Description

Teams of 3–4 students (undergraduate teams separate from graduate teams) will conceive, design, implement, and validate an XR application addressing a real-world engineering problem or need. To ensure balanced exposure, every project must include both VR and AR components—either as an integrated hybrid experience or as two complementary subsystems that together solve the defined engineering challenge. While XFactory can be used as inspiration or a base, teams are free to choose a different domain or system—as long as the project satisfies the constraints below. The project must integrate core technical topics and apply human-centered and XR design principles introduced early in the semester (Module A > A2).

Goals

Define and justify a real-world engineering problem suitable for XR intervention.
Apply key XR technical topics (Unity/C# scripting, VR locomotion/navigation/UI, AR spatial awareness/tracking/anchoring, interaction logic, feedback) to build working VR and AR components.
Embed human-centered XR design principles throughout conceptualization, prototyping, and evaluation.
Perform internal testing and validation, including formative usability testing, to iteratively improve both AR and VR experiences.
Communicate design and technical decisions through documentation, presentations, and reflective analysis.
Assess team dynamics via structured peer evaluation to ensure accountability and balanced contribution.

Requirements

Engineering Relevance: Problem must be grounded in an engineering domain (e.g., manufacturing, healthcare, infrastructure, product design, robotics, maintenance, training, remote operation, design visualization).
Dual XR Integration: Must include both VR and AR components. These can be either a unified hybrid workflow (e.g., AR used for in-situ setup and VR for immersive training), or two complementary subsystems (e.g., VR simulation plus AR real-world monitoring) that together address the same problem.
Technical Breadth: Must leverage at least three major technical pillars from the course across the AR+VR pieces.
Real-World Framing: Define stakeholders, users, and articulate value of the AR+VR solution.
Design Principle Application: Explicitly apply and document human-centered/XR design principles.
Internal Testing and Validation: Conduct at least two rounds of testing (covering both AR and VR components), collect feedback, and iterate.
Peer Evaluation: All members evaluate each other’s contributions; used in individual assessment.

Deliverables

Week 3: Project Proposal

Problem statement & engineering context.
Target users / stakeholders.
Description of both planned VR and AR components and how they connect.
Key technical components from course to be used in each modality.
Preliminary rationale for chosen design principles in both AR and VR.
Success criteria / evaluation metrics for each component.
Team roles and timeline.

A markdown or PDF (≤3 pages) report along with a 3–5 minute in-class pitch.

Week 7: Midterm Prototype

Working partial implementation showing core functionality in both VR and AR (could be a minimal version of each).
Updated design rationale for both VR and AR components.
First internal usability/functional test covering at least one user flow in VR and one in AR (method, participants, findings).
Planned iterations based on feedback.
Evidence of applied design principles to date in both modalities.
Technical architecture overview (how VR and AR subsystems are organized and, if applicable, integrated).

Demo along with a repo tag midterm, a report (4–6 pages), and a short video walkthrough (1–2 minutes).

Week 13: Final System + Evaluation

Polished VR and AR components (integrated or complementary) implementing promised features.
Results from second internal test with iterations, covering VR and AR flows.
Design principles assessment: how principles were applied in each modality with evidence.
Description of interaction between AR and VR if applicable.
User scenarios / usage guide that explain transitions or joint workflows.
Technical documentation (architecture, build/run/deploy instructions, limitations).
Deployment guidance (e.g., headset simulation fallback, mobile AR setup).
Final presentation (8–10 minutes) demonstrating both components and their engineering impact.
Team reflection covering collaboration, design/technical trade-offs, dual-modality challenges, and lessons learned in human-centered XR development.
Individual contribution summary with peer evaluations (structured form).

Code & Repository

Meaningful commit history with tags/releases for proposal, midterm, and final.
Top-level README describing the combined AR+VR solution, build/run instructions, and known issues.
Embedded or linked media (screenshots, GIFs, video).
Clear module/namespace separation and organization.

Graduate Extensions

Graduate teams must do the above plus:

Focused Literature Review:
- Select 8–10 recent peer-reviewed papers (from venues such as IEEE VR, IEEE ISMAR, ACM CHI, ACM UIST, ACM DIS, or similar) that inform their AR+VR solution (e.g., multimodal integration, attention guidance across modalities, hybrid workflows, context-aware transitions, comfort in VR vs. AR).
- Summarize each (≤250 words) and explain how it influenced design/implementation decisions.
Research-Informed Enhancement:
- Integrate a research-inspired innovation in either or both modalities (e.g., adaptive cross-modality cues, context-sensitive AR-to-VR handoff, hybrid evaluation of attention guidance).
- Provide comparative insight (baseline vs. enhanced behavior) qualitatively or with simple metrics.
Structured Validation:
- Conduct a structured internal study (e.g., comparative user flows across modalities, heuristic evaluation of hybrid transitions).
- Analyze findings based on multiple research hypotheses motivated by the literature review, and in the context of design principles/literature.

Deliverable Checklist

Project proposal + pitch
Midterm prototype (both VR & AR) + interim report + walkthrough
Final integrated or complementary VR+AR system + evaluation report + presentation
Team reflection + individual peer evaluations
Clean GitHub repo with tagged milestones, documentation, media
(Grad only) Literature summaries, research-informed enhancement, structured validation

Logistics

Team formation by Week 2.
Proposal due Week 3.
Midterm deliverable due Week 7.
Final deliverable due Week 13.
Reflection & peer evaluations due Week 14.
Submission via GitHub Classroom with tagged releases.
Final presentations at end of term; all team members must participate.

Evaluation

Undergraduate Core (100 points)

Problem Framing & Engineering Relevance (10 pts)

Criterion	Description	Points
Real-World Justification	Clear engineering problem, stakeholders, and articulated value of dual-modality XR solution.	5
Technical Breadth	Meaningful use of ≥3 course pillars, with both AR and VR components represented.	5

Design Principle Application (20 pts)

Criterion	Description	Points
Coverage & Evidence	Principles applied in both AR and VR; documented with concrete artifacts.	10
Quality of Interpretation	Thoughtful use of principles in interface, interaction, feedback, transitions, and integration.	10

Technical Implementation & Functionality (25 pts)

Criterion	Description	Points
Core Features Working	VR and AR components function as promised and demonstrate the engineered solution.	10
XR Mechanics	Correct application of VR (locomotion/navigation/UI/feedback) and AR (tracking/anchoring/spatial awareness/interactions).	10
Code Quality & Organization	Modular design, namespaces, clean code, maintainability across both subsystems.	5

Usability Testing & Iteration (15 pts)

Criterion	Description	Points
Testing Rounds	Two distinct internal testing iterations covering both modalities.	8
Iterative Response	Clear evidence that feedback led to improvements in VR and/or AR.	7

Communication & Documentation (15 pts)

Criterion	Description	Points
Reports & Rationale	Proposal, interim, and final clearly articulate dual-modality design and evolution.	6
Presentation & Demo	Effective final presentation showing interplay of AR and VR; working demo.	5
Repository & Instructions	README, build/run guidance, media, versioning.	4

Team Process & Peer Evaluation (15 pts)

Criterion	Description	Points
Collaboration & Roles	Balanced contributions, clear role distribution, consistent with peer evaluations.	8
Reflection Depth	Insightful analysis of process, dual-modality challenges, and learning.	7

Graduate-Specific Add-On (up to +15 pts)

Criterion	Description	Points
Literature Review Integration	Relevance and synthesis of selected literature into the hybrid experience.	5
Research-Informed Innovation	Novel enhancement grounded in research; execution or rigorous rationale.	5
Structured Validation	Depth and analysis of internal study addressing AR/VR integration and design principles.	5

Graduate teams grades are subject to normalization per course policy.

Peer Evaluation Mechanism

Each team member will rate their peers on the following. Use the descriptions to guide your assessment.

Contribution Quantity & Quality: The extent and substance of the work the team member delivered—did they take on a fair share of tasks, and was their output technically sound, thoughtful, and aligned with the project goals?
Communication: How effectively the team member shared updates, asked for or gave feedback, explained ideas or problems, and kept the team informed to enable smooth coordination.
Reliability: Whether the team member followed through on commitments, met agreed-upon deadlines, and could be counted on to complete assigned tasks without excessive prompting.
Initiative: The degree to which the team member proactively identified needs, proposed improvements or solutions, and took action without waiting to be told.
Collaboration: How well the team member worked with others—listening, integrating input, resolving disagreements constructively, and contributing to a positive team atmosphere.

Peer evaluations inform the Team Process & Reflection score and can adjust individual weighting.