Next Article in Journal
A Reconfigurable Hybrid ADC Using a Jump Search Algorithm
Next Article in Special Issue
Cardiac Healthcare Digital Twins Supported by Artificial Intelligence-Based Algorithms and Extended Reality—A Systematic Review
Previous Article in Journal
Alternative Performance Indices-Based Control Technique for a Unity Power Factor Three-Phase Rectifier
Previous Article in Special Issue
Hazardous and Toxic Material Decontamination Facility Training in Virtual Reality
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Electronics
Volume 13
Issue 3
10.3390/electronics13030600
electronics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Entering the Next Dimension: A Review of 3D User Interfaces for Virtual Reality

by
Adriel Yeo
1,2,†,
Benjamin W. J. Kwok
1,2,†,
Angelene Joshna
1,
Kan Chen
1,2,*,† and
Jeannie S. A. Lee
1,2,*
1
Infocomm Technology Cluster, Singapore Institute of Technology, Singapore 138683, Singapore
2
Centre for Immersification, Singapore Institute of Technology, Singapore 138683, Singapore
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Electronics 2024, 13(3), 600; https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics13030600
Submission received: 8 December 2023 / Revised: 19 January 2024 / Accepted: 19 January 2024 / Published: 1 February 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Metaverse and Digital Twins, 2nd Edition)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In the last decade, the use of virtual reality (VR) technologies has been increasing, as head-mounted display devices, such as the Meta Quest series, have become commercially accessible to everyday consumers. There are plenty of software applications developed for VR, ranging from games to serious training. Despite the fast-growing emergence of novel and natural gesture-based interface components, traditional windows, icons, menus, and pointer user interfaces still remain popular in these implementations. Therefore, navigating and interacting within 3-dimensional environments can still be challenging in virtual reality. This body of work will serve as a reference to the literature survey on 3-dimensional user interfaces and their implementations, and categorize them to reiterate a set of design recommendations for implementing 3-dimensional user interfaces in virtual reality. While questions revolve around the need for a 3-dimensional user interface if a 2-dimensional user interface suffices, we cannot ignore the capabilities and benefits offered when utilising 3-dimensional space. Unlike other work, this work proposes a novel metaphor-guided quadrant model to delineate the 3-dimensional user interface problem in an end-to-end manner. To achieve this, over 30 unique articles selected using a meta-analyses methodology were reviewed. The result highlights the dimensional semantics of the inputs and dimensional outcomes of the virtual targets. Notable reiterated design recommendations would match devices to interaction and then to the tasks in 3-dimensional environments, reducing the degrees of freedom, imposing constraints when possible, and not implementing one single best interaction technique. The results of this survey will be beneficial for virtual reality simulation designers or researchers attempting to determine the appropriate model when developing user interfaces for virtual reality content.

1. Introduction

Virtual reality (VR) has been explored for approximately the last fifty years, with the term virtual reality officially coined in the 1990s [1]. Since then, extensive research and studies have been conducted, paving the way for the modern head-mounted displays (HMDs) and VR headsets of today. For almost fifty years of research and development, VR technology has struggled to make significant breakthroughs [2]. It was not until the last decade that VR became accessible to everyday consumers with the release of affordable VR HMDs by companies such as Meta, Sony, Samsung, HTC, Apple, and Google, who are making big investments in VR and AR technology [3,4,5].
The accelerated interest in the platform and the Metaverse will contribute to a predicted significant boom in the VR market over the next few years, with possibly more commercial VR headsets that will enter the market, resulting in a surge of users and demand for VR applications [6]. However, there is no standardised aesthetic for 3-dimensional (3D) user interfaces (UIs) compared to 2-dimensional (2D) graphical UI (GUI). There is therefore a need to consolidate 3D UI work such that the various techniques can be easily described, shared, and implemented by those interested in advancing the field [7]. The necessity for studying 3D UIs and reiterating UI design guidelines for VR is now higher than ever, to ensure an optimal user experience for consumers and to utilize the full potential of immersive technology. This also ensures minimum usability requirements for VR applications and promotes efficient and effective UIs. It also paves the way for cross-platform applications in the future, where applications can be compatible with different VR headsets or devices with minimal to no modifications.
Researchers across multiple fields [8,9,10,11] began creating applications for these devices, each with their own UI design. In these applications, users were required to interact with the hardware to provide input. They leverage pre-existing 2D design principles [12] such as traditional windows, icons, menus, and pointers (WIMP) interfaces even when designing for 3D interfaces. However, these 2D UI principles are sometimes not fully compatible with VR, as the 3D environment offers a whole new dimension of space to work with. As with all progressions of technology, this added a dimension of interactivity; therefore, this requires UI guidelines to be reiterated [13].
Conventionally, 2D UI components such as menus, windows, and scroll bars are widely used for clicking, zooming, and dragging, and they are proven to be proficient at these tasks. On the other hand, 3D UIs, such as virtual hands, in-air gestures, and gaze, often offer six degrees of freedom (DoF) or more in its interface to facilitate common user tasks such as: point-to-select, grasp-to-manipulate, navigation, and system control. In terms of devices, various hardware such as mouse/keyboard, joystick, touch surfaces, and an array of sensors including gesture and gaze sensors, facilitate user–computer interaction. Each of these devices is best suited for specific scenarios and comes with its own set of limitations.
Unfortunately, designing user-friendly UIs for VR applications is challenging due to there being numerous factors that impact user experience (UX). The wide variation in input devices, task requirements, and display constraints often leads to mismatches, making it difficult to create an optimal UI in the VR environment. Many existing VR application user interfaces consist of 2D UI components directly mapped onto a 3D environment. This approach might not be ideal for UX as humans consume information differently in 2D and 3D interfaces, making it unlikely that best practices for 2D UI design will always translate or apply in a 3D context. For example, it is not always easy to select a 2D menu using an in-air controller.
Furthermore, certain functions, like gestures with multiple DoFs, are often underutilized and are commonly relegated to simple icon pointing in many indirect interactions. However, exploiting these functions to their full potential can sometimes result in excessive freedom, leading to frustration, distraction, or inaccuracies. For example, navigating a 2D map can be significantly more straightforward than 3D teleportation in an X-Ray style half transparent 3D environment.
Numerous articles discuss the best approach for immersive product design, 2D or 3D first designs [14], and categorizing the VR UIs based on many factors like task decomposition [15] and metaphors [16]. After reviewing the eligible papers, two main overarching types of 3D UI in VR were observed. These are the implementation of 2D UIs in a 3D environment and 3D UIs based on reality-based interactions.
Different to the existing approach, a simpler and more fundamental model is proposed to enhance future proposed 3D UI design guidelines. This paper aims to consolidate efforts in 3D UI development, facilitating the easy description, sharing, and implementation of 3D UI design. Its main idea is inspired by the process of developing a 3D environment or interaction. In this process, the very first step is always establishing the axis system. This dimension serves as the basic perspective upon which the entire VR world and its interactions are constructed. With this spirit, this survey focuses on discussing the 3D UI work from a dimensional perspective. Its simplicity and fundamental nature would provide an effective point of view from which to study 3D UIs. This could potentially benefit the refinement and reiteration of design guidelines for 3D UIs. The main contributions are thus as follows:
  • A novel metaphor-guided quadrant model to delineate the 3D UI problem in an end-to-end manner from the dimensional perspective is proposed.
  • Thirty-three unique articles selected using a meta-analyses methodology were reviewed.
  • Reiterate design recommendations based on the proposed model.

2. Approach

2.1. Proposed Categorization Model

Existing categorization approaches are based on task decomposition [15], metaphors [16], a set of relationships including selection tool-control, control–display ratio and motor–visual space relationship [17], input-control feedback [18], and spatial transformation decomposition [19]. Other surveys are similar in spirit and provide comprehensive considerations and perspectives for VR and virtual environment elements [7,14,20,21,22,23,24].
Different from these approaches, an end-to-end metaphor-guided quadrant model is proposed (Table 1), which directly addresses user input and targets virtual environments, focusing on their intrinsic dimensional characteristics. This simplicity and the direct approach make it a practical framework for analyzing commonly used 3D UIs, facilitating the selection of the most appropriate technique for a specific task.
Input dimensional semantics: Conceptually, this refers to the dimension of the input from the user’s intentional point of view, that is, the user can achieve 2D or 3D effects or results directly in the UI with the input methods. This follows the end-to-end theme, with the focus on the end effects of the input.
For example, the typical 2D user input methods are button, keyboard/mouse, and touch surface. For input dimensional semantics, these input methods are essentially planar in nature with 1 or 2 DoFs. Semantic-wise, they are toggle on/off, increase/decrease, pressing, typing, and 2D plane pointing/transformation. The typical 3D user input methods are the in-air controller and gaze. For input dimensional semantics, these inputs are essentially 3D in nature with 3 to 6 DoFs; semantic-wise, they are 3D pointing and transformation.
However, the input methods, such as the joystick (with more multi-axis (3D) and buttons (2D)) and gesture (with (3D) or without depth (2D)), are seen as both 2D and 3D; these input methods can achieve both 2D and 3D effects in nature.
Target outcomes: The outcomes of virtual targets are also categorized into 2D and 3D, that is, the results of the interaction would cause the states of the virtual targets to change in 2 (1 or 2 DoFs) or 3 (3 to 6 DoFs) dimensions or generate 2D or 3D data. The interactions, according to their metaphors as shown in Table 2, are mapped into this input-outcome quadrant model as shown in Table 1, while the interaction’s input semantics as previously described is also incorporated. For example, for the menu, the target button or option has 2D outcomes and its stages are selected/unselected, and for the grasp, the virtual objects would be transformed in 3D space. Note that in Table 1, if the interaction could generate eight 2D (or less) or 3D (or more) outcomes, it spans across both columns; similarly, if it has the 2D or 3D input semantics then it spans the two rows.

2.2. Survey Approach

Papers published that designed, surveyed, or reviewed 3D UIs for VR were sourced using the search engine Google Scholar, using the keywords “3D”, “user interface”, “design”, and “guidelines”, and their corresponding abbreviations and synonyms. Other criteria included more than ten citations for publications older than ten years, and contained related reported results on the design of 3D UIs. Articles that address the design of 2D/3D UIs in/for 3D environments, help with answering the research questions or reiterating design guidelines and, as this work is a conjuncture of HCI and VR, highly cited works from reputable journals or conferences such as ACM’s CHI [25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32], IEEE’s VR and TVCG [21,22,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44], as well as other conference and journal sources [13,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58] from between the early 2000s to 2023 were selected.
This meta-review will aim to provide an updated overview of significant works in the field that relate to 3D UIs in VR to establish an end-to-end dimensional perspective for a set of reiterated 3D UI design recommendations to guide future development.

2.3. Research Questions

The use of 2D UI in a 3D space raises the challenge of determining which design(s), whether 2D or 3D, will optimize the UX in VR. This raises two questions. First, how different are the interaction modalities for determining the design of 2D and 3D UIs for VR? And what are the designs that have been tested but have yet to validate the claim of an optimized UX in 3D VR? The first question examines the common forms of input and interactions with virtual targets when in a 3D environment. The second question seeks to determine a set of recommendations for 3D UI designs through a publication review.

3. Input Dimensional Semantics

This section discusses the dimension of the input from the user’s point of view, with the user achieving 2D or 3D results with the input methods.

3.1. 2D Input

Design principles established for 2D UI based on WIMP standards [59] are still an efficient and common method of designing 3D UIs [54]. These implementations generally take the form of a floating widget or window that the user can interact with using a pointer. The pointer can be a ray cast from the HMD’s head tracking or controller.
There are various interpretations of 2D UI in VR environments; however, the most common is to arrange the UI displayed as a plane, similar to how it would be displayed on a flat display. This display is then represented in the 3D environment as a floating widget. The significance of this method is that it is familiar to most users who have been exposed to modern technology, such as a computer or smartphone; the most commonly used functions are displayed directly before the user. This, while neater, however still makes use of the traditional 2D medium, and the 3D space is not utilized. Moreover, fewer icons/functions can be displayed as there is a limit before the UI becomes too cluttered for users to have ease of use.
Another common method is to overlay the UI on the HMD’s field of view, known as the head up display (HUD). This method will require users to perform the physical action of moving their heads in search of desired functions, though it utilizes the 3D space which enlists its eligibility as a 3D UI, and provides immersion to the users. Despite this, it has its disadvantages as well, mainly the need to find the balance between the size of the UI and also the placement of the UI by the user to avoid the UI clipping into the environment if users are moving.
Controller or pointer-based input is used to navigate menus on these displays as the user would on a computer or console. These 2D design principles have been used and validated for decades, being able to leverage metrics like Fitts’ Law [60] to calculate the performance and efficiency of the selection method.

3.2. 3D Input

Human–computer interaction (HCI) occurring in 3D space does not necessarily define the term 3D interaction as it may not constitute a 3D input [61,62]; such interaction may involve only 2D input, in which users accomplish tasks using a traditional 2D UI. Conversely, using hardware to translate a 3D object can be defined as a 3D interaction. Thereby, as defined by Jacob et al. [28], 3D UI implementations involve interacting with objects in the virtual environment, similar to how humans would interact with objects in the real world. These implementations use humans’ knowledge of physics and their bodies, and their social and environmental awareness when interacting with the world around them. These real-world heuristic affordances are, on some level, intuitively transferable to 3D UIs [55]. Generally, these implementations are deemed to take more effort to execute compared to 2D UI as they require more complex gestures and input from the user. However, multiple studies have found that RBI 3D UIs increases user engagement and is seen as fun. However, a counter-argument could be made that the hassle of the UI might hinder the user’s efficiency when performing tasks with RBI.

4. Outcomes of Virtual Targets

The outcomes of the input interactions based on their metaphors are discussed here. The results of the interaction would cause the states of the virtual targets to change dimensions or create 2D or 3D data.

4.1. 2D Interfaces

When placing a 2D interface in a 3D environment, one factor which determines how readable the UI will be is the distance from the camera and how large the font of the UI is. The efficacy and comfort of 3D visualizations are intricately linked to the depth perception of 3D human visual perception [53].
Steinicke et al. [27] found that VR using stereoscopic projections provided additional depth perception for users, but the challenges and limitations of touch interaction had not been sufficiently investigated. Zhou et al. [45]’s recommendation for ergonomic arrangement for a 3D UI in a virtual environment was to place it 3.5 m away from the user to have the best viewing experience. For a 3D UI that the user can interact with, a distance of 2.6 m was recommended. They also found the optimum depression angle for operation UIs is around 9.8 degrees, fitting a user’s comfortable field-of-view and hand-controlling posture.

4.1.1. Menus

Menus are visual or interactive lists of options that users can choose from to navigate through or interact with a system. In a 2D UI, there are various forms of menus such as dropdown menus, navigation menus, hamburger menus, toolbar menus, pie/ring menus [63], and context menus. When these menus are translated to a 3D UI in VR, these elements consistently preserve their functionality despite the shift to a 3D display paradigm. Teylingen [64] proposed a virtual data visualizer (VDV), which is representative of floating menus, a common method for displaying menus across different platforms even today. Bowman and Wingrave [65] designed the three-up, labels in palm (TULIP) menu system, which utilizes the palm to display the menu. Mine [66] explored the worlds-in-miniature (WIM), in which a user can directly interact with 3D virtual objects scaled down to users’ peripherals. Developed by Liang and Green [63], geometric objects are arranged in the 1-DOF ring formation where a flick of the wrist will rotate the selection. In Gerber and Bechmann [67]’s design, objects are arranged in a circle paradigm and the wrist is rotated in the horizontal plane to make the selection. The look-at menu by Mine et al. [68] uses head movement instead of hands to interact with the menu.
Dachselt and Hübner [54] surveyed multiple 3D menu solutions (see Figure 1) and defined a taxonomy for 3D menus (temporary option menus, single menus, menu systems, and menu hierarchies) in their survey of 3D menus, as seen in Table 3.
They identified five examples of structural layouts: lists (Figure 1a); rings (Figure 1d,e); matrices (Figure 1b); geometric structures (Figure 1c); and free layouts (Figure 1f), which correlate to different hierarchies. Their taxonomy prepared the ground for further classification, and could be applied to the evaluation of menu suitability for VR applications.

4.1.2. Typing

Typing is an essential input method used in 2D UIs in scenarios that require a complex chain of inputs (Figure 2). This is generally reserved for the input of language and communication. The metric in which researchers calculate the efficiency of typing is words per minute (WPM), with an average of 60–70 WPM with traditional keyboard typing [69]. With VR, the WPM across different techniques (raycasting, drum-like VR keyboard, head-directed and split keyboard) was significantly slower at 10–20 WPM [70].
Compared to traditional typing on a QWERTY keyboard, where the user can leverage touch typing with multiple fingers and muscle memory, typing in VR is usually limited to one-to-two input controllers pointed at floating widgets.

4.1.3. Surface

With the rapid development of multi-touch techniques as used in phones and tablets, surface- or touch-based interaction has become very popular. It provides direct interaction and it is typically used to drag and rotate virtual objects in 2D contexts. However, additional touches can be introduced to drag or rotate virtual objects in 3D contexts; this may not always be intuitive and convenient, as it is essentially based on 2D surfaces [71,72,73]. As shown in Figure 3a–i, such surface-based interaction can be applied in many applications (refer to the survey [74]), such as architectural modelling [75], data exploration [76], architectural walkthrough [77], and sand drawing [78].
Similarly, surface UIs in 3D use 2D planes to display information similar to what would be displayed on a monitor or screen. These are either represented as floating widgets or are incorporated in the virtual environment. When integrated into the 3D environment, there has been some research into adding physical props to aid with the tactile feedback of interacting with a surface, carried out by Lindeman et al. [41], as seen in Figure 4. However, most designs are not implemented literally, as their study opted for floating widgets or planes, even with the lack of physical feedback.

4.2. 3D Interfaces

In VR simulations, the main forms of 3D interactions are manipulation, navigation, communication, and system control [79,80]. These interactions comprise all the ways the user will interact with the VR simulations, from interacting with the environment to the system and other entities or users in VR.
3D UI selection techniques should be accurate, easy to understand, rapid, and not take too much energy [17]. Jacob et al. [28] defined a framework, reality-based interaction (RBI), which uses our pre-existing understanding of the world to interact with elements in a virtual environment.
Weiß et al. [81] and Hepperle et al. [82] studied which type of UI is most advantageous when tasked with interacting with different tasks. They found that 2D UIs performed the best in tasks involving manipulating multiple objects rapidly and accurately while 3D UIs were associated with fun and immersiveness.
Previous surveys on 3D UI interaction techniques were conducted from 2012–2013 [17,21]. At the time, VR technology was not as prevalent as today; however, technology like the Kinect and WiiMote could also utilise 3D UI.

4.2.1. Point

Object interaction in a 3D environment requires the indication of the desired target, assuming said object had been programmed to be identifiable by the system, and pointing accomplishes that efficiently. The typical input methods come in the form of mouse, trackball, motion gestures, and controllers [19,43,66]. A virtual hand is typically used to select the object in VR that is within reach [83]. If object selection falls beyond arms’ reach, a popular method in VR is the use of raycasting [31] from the controller or the HMD displayed, where a beam is projected as a guide for users, to more accurately control and visualise the selection process; it is also used for pointing 2D menus.
In a study by Dachselt and Hübner [54], they surveyed 3D pointing techniques in VR and found that Fitts’ Law [60] was used frequently as the measure for pointing tasks and implementations. Fitts’ Law was an equation used to predict the time required for users to move their pointer from the start to the target position as a function of the distance and size of the target. Grossman and Balakrishnan [84] later reviewed and adapted the original equation, meant to measure 2D space in 3D environments. The 3D Fitts’ Law equation by Grossman and Balakrishnan [84] (the parameters are adopted from their study):
M T ≈ 56 + 508 · log 2 f W θ A W 2 + 1 9.2 A H 2 + f D θ A D 2 + 1 ,
where f W ( 0 ∘ ) = 0.211 ,   f W ( 90 ∘ ) = 0.717 ,   f W ( 45 ∘ ) = 0.242 ,   f D ( 0 ∘ ) = 0.194 ,   f D ( 90 ∘ ) = 0.312 ,   f D ( 45 ∘ ) = 0.147 .  A is the distance to target and W, H, and D are the width, height, and depth, respectively.
One issue with raycasting was that the source of the ray from either the controller or the HMD could produce problems like solid-angle mismatch, occlusion mismatch at object level, and occlusion mismatch at point level, as shown in Figure 5.
Argelaguet and Andujar [42] performed a study comparing different pointing selection methods (hand-rooted and eye-rooted selection techniques) in VR and found that a hybrid approach using HOMER (hand-centered object manipulation extending raycasting) [32] was the most efficient.

4.2.2. Grasp

Grasping refers to the interaction between a user and virtual objects within the environment. It involves the ability to reach out and grab, hold, or manipulate virtual objects. This interaction is typically facilitated by motion controllers, gloves, or other hand-tracking devices that allow users to manipulate virtual objects as if they were interacting with objects in the real world.
Humans have an innate understanding of how to grasp and manipulate objects in the real world. However, in VR, these actions are often predefined and limited, and executed through animations due to the complex and multitude of ways a user can decide to interact with an object in their hands. Oprea et al. [56] proposed a method to grasp and manipulate an object regardless of its geometry in an effort to address this limitation using handheld controllers. A later study by Shi et al. [44] proposed another method using a three-module approach to grasping (grasping detection, hand–object connection module, and finger bending) that addresses some of the deficiencies discovered. Their implementation improved the realistic rendering of the 3D hand model when interacting with objects in VR, as seen in Figure 6.

4.2.3. Indirect

These refer to indirect mappings between the controls and elements in the user interface and the target actions or outcomes they represent. Good spatial mappings are desirable to create a clear connection between the input and the system’s output. This type of interaction is typically based on additional handles or cues, and the common input methods for VR are in-air controllers and gestures; however, some additional handlers may not be easy and natural to use and map, and in-air gestures often suffer from accuracy drawbacks [19,74]. As shown in Figure 7, additional metaphors are usually introduced to facilitate and map the manipulation, such as bars [85], pins [86,87], virtual handles [88], and widgets [89].

4.2.4. Navigation

Navigation is a form of exploration or wayfinding in order to perform given tasks [90]. Depending on the UI chosen, 2D WIMP-based implementations follow a conventional style of input using buttons and/or pointers, while 3D RBI-based implementations have additional virtual spatial requirements such as physically reaching out to interact with the object in virtual space. The conventional methods used in many VR games and simulators are based on steering (e.g., first-person shooting game) and teleporting using controllers or joysticks or gaze [91,92] (Figure 8). Additional hardware may be utilized for walking, cycling, driving, and flying in a 3D environment [29,93] (Figure 8), and 3D navigation may not always be easy, usually requiring additional cues [94,95], compared to 2D map-based navigation, which provides a better overview [96].
During task execution, efficiency and accuracy are important while navigating through 3D UIs. Similar to pointing, the metric most often associated with navigation efficiency is Fitts’ Law. Navigation is also intrinsically linked to the type of menu employed by the simulation.

5. Discussion

5.1. Applications

An important determining factor in choosing which 3D UI would best serve the application is the context in which the user interacts with it such as education, simulation, and entertainment. While education and simulation applications tend to be more serious, informative, and accurate, applications that are designed for entertainment can take creative liberties in their portrayal of the design [48].
The idea of immersion in the education and simulation setting is intrinsically tied to the dynamic interaction between users and the VR environment. The user interface serves as the pivotal point for user interaction within the VR teaching context, which influences the overall quality of teaching and learning. The design of the user interface holds considerable sway over learners’ ability to grasp target knowledge efficiently. Additionally, it directly affects learners’ motivation, concentration, and active participation in the learning process. While educational VR strives to be accurate and informative, this does not necessarily mean it cannot be fun. Gamification in educational VR has proven to be as effective at learning outcomes as traditional learning methods. Bedwell et al. [97] proposed a framework for gamification elements that could be implemented in non-game activities.

5.2. Reiterated Design Recommendations

In the exploration of 3D UIs, a key insight emerged: the consideration of dimensional affordance heuristics was crucial in the design of 3D UIs. These heuristics encompassed factors such as perspective errors and the absence of physical feedback. In contrast to traditional 2D user interfaces, which are confined to a flat plane, 3D UIs introduced heightened complexity in terms of both implementation and user experience. This review distilled and suggested reiterating three primary recommendations, matching devices to interaction and to the tasks in 3D environments, reducing degrees of freedom (DoFs) and imposing constraints when possible, and:
(1) Matching devices to interaction and to the tasks in 3D environments. The recommendation is to align the dimensionality of input semantics with that of the virtual target outcomes, as matching these dimensions can result in an intuitive and natural user interface. For instance, in-air controllers (3D input semantics) are highly effective for tasks like 3D pointing and grasping (3D target outcomes). However, for 2D tasks, such as 2D pointing and typing (2D target outcomes), in-air controllers may be underutilized or less effective. In such cases, designing appropriate layouts like in-position widgets, opting for button-based interfaces, adding constraints, or providing cues could be more suitable alternatives;
(2) Reducing degrees-of-freedom (DoFs) and imposing constraints when possible. To avoid the frustration and distraction caused by excessive freedoms, and considering the frequent mismatches between input semantics and target outcomes, it is advisable to impose constraints to reduce the DoFs. For instance, when using in-air controllers (3D input semantics) for a surface task such as 2D dragging (2D target outcomes), limiting the motions in the axis aligned to reduce the input semantics to 2D would make the interaction more effective;
(3) No single best interaction technique. The suitability of interaction techniques in VR varies depending on the types of tasks, particularly from a dimensional perspective. While no single solution fits all scenarios, it is recommended to assess the dimensional nature of each task and, accordingly, select the most appropriate interaction technique or a hybrid approach. For instance, using an in-air controller for 3D selection, but voice input for typing.

5.3. Challenges and Future Direction

Quick prototyping for 3D UIs is not readily available, often necessitating direct integration into VR engines. Although Fitts’ law, initially established for 2D UI efficiency, remains relevant for 3D UIs, the design of 3D UIs largely depends on the specific application’s purpose, style, fidelity, and interactivity. One future direction would be consolidating standardized and comprehensive 3D UI design guidelines. Thus, the proposed approach is the first step towards this goal. Although there is some existing work [98,99], additional empirical studies comparing the effectiveness across 3D UIs based on the abovementioned guidelines could be validated.
VR environments, merging 2D imagery with real-world display techniques, challenge human visual physiology, leading to user discomfort issues such as dizziness, visual fatigue, and more severe symptoms like eye swelling and nausea. Unlike traditional screen interfaces that focus on functionality, VR UI design should prioritize interactive experience; however, mitigating such comfortableness would increase user satisfaction level; one possible solution based on the proposed model would be choosing a suitable dimension in inputs and outcomes to reduce unnecessary distraction and fatigue.
A notable limitation of VR UIs is the lack of adequate feedback. Traditional UIs use visual and audio cues, and advancements have introduced haptic feedback in gaming controllers. However, current haptic feedback, mainly vibrations, provides limited physical sensation. This can lead to a disconnection in 3D environments, where users might expect physical resistance that haptic feedback cannot fully replicate. Pseudo-haptic solutions, leveraging visuohaptic illusions that utilize visual dominance over haptic perception, could be an effective alternative or complement [36].
Looking ahead, VR UI design should explore multi-modal or hybrid methods, incorporating human communication techniques, such as speech and brain signals, to enhance user interaction and immersion. Based on the proposed model, this can increase dimensions in VR UIs, offering greater design flexibility of 3D UIs to enhance user experience.

6. Conclusions

In this review, an overarching view of the research into 3D UIs was given and common themes and recommendations from different areas of focus were distilled. A metaphor-guided quadrant model based on the input semantics and the target outcomes in 2D and 3D was proposed, as seen in Table 1, as a means to categorize their implementation alignment. It directly addresses user input and targets virtual environments with an emphasis on their intrinsic dimensional characteristics. This end-to-end and simple approach provides a practical framework for analyzing commonly used 3D UIs. Three design recommendations were proposed based on the considerations of dimensional affordance heuristics uncovered for researchers to consider when designing future 3D UIs for VR applications based on the insights from the review.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.Y., A.J. and J.S.A.L.; methodology, A.Y., B.W.J.K., A.J., K.C. and J.S.A.L.; validation, A.Y., B.W.J.K., K.C. and J.S.A.L.; formal analysis, A.Y., B.W.J.K., K.C. and J.S.A.L.; investigation, A.Y. and A.J.; resources, A.Y.; data curation, J.S.A.L.; writing—original draft preparation, A.Y. and B.W.J.K.; writing—review and editing, A.Y., B.W.J.K., K.C and J.S.A.L.; visualization, B.W.J.K.; supervision, J.S.A.L.; project administration, J.S.A.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Part of this research was supported by the National Research Foundation (NRF), Singapore, and the Singapore Land Transport Authority (LTA), Singapore, under the Urban Mobility Grand Challenge (UMGC-L010) Grant.

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not reflect the views of National Research Foundation, Singapore and the Singapore Land Transport Authority.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
VRVirtual Reality
HMDHead Mounted Display
WIMPWindows, Icons, Menus, Pointers
3D3 Dimensional
2D2 Dimensional
UIUser Interface
DoFDegrees of Freedom
UXUser Experience
HUDHead’s Up Display
HCIHuman Computer Interaction
VDVVirtual Data Visualizer
TULIPThree Up Labels In Palm
WIMWorlds in Miniature
WPMWords Per Minute
RBIReality Based Interaction
HOMERHand-Centered Object Manipulation Extending Ray Casting

References

  1. Lanier, J.; Biocca, F. An insider’s view of the future of virtual reality. J. Commun. 1992, 42, 150–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Williams, A. Reality check [virtual reality technology]. Eng. Technol. 2015, 10, 52–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Korolov, M. The real risks of virtual reality. Risk Manag. 2014, 61, 20–24. [Google Scholar]
  4. Ebert, C. Looking into the Future. IEEE Softw. 2015, 32, 92–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Castelvecchi, D. Low-cost headsets boost virtual reality’s lab appeal. Nature 2016, 533, 153–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Dorabjee, R.; Bown, O.; Sarkar, S.; Tomitsch, M. Back to the Future: Identifying Interface Trends from the Past, Present and Future in Immersive Applications. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Australian Special Interest Group for Computer Human Interaction, Parkville, VIC, Australia, 7–10 December 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Hand, C. A survey of 3D interaction techniques. In Proceedings of the Computer Graphics Forum; Wiley Online Library: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1997; Volume 16, pp. 269–281. [Google Scholar]
  8. Riva, G.; Gaggioli, A.; Grassi, A.; Raspelli, S.; Cipresso, P.; Pallavicini, F.; Vigna, C.; Gagliati, A.; Gasco, S.; Donvito, G. NeuroVR 2—A free virtual reality platform for the assessment and treatment in behavioral health care. In Medicine Meets Virtual Reality 18; IOS Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2011; pp. 493–495. [Google Scholar]
  9. Cipresso, P. Modeling behavior dynamics using computational psychometrics within virtual worlds. Front. Psychol. 2015, 6, 1725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Brown, A.; Green, T. Virtual reality: Low-cost tools and resources for the classroom. TechTrends 2016, 60, 517–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Cipresso, P.; Serino, S.; Riva, G. Psychometric assessment and behavioral experiments using a free virtual reality platform and computational science. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 2016, 16, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Zeng, X.; Hedge, A.; Guimbretiere, F. Fitts’ law in 3D space with coordinated hand movements. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting; SAGE Publications: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Norman, D.A. Natural user interfaces are not natural. Interactions 2010, 17, 6–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Fröjdman, S. User Experience Guidelines for Design of Virtual Reality Graphical User Interface Controlled by Head Orientation Input. Bachelor’s Thesis, University of Skövde, Skövde, Sweden, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  15. Bowman, D.A.; Johnson, D.B.; Hodges, L.F. Testbed evaluation of virtual environment interaction techniques. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology, London, UK, 20–22 December 1999; pp. 26–33. [Google Scholar]
  16. Poupyrev, I.; Ichikawa, T. Manipulating objects in virtual worlds: Categorization and empirical evaluation of interaction techniques. J. Vis. Lang. Comput. 1999, 10, 19–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Argelaguet, F.; Andujar, C. A survey of 3D object selection techniques for virtual environments. Comput. Graph. 2013, 37, 121–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Dewez, D.; Hoyet, L.; Lécuyer, A.; Argelaguet Sanz, F. Towards “avatar-friendly” 3D manipulation techniques: Bridging the gap between sense of embodiment and interaction in virtual reality. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Virtual Event, 8–13 May 2021; pp. 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  19. Mendes, D.; Caputo, F.M.; Giachetti, A.; Ferreira, A.; Jorge, J. A survey on 3d virtual object manipulation: From the desktop to immersive virtual environments. In Proceedings of the Computer Graphics Forum; Wiley Online Library: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2019; Volume 38, pp. 21–45. [Google Scholar]
  20. Hinckley, K.; Pausch, R.; Goble, J.C.; Kassell, N.F. A survey of design issues in spatial input. In Proceedings of the 7th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, Marina del Rey, CA, USA, 2–4 November 1994; pp. 213–222. [Google Scholar]
  21. Takala, T.M.; Rauhamaa, P.; Takala, T. Survey of 3DUI applications and development challenges. In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE Symposium on 3D User Interfaces (3DUI), Costa Mesa, CA, USA, 4–5 March 2012; pp. 89–96. [Google Scholar]
  22. Lacoche, J.; Duval, T.; Arnaldi, B.; Maisel, E.; Royan, J. A survey of plasticity in 3D user interfaces. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE 7th Workshop on Software Engineering and Architectures for Realtime Interactive Systems (SEARIS), Minneapolis, MN, USA, 30 March 2014; pp. 19–26. [Google Scholar]
  23. Purwar, S. Designing User Experience for Virtual Reality (VR) Applications. Available online: https://uxplanet.org/designing-user-experience-for-virtual-reality-vr-applications-fc8e4faadd96 (accessed on 4 March 2019).
  24. Kharoub, H.; Lataifeh, M.; Ahmed, N. 3D user interface design and usability for immersive VR. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Bowman, D.A.; McMahan, R.P.; Ragan, E.D. Questioning naturalism in 3D user interfaces. Commun. ACM 2012, 55, 78–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kim, T.; Karlson, A.; Gupta, A.; Grossman, T.; Wu, J.; Abtahi, P.; Collins, C.; Glueck, M.; Surale, H.B. STAR: Smartphone-analogous Typing in Augmented Reality. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, San Francisco, CA, USA, 29 October–1 November 2023; pp. 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  27. Steinicke, F.; Benko, H.; Krüger, A.; Keefe, D.; de la Riviére, J.B.; Anderson, K.; Häkkilä, J.; Arhippainen, L.; Pakanen, M. The 3rd dimension of CHI (3DCHI) touching and designing 3D user interfaces. In Proceedings of the CHI’12 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Austin, TX, USA, 5–10 May 2012; pp. 2695–2698. [Google Scholar]
  28. Jacob, R.J.; Girouard, A.; Hirshfield, L.M.; Horn, M.S.; Shaer, O.; Solovey, E.T.; Zigelbaum, J. Reality-based interaction: A framework for post-WIMP interfaces. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Florence, Italy, 5–10 April 2008; pp. 201–210. [Google Scholar]
  29. Tan, C.T.; Foo, L.C.; Yeo, A.; Lee, J.S.A.; Wan, E.; Kok, X.F.K.; Rajendran, M. Understanding user experiences across VR Walking-in-Place locomotion methods. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New Orleans, LA, USA, 30 April–5 May 2022; pp. 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  30. Riecke, B.E.; LaViola Jr, J.J.; Kruijff, E. 3D user interfaces for virtual reality and games: 3D selection, manipulation, and spatial navigation. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2018 Courses; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 1–94. [Google Scholar]
  31. Baloup, M.; Pietrzak, T.; Casiez, G. Raycursor: A 3d pointing facilitation technique based on raycasting. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Glasgow, UK, 4–9 May 2019; pp. 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  32. Bowman, D.A.; Hodges, L.F. An evaluation of techniques for grabbing and manipulating remote objects in immersive virtual environments. In Proceedings of the 1997 Symposium on Interactive 3D Graphics, Providence, RI, USA, 27–30 April 1997; pp. 35–ff. [Google Scholar]
  33. Monteiro, P.; Gonçalves, G.; Peixoto, B.; Melo, M.; Bessa, M. Evaluation of hands-free VR interaction methods during a Fitts’ task: Efficiency and Effectiveness. IEEE Access 2023, 11, 70898–70911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Monteiro, P.; Gonçalves, G.; Coelho, H.; Melo, M.; Bessa, M. Hands-free interaction in immersive virtual reality: A systematic review. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 2021, 27, 2702–2713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Lubos, P.; Bruder, G.; Steinicke, F. Analysis of direct selection in head-mounted display environments. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE Symposium on 3D User Interfaces (3DUI), Minneapolis, MN, USA, 29–30 March 2014; pp. 11–18. [Google Scholar]
  36. Bowman, D.A.; Coquillart, S.; Froehlich, B.; Hirose, M.; Kitamura, Y.; Kiyokawa, K.; Stuerzlinger, W. 3d user interfaces: New directions and perspectives. IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl. 2008, 28, 20–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Xing, Y.; Shell, J.; Fahy, C.; Wen, C.; Da, Z.; Kwan, H.Y. Web XR user interface study in designing 3D layout framework in static websites. In Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces Abstracts and Workshops (VRW), Christchurch, New Zealand, 12–16 March 2022; pp. 243–246. [Google Scholar]
  38. Chen, Q.; Low, S.E.; Yap, J.W.; Sim, A.K.; Tan, Y.Y.; Kwok, B.W.; Lee, J.S.; Tan, C.T.; Loh, W.P.; Loo, B.L.; et al. Immersive virtual reality training of bioreactor operations. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment, and Learning for Engineering (TALE), Takamatsu, Japan, 8–11 December 2020; pp. 873–878. [Google Scholar]
  39. Kwok, B.W.; Yeo, A.C.L.; Wong, A.; Loo, L.W.B.; Lee, J.S.A. Improving Immersive Virtual Reality Training of Bioreactor Operations using Gamification. In Proceedings of the 2023 IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment, and Learning for Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand, 27 November–1 December 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Xing, Y.; Shell, J.; Fahy, C.; Guan, K.; Zhang, Q.; Xie, T. User Interface Research in Web Extended Reality. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE 7th International Conference on Virtual Reality (ICVR), Foshan, China, 20–22 May 2021; pp. 76–81. [Google Scholar]
  41. Lindeman, R.W.; Sibert, J.L.; Templeman, J.N. The effect of 3D widget representation and simulated surface constraints on interaction in virtual environments. In Proceedings of the IEEE Virtual Reality 2001, Yokohama, Japan, 13–17 March 2001; pp. 141–148. [Google Scholar]
  42. Argelaguet, F.; Andujar, C. Efficient 3D pointing selection in cluttered virtual environments. IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl. 2009, 29, 34–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Dang, N.T. A survey and classification of 3D pointing techniques. In Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE International Conference on Research, Innovation and Vision for the Future, Hanoi, Vietnam, 5–9 March 2007; pp. 71–80. [Google Scholar]
  44. Shi, Y.; Zhao, L.; Lu, X.; Hoang, T.; Wang, M. Grasping 3D Objects With Virtual Hand in VR Environment. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM SIGGRAPH International Conference on Virtual-Reality Continuum and Its Applications in Industry, Shenzhen, China, 10–11 December 2022; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  45. Zhou, Y.; Shi, L.; He, Z.; Li, Z.; Wang, J. Design Paradigms of 3D User Interfaces for VR Exhibitions. In Proceedings of the IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2023; pp. 618–627. [Google Scholar]
  46. Molina, J.P.; González, P.; Lozano, M.D.; Montero, F.; López-Jaquero, V. Bridging the gap: Developing 2D and 3D user interfaces with the IDEAS methodology. In Proceedings of the Interactive Systems. Design, Specification, and Verification: 10th International Workshop, DSV-IS 2003, Funchal, Madeira Island, Portugal, 11–13 June 2003; Revised Papers 10. Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2003; pp. 303–315. [Google Scholar]
  47. Kim, Y.M.; Rhiu, I.; Yun, M.H. A systematic review of a virtual reality system from the perspective of user experience. Int. J. Hum.–Comput. Interact. 2020, 36, 893–910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Xie, H. The Applications of Interface Design and User Experience in Virtual Reality. Highlights Sci. Eng. Technol. 2023, 44, 189–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Wingrave, C.A.; Laviola Jr, J.J.; Bowman, D.A. A natural, tiered and executable UIDL for 3D user interfaces based on Concept-Oriented Design. ACM Trans. Comput.–Hum. Interact. (TOCHI) 2009, 16, 1–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Al-Jundi, H.A.; Tanbour, E.Y. A framework for fidelity evaluation of immersive virtual reality systems. Virtual Real. 2022, 26, 1103–1122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Korkut, E.H.; Surer, E. Visualization in virtual reality: A systematic review. Virtual Real. 2023, 27, 1447–1480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Dachselt, R. Action Spaces-A Metaphorical Concept to Support Navigation and Interaction in 3D User Interfaces. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2415437_Action_Spaces_-_A_Metaphorical_Concept_to_Support_Navigation_and_Interaction_in_3D_Interfaces (accessed on 19 June 2000).
  53. Dede, C. Immersive interfaces for engagement and learning. Science 2009, 323, 66–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Dachselt, R.; Hübner, A. Three-dimensional menus: A survey and taxonomy. Comput. Graph. 2007, 31, 53–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Olsson, A. Virtual Reality Menu Structures: How 2D and 3D Menus Affect the User Experience in a Virtual Game Environment. Bachelor’s Thesis, Linnaeus University, Kalmar, Sweden, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  56. Oprea, S.; Martinez-Gonzalez, P.; Garcia-Garcia, A.; Castro-Vargas, J.A.; Orts-Escolano, S.; Garcia-Rodriguez, J. A visually realistic grasping system for object manipulation and interaction in virtual reality environments. Comput. Graph. 2019, 83, 77–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Trichopoulos, G.; Aliprantis, J.; Konstantakis, M.; Caridakis, G. ARTISTS: A virtual Reality culTural experIence perSonalized arTworks System: The “Children Concert” painting case study. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Digital Culture & AudioVisual Challenges (DCAC-2018), Corfu, Greece, 1 –2 June 2018. [Google Scholar]
  58. Yue, G. 3D User Interface in Virtual Reality. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2021; pp. 418–423. [Google Scholar]
  59. Jansen, B.J. The Graphical User Interface. SIGCHI Bull. 1998, 30, 22–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Fitts, P.M. The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. J. Exp. Psychol. 1954, 47, 381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Bowman, D.; Kruijff, E.; LaViola, J.J., Jr.; Poupyrev, I. 3D User Interfaces: Theory and Practice, CourseSmart eTextbook; Addison-Wesley: Boston, MA, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  62. Bowman, D.A.; Fröhlich, B.; Kitamura, Y.; Stuerzlinger, W. New directions in 3D user interfaces. Int. J. Virtual Real. 2006, 5, 3–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Liang, J.; Green, M. JDCAD: A highly interactive 3D modeling system. Comput. Graph. 1994, 18, 499–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Teylingen, R.V.; Ribarsky, W.; Mast, C.D.V. Virtual data visualizer. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 1997, 3, 65–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Bowman, D.A.; Wingrave, C.A. Design and evaluation of menu systems for immersive virtual environments. In Proceedings of the IEEE Virtual Reality 2001, Yokohama, Japan, 13–17 March 2001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Mine, M.R. Virtual Environment Interaction Techniques; Technical Report for University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: Chapel Hill, NC, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  67. Gerber, D.; Bechmann, D. The spin menu: A menu system for virtual environments. In IEEE Virtual Reality 2005; IEEE Computer Society: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Mine, M.R.; Brooks, F.P.; Sequin, C.H. Moving objects in space: Exploiting proprioception in virtual-environment interaction. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 3–8 August 1997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Salthouse, T.A. Effects of age and skill in typing. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 1984, 113, 345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Boletsis, C.; Kongsvik, S. Controller-based text-input techniques for virtual reality: An empirical comparison. Int. J. Virtual Real. (Ijvr) 2019, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Wang, J.; Lindeman, R.W. Object impersonation: Towards effective interaction in tablet-and HMD-based hybrid virtual environments. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE Virtual Reality (VR), Provence, France, 23–27 March 2015; pp. 111–118. [Google Scholar]
  72. Afonso, L.; Dias, P.; Ferreira, C.; Santos, B.S. Effect of hand-avatar in a selection task using a tablet as input device in an immersive virtual environment. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE Symposium on 3D User Interfaces (3DUI), Los Angeles, CA, USA, 18–19 March 2017; pp. 247–248. [Google Scholar]
  73. Pan, J.; Weng, D.; Mo, J. Object Manipulation: Interaction for Virtual Reality on Multi-touch Screen. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality Adjunct (ISMAR-Adjunct), Beijing, China, 10–18 October 2019; pp. 280–284. [Google Scholar]
  74. Besançon, L.; Ynnerman, A.; Keefe, D.F.; Yu, L.; Isenberg, T. The state of the art of spatial interfaces for 3D visualization. In Proceedings of the Computer Graphics Forum; Wiley Online Library: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2021; Volume 40, pp. 293–326. [Google Scholar]
  75. Sun, Q.; Lin, J.; Fu, C.W.; Kaijima, S.; He, Y. A multi-touch interface for fast architectural sketching and massing. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Paris, France, 27 April–2 May 2013; pp. 247–256. [Google Scholar]
  76. Fu, C.W.; Goh, W.B.; Ng, J.A. Multi-touch techniques for exploring large-scale 3D astrophysical simulations. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Atlanta, GA, USA, 10–15 April 2010; pp. 2213–2222. [Google Scholar]
  77. Chen, K.; Lee, E. A two-point map-based interface for architectural walkthrough. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality Adjunct (ISMAR-Adjunct), Beijing, China, 10–18 October 2019; pp. 136–137. [Google Scholar]
  78. Kazi, R.H.; Chua, K.C.; Zhao, S.; Davis, R.; Low, K.L. SandCanvas: A multi-touch art medium inspired by sand animation. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 7–12 May 2011; pp. 1283–1292. [Google Scholar]
  79. Bowman, D.A.; Kruijff, E.; LaViola, J.J.; Poupyrev, I. An introduction to 3-D user interface design. Presence 2001, 10, 96–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Reyes-Lecuona, A.; Diaz-Estrella, A. New interaction paradigms in virtual environments. In Proceedings of the MELECON 2006-2006 IEEE Mediterranean Electrotechnical Conference, Benalmádena (Málaga), Spain, 16–19 May 2006; pp. 449–452. [Google Scholar]
  81. Weiß, Y.; Hepperle, D.; Sieß, A.; Wölfel, M. What user interface to use for virtual reality? 2d, 3d or speech—A user study. In Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Cyberworlds (CW), Singapore, 3–5 October 2018; pp. 50–57. [Google Scholar]
  82. Hepperle, D.; Weiß, Y.; Siess, A.; Wölfel, M. 2D, 3D or speech? A case study on which user interface is preferable for what kind of object interaction in immersive virtual reality. Comput. Graph. 2019, 82, 321–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Wagner, J.; Stuerzlinger, W.; Nedel, L. Comparing and combining virtual hand and virtual ray pointer interactions for data manipulation in immersive analytics. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 2021, 27, 2513–2523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Grossman, T.; Balakrishnan, R. Pointing at trivariate targets in 3D environments. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Vienna, Austria, 24–29 April 2004; pp. 447–454. [Google Scholar]
  85. Song, P.; Goh, W.B.; Hutama, W.; Fu, C.W.; Liu, X. A handle bar metaphor for virtual object manipulation with mid-air interaction. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Austin, TX, USA, 5–10 May 2012; pp. 1297–1306. [Google Scholar]
  86. Caputo, F.M.; Emporio, M.; Giachetti, A. The smart pin: A novel object manipulation technique for immersive virtual environments. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden, 8–10 November 2017; pp. 1–2. [Google Scholar]
  87. Gloumeau, P.C.; Stuerzlinger, W.; Han, J. Pinnpivot: Object manipulation using pins in immersive virtual environments. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 2020, 27, 2488–2494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Mendes, D.; Relvas, F.; Ferreira, A.; Jorge, J. The benefits of dof separation in mid-air 3d object manipulation. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM Conference on Virtual Reality Software and Technology, Munich, Germany, 2–4 November 2016; pp. 261–268. [Google Scholar]
  89. Lee, C.Y.; Hsieh, W.A.; Brickler, D.; Babu, S.V.; Chuang, J.H. Design and empirical evaluation of a novel near-field interaction metaphor on distant object manipulation in vr. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Symposium on Spatial User Interaction, Virtual Event, 9–10 November 2021; pp. 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  90. Darken, R.P.; Sibert, J.L. Wayfinding strategies and behaviors in large virtual worlds. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 13–18 April 1996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Kamal, A.; Andujar, C. Designing, testing and adapting navigation techniques for the immersive web. Comput. Graph. 2022, 106, 66–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Tan, T.J.; Teng, D.K.P.; Ng, Y.Y.; Chen, K.; Lee, J.S.A. Towards Decontamination Facility Training in VR. In Proceedings of the AAAI Symposium Series; Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence: Palo Alto, CA, USA, 2023; Volume 1, pp. 28–30. [Google Scholar]
  93. Al Zayer, M.; MacNeilage, P.; Folmer, E. Virtual Locomotion: A Survey. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 2020, 26, 2315–2334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Montano Murillo, R.A.; Gatti, E.; Oliver Segovia, M.; Obrist, M.; Molina Masso, J.P.; Martinez Plasencia, D. NaviFields: Relevance fields for adaptive VR navigation. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, Québec City, QC, Canada, 22–25 October 2017; pp. 747–758. [Google Scholar]
  95. Alghofaili, R.; Sawahata, Y.; Huang, H.; Wang, H.C.; Shiratori, T.; Yu, L.F. Lost in style: Gaze-driven adaptive aid for vr navigation. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Glasgow, UK, 4–9 May 2019; pp. 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  96. Hanson, A.J.; Wernert, E.A. Constrained 3D navigation with 2D controllers. In Proceedings of the Visualization’97 (Cat. No. 97CB36155), Phoenix, AZ, USA, 24–24 October 1997; pp. 175–182. [Google Scholar]
  97. Bedwell, W.L.; Pavlas, D.; Heyne, K.; Lazzara, E.H.; Salas, E. Toward a taxonomy linking game attributes to learning: An empirical study. Simul. Gaming 2012, 43, 729–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Li, X.; Zheng, C.; Pan, Z.; Huang, Z.; Niu, Y.; Wang, P.; Geng, W. Comparative Study on 2D and 3D User Interface for Eliminating Cognitive Loads in Augmented Reality Repetitive Tasks. Int. J. Hum.–Comput. Interact. 2023, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Sun, J.; Stuerzlinger, W.; Riecke, B.E. Comparing input methods and cursors for 3D positioning with head-mounted displays. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM Symposium on Applied Perception, SAP ’18, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 10–11 August 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Electronics 13 00600 g001
Figure 1. Examples of VR 3D Menus from left to right: (a) floating menu [64], (b) TULIP menu [65], (c) worlds-in-miniature [66], (d) ring menu [63], (e) spin menu [67], (f) look-at-menu [68].
Figure 1. Examples of VR 3D Menus from left to right: (a) floating menu [64], (b) TULIP menu [65], (c) worlds-in-miniature [66], (d) ring menu [63], (e) spin menu [67], (f) look-at-menu [68].
Electronics 13 00600 g001
Electronics 13 00600 g002
Figure 2. Example of controller typing from left to right: (a) raycasting; (b) drum-like keyboard; (c) head-directed input; and (d) split keyboard by Boletsis and Kongsvik [70].
Figure 2. Example of controller typing from left to right: (a) raycasting; (b) drum-like keyboard; (c) head-directed input; and (d) split keyboard by Boletsis and Kongsvik [70].
Electronics 13 00600 g002
Electronics 13 00600 g003
Figure 3. Surface-based 3D manipulation for architectural modelling by Sun et al. [75].
Figure 3. Surface-based 3D manipulation for architectural modelling by Sun et al. [75].
Electronics 13 00600 g003
Electronics 13 00600 g004
Figure 4. Example of Lindeman et al. [41] surface 3D UI in simulation.
Figure 4. Example of Lindeman et al. [41] surface 3D UI in simulation.
Electronics 13 00600 g004
Electronics 13 00600 g005
Figure 5. Example of (a) solid-angle mismatch; (b) occlusion mismatch at object level; and (c) occlusion mismatch at point level from Argelaguet and Andujar [42].
Figure 5. Example of (a) solid-angle mismatch; (b) occlusion mismatch at object level; and (c) occlusion mismatch at point level from Argelaguet and Andujar [42].
Electronics 13 00600 g005
Electronics 13 00600 g006
Figure 6. Example of grasp interactions with VR objects by Shi et al. [44].
Figure 6. Example of grasp interactions with VR objects by Shi et al. [44].
Electronics 13 00600 g006
Electronics 13 00600 g007
Figure 7. Example of indirect 3D manipulation based on bar [85] and pin [87] handlers.
Figure 7. Example of indirect 3D manipulation based on bar [85] and pin [87] handlers.
Electronics 13 00600 g007
Electronics 13 00600 g008
Figure 8. Navigation by teleporting [91] and walking [29].
Figure 8. Navigation by teleporting [91] and walking [29].
Electronics 13 00600 g008
Table 1. The proposed metaphor-guided end-to-end dimensional quadrant categorization model.
Table 1. The proposed metaphor-guided end-to-end dimensional quadrant categorization model.
Electronics 13 00600 i001
Table 2. Common interaction metaphors.
Table 2. Common interaction metaphors.
MenuSelect or logically browse through a list of options or commands.
TypingAdd, edit or delete texts for textural interaction.
PointPoint at on-screen (2D) or virtual (3D) elements through ray or virtual hand. Discussed in 3D.
SurfaceManipulate virtual objects in a 2D context like (axis-aligned) dragging or rotating (additional touches for 3D). Discussed in 2D
GraspManipulate virtual objects in a 3D context.
IndirectManipulate virtual objects indirectly through handles and mappings.
NavigationControl the virtual cameras.
Table 3. Dachselt and Hübner’s taxonomy of 3D menus according to the criteria’s hierarchical nature and structural layout.
Table 3. Dachselt and Hübner’s taxonomy of 3D menus according to the criteria’s hierarchical nature and structural layout.
Hierarchical NatureStructural Layout
Temporary Option MenusList, Rings, Matrix, Geometric structure
Single MenusList, Rings, Matrix, Geometric structure, Free layout
Menu SystemsList, Rings, Geometric structure
Menu HierarchiesList, Rings, Geometric structure, Free layout
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Yeo, A.; Kwok, B.W.J.; Joshna, A.; Chen, K.; Lee, J.S.A. Entering the Next Dimension: A Review of 3D User Interfaces for Virtual Reality. Electronics 2024, 13, 600. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics13030600

AMA Style

Yeo A, Kwok BWJ, Joshna A, Chen K, Lee JSA. Entering the Next Dimension: A Review of 3D User Interfaces for Virtual Reality. Electronics. 2024; 13(3):600. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics13030600

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yeo, Adriel, Benjamin W. J. Kwok, Angelene Joshna, Kan Chen, and Jeannie S. A. Lee. 2024. "Entering the Next Dimension: A Review of 3D User Interfaces for Virtual Reality" Electronics 13, no. 3: 600. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics13030600

APA Style

Yeo, A., Kwok, B. W. J., Joshna, A., Chen, K., & Lee, J. S. A. (2024). Entering the Next Dimension: A Review of 3D User Interfaces for Virtual Reality. Electronics, 13(3), 600. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics13030600

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop