Speaker 1: Okay, let's unpack this, let's do it. Our mission today
Speaker 1: is a deep dive into extended reality XR. We're focusing
Speaker 1: specifically on how user experience design. You know, UX is
Speaker 1: tackling some of the industry's biggest hurdles.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they're really tough stuff like adoption.
Speaker 1: Problems exactly, everything from the physical reaction, the motion sickness,
Speaker 1: right to the trickier cultural side like social acceptance. Basically,
Speaker 1: UX designers are kind of writing the rule book for
Speaker 1: this new spatial computing world.
Speaker 2: That's a great way to put it. They're defining the interactions,
Speaker 2: and our sources really map this out. If you look
Speaker 2: back that decade twenty ten to twenty twenty, that's when
Speaker 2: modern XR really started to take shape for consumers. But
Speaker 2: now now we're entering what Tim cook Over at Apple
Speaker 2: called the spatial computing.
Speaker 1: Era, right, I remember that quote. His prediction was pretty.
Speaker 2: Bold, was Oh yeah, he said, augmented reality AR will
Speaker 2: basically pervade our entire lives, like within the next five
Speaker 2: to ten years.
Speaker 1: Wow. And for that to happen, the tech needs to
Speaker 1: feel well, in visible.
Speaker 2: Effortless, which brings us right back to UX. It has
Speaker 2: to be seamless.
Speaker 1: It's funny, you know, thinking back the actual job title
Speaker 1: UX designer, it barely existed before what two thousand and nine.
Speaker 2: It really didn't. It was niche. But then Apple they
Speaker 2: went all in on UX for the iPhone, almost obsessively.
Speaker 1: And that kind of proved its value, right, showed everyone
Speaker 1: else how critical it was totally.
Speaker 2: It demonstrated that amazing user experience could be this massive
Speaker 2: competitive edge. I mean, look what it did for them,
Speaker 2: helped make them the most valuable public company out there.
Speaker 1: And it's not just about pretty icons on a screen.
Speaker 1: The design guru Don Norman pointed this out. UX is
Speaker 1: holistic exactly.
Speaker 2: It covers all the ways a user interacts with a company,
Speaker 2: its products, its services, everything.
Speaker 1: That definition feels even more important when we move from
Speaker 1: flat screens into well three D space.
Speaker 2: Oh absolutely, because it stops being just about the software design,
Speaker 2: and so it's being about designing the entire human experience
Speaker 2: within them, like digital layer on reality.
Speaker 1: So for you listening, the context shift here is key.
Speaker 1: We're still designing for these flat rectangles, right, laptops.
Speaker 2: Phones, Yeah, predictable frames.
Speaker 1: But now we're designing for potentially infinite three dimensional space.
Speaker 1: It demands a completely new playbook.
Speaker 2: It's a huge leap. Designers were comfortable in those frames.
Speaker 2: Horizontal monitor, vertical phone screen.
Speaker 1: XR just shatters that and introduces all these new ways
Speaker 1: to interact.
Speaker 2: Spatial interaction, physical gestures, voice commands. These become the core elements.
Speaker 1: And remember responsive design making things look good on different
Speaker 1: screen sizes. That nightmare just got way worse than three D.
Speaker 2: Oh, it scales up massively. Our sources highlight a really
Speaker 2: specific tricky detail here about consistency.
Speaker 1: What's the issue.
Speaker 2: Well, it comes down to applying that old two D
Speaker 2: thinking to a spatial problem. Imagine tapping an AR object
Speaker 2: on your tablet Okay, a little menu pops up, maybe
Speaker 2: floats near the object on the screen. Fine, no problem
Speaker 2: on a handheld display. But take that exact same UI
Speaker 2: floating the same relative distance and put it in ar glasses.
Speaker 1: Ah, Suddenly it's right in your face exactly.
Speaker 2: It has a devastating effect. As one source put it,
Speaker 2: it's not just slightly annoying, it's physically disruptive.
Speaker 1: Because with the glasses, the stereoscopic display makes it feel
Speaker 1: like it's maybe a foot away blocking your view.
Speaker 2: Precisely, it can completely obscure what you're trying to look at,
Speaker 2: maybe even make your eyes strain or cross trying to focus.
Speaker 2: The design has to account for that huge perceptual difference.
Speaker 2: Focal distance becomes critical.
Speaker 1: It really shows the stakes. Bad UX and XR isn't
Speaker 1: just inconvenient yea, it can kill adoption entirely. And we
Speaker 1: saw a perfect example of this, not really a technical
Speaker 1: failure but more cultural Google Glass back in twenty thirteen.
Speaker 2: Oh Google Glass textbook case as sociocultural disaster.
Speaker 1: Really the tech worked more or less.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it was functional, but the market just rejected it hard.
Speaker 2: And it wasn't about the processor speed or the display qualities.
Speaker 1: It's a camera.
Speaker 2: It was almost entirely driven by privacy concerns that always
Speaker 2: on outward facing camera.
Speaker 1: People just felt weird about it, like they were being
Speaker 1: recorded without knowing exactly.
Speaker 2: It created this palpable social awkwardness for the person wearing
Speaker 2: it and for everyone around them.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you didn't want to be that person, right.
Speaker 2: So Google Glass taught the industry a huge, expensive lesson.
Speaker 2: An AR device has got to be socially acceptable. You
Speaker 2: need to be able to wear it in public without
Speaker 2: freaking people out.
Speaker 1: So you excess to think about the whole social context now,
Speaker 1: not just the.
Speaker 2: Wearer exactly you're designing for the wearer, their immediate environment,
Speaker 2: and how other people perceive the device and interaction. It's
Speaker 2: much broader.
Speaker 1: Okay, So AR had that big social hurdle. Virtual reality
Speaker 1: VR had more of a physiological one, sometimes quite literally,
Speaker 1: like that roller coaster.
Speaker 2: Dem oh the VR roller coaster.
Speaker 1: Yes, I remember trying that on one of the early
Speaker 1: Oculis DevKits. Wow. I think I lasted maybe thirty seconds,
Speaker 1: had to tear it off you.
Speaker 2: And many others. That demo really captured the core problem
Speaker 2: simulation sickness.
Speaker 1: Or motion sickness. Basically.
Speaker 2: Yeah, early VR back in the nineties kind of failed
Speaker 2: partly because it focused on the novelty, the wow factor
Speaker 2: over actual usability. And even now the stats are pretty sobering.
Speaker 1: What are they?
Speaker 2: Something like twenty five to forty percent of first time
Speaker 2: VR users get hit with simulation sickness initially.
Speaker 1: That's huge, a massive barrier if you want mainstream adoption totally.
Speaker 1: So when did things start to click? When did the
Speaker 1: industry figure out how to make VR usable less nauseating?
Speaker 2: Well, the big moment, the kind of iPhone moment for
Speaker 2: VR is widely considered to be the Oculus Quest in
Speaker 2: twenty nineteen.
Speaker 1: Okay, the Quest. What made it different?
Speaker 2: Its success was almost entirely down to a really strong
Speaker 2: UX focus, user centric design. It was the first genuinely
Speaker 2: consumer friendly VR solution standalone, easy to set up, and crucially,
Speaker 2: it brought six degrees of freedom or SIXTYF to the
Speaker 2: mainstream wireless experience.
Speaker 1: Right sixty of. Let's quickly unpack that. It's key jargon.
Speaker 2: Okay, simply put three degrees of freedom three DF. That's
Speaker 2: like older mobile VR. You can look around up, down, left, right,
Speaker 2: tilt your head, pitch y'aw.
Speaker 1: Role, but you can't move your body through the space.
Speaker 2: Exactly sixty of, which the Quest nailed adds movement tracking.
Speaker 2: You can physically walk around forward, backwards, side to side,
Speaker 2: even crouch up down. Your real body movement translates into
Speaker 2: the virtual.
Speaker 1: World, and being untethered wireless made that possible without tripping
Speaker 1: over cables.
Speaker 2: That untethered room scale movement was just transformative for immersion
Speaker 2: and presence.
Speaker 1: And that setup process, drawing the Guardian play area, that
Speaker 1: blue grid that felt like really smart.
Speaker 2: UX absolutely super intuitive. It made people feel safe moving
Speaker 2: around in this new sixty UF world without you know,
Speaker 2: smashing into their coffee table.
Speaker 1: So it was safety easy onboarding, nice aesthetics. All Ux
Speaker 1: wins all Ux.
Speaker 2: But if you want the absolute gold standard for VR
Speaker 2: usability in a real game, you have to look at
Speaker 2: Bals Half Life. Alex came out in twenty twenty.
Speaker 1: Alex heard amazing things. It really showed that you need
Speaker 1: solid usability first before anything else can really land completely.
Speaker 2: Graphics, story, mechanics, they all rely on the foundation of comfortable,
Speaker 2: intuitive interaction, and Alex tackled the biggest usability problem head
Speaker 2: on simulation sickness.
Speaker 1: How did they crack it? What was the game changer
Speaker 1: for locomotion?
Speaker 2: The genius was realizing there wasn't one solution. The key
Speaker 2: was giving the user options. They didn't force everyone into
Speaker 2: a single movement style.
Speaker 1: Because different people react differently to VR E motion exactly.
Speaker 2: Some people get sick easily, others develop their VR legs
Speaker 2: and want full control, so Alex catered to both.
Speaker 1: How did they integrate that perfectly?
Speaker 2: First, they offered teleportation style movement. You just point where
Speaker 2: you want to go, click and instantly blink there.
Speaker 1: Which avoids that mismatch between what your I see and
Speaker 1: your inner ear feels no.
Speaker 2: Sickness, right, But for the experienced players, they also offered
Speaker 2: smooth locomotion that's the continuous movement using the thumbstick like
Speaker 2: traditional games, So.
Speaker 1: You choose what works for you. The UX solution was
Speaker 1: accessibility essentially.
Speaker 2: Precisely, it wasn't about finding one magic bullet. It was
Speaker 2: about acknowledging user diversity and providing choices smart.
Speaker 1: And they tackled orientation too, right, turning around.
Speaker 2: Yeah, because if you're playing seated or just don't want
Speaker 2: to physically spin one hundred and eighty degrees, smooth turning
Speaker 2: with a stick can be really jarring and disorienting.
Speaker 1: So that's where snap rotation came in.
Speaker 2: Yes, Alex really popularized this. You can set it so
Speaker 2: tapping the stick rotates your view instantly and set increments
Speaker 2: like fifteen, thirty, forty five up to ninety degrees so.
Speaker 1: You can quickly reorient without that dizzy and continuous spin
Speaker 1: make seeded play comfortable exactly.
Speaker 2: These seemingly small, granular choices about movement and rotation, they're
Speaker 2: what took VR from a tech demo curiosity to something
Speaker 2: people could actually use and enjoy for hours. It elevated
Speaker 2: the whole platform.
Speaker 1: Okay, so key hurdles like locomotion and orientation have been
Speaker 1: largely solved through smart Ux. Now we need designers to
Speaker 1: actually build all these new spatial experiences.
Speaker 2: Right, and designing for XR is just inherently more complex
Speaker 2: than mobile or web.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you can't just use Figma and call it a day.
Speaker 2: Not really. It often requires knowledge of three D modeling software.
Speaker 2: Game engines like Unity are unreal, and our sources point
Speaker 2: out that the communication, the handoff between the designer and
Speaker 2: the developer, it's much blurrier than the clear processes we
Speaker 2: have for our, say, mobile apps.
Speaker 1: So managing that complexity requires new approaches, new ways of thinking.
Speaker 2: Definitely, and designers are adopting new philosophies and toolkits. One
Speaker 2: philosophy that fits spatial computing almost perfectly is object oriented
Speaker 2: UX or ooux ooux.
Speaker 1: Why does that fit so well?
Speaker 2: Because spatial computing is fundamentally object oriented. Everything you see
Speaker 2: and interact with is well an object in three D space? Okay,
Speaker 2: So ooux shifts the design focus instead of starting with
Speaker 2: user flows or screens, the verbs the.
Speaker 1: Action like open file ors, save project.
Speaker 2: Right OUX starts by identifying the core objects the nouns
Speaker 2: things you find during user res search, like a document,
Speaker 2: a contact, a product, an avatar.
Speaker 1: So you focus on the document itself first before figuring
Speaker 1: out all the things you can do with it. How
Speaker 1: does that help?
Speaker 2: It creates a system that's inherently modular and much easier
Speaker 2: to scale. If you define the object first, its properties,
Speaker 2: its behaviors, it's relationships to other objects, you define it consistently.
Speaker 1: Ah So in a spatial world where that document might
Speaker 1: show up on a virtual desk, or as a tiny
Speaker 1: icon on an ar notification or projected onto.
Speaker 2: A wall, exactly defining the object ensures its appearance and
Speaker 2: core functions stay consistent across all those wildly different contexts.
Speaker 2: It avoids redesigning the same thing over and over.
Speaker 1: That modularity makes so much sense when you're not stuck
Speaker 1: on a flat page anymore. Okay, And since building happens
Speaker 1: in game engines, designers need tools to speed things up.
Speaker 2: Frameworks, Yes, frameworks and two kits are crucial for rapid prototyping.
Speaker 2: Microsoft's Mixed Reality Toolkit MRTK is a prime.
Speaker 1: Example, often used with their HoloLens.
Speaker 2: Right especially Hollins too. MRTK is fascinating because it's really
Speaker 2: exploring the future of spatial interaction. It heavily supports direct
Speaker 2: hand tracking.
Speaker 1: So using your actual hands, no controllers needed.
Speaker 2: Right, And it uses interaction metaphors that feel natural because
Speaker 2: they mimic the real world grabbing, pushing, pulling, even throwing
Speaker 2: virtual objects, but with added digital affordances.
Speaker 1: And it's not just about function. They focus on making
Speaker 1: it feel good. The sources mentioned delightful.
Speaker 2: Interaction, Yes, moving beyond just making it usable to making
Speaker 2: it emotionally engaging. MRTK has modules for things like elastic
Speaker 2: interaction plastic like bounce Yeah, think bouncy physics based anomations.
Speaker 2: When a menu pops up instead of just appearing instantly
Speaker 2: like a harsh two D panel, it might sort of
Speaker 2: spring into place with a little overshoot and bounce. Huh.
Speaker 1: That sounds subtle, but I can see how it would
Speaker 1: feel more organic, less jarring.
Speaker 2: It adds a bit of forgiveness, maybe even fun, like
Speaker 2: a playful little signal or Another example is their pressible
Speaker 2: three D wireframe button. Okay, it's a virtual button that
Speaker 2: visibly squishes or deforms when you push it. With your
Speaker 2: virtual finger, and it often gives haptic feedback if you're
Speaker 2: using controllers. It adds this tactile satisfaction.
Speaker 1: Making digital interactions feel more physical and playful.
Speaker 2: Exactly, it's about adding that layer of polish and fun
Speaker 2: that's crucial for keeping people engaged in these immersive worlds,
Speaker 2: moving beyond just basic task completion.
Speaker 1: Okay, so let's pull this all together look ahead a bit.
Speaker 1: It really sounds like UX design isn't just like a
Speaker 1: nice to have for spatial computing. It's fundamental the activator.
Speaker 2: As one source put it, it really is the activator
Speaker 2: because good UX solves that core problem of user retention.
Speaker 2: People won't stick with confusing, uncomfortable, or nauseating technology. UAX
Speaker 2: applies these proven principles from gaming from e commerce to
Speaker 2: make this emerging tech actually usable and desirable.
Speaker 1: And you mentioned delightful interaction. It's partner seems to be gamification,
Speaker 1: especially for getting new users comfortable.
Speaker 2: Absolutelyification using game mechanics like points, badges, progress bars in
Speaker 2: non game context is essential for XR onboarding.
Speaker 1: Why specifically for XR.
Speaker 2: Because the tech is still unfamiliar to many. Interacting with
Speaker 2: your hands in empty air using voice commands. It can
Speaker 2: feel awkward or intimidating at first. Users might feel anxious
Speaker 2: unsure what to do.
Speaker 1: So gamification helps guide them.
Speaker 2: It acts like an invisible helping hand. It directs attention,
Speaker 2: lowers the cognitive load, and provides reassurance. Can you give
Speaker 2: an example, Think about apps like Oculus Zone first Steps.
Speaker 2: It doesn't just dump you in VR. It guides you
Speaker 2: through simple fun activities, catching virtual blocks, shooting paper airplanes,
Speaker 2: dancing with a robot.
Speaker 1: Right with little rewards and clear feedback.
Speaker 2: Exactly, That positive reinforcement loop helps users overcome any initial anxiety,
Speaker 2: builds confidence, and make sure that first experience is positive.
Speaker 2: It helps turn that potential forty percent drop off from
Speaker 2: simulation sickness into engaged long term users.
Speaker 1: Okay, but as XR becomes more widespread, more immersive, we
Speaker 1: need to think beyond just engagement and usability. Right there
Speaker 1: are new risks.
Speaker 2: Definitely deeper immersion brings potential downsides, addiction, health concerns, safety
Speaker 2: issues if you're not aware of your physical surroundings.
Speaker 1: Which leads to this idea of mindful design.
Speaker 2: Yes, a necessary focus on responsible design choices things like
Speaker 2: being extremely transparent about data collection and privacy, especially with
Speaker 2: all the complex geospatial data needed for the persistent AR cloud,
Speaker 2: users need to know what's being tracked.
Speaker 1: And also building in features for the user's well being,
Speaker 1: like we see now with screen time limits on phones.
Speaker 2: Precisely, mindful design means offering digital well being tools, letting
Speaker 2: users easily set usage limits, take breaks, control notifications, giving
Speaker 2: them agency over how and when they engage with these
Speaker 2: powerful immersive environments.
Speaker 1: So UX designers have this added layer of ethical responsibility now.
Speaker 2: They really do mitigating the potential harms of a medium
Speaker 2: that is, by its very nature designed to capture and
Speaker 2: hold our attention.
Speaker 1: That ethical to make is huge. And speaking of future impacts,
Speaker 1: our sources surface this really provocative idea about where AR
Speaker 1: might take our economy, something with potentially massive consequences.
Speaker 2: Ah, yes, the AR reskinning economy. It's a fascinating concept.
Speaker 1: What's the core idea?
Speaker 2: It suggests that maybe, just maybe we can redirect some
Speaker 2: of our human impulse for compulsive shopping for acquiring new
Speaker 2: things towards digital goods instead of physical ones. And if
Speaker 2: we do that, maybe we can significantly cut down on
Speaker 2: resource consumption, waste shipping or whole carbon footprint.
Speaker 1: WHOA, So instead of buying a new thing, yeah, you
Speaker 1: buy a digital look for an existing thing.
Speaker 2: That's the idea. Imagine like, you have an old, ugly
Speaker 2: dresser you hate. Instead of throwing it out and buying
Speaker 2: a new one involving wood manufacturing shipping right, you just
Speaker 2: buy a digital AR skin for it. Through your AR glasses,
Speaker 2: that ugly dresser looks like a beautiful antique cabinet, perfectly mapped, photorealistic.
Speaker 2: Maybe only you see it, or maybe you can share
Speaker 2: that view with others wearing glasses.
Speaker 1: Huh. The physical object doesn't change, but your perception, your
Speaker 1: stetic satisfaction does exactly.
Speaker 2: The desire for novelty or a different look is fulfilled.
Speaker 2: An economic transaction might happen buying the skin, but no
Speaker 2: trees were cut down, no factories fired up, no container
Speaker 2: ships crossed the ocean for that specific satisfaction.
Speaker 1: The implications are wow profound. Selling digital AR skins for
Speaker 1: our physical world.
Speaker 2: It raises fundamental questions, doesn't it? Can we actually decouple
Speaker 2: that feeling of newness and consumer satisfaction from physical production
Speaker 2: and waste?
Speaker 1: Can a digital appearance be convincing enough, satisfying enough to
Speaker 1: replace the urge for a physical.
Speaker 2: Object if the digital overlay looks perfect and it provides
Speaker 2: that same dopamine hit of having something new and beautiful.
Speaker 2: Have we essentially bought a new item without the environmental cost.
Speaker 2: That's the really fascinating, maybe even world changing question for
Speaker 2: you to think about as UX continues to shape this
Speaker 2: next era of computing