Slide deck for presentation made to IASummit 2017 in Vancouver, B.C., March 26th, 2016 at 10:15AM. Talk describes how presence can be used as a way to talk about the user experience of interacting with blended and virtual environments in virtual, mixed, and augmented reality contexts.

1. Presence for
Information
Architects
A talk by T. Zachary Frazier

2. When we walk these streets what will
we find?

3. Chronozoom

5. H. G. Wells Vannevar Bush

6. Screens are leaving the tops of our desks
and getting closer to our eyes.

10. Presence

11. A virtual realityless presentation.

12. Ceci n’est pas une PowerPoint.

13. Tools and Tests

14. PRESENCE

17. “… THE SENSE OF BEING PRESENT
IN TIME OR SPACE AT A PARTICULAR
LOCATION. THUS, PRESENCE IS A
COGNITIVE STATE WHICH OCCURS
WHEN THE BRAIN PROCESSES AND
MAKES USE OF THE MYRIAD OF
STIMULUS INFORMATION IMPINGING
ON THE HUMAN SENSORY SYSTEM.”

18. Whoa!

19. INTERNATIONAL
SOCIETY FOR
PRESENCE
RESEARCH

20. [1] Presence (a shortened version of the term “telepresence”) is a psychological state or subjective perception in which even though part or all of an
individual’s current experience is generated by and/or filtered through human-made technology, part or all of the individual’s perception fails to accurately
acknowledge the role of the technology in the experience. Except in the most extreme cases, the individual can indicate correctly that s/he is using the
technology, but at *some level* and to *some degree*, her/his perceptions overlook that knowledge and objects, events, entities, and environments are
perceived as if the technology was not involved in the experience. Experience is defined as a person’s observation of and/or interaction with objects, entities,
and/or events in her/his environment; perception, the result of perceiving, is defined as a meaningful interpretation of experience.
[2] All experience of the physical world is mediated by the human senses and complex perceptual processes. This experience, identified by some scholars as
“first order” mediated experience, is the “normal” or “natural” way we perceive the physical world and provides a subjective sensation of being present in our
environment (constituting a broader conception of the term “presence” – i.e., not a shortened version of “telepresence”). Although this “first order” mediated
experience generally provides perceptions that correspond to the true nature of the physical world, it can also provide perceptions that do not correspond to
the true nature of the physical world; presence refers to the subset of human experience in which this misperception involves, at least in part, the actual role of
technology in the experience: Presence occurs when part or all of an individual’s experience is mediated not only by the human senses and perceptual
processes but also by human-made technology (i.e., “second order” mediated experience) while the person perceives the experience as if it is only mediated
by human senses and perceptual processes (i.e., “first order mediated experience). Thus, presence requires researchers to compare human perceptions and
responses in the context of technology with human perceptions and responses in contexts that do not involve technology (often referred to as “face-to-face” or
“interpersonal” contexts or, somewhat confusingly, “nonmediated” or “real” contexts).
[3] Technology is defined as a machine, device, or other application of human industrial arts. It includes traditional and emerging electronic media such as
television, radio, film, the telephone, computers, virtual reality, and simulation rides; traditional print media such as newspapers, books, and magazines; and
traditional arts such as painting and sculpture. Technologies used to correct deficiencies in “normal” perception of the physical world (e.g., eye-glasses and
hearing-aids) as well as those designed to augment or enhance perception are included. Most technologies provide stimuli to the human sense apparatus, but
this definition also includes technologies that provide stimuli directly to the human neural processing system.
[4] Presence is a property of an individual and varies across people and time; it is not a property of a technology or one of the technologies commonly referred
to as a medium, although technologies or media with specific constellations of characteristics are likely to evoke a similar set of presence responses across
individuals and across time (e.g., an IMAX 3D presentation typically produces greater presence in viewers than a small television presentation)
[5] A person’s sense of presence can vary in degree: Presence does not occur when a technology user’s perceptions fully and accurately acknowledge the
role of technology in an experience (e.g., a television viewer might accurately perceive that s/he is watching a human-made technology and that the images on
the small box in her/his living room are merely representations of objects, events, and people that may or may not exist elsewhere). Presence is greater, but
not maximized, when a technology user’s perceptions only partially acknowledge the actual role of technology in the experience (e.g., the user of an advanced
virtual reality system may simultaneously be consciously aware of – i.e., think about – the nature of the technology that is generating her/his experience,
accurately acknowledging the technological channel through which the experience has been generated, but nevertheless also perceive that s/he is inside the
technology-generated environment). Presence is maximized when a technology user’s perceptions fail to accurately acknowledge any role of the technology in
the experience (e.g., the user of a sophisticated flight simulator may, at least for short periods, be completely unaware of the technological channel through
which the experience has been generated and perceive that s/he is actually flying an aircraft).
[6] Presence occurs during an encounter with technology and not before or after this encounter (although the consequences/effects of presence can occur
after the encounter). Presence occurs in an “instant by instant” manner. Although it appears that presence is a continuous rather than dichotomous variable, it
has not been determined whether 1) presence can exist in varying degrees at each instant (as it seems) or 2) our sense that presence is continuous is the
result of the cumulative effect of instants, which may be as short as milliseconds, in which presence either does or does not exist.
In either case, as a misperception regarding the role of technology in an experience, presence can be “broken” by external events or internal mental processes
that bring the true nature of the experience to the person’s conscious awareness, at which point presence is reduced or extinguished.
7] Presence is a multi-dimensional concept; i.e., there are different types of presence. Little is currently known concerning which types exist but several (in
many cases nonorthogonal or overlapping) dimensions have been proposed by different scholars; researchers are beginning to empirically test the validity of
some of these dimensions. Some argue that the types should be divided into those that involve perceptions of physical environments, those that involve
perceptions of social interaction, and those that involve both of these. In identifying dimensions of presence it is important to distinguish between
antecedents/causes of presence, presence itself, and consequences/effects of presence. Major proposed dimensions include:
[7a] “Spatial presence,” “physical presence,” “a sense of physical space,” “perceptual immersion,” “transportation” and “a sense of being there” occur when
part or all of a person’s perception fails to accurately acknowledge the role of technology that makes it appear that s/he is in a physical location and
environment different from her/his actual location and environment in the physical world.
An example: A variety of stimuli provided by a virtual reality system can cause the user to perceive that s/he is moving through and interacting with the
environment created by the technology rather than the user’s actual physical environment; the user may comment, “It seemed as if I was someplace else!”
[7b] “Sensory presence,” “perceptual realism,” “naturalness,” “ecological validity”, and “tactile engagement” occur when part or all of a person’s perception fails
to accurately acknowledge the role of technology that makes it appear that s/he is in a physical location and environment in which the sensory characteristics
correspond to those of the physical world, i.e., s/he perceives that the objects, events, and/or people s/he encounters look, sound, smell, feel, etc. as they do
or would in the physical world. Note that although technology-generated environments that look, sound, etc. the same as environments in the physical world
are more likely to evoke this, and perhaps other, type(s) of presence, it is the *perception* that the sensory characteristics of the technology-generated
environment and those of the physical world correspond that defines this type of presence rather than the *actual* correspondence of the characteristics.
An example: Because it provides large, high resolution, three-dimensional images and high fidelity, dimensional sound, a 3D IMAX film presentation can cause
the viewer to perceive that s/he is in an environment that looks and sounds as the viewer believes it does or would in the physical world; the user may
comment, “It seemed so real!”
[7c] “Social realism” occurs when part or all of a person’s perception fails to accurately acknowledge the role of technology that makes it appear that s/he is in
a physical location and environment in which the social characteristics correspond to those of the physical world, i.e., s/he perceives that the objects, events,
and/or people s/he encounters do or could exist in the physical world. Note that although technology-generated environments in which objects, people, and
events act as they do in the physical world are more likely to evoke this, and perhaps other, type(s) of presence, it is the *perception* that the social
characteristics of the technology-generated environment and those of the physical world correspond that defines this type of presence rather than the *actual*
correspondence of the characteristics.
An example: A well written, well acted, filmed version of events that have occurred in the physical world can lead the film viewer to perceive that s/he is in an
environment in which objects, events, and people act and/or respond in the way(s) the viewer believes they did or would in the physical world; the user may
comment, “It seemed so realistic!”
[7d] “Engagement,” “involvement,” and “psychological immersion” occur when part or all of a person’s perception is directed toward objects, events, and/or
people created by the technology, and away from objects, events, and/or people in the physical world. Note that the person’s perception is not directed toward
the technology itself but the objects, events and/or people the technology creates.
An example: A virtual reality system, 3D IMAX film, or a well written and acted film can cause the user or viewer to devote all of her/his mental effort to
processing the stimuli created by the technology and ignore stimuli (e.g., other people, equipment, furniture, etc.) in her/his actual physical environment; the
user may comment, “It was so involving!”
[7e] “Social presence” (distinct from social *realism*) occurs when part or all of a person’s perception fails to accurately acknowledge the role of technology
that makes it appear that s/he is communicating with one or more other people or entities.
“Social actor within the medium” and “parasocial interaction” occur when part or all of a person’s perception fails to accurately acknowledge the role of
technology in her/his perception that s/he is engaged in two-way communication with another person or people, or with an artificial entity (e.g., a computer
“agent”), when the communicationis in fact one-way, from the technology to the person without feedback from the person to the other entity(ies).
An example: Those who create and appear in television programs use a variety of techniques (e.g., direct address and sincerity) that can lead the viewer to feel
that s/he is interacting with and/or in a “relationship” with the personalities and characters s/he encounters; the user may comment, “It seemed like we were
interacting!”
“Co-presence” and “transportation: shared space” occur when part or all of a person’s perception fails to accurately acknowledge the role of technology in
her/his perception that the person or people with whom s/he is engaged in two-way communication is/are in the same physical location and environment
when in fact they are in a different physical location.
An example: Advanced video-conferencing systems can create for a user the illusion that s/he is in a face-to-face meeting in which all the participants are in the
same room; the user may comment, “It felt like we were all together there!”
“Medium as social actor” occurs when part or all of a person’s perception fails to accurately acknowledge the role of technology in her/his perception that s/he
is engaged in communicationwith another entity when in fact the other entity is merely a technology or medium (e.g., computer, television, etc.).
An example: The ability of a computer to interact with a user in real-time, use human (rather than machine or technical) language, and fill a social role (e.g.,
bank teller or teacher) can lead even an experienced user to follow social norms (e.g., regarding gender stereotypes and third-party evaluations) that are
usually reserved for human-human interaction; the user might not be aware of this phenomenon, but if s/he is, s/he may comment, “It seemed like a person!”
[8] There is currently disagreement regarding whether presence that occurs in the context of non-interactive (“passive” or “audio-visual”)technologies (e.g.,
television and film) is comparable with presence that occurs in the context of interactive (“active” or “motor”) technologies (e.g., computers and virtual reality).
[9] A number of types of misperceptions of the physical world seem to be examples of presence (short for “telepresence”) as defined here: the hearing of voices
by schizophrenics; perceptions during dreams and daydreams, and less clearly, perceptions during role-playing games and perceptions that result from the use
of various drugs. While these types of misperceptions typically do not fit the definition of presence (short for “telepresence”) because they do not involve a
misperception regarding the role of human-made technology in experience (i.e., the distinction between “first order” and “second order” mediated experience),
they are related to the broader conception of the term “presence” (i.e., not a shortened version of “telepresence”) because they concern misperceptions in “first
order” mediated experience, the subjective sensation of being present in a certain environment, and as such they are worthy of study.
[10] The exact nature and location of the processing that results in presence is not known. It is likely that our initial and immediate responses to external
stimuli (i.e., sensations) are identical when the external stimuli are created by or filtered through technology and when the external stimuli are not created by
or filtered through technology (i.e., the role of technology is not acknowledged in the former situation). It may be that in some cases processing continues
“automatically” and the possible role of technology in generating the experience is not evaluated, while in other cases a “higher order” or “active” or “conscious”
evaluation is made regarding the possible role of technology (a role which may or may not be accurately recognized). It may be that parallel streams of
processing occur during perception, so that when we have a sense of presence we simultaneously acknowledge the role of technology in one stream and fail to
do so in another, thus we can be “aware” that we are using a technology (e.g., a virtual reality system) but simultaneously perceive objects, entities, and events
we encounter (e.g., sharp objects, avatars, etc.) as if no technology was involved. It is also possible that people encourage or discourage their own sense of
presence by directing their attention away from aspects of their experience that serve to remind them of the role of technology in it (e.g., when virtual reality is
used in treatment of psychological phobias).
[11] A large number of possible causes of some or all of the different types of presence have been proposed; the causes may function individually or in various
interactions to evoke presence. Although the causes are of particular interest to those who study the role of technology in experience, many of them are
relevant to presence-related phenomena that occur in the context of “first order” mediated experience (see [2] above) – i.e., experience in which technology
plays no role, as well. These causes include but are not limited to:
Characteristics of media/technology *form* such as the number and consistency of sensory outputs, image size and quality, viewing distance, use of motion and
color, audio volume and fidelity, visual and aural dimensionality, subjective camera techniques such as direct address, obtrusiveness of the technology,
technology size and shape, and a number of variables related to interactivity.
Characteristics of media/technology *content* such as social realism (i.e., believability), quality of writing, quality of acting, physical appearance of
actors/personalities, fame or notoriety of actors/personalities, use of media conventions, and the nature of the task or activity.
Characteristics of the media/technology *user* such as her/his willingness to suspend disbelief, knowledge of and prior experience with the technology, age,
and gender.
[12] A large number of possible consequences of some or all of the different types of presence have been proposed and serve as motivations for further study of
presence. The consequences may occur individually or in various combinations and depend on a large number of complex interacting factors (see 11 above].
Although the consequences are of particular interest to those who study the role of technology in experience, all of them can occur in the context of “first order”
mediated experience (see [2] above) – i.e., experience in which technology plays no role, as well. These consequences include but are not limited to:
Increases or decreases in physiological arousal; feelings of self-motion (vection), motion sickness, enjoyment, empathy, learning, improved task performance
and skill training, psychological desensitization, connectedness (involvement, mutuality, engagement) with other people (e.g., media personalities), parasocial
relationships, a number of different emotional responses, persuasion, and distorted memory and social judgments.

21. [1] Presence (a shortened version of the term
“telepresence”) is a psychological state or
subjective perception in which even though part
or all of an individual’s current experience is
generated by and/or filtered through human-
made technology, part or all of the individual’s
perception fails to accurately acknowledge the
role of the technology in the experience.

22. Presence
The Subjective experience of being in one
place or environment, even when one is
physically situated in another. – Witmer and
Singer (1998)

23. INFORMATION
ARCHITECTURE IN VIRTUAL
AND MIXED REALITY
PROBLEM 1

24. VR Ascendant?

25. The outlook is mixed.

27. Got …

28. Google has put Virtual Reality in
your pocket!

29. Got…

30. Then you have VR.

31. Recent Articles
Shanon Marks – MU/DAI
Joe Sokhol - Regular Joe
Consulting

32. WHAT HAPPENS WHEN
INFORMATION STOPS
BEING POLITE … AND
STARTS BEING REAL?

33. Battle for users attention in virtual
environments.

36. Information needs arise out of user
interactions.

38. Jamie

39. There has to be a way to unlock
the door…what is it?

40. Taylor

41. Why can’t I find what I need?

42. Jean

43. I have to replace that couch before
Tuesday!

45. THE IMMERSION
SPECTRUM
PROBLEM 2

46. VR Headset Comparison
Information and image from Newatlas.com

47. Left image from slide deck by Samantha Starmer

48. DOING THINGS WITH
PRESENCE
PRESENCE IS MORE THAN JUST BEING THERE. – MALCOM
FORBES

49. Presence!
Huh?
What is it good for?
Absolutely everything!

50. A small sample of named concepts
in Information Architecture:
• Affordance
• Channel
• Content
• Context
• Data
• Ecosystem
• Experience
• Facet
• Frame
• Information
• Interface
• Meaning
• Navigation
• Placemaking
• User
• Etc.

51. We know what it is to be a body in
space.

52. THINKING ABOUT TIME

54. FINDING PRESENCE

55. Cognitive Walk Through

56. Formative Tests

57. Demo and Interview

58. Is exactly what it sounds like.

59. Heuristic Guidelines

61. Post Experience Questionnaires

62. Eye Tracking

63. Resources from the ISPR
https://ispr.info/about-presence-2/tools-to-
measure-presence/ispr-measures-
compendium/

64. TOOLS AND TAKEAWAYS

66. Example

67. LANDS, HUBS, AND WIENIES: PLACEMAKING
LESSONS FROM THE MAGIC KINGDOM

69. Focusing Question:
• How does this enhance the users sense of
presence?

73. Make information findable at a glance.

74. The Return of the Paperclip

75. Recap
• Define Presence
• Theoretical problems with the lack of a concept of presence in
virtual, mixed, and augmented
• The problems of multiple immersion factors in virtual reality
and mixed reality devices
• How presence effects the practice of information architecture
• Using measures and tests to discover presence in virtual and
mixed reality
• Tools can be used to facilitate presence and avoiding the
presence Noid

76. T. Zachary Frazier
PhD Student at University of South
Carolina
Research focuses on information
behavior and creativity in design
Twitter: @wildbookchase

77. THANK YOU!
FIN

78. Thank You!
• A special thanks to: The IA Summit Committee,
Adam Polansky, all those who encouraged me to
submit, the Dutchess, Jessica Dame, Dr.
Samantha K. Hastings, Dr. Chuck Curran, Dr. Paul
Solomon, George Shaw, Dr. R. David Lankes, The
School of Library and Information Science at The
University of South Carolina for their financial
support, and I am sure the IMLS was involved in
this somehow.

79. Further Reading
Bachelard, G., Danielewski, M. Z., & Kearney, R. (2014). The Poetics of Space.
(M. Jolas, Trans.) (Revised ed. edition). Penguin Classics.
Barfield, W., & Furness, T. A. (1995). Virtual environments and advanced
interface design. New York: Oxford University Press.
Benedikt, M. (1994). Cyberspace: first steps. Cambridge, Mass. [u.a.: MIT
Press.*
Hinton, A. (2015). Understanding context: environment, language, and
information architecture.
Michael Heim. (1994). The Metaphysics of Virtual Reality. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Waterworth, J. A., & Hoshi, K. (2016). Human-experiential design of presence
in everyday blended reality: living in the here and now.
*Added based on advice from an audience member

80. ReferencesAre there standard metrics to measure “immersion” or “presence?” • r/virtualreality. (n.d.). Retrieved March 29, 2017, from
https://www.reddit.com/r/virtualreality/comments/2s6tpd/are_there_standard_metrics_to_measure_immersion/
Barfield, W., Zeltzer, D., Sheridan, T., & Slater, M. (1995). Presence and perfomance within virtual environments. In W. Barfield & T. A. Furness (Eds.), Virtual environments and
advanced interface design (pp. 473–513). New York: Oxford University Press.
Belkin, N. J. (1980). Anomalous states of knowledge as a basis for information-retrieval. Canadian Journal of Information Science-Revue Canadienne Des Sciences De L
Information, 5(MAY), 133–143.
Bowman, D. A., Gabbard, J. L., & Hix, D. (2002). A survey of usability evaluation in virtual environments: classification and comparison of methods. Presence: Teleoperators and
Virtual Environments, 11(4), 404–424.
Brookecamarsh. (2013, March 5). Lynch’s Five Elements. Retrieved from https://bcamarsharchi525.wordpress.com/2013/03/05/lynchs-five-elements/
Cole, C. (2012). Information Need: A Theory Connecting Information Search to Knowledge Formation (first printing). Medford, New Jersey: Information Today, Inc.
Grasset, R., Mulloni, A., Billinghurst, M., & Schmalstieg, D. (2011). Navigation techniques in augmented and mixed reality: Crossing the virtuality continuum. In Handbook of
Augmented Reality (pp. 379–407). Springer.
Hinton, A. (2015). Understanding context: environment, language, and information architecture.
Ibáñez, J., & Delgado-Mata, C. (2011). Lessons from research on interaction with virtual environments. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 34(1), 268–281.
Jorge Arango. (2016, May). Lands, Hubbs, and Wienies: Placemaking lessons from the magic kingdom. Presented at the IA Summit, Atlanta. Retrieved from
http://2016.iasummit.org/schedule/1321/lands-hubs-and-wienies-placemaking-lessons-from-magic-kingdom
Lynch, K. (9999). The image of the city. The MIT Press.
ISPR. (2009, October 12). Prence Defined [website]Retrieved March 29, 2017, from https://ispr.info/about-presence-2/about-presence/
Modjeska, D., & Waterworth, J. (2000). Effects of desktop 3D world design on user navigation and search performance. In Information Visualization, 2000. Proceedings. IEEE
International Conference on (pp. 215–220). IEEE.
Murray, C. D., Fox, J., & Pettifer, S. (2007). Absorption, dissociation, locus of control and presence in virtual reality. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1347–1354.
Nash, E. B., Edwards, G. W., Thompson, J. A., & Barfield, W. (2000). A review of presence and performance in virtual environments. International Journal of Human-Computer
Interaction, 12(1), 1–41.
Riva, G., Davide, F., & IJsselsteijn, W. (2003). 7 Measuring Presence: Subjective, Behavioral and Physiological Methods. Being There: Concepts, Effects and Measurement of
User Presence in Synthetic Environments, 110–118.
Schuemie, M. J., Van Der Straaten, P., Krijn, M., & Van Der Mast, C. A. (2001). Research on presence in virtual reality: A survey. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 4(2), 183–201.
Slater, M., & Wilbur, S. (1997). A framework for immersive virtual environments (FIVE): Speculations on the role of presence in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and
Virtual Environments, 6(6), 603–616.
Waterworth, J. A., & Hoshi, K. (2016). Human-experiential design of presence in everyday blended reality: living in the here and now.
Witmer, B. G., & Singer, M. F. (1994). Measuring presence in virtual environments. DTIC Document.
Witmer, B. G., & Singer, M. J. (1998). Measuring presence in virtual environments: A presence questionnaire. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 7(3), 225–240.

81. Image Citations by Slide Number
1. Vincepal. (2009). Existence 1 [Photo]. Retrieved from
https://www.flickr.com/photos/vincepal/3526479580/
2. 1041uuu. (2016). cityscape 豊井祐太 [GIF]. Retrieved from
http://1041uuu.tumblr.com/post/119924062908
3. Microsoft Research (2012). Chronozoom [Still Image from Video] Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXLnEvSw4SU
4. Technologies, I. S. for L. (2007). A 16mm jacket dupe microfiche. Retrieved from
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Microfiche_card.JPG
5. Unknown. (1922). English: Portrait of H. G. Wells. Retrieved from
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Portrait_of_H._G._Wells.jpg
5. Office of Emergency Management. (n.d.). Portrait of Vannevar Bush [photo]. Retrieved from
https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasciculus:Vannevar_Bush_portrait.jpg
6.. Low., L. (2006). Augmented reality. Retrieved from
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Augmented_reality_-_heads_up_display_concept.jpg

82. Image Citations 2
7. Gizmodo Japan. (2017). Holo Lens Gate [GIF]. Retrieved from
https://twitter.com/gizmodojapan/status/841231523227553794/photo/1
8. Pixabay. (2012). Free stock photo of boy, books, brown [Photo]. Retrieved from
https://www.pexels.com/photo/books-boy-brown-children-267595/
9. Oberger, B. (2016). English: Pokémon Go på Träskända gård i Esbo, Finland [Photo].
Retrieved from
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pokemon_Go_Tr%C3%A4sk%C3%A4nda_g%C3%A5
rd.jpg
10. Vincepal. (2009). Existence 1 [Photo]. Retrieved from
https://www.flickr.com/photos/vincepal/3526479580/
11. Stenger, N. (2012). English: Stenger with VPL gear. Retrieved from
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nicole_Stenger_Virtual_Reality.jpg
12. Magritte, R. (1929). The treachery of images [Painting]. Retrieved from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_of_Images#/media/File:MagrittePipe.jpg

83. Image Citations 3
13. Daderot. (2012). English: Exhibit in the Arppeanum, Helsinki, Finland. Photography was
permitted in the museum without restriction[Photo]. Retrieved from
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chemistry_laboratory_-_Arppeanum_-
_DSC05242.JPG
15. 20th Century Fox UK. (2009) Avatar Splash Image. Retrieved from
http://www.fox.co.uk/avatar
16. Frazier, T. (2017) Presence/Immersion Venn Diagram.
18. Herek, S. (1989) Still from Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure [Still Image from Motion
Picture]. Retrieved from http://www.lightsremoteaction.com/2014/10/top-5-films-featuring-
keanu-reeves.html
24. Arhn.eu. (2016). Historia konsoli Virtual Boy – Time warp [Still Image from Video]. Retrieved
from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lvBJUF8psU
25. Dalbéra, J.-P. (2016). Le casque HoloLens de Microsoft (Salon Viva Technology, Paris)
[Photo]. Retrieved from https://www.flickr.com/photos/dalbera/27951552382/

84. Image Citations 4
26. Heavy. (2016) VR gifts [Image]. Retrieved from
https://heavyeditorial.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/vr-gifts.jpg?quality=65&strip=all
27. Viking9173. (2012). English: The most classical android. Retrieved from
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Android_sample.svg 27. Janoff, O. R. (1978). Deutsch: Logo
des Unternehmens Apple Inc.English: Logo of the company Apple Inc.Français : Logo de la société
Apple Inc.Українська: Логотип компанії Apple Inc.Hrvatski: Logo tvrtke Apple. Retrieved from
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Apple_logo_black.svg
28. Evan-Amos. (2015). A Google Cardboard VR headset, shown assembled and with a phone
(iPhone 6s) in the visor slot. Made as a cheap, open standard by Google to encourage use and
development of Virtual Reality, Google Cardboard is an inexpensive container and plastic lenses
designed to turn a phone or small tablet into a VR headset. This particular model came free with the
New York Times as part of a promotion on November 8th, 2015. Retrieved from
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Google-Cardboard.jpg
29. Nikotaf. (2016). Ελληνικά: Javascript badge. Retrieved from
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Javascript_badge.svg
30. ModzillaVR (n.d.) WebVR Logo. Retrieved from https://www.xda-developers.com/webvr-and-
gamepad-apis-are-available-in-androids-chrome-56-beta-channel/

85. Image Citations 5
31. Anonymous.(n.d). Shanon Marks [Photo]. Retrieved from
https://ideamensch.com/shanon-marks/
31. Anonymous. (2017). Joe Hololens [Photo]. Retrieved from
http://interactions.acm.org/blog/view/from-stereoscopes-to-holograms-the-
latest-interaction-design-platform
33. Clip Art Library. (n.d.) Tug of War. [Clip Art]. Retrieved from
http://clipart-library.com/clipart/6ir5dkd4T.htm
34. Davidson, S., Gambrell, D., & Pearce A. (2015). Banner Devider 2. [GIF].
Retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-click-fraud/
35. Nam Nguyen. (n.d.) Fail. [GIF]. Retrieved from http://gph.is/1Zy2dDX
36. Anonymous (n.d.) Wifi Banner 1 [Clip Art]. Retrieved from
http://www.activistpost.com/2016/07/smart-meter-wi-fi-microwave-radiation-
information-consumers-need-know.html

86. Image Citations 6
37. Microsoft Researcher. (n.d.). Hololens Design Environment [Still image from video]
38. Maurizio Pesce. (2015). Razer OSVR Open-Source Virtual Reality for Gaming. [Photo].
Retrieved from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Razer_OSVR_Open-
Source_Virtual_Reality_for_Gaming_(16863422875).jpg
39. Anonymous. (n.d.) Syren Screen Grab. [Screen Capture]. Retrieved from
http://virtualrealityonestopshop.com/2017/02/syren-review/
40. Vogt, Kristin. (2016). Women Wearing Black Fedora Hat. [Stock Image]. Retrieved from
https://www.pexels.com/photo/fashion-woman-outside-hat-68721/
41. K Zero. (2007). House of Sweden Screen Capture. Retrieved
fromhttp://www.kzero.co.uk/blog/the-second-house-of-sweden/
42. Pohorecki, Roman. (2014) Hiker on Mountain. [Stock Image]. Retrieved from
https://www.pexels.com/photo/hiker-mountain-person-15390/

87. Image Citations 7
43. Anonymous (2016). Wayfair demo. [Photo] Retrieved from:
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601664/how-stores-will-use-augmented-reality-to-make-
you-buy-more-stuff/
44. Wired. (2016). Turning off. [Image] Retrieved from
https://www.wired.com/2014/02/outsourcing-humanity-apps/
46. Heavy.com. (2016). VR Comparison 2016 B 2. Retrieved from
http://heavy.com/tech/2016/11/top-best-vr-headset-virtual-reality-oculus-rift-htc-vive-christmas-
gifts-gaming-guide-review/
46. Heavy.com. (2016). VR Comparison 2016 B 22. Retrieved from
http://heavy.com/tech/2016/11/top-best-vr-headset-virtual-reality-oculus-rift-htc-vive-christmas-
gifts-gaming-guide-review/
47. Starmer, S., (2016). Cross Channel User Experience.
[Slide]https://www.slideshare.net/sstarmer/uxi-workshop-scrubbed-light/15-
omni_channel_experience_B_A
47. Anonymous (n.d.) Responsive Web Design. [Image]

88. Image Citations 8
51. Garreta, D. A. (2011). Meat Boy [Photo]. Retrieved from
https://www.flickr.com/photos/parap/5439408794/
52. Keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk (n.d.). Keep Calm it’s just Wibbly Wobbly Timey
Whimey. [Poster] http://www.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/p/keep-calm-its-just-
wibbly-wobbly-timey-wimey-stuff-2/
53.
55. Enslin, R. (2009). CCF storyboard (visitor registration) [Photo]. Retrieved
from https://www.flickr.com/photos/doos/4174319172/
56. Chan C. C. (2010) ST13 Figure 5.5 [Image]. Retrieved from
https://www.flickr.com/photos/rosenfeldmedia/4459978224
57. Loong, L. H. (2016). English: Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong trying out a
VR headset. Retrieved from
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Prime_Minister_Lee_Hsien_Loong_VR
_headset.jpg

89. Image Citations 9
58. Jurvetson, S. (2015). Elon Musk interview at Stanford FutureFest [Photo].
Retrieved from https://www.flickr.com/photos/jurvetson/23625744202/
59. Alverez, J. (n.d) Checklist. [Clip Art] Retrieved from
https://clipartfest.com/download/f21a5cd25c94f77d9c165eb2e0e8a66ffa86ef4c.
html
60.Anonymus. (2001). Homepage Usability: 50 websites deconstructed.
[Bookcover] https://www.nngroup.com/books/homepage-usability/
61. Tungilik. (2014). English: This is a online survey/questionnaire/quiz
icon/logo. Retrieved from
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Online_Survey_Icon_or_logo.svg
62. Anonymous (2017) SMI Social Eye GIF. [GIF] Retrieved from
http://www.coolwearable.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/16/gaze.gif
65. Anonymous (1960). The image of the city. [Book Cover] retrieved from
http://a.co/cSRJmz

90. Image Citations 10
66. Lynch K. (1960) Image of the city elements. [Illustration]. retrieved from
https://bcamarsharchi525.wordpress.com/2013/03/05/lynchs-five-elements/
67. Euro IA Summit. (2016). Jorge Arango. [Photo]. retrieved from
http://2016.euroia.org/sessions/lands-hubs-and-wienies
68. Anonymous. (n.d.). Avoid the Noid. [Image]. Retrieved from
http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/theflophouse/images/3/3c/Avoid_the_noid_1
000x1000.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20141102010009
70. Anonymous (2015). Aaron’s Talk 2. [Screen Capture]. retrieved from
http://www.roadtovr.com/convrge-social-vr-experience-notes-from-the-forest/
71. Dikun, N. (2015). Valid.JPG. [Image]. Retrieved from
http://nadikun.com/user-friendly-form-validation/
72. Anonymous. (2016). Hyper-Reality. [Still image from video]

91. Image Citations 11
73. Anonymous (n.d.) Pip Boy. [Image]. Retrieved from
http://www.applegazette.com/apple-watch/gear-up-for-fallout-4-
with-a-pip-boy-apple-watch/
74. . Atteberry, K. (n.d.) Clippit the Paperclip. [Image]. Retrieved
from https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3C6mvFWQAQuted.jpg
76. Dame, J. (2016). Zachary Frazier 1 [Photo]
76. University of South Carolina., (2015). [College of Information
and Communication Logo]. Retrieved from
http://www.sc.edu/study/colleges_schools/cic/about/news/whats_
in_a_name.php#.WNS3XxIrJE4

92. Copyright notice
• This presentation is an educational work.
Images reproduced within this
presentation are displayed in conjunction
with the fair use doctrine. When possible
the images are cited. Copyright remains
with the creators of the image, or image
owners.