Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Exploratory study evaluates usability of VR systems in diverse engineering contexts, suggesting context-specific approaches.
This paper adopts an exploratory approach to examine how software configuration, hardware type, user background and context of use influence the usability of Virtual Reality (VR) systems in engineering product development. A VR usability assessment approach that combines two task-based questionnaires, the System Usability Scale (SUS) and the NASA-TLX questionnaire, was evaluated systematically across six experiments involving students, junior engineers and senior engineers in academic and industrial settings. Across the experiments, usability ratings varied depending on user background, task context, hardware configuration, and software implementation. In the observed cases, standalone VR configurations were associated with higher usability ratings among less experienced participants, while PC-based configurations were frequently used in scenarios requiring higher geometric precision and complex engineering interaction. These observations should be interpreted as context-specific findings rather than generalizable causal effects. In addition, professional engineers primarily evaluate VR in terms of workflow integration, precision and return on investment, whereas students focus more on novelty and the interaction experience. Based on these findings, practical design recommendations have been derived for selecting a VR system, adapting interaction concepts, and implementing VR in product development processes. The study does not aim to establish causal relationships, but rather explore usability trends across different contexts as it highlights that VR should not be deployed as a one-size-fits-all solution, but rather as a tool that is both context-specific and user-centered. It also shows how systematic, iterative usability evaluation can directly support the successful industrial integration of VR technologies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Abughalia et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: