Smart glasses could meet the plot diagnosis activity needs in agriculture. Therefore, their acceptability must be evaluated. We conducted user tests with agricultural advisors to assess perceived comfort and user experience. The participants reported comfort issues like and harm problems, and obstruction or disturbance of the visual field. Objective and subjective evaluations were poorer when the device was used in voice mode compared with buttons. Despite these limitations, the participants mentioned the potential benefits of the device for plot diagnosis. Although promising, smart glasses do not yet meet the advisors’ constraints. We propose hardware and software recommendations.
AlceG.WallergårdM.HermodssonK. (2015). WozARd: A Wizard of Oz method for wearable augmented reality interaction: A pilot study. Advances in Human-Computer Interaction, 2015, Article 271231. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/271231
BrusieT.FijalT.KellerA.LauffC.BarkerK.SchwinckJ.CallandJ. F.GuerlainS. (2015). Usability evaluation of two smart glass systems. Systems and Information Engineering Design Symposium, 2015, 336–341. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7117000/
5.
CariaM.SaraG.ToddeG.PoleseM.PazzonaA. (2019). Exploring smart glasses for augmented reality: A valuable and integrative tool in precision livestock farming. Animals, 9(11), 903. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9110903
6.
CariaM.ToddeG.SaraG.PirasM.PazzonaA. (2020). Performance and usability of smartglasses for augmented reality in precision livestock farming operations. Applied Sciences, 10(7), 2318. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10072318
7.
ChinJ. P.DiehlV. A.NormanK. L. (1988). Development of an instrument measuring user satisfaction of the human-computer interface. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1988, 213–218. https://doi.org/10.1145/57167.57203
8.
DueB. L. (2014). The future of smart glasses: An essay about challenges and possibilities with smart glasses. CIRD Working Papers on Interaction and Communication, 1(2), 1-21.
9.
ElderS.VakaloudisA. (2015). Towards uniformity for smart glasses devices: An assessment of function as the driver for standardisation. 2015 IEEE International Symposium on Technology and Society, 2015, 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISTAS.2015.7439424
10.
García-CruzE.BretonnetA.AlcarazA. (2018). Testing smart glasses in urology: Clinical and surgical potential applications. Actas Urológicas Españolas (English Edition), 42(3), 207-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acuroe.2018.02.004
11.
GokenM.BasogluA. N.DabicM. (2016). Exploring adoption of smart glasses: Applications in medical industry. 2016 Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology, 2016, 3175-3184. https://doi.org/10.1109/PICMET.2016.7806835
12.
HeinD. W. E.RauschnabelP. A.JodoinJ. L.IvensB. S. (2017). Are wearable good or bad for society? In KurubacakG.AltinpullukH. (Eds.), Mobile technologies and augmented reality in open education (pp. 1-25). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-2110-5
13.
KimS.NussbaumM. A.GabbardJ. L. (2019). Influences of augmented reality head-worn display type and user interface design on performance and usability in simulated warehouse order picking. Applied Ergonomics, 74, 186-193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2018.08.026
14.
KumarN. M.Kumar SinghN.PeddinyV. K. (2018). Wearable smart glass: Features, applications, current progress and challenges. 2018 Second International Conference on Green Computing and Internet of Things, 2018, 577-582. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICGCIoT.2018.8753047
15.
LallemandC.KoenigV.GronierG.MartinR. (2015). Création et validation d’une version française du questionnaire AttrakDiff pour l’évaluation de l’expérience utilisateur des systèmes interactifs [A French version of the AttrakDiff scale: Translation and validation study of a user experience assessment tool]. Revue Européenne de Psychologie Appliquée/European Review of Applied Psychology, 65(5), 239-252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2015.08.002
16.
LaugwitzB.HeldT.SchreppM. (2008). Construction and evaluation of a user experience questionnaire. HCI and Usability for Education and Work, 1, 63-76. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-89350-9_6
17.
LinG.PanigrahiT.WomackJ.PondaD. J.KotipalliP.StarnerT. (2021). Comparing order picking guidance with Microsoft Hololens, Magic Leap, Google Glass XE and Paper. Proceedings of the 22nd International Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications, 2021, 133-139. https://doi.org/10.1145/3446382.3448729
18.
LundA. M. (2001). Measuring usability with the USE questionnaire. Usability Interface, 8(2), 3–6.
19.
McNaneyR.VinesJ.RoggenD.BalaamM.ZhangP.PoliakovI.OlivierP. (2014). Exploring the acceptability of google glass as an everyday assistive device for people with Parkinson’s. Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2014, 2551–2554. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557092
20.
MottiV. G.CaineK. (2014). Understanding the wearability of head-mounted devices from a human-centered perspective. Proceedings of the 2014 ACM International Symposium on Wearable Computers, 2014, 83–86. https://doi.org/10.1145/2634317.2634340
21.
NiemöllerC.MetzgerD.FellmannM.ÖzcanD.ThomasO. (2016). Shaping the future of mobile service support systems: Ex-ante evaluation of smart glasses in technical customer service processes. In MayrH. C.PinzgerM. (Eds.), Lecture notes in informatics: Proceedings (Vol. P-259, pp. 753–767). Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V.
22.
RomareC.HassU.SkärL. (2018). Healthcare professionals’ views of smart glasses in intensive care: A qualitative study. Intensive and Critical Care Nursing, 45, 66–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iccn.2017.11.006
23.
SchallM. C.SesekR. F.CavuotoL. A. (2018). Barriers to the Adoption of Wearable Sensors in the Workplace: A Survey of Occupational Safety and Health Professionals. Human Factors, 60(3), 351–362. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720817753907
SiewiorekD.SmailagicA.StarnerT. (2009). Wearable computers. In AndrewS.JackoJ. A. (Eds.), Human-computer interaction fundamentals (pp. 272–288). CRC Press.
26.
SyberfeldtA.DanielssonO.GustavssonP. (2017). Augmented reality smart glasses in the smart factory: Product evaluation guidelines and review of available products. IEEE Access, 5, 9118–9130. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2017.2703952
27.
VainsteinN.KuflikT.LanirJ. (2016). Towards using mobile, head-worn displays in cultural heritage: User requirements and a research agenda. Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, 2016, 327–331. https://doi.org/10.1145/2856767.2856802
28.
VeyratN. (2008). Les usages dans la lunette. Co-concevoir des produits et des usages innovants [The uses in the eyewear: Co-designing innovative products and innovative uses].Thèse de doctorat en sociologie industrielle. Université Pierre Mendès-France-Grenoble II. https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-00256212/
WangC.-H.TsaiN.-H.LuJ.-M.WangM.-J. J. (2019). Usability evaluation of an instructional application based on Google Glass for mobile phone disassembly tasks. Applied Ergonomics, 77, 58–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2019.01.007
31.
YuM.ZhouR.WangH.ZhaoW. (2019). An evaluation for VR glasses system user experience: The influence factors of interactive operation and motion sickness. Applied Ergonomics, 74, 206-213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2018.08.012
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
