Content uploaded by Weizhou Luo
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Weizhou Luo on Mar 14, 2025
Content may be subject to copyright.
This is an author and pre-print version. The ocial publication can be found at https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3713518 — Project website: https://imld.de/ar- docs/
©2025 Copyright held by the authors. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Documents in Your Hands: Exploring Interaction Techniques for
Spatial Arrangement of Augmented Reality Documents
Weizhou Luo
weizhou.luo@tu-dresden.de
Interactive Media Lab Dresden,
TUD Dresden University of Technology
Dresden, Germany
Mats Ole Ellenberg∗
mats_ole.ellenberg@tu-dresden.de
Interactive Media Lab Dresden,
TUD Dresden University of Technology
Dresden, Germany
Marc Satkowski
msatkowski@acm.org
Interactive Media Lab Dresden,
TUD Dresden University of Technology
Dresden, Germany
Raimund Dachselt∗†
dachselt@acm.org
Interactive Media Lab Dresden,
TUD Dresden University of Technology
Dresden, Germany
Figure 1:
(A)
We conducted a study where participants proposed interaction techniques for arranging AR documents. Based on
the ndings, we introduce a design space, derive design implications, and illustrate use cases with a rapid prototyping system.
These use cases include
(B)
anity diagramming (classifying and clustering sticky notes),
(C)
document management (fanning
out documents and enlarging one), and (D) graphic design iteration (brushing a row layout to compare variants).
Abstract
Augmented Reality (AR) promises to enhance daily oce activities
involving numerous textual documents, slides, and spreadsheets by
expanding workspaces and enabling more direct interaction. How-
ever, there is a lack of systematic understanding of how knowledge
workers can manage multiple documents and organize, explore,
and compare them in AR environments. Therefore, we conducted a
∗
Also with Centre for Tactile Internet with Human-in-the-Loop (CeTI), TUD Dresden
University of Technology
†
Also with Centre for Scalable Data Analytics and Articial Intelligence (ScaDS.AI)
Dresden/Leipzig, Germany
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
CHI ’25, Yokohama, Japan
©2025 Copyright held by the owner/author(s).
ACM ISBN 979-8-4007-1394-1/25/04
https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3713518
user-centered design study (N = 21) using predened spatial docu-
ment layouts in AR to elicit interaction techniques, resulting in 790
observation notes. Thematic analysis identied various interaction
methods for aggregating, distributing, transforming, inspecting,
and navigating document collections. Based on these ndings, we
propose a design space and distill design implications for AR docu-
ment arrangement systems, such as enabling body-anchored stor-
age, facilitating layout spreading and compressing, and designing
interactions for layout transformation. To demonstrate their usage,
we developed a rapid prototyping system and exemplify three envi-
sioned scenarios. With this, we aim to inspire the design of future
immersive oces.
CCS Concepts
•Human-centered computing
→
Mixed / augmented reality;
Empirical studies in interaction design.
CHI ’25, April 26-May 1, 2025, Yokohama, Japan
This is an author and pre-print version. The ocial publication can be found at https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3713518 — Project website: https://imld.de/ar- docs/
©2025 Copyright held by the authors. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Luo, et al.
Keywords
spatial layout, content organization, interaction design, user-centered
design, Mixed Reality
ACM Reference Format:
Weizhou Luo, Mats Ole Ellenberg, Marc Satkowski, and Raimund Dachselt.
2025. Documents in Your Hands: Exploring Interaction Techniques for
Spatial Arrangement of Augmented Reality Documents. In CHI Conference
on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25), April 26-May 1, 2025,
Yokohama, Japan. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 22 pages. https://doi.org/10.
1145/3706598.3713518
1 Introduction
Mixed or Augmented Reality Head-Mounted Displays (MR or AR
HMDs) are extending our oce workspace. In the future, docu-
ments with texts and images, along with application windows, will
no longer be limited to rectangular monitors. Instead, they can be
freely placed anywhere in the environment as holograms, fully
leveraging the innite display space. Consequently, various types
of virtual documents have been investigated in immersive environ-
ments, such as oce papers [72, 89], brainstorming notes [21, 93],
design sketches [
47
,
116
], and data diagrams [
62
,
76
,
77
]. As im-
mersive environments become more accessible and the prevalence
of holographic documents grows, there is an increasing demand
for MR applications to support users in organizing and arranging
multiple documents.
We envision better space usage in such MR-enabled oces fa-
cilitated by direct and far-reach interaction. Users can move freely
throughout their oces, strategically placing holographic docu-
ments anywhere and organizing them into various spatial lay-
outs according to their specic goals. While Immersive Space to
Think [
75
] systems have already demonstrated the potential for
sensemaking in immersive environments, we believe that users can
benet from interacting with digital documents in a natural and
intuitive way. For example, they can push virtual documents into a
stack on the table, ick their wrist to fan them out, or toss them onto
a physical whiteboard as a grid, leveraging familiar organization
methods from the physical world [53].
However, designing such interactions is inherently challeng-
ing [
28
,
29
,
58
]. Organizing virtual documents in 3D space necessi-
tates rethinking interaction techniques for multiple objects, such
as selection and manipulation. These interactions must support
various spatial layouts based on user intentions and layout charac-
teristics, facilitating document placement in MR environments with
complex geometric and semantic contexts. Therefore, exploring
how users would articulate space usage and interact with docu-
ment collections is essential. These insights are vital for guiding
the design of immersive applications that facilitate the organization
of virtual documents.
To address this research need, we conducted a user-centered
design study in a simulated oce environment (see Fig. 1A). We de-
signed a "priming & production" study procedure (informed by [
90
]),
in which 21 participants engaged in 14 dierent tasks across 22 spa-
tial document layouts, resulting in 790 observation notes. Through
thematic analysis, we discovered various interaction methods to
translate, aggregate, distribute, transform, and navigate document
collections. Furthermore, we identied participants’ general atti-
tudes and rationale based on post-study interviews.
Building on our study results, we propose a design space describ-
ing essential attributes for document organization in immersive
environments. We derive design implications to inform the design
of future MR systems, such as anchoring documents to bodies for
temporary storage, enabling the adjustment of layout compactness,
and designing interaction for layout transformation. To facilitate
practical interaction design, we developed a rapid prototyping sys-
tem, enabling AR interaction mock-ups with keyframe animations.
We also present envisioning scenarios (see Fig. 1B-D) to demon-
strate the applications of our ndings. With our work, we aim to
inspire and guide designers by showcasing the potential and rich-
ness of spatial interaction for document organization and setting
the foundation for future immersive oces.
To sum up, our main contributions are:
•
Empirical insights of user action patterns, strategies, and
rationales for arranging virtual objects based on a user-
centered design study (N = 21).
•
A design space and seven design implications to guide the
creation of future immersive systems handling document
organizational tasks.
•
An open-source rapid prototyping system to illustrate three
imaginative scenarios for inspiring future applications.
2 Related Work
Organizing digital content into structured layouts is essential in
Human-Computer Interaction (HCI). This topic encompasses the
appearance of layouts and the methods users use to create and
manage them. To provide a comprehensive overview, we categorize
the related research by device types. This includes at screen inter-
faces (Sec. 2.1), cross-device environments (Sec. 2.2), and immersive
environments (Sec. 2.3).
2.1 Flat Screens
For 2D desktop interfaces, various techniques have been explored
to organize multiple views [
110
]. These approaches include spatial
layouts such as piles [
84
,
104
], overlaps [
54
], and Mosaic [
123
].
Interaction techniques involving trays [
8
], bubble [
124
] metaphors,
and proximity-driven approaches [
22
], have been also proposed.
For instance, PILING.JS [
69
] summarized user goals and presented
piling metaphors for organizing data collections (small multiples).
3D desktop interfaces have explored spatial metaphors like gallery
rooms [
103
], mountain landscapes [
3
,
102
], ows and loops [
94
],
and information spaces [
23
,
24
]. These can be interacted with by
natural gestures to highlight, scroll, and expand documents [
48
,
66
],
indicating the potential to extend beyond at screens. However,
these works were designed for conned 2D screens, where users
are inherently restricted and isolated.
Interactive surfaces like display walls and tabletops provide in-
creased space, allowing diverse organization methods. For instance,
Space to Think [
4
] was proposed to analyze documents on a large dis-
play to externalize cognition. Large hand gestures [
27
,
57
] and phys-
ical navigation (i.e., walking) [
5
] were suggested to interact with
documents. Moreover, techniques for structuring multiple contents
on tabletops, such as alignment tools [
37
], grids and guides [
35
],
Documents in Your Hands
This is an author and pre-print version. The ocial publication can be found at https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3713518 — Project website: https://imld.de/ar- docs/
©2025 Copyright held by the authors. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
CHI ’25, April 26-May 1, 2025, Yokohama, Japan
and pen strokes [
36
], have served as inspiration. Particularly, Rock
& Rails [
126
] introduced st ("Rock") and at-hand ("Rail") gestures
to dene and manage document layouts. BumpTop [
1
] proposed a
realistic interaction style that incorporates the knowledge of how
objects move and change in reality into the interface design, includ-
ing piling, fanning out, and page leang. Likewise, interactions like
sliding with ngertips, gathering with entire hands, and shoving
with real paper cards have been explored [128].
Considering the larger space, natural interaction, and inclusion of
real-world surroundings, it is promising to further extend document
organization into MR environments. However, as users also manip-
ulate digital objects fundamentally dierently than their physical
counterparts [
118
], AR documents should not simply be treated as
digitized papers. Instead, the exploration of new design possibilities
beyond realism and known aordances is also needed.
2.2 Cross-Device Environments
Multiple devices can be combined into cross-device environments,
creating exible workspaces for distributing and engaging with
digital content. Comprehensive surveys have summarized the tax-
onomies and practices of these environments [
14
,
133
]. Specically,
homogeneous devices, such as multiple desktop monitors [
73
,
133
]
or multiple handheld devices [
85
], can be united. We draw inspi-
ration from interaction techniques for arranging and transferring
digital documents across devices, such as tray tools [
136
], hand ges-
tures (swiping, icking, and pick-and-drop [
99
,
129
]), spatial device
gestures like tilting [
85
], and physical-object-based interactions
like slamming on tables to broadcast [42].
Heterogeneous devices with distributed roles can also be com-
bined. Examples include pairing desktop monitors with wall dis-
plays [
50
,
83
] and handheld devices with tabletops [
98
,
135
] or
with wall displays [
61
]. Small personal devices often function as
accessible workbenches for temporary storage and manipulation,
while their physical form can also act as spatial pointers on larger
devices. In contrast, larger devices are primarily used for content
placement. For instance, phones can serve as personal proxies to
spread documents on wall displays based on movement [61].
However, despite the tangibility, the physical nature of devices
largely limits the possibilities. In contrast, users can customize AR
documents on demand, adjusting their scale and placing them any-
where in immersive environments, creating designated workspaces.
2.3 Immersive Environments
In immersive environments, holograms are often organized by users
into various spatial layouts, such as planar [
62
,
109
], circular [
75
,
77
],
or environment-based [
21
,
75
]. To support layout design, Ethereal
Planes [
30
] presents a design space focusing on the placement of
AR content around the user. Likewise, AR content can be directly
attached to the user’s body [
43
]. However, designing content orga-
nization systems that fully leverage 3D space remains challenging.
Various factors can inuence layout preferences, such as content
characteristics (e.g., number and geometry) [
62
,
77
], user tasks,
and workows [
78
,
109
]. Moreover, since multiple AR documents
can be composed spatially in a variety of ways, supporting their
organization process is more complicated.
Holograms can be integrated into real surroundings [
63
,
127
].
However, designers have to consider factors like visual salience [
32
]
and spatial and semantic association [
26
,
31
,
71
]. Physical surfaces,
such as walls [
31
], ceilings, and oor [
107
] can be the anchors for
content placement [
92
]. Physical objects such as furniture have
been utilized for organizing virtual documents [
16
,
81
] or referring
to associated visualizations [
63
,
82
]. The presence of other per-
sons also inuences content placement, such as around [
106
] and
between people [
47
]. While the inclusion of real-world elements
expands document placement options, it also increases the com-
plexity of designing systems for content organization. It is crucial
to understand where to organize documents, when to transition
them, and how to manage these transitions.
AR applications can support content arrangement by suggesting
and rening object placement through methods such as surface
detection [
87
,
92
,
121
], object auto-clustering [
117
], or object re-
location [
80
,
91
]. Full automation that minimizes manual eort
has also been explored, like adaptation to the physical environ-
ments [
19
,
38
,
97
], user context [
34
,
60
,
80
], or original layouts [
20
].
However, as adaptation results can deviate from actual intentions,
users reported preferring to retain control [80, 117].
Various interaction techniques have been studied for manu-
ally arranging virtual content [
9
,
15
,
115
]. Those include freehand
gestures [
80
], gaze [
64
], body or proximity [
40
,
76
], and extra de-
vices [
101
,
111
]. For instance, FingerSwitches [
96
] is a pinch-gesture-
based technique, supporting the transitions of UI between static,
dynamic references, and users themselves. In addition, symbolic
gestures like Plane, Ray, and Point [
46
] can set shape constraints,
while tools like a handlebar metaphor [
113
] and 3D grid [
7
,
111
]
can be used for manipulation and alignment. To organize multiple
virtual notes, a set of natural interactions was proposed [
68
], in-
cluding snapping notes on the clipboard, sweeping them to align,
transferring bulk notes by a sieve, and crumbling the clipboard for
deleting. Moreover, users’ bodies can store content, including on-
body areas (e.g., wrist [
80
]), around-body space (e.g., waist [
55
,
76
]),
and around foot areas [
76
]. Retrieval can be facilitated by pull-out
gestures [80], contextual menus [55], and feet [76].
Despite these advancements, prior work primarily focuses on
specic interaction methods and particular use cases. Given the
sophisticated nature of document organization in 3D space, there is
a lack of coherent perspective on how document spatial layouts and
placement in mixed-reality environments should adapt through
interaction methods to suit users’ varying goals and intentions.
3 User-Centered Design Study
Our goal is to understand document organization in immersive en-
vironments and inform the design of future MR systems. We focus
on user interactions with multiple virtual documents for organiza-
tion in AR environments but also consider document exploration
and comparison as the nal goals of such organization. To this
end, we conducted a user-centered design study to elicit interac-
tion techniques. We investigated fundamental tasks reecting core
activities of everyday document arrangement. Data was collected
and analyzed both quantitatively (open-coding) and qualitatively
(thematic analysis). Detailed protocols, raw data, and analyses are
provided as supplemental material.
CHI ’25, April 26-May 1, 2025, Yokohama, Japan
This is an author and pre-print version. The ocial publication can be found at https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3713518 — Project website: https://imld.de/ar- docs/
©2025 Copyright held by the authors. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Luo, et al.
Figure 2: Overview of the study environment.
(A+B)
show the initial state of the study environment for the priming and
production phases, respectively, captured from dierent angles within the same space.
(C)
presents layouts created by a
participant during the context priming.
(D+E)
show dierent views of the predened layouts in the AR prototype during the
production phase. (F) shows one of the documents used in the study (Dog image ©Perfect Zero, CC BY 2.0).
3.1 Study Design and Rationale
To investigate document organization activities and generate tech-
niques for arranging virtual documents in AR, we examined the
transformation of document layouts (as "referents"), the techniques
to achieve these transformations (as "symbols"), and the relations
between transformations and tasks. We opted for a user-centered,
open-ended procedure by only providing various starting layouts,
aiming to reach a high saturation and richness of elicited techniques.
This diers from the classic elicitation studies, where referents’ start
and end states are mostly clearly dened.
We created an exhibition scenario where participants were asked
to prepare a presentation with given documents. We leveraged a
set of common document organizational tasks (informed by [
69
]) to
closely observe how participants would organize paper documents
or AR documents. To counteract legacy biases, we employed prim-
ing and production techniques [
90
]. Specically, we applied three
types of priming: context, creativity, and environmental priming.
With context priming (similar to [
100
]), we used paper documents
to foster an understanding of the document organization scenario
and its requirements. We implemented creativity priming with sci-
movies to inspire designs based on new form factors [
2
]. Finally,
we adopted environmental priming, which involved locating re-
lated objects to counter unfamiliarity and raise awareness of the
environment. During the elicitation with the production method,
participants were instructed to propose as many techniques as
possible with AR HMDs for organizing holographic documents. A
pilot study (N = 3) was conducted to test and rene the procedures,
including improving instructions.
3.2 Study Materials & Apparatus
A simulated oce environment was prepared for the study, incor-
porating various working documents, document layouts, and an
AR prototype.
Study Environment. The study environment resembled a typical of-
ce space, measuring 4 m
×
5.9 m, with objects commonly found in
an oce, including a large meeting and working table (1.6 m
×
1.6 m),
a desk with a desktop PC, two whiteboards of dierent sizes, a ver-
tical interactive surface, a cupboard, and several plants. For context
priming, participants were supplied with additional oce materials,
such as sticky notes, pens, and binder clips. During the production
phase, additional objects like a coee mug and books were placed
on the large table to simulate an active working environment (see
Fig. 2B, D+E). Two experimenters were in the same room adjacent
to the study area to moderate and observe the participants.
Documents and Layouts. Participants were provided with several
documents to organize. Each document described an animal with
three aspects (similar to [
81
,
125
]): name, picture, and three at-
tributes (diet, social, and character). For example, "German Shep-
herd: Carnivore, Domestic, Fierce," as shown in Figure 2F. We pre-
pared 50 paper documents (A5, 21 cm
×
14.8 cm, see Fig. 2C) for
the priming phase and 110 virtual documents (24.8 cm
×
14 cm, see
Documents in Your Hands
This is an author and pre-print version. The ocial publication can be found at https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3713518 — Project website: https://imld.de/ar- docs/
©2025 Copyright held by the authors. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
CHI ’25, April 26-May 1, 2025, Yokohama, Japan
Figure 3: Five categories of predened layouts used in the
production phase of our study, with the numbers in brackets
indicating the number of layouts used from each category.
Fig. 2D+E) for the production phase. These virtual documents were
predened in 22 dierent spatial layouts based on factors such as
the number of documents, dimensionality, order, compactness, and
overlap. We categorized them into piles, loose, orderly, grid, and
spatial layouts (see Fig. 3 and Fig. 2D+E). The documents were xed
in size and positioned either in mid-air or associated with physical
objects such as whiteboards or books.
AR Prototype. A lightweight AR prototype was developed for ren-
dering virtual documents in the production phase (see Fig. 2D+E),
using the Mixed Reality Toolkit (MRTK)
1
, Unity 3D
2
, and C#. The
prototype was deployed on a Microsoft HoloLens 2. A QR code on
the table was used to align the AR scene with the study environ-
ment, allowing the same application to run on dierent HoloLenses
(for participants, experimenters, and the recording camera). To
minimize the inuence of interaction techniques and prompt partic-
ipants to focus on ideation rather than implementation, the virtual
documents presented were view-only, without manipulation capa-
bilities.
3.3 Participants
We recruited 21 participants (7 female, 13 male, 1 non-binary) via
word-of-mouth and email. The average age was 26 years (
𝑀=
26.19, 𝑆𝐷 =4.42
). Participants were current or former students
from the local university, majoring in various disciplines like ar-
chitecture, medicine, psychology, software engineering, informa-
tion science, and computer science. On a ve-point scale, partici-
pants reported organizing various types of content relatively strictly
(
𝑀=3.76, 𝑆𝐷 =0.70
) on a nearly daily basis (
𝑀=3.86, 𝑆𝐷 =1.01
).
They did this more frequently for digital (
𝑀=3.67, 𝑆𝐷 =0.66
) than
for physical (
𝑀=2.81, 𝑆𝐷 =1.08
) documents and regularly revise
their arrangements (
𝑀=2.62, 𝑆𝐷 =0.74
). Most participants had
limited experience with AR (
𝑀=2.24, 𝑆𝐷 =1.18
) or VR HMDs
(
𝑀=2.48, 𝑆𝐷 =1.12
) and minimal experience with freehand inter-
action (
𝑀=1.81, 𝑆𝐷 =0.93
). Participants were compensated with
25€.
3.4 Study Tasks & Procedure
The study was conducted by two experimenters and involved ve
steps: (1) Welcome and introduction; (2) Pre-study questionnaire
on demographic information, current organization practice, and
immersive technology literacy (see Sec. 3.3) and consent form;
1https://github.com/Microsoft/MixedRealityToolkit-Unity
2https://unity.com/
Figure 4: Tasks used in the study, with the numbers indi-
cating the execution order. These tasks are categorized into
organizing, exploring, and comparing.
(3) Three priming procedures; (4) Technique production with pre-
made AR document layouts; (5) Post-study interview and conclu-
sion. Each session lasted approximately 130 min (M=128:40
min,
-
SD=13:26 min).
Priming. It consisted of three priming procedures. First, context
priming involved participants organizing physical documents for an
exhibition without specic criteria. Initially, they freely organized
25 documents presented as ve stacks on a table. After 10 min, 25 ad-
ditional physical documents were distributed in 5 stacks throughout
the study environment, simulating daily situations where users of-
ten have to consider new documents and work iteratively. After an-
other 10 min, participants briey presented their classications and
reasoning. During the study, participants were instructed to think
aloud and freely rearrange the environment if they desired. Lastly,
an experimenter asked the participant to recall and demonstrate
the organization process with physical documents based on a set of
organizational tasks (see Fig. 4 and supplementary material). This
phase lasted approximately 41 min (M=40:59 min,SD=3:52 min).
Next, creativity priming was executed. Participants were seated
to reduce fatigue and watched a 4:23 min video featuring scenes
from sci- lms (e.g., Avatar and Iron Man) depicting characters
interacting with holograms. Lastly, environmental priming was
conducted to familiarize participants with the study environment
and examine the use of physical objects for organization. An ex-
perimenter orally listed various objects, and participants located
them in the room. The entire priming phase lasted around 50 min
(M=49:36 min,SD=3:50 min).
Production. The production phase involving AR HMDs consisted
of two stages. Participants rst explored and examined the AR
environment with 110 holographic documents arranged in prede-
ned layouts. They were then asked to propose techniques for a
set of organizational tasks (see Fig. 4) without considering tech-
nical limitations. Participants could verbalize, act out, or sketch
(on paper) their proposed techniques. To fully explore dierent
arranging techniques and achieve high saturation and richness of
results, participants were asked to produce as many techniques as
possible for each task. To facilitate ideation and inspire diversity,
participants were encouraged by the experimenter to consider dif-
ferent situations. They were motivated to freely move around in the
study environment while considering how to arrange documents in
CHI ’25, April 26-May 1, 2025, Yokohama, Japan
This is an author and pre-print version. The ocial publication can be found at https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3713518 — Project website: https://imld.de/ar- docs/
©2025 Copyright held by the authors. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Luo, et al.
Figure 5: Occurrences of proposed techniques categorized by input modalities across study tasks. Hand gestures, including
both one- and two-handed, were predominant across all tasks. Voice input was mainly used for search tasks. Gaze, body, and
physical-object-based inputs did not show a clear pattern, while WIMP-style interactions were mainly used for previewing.
varied layouts (i.e., referents, see Fig. 3) and with dierent interac-
tion distances to those layouts (far vs. close) until no further ideas
can be proposed. The phase lasted around 63 min (M=62:28
min,
-
SD=9:29 min).
3.5 Data Collection & Analysis
We followed the principles of semi-structured qualitative stud-
ies [
11
] for data collection and analysis. Details of study documents
and data can also be found in the supplementary material.
Data Collection. An iPhone, an iPad Pro, and a camcorder were
used to video record user behavior, alongside observation notes
taken using a semi-structured protocol. During the production phase,
up to two HoloLenses were used to record participants’ descriptions
of techniques in the AR environment. Finally, a 10-minute semi-
structured interview was conducted to probe participants’ overall
attitudes. The interview covered topics such as general impressions,
media aordance (“What is the dierence between working with pa-
per documents vs. holographic documents?”), opportunities (“What
is the biggest problem of current document organization workows,
and would MR help?”), and visions (“Can you imagine a future MR
oce, and would you use it?”). Participants were also asked addi-
tional questions informed by the study notes, regarding arranging
strategies and recurring themes during the study.
Data Analysis. The analysis involved extracting and classifying
the proposed techniques. Observation notes taken by two experi-
menters were digitized. A third author reviewed and partially coded
video recordings to verify and supplement the notes. Three authors
then thoroughly reviewed the notes with the support of videos to
remove repetitions and rene descriptions, resulting in a total of
790 notes. These notes were analyzed using thematic analysis [
13
],
categorized into two main themes and multiple sub-themes that
evolved during classication (see Sec. 4). All authors discussed the
results and cross-checked them together. The process was iterative
until a consensus was reached. Finally, one author transcribed and
analyzed interview comments via thematic analysis.
4 Results
We present the study results in this section, beginning with an
overview of the descriptive statistics (Sec. 4.1). We then delve into
the observed organization strategies and summarize the patterns
identied (Sec. 4.2). Lastly, we illustrate participants’ attitudes and
rationales as revealed through the interviews (Sec. 4.3).
4.1 Descriptive Statistics Overview
From the collected 790 observations, participants proposed an aver-
age of 37 techniques (
𝑀=37.62, 𝑆𝐷 =2.48
). We observed a slight,
gradual decrease in the number of proposed techniques for each
task during the production phase, likely due to the saturation of
answers. In the following, we summarize the quantitative aspects
of proposed techniques (see Fig. 5), providing an overview regard-
ing workspace,layout manipulation, and interaction modalities and
styles.
Workspace. Participants preferred placing or anchoring docu-
ments in relation to specic locations in the immersive environ-
ments. These locations included the general environment (3.80%)
like ceiling and oor, specic objects (3.29%) like tables and white-
boards, or participants’ bodies (22.78%). Documents could be placed
on (13.92%), near (12.66%), or far (1.27%) from these anchors. Dur-
ing the tasks, documents were frequently moved between dierent
anchors or workspaces (15.32%). Interestingly, detour transitions
between workspaces (10.38%) were identied, where participants
often moved documents close to themselves (near or on) before
relocating them to the desired destination.
Documents in Your Hands
This is an author and pre-print version. The ocial publication can be found at https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3713518 — Project website: https://imld.de/ar- docs/
©2025 Copyright held by the authors. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
CHI ’25, April 26-May 1, 2025, Yokohama, Japan
Figure 6: Observed workspaces in the study, including
(1)
body-centric space consisting of on-body space (in blue, the immediate
space around the user) and arm-reach space (in green, within arm’s reach),
(2)
physical environment and real objects (in purple),
and (3) open space encompassing the remaining surrounding area.
Layout Manipulation. Participants were asked to imagine work-
ing with documents for study tasks like aggregating, merging, and
splitting. However, additional organizing actions were observed for
document groups throughout the study. Those include transform-
ing (11.27%), storing (7.34%), compressing (5.70%), and spreading
(10.25%) a layout and its documents. For instance, compressing a
group (total of 45 instances) was performed to help move a whole
group (14/45), cluster documents (9/45), or merge groups (6/45).
Likewise, spreading a group (total of 81 instances) was performed
to cluster documents (15/81), split a group (11/81), or preview (14/81)
and overview (15/81) within a group.
Interaction Modalities and Styles. Observed interactions can be
categorized into various input modalities (see Fig. 5), including
hands (74.93%), voice (11.90%), gaze (5.32%), body (3.54%), physical
objects (4.18%), or using WIMP elements (11.77%). We dierentiate
between one-handed (52.41%) and two-handed (22.53%) interactions.
The latter was more common in complex tasks involving document
groups. Participants frequently combined multiple modalities for
specic interactions (21.91%, 173 instances), either via simultaneous
use or in short succession. For instance, hands were often used in
combination with WIMP elements (63/173), gaze (26/173), or physi-
cal objects (22/173). Participants showed a balanced preference for
interactions within arm’s reach (57.59%) and at a distance (45.57%),
with occasional transitions between near and far (5.44%). We also
identied distinct interaction styles and behaviors, including draw-
ing (9.62%), typing (5.32%), acting (1.52%), and using out-of-context
metaphors (6.96%). Our 21 participants regularly employed various
metaphors, such as beckoning a document closer (12/21) and send-
ing or throwing it away (17/21). Other examples included using a
virtual shing rod (2/21), a Spiderman gesture to select documents
and pull them closer (P10), and a nger pistol gesture to shoot at a
document for removal (P10).
4.2 Strategies and Patterns of Document
Arrangement
Our thematic analysis revealed two main themes: workspace and lay-
out arrangement. We rst describe AR workspace characterization
(Sec. 4.2.1) and document transition (Sec. 4.2.2). Next, we summarize
group creation (Sec. 4.2.3), layout transformation (Sec. 4.2.4), and
inspection and navigation (Sec. 4.2.5). We also discuss observed
interactions (Sec. 4.2.6).
4.2.1 Workspace Types. Workspace refers to user-dened areas for
engaging with virtual documents, including body-centric, physical-
environment-centric, and open workspaces (see Fig. 6, aligned
with [
30
,
65
,
76
]). The last was often used to place arranged docu-
ments after manipulation without anchoring to users or objects.
Body-centric. Participants took themselves as a reference to align
and position digital content, either directly on bodies or within arms
reach.
(1)
On-body areas represent the direct extensions of the
body, such as hands (P12) or clothing pockets, like shirt pockets
(P15, see Fig. 11A) and pants pockets (3/21). These areas were often
used to store and retrieve documents, acting as “virtual containers”
(P12, P21). Stored documents can be visible like thumbnails (“lapel
pins”, P20) while being accessible from the arm (3/21), the ngertips
(P2), or particularly the non-dominant hand (10/21). This facilitates
translating groups while walking (3/21) or preparing for layout
transformation (see Sec. 4.2.4).
(2)
Arm-reach space can serve
as a workbench to directly interact with multiple documents in
layouts, such as planar (P10, P11) and circular (3/21). Similar to
on-body areas, documents can follow users dynamically (P14, P18).
Physical-environment-centric. Physical surfaces and objects were
used to arrange documents.
(1)
Vertical and horizontal surfaces,
such as walls (3/21) or a table (4/21), were often used to present
grouped content. The center of the table assisted in document
overview (3/21) and manipulation (2/21). Other parts of the table
were used for temporarily storing documents for later retrieval,
including the corners (P2) or imaginary drawers above or below its
surface (P9). Moreover, the oor was used to store groups (P12), and
the ceiling was suggested for hanging UI elements like a search bar
(P6).
(2)
Objects, including tables, were used to locate, orient, and
memorize virtual documents in the environment (4/21). They also
served as proxies for document arrangement, such as translating
documents with a whiteboard or a physical folder (P10, see Fig. 11B),
pointing to documents with the tip of a pen (P4), and aligning
documents with cabinet’s edges (P10).
4.2.2 Workspace Transition. Participants transitioned documents
between workspaces using two main strategies: fetch and assign
and pull and push, for moving documents either close or distant.
CHI ’25, April 26-May 1, 2025, Yokohama, Japan
This is an author and pre-print version. The ocial publication can be found at https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3713518 — Project website: https://imld.de/ar- docs/
©2025 Copyright held by the authors. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Luo, et al.
Figure 7: Identied interaction pairs for transiting documents among workspaces, including
(A+E)
grasp and throw,
(B+F)
attract
and push, (C+G) "come to me" and "go away," (D) Spiderman superpower, and (H) fetch and assign.
Figure 8: Identied interactions for merging or splitting groups:
(A)
colliding two groups,
(B)
overlapping one to another,
(C) collecting to a shared place, (D) lasso selecting to split, (E) slicing apart, and (F) tearing apart.
Fetch and Assign. Participants moved documents from arm-reach
space to on-body areas for temporary storage. This involves actions
such as putting documents into a pocket (P19) or snapping them to
the ngertips (6/21) to translate them somewhere else after walking
there. Bi-manual interaction was common (6/21), where one hand
was used to grab and the other to cluster documents (see Fig. 7H).
Pull and Push. This approach involved transitions between arm-
reach space and areas farther away. These include grasping and
throwing (6/21) documents from a distance to the target workspace
(see Fig. 7A+E), using an imaginary vacuum or air blower to attract
and push (5/21) documents across workspaces (see Fig. 7B+F), or
performing social gestures (8/21) such as curling ngers to bring
documents closer (i.e., "come to me") or moving one hand to send
documents away (i.e., "go away") (see Fig. 7C+G). Additionally,
participants caught and retrieved documents by using imaginary
tools like a shing rod, shnet, or Spiderman superpowers (P10,
see Fig. 7D).
4.2.3 Group Management. The second theme involves user inter-
actions with document groups and their layouts for organizational
tasks. We rst describe how groups were created from individual
documents or from existing groups.
Grouping Documents. Groups were dened based on the spatial
distance between documents, through placing documents close
together in succession (3/21), shoveling them using both hands
and arms (P16), or squashing them between hands (4/21). Resulting
layouts included collages (P16, P19), grids (3/21), piles (3/21), and
stacks (4/21).
Merging Groups. A group can be created by merging existing
groups via
(1)
colliding (see Fig. 8A) two groups together with
both hands, either slowly (6/21, see Fig. 11G) or fast like clapping
(4/21). Other methods include hugging (P19), drawing a perspective
lasso (P20), or symbolic gestures like crossing two hands (P3, P7).
(2)
Overlapping involves grabbing and releasing (12/21), pushing
(P14, P18), or throwing (4/21) one group in another (see Fig. 8B).
Documents in Your Hands
This is an author and pre-print version. The ocial publication can be found at https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3713518 — Project website: https://imld.de/ar- docs/
©2025 Copyright held by the authors. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
CHI ’25, April 26-May 1, 2025, Yokohama, Japan
Figure 9: Identied interactions for transforming document layouts, including
(A)
symbolic drawing,
(B+D)
frame drawing,
(C) brushing, (E) icking, and (F) fanning gestures.
Through a
(3)
temporary mediator, participants rst collected
targets rst on the left hand (3/21), ngers (P12), or physical objects
(folders, P10) before merging (see Fig. 8C).
Splitting Groups. Splitting groups involves
(1)
moving docu-
ments one-by-one from one group to another by tapping (11/21),
pointing (3/21), or icking (4/21).
(2)
Multi-selection involves se-
lecting and moving documents by tapping (5/21), scooping out (P11,
P18), or lasso selecting (5/21, see Fig. 8D).
(3)
Slicing involves
drawing separation lines directly in the layout (6/21; see Fig. 8E and
Fig. 11H) or using a scissor gesture (P20-21).
(4)
Tearing apart
involves using both hands to separate an already spatially ordered
group, like opening a window (5/21; see Fig. 8F).
4.2.4 Layout Transformation. While compressing a layout facil-
itates group manipulation, spreading enhances the visibility and
accessibility of documents within a group. These transformations
can also draw on either the desired layout, the source layout, or a
combination of both – the source layout infers potential interaction
methods, while the target layout determines the extent and scale of
interactions (10/21, e.g., see Fig. 9F "fanning" and Fig. 11F "pulling").
Compressing and Spreading Layouts. Participants often adjusted
the spatial distance between documents. By squashing the borders,
sparse layouts can be
(1)
compressed into stack (8/21), poker stack
(5/21), or thin stack (P13, P15). This could increase group coherency
and facilitate batch operations like translation,transformation, and
storage. In contrast, compact layouts were often
(2)
spread out into
grids (8/21) for overview and inspection, enabling precise operations
like multi-selection (7/21), as sparse layouts enhance the visibility
and accessibility of individual documents.
Result-layout-oriented Transformation. Participants frequently
used their hands and arms to spatially "draw" the shape and scale
of the desired layout.
(1)
Symbolic drawing was used to dene
the general shape of the target layout. To create circular layouts,
for instance, P20 moved their nger “like a magic wand” in a circle
(see Fig. 9A) while P10 drew a circle around their waist.
(2)
Frame
drawing was used to indicate the scale of the target layout. For
instance, moving hands apart horizontally (P15, see Fig. 11C) or
diagonally (P18) determined the dimensions of grids (see Fig. 9B).
Likewise, P18 performed an “accordion gesture” (see Fig. 9D and
Fig. 11D) to create a row where the distance between both hands
denes the width.
(3)
Brushing was observed to describe the
target layout’s shape and scale with the trace of hand movement.
Examples include drawing a line with a at hand to dene a column
(P16, see Fig. 9C), a semi-circle for circular stripes (P7, see Fig. 11E),
or row after row for a grid (P7). Interestingly, P20 used a needle
and thread metaphor to weave through documents into the desired
layouts.
Source-layout-oriented Transformation. Transformation can also
be informed by the shape of the source layout. For instance, to
achieve a better overview, a vertical stack was pushed down (P9,
P11) or icked over (P14) to form a horizontal column (see Fig. 9E),
similar to pushing dominoes. Likewise, a stack was thrown onto
the table, mimicking the action of tossing paper in daily life, to
transform into a grid or collage layout (P8, P11).
CHI ’25, April 26-May 1, 2025, Yokohama, Japan
This is an author and pre-print version. The ocial publication can be found at https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3713518 — Project website: https://imld.de/ar- docs/
©2025 Copyright held by the authors. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Luo, et al.
Figure 10: Five strategies for layout inspection and navigation, including
(A)
overview and detail as a grid on the table with a
zoomed-in document,
(B)
swiping or scrolling a slideshow with focus and context,
(C)
turning pages to navigate documents,
(D) scrolling a circular strip layout, (E) directional swiping for a rapid inspection.
4.2.5 Layout Inspection and Navigation. To obtain an overview and
extract information, an
(1)
overview and detail strategy was used
to inspect all documents in a group, such as a zoomable grid (P2, see
Fig. 10A and Fig. 11I), an expandable 3D node-link diagram (P19), or
asphere layout centering the user (3/21).
(2)
Slideshow included
layouts like circular stripe (3/21), innite straight stripe (P15), and
grid (P10). A focus and context approach can be joined to enlarge
one document while others become distorted or overlapped (P14,
see Fig. 10B). Several navigating techniques were combined, such
as auto-play (P10, P20), scrolling by grabbing (4/21, see Fig. 10D), or
swiping (P14).
(3)
Metaphorically ipping through a book-like
stack (6/21, see Fig. 10C) was observed.
(4)
Directional swiping
was used to move individual documents aside in succession to
navigate through a stack for tasks like searching or sorting (see
Fig. 10E and Fig. 11J). This created subgroups (3/21), roughly sorted
for a better overview (P9, P14), cleaned up irrelevant documents
for searching (3/21), or performed custom functions based on the
direction (P15).
4.2.6 Reflection and Discussion. We identied various interaction
methods (see Appendix Fig. A1) for workspace transition, document
group management, and layout transformation and exploration.
Most proposed interactions t reality-based interaction [
53
], using
actions resembling daily physical practices to interact with digital
content. Many interactions were context-specic, mimicking of-
ce paper handling, while some were more generic, drawing from
everyday experiences, such as storing in pockets or separating via
scissor gestures. Unique metaphors like thread and needle, Spider-
man superpower, and shing rod were noted for direct and remote
interactions.
The extent of interactions often matched the layout scope, e.g.,
gesture traversal distances corresponded to target layout scopes.
Besides, participants used gestures of varying magnitudes, includ-
ing one-thumb fanning, two-nger pinching, full-hand grasping,
or even entire arms to manage dierent quantities of documents in
the source layouts. There were also dierent control levels, from
precise to rough, when interacting with documents. Groups could
be moved individually to specic locations, rapidly swiped in any
direction for splitting, or thrown toward a target for translating.
Similarly, layout transformation can be achieved by brushing exact
layouts or drawing symbols of shapes.
4.3 Participant Comments and Feedback
To reveal participants’ attitudes and rationales, we summarize the
results of the post-study interviews on general impressions, MR
opportunities and trade-os, and future use cases.
4.3.1 General Impression and User Experience. Participants appre-
ciated the exibility of AR devices (4/21), with visually appealing
outputs (P8, P10) and diverse data representations (P3, P15). Most
felt positive about using AR for document organization and believed
in its future (18/21). They found it intuitive (P1-2, P8, P14) and easy
to learn (P1, P14) due to direct interaction with content (P1). This
intuitiveness contributes to a “fun working style” (4/21) instead of
“the tediousness of selecting and opening documents one by one [on
desktop]” (P9). Organizing documents in AR felt more controlled
(4/21) as it is convenient to pack and rearrange documents (P7, P21)
or “[pull] documents in front of you in a bigger size” (P17). Partici-
pants noted it as time-saving (7/21) due to ease of arrangement (P5,
P17, P21) and the extensive space for content overview (P1, P17).
However, concerns were raised about hardware limitations like
display resolution (3/21), limited eld of view (P11, P16) inuencing
the text readability, or eye strain (P6, P10) and device weight (P11,
P16) impacting long-term usability. Some also preferred physical
paper (P11-12) or worried about adding another device to their
workow (P1).
4.3.2 Current Challenges and Opportunities. Current challenges
in document arrangement included the eort required (P6-7, P11,
P14). Participants noted AR’s suitability for “putting things in or-
der” (P14), structuring and arranging thoughts, and expressing and
Documents in Your Hands
This is an author and pre-print version. The ocial publication can be found at https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3713518 — Project website: https://imld.de/ar- docs/
©2025 Copyright held by the authors. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
CHI ’25, April 26-May 1, 2025, Yokohama, Japan
J
I
H
GF
EDCB
A
Figure 11: Examples of proposed interactions by participants:
(A)
P15 pulled out a group from his breast pocket.
(B)
P10
collected documents using a real folder.
(C)
P15 transformed a stack into a grid with a spread gesture.
(D)
P18 created a row
with an accordion gesture.
(E)
P7 brushed a semi-circular layout.
(F)
P12 pulled a stack up to form a column.
(G)
P1 merged
two groups by crashing them together.
(H)
P12 sliced a column to split it into two parts.
(I)
P2 enlarged a document from a
grid on the table by zooming in. (J) P11 swiped through a stack to search.
representing them spatially (P9, P20). Interestingly, AR encour-
ages more organization strategies since “magnets and other tools
are eort-taking, same as the desktop, while gesture [interaction] is
more inviting” (P21). The content messiness in AR was relatively
acceptable (P21) and reversible (P14-15), enabling trial-and-error
strategies.
Moreover, limited display space in current desktop systems can
lead to a loss of overview (8/21). In contrast, in AR “the whole en-
vironment is screen space” (P16) for content placement (9/21). This
enables to inspect documents at once (10/21), enhances content
awareness (P2, P21), and improves the visibility of individual docu-
ments (P17).
Participants preferred placing content in “[connection] to the
real-world [environment]” (P15), being “impressed [how] the digital
content [feels as] a part of the room” (P18). They utilized walls and
whiteboards (4/21), horizontal surfaces like tables (2/21), or both
surfaces (3/21). AR can extend existing knowledge and workow,
as “we act on the physical objects” (P19), enhancing memorizing and
relocating documents (i.e., “as landmarks”, P10). Lastly, essential
documents following the user’s body were recommended (P6).
4.3.3 Tradeos of Embodiment. Compared to desktop systems,
AR documents oer a higher degree of embodiment, enhancing
document organization, exploration, and comparison. However,
this embodiment has limitations; distributing documents across
expansive spaces can be overwhelming (P9) or discomforting during
deep reading activities (P8).
Mid-air gestures are intuitive but have tradeos, as “some low-
level actions might require a bit more procedures” (P9). For instance,
“for quick notes, AR can be too much overhead” (P9) while “physi-
cal paper allows for rapid and direct changes” (P13). Hand gestures
were also seen as less accurate “considering the nuances of move-
ment” (P16), and participants expressed concerns about gesture re-
call (P13). In contrast, mice and keyboards were perceived as more
accurate, easy to control due to familiarity (P16), and ergonomically
friendly (P8).
4.3.4 Envisioned Use Cases. Participants envisioned AR for presen-
tations (7/21), highlighting its mobility (3/21) and ability to deliver
comprehensive content while reducing preparation barriers (P1), so
“no need to take all [organized] cards from the whiteboard, go to my
neighbor’s oce, and then put them all again” (P13). Audiences could
also actively engage with content on demand based on personal
interests (P9), “making it easier to understand each other” (P21).
Participants also suggested co-located (5/21) or remote and mixed
presence (4/21) collaboration scenarios. A shared space allows “ev-
eryone [to] make changes” (P14) with situational awareness, making
it “easier to see everything and what everybody is doing” (P2) and
aiding in shared categorization strategies (P21). The presence of the
real-world environment also allows collaborators to freely “paste
and drop [documents for someone else] anywhere using the environ-
ment” (P5).
4.4 From Study to Design
Our formative study explores interaction techniques and provides
a comprehensive understanding of virtual document organization
activity. Based on these ndings, we aim to inform the design of
future MR systems. We focus on 2D documents, prevalent in both
virtual and physical environments and well-suited for information
abstraction use cases (e.g., texts, posters, oor plans). We present
a design space (in Sec. 5) that outlines essential components and
properties of AR systems for content organization. We distill design
CHI ’25, April 26-May 1, 2025, Yokohama, Japan
This is an author and pre-print version. The ocial publication can be found at https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3713518 — Project website: https://imld.de/ar- docs/
©2025 Copyright held by the authors. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Luo, et al.
implications (see Sec. 6) using the vocabulary from the design space
to consolidate its knowledge and guide system design. Finally, we
demonstrate practical scenarios (see Sec. 7) that leverage the design
space and design implications.
5 Design Space
Our design space consists of four components: Workspace, Lay-
out, Task, and Interaction (see Fig. 12). To spatially organize AR
documents for a specic task (why), users interact with (how) doc-
uments and their layouts (what) situated in a particular position
(where).
Where - Workspace. It describes a user-dened space where docu-
ments are situated and interacted with. The workspace consists of
physical environments, like tables or the users themselves, as well
as virtual documents. Informed by prior research on egocentric
and exocentric frames of reference [
30
,
65
,
76
], we describe the
following dimensions:
Reference/Anchor:
Connection to a point or object in an immer-
sive environment.
▶User of the immersive system.
▶Object in the situated environment, like a book.
▶
Environment, including architectural elements such as the
ceiling or walls.
▶Open Space without an anchor.
Proximity: Distance between documents and their reference.
▶On/In the reference, directly placed or aligned to.
▶Near to the reference, like in arm’s reach of the user.
▶Far away from the reference.
Anchor Coupling:
How documents behave when their reference
moves.
▶Persistent, as documents follow when the reference moves.
▶
Temporary, as documents remain static when the reference
moves.
Visibility: Whether documents are visible to the user.
What - Layout. A layout is a visual representation of the spatial
organization of items within a group, which is what users are
working with. Each item can either be a group or a document,
and each group is associated with a specic layout. We clarify its
attributes (see Fig. 13):
Number: The count of documents contained in a layout.
Shape:
The geometry of a layout such as stack, column, row, grid,
and fan.
Orientation:
Alignment to the anchor (or to the ground if an-
chored to Open Space), like parallel or orthogonal.
Dimension:
Distribution of documents in 1D (i.e., line), 2D (i.e.,
plane), or 3D (e.g., cube) space.
Curvature:
The shape’s curvature, like at (0°), semi-circular (180°),
or fully-circular (360°).
Strictness:
Alignment among documents according to a specic
pattern, ranging from unordered to ordered.
Compactness:
Average distances among the documents, from
sparse to compact.
Why - Task. Users organize documents to achieve specic goals.
We identify the following tasks to indicate why users organize. The
rst three dimensions are elemental, supporting the achievement
Figure 12: Design space for AR document organization, con-
sisting of four key components: Workspace, Layout, Task,
and Interaction. Arrows indicate the relationships between
these components.
of high-level goals [
69
], and can also become primary goals in their
own right.
Item Clustering:
Organize items and their relations within lay-
outs.
▶Group/Ungroup to combine/dissolve items as/from a group.
▶Add/Remove items to/from a group.
▶
Merge/Split to combine two groups into a new one or divide
one into multiple.
Layout Arrangement: Structure the layout of items.
▶
Spread/Compress to increase/reduce the layout’s compactness.
▶Transform to modify the layout’s attributes.
Workspace Management:
Organize items in an MR environment.
▶Translate to alter the position of items within a workspace.
▶Transit to move items to another workspace.
Visual Exploration:
Extract and compare information from items
visually.
▶Preview to create a quick overview of content within a group.
▶
Inspect to build an understanding of items and their relations
within a group.
▶Search to seek an item or other specic information.
▶
Sort to order items within a group according to specic criteria.
Annotation:
Add additional information to items, groups, or workspaces,
such as notes or glyphs.
How - Interaction. Interaction denes how users manipulate docu-
ments into a specic layout for particular tasks.
Modality:
Input methods, like freehand, gaze, body movements/gestures,
or speech.
Style:
Relation of the interaction to the real world (i.e., realistic,
metaphoric, or abstract).
Body Involvement:
Extent of physical engagement, like only ip-
ping the wrist vs. moving the whole arm.
Motion: Nature of the performed interaction.
▶Speed of the interaction (i.e., fast to slow).
▶Precision of the interaction (i.e., high to low).
6 Design Implications
Based on the study results, we distill design implications (I1-7),
applying the vocabulary provided in the design space.
Documents in Your Hands
This is an author and pre-print version. The ocial publication can be found at https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3713518 — Project website: https://imld.de/ar- docs/
©2025 Copyright held by the authors. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
CHI ’25, April 26-May 1, 2025, Yokohama, Japan
Shape
Stack Poker Stack Pile Column Row Grid Fan
Orientation
Parallel Orthogonal
Dimension
SpacePlaneLine
Curvature
Flat Semi-circular Circular
Strictness
Unordered Ordered
Compactness
Sparse Compact
Figure 13: Layout component of the design space, highlighting the geometric attributes of a spatial layout. This component
includes quantitative attributes such as Number (not shown in the diagram), Orientation, and Curvature, the categorical
attribute Shape, and ordinal attributes including Dimension,Strictness, and Compactness.
I1 - Anchor documents to users’ bodies to aid the arrangement
process. MR HMDs allow users to arrange content in the surround-
ing space, enabling unrestricted movement without connement
to a xed position. Anchoring documents on the user’s body pro-
vides convenient quick-access storage. The near-body space can
serve as an eective workbench, oering both visibility and direct
interaction with individual documents, as well as an overview of
document collections.
I2 - Support spreading and compressing for workspace transition
and layout transformation. Spreading and compressing adjust the
compactness of layouts. Compact layouts help reduce visual clutter
and facilitate batch operation, such as transformation, translation,
and workspace transition. In contrast, sparse layouts enhance the
overview and accessibility of the individual documents. As observed
in the user study, alternating between compact and sparse layouts
is essential for the arrangement activities.
I3 - Design hand gesture interaction based on the source layouts to
transform. The shape, orientation, distribution, and compactness
of layouts inform how they can be transformed. These aordances
are rooted in everyday experiences and common understandings
of physics (also see I7). For instance, when spreading a document
stack, one can fan out, push down, pull up, chain out, or throw to
expand on surfaces.
I4 - Use hand gestures and their motion to define the desired layouts.
Hand gestures are intuitive and powerful for expressing spatial
information needed to dene layout attributes. The movement of
hands and the paths they trace can indicate the boundaries and
occupied space of desired layouts (i.e., drawing a frame). Gestures
can also specify the exact shape, orientation, distribution, curvature,
and compactness of layouts (i.e., brushing).
I5 - Align body involvement with the number and compactness of
layouts. The number and compactness of document layouts suggest
the expected eort to manipulate them. Therefore, interactions
used to arrange these documents can correspond to this eort
through the level of body involvement. This allows for appropriate
referencing of documents, such as using ngers for single items,
whole hands for groups, or both arms for several groups.
I6 - Prioritize hand-based interaction and supplement with other
modalities as needed. Hand gestures are central to virtual docu-
ment arrangement. However, we also propose integrating additional
modalities to enhance the document organization process. For in-
stance, voice commands can be used to locate known targets or
move documents to predened locations (like the "put-that-there"
approach [
12
]), while gaze can serve as an implicit input alternative.
I7 - Leverage interaction rooted in physics and real surroundings.
Adopting realistic interaction styles allows users to apply their
knowledge of physics and real surroundings to the digital realm.
Physical entities like surfaces and objects can serve as tangible prox-
ies or tokens to store or translate documents, supporting arranging
activities. However, we also encourage exploring "out-of-context"
metaphors, such as threads and needles, shing rods, and Spider-
man superpowers.
7 Design Demonstration
We demonstrate our design space and implications for future MR
document management systems. We rst introduce a keyframe-
based rapid prototyping system designed to facilitate the interac-
tion design (Sec. 7.1). We also illustrate three envisioned use cases
(Sec. 7.2). Source code and a step-by-step tutorial are available on
our project website3.
3https://imld.de/AR-Docs
CHI ’25, April 26-May 1, 2025, Yokohama, Japan
This is an author and pre-print version. The ocial publication can be found at https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3713518 — Project website: https://imld.de/ar- docs/
©2025 Copyright held by the authors. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Luo, et al.
Figure 14: To cluster sticky notes:
(A-C)
splitting o the left column from the grid;
(D+E)
compressing the column into a stack.
7.1 Rapid Prototyping System
Facilitating the design of interaction techniques for immersive envi-
ronments has gained attention [
6
,
59
]. It presents greater challenges
compared to traditional setups due to the vast range of interaction
possibilities and the limited means of experiencing and communi-
cating these options within a design team before a fully functional
system is developed. Animations can be a cost-ecient solution
to allow direct engagement with prototypes, compare design al-
ternatives, and evoke rst-hand insights [
45
]. We thus introduce a
rapid prototyping system that creates interaction mock-ups with
keyframe animations, using a Wizard-of-Oz approach [
56
,
86
] by
externally triggering these animations.
We developed a Unity package with MRTK
4
. Designers can test
interaction designs with animations on MRTK-compatible devices,
such as HoloLens 2. An animation blueprint (prefab) can be im-
ported by drag-and-drop, containing keyframes for start, end, and
in-between states. Users can dene where virtual objects start, tra-
verse, and stop in the Unity scene, and anchor objects to points like
the non-dominant hand. Users can also customize state transitions,
including triggers (e.g., automatic or key-pressing), duration, and
format (e.g., acceleration/interpolation). The resulting animations
can be viewed on MRTK-supported hardware. We integrated a net-
work feature via photon
5
to capture interactions from multiple
perspectives (rst-/third-person views).
This system allows designers to conceptualize, test, experience,
communicate, and iterate on interaction techniques informed by
our design space. Designers can act out interaction variants and
assess their suitability with HMDs, capturing interaction techniques
as video from various perspectives for discussion. We illustrate
several prototyped interactions with three envisioned scenarios in
the following (also see the video gure).
7.2 Envisioned Use Cases
We illustrate three use cases to demonstrate the richness of our de-
sign space, the practicality of design implications, and how MR can
empower the daily activities of knowledge workers in text analysis,
task management, and design iteration. Guided by our design space
and implications, we highlight why documents are being arranged
(task), where they are arranged (workspace), what kind of layouts
they are in, and how they are being arranged (interaction).
Sensemaking with Anity Diagramming. Alice, a psychologist,
uses an MR anity diagramming tool to analyze user study quotes
and communicate ndings (see Fig. 14). She stands in front of a
4https://github.com/microsoft/MixedRealityToolkit-Unity
5https://www.photonengine.com/
wall-mounted whiteboard with a table on her right, where forty
participants’ comments are imported as sticky notes in a grid.
To get a general impression of each participant’s comments, Alice
splits o statements with her right arm, sliding the rst column
away (I5 ; see Fig. 14A-C). She compresses this column into a stack
with her right hand and collects it on her left hand (I3 &I4 ;
see Fig. 14D+E). She inspects this group in detail via a book-ipping
gesture (I7 ), then places it back on the table, repeating the process
for other participants.
To sort the statements, Alice pulls up astack like a chain into a
column (I3 ,I4 &I7 ), pinches the suitable item, and throws
it (I7 ) to the whiteboard, creating six groups in a grid. Noticing
similarities between the two groups, she merges them by pointing at
both with open-at hands (I5 ), forming sts to draw the groups
closer, crashing them together into one group, and throwing it back
to the whiteboard (I7 ), resulting in the nal thematic map.
For an alternative overview-focused inspection, Alice can spread
(I2 ) the stack into a slideshow layout using an accordion gesture
(I4 &I7 ), instead of a book-ipping approach. This allows
her to swipe and inspect document groups with the context from
previous and following notes.
Oce Task Management. Bob, an administrative secretary, uses
his MR system to sort emails by importance and topic (see Fig. 15).
Emails are displayed as a horizontal stack oating in front of and
following him (I1 ), with newer items positioned closer. Using
directional swiping gestures (I3 &I4 ), he moves emails up,
down, left, and right, resulting in four groups as piles: high-priority,
low-priority, postponing, and decision-required.
Bob assigns sorted documents to physical objects in his oce (I7
). High-priority and decision-required groups are placed in two
stacks on his table for immediate attention. The postponing group is
placed inside the folder cabinet,spreading as a column when viewed
(I6 ). The low-priority group is thrown to the cupboard behind
him (I7 ).
Bob then inspects high-priority and decision-required groups in
aslideshow layout. Emails requiring colleagues’ inputs are selected
into a stack and stored in his pocket, becoming invisible. Bob walks
to his colleagues’ oce, pulls out the stack, and attaches it to the
door with a thumb-tack gesture (I7 ).
Alternatively, if Bob meets his colleague in the corridor, he can
pull and fan out the stack (I2 ) on his hand (see Fig. 15A+B), fetch
the email with one nger (I5 ), and enlarge it in open space for an
ad-hoc discussion (see Fig. 15C-E).
Graphic Design Iteration. Lizzy, a graphic designer, uses an MR
system to iterate on her paper poster with AI-generated variants
Documents in Your Hands
This is an author and pre-print version. The ocial publication can be found at https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3713518 — Project website: https://imld.de/ar- docs/
©2025 Copyright held by the authors. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
CHI ’25, April 26-May 1, 2025, Yokohama, Japan
EDCB
A
Figure 15: To manage documents: (A+B) fanning a stack out; (C-E) selecting and enlarging a single document from the stack.
Figure 16: To compare graphic design variations:
(A-C)
transforming a stack into a row by brushing the resulting layout;
(D) tapping to snap selected les onto the ngertip; (E) drawing to arrange a grid layout around the physical poster.
(see Fig. 16). She imports these posters, arranging them on her desk
as seven piles based on similarities.
To sort them, she fetches apile and draws a line (I4 ) in the air
from right to left with her open hand (I5 , see Fig. 16A-C). The
items are then spread (I2 ) along this movement as a row in front of
her (I1 ). She drags her favorite designs to the left (I5 ), resulting
in a row ranked by preference. The group is then compressed (I2
) into a stack and placed on the table, with the favorite item on
the top for previewing. Finally, she pulls and pushes selected virtual
posters next to the original paper poster on the wall, enlarging to
the printing size for direct comparison.
Alternatively, Lizzy can compare the best items simultaneously
by grouping them with her nger by tapping them (I5 , see
Fig. 16D) and then drawing a rectangle around the paper poster on
the wall (I4 ). This arranges the group as thumbnails around the
poster (I7 ), allowing for a side-by-side comparison (see Fig. 16E).
8 Discussion of Limitations and Future Work
We discuss current limitations, relate our ndings to prior work,
and outline directions for future research.
Document Content and Relation. Our study employed documents
containing multi-dimensional information (i.e., texts and images)
that represent common document types [
81
,
125
]. This generaliza-
tion allows us to focus on how users utilize space based on tasks
and articulate such usages via interaction, independent of specic
content. Consequently, we derive a exible design space applicable
to various documents. Our ndings are particularly relevant for
managing sets of homogeneous documents, a use case increasingly
prevalent in 3D environments. Examples include text documents
(e.g., reports [
21
], survey responses [
74
]), graphics (e.g., medical
imaging [
10
], maps [
109
]), and data visualizations (e.g., spread-
sheets [
39
,
52
], charts [
76
]). Our ndings can also be applied to
documents with diverse semantic relations. Sequential relations
(like storybooks [
25
]) can be authored using brushing gestures,
where the start position denes the rst page. Hierarchical rela-
tions can be supported with nested layouts or arrangements where
the primary content is anchored by multiple secondary documents
(e.g., [
62
,
108
]). However, further investigation is necessary to un-
derstand how inter-document relations and content uniformity,
particularly considering various shapes, sizes, and content of indi-
vidual documents and their combinations, might aect layout and
interaction.
Workspace Characterization and Partition. Prior work has dis-
cussed body-centric proximal spaces (i.e., personal, peripersonal,
and extrapersonal space) [
18
,
112
] and the proxemic ecology [
41
]
in multi-device environments, as well as space perception [
76
],
and reference dynamicity [
96
] in immersive environments. In the
context of AR document management, while our classications of
body-centric (on-body and arm-reach) space align with these works,
we further highlight physical-environmental and open spaces. We
also elaborate on potential usage preferences: on-body space for
storage, arm-reach space for manipulation, open space for nal
arrangements, and environmental space for both manipulation and
presentation. This aligns with using peripersonal (arm-reach) space
for interaction in immersive environments [
30
,
76
,
131
], but con-
trasts with active on-body interactions suggested in multi-device
environments [
120
]. Future work should place greater emphasis
on real environments for content organization (e.g., landmarks [
79
,
81
] and tangibility [
130
]) and on supporting transitions between
workspaces (e.g., perspectives [67] and gestures [96]).
Multi-Document Arrangement. Our ndings demonstrate the po-
tential of direct interactions, such as drawing layout shapes and
frames, to arrange multiple documents, highlighting the expres-
siveness of hand gestures. While some similar techniques have
been explored with interactive tabletops [
1
,
36
,
128
], we extend
this understanding to document arrangement in MR environments,
where increased space enables new strategies, such as directional
swiping gestures. We also observed participants leveraging physical
environments and objects as natural alignment aids, including land-
mark objects, furniture edges, vertical and horizontal surfaces, and
distinct workspaces. This is similar to prior work employing shape
constraints and guides, such as points [
46
,
126
], lines [
36
,
126
], can-
vases [
68
,
95
], and grids [
7
,
35
,
111
] in 2D and 3D contexts. We
CHI ’25, April 26-May 1, 2025, Yokohama, Japan
This is an author and pre-print version. The ocial publication can be found at https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3713518 — Project website: https://imld.de/ar- docs/
©2025 Copyright held by the authors. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Luo, et al.
encourage further exploration of actively integrating physical sur-
roundings into arrangement tasks. Future work can also examine
how dierent approaches—such as direct hand drawing as well as
virtual and physical aids, used individually or in combination—can
enhance the organization of multiple documents.
Evaluation of Design and Usability. We adopted a broad user-
centered approach to explore the design space of interaction tech-
niques for MR systems, enabling us to identify characteristics, as-
sociations, and tendencies related to workspace, layout, tasks, and
interactions. However, this methodology may be limited by current
hardware (e.g., restricted eld of view), participant backgrounds
(e.g., demographics and technological literacy), and legacy bias
(e.g., priming from paper documents). Additionally, this method-
ology aims to maximize participant creativity, it however does
not necessarily consider implementation details of real-world sys-
tems [
70
]. Further investigation is needed into interaction detection
and conicts among interactions [
114
,
119
]. Participants in the in-
terview were mainly concerned about eye strain and hardware
weight for long-term use rather than fatigue from hand gestures.
However, challenges like the "gorilla arm" eect caused by mid-air
interaction [
33
,
49
] can arise. To mitigate this, mid-arm gestures
can be supported [
44
], constrained [
105
], or combined with micro-
gestures [
17
] or with other modalities such as gaze [
17
,
64
] and
foot [
76
,
122
] inputs, as also suggested by our results. While our
rapid-prototyping system provides a starting point for evaluat-
ing interaction techniques, a thorough evaluation would require
narrowing to specic documents and tasks. Future research can
apply our design space to concrete applications, verify design im-
plications within specic contexts, and examine metrics such as
ease-of-performance, learnability, memorability, and reliability of
interaction.
Future MR-enabled Oce. Our study focused on participants in
a standing posture, as we anticipate that knowledge workers will
move within future oces. Such mobility could enhance space
utilization, stimulate cognition through physical movement, and
promote a healthier work style. However, considering fatigue asso-
ciated with prolonged use, it is necessary to explore designs that
support seated usage as alternatives and facilitate transitions be-
tween dierent user postures. Moreover, integrating other existing
devices like desktop computers and their peripheries to leverage
combined strengths is of interest, as demonstrated in research on
complementary [
51
,
134
] and transitional interfaces [
88
]. Speci-
cally, further investigation is needed on how documents and layouts
can be consistently transferred across dierent workspaces or inter-
face types. Finally, extending our ndings to multi-user scenarios,
like collaborative brainstorming and sensemaking [
81
,
132
], and de-
signing interactions for shared and individual workspaces [
47
,
55
]
would be a promising direction.
9 Conclusion
We investigated the spatial arrangement of virtual documents in
Augmented Reality. To this end, we conducted a user-centered
design study, eliciting interaction techniques in an oce environ-
ment. We systematically analyzed and reported both quantitative
and qualitative results. To support system design, we proposed a
design space, summarized design implications, developed a rapid
prototyping system, and demonstrated three envisioned use cases.
Our goal is to enable designers and developers to create immer-
sive applications that leverage realism and spatiality, empowering
knowledge workers to manage documents and information intu-
itively. Ultimately, we aim to inspire further exploration of spatiality
in immersive environments and inform the design of future mixed-
reality-enabled oces.
Acknowledgments
We thank Julie Hildebrandt for supporting the system implemen-
tation and Rufat Rzayev, Wolfgang Büschel, and Annett Mitschick
for their help with the paper. This work was funded by the German
Research Foundation (DFG, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft) as
part of Germany’s Excellence Strategy – EXC 2050/1 – Project ID
390696704 – Cluster of Excellence “Centre for Tactile Internet with
Human-in-the-Loop” (CeTI) of Technische Universität Dresden and
EXC-2068 – 390729961 – Cluster of Excellence "Physics of Life",
DFG grant 389792660 as part of TRR 248 (see https://perspicuous-
computing.science), the German Federal Ministry of Education and
Research (BMBF, SCADS22B) and the Saxon State Ministry for
Science, Culture and Tourism (SMWK) by funding the Center for
Scalable Data Analytics and AI “ScaDS.AI Dresden/Leipzig“, and
by the BMBF in the program of “Souverän. Digital. Vernetzt.”. Joint
project 6G-life, project identication number: 16KISK001K.
References
[1]
Anand Agarawala and Ravin Balakrishnan. 2006. Keepin’ It Real: Pushing the
Desktop Metaphor with Physics, Piles and the Pen. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Montréal, Québec, Canada)
(CHI ’06). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1283–1292.
doi:10.1145/1124772.1124965
[2]
Abdullah Ali, Meredith Ringel Morris, and Jacob O. Wobbrock. 2021. “I Am Iron
Man”: Priming Improves the Learnability and Memorability of User-Elicited
Gestures. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Comput-
ing Systems (Yokohama, Japan) (CHI ’21). Association for Computing Machinery,
New York, NY, USA, Article 359, 14 pages. doi:10.1145/3411764.3445758
[3]
T. Altom, M. Buher, M. Downey, and A. Faiola. 2004. Using 3D landscapes
to navigate le systems: the MountainView interface. In Proceedings. Eighth
International Conference on Information Visualisation, 2004. IV 2004. (London,
UK). IEEE, 645–649. doi:10.1109/IV.2004.1320210
[4]
Christopher Andrews, Alex Endert, and Chris North. 2010. Space to Think:
Large High-Resolution Displays for Sensemaking. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Atlanta, Georgia, USA)
(CHI ’10). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 55–64.
doi:10.1145/1753326.1753336
[5]
Christopher Andrews and Chris North. 2013. The Impact of Physical Navigation
on Spatial Organization for Sensemaking. IEEE Transactions on Visualization
and Computer Graphics 19, 12 (2013), 2207–2216. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2013.205
[6]
Narges Ashtari, Andrea Bunt, Joanna McGrenere, Michael Nebeling, and Par-
mit K. Chilana. 2020. Creating Augmented and Virtual Reality Applications:
Current Practices, Challenges, and Opportunities. In Proceedings of the 2020
CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA)
(CHI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–13.
doi:10.1145/3313831.3376722
[7]
Mayra D. Barrera-Machuca, Alvaro Cassinelli, and Christian Sandor. 2020.
Context-Based 3D Grids for Augmented Reality User Interfaces. In Adjunct
Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and
Technology (Virtual Event, USA) (UIST ’20 Adjunct). Association for Computing
Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 73–76. doi:10.1145/3379350.3416190
[8]
D. Bauer, P. Fastrez, and J. Hollan. 2005. Spatial Tools for Managing Personal
Information Collections. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences. IEEE, 104b–104b. doi:10.1109/HICSS.2005.551
[9]
Lonni Besançon, Anders Ynnerman, Daniel F. Keefe, Lingyun Yu, and Tobias
Isenberg. 2021. The State of the Art of Spatial Interfaces for 3D Visualization.
Computer Graphics Forum 40, 1 (2021), 293–326. doi:10.1111/cgf.14189
Documents in Your Hands
This is an author and pre-print version. The ocial publication can be found at https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3713518 — Project website: https://imld.de/ar- docs/
©2025 Copyright held by the authors. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
CHI ’25, April 26-May 1, 2025, Yokohama, Japan
[10]
Verena Biener, Daniel Schneider, Travis Gesslein, Alexander Otte, Bastian Kuth,
Per Ola Kristensson, Eyal Ofek, Michel Pahud, and Jens Grubert. 2020. Breaking
the Screen: Interaction Across Touchscreen Boundaries in Virtual Reality for
Mobile Knowledge Workers. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer
Graphics 26, 12 (2020), 3490–3502. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2020.3023567
[11]
Ann E Blandford. 2013. Semi-structured qualitative studies. Interaction
Design Foundation. https://w ww.interaction-design.org/literature/book/the-
encyclopedia-of- human-computer- interaction-2nd- ed/semi-structured-
qualitative-studies
[12]
Richard A. Bolt. 1980. “Put-that-there”: Voice and gesture at the graphics
interface. In Proceedings of the 7th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and
Interactive Techniques (Seattle, Washington, USA) (SIGGRAPH ’80). Association
for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 262–270. doi:10.1145/800250.
807503
[13]
Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psy-
chology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3, 2 (2006), 77–101. doi:10.1191/
1478088706qp063oa
[14]
Frederik Brudy, Christian Holz, Roman Rädle, Chi-Jui Wu, Steven Houben,
Clemens Nylandsted Klokmose, and Nicolai Marquardt. 2019. Cross-Device
Taxonomy: Survey, Opportunities and Challenges of Interactions Spanning
Across Multiple Devices. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems (Glasgow, Scotland Uk) (CHI ’19). Association for
Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–28. doi:10.1145/3290605.3300792
[15] Wolfgang Büschel, Jian Chen, Raimund Dachselt, Steven Drucker, Tim Dwyer,
Carsten Görg, Tobias Isenberg, Andreas Kerren, Chris North, and Wolfgang
Stuerzlinger. 2018. Interaction for Immersive Analytics. Springer, Cham, Switzer-
land, 95–138. doi:10.1007/978-3- 030-01388-2_4
[16] Han Joo Chae, Youli Chang, Minji Kim, Gwanmo Park, and Jinwook Seo. 2020.
ARphy: Managing Photo Collections Using Physical Objects in AR. In Extended
Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
(Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI EA ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New
York, NY, USA, 1–7. doi:10.1145/3334480.3382885
[17]
Adrien Chaangeon Caillet, Alix Goguey, and Laurence Nigay. 2023. 3D Selec-
tion in Mixed Reality: Designing a Two-Phase Technique To Reduce Fatigue. In
2023 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR).
IEEE, 800–809. doi:10.1109/ISMAR59233.2023.00095
[18]
Xiang ’Anthony’ Chen, Nicolai Marquardt, Anthony Tang, Sebastian Boring, and
Saul Greenberg. 2012. Extending a mobile device’s interaction space through
body-centric interaction. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on
Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (San Francisco,
California, USA) (MobileHCI ’12). Association for Computing Machinery, New
York, NY, USA, 151–160. doi:10.1145/2371574.2371599
[19]
Yifei Cheng, Yukang Yan, Xin Yi, Yuanchun Shi, and David Lindlbauer. 2021.
SemanticAdapt: Optimization-Based Adaptation of Mixed Reality Layouts Lever-
aging Virtual-Physical Semantic Connections. In The 34th Annual ACM Sympo-
sium on User Interface Software and Technology (Virtual Event, USA) (UIST
’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 282–297.
doi:10.1145/3472749.3474750
[20]
Yi Fei Cheng, Christoph Gebhardt, and Christian Holz. 2023. InteractionAdapt:
Interaction-driven Workspace Adaptation for Situated Virtual Reality Envi-
ronments. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Inter-
face Software and Technology (San Francisco, CA, USA) (UIST ’23). Associa-
tion for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 109, 14 pages.
doi:10.1145/3586183.3606717
[21]
Kylie Davidson, Lee Lisle, Kirsten Whitley, Doug A. Bowman, and Chris North.
2023. Exploring the Evolution of Sensemaking Strategies in Immersive Space to
Think. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 29, 12 (2023),
5294–5307. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2022.3207357
[22]
Hoda Dehmeshki and Wolfgang Stuerzlinger. 2008. Intelligent object group
selection. In CHI ’08 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems
(Florence, Italy) (CHI EA ’08). Association for Computing Machinery, New York,
NY, USA, 3111–3116. doi:10.1145/1358628.1358816
[23]
Matthias Deller, Stefan Agne, Achim Ebert, Andreas Dengel, Hans Hagen, Bertin
Klein, Michael Bender, Tony Bernardin, and Bernd Hamann. 2008. Manag-
ing a Document-Based Information Space. In Proceedings of the 13th Inter-
national Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (Gran Canaria, Spain) (IUI
’08). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 119–128.
doi:10.1145/1378773.1378789
[24]
Andreas Dengel, Stefan Agne, Bertin Klein, Achim Ebert, and Matthias Deller.
2006. Human-Centered Interaction with Documents. In Proceedings of the 1st
ACM International Workshop on Human-Centered Multimedia (Santa Barbara,
California, USA) (HCM ’06). Association for Computing Machinery, New York,
NY, USA, 35–44. doi:10.1145/1178745.1178755
[25]
Tilman Dingler, Siran Li, Niels van Berkel, and Vassilis Kostakos. 2021. Page-
Turning Techniques for Reading Interfaces in Virtual Environments. In Proceed-
ings of the 32nd Australian Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (Sydney,
NSW, Australia) (OzCHI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York,
NY, USA, 454–461. doi:10.1145/3441000.3441024
[26]
Mats Ole Ellenberg, Marc Satkowski, Weizhou Luo, and Raimund Dachselt. 2023.
Spatiality and Semantics - Towards Understanding Content Placement in Mixed
Reality. In Extended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems (CHI EA ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New
York, NY, USA, 1–8. doi:10.1145/3544549.3585853
[27]
Alex Endert, Seth Fox, Dipayan Maiti, Scotland Leman, and Chris North. 2012.
The semantics of clustering: analysis of user-generated spatializations of text
documents. In Proceedings of the International Working Conference on Advanced
Visual Interfaces (Capri Island, Italy) (AVI ’12). Association for Computing Ma-
chinery, New York, NY, USA, 555–562. doi:10.1145/2254556.2254660
[28]
Barrett Ens, Benjamin Bach, Maxime Cordeil, Ulrich Engelke, Marcos Serrano,
Wesley Willett, Arnaud Prouzeau, Christoph Anthes, Wolfgang Büschel, Cody
Dunne, Tim Dwyer, Jens Grubert, Jason H. Haga, Nurit Kirshenbaum, Dylan
Kobayashi, Tica Lin, Monsurat Olaosebikan, Fabian Pointecker, David Sao,
Nazmus Saquib, Dieter Schmalstieg, Danielle Albers Szar, Matt Whitlock, and
Yalong Yang. 2021. Grand Challenges in Immersive Analytics. In Proceedings of
the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Yokohama,
Japan) (CHI ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA,
Article 459, 17 pages. doi:10.1145/3411764.3446866
[29]
Barrett Ens, Maxime Cordeil, Chris North, Tim Dwyer, Lonni Besançon, Arnaud
Prouzeau, Jiazhou Liu, Andrew Cunningham, Adam Drogemuller,Kadek Ananta
Satriadi, and Bruce H Thomas. 2022. Immersive Analytics 2.0: Spatial and
Embodied Sensemaking. In Extended Abstracts of the 2022 CHI Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems (New Orleans, LA, USA) (CHI EA ’22).
Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 91, 7 pages.
doi:10.1145/3491101.3503726
[30]
Barrett Ens, Juan David Hincapié-Ramos, and Pourang Irani. 2014. Ethereal
planes: a design framework for 2D information space in 3D mixed reality envi-
ronments. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM Symposium on Spatial User Interaction
(Honolulu, Hawaii, USA) (SUI ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New
York, NY, USA, 2–12. doi:10.1145/2659766.2659769
[31]
Barrett Ens and Pourang Irani. 2017. Spatial Analytic Interfaces: Spatial User
Interfaces for In Situ Visual Analytics. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications
37, 2 (2017), 66–79. doi:10.1109/MCG.2016.38
[32]
Barrett Ens, Eyal Ofek, Neil Bruce, and Pourang Irani. 2015. Spatial Constancy
of Surface-Embedded Layouts across Multiple Environments. In Proceedings of
the 3rd ACM Symposium on Spatial User Interaction (Los Angeles, California,
USA) (SUI ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA,
65–68. doi:10.1145/2788940.2788954
[33]
João Marcelo Evangelista Belo, Anna Maria Feit, Tiare Feuchtner, and Kaj Grøn-
bæk. 2021. XRgonomics: Facilitating the Creation of Ergonomic 3D Interfaces. In
Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
(Yokohama, Japan) (CHI ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York,
NY, USA, Article 290, 11 pages. doi:10.1145/3411764.3445349
[34]
Andreas Fender, David Lindlbauer, Philipp Herholz, Marc Alexa, and Jörg Müller.
2017. HeatSpace: Automatic Placement of Displays by Empirical Analysis of User
Behavior. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface
Software and Technology (Québec City, QC, Canada) (UIST ’17). Association
for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 611–621. doi:10.1145/3126594.
3126621
[35]
Mathias Frisch, Sebastian Kleinau, Ricardo Langner, and Raimund Dachselt.
2011. Grids & guides: multi-touch layout and alignment tools. In Proceedings of
the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Vancouver, BC,
Canada) (CHI ’11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA,
1615–1618. doi:10.1145/1978942.1979177
[36]
Mathias Frisch, Ricardo Langner, and Raimund Dachselt. 2011. Neat: a set of
exible tools and gestures for layout tasks on interactive displays. In Proceedings
of the ACM International Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces (Kobe,
Japan) (ITS ’11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA,
1–10. doi:10.1145/2076354.2076356
[37]
Mathias Frisch, Ricardo Langner, Sebastian Kleinau, and Raimund Dachselt. 2010.
A multi-touch alignment guide for interactive displays. In ACM International
Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces (Saarbrücken, Germany) (ITS
’10). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 255–256. doi:10.
1145/1936652.1936703
[38]
Ran Gal, Lior Shapira, Eyal Ofek, and Pushmeet Kohli. 2014. FLARE: Fast layout
for augmented reality applications. In 2014 IEEE International Symposium on
Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR). IEEE, 207–212. doi:10.1109/ISMAR.2014.
6948429
[39]
Travis Gesslein, Verena Biener, Philipp Gagel, Daniel Schneider, Per Ola Kris-
tensson, Eyal Ofek, Michel Pahud, and Jens Grubert. 2020. Pen-based In-
teraction with Spreadsheets in Mobile Virtual Reality. In 2020 IEEE Interna-
tional Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR). IEEE, 361–373.
doi:10.1109/ISMAR50242.2020.00063
[40]
Zeinab Ghaemi, Ulrich Engelke, Barrett Ens, and Bernhard Jenny.2022. Proxemic
maps for immersive visualization. Cartography and Geographic Information
Science 49, 3 (2022), 205–219. doi:10.1080/15230406.2021.2013946
CHI ’25, April 26-May 1, 2025, Yokohama, Japan
This is an author and pre-print version. The ocial publication can be found at https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3713518 — Project website: https://imld.de/ar- docs/
©2025 Copyright held by the authors. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Luo, et al.
[41]
Saul Greenberg, Nicolai Marquardt, Till Ballendat, Rob Diaz-Marino, and
Miaosen Wang. 2011. Proxemic interactions: the new ubicomp? Interactions 18,
1 (Jan. 2011), 42–50. doi:10.1145/1897239.1897250
[42]
Jens Emil Grønbæk, Mille Skovhus Knudsen, Kenton O’Hara, Peter Gall Krogh, Jo
Vermeulen, and Marianne Graves Petersen. 2020. Proxemics Beyond Proximity:
Designing for Flexible Social Interaction Through Cross-Device Interaction. In
Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
(Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York,
NY, USA, 1–14. doi:10.1145/3313831.3376379
[43]
Jens Grubert, Matthias Heinisch, Aaron Quigley, and Dieter Schmalstieg. 2015.
MultiFi: Multi Fidelity Interaction with Displays On and Around the Body. In
Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Comput-
ing Systems (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (CHI ’15). Association for Computing
Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 3933–3942. doi:10.1145/2702123.2702331
[44]
Jerey T. Hansberger, Chao Peng, Shannon L. Mathis, Vaidyanath Areyur Shan-
thakumar, Sarah C. Meacham, Lizhou Cao, and Victoria R. Blakely. 2017. Dis-
pelling the Gorilla Arm Syndrome: The Viability of Prolonged Gesture Inter-
actions. In Virtual, Augmented and Mixed Reality, Stephanie Lackey and Jessie
Chen (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 505–520. doi:10.1007/978-
3-319- 57987-0_41
[45]
Björn Hartmann, Scott Doorley, Sohyeong Kim, and Parul Vora. 2006. Wizard of
Oz sketch animation for experience prototyping. Adjunct Proceedings of the 8th
International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing. https://api.semanticscholar.
org/CorpusID:2468889
[46]
Devamardeep Hayatpur, Seongkook Heo, Haijun Xia, Wolfgang Stuerzlinger,
and Daniel Wigdor. 2019. Plane, Ray, and Point: Enabling Precise Spatial Manip-
ulations with Shape Constraints. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM Sympo-
sium on User Interface Software and Technology (New Orleans, LA, USA) (UIST
’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1185–1195.
doi:10.1145/3332165.3347916
[47]
Zhenyi He, Ruofei Du, and Ken Perlin. 2020. CollaboVR: A Recongurable
Framework for Creative Collaboration in Virtual Reality. In 2020 IEEE Inter-
national Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR). IEEE, 542–554.
doi:10.1109/ISMAR50242.2020.00082
[48]
Otmar Hilliges, David Kim, Shahram Izadi, Malte Weiss, and Andrew Wilson.
2012. HoloDesk: direct 3d interactions with a situated see-through display. In
Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
(Austin, Texas, USA) (CHI ’12). Association for Computing Machinery, New
York, NY, USA, 2421–2430. doi:10.1145/2207676.2208405
[49]
Juan David Hincapié-Ramos, Xiang Guo, Paymahn Moghadasian, and Pourang
Irani. 2014. Consumed endurance: a metric to quantify arm fatigue of mid-
air interactions. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors
in Computing Systems (Toronto, Ontario, Canada) (CHI ’14). Association for
Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1063–1072. doi:10.1145/2556288.
2557130
[50]
Tom Horak, Andreas Mathisen, Clemens N. Klokmose, Raimund Dachselt, and
Niklas Elmqvist. 2019. Vistribute: Distributing Interactive Visualizations in Dy-
namic Multi-Device Setups. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems (Glasgow, Scotland Uk) (CHI ’19). Association for
Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–13. doi:10.1145/3290605.3300846
[51]
Sebastian Hubenschmid, Jonathan Wieland, Daniel Immanuel Fink, Andrea
Batch, Johannes Zagermann, Niklas Elmqvist, and Harald Reiterer. 2022. ReLive:
Bridging In-Situ and Ex-Situ Visual Analytics for Analyzing Mixed Reality User
Studies. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems (New Orleans, LA, USA) (CHI ’22). Association for Computing Machin-
ery, New York, NY, USA, Article 24, 20 pages. doi:10.1145/3491102.3517550
[52]
Sungwon In, Tica Lin, Chris North, Hanspeter Pster, and Yalong Yang. 2024.
This is the Table I Want! Interactive Data Transformation on Desktop and in
Virtual Reality. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 30, 8
(2024), 5635–5650. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2023.3299602
[53]
Robert J.K. Jacob, Audrey Girouard, Leanne M. Hirsheld, Michael S. Horn,
Orit Shaer, Erin Treacy Solovey, and Jamie Zigelbaum. 2008. Reality-Based
Interaction: A Framework for Post-WIMP Interfaces. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Florence, Italy) (CHI ’08).
Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 201–210. doi:10.
1145/1357054.1357089
[54]
Mikkel Rønne Jakobsen and Kasper Hornbæk. 2010. Piles, Tabs and Over-
laps in Navigation among Documents. In Proceedings of the 6th Nordic Confer-
ence on Human-Computer Interaction: Extending Boundaries (Reykjavik, Iceland)
(NordiCHI ’10). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA,
246–255. doi:10.1145/1868914.1868945
[55]
Raphaël James, Anastasia Bezerianos, and Olivier Chapuis. 2023. Evaluating
the Extension of Wall Displays with AR for Collaborative Work. In Proceedings
of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Hamburg,
Germany) (CHI ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA,
Article 99, 17 pages. doi:10.1145/3544548.3580752
[56]
J. F. Kelley. 1984. An iterative design methodology for user-friendly natural
language oce information applications. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 2, 1 (Jan. 1984),
26–41. doi:10.1145/357417.357420
[57]
Søren Knudsen, Mikkel Rønne Jakobsen, and Kasper Hornbæk. 2012. An
exploratory study of how abundant display space may support data anal-
ysis. In Proceedings of the 7th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer In-
teraction: Making Sense Through Design (Copenhagen, Denmark) (NordiCHI
’12). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 558–567.
doi:10.1145/2399016.2399102
[58]
Matthias Kraus, Karsten Klein, Johannes Fuchs, Daniel A. Keim, Falk Schreiber,
and Michael Sedlmair. 2021. The Value of Immersive Visualization. IEEE
Computer Graphics and Applications 41, 4 (2021), 125–132. doi:10.1109/MCG.
2021.3075258
[59]
Veronika Krauß, Michael Nebeling, Florian Jasche, and Alexander Boden. 2022.
Elements of XR Prototyping: Characterizing the Role and Use of Prototypes in
Augmented and Virtual Reality Design. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference
on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New Orleans, LA, USA) (CHI ’22).
Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 310, 18 pages.
doi:10.1145/3491102.3517714
[60]
Wallace S. Lages and Doug A. Bowman. 2019. Walking with adaptive augmented
reality workspaces: design and usage patterns. In Proceedings of the 24th Inter-
national Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (Marina del Ray, California)
(IUI ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 356–366.
doi:10.1145/3301275.3302278
[61]
Ricardo Langner, Ulrich von Zadow, Tom Horak, Annett Mitschick, and Raimund
Dachselt. 2016. Content Sharing Between Spatially-AwareMobile Phones and Large
Vertical Displays Supporting Collaborative Work. Springer, Cham, Switzerland,
75–96. doi:10.1007/978-3- 319-45853- 3_5
[62]
Benjamin Lee, Xiaoyun Hu, Maxime Cordeil, Arnaud Prouzeau, Bernhard Jenny,
and Tim Dwyer. 2021. Shared Surfaces and Spaces: Collaborative Data Visualisa-
tion in a Co-located Immersive Environment. IEEE Transactions on Visualization
and Computer Graphics 27, 2 (2021), 1171–1181. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2020.3030450
[63]
Benjamin Lee, Michael Sedlmair, and Dieter Schmalstieg. 2024. Design Patterns
for Situated Visualization in Augmented Reality. IEEE Transactions on Visual-
ization and Computer Graphics 30, 1 (2024), 1324–1335. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2023.
3327398
[64]
G. Lee, J. Healey, and D. Manocha. 2022. VRDoc: Gaze-based Interactions for
VR Reading Experience. In 2022 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and
Augmented Reality (ISMAR). IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, USA,
787–796. doi:10.1109/ISMAR55827.2022.00097
[65]
Jooyeon Lee, Manri Cheon, Seong-Eun Moon, and Jong-Seok Lee. 2016. Periper-
sonal Space in Virtual Reality: Navigating 3D Space with Dierent Perspectives.
In Adjunct Proceedings of the 29th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface
Software and Technology (Tokyo, Japan) (UIST ’16 Adjunct). Association for Com-
puting Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 207–208. doi:10.1145/2984751.2984772
[66]
Jinha Lee, Alex Olwal, Hiroshi Ishii, and Cati Boulanger. 2013. SpaceTop: inte-
grating 2D and spatial 3D interactions in a see-through desktop environment.
In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
(Paris, France) (CHI ’13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY,
USA, 189–192. doi:10.1145/2470654.2470680
[67]
Joon Hyub Lee, Sang-Gyun An, Yongkwan Kim, and Seok-Hyung Bae. 2018.
Projective Windows: Bringing Windows in Space to the Fingertip. In Proceedings
of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Montreal
QC, Canada) (CHI ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY,
USA, 1–8. doi:10.1145/3173574.3173792
[68] Joon Hyub Lee, Donghyeok Ma, Haena Cho, and Seok-Hyung Bae. 2021. Post-
Post-it: A Spatial Ideation System in VR for Overcoming Limitations of Physical
Post-it Notes. In Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors
in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New
York, NY, USA, 1–7. doi:10.1145/3411763.3451786
[69]
Fritz Lekschas, Xinyi Zhou, Wei Chen, Nils Gehlenborg, Benjamin Bach, and
Hanspeter Pster. 2021. A Generic Framework and Library for Exploration of
Small Multiples through Interactive Piling. IEEE Transactions on Visualization
and Computer Graphics 27, 2 (2021), 358–368. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2020.3028948
[70]
Gabriela Molina León, Petra Isenberg, and Andreas Breiter. 2024. Eliciting Mul-
timodal and Collaborative Interactions for Data Exploration on Large Vertical
Displays. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 30, 2 (2024),
1624–1637. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2023.3323150
[71]
Yihan Li, Yong Hu, Zidan Wang, and Xukun Shen. 2022. Evaluating the Object-
Centered User Interface in Head-Worn Mixed Reality Environment. In 2022
IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR). IEEE,
414–421. doi:10.1109/ISMAR55827.2022.00057
[72]
Zhen Li, Michelle Annett, Ken Hinckley, Karan Singh, and Daniel Wigdor.
2019. HoloDoc: Enabling Mixed Reality Workspaces That Harness Physical and
Digital Content. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems (Glasgow, Scotland Uk) (CHI ’19). Association for Computing
Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–14. doi:10.1145/3290605.3300917
[73]
Lars Lischke, Sven Mayer, Katrin Wolf, Niels Henze, Harald Reiterer, and Al-
brecht Schmidt. 2016. Screen arrangements and interaction areas for large
display work places. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM International Symposium
Documents in Your Hands
This is an author and pre-print version. The ocial publication can be found at https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3713518 — Project website: https://imld.de/ar- docs/
©2025 Copyright held by the authors. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
CHI ’25, April 26-May 1, 2025, Yokohama, Japan
on Pervasive Displays (Oulu, Finland) (PerDis ’16). Association for Computing
Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 228–234. doi:10.1145/2914920.2915027
[74]
Lee Lisle, Xiaoyu Chen, J. K. Edward Gitre, Chris North, and Doug A. Bowman.
2020. Evaluating the Benets of the Immersive Space to Think. In 2020 IEEE
Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces Abstracts and Workshops
(VRW). IEEE, Atlanta, GA, USA, 331–337. doi:10.1109/VRW50115.2020.00073
[75]
Lee Lisle, Kylie Davidson, Edward J.K. Gitre, Chris North, and Doug A. Bowman.
2021. Sensemaking Strategies with Immersive Space to Think. In 2021 IEEE
Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR). IEEE, 529–537. doi:10.1109/VR50410.
2021.00077
[76]
Jiazhou Liu, Barrett Ens, Arnaud Prouzeau, Jim Smiley, Isobel Kara Nixon, Sarah
Goodwin, and Tim Dwyer. 2023. DataDancing: An Exploration of the Design
Space For Visualisation View Management for 3D Surfaces and Spaces. In
Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
(Hamburg, Germany) (CHI ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New
York, NY, USA, Article 379, 17 pages. doi:10.1145/3544548.3580827
[77]
Jiazhou Liu, Arnaud Prouzeau, Barrett Ens, and Tim Dwyer. 2020. Design
and Evaluation of Interactive Small Multiples Data Visualisation in Immersive
Spaces. In 2020 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR).
IEEE, 588–597. doi:10.1109/VR46266.2020.00081
[78]
Jiazhou Liu, Arnaud Prouzeau, Barrett Ens, and Tim Dwyer. 2022. Eects of
Display Layout on Spatial Memory for Immersive Environments. Proc. ACM
Hum.-Comput. Interact. 6, ISS, Article 576 (nov 2022), 21 pages. doi:10.1145/
3567729
[79]
Jiazhou Liu, Kadek Ananta Satriadi, Barrett Ens, and Tim Dwyer.2024. Investigat-
ing the Eects of Physical Landmarks on Spatial Memory for Information Visual-
isation in Augmented Reality.In 2024 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and
Augmented Reality (ISMAR). IEEE, 289–298. doi:10.1109/ISMAR62088.2024.00043
[80]
Feiyu Lu and Yan Xu. 2022. Exploring Spatial UI Transition Mechanisms with
Head-Worn Augmented Reality. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems (New Orleans, LA, USA) (CHI ’22). Asso-
ciation for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 550, 16 pages.
doi:10.1145/3491102.3517723
[81]
Weizhou Luo, Anke Lehmann, Hjalmar Widengren, and Raimund Dachselt.
2022. Where Should We Put It? Layout and Placement Strategies of Documents
in Augmented Reality for Collaborative Sensemaking. In Proceedings of the 2022
CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New Orleans, LA, USA)
(CHI ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article
627, 16 pages. doi:10.1145/3491102.3501946
[82]
Weizhou Luo, Zhongyuan Yu, Rufat Rzayev, Marc Satkowski, Stefan Gumhold,
Matthew McGinity, and Raimund Dachselt. 2023. Pearl: Physical Environment
Based Augmented Reality Lenses for In-Situ Human Movement Analysis. In
Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
(Hamburg, Germany) (CHI ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New
York, NY, USA, Article 381, 15 pages. doi:10.1145/3544548.3580715
[83]
Blair MacIntyre, Elizabeth D. Mynatt, Stephen Voida, Klaus M. Hansen, Joe
Tullio, and Gregory M. Corso. 2001. Support for Multitasking and Background
Awareness Using Interactive Peripheral Displays. In Proceedings of the 14th
Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (Orlando,
Florida) (UIST ’01). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA,
41–50. doi:10.1145/502348.502355
[84]
Richard Mander, Gitta Salomon, and Yin Yin Wong. 1992. A “pile” Metaphor for
Supporting Casual Organization of Information. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Monterey, California, USA)
(CHI ’92). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 627–634.
doi:10.1145/142750.143055
[85]
Nicolai Marquardt, Nathalie Henry Riche, Christian Holz, Hugo Romat, Michel
Pahud, Frederik Brudy, David Ledo, Chunjong Park, Molly Jane Nicholas,
Teddy Seyed, Eyal Ofek, Bongshin Lee, William A.S. Buxton, and Ken Hinckley.
2021. AirConstellations: In-Air Device Formations for Cross-Device Interac-
tion via Multiple Spatially-Aware Armatures. In The 34th Annual ACM Sym-
posium on User Interface Software and Technology (Virtual Event, USA) (UIST
’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1252–1268.
doi:10.1145/3472749.3474820
[86]
Danica Mast, Alex Roidl, and Antti Jylha. 2023. Wizard of Oz Prototyping for
Interactive Spatial Augmented Reality in HCI Education: Experiences with Rapid
Prototyping for Interactive Spatial Augmented Reality. In Extended Abstracts
of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Hamburg,
Germany) (CHI EA ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY,
USA, Article 407, 10 pages. doi:10.1145/3544549.3573861
[87]
Fabrice Matulic, Wolfgang Büschel, Michael Ying Yang, Stephan Ihrke, Anmol
Ramraika, Carsten Rother, and Raimund Dachselt. 2016. Smart Ubiquitous
Projection: Discovering Surfaces for the Projection of Adaptive Content. In
Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in
Computing Systems (San Jose, California, USA) (CHI EA ’16). Association for
Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2592–2600. doi:10.1145/2851581.
2892545
[88]
Elisabeth Mayer, Francesco Chiossi, and Sven Mayer. 2024. Crossing Mixed
Realities: A Review for Transitional Interfaces Design. In Proceedings of Mensch
Und Computer 2024. ACM, Karlsruhe Germany, 629–634. doi:10.1145/3670653.
3677481
[89]
Daniel Medeiros, Mark McGill, Alexander Ng, Robert McDermid, Nadia Pantidi,
Julie Williamson, and Stephen Brewster. 2022. From Shielding to Avoidance:
Passenger Augmented Reality and the Layout of Virtual Displays for Productiv-
ity in Shared Transit. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics
28, 11 (2022), 3640–3650. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2022.3203002
[90]
Meredith Ringel Morris, Andreea Danielescu, Steven Drucker, Danyel Fisher,
Bongshin Lee, M.C. Schraefel, and Jacob O. Wobbrock. 2014. Reducing Legacy
Bias in Gesture Elicitation Studies. Interactions 21, 3 (May 2014), 40–45. doi:10.
1145/2591689
[91]
Aziz Niyazov, Barrett Ens, Kadek Ananta Satriadi, Nicolas Mellado, Loic Barthe,
Tim Dwyer, and Marcos Serrano. 2023. User-Driven Constraints for Layout
Optimisation in Augmented Reality. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference
on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’23). Association for Computing
Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–16. doi:10.1145/3544548.3580873
[92]
Benjamin Nuernberger, Eyal Ofek, Hrvoje Benko, and Andrew D. Wilson. 2016.
SnapToReality: Aligning Augmented Reality to the Real World. In Proceedings
of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (San Jose,
California, USA) (CHI ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York,
NY, USA, 1233–1244. doi:10.1145/2858036.2858250
[93]
Monsurat Olaosebikan, Claudia Aranda Barrios, Lenore Cowen, and Orit Shaer.
2022. Embodied Notes: A Cognitive Support Tool For Remote Scientic Col-
laboration in VR. In Extended Abstracts of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems (New Orleans, LA, USA) (CHI EA ’22). Associ-
ation for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 279, 6 pages.
doi:10.1145/3491101.3519664
[94]
Dale Patterson. 2007. 3D SPACE: using depth and movement for selection tasks.
In Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on 3D Web Technology
(Perugia, Italy) (Web3D ’07). Association for Computing Machinery, New York,
NY, USA, 147–155. doi:10.1145/1229390.1229416
[95]
Leonardo Pavanatto, Feiyu Lu, Chris North, and Doug A. Bowman. 2024. Multi-
ple Monitors or Single Canvas? Evaluating Window Management and Layout
Strategies on Virtual Displays. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer
Graphics (2024), 1–15. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2024.3368930
[96]
Siyou Pei, David Kim, Alex Olwal, Yang Zhang, and Ruofei Du. 2024. UI Mobility
Control in XR: Switching UI Positionings between Static, Dynamic, and Self
Entities. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI ’24). Association for Computing Machinery,
New York, NY, USA, Article 611, 12 pages. doi:10.1145/3613904.3642220
[97]
Xun Qian, Fengming He, Xiyun Hu, Tianyi Wang, Ananya Ipsita, and Karthik
Ramani. 2022. ScalAR: Authoring Semantically Adaptive Augmented Reality
Experiences in Virtual Reality. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems (New Orleans, LA, USA) (CHI ’22). As-
sociation for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 65, 18 pages.
doi:10.1145/3491102.3517665
[98]
Markus Rader, Clemens Holzmann, Enrico Rukzio, and Julian Seifert. 2013.
MobiZone: personalized interaction with multiple items on interactive surfaces.
In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous
Multimedia (Luleå, Sweden) (MUM ’13). Association for Computing Machinery,
New York, NY, USA, Article 8, 10 pages. doi:10.1145/2541831.2541836
[99]
Roman Rädle, Hans-Christian Jetter, Nicolai Marquardt, Harald Reiterer, and
Yvonne Rogers. 2014. HuddleLamp: Spatially-Aware Mobile Displays for Ad-hoc
Around-the-Table Collaboration. In Proceedings of the Ninth ACM International
Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces (Dresden, Germany) (ITS ’14).
Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 45–54. doi:10.1145/
2669485.2669500
[100]
Shwetha Rajaram, Chen Chen, Franziska Roesner, and Michael Nebeling.
2023. Eliciting Security & Privacy-Informed Sharing Techniques for Multi-
User Augmented Reality. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Hu-
man Factors in Computing Systems (Hamburg, Germany) (CHI ’23). Associ-
ation for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 98, 17 pages.
doi:10.1145/3544548.3581089
[101]
Jie Ren, Yueting Weng, Chengchi Zhou, Chun Yu, and Yuanchun Shi. 2020.
Understanding Window Management Interactions in AR Headset + Smartphone
Interface. In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI EA ’20). Association for Computing
Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–8. doi:10.1145/3334480.3382812
[102]
George Robertson, Mary Czerwinski, Kevin Larson, Daniel C. Robbins, David
Thiel, and Maarten van Dantzich. 1998. Data mountain: using spatial memory
for document management. In Proceedings of the 11th Annual ACM Symposium
on User Interface Software and Technology (San Francisco, California, USA)
(UIST ’98). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 153–162.
doi:10.1145/288392.288596
[103]
George Robertson, Maarten van Dantzich, Daniel Robbins, Mary Czerwinski,
Ken Hinckley, Kirsten Risden, David Thiel, and Vadim Gorokhovsky. 2000. The
CHI ’25, April 26-May 1, 2025, Yokohama, Japan
This is an author and pre-print version. The ocial publication can be found at https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3713518 — Project website: https://imld.de/ar- docs/
©2025 Copyright held by the authors. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Luo, et al.
Task Gallery: A 3D Window Manager. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference
on Human Factors in Computing Systems (The Hague, The Netherlands) (CHI ’00).
Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 494–501. doi:10.
1145/332040.332482
[104]
Daniel E. Rose, Richard Mander, Tim Oren, Dulce B. Poncéleon, Gitta Salomon,
and Yin Yin Wong. 1993. Content awareness in a le system interface: imple-
menting the “pile” metaphor for organizing information. In Proceedings of the
16th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in
Information Retrieval (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA) (SIGIR ’93). Association for
Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 260–269. doi:10.1145/160688.160735
[105]
Jaime Ruiz and Daniel Vogel. 2015. Soft-Constraints to Reduce Legacy and
Performance Bias to Elicit Whole-body Gestures with Low Arm Fatigue. In
Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Comput-
ing Systems (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (CHI ’15). Association for Computing
Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 3347–3350. doi:10.1145/2702123.2702583
[106]
Rufat Rzayev, Susanne Korbely, Milena Maul, Alina Schark, Valentin Schwind,
and Niels Henze. 2020. Eects of Position and Alignment of Notications on AR
Glasses during Social Interaction. In Proceedings of the 11th Nordic Conference
on Human-Computer Interaction: Shaping Experiences, Shaping Society (Tallinn,
Estonia) (NordiCHI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY,
USA, Article 30, 11 pages. doi:10.1145/3419249.3420095
[107]
Marc Satkowski, Rufat Rzayev,Eva Goebel, and Raimund Dachselt. 2022. ABOVE
& BELOW: Investigating Ceiling and Floor for Augmented Reality Content
Placement. In 2022 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented
Reality (ISMAR). IEEE, 518–527. doi:10.1109/ISMAR55827.2022.00068
[108]
Kadek Ananta Satriadi, Andrew Cunningham, Bruce H. Thomas, Adam Dro-
gemuller, Antoine Odi, Niki Patel, Cathlyn Aston, and Ross T. Smith. 2022. Aug-
mented Scale Models: Presenting Multivariate Data Around Physical Scale Mod-
els in Augmented Reality. In 2022 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and
Augmented Reality (ISMAR). IEEE, 54–63. doi:10.1109/ISMAR55827.2022.00019
[109]
Kadek Ananta Satriadi, Barrett Ens, Maxime Cordeil, Tobias Czauderna, and
Bernhard Jenny. 2020. Maps Around Me: 3D Multiview Layouts in Immersive
Spaces. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 4, ISS, Article 201 (nov 2020), 20 pages.
doi:10.1145/3427329
[110]
Abdul Rahman Shaikh, David Koop, Hamed Alhoori, and Maoyuan Sun. 2022.
Toward Systematic Design Considerations of Organizing Multiple Views. In
2022 IEEE Visualization and Visual Analytics (VIS). IEEE, 105–109. doi:10.1109/
VIS54862.2022.00030
[111]
Rongkai Shi, Jialin Zhang, Wolfgang Stuerzlinger, and Hai-Ning Liang. 2022.
Group-based Object Alignment in Virtual Reality Environments. In Proceedings
of the 2022 ACM Symposium on Spatial User Interaction (Online, CA, USA) (SUI
’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 2,
11 pages. doi:10.1145/3565970.3567682
[112]
Garth Shoemaker, Takayuki Tsukitani, Yoshifumi Kitamura, and Kellogg S.
Booth. 2010. Body-centric interaction techniques for very large wall displays. In
Proceedings of the 6th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Extend-
ing Boundaries (Reykjavik, Iceland) (NordiCHI ’10). Association for Computing
Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 463–472. doi:10.1145/1868914.1868967
[113]
Peng Song, Wooi Boon Goh, William Hutama, Chi-Wing Fu, and Xiaopei Liu.
2012. A handle bar metaphor for virtual object manipulation with mid-air inter-
action. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems (Austin, Texas, USA) (CHI ’12). Association for Computing Machinery,
New York, NY, USA, 1297–1306. doi:10.1145/2207676.2208585
[114]
Maximilian Speicher and Michael Nebeling. 2018. GestureWiz: A Human-
Powered Gesture Design Environment for User Interface Prototypes. In Pro-
ceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
(Montreal QC, Canada) (CHI ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New
York, NY, USA, 1–11. doi:10.1145/3173574.3173681
[115]
Becky Spittle, Maite Frutos-Pascual, Chris Creed, and Ian Williams. 2023.
A Review of Interaction Techniques for Immersive Environments. IEEE
Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 29, 9 (2023), 3900–3921.
doi:10.1109/TVCG.2022.3174805
[116]
Ryo Suzuki, Rubaiat Habib Kazi, Li-yi Wei, Stephen DiVerdi, Wilmot Li, and
Daniel Leithinger. 2020. RealitySketch: Embedding Responsive Graphics and
Visualizations in AR through Dynamic Sketching. In Proceedings of the 33rd
Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (Virtual
Event, USA) (UIST ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY,
USA, 166–181. doi:10.1145/3379337.3415892
[117]
Ibrahim A. Tahmid, Lee Lisle, Kylie Davidson, Chris North, and Doug A. Bowman.
2022. Evaluating the Benets of Explicit and Semi-Automated Clusters for
Immersive Sensemaking. In 2022 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and
Augmented Reality (ISMAR). IEEE, 479–488. doi:10.1109/ISMAR55827.2022.00064
[118]
Lucia Terrenghi, David Kirk, Abigail Sellen, and Shahram Izadi. 2007. Aor-
dances for manipulation of physical versus digital media on interactive surfaces.
In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
(San Jose, California, USA) (CHI ’07). Association for Computing Machinery,
New York, NY, USA, 1157–1166. doi:10.1145/1240624.1240799
[119]
Antonio Emmanuele Uva, Michele Fiorentino, Vito Modesto Manghisi, Antonio
Boccaccio, Saverio Debernardis, Michele Gattullo, and Giuseppe Monno. 2019.
A User-Centered Framework for Designing Midair Gesture Interfaces. IEEE
Transactions on Human-Machine Systems 49, 5 (2019), 421–429. doi:10.1109/
THMS.2019.2919719
[120]
Julie Wagner, Mathieu Nancel, Sean G. Gustafson, Stephane Huot, and Wendy E.
Mackay. 2013. Body-centric design space for multi-surface interaction. In Pro-
ceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Paris,
France) (CHI ’13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA,
1299–1308. doi:10.1145/2470654.2466170
[121]
Manuela Waldner, Raphael Grasset, Markus Steinberger, and Dieter Schmal-
stieg. 2011. Display-adaptive window management for irregular surfaces. In
Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Interactive Tabletops and
Surfaces (Kobe, Japan) (ITS ’11). Association for Computing Machinery, New
York, NY, USA, 222–231. doi:10.1145/2076354.2076394
[122]
Tingjie Wan, Liangyuting Zhang, Hongyu Yang, Pourang Irani, Lingyun Yu,
and Hai-Ning Liang. 2024. Exploration of Foot-based Text Entry Techniques
for Virtual Reality Environments. In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI ’24). Association
for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 940, 17 pages. doi:10.
1145/3613904.3642757
[123]
Andrew Warr, Ed H. Chi, Helen Harris, Alexander Kuscher, Jenn Chen, Robert
Flack, and Nicholas Jitko. 2016. Window Shopping: A Study of Desktop
Window Switching. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors
in Computing Systems (San Jose, California, USA) (CHI ’16). Association for
Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 3335–3338. doi:10.1145/2858036.
2858526
[124]
Nayuko Watanabe, Motoi Washida, and Takeo Igarashi. 2007. Bubble clusters:
an interface for manipulating spatial aggregation of graphical objects. In Pro-
ceedings of the 20th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and
Technology (Newport, Rhode Island, USA) (UIST ’07). Association for Computing
Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 173–182. doi:10.1145/1294211.1294241
[125]
John Wenskovitch and Chris North. 2021. An Examination of Grouping and
Spatial Organization Tasks for High-Dimensional Data Exploration. IEEE
Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 27, 2 (2021), 1742–1752.
doi:10.1109/TVCG.2020.3028890
[126]
Daniel Wigdor, Hrvoje Benko, John Pella, Jarrod Lombardo, and Sarah Williams.
2011. Rock & rails: extending multi-touch interactions with shape gestures to
enable precise spatial manipulations. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference
on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Vancouver, BC, Canada) (CHI ’11).
Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1581–1590. doi:10.
1145/1978942.1979173
[127]
Wesley Willett, Yvonne Jansen, and Pierre Dragicevic. 2017. Embedded Data
Representations. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 23,
1 (2017), 461–470. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2016.2598608
[128]
Andrew D. Wilson, Shahram Izadi, Otmar Hilliges, Armando Garcia-Mendoza,
and David Kirk. 2008. Bringing physics to the surface. In Proceedings of the 21st
Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (Monterey,
CA, USA) (UIST ’08). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY,
USA, 67–76. doi:10.1145/1449715.1449728
[129]
Paweł Wozniak, Nitesh Goyal, Przemysław Kucharski, Lars Lischke,Sven Mayer,
and Morten Fjeld. 2016. RAMPARTS: Supporting Sensemaking with Spatially-
Aware Mobile Interactions. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems (San Jose, California, USA) (CHI ’16). Association
for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2447–2460. doi:10.1145/2858036.
2858491
[130]
Robert Xiao, Julia Schwarz, Nick Throm, Andrew D. Wilson, and Hrvoje Benko.
2018. MRTouch: Adding Touch Input to Head-Mounted Mixed Reality. IEEE
Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 24, 4 (2018), 1653–1660.
doi:10.1109/TVCG.2018.2794222
[131]
Yukang Yan, Chun Yu, Xiaojuan Ma, Shuai Huang, Hasan Iqbal, and Yuanchun
Shi. 2018. Eyes-Free Target Acquisition in Interaction Space around the Body for
Virtual Reality. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems (Montreal QC, Canada) (CHI ’18). Association for Computing
Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–13. doi:10.1145/3173574.3173616
[132]
Ying Yang, Tim Dwyer, Michael Wybrow, Benjamin Lee, Maxime Cordeil, Mark
Billinghurst, and Bruce H. Thomas. 2022. Towards Immersive Collaborative
Sensemaking. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 6, ISS, Article 588 (nov 2022),
25 pages. doi:10.1145/3567741
[133]
Ye Yuan, Nathalie Riche, Nicolai Marquardt, Molly Jane Nicholas, Teddy Seyed,
Hugo Romat, Bongshin Lee, Michel Pahud, Jonathan Goldstein, Rojin Vishkaie,
Christian Holz, and Ken Hinckley. 2022. Understanding Multi-Device Usage
Patterns: Physical Device Congurations and Fragmented Workows. In Pro-
ceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
(New Orleans, LA, USA) (CHI ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New
York, NY, USA, Article 64, 22 pages. doi:10.1145/3491102.3517702
Documents in Your Hands
This is an author and pre-print version. The ocial publication can be found at https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3713518 — Project website: https://imld.de/ar- docs/
©2025 Copyright held by the authors. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
CHI ’25, April 26-May 1, 2025, Yokohama, Japan
[134]
Johannes Zagermann, Sebastian Hubenschmid, Priscilla Balestrucci, Tiare
Feuchtner, Sven Mayer, Marc O. Ernst, Albrecht Schmidt, and Harald Reit-
erer. 2022. Complementary Interfaces for Visual Computing. it - Information
Technology 64, 4-5 (Aug. 2022), 145–154. doi:10.1515/itit-2022- 0031
[135]
Johannes Zagermann, Ulrike Pfeil, Roman Rädle, Hans-Christian Jetter, Clemens
Klokmose, and Harald Reiterer. 2016. When Tablets meet Tabletops: The Eect
of Tabletop Size on Around-the-Table Collaboration with Personal Tablets. In
Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
(San Jose, California, USA) (CHI ’16). Association for Computing Machinery,
New York, NY, USA, 5470–5481. doi:10.1145/2858036.2858224
[136]
Johannes Zagermann, Ulrike Pfeil, Philipp von Bauer, Daniel Fink, and Har-
ald Reiterer. 2020. "It’s in my other hand!" – Studying the Interplay of In-
teraction Techniques and Multi-Tablet Activities. In Proceedings of the 2020
CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA)
(CHI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–13.
doi:10.1145/3313831.3376540
A Appendix
CHI ’25, April 26-May 1, 2025, Yokohama, Japan
This is an author and pre-print version. The ocial publication can be found at https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3713518 — Project website: https://imld.de/ar- docs/
©2025 Copyright held by the authors. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Luo, et al.
Figure A1: Overview of the major observed interactions in this paper.
