@inproceedings{Voit:2019:OVA,
 abstract = {Empirical studies are a cornerstone of HCI research. Technical progress constantly enables new study methods. Online surveys, for example, make it possible to collect feedback from remote users. Progress in augmented and virtual reality enables to collect feedback with early designs. In-situ studies enable researchers to gather feedback in natural environments. While these methods have unique advantages and disadvantages, it is unclear if and how using a specifc method affects the results. Therefore, we conducted a study with 60 participants comparing five different methods (online, virtual reality, augmented reality, lab setup, and in-situ) to evaluate early prototypes of smart artifacts. We asked participants to assess four different smart artifacts using standardized questionnaires. We show that the method significantly affects the study result and discuss implications for HCI research. Finally, we highlight further directions to overcome the effect of the used methods.},
 address = {Glasgow, Scotland UK},
 author = { Alexandra Voit and Sven Mayer and Valentin Schwind and Niels Henze},
 booktitle = {Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems},
 date = {2019-05-04},
 doi = {10.1145/3290605.3300737},
 isbn = {978-1-4503-5970-2},
 keywords = {},
 pages = {406:1--406:14},
 publisher = {ACM},
 pubstate = {published},
 series = {CHI '19},
 title = {Online, VR, AR, Lab, and In-Situ: Comparison of Research Methods to Evaluate Smart Artifacts},
 tppubtype = {inproceedings},
 url = {http://sven-mayer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/voit2019comparison.pdf
https://github.com/interactionlab/CHI19-Comparison-of-Research-Methods
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqLQo4kTL9Y},
 year = {2019}
}