Mixed Reality
An in-person usability evaluation using VR headsets to understand the use cases of mixed reality in everyday tasks.
Methods & Rationale
This one-week study used a mixed-methods approach to understand how mixed reality (MR) supports everyday tasks. The research was conducted in two parts:
Usability Testing
Each of the 8 participants joined us for a 60-minute session, spending about 45 minutes wearing an MR headset in passthrough mode. While in the headset, they completed four everyday activities: folding clothing, pouring hot water, following a YouTube tutorial, and typing notes. These tasks were deliberately chosen to stretch across a spectrum from fine motor movements to cognitively demanding multitasking so we could see both where MR feels natural and where it starts to get in the way. After each activity, participants answered a brief survey about their comfort, movement accuracy, visual clarity, and any nausea they felt.
Qualitative Interviews
We followed the tasks in the headset with a short moderated interview where participants reflected on their overall experience, describing what felt intuitive, what felt frustrating, and where they could (or couldn’t) imagine MR fitting into their daily routines.
Rationale:
Our goal was to move beyond technical performance and understand the actual reality of using MR. Usability tasks helped us to see what was possible, clumsy, or limiting, while interviews uncovered how participants felt and envisioned MR in their lives. Together, these methods captured both friction points and their experience that ultimately shapes adoption.
Paricipants & Constraints
25 participants, diverse in age and VR experience, completed sessions over one week in a controlled lab. Sessions were limited to 60 minutes by headset battery life and physical comfort.
Research Questions
What type of use cases does MR have in everyday tasks?
What are the barriers to adoption?
How can MR be designed to maximize impact in situational, high-value use cases such as training, guided learning, or product demonstrations?
Data Collection & Synthesis
We combined quantitative metrics (task completion time, errors) with qualitative insights (post-task surveys, observation notes, and interviews).
To better understand how people interact with mixed reality in everyday situations, we ran an in-person, task-based usability study. Each participant wore an VR headset in passthrough mode so they could still see their surroundings and completed four everyday activities: folding clothing, pouring hot water, following a YouTube tutorial, and typing notes.
We chose these tasks intentionally: some required fine motor precision, others higher cognitive load, and a few blended physical and digital interaction. This mix allowed us to observe not just how participants managed basic movements, but also how well MR supported more complex, layered activities.
The order of tasks varied for each participant. After completing each one, they answered a short survey about their comfort, accuracy of movement, visual clarity, and any nausea they experienced. Once all four activities were finished, participants removed the headset and joined us for a qualitative interview.
On average, participants spent about 45 minutes in the headset. This structure gave us both quantitative feedback on usability and qualitative insights into how people imagined MR fitting (or not fitting) into their daily routines.
In Conclusion
Participants could imagine MR supporting tasks like training, remote collaboration, and immersive product demos, however they struggled to see it fitting into their everyday tasks. The bulkiness and intrusiveness of the device itself was the biggest barrier for use. Many felt like it was just too heavy to keep on for any amount of time longer than 5-10 minutes.
Key Insights
High-potential use cases, but not for everyday life
Participants saw value in MR for training, remote collaboration, and immersive product demonstrations. However, they struggled to imagine it as a seamless part of daily routines.
Hardware is the biggest barrier
The headset’s bulk and weight were consistently cited as the main reason participants would not use MR for longer than 5–10 minutes at a time.
Short bursts over sustained use
MR felt engaging for short, hands-on, instructional tasks (like cooking or crafts) but quickly became uncomfortable for extended activities.
Interaction challenges
Fine motor tasks highlighted the limitations of hand-tracking, while video interaction within MR felt unintuitive, pointing to a need for better gesture or voice-based controls.
Recommendations
Prioritize ergonomics
Lighter, less intrusive headsets are critical if MR is to be used beyond short bursts. Comfort is the baseline barrier to adoption.
Optimize for short, high-value tasks
MR should focus on scenarios where spatial overlays provide clear benefits, such as guided learning, situational training, or product demos, rather than trying to fit into every daily task.
Improve interaction design
Invest in more precise gesture calibration and explore alternative input methods (e.g., voice controls) to reduce friction in tasks like video interaction or fine motor activities.
Design for situational immersion
Position MR as a tool for specific, high-impact moments rather than continuous wear—emphasizing use cases where its benefits outweigh hardware trade-offs.
Reflections
This study really showed me the tension between designing for real needs versus forcing people into a use case the designers imagined. It was frustrating watching participants struggle with the headset and those who “succeeded” were mostly just the ones who learned how to move in the way the hardware recognized. That felt backwards. The product shouldn’t require people to adapt to it; it should be built around how they already work.