring brain function. Brain: A
al. 2015. TurkDeck: Physical Virtual Reality Based on Journal of Neurology 132, Pt 7: 1693-1710.
People. Proceedings of the 28th Annual ACM 19. Vilayanur S. Ramachandran, David Brang and Paul D.
Symposium on User Interface Software & Technology, McGeoch. 2009. Size reduction using Mirror Visual
ACM, 417-426. Feedback (MVF) reduces phantom pain. Neurocase 15,
6. Kathleen M. DeWalt and Billie R. DeWalt. 1998. 5: 357-360.
Participant observation. In Handbook of Methods in 20. Ronald A. Rensink. 2000. The dynamic representation
Cultural Anthropology, H. Russel Bernard (ed.). of scenes. Visual Cognition 7, 1–3: 17-42.
AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA, 259-299.
21. Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln (eds.),
7. Joseph T. Howell. 1972. Hard Living on Clay Street: Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd Ed.). Sage
Portraits of Blue Collar Families. Waveland Press, Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Inc., Prospect Heights, IL, 392-403.
22. Claudia Roda. 2011. Human Attention in Digital
8. Ioanna Iacovides, Anna Cox, Richard Kennedy, Paul Environments. Cambridge Univ. Press, New York, NY.
Cairns and Charlene Jennett. 2015. Removing the
HUD: The Impact of Non-Diegetic Game Elements 23. SuperData 2018. Year in Review 2017. Digital and
and Expertise on Player Involvement. Proceedings of Interactive Media.
the 2015 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human 24. Ivan E. Sutherland 1968. A head-mounted three
Interaction in Play - CHI PLAY ’15, ACM, 13-22. dimensional display. Proceedings AFIPS ’68, 757-776.
9. Dino Ignacio. Crafting Destruction: The Evolution of 25. Max Taylor. 2017. Augmenting The HUD: A Mixed
Dead Space User Interface. Game Developers Methods Analysis on the Impact of Extending the
Conference 2013 Talk. Retrieved from: Game UI Beyond the Screen