Developing the Spatial Computing Evaluation Framework: A Holistic Approach to Evaluate the User Experience in Mixed and Augmented Reality Katja Pott University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland FHNW, Institute of Interactive Technologies Windisch, Switzerland katja.pott@fhnw.ch Anton Fedosov University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland FHNW, Institute of Interactive Technologies Windisch, Switzerland anton.fedosov@fhnw.ch Doris Agotai University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland FHNW, Institute of Interactive Technologies Windisch, Switzerland doris.agotai@fhnw.ch Figure 1: The four dimensions of the Spatial Computing Evaluation Framework (SCEF) based on 4E Cognition theory with the key constituting elements and illustrative characteristics for each. Abstract The rapid technological advancements in Location-based Services, Augmented and Mixed Reality, Wearable Computing, and Sensor technologies paved the way for the new paradigm known as Spatial Computing. To date, little work has focused on user experience (UX) design and evaluation for Spatial Computing applications despite the emergent need for guidance and references for UX researchers and designers. We aim to address this gap by proposing the Spatial Computing Evaluation Framework based on a literature review and an initial empirical user study. Grounded in 4E Cognition theory, we unpack its Embodied, Enacted, Embedded, and Extended di- mensions relevant to UX in Spatial Computing, emphasizing the interconnectedness of the digital, physical, and social environment. The framework can be seen as a valuable instrument for UX design and evaluation of Spatial Computing applications. CCS Concepts • Human-centered computing → User studies; HCI theory, concepts and models;Mixed / augmented reality. Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the owner/author(s). Mensch und Computer 2025 – Workshopband, Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V., 31. August - 03. September 2025, Chemnitz, Germany © 2025 Copyright held by the owner/author(s). Publication rights licensed to GI. https://doi.org/10.18420/muc2025-mci-wip-321 Keywords Spatial Computing, User Experience, Evaluation, User Studies, 4E Cognition 1 Introduction Spatial Computing extends reality through virtual worlds by en- abling the digital representation of the physical world, either visu- ally through Augmented Reality or implicitly through computation [11, 22]. The extension of the physical environment with digital content creates a conceptual space allowing interaction with spatial affordances [11, 13]. Spatial Computing is an emergent field with a large growth potential as its market size was estimated at USD 97.9 billion in 2023 with anticipated growth to USD 280.5 billion by 2028 [75]. Even though prior research has extensively looked at designing and developing user interactions and interfaces in Augmented and Virtual Reality (e.g., [40]), and conferences, like ACM CHI, ACM SUI, IEEE ISMAR, and IEEE VR, often feature related works, recent research still outlines existing gaps regarding understanding user experience (UX) in Spatial Computing, pointing out the lack of and incoherence in methodology for evaluating UX in Spatial Comput- ing [1, 7, 75]. Most notably, Xu et al. [75] in their SIG on Spatial Computing at CHI’24 explicitly highlighted the gap in HCI research on Spatial Computing around UX and interaction aspects, specifi- cally when it comes to considering a socio-technical perspective. https://orcid.org/0009-0005-2725-5040 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1604-2419 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1404-443X https://doi.org/10.18420/muc2025-mci-wip-321 MuC’25, 31. August - 03. September 2025, Chemnitz, Germany K. Pott et al. Consequently, designers and researchers need references and tools to design as well evaluate the new applications in Spatial Computing [75]. General-purpose UX evaluation questionnaires, e.g., SUS [33], NASA-TLX [23], UEQ [39], or AttrakDiff [24], assess perceived usability, workload, efficiency, and attractiveness of inter- active systems but do not account for crucial factors in Spatial Com- puting, such as embodied interaction, digital-physical integration, and spatial immersion — core characteristics of Spatial Computing [53, 62]. Notably, Pott and Agotai [57] conducted a literature review to identify relevant aspects pertinent to the user experience in Spa- tial Computing. Building on their work, we enhanced and extended their findings by first analysing them through the lens of 4E Cog- nition theory from cognitive psychology (i.e. top-down approach). We then reviewed and refined our findings through an empirical user study with nine lay participants (i.e. bottom-up approach). In this work, we propose the Spatial Computing Evaluation Framework (SCEF), which can be seen as a translational resource [10] to trans- fer knowledge from research for the benefit of UX practitioners. With this framework, we aim to provide novel considerations in the design of Spatial Computing applications and offer a practical instrument for UX evaluation. 2 Background Spatial Computing encompasses various technologies such as Aug- mented and Mixed Reality, Ambient Sensing, Spatial Audio, Com- puter Vision, and Advanced Location-based Services. These tech- nologies, especially when combined allow, the seamless combina- tion of the physical and digital space [4, 6, 11, 19]. Spatial Computing differs from Extended Reality as it emphasizes the tight coupling of the digital and physical environment [19]. Therefore, fully im- mersive experiences are typically not considered within Spatial Computing. In 2003, Greenwold [22] defined Spatial Computing as “human interactionwith amachine that manipulates referents to real objects and spaces,” emphasizing that digital content must meaningfully relate to the physical space. More recently, Balakrishnan et al. [4] added that in Spatial Computing, the digital content must be per- ceptible through the technology in order to enable users to interact with it and advocated for effective 3D UX design that unlocks the potential of Spatial Computing by integrating body gestures, eye or voice controls. However, it should also be considered that Spa- tial Computing not only changes the technical aspects of a space (e.g., by introducing digital content in physical space) but also the place that defines the user’s perspective, taking into account their subjective and personal background[13]. To fully grasp the implications of Spatial Computing, it is crucial to understand how cognition operates within this context. Rather than existing in isolation, cognition emerges from the dynamic interaction between the brain, body, physical space, and social con- text [50]. The theory of 4E Cognition [51] aligns well with this perspective, encompassing four dimensions that resonate strongly with Spatial Computing: (1) Embodied: Spatial Computing relies on body movements, gestures, and eye tracking; (2) Embedded: Interactions take place within a dynamic physical-digital space, integrating real-world context. (3) Enacted: Users create meaning through interactions with digital and physical elements; and (4) Extended: External devices (e.g., AR/VR headsets, ambient sensors) become part of the cognitive process. 4E Cognition integrates con- cepts from several key HCI theories such as Situated Action [66], which posits that user actions are context-dependent and adaptive, Distributed Cognition [5], which views cognition as distributed across individuals, tools, and the environment, and Embodied In- teraction [14], which emphasizes the role of physical interaction in digital spaces. This marks our salient motivation for employing 4E Cognition in our research. 3 Spatial Computing Evaluation Framework - the Four Dimensions of Cognition Responding to the recent calls in the literature to explore the aspects of user experience in Spatial Computing [57], we developed the SCEF, a resource for UX practitioners to design and evaluate Spatial Computing applications. Grounded in 4E Cognition theory, the SCEF includes descriptive elements and reflective questions. To support its dissemination, we also created a Miro template with an example of its use 1. 3.1 Development of the Framework At the inception, we analyzed Pott andAgotai’s findings [57] through the lens of 4E Cognition (Embodied, Embedded, Enacted, and Ex- tended) [51, 54] using a top-down analytical approach, interrogating their concept of Situatedness, which consists of five dimensions, while retaining key points from their work: (1) Place: Perception of the user, Previous knowledge, Emotions, Interpretation; (2) Space: Physical space, Digital content; (3) Community: People present or absent in the physical or remote environment; (4) Activity: Actions of the user, Goals of the user, Attitude; and (5) Time: Temporal flow, History. We choose this concept, as it interweaves with key HCI theories pertinent to Spatial Computing, such as Situated Action [66], Embodied Interaction [14], and Distributed Cognition [5] and emphasizes the contextual interaction between users and their en- vironments. This approach allowed us to critically examine how the elements of Situatedness align with the cognitive processes that underpin user interaction in Spatial Computing. To complement this, we conducted an empirical study with nine participants (3 were women) with limited AR experience, from backgrounds in languages, 3D modeling, or computer sci- ence. We employed an exploratory bottom-up approach to identify key UX dimensions in Spatial Computing and integrated a vali- dated AR app [63] simulating a radio-pharmaceutical laboratory process on an Apple Vision Pro headset. We specifically chose the radio-pharmaceutical AR task from [63] because it requires users to manipulate physical objects (e.g., syringes and vials) while in- terpreting spatially separated AR instructions, engaging Embodied Cognition through real-world interaction. Furthermore, their struc- tured workspace setup and step-by-step procedural nature of a task align with Embedded, Enacted, and Extended Cognition, as users must actively integrate AR cues with physical actions, construct spatial mental models, and rely on AR as an external cognitive aid to reduce memory load and enhance task accuracy. In order to further explore relevant aspects of user experience in Spatial Computing, 1https://miro.com/miroverse/spatial-computing-evalution-framework/ https://miro.com/miroverse/spatial-computing-evalution-framework/ Developing the Spatial Computing Evaluation Framework MuC’25, 31. August - 03. September 2025, Chemnitz, Germany we created think-aloud protocols, transcribed user interviews, and conducted an affinity analysis [29]. From our user study and our analysis of Pott and Agotai’s [57] findings, we created thematic clusters, visualized their relationships, and mapped them to the 4E Cognition theory. In what follows, we describe each cluster with its constituent characteristics, offer our analytical deductions, and support them with quotes from participants in our empirical study. 3.2 Embodied Dimension to Characterise User’s Perception In the 4E Cognition theory the Embodied dimension considers cog- nition not just a mental process, but involves the body and the mind and the interaction between the two [9, 50]. The SCEF accounts for this viewpoint with the elements of Perception, Interpretation, Behaviour and Mental Model as illustrated in Table 1. All of those elements are concerned with the User’s Perception of the experi- ence. Embodied Elements Characteristics Reflective Questions Perception e.g., Emotions How is the perception of the digital content in the physical space? Which emotions are visible? Interpretation e.g., Expectations How is the interpretation of the content? Which expec- tations does the user have? Does this align with their ex- perience? Behaviour e.g., Attitude Which behaviour results from the interpretation? How is the personal attitude? Mental Model e.g., Previous Knowledge Which prior knowledge char- acterises the mental model? Table 1: Elements, Characteristics and Reflective Questions of Embodied Dimension from the SCEF Perception in Spatial Computing is influenced by a number of factors, such as the lighting conditions or the representation of the digital content [12, 18, 35, 68, 72, 73]. It can evoke a variety of emotions, such as feelings of joy, surprise, intrusion, or frustration, which in turn have an impact on target usability (e.g., memorabil- ity) and user experience goals (e.g., empathy) [27, 34, 46, 65, 77]. Embedding digital content into the physical environment changes the meaning of space and therefore affects the user’s interpretation and behaviour [31, 32, 34, 44, 45, 64]. The user’s mental model and preconceptions must also be taken into account, as they influence the interpretation of a situation, which in turn influences the user’s behaviour [60, 62]. This was also corroborated in our user study, where counting behaviour of our participants differed according to their prior knowledge, as in the case of P9: "I would have identified this opening as the second one because I would have started counting here and not here. But from the digital model, it should be this opening, the one next to it." 3.3 Embedded Dimension to Characterise the Spatial Environment According to 4E Cognition theory the dimension of Embedded con- siders cognition not in isolation from context, but as influenced and shaped by it [9, 50]. The SCEF considers this viewpoint with the sup- porting elements of Physical Space, Digital Space, Arrangement and Structure of Elements as illustrated in Table 2. All of those elements are concerned with the Spatial Environment of the experience. Embedded Elements Characteristics Reflective Questions Physical Space e.g., History of Place What is the connection to physical space? Which his- tory does the physical space have? What narratives could be build around it? Digital Space e.g., Spatial Link of Objects How are the digital objects linked to the physical space? Which anchor points do the digital elements have? Arrangement e.g., Orientation Anchors How is the arrangement of the elements in the digi- tal and physical space? Are there elements which serve as points of orientation? Structure of Elements e.g., Spatial Men- tal Model How is the structure of the (physical/digital) elements? Does the structure corre- spond to the user’s spatial mental model? Table 2: Elements, Characteristics and Reflective Questions of Embedded Dimension from the SCEF Rather than viewing the physical space as simply the container of elements, it’s about the cultural interactions that shape our per- ceptions of a place, which are made up of the physical, digital and social context [16]. It is necessary to consider how the digital content is embedded in the physical space [16, 41, 67, 74], as it is through this relationship that the user could gain meaning between the two [25, 26, 47–49, 53, 73]. Digital objects can be anchored differently in relation to their characteristics and those of the en- vironment [53, 61]. Depending on how the elements are arranged, the ergonomics (e.g., body posture) or cognitive mental load can increase or decrease. During the user study, this became apparent when one of our participants placed the instructions too far away from the desk: "For comparison, it would have been even better if I had moved the image, then I would have seen it directly in front of me, so then the comparison would have been even more direct" (P8). Furthermore, the structure of the elements plays an important role in the creation of spatial mental model, influencing presence or mental load [58, 69, 78]. In the user study, the instructions did not correspond to the user’s spatial mental model, either in the digital model or in the natural language guidance: "It says ‘turn the 2nd 3rd 4th and 5th valve’ . . . aaaah from the right, ok got it. So I thought that was from the other side"(P7). MuC’25, 31. August - 03. September 2025, Chemnitz, Germany K. Pott et al. 3.4 Enacted Dimension to Determine Users’ Activities According to 4E Cognition theory the Enacted dimension explains that cognition is not passive but an active process in which the user interacts with the environment and other people, resulting in cognition through the actions and behaviour [9, 50]. The SCEF con- siders this viewpoint with the elements of Interaction, Community and Feedback Loop as illustrated in Table 3. All of those elements are concerned with the Activities of the experience. Enacted Elements Characteristics Reflective Questions Interaction e.g., Arte- fact/Environment What interactions are af- forded with the artefact and the environment? Community e.g., Present/Absent People Which people or digital agents are relevant in the process? Who is present or absent? How is the interac- tion with these people? Feedback Loop e.g., Behavioural Patterns How is the feedback loop from the interaction to the perception? How does the in- teraction change the percep- tion? Table 3: Elements, Characteristics and Reflective Questions of Enacted Dimension from the SCEF Spatial memory, creativity and information recall can be en- hanced by interaction with the artefact [15, 38, 43]. However, it also shows that the interaction can be tiring, leading to ergonomic problems, or it can be distracting, leading to information tunneling [2, 3, 21, 30, 52, 59, 71]. Interaction can also occur with the physical environment or community inhabiting the space, affecting social interactions, social learning or presence [34, 36, 62, 74]. The ex- perience can be influenced by those who are present as well as those who are not, as in the case of asynchronous AR [8, 70], and by digital connections that can influence the style and quality of communication [25, 28, 56, 76]. Interaction affects how future steps are perceived, creating a feedback loop with the embodied dimen- sion. In the user study, the feedback loop between interaction and perception became visible in the reading behaviour, which became less over time, as in the case of P3: "but once I understood what the structure of the text was, how it would probably work, I didn’t actually read much more [but mostly looked at the 3D model.]" 3.5 Extended Dimension to Consider Additional Elements According to 4E Cognition theory the Extended dimension describes that external elements outside the boundaries of the mind can also be an essential part of cognition, such as objects, tools or other people [9, 50]. The SCEF considers this viewpoint with the elements of Tools, Objects and Stakeholders as illustrated in Table 4. All of those elements are concerned with Additional Elements of the experience. Extended Elements Characteristics Reflective Questions Tools e.g., Present/Absent Tools Which tools are available in the environment? Which tools are substituted by be- haviour of the user? Objects e.g., Provided In- formation Which objects are used? Which information is pro- vided or missing for the objects? Stakeholders e.g., Support Are there people who provide support? Which support is provided? Table 4: Elements, Characteristics and Reflective Questions of Extended Dimension from the SCEF Spatial Computing has the potential to enhance extended cogni- tion by reducing the mental load of certain tasks, allowing for the transfer of cognitive processes to an alternative medium [26, 27, 48] as for example the use of visual instructions overlaid on a device instead of textual information on paper [63]. Analysing which ob- jects are used in cases of doubt or uncertainty can yield interesting results. For example in our user study where people misinterpreted the text and only understood the instructions with the help of the digital model as P8: "And sometimes I started off wrong, [. . . ] then I looked at the picture . . . oh no, that’s the [wrong] one". Some partici- pants also mentioned that some information was missing, leading to uncertainty: "The connections could be visualised even better at the end. ‘This is how it should look now’, [. . . ] then I would have been sure [that I have done it right] (P3). When it comes to support, if there were any technical problems, the participants asked the moderator for help: "I see that I obviously made a mistake earlier. Can’t go back, can I?"(P4). 4 Discussion and Conclusion The SCEF’s cognition-centred structure, which integrates bodily in- teraction, environmental context and social presence, distinguishes it from general-purpose tools (e.g., SUS [33] and UEQ [39]), as well as AR-specific scales (e.g., HARUS [59] and ARI [20]) or question- naires addressing specific issues in virtual environments (e.g., IPQ Presence [62] or Simulator Sickness Questionnaire [37]). By ad- dressing how spatial and temporal contexts shape user perception and behaviour, the SCEF provides designers and researchers with a valuable resource for deriving heuristics and informing UX de- sign in Spatial Computing. A design template and an evaluation example (see Supplementary Materials) demonstrate its practical application. While the SCEF offers broad applicability, its dimensions may not fully address bespoke UX goals. As a living artefact based on related work and a small-scale empirical study, the SCEF provides a finite set of considerations but does not capture all possible factors influencing UX in Spatial Computing. We envision its use along- side other methods: expert reviews and heuristic evaluations [55] to refine its elements to better align with specific goals; qualita- tive interviews or think-aloud protocols [17] to provide deeper insights into user reasoning. In addition, incorporating cognitive Developing the Spatial Computing Evaluation Framework MuC’25, 31. August - 03. September 2025, Chemnitz, Germany walkthroughs [42] during the development process can help iden- tify specific usability issues in early phases. In a qualitative user evaluation study, a UX designer can employ SCEF as a lens during think-aloud sessions and post-task inter- views, walking through its four dimensions. The Miro template, available online via https://miro.com/miroverse/spatial-computing- evalution-framework/, facilitates organised note-taking across the Embodied, Embedded, Enacted, and Extended dimensions, enabling designers to flag usability issues during an evaluation session. We successfully field-tested this approach in an industry pilot, where the SCEF helped identify discrepancies between digital content placement and users’ spatial expectations. The UX team then used these observations to refine interface anchoring and task flow. How- ever, further validation with real users is needed, as there are still outstanding questions regarding its usefulness and comprehensibil- ity among both novice and seasoned UX practitioners working with Spatial Computing. We anticipate that wider dissemination of the SCEF will encourage further adoption while allowing us to gather valuable feedback for continuous improvement. In future work, we aim to transform the qualitative framework into a quantitative questionnaire, which could assess users’ subjective experiences with Spatial Computing applications, complementing the SCEF. With the development of the SCEF we bridge the gap between Spatial Computing research and UX practice and contribute to the body of knowledge in this emergent area. We envision that it will spark relevant discussions on further improvements and on how to support designers and developers in creating compelling and meaningful user experiences with Spatial Computing applications. Acknowledgements The authors thank the study participants for their contributions and the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions. References [1] Dmitry Alexandrovsky, Susanne Putze, Valentin Schwind, Elisa D. Mekler, Jan David Smeddinck, Denise Kahl, Antonio Krüger, and Rainer Malaka. 2021. Evaluating User Experiences in Mixed Reality. In Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–5. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3411763.3441337 [2] Susanna Aromaa, Antti Väätänen, Iina Aaltonen, Vladimir Goriachev, Kaj Helin, and Jaakko Karjalainen. 2020. Awareness of the Real-World Environment When Using Augmented Reality Head-Mounted Display. Applied Ergonomics 88 (2020), 103145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2020.103145 [3] Susanna Aromaa, Antti Väätänen, Eija Kaasinen, Mikael Uimonen, and Sanni Siltanen. 2018. Human Factors and Ergonomics Evaluation of a Tablet Based Augmented Reality System in Maintenance Work. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Academic Mindtrek Conference. 118–125. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3275116.3275125 [4] S. Balakrishnan, M.Syed Shahul Hameed, K Venkatesan, and G Aswin. 2021. Interaction of Spatial Computing In Augmented Reality. In 2021 7th International Conference on Advanced Computing and Communication Systems (ICACCS), Vol. 1. 1900–1904. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICACCS51430.2021.9442010 [5] Eric P. S. Baumer and Bill Tomlinson. 2011. Comparing Activity Theory with Distributed Cognition for Video Analysis: Beyond “Kicking the Tires”. In Proceed- ings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 133–142. https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1978962 [6] David Benyon. 2022. Spaces of Interaction, Places for Experience. Springer Nature. [7] Ingo Börsting, Markus Heikamp, Marc Hesenius, Wilhelm Koop, and Volker Gruhn. 2022. Software Engineering for Augmented Reality—A Research Agenda. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6, EICS (2022), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1145/3532205 [8] Hyunwoo Cho, Bowen Yuan, Jonathon Derek Hart, Eunhee Chang, Zhuang Chang, Jiashuo Cao, Gun A. Lee, Thammathip Piumsomboon, and Mark Billinghurst. 2023. An Asynchronous Hybrid Cross Reality Collaborative Sys- tem. In 2023 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Real- ity Adjunct (ISMAR-Adjunct). IEEE, 70–73. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISMAR- Adjunct60411.2023.00022 [9] Oliver Christ, Michel Sambasivam, Annalena Roos, and Carmen Zahn. 2022. Learning in Immersive Virtual Reality: How Does the 4E Cognition Approach Fit in Virtual Didactic Settings?. In Human Interaction, Emerging Technologies and Future Systems V. Springer, 790–796. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85540- 6_100 [10] Lucas Colusso, Cynthia L. Bennett, Gary Hsieh, and Sean A. Munson. 2017. Translational Resources: Reducing the Gap Between Academic Research and HCI Practice. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems. 957–968. https://doi.org/10.1145/3064663.3064667 [11] Jeffrey Delmerico, Roi Poranne, Federica Bogo, Helen Oleynikova, Eric Vollen- weider, Stelian Coros, Juan Nieto, and Marc Pollefeys. 2022. Spatial Computing and Intuitive Interaction: Bringing Mixed Reality and Robotics Together. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine 29, 1 (2022), 45–57. https://doi.org/10.1109/ MRA.2021.3138384 [12] Tiffany D. Do, Joseph J. LaViola, and Ryan P. McMahan. 2020. The Effects of Object Shape, Fidelity, Color, and Luminance on Depth Perception in Handheld Mobile Augmented Reality. In 2020 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR). IEEE, 64–72. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISMAR50242. 2020.00026 [13] Mario Doulis, Doris Agotai, and Hans Peter Wyss. 2009. Spatial Interface Wahrnehmungsfelder und Gestaltungsansätze im Virtuellen Raum. In Virtuelle Welten als Basistechnologie für Kunst und Kultur? 55. [14] Paul Dourish. 2001. Where the Action Is: The Foundations of Embodied Interaction. MIT Press. [15] Daniele Duranti, Davide Spallazzo, and Daniela Petrelli. 2024. Smart Objects and Replicas: A Survey of Tangible and Embodied Interactions in Museums and Cultural Heritage Sites. ACM Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage 17, 1 (2024), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1145/3631132 [16] Patrick Tobias Fischer and Eva Hornecker. 2012. Urban HCI: Spatial Aspects in the Design of Shared Encounters for Media Facades. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 307–316. https: //doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2207719 [17] Uwe Flick. 2022. An Introduction to Qualitative Research. Sage Publications. [18] Joseph L. Gabbard, J. Edward Swan, and Deborah Hix. 2006. The Effects of Text Drawing Styles, Background Textures, and Natural Lighting on Text Legibility in Outdoor Augmented Reality. Presence 15, 1 (2006), 16–32. https://doi.org/10. 1162/pres.15.1.16 [19] Dweepna Garg, Bhavika Patel, Radhika Patel, and Ritika Jani. 2023. Spatial Computing: Next Big Thing of Physical and Digital World. In ICDSMLA 2021: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Data Science, Machine Learning and Applications. Springer, 211–219. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5936- 3_20 [20] Yiannis Georgiou and Eleni A. Kyza. 2017. The Development and Validation of the ARI Questionnaire: An Instrument for Measuring Immersion in Location-Based Augmented Reality Settings. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 98 (2017), 24–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2016.09.014 [21] Jerônimo Gustavo Grandi, Henrique Galvan Debarba, Luciana Nedel, and An- derson Maciel. 2017. Design and Evaluation of a Handheld-Based 3D User Interface for Collaborative Object Manipulation. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 5881–5891. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025935 [22] Simon Greenwold. 2003. Spatial Computing. Master’s thesis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. [23] Sandra G. Hart and Lowell E. Staveland. 1988. Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research. In Advances in Psychology. Vol. 52. Elsevier, 139–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(08) 62386-9 [24] Marc Hassenzahl, Michael Burmester, and Franz Koller. 2003. AttrakDiff: Ein Fragebogen zur Messung Wahrgenommener Hedonischer und Pragmatischer Qualität. In Mensch & Computer 2003: Interaktion in Bewegung. Springer, 187–196. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-80058-9_19 [25] Jeffrey Heer and Maneesh Agrawala. 2007. Design Considerations for Collabora- tive Visual Analytics. In 2007 IEEE Symposium on Visual Analytics Science and Technology. IEEE, 171–178. https://doi.org/10.1109/VAST.2007.4389011 [26] Jonas Heller, Mathew Chylinski, Ko de Ruyter, Dominik Mahr, and Debbie I. Keeling. 2019. Let Me Imagine That for You: Transforming the Retail Frontline Through Augmenting Customer Mental Imagery Ability. Journal of Retailing 95, 2 (2019), 94–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2019.03.005 [27] Tim Hilken, Ko De Ruyter, Mathew Chylinski, Dominik Mahr, and Debbie I. Keeling. 2017. Augmenting the Eye of the Beholder: Exploring the Strategic Potential of Augmented Reality to Enhance Online Service Experiences. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 45 (2017), 884–905. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11747-017-0541-x https://miro.com/miroverse/spatial-computing-evalution-framework/ https://miro.com/miroverse/spatial-computing-evalution-framework/ https://doi.org/10.1145/3411763.3441337 https://doi.org/10.1145/3411763.3441337 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2020.103145 https://doi.org/10.1145/3275116.3275125 https://doi.org/10.1145/3275116.3275125 https://doi.org/10.1109/ICACCS51430.2021.9442010 https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1978962 https://doi.org/10.1145/3532205 https://doi.org/10.1109/ISMAR-Adjunct60411.2023.00022 https://doi.org/10.1109/ISMAR-Adjunct60411.2023.00022 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85540-6_100 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85540-6_100 https://doi.org/10.1145/3064663.3064667 https://doi.org/10.1109/MRA.2021.3138384 https://doi.org/10.1109/MRA.2021.3138384 https://doi.org/10.1109/ISMAR50242.2020.00026 https://doi.org/10.1109/ISMAR50242.2020.00026 https://doi.org/10.1145/3631132 https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2207719 https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2207719 https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.15.1.16 https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.15.1.16 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5936-3_20 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5936-3_20 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2016.09.014 https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025935 https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025935 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62386-9 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62386-9 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-80058-9_19 https://doi.org/10.1109/VAST.2007.4389011 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2019.03.005 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-017-0541-x https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-017-0541-x MuC’25, 31. August - 03. September 2025, Chemnitz, Germany K. Pott et al. [28] Tim Hilken, Debbie I. Keeling, Ko de Ruyter, Dominik Mahr, and Mathew Chylin- ski. 2020. Seeing Eye to Eye: Social Augmented Reality and Shared Decision Making in the Marketplace. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 48 (2020), 143–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-019-00688-0 [29] Karen Holtzblatt, Jessamyn Burns Wendell, and Shelley Wood. 2004. Rapid Contextual Design: A How-to Guide to Key Techniques for User-Centered Design. Elsevier. [30] Wolfgang Hürst and Casper Van Wezel. 2013. Gesture-Based Interaction via Finger Tracking for Mobile Augmented Reality. Multimedia Tools and Applications 62 (2013), 233–258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-011-0983-y [31] Fumiko Ishizawa and Tatsuo Nakajima. 2016. An Enhanced Real Space Through Temporally Connecting Real and Virtual Scenes. In Ambient Intelligence-Software and Applications–7th International Symposium on Ambient Intelligence (ISAmI 2016). 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40114-0_2 [32] Fumiko Ishizawa, Monami Takahashi, Keisuke Irie, Mizuki Sakamoto, and Tatsuo Nakajima. 2015. Analyzing Augmented Real Spaces Gamified Through Fiction- ality. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Advances in Mobile Computing and Multimedia. 309–313. https://doi.org/10.1145/2837126.2837162 [33] Patrick W. Jordan, Bruce Thomas, Ian Lyall McClelland, and Bernard Weerd- meester. 1996. Usability Evaluation in Industry. CRC Press. [34] Soyoung Jung. 2018. The Message Effect of Augmented Health Messages on Body. In Virtual, Augmented and Mixed Reality: Applications in Health, Cultural Heritage, and Industry (HCI International 2018, VAMR 2018, Part II). Springer, 86–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91584-5_7 [35] Denise Kahl, Marc Ruble, and Antonio Krüger. 2022. The Influence of Environ- mental Lighting on Size Variations in Optical See-Through Tangible Augmented Reality. In 2022 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR). IEEE, 121–129. https://doi.org/10.1109/VR51125.2022.00030 [36] Michael Katell, Francien Dechesne, Bert-Jaap Koops, and Paulus Meessen. 2019. Seeing the Whole Picture: Visualising Socio-Spatial Power Through Augmented Reality. Law, Innovation and Technology 11, 2 (2019), 279–310. https://doi.org/10. 1080/17579961.2019.1665800 [37] Robert S. Kennedy, Norman E. Lane, Kevin S. Berbaum, and Michael G. Lilien- thal. 1993. Simulator Sickness Questionnaire: An Enhanced Method for Quantifying Simulator Sickness. The International Journal of Aviation Psy- chology 3, 3 (1993), 203–220. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327108ijap0303_3 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327108ijap03033 [38] Mi Jeong Kim and Mary Lou Maher. 2008. The Impact of Tangible User Interfaces on Designers’ Spatial Cognition. Human–Computer Interaction 23, 2 (2008), 101–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370020802016415 [39] Bettina Laugwitz, Theo Held, and Martin Schrepp. 2008. Construction and Evaluation of a User Experience Questionnaire. InHCI and Usability for Education and Work. Springer, 63–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-89350-9_6 [40] Joseph J LaViola Jr, Ernst Kruijff, Ryan P McMahan, Doug Bowman, and Ivan P Poupyrev. 2017. 3D user interfaces: theory and practice. Addison-Wesley Profes- sional. [41] Maximilian Letter and Katrin Wolf. 2022. Tangible Version Control: Exploring a Physical Object’s Alternative Versions. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts. 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491101. 3519686 [42] Clayton Lewis and Cathleen Wharton. 1997. Cognitive Walkthroughs. In Hand- book of Human-Computer Interaction. Elsevier, 717–732. https://doi.org/10.1016/ B978-044481862-1.50096-0 [43] Markus Löchtefeld, Frederik Wiehr, and Sven Gehring. 2017. Analysing the Effect of Tangible User Interfaces on Spatial Memory. In Proceedings of the 5th Symposium on Spatial User Interaction. 78–81. https://doi.org/10.1145/3131277. 3132172 [44] Pentti Määttänen. 1993. Action and Experience: A Naturalistic Approach to Cognition. (1993). [45] Pentti Määttänen. 2007. Semiotics of Space: Peirce and Lefebvre. (2007). [46] Li-Wei Mai and Georgia Schoeller. 2009. Emotions, Attitudes and Memorability Associated with TV Commercials. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing 17 (2009), 55–63. https://doi.org/10.1057/jt.2009.1 [47] Bernardo Marques, Beatriz Sousa Santos, Tiago Araújo, Nuno Cid Martins, João Bernardo Alves, and Paulo Dias. 2019. Situated Visualization in the Deci- sion Process Through Augmented Reality. In 2019 23rd International Conference Information Visualisation (IV). IEEE, 13–18. https://doi.org/10.1109/IV.2019.00012 [48] Nuno Cid Martins, Bernardo Marques, João Alves, Tiago Araújo, Paulo Dias, and Beatriz Sousa Santos. 2022. Augmented Reality Situated Visualization in Decision-Making. Multimedia Tools and Applications 81, 11 (2022), 14749–14772. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-021-10971-4 [49] Elodie Massa and Riadh Ladhari. 2023. Augmented Reality in Marketing: Con- ceptualization and Systematic Review. International Journal of Consumer Studies 47, 6 (2023), 2335–2366. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12930 [50] Gregory McGowin, Stephen M. Fiore, and Kevin Oden. 2022. Me, Myself, and the (Virtual) World: A Review of Learning Research in 4E Cognition and Immer- sive Virtual Reality. In International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Springer, 59–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06015-1_5 [51] Richard Menary. 2010. Introduction to the Special Issue on 4E Cognition. Phe- nomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 9 (2010), 459–463. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11097-010-9187-6 [52] Annette Mossel, Benjamin Venditti, and Hannes Kaufmann. 2013. 3DTouch and HOMER-S: Intuitive Manipulation Techniques for One-Handed Handheld Augmented Reality. In Proceedings of the Virtual Reality International Conference: Laval Virtual. 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1145/2466816.2466829 [53] Tobias Müller. 2019. Challenges in Representing Information with Augmented Reality to Support Manual Procedural Tasks. AIMS Electronics and Electrical Engineering 3, 1 (2019), 71–97. https://doi.org/10.3934/ElectrEng.2019.1.71 [54] Albert Newen, Shaun Gallagher, and Leon De Bruin. 2018. 4E Cognition: His- torical Roots, Key Concepts, and Central Issues. In The Oxford Handbook of 4E Cognition. Oxford University Press. [55] Jakob Nielsen. 1994. Usability Inspection Methods. In Conference Companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 413–414. https://doi.org/10.1145/259963. 260531 [56] Saeed Ahmadi Oloonabadi and Perver Baran. 2023. Augmented Reality Par- ticipatory Platform: A Novel Digital Participatory Planning Tool to Engage Under-Resourced Communities in Improving Neighborhood Walkability. Cities 141 (2023), 104441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2023.104441 [57] Katja Pott and Doris Agotai. 2024. Spatial Computing Through an HCI Lens—UX Evaluation Based on Situatedness. In International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Springer, 102–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3- 031-61950-2_12 [58] Antonio Román, Andrea Flumini, Pilar Lizano, Marysol Escobar, and Julio San- tiago. 2015. Reading Direction Causes Spatial Biases in Mental Model Con- struction in Language Understanding. Scientific Reports 5, 1 (2015), 18248. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep18248 [59] Marc Ericson C. Santos, Takafumi Taketomi, Christian Sandor, Jarkko Polvi, Goshiro Yamamoto, and Hirokazu Kato. 2014. A Usability Scale for Handheld Augmented Reality. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology. 167–176. https://doi.org/10.1145/2671015.2671019 [60] Prasanth Sasikumar, Soumith Chittajallu, Navindd Raj, Huidong Bai, and Mark Billinghurst. 2021. Spatial Perception Enhancement in Assembly Training Using Augmented Volumetric Playback. Frontiers in Virtual Reality 2 (2021), 698523. https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2021.698523 [61] Andrea Schankin, Daniel Reichert, Matthias Berning, and Michael Beigl. 2017. [POSTER] The Impact of the Frame of Reference on Attention Shifts Between Augmented Reality and Real-World Environment. In 2017 IEEE International Symposium onMixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR-Adjunct). IEEE, 25–30. https: //doi.org/10.1109/ISMAR-Adjunct.2017.24 [62] Thomas Schubert, Frank Friedmann, and Holger Regenbrecht. 2001. The Expe- rience of Presence: Factor Analytic Insights. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments 10, 3 (2001), 266–281. https://doi.org/10.1162/105474601300343603 [63] Yves Simmen, Tabea Eggler, Alexander Legath, Doris Agotai, and Hilko Cords. 2022. Non-overlayed Guidance in Augmented Reality: User Study in Radio- Pharmacy. In International Conference on Intelligent Human Computer Interaction. Springer, 516–526. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27199-1_52 [64] Anne R. Smink, Sanne Frowijn, Eva A. van Reijmersdal, Guda van Noort, and Peter C. Neijens. 2019. Try Online Before You Buy: How Does Shopping with Augmented Reality Affect Brand Responses and Personal Data Disclo- sure. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 35 (2019), 100854. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2019.100854 [65] Anne R. Smink, Eva A. Van Reijmersdal, Guda Van Noort, and Peter C. Neijens. 2020. Shopping in Augmented Reality: The Effects of Spatial Presence, Person- alization and Intrusiveness on App and Brand Responses. Journal of Business Research 118 (2020), 474–485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.07.018 [66] Lucy Suchman. 1987. Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-Machine Communication. Cambridge University Press. [67] Daiki Tone, Daisuke Iwai, Shinsaku Hiura, and Kosuke Sato. 2020. Fibar: Em- bedding Optical Fibers in 3D Printed Objects for Active Markers in Dynamic Projection Mapping. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 26, 5 (2020), 2030–2040. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2020.2973444 [68] Tram Thi Minh Tran, Shane Brown, Oliver Weidlich, Mark Billinghurst, and Callum Parker. 2023. Wearable Augmented Reality: Research Trends and Future Directions from Three Major Venues. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (2023). https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2023.3320231 [69] Barbara Tversky. 1993. Cognitive Maps, Cognitive Collages, and Spatial Mental Models. In European Conference on Spatial Information Theory. Springer, 14–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-57207-4_2 [70] Zeyu Wang, Cuong Nguyen, Paul Asente, and Julie Dorsey. 2021. Distanciar: Au- thoring Site-Specific Augmented Reality Experiences for Remote Environments. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445552 [71] Christopher D. Wickens and Amy L. Alexander. 2009. Attentional Tunneling and Task Management in Synthetic Vision Displays. The International Journal of Avia- tion Psychology 19, 2 (2009), 182–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508410902766549 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-019-00688-0 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-011-0983-y https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40114-0_2 https://doi.org/10.1145/2837126.2837162 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91584-5_7 https://doi.org/10.1109/VR51125.2022.00030 https://doi.org/10.1080/17579961.2019.1665800 https://doi.org/10.1080/17579961.2019.1665800 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327108ijap0303_3 https://arxiv.org/abs/https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327108ijap0303_3 https://doi.org/10.1080/07370020802016415 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-89350-9_6 https://doi.org/10.1145/3491101.3519686 https://doi.org/10.1145/3491101.3519686 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-044481862-1.50096-0 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-044481862-1.50096-0 https://doi.org/10.1145/3131277.3132172 https://doi.org/10.1145/3131277.3132172 https://doi.org/10.1057/jt.2009.1 https://doi.org/10.1109/IV.2019.00012 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-021-10971-4 https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12930 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06015-1_5 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-010-9187-6 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-010-9187-6 https://doi.org/10.1145/2466816.2466829 https://doi.org/10.3934/ElectrEng.2019.1.71 https://doi.org/10.1145/259963.260531 https://doi.org/10.1145/259963.260531 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2023.104441 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-61950-2_12 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-61950-2_12 https://doi.org/10.1038/srep18248 https://doi.org/10.1145/2671015.2671019 https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2021.698523 https://doi.org/10.1109/ISMAR-Adjunct.2017.24 https://doi.org/10.1109/ISMAR-Adjunct.2017.24 https://doi.org/10.1162/105474601300343603 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27199-1_52 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2019.100854 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2019.100854 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.07.018 https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2020.2973444 https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2023.3320231 https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-57207-4_2 https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445552 https://doi.org/10.1080/10508410902766549 Developing the Spatial Computing Evaluation Framework MuC’25, 31. August - 03. September 2025, Chemnitz, Germany [72] Wesley Willett, Yvonne Jansen, and Pierre Dragicevic. 2016. Embedded Data Representations. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 23, 1 (2016), 461–470. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2016.2598608 [73] Jason Wither, Stephen DiVerdi, and Tobias Höllerer. 2009. Annotation in Outdoor Augmented Reality. Computers & Graphics 33, 6 (2009), 679–689. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.cag.2009.06.001 [74] Niels Wouters, John Downs, Mitchell Harrop, Travis Cox, Eduardo Oliveira, Sarah Webber, Frank Vetere, and Andrew Vande Moere. 2016. Uncovering the Honeypot Effect: How Audiences Engage with Public Interactive Systems. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems. 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1145/2901790.2901796 [75] Jiangnan Xu, Konstantinos Papangelis, Garreth W. Tigwell, Nicolas Lalone, Pengyuan Zhou, Michael Saker, Alan Chamberlain, John Dunham, Sanzida Mojib Luna, and David Schwartz. 2024. Spatial Computing: Defining the Vision for the Future. In Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613905.3643978 [76] Ying Yang, Tim Dwyer, Michael Wybrow, Benjamin Lee, Maxime Cordeil, Mark Billinghurst, and Bruce H. Thomas. 2022. Towards Immersive Collaborative Sensemaking. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6, ISS (2022), 722–746. https://doi.org/10.1145/3567741 [77] Zi Fong Yong, Ai Ling Ng, and Yuta Nakayama. 2019. The Dyslexperience: Use of Projection Mapping to Simulate Dyslexia*. In 2019 International Conference on Multimodal Interaction (Suzhou, China) (ICMI ’19). Association for ComputingMa- chinery, New York, NY, USA, 493–495. https://doi.org/10.1145/3340555.3358657 [78] Jiayan Zhao, Bernhard E. Riecke, Jonathan W. Kelly, Jeanine Stefanucci, and Alexander Klippel. 2023. Human Spatial Perception, Cognition, and Behaviour in Extended Reality. Frontiers in Virtual Reality 4 (2023), 1257230. https://doi. org/10.3389/frvir.2023.1257230 https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2016.2598608 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cag.2009.06.001 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cag.2009.06.001 https://doi.org/10.1145/2901790.2901796 https://doi.org/10.1145/3613905.3643978 https://doi.org/10.1145/3567741 https://doi.org/10.1145/3340555.3358657 https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2023.1257230 https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2023.1257230 Abstract 1 Introduction 2 Background 3 Spatial Computing Evaluation Framework - the Four Dimensions of Cognition 3.1 Development of the Framework 3.2 Embodied Dimension to Characterise User's Perception 3.3 Embedded Dimension to Characterise the Spatial Environment 3.4 Enacted Dimension to Determine Users' Activities 3.5 Extended Dimension to Consider Additional Elements 4 Discussion and Conclusion Acknowledgements References