Evaluation of Accessibility Parameters in Education Software That Supports Three-Dimensional Interactions
Source abstract
Abstract
This paper analyzes and evaluates different types of interactions in educational software that uses three-dimensional (3D) interactions and visualization technologies, with a focus on accessibility in such environments. To determine the accessibility parameters based on 3D user interactions, a two-phase pilot study was conducted. In the first phase, the GeometryGame research instrument was tested, in which objective metrics were collected. In the second phase, subjective metrics were collected in the form of participants’ opinions on certain aspects of accessibility and interactions implemented in the GeometryGame. The most important interaction parameters were evaluated, including the size of the objects, the presence of distractions, the intuitiveness of the user interface, and the size and distance of the interaction elements from the virtual hand. The results provide insight into user preferences and highlight the importance of customizing the user interface to ensure effective and accessible 3D interactions. Based on objective measurements and subjective user feedback, recommendations were developed to improve the accessibility of educational software that supports 3D interactions; to increase usability, reliability, and user comfort; and to enhance future research in this area.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Hand Gesture Recognition Systems · Tactile and Sensory Interactions · Digital Accessibility for Disabilities
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Applied Computing, University of Dubrovnik, Ćira Carića 4, 20000 Dubrovnik, Croatia
References (100+)
Show source-provided references
1. Accessible Visualization: Design Space, Opportunities, and Challenges10.1111/cgf.14298 ↗
2. Dineva, S. (2019, January 25–26). The importance of visualization in e-learning courses. Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Virtual Learning—ICVL, 1, Bucharest, Romania. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336916893_The_importance_of_visualization_in_e-learning_courses.
3. Metaverse: Perspectives from graphics, interactions and visualization10.1016/j.visinf.2022.03.002 ↗
4. What is XR? Towards a Framework for Augmented and Virtual Reality10.1016/j.chb.2022.107289 ↗
5. (2022). Quality of Experience Assessment of Extended Reality Meetings (Standard No. Recommendation ITU-T-P.1320).
6. Augmented Reality: A Comprehensive Review10.1007/s11831-022-09831-7 ↗
7. ‘The Interface of the Future’: Mixed Reality, Intimate Data and Imagined Temporalities10.1177/20539517211063689 ↗
8. (2025, April 18). XR Accessibility User Requirements (XAUR). W3C Working Group Note 25 August 2021. Available online: https://www.w3.org/TR/xaur/.
9. Pastor, A., and Bourdin-Kreitz, P. (2024). Comparing Episodic Memory Outcomes from Walking Augmented Reality and Stationary Virtual Reality Encoding Experiences. Sci. Rep., 14.10.1038/s41598-024-57668-w ↗
10. Increasing the Immersivity of 360° Videos Facilitates Learning and Memory: Implications for Theory and Practice10.1007/s11423-024-10402-9 ↗
11. Memory of Virtual Experiences: Role of Immersion, Emotion and Sense of Presence10.1016/j.ijhcs.2020.102506 ↗
12. The Use of Virtual and Augmented Reality in Anatomy Teaching10.15694/mep.2019.000077.1 ↗
13. 3D Object Manipulation Techniques in Handheld Mobile Augmented Reality Interface: A Review10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2906394 ↗
14. Siang, C.V., Isham, M.I.M., Mohamed, F., Yusoff, Y.A., Mokhtar, M.K., Tomi, B., and Selamat, A. (2017, January 16–17). Interactive Holographic Application Using Augmented Reality EduCard and 3D Holographic Pyramid for Interactive and Immersive Learning. Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE Conference on e-Learning, e-Management and e-Services (IC3e), Miri, Malaysia.10.1109/IC3e.2017.8409241 ↗
15. Using Augmented Reality Based Intervention to Teach Science to Students with Learning Disabilities10.1177/01626434231184829 ↗
16. Bostan, B. (2022). Academical: A Choice-Based Interactive Game for Enhancing Moral Reasoning, Knowledge, and Attitudes in Responsible Conduct of Research. Games and Narrative: Theory and Practice, Springer.
17. Cozzolino, V., Moroz, O., and Ding, A.Y. (2018, January 10–12). The Virtual Factory: Hologram-Enabled Control and Monitoring of Industrial IoT Devices. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Virtual Reality, Taichung, Taiwan.10.1109/AIVR.2018.00024 ↗
18. The Role of Usability on E-Learning User Interactions and Satisfaction: A Literature Review10.1108/JSIT-02-2019-0024 ↗
19. IT Feature Use over Time and Its Impact on Individual Task Performance
20. Understanding Novelty: How Task Structure and Tool Familiarity Moderate Performance10.1080/0144929X.2018.1441325 ↗
21. Stauffert, J.P., Niebling, F., and Latoschik, M.E. (2020). Latency and Cybersickness: Impact, Causes, and Measures. A Review. Front. Virtual Real., 1.10.3389/frvir.2020.582204 ↗
22. Itaguchi, Y. (2021). Size Perception Bias and Reach-to-Grasp Kinematics: An Exploratory Study on the Virtual Hand with a Consumer Immersive Virtual-Reality Device. Front. Virtual Real., 2.10.3389/frvir.2021.712378 ↗
23. Size Perception in Stereoscopic Displays Based on Binocular Disparity Considering Interpupillary Distance
24. Bourdot, P., Alcañiz Raya, M., Figueroa, P., Interrante, V., Kuhlen, T.W., and Reiners, D. (2021). Can You Perceive the Size Change? Discrimination Thresholds for Size Changes in Augmented Reality. Virtual Reality and Mixed Reality, Proceedings of the 18th EuroXR International Conference, EuroXR 2021, Milan, Italy, 24–26 November 2021, Springer. LNCS.10.1007/978-3-030-90739-6 ↗
25. Thomas, B.H. (2020). Examining User Perception of the Size of Multiple Objects in Virtual Reality. Appl. Sci., 10.10.3390/app10114049 ↗
26. Picciano, A.G., Dziuban, C.D., Graham, C.R., and Moskal, P.D. (2021). Blended Learning, Routledge.10.4324/9781003037736 ↗
27. Bachmann, D., Weichert, F., and Rinkenauer, G. (2018). Review of Three-Dimensional Human-Computer Interaction with Focus on the Leap Motion Controller. Sensors, 18.10.3390/s18072194 ↗
28. The state-of-the-art in computer generated holography for 3D display
29. Dastmalchi, M.R., and Goli, A. (2024, January 13–16). Embodied learning in virtual reality: Comparing direct and indirect interaction effects on educational outcomes. Proceedings of the 2024 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), Washington, DC, USA.10.1109/FIE61694.2024.10892964 ↗
30. Nielson, G.M., and Olsen, D.R. (1986, January 23–24). Direct Manipulation Techniques for 3D Objects Using 2D Locator Devices. Proceedings of the 1986 Workshop on Interactive 3D Graphics (I3D ‘86), Chapel Hill, NC, USA.10.1145/319120.319134 ↗
31. Zeleznik, R.C., Forsberg, A.S., and Strauss, P.S. (1997, January 27–30). Two Pointer Input for 3D Interaction. Proceedings of the 1997 Symposium on Interactive 3D Graphics (I3D ‘97), Providence, RI, USA.10.1145/253284.253316 ↗
32. Houde, S. (1992, January 3–7). Iterative Design of an Interface for Easy 3-D Direct Manipulation. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ‘92), Monterey, CA, USA.10.1145/142750.142772 ↗
33. Conner, B.D., Snibbe, S.S., Herndon, K.P., Robbins, D.C., Zeleznik, R.C., and van Dam, A. (April, January 29). Three-Dimensional Widgets. Proceedings of the 1992 Symposium on Interactive 3D Graphics (I3D ‘92), Cambridge, MA, USA.10.1145/147156.147199 ↗
34. Shoemake, K. (1992, January 11–15). Arcball: A User Interface for Specifying Three-Dimensional Orientation Using a Mouse. Proceedings of the Graphics Interface ’92, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
35. A Survey on 3D Virtual Object Manipulation: From the Desktop to Immersive Virtual Environments10.1111/cgf.13390 ↗
36. Effects of object size and task goals on reaching kinematics in a non-immersive virtual environment10.1016/j.humov.2022.102954 ↗
37. Multifaceted consequences of visual distraction during natural behaviour10.1038/s44271-024-00099-0 ↗
38. Spanogianopoulos, S., Sirlantzis, K., Mentzelopoulos, M., and Protopsaltis, A. (2014, January 13–14). Human Computer Interaction Using Gestures for Mobile Devices and Serious Games: A Review. Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Interactive Mobile Communication Technologies and Learning (IMCL), Thessaloniki, Greece.10.1109/IMCTL.2014.7011154 ↗
39. LaViola, J., Kruijff, E., McMahan, R.P., Bowman, D., and Poupyrev, I.P. (2017). 3D User Interfaces: Theory and Practice, Addison-Wesley. [2nd ed.].
40. Gesture interaction in virtual reality10.3724/SP.J.2096-5796.2018.0006 ↗
41. Bedikian, R. (2025, April 23). Understanding Latency: Part 2. Available online: https://web.archive.org/web/20250122144858/https://blog.leapmotion.com/understanding-latency-part-2/.
42. Niechwiej-Szwedo, E., Gonzalez, D., Nouredanesh, M., and Tung, J. (2018). Evaluation of the Leap Motion Controller during the performance of visually-guided upper limb movements. PLoS ONE, 13.10.1371/journal.pone.0193639 ↗
43. Analysis of the accuracy and robustness of the leap motion controller10.3390/s130506380 ↗
44. Combining HoloLens and Leap-Motion for Free Hand-Based 3D Interaction in MR Environments10.1007/978-3-030-58465-8_24 ↗
45. A survey on 3D hand pose estimation: Cameras, methods, and datasets10.1016/j.patcog.2019.04.026 ↗
46. Murugana, A.S., Behzada, A., Kim, E., Chung, J., and Jung, D. (2024, January 14–15). Development of webcam-based hand tracking for virtual reality interaction. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Image, Video Processing, and Artificial Intelligence (IVPAI 2023), Shenzhen, China.10.1117/12.3023798 ↗
47. Rogers, Y., Sharp, H., and Preece, J. (2023). Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.. [6th ed.].
48. Aliprantis, J., Konstantakis, M., Nikopoulou, R., Mylonas, P., and Caridakis, G. (2019, January 30). Natural Interaction in Augmented Reality Context. Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Visual Pattern Extraction and Recognition for Cultural Heritage Understanding, Pisa, Italy. Available online: https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2320/paper11.pdf.
49. Mortensen, D.H. (2023, February 23). Natural User Interfaces—What Does It Mean & How to Design User Interfaces That Feel Naturally. Available online: https://www.interactiondesign.org/literature/article/natural-user-interfaces-what-are-they-and-how-do-youdesign-user-interfaces-that-feel-natural.
50. Vision based hand gesture recognition for human computer interaction: A survey10.1007/s10462-012-9356-9 ↗
51. Apple (2025, March 07). Learn Advanced Gestures to Interact with iPad. iPad User Guide. Available online: https://support.apple.com/guide/ipad/learn-advanced-gestures-ipadab6772b8/ipados.
52. Usability and User Experience Evaluation of Natural User Interfaces: A Systematic Mapping Study10.1049/iet-sen.2020.0051 ↗
53. Emerging ExG-based NUI inputs in extended realities: A bottom-up survey10.1145/3457950 ↗
54. Wigdor, D., and Wixon, D. (2011). Brave NUI World: Designing Natural User Interfaces for Touch and Gesture, Morgan Kaufmann.10.1016/B978-0-12-382231-4.00002-2 ↗
55. Deshmukh, A.M., and Chalmeta, R. (2024). User Experience and Usability of Voice User Interfaces: A Systematic Literature Review. Information, 15.10.3390/info15090579 ↗
56. Coimagining the Future of Voice Assistants with Cultural Sensitivity10.1155/2024/3238737 ↗
57. Wenzel, K., and Kaufman, G. (2024, January 11–16). Designing for Harm Reduction: Communication Repair for Multicultural Users’ Voice Interactions. Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ‘24), Honolulu, HI, USA.10.1145/3613904.3642900 ↗
58. A Comprehensive Review of Speech Emotion Recognition Systems10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3068045 ↗
59. Beyond One-Shot Explanations: A Systematic Literature Review of Dialogue-Based xAI Approaches10.1007/s10462-024-11007-7 ↗
60. Eye tracking, usability, and user experience: A systematic review
61. Eye-tracking on virtual reality: A survey10.1007/s10055-023-00903-y ↗
62. Futami, K., Tabuchi, Y., Murao, K., and Terada, T. (2022). Exploring Gaze Movement Gesture Recognition Method for Eye-Based Interaction Using Eyewear with Infrared Distance Sensor Array. Electronics, 11.10.3390/electronics11101637 ↗
63. Designing Gaze-Based Interactions for Teleoperation: Eye Stick and Eye Click10.1080/10447318.2023.2169992 ↗
64. Rolff, T., Gabel, J., Zerbin, L., Hypki, N., Schmidt, S., Lappe, M., and Steinicke, F. (2025). A Hands-Free Spatial Selection and Interaction Technique Using Gaze and Blink Input with Blink Prediction for Extended Reality. arXiv.
65. Feit, A.M., Vordemann, L., Park, S., Berube, C., and Hilliges, O. (2020, January 2–5). Detecting Relevance during Decision-Making from Eye Movements for UI Adaptation. Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications (ETRA ‘20 Full Papers), Stuttgart, Germany. Article 10.10.1145/3379155.3391321 ↗
66. Sidenmark, L., and Gellersen, H. (2019, January 20–23). Eye&Head: Synergetic Eye and Head Movement for Gaze Pointing and Selection. Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST ‘19), New Orleans, LA, USA.
67. McNamara, A., and Mehta, R. (2020, January 25–30). Additional insights: Using eye tracking and brain sensing in virtual reality. Proceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Honolulu, HI, USA.10.1145/3334480.3375060 ↗
68. Sendhilnathan, N., Fernandes, A.S., Proulx, M.J., and Jonker, T.R. (2024, January 11). Implicit Gaze Research for XR Systems. Proceedings of the PhysioCHI: Towards Best Practices for Integrating Physiological Signals in HCI, Honolulu, HI, USA.
69. Garbin, S.J., Shen, Y., Schuetz, I., Cavin, R., Hughes, G., and Talathi, S.S. (2019). OpenEDS: Open Eye Dataset. arXiv, Available online: https://paperswithcode.com/paper/190503702.
70. Kothari, R., Yang, Z., Kanan, C., Bailey, R., Pelz, J.B., and Diaz, G.J. (2020). Gaze-in-wild: A dataset for studying eye and head coordination in everyday activities. Sci. Rep., 10.10.1038/s41598-020-59251-5 ↗
71. Katrychuk, D., Griffith, H.K., and Komogortsev, O.V. (2019, January 25–28). Power-efficient and shift-robust eye-tracking sensor for portable VR headsets. Proceedings of the 11th ACM Symposium on Eye Tracking Research & Applications 2019, Denver, CO, USA. Article 19.10.1145/3314111.3319821 ↗
72. EllSeg-Gen, towards domain generalization for head-mounted eyetracking10.1145/3530880 ↗
73. Exploring Augmented Reality Interaction Metaphors: Performance and Ergonomic Assessment using HoloLens 2 and RULA Method10.1016/j.procs.2025.01.241 ↗
74. Hand Gesture Recognition for Human Computer Interaction10.1016/j.procs.2017.09.092 ↗
75. Ahmed, S., Kallu, K.D., Ahmed, S., and Cho, S.H. (2021). Hand gestures recognition using radar sensors for human-computer interaction: A review. Remote Sens., 13.10.3390/rs13030527 ↗
76. An empirical evaluation of two natural hand interaction systems in augmented reality10.1007/s11042-022-12864-6 ↗
77. Ferracani, A., Pezzatini, D., Bianchini, J., Biscini, G., and Del Bimbo, A. (2016, January 16). Locomotion by Natural Gestures for Immersive Virtual Environments. Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Multimedia Alternate Realities (AltMM ‘16), Amsterdam, The Netherlands.10.1145/2983298.2983307 ↗
78. Full-Body Motion Recognition in Immersive-Virtual-Reality-Based Exergame10.1109/TG.2021.3064749 ↗
79. A survey of computer vision-based human motion capture10.1006/cviu.2000.0897 ↗
80. OpenPose: Realtime multi-person 2D pose estimation using part affinity fields10.1109/TPAMI.2019.2929257 ↗
81. Facial gesture recognition with human computer interaction for physically impaired10.52783/anvi.v27.1492 ↗
82. Krupke, D., Steinicke, F., Lubos, P., Jonetzko, Y., Gorner, M., and Zhang, J. (2018, January 1–5). Comparison of multimodal heading and pointing gestures for co-located mixed reality human-robot interaction. Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), Madrid, Spain.10.1109/IROS.2018.8594043 ↗
83. Ratti, E., Waninger, S., Berka, C., Ruffini, G., and Verma, A. (2017). Comparison of medical and consumer wireless EEG systems for use in clinical trials. Front. Hum. Neurosci., 11.10.3389/fnhum.2017.00398 ↗
84. Force-aware interface via electromyography for natural VR/AR interaction10.1145/3550454.3555461 ↗
85. A neuromuscular interface for robotic devices control10.1155/2018/8948145 ↗
86. EEG and EMG-based human-machine interface for navigation of mobility-related assistive wheelchair (MRA-W)10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e27777 ↗
87. Man-machine interface system for neuromuscular training and evaluation based on EMG and MMG signals10.3390/s101211100 ↗
88. Silent speech recognition as an alternative communication device for persons with laryngectomy10.1109/TASLP.2017.2740000 ↗
89. Wu, P., Kaveh, R., Nautiyal, R., Zhang, C., Guo, A., Kachinthaya, A., Mishra, T., Yu, B., Black, A.W., and Muller, R. (2024, January 1–5). Towards EMG-to-speech with necklace form factor. Proceedings of the Interspeech 2024, Kos, Greece.10.21437/Interspeech.2024-1568 ↗
90. Drey, T., Montag, M., Vogt, A., Rixen, N., Seufert, T., Zander, S., Rietzler, M., and Rukzio, E. (2023, January 23–28). Investigating the Effects of Individual Spatial Abilities on Virtual Reality Object Manipulation. Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ‘23), Hamburg, Germany. Article 398.10.1145/3544548.3581004 ↗
91. (2025, April 19). About Universal Design. The National Disability Authority, Ireland. Available online: https://universaldesign.ie/about-universal-design.
92. Salvador-Ullauri, L., Acosta-Vargas, P., Gonzalez, M., and Luján-Mora, S. (2020). Combined Method for Evaluating Accessibility in Serious Games. Appl. Sci., 10.10.3390/app10186324 ↗
93. Mack, K., McDonnell, E., Jain, D., Wang, L.L., Froehlich, J.E., and Findlater, L. (2021, January 8-–13). What Do We Mean by “Accessibility Research”? A Literature Survey of Accessibility Papers in CHI and ASSETS from 1994 to 2019. Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Yokohama, Japan.10.1145/3411764.3445412 ↗
94. (2025, March 03). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). 12 December 2024. Available online: https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21.
95. (2025, March 03). Mobile Accessibility at W3C. Available online: https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/mobile.
96. (2025, March 03). Guidance on Applying WCAG 2 to Non-Web Information and Communications Technologies (WCAG2ICT). 15 November 2024. Available online: https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict-22.
97. Žilak, M., Car, Ž., and Čuljak, I. (2022). A Systematic Literature Review of Handheld Augmented Reality Solutions for People with Disabilities. Sensors, 22.10.3390/s22207719 ↗
98. Inclusive Augmented and Virtual Reality: A Research Agenda10.1080/10447318.2023.2247614 ↗
99. Inclusive Immersion: A Review of Efforts to Improve Accessibility in Virtual Reality, Augmented Reality and the Metaverse10.1007/s10055-023-00850-8 ↗
100. Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality for Children, Adolescents, and Adults with Communication Disability and Neurodevelopmental Disorders: A Systematic Review10.1007/s40489-020-00230-x ↗