SYSTEMATIC REVIEW article
Front. Virtual Real.
Sec. Augmented Reality
This article is part of the Research TopicHuman Factors and Design in Immersive and Generative Media TechnologiesView all articles
Evaluating Interaction Design and User Experience in Augmented Reality: A Systematic Review
Provisionally accepted
- University of Central Florida, Orlando, United States
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Background: Augmented Reality (AR) technologies are rapidly advancing, offering new opportunities for interactive and immersive user experiences. However, the success of AR applications depends significantly on thoughtful interaction design and robust evaluation of user experience (UX). While conventional WIMP interfaces have dominated interface design, they present notable limitations in spatial, embodied environments. Objectives: The main purpose is to systematically review the state of AR interaction design and UX evaluation, with focus on the use of natural versus WIMP-based interaction paradigms. This review aims to assess how different interaction methods are implemented and evaluated, identify underexplored areas, and offer recommendations to guide future AR research. Methods: In this systematic review, six databases were systematically queried for journal articles in order to explore the relationship between interaction design and user experience in AR. Following PRISMA guidelines, 86 peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2013-2024 were included based on predefined inclusion criteria. Data were extracted and analyzed in terms of context of use, device types, interaction methods, and UX evaluation strategies. Results: The findings show that natural interactions, such as gesture, voice, and gaze, are increasingly favored in AR research due to their alignment with spatial and embodied interaction needs. Hybrid systems combining natural and WIMP elements were the most common, with natural components driving the experiential benefits. UX evaluation in AR remains heavily reliant on self-reported measures, with questionnaires dominating. Objective and physiological assessments were rarely used. Usability and cognitive load were the most frequently evaluated UX aspects, while immersive, social, and emotional dimensions remain significantly underexplored. Head-worn displays particularly HoloLens 2, were the most studied devices, although mobile platforms also played a major role in accessible AR design. Conclusions: This review provides insight into how UX is being considered in AR system development and highlights key trends, strengths, and gaps in current research. It underscores the need for more diverse evaluation methods and a broader focus on underrepresented experiential dimensions. By adopting mixed-method approaches and prioritizing user-centered, context-aware interaction paradigms, future AR systems can become more intuitive, inclusive, and effective across a range of application domains.
Keywords: augmented reality, Interaction design, User Experience, user interface, Naturalinteraction
Received: 21 Sep 2025; Accepted: 19 Nov 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Hughes and Karwowski. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence: Claire Hughes, claire_hughes@ucf.edu
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.