This frustration with projection UI led me to the following medium comparison. This really came down to the benefits of projection being the communal aspect being a core benefit, the web being accessible to more people and more convenient and the AR being able to visualise the concept literally the best.
Will introduced the idea of presenting this clock in mobile AR. This is a medium I’m unfamiliar with but an a huge proponent for. I began the development for this medium with the following breakdown.
User needs, User goals, Constraints, Assumptions for AR:
Understanding that AR is a hugely immersive experience compared to the traditional web/app model — I wanted embrace this as much as possible with the first mockup. Mimicking Snapchats minimal icon based UI atop of a camera view filled viewport, done in attempt to keep the features discoverable while unobtrusive to the naturally immersive AR experiance. This is a very crude idea thats been proven not to work, however this allowed the AR portion to take centre stage.
Here is a video Will made of the implementation at this stage.
Below is my second attempt to design for this medium. I wanted to challenge the notions that the experience should remain the the immersive AR view. I did by providing a portrait view with the user options visible, constraining the fullscreen AR view to landscape. One of the driving forces for me dong this, is to allow a familiar, proven method to present text on a phone, rather than struggling to present text in the AR UI. During a critique in class, there was a general consensus that the experience should remain in a single AR view throughout.
Later this day I came across this exhibition piece being prepared.
Above is an exhibition piece in LCC from another student, that, once again highlights the low information density that this medium is forced into.