When communicating with embodied conversational agents (ECAs) in virtual reality, there might be delays in the responses of the agents lasting several seconds, for example, due to more extensive computations of the answers when large language models are used. Such delays might lead to unnatural or frustrating interactions. In this paper, we investigate filler types to mitigate these effects and lead to a more positive experience and perception of the agent. In a within-subject study, we asked 24 participants to communicate with ECAs in virtual reality, comparing four strategies displayed during the delays: a multimodal behavioral filler consisting of conversational and gestural fillers, a base condition with only idle motions, and two symbolic indicators with progress bars, one embedded as a badge on the agent, the other one external and visualized as a thinking bubble. Our results indicate that the behavioral filler improved perceived response time, three subscales of presence, humanlikeness, and naturalness. Participants looked away from the face more often when symbolic indicators were displayed, but the visualizations did not lead to a more positive impression of the agent or to increased presence. The majority of participants preferred the behavioral fillers, only 12.5% and 4.2% favored the symbolic embedded and external conditions, respectively.

Although access to sufficient screen space is crucial to knowledge work, workers often find themselves with limited access to display infrastructure in remote or public settings. While virtual displays can be used to extend the available screen space through extended reality (XR) head-worn displays (HWD), we must better understand the implications of working with them in public settings from both users' and bystanders' viewpoints. To this end, we conducted two user studies. We first explored the usage of a hybrid AR display across real-world settings and tasks. We focused on how users take advantage of virtual displays and what social and environmental factors impact their usage of the system. A second study investigated the differences between working with a laptop, an AR system, or a VR system in public. We focused on a single location and participants performed a predefined task to enable direct comparisons between the conditions while also gathering data from bystanders. The combined results suggest a positive acceptance of XR technology in public settings and show that virtual displays can be used to accompany existing devices. We highlighted some environmental and social factors. We saw that previous XR experience and personality can influence how people perceive the use of XR in public. In addition, we confirmed that using XR in public still makes users stand out and that bystanders are curious about the devices, yet have no clear understanding of how they can be used.

Research on text entry in Virtual Reality (VR) has gained popularity but the efficient entry of accented characters, characters with diacritical marks, in VR remains underexplored. Entering accented characters is supported on most capacitive touch keyboards through a long press on a base character and a subsequent selection of the accented character. However, entering those characters on physical keyboards is still challenging, as they require a recall and an entry of respective numeric codes. To address this issue this paper investigates three techniques to support accented character entry on physical keyboards in VR. Specifically, we compare a contextaware numeric code technique that does not require users to recall a code, a key-press-only condition in which the accented characters are dynamically remapped to physical keys next to a base character, and a multimodal technique, in which eye gaze is used to select the accented version of a base character previously selected by keypress on the keyboard. The results from our user study $(n=18)$ reveal that both the key-press-only and the multimodal technique outperform the baseline technique in terms of text entry speed.

While the promise of autonomous vehicles has led to significant scientific and industrial progress, fully automated, SAE level 5 conform cars will likely not see mass adoption anytime soon. Instead, in many applications, human supervision, such as remote monitoring and teleoperation, will be required for the foreseeable future. While Virtual Reality (VR) has been proposed as one potential interface for teleoperation, its benefits and drawbacks over physical monitoring and teleoperation solutions have not been thoroughly investigated. To this end, we contribute three user studies, comparing and quantifying the performance of and subjective feedback for a VR-based system with an existing monitoring and teleoperation system, which is in industrial use today. Through these three user studies, we contribute to a better understanding of future virtual monitoring and teleoperation solutions for autonomous vehicles. The results of our first user study (n= 16) indicate that a VR interface replicating the physical interface does not outperform the physical interface. It also quantifies the negative effects that combined monitoring and teleoperating tasks have on users irrespective of the interface being used. The results of the second user study (n= 24) indicate that the perceptual and ergonomic issues caused by VR outweigh its benefits, like better concentration through isolation. The third follow-up user study (n= 24) specifically targeted the perceptual and ergonomic issues of VR; the subjective feedback of this study indicates that newer-generation VR headsets have the potential to catch up with the current physical displays.

Virtual Reality (VR) provides new possibilities for modern knowledge work. However, the potential advantages of virtual work environments can only be used if it is feasible to work in them for an extended period of time. Until now, there are limited studies of long-term effects when working in VR. This paper addresses the need for understanding such long-term effects. Specifically, we report on a comparative study $i$, in which participants were working in VR for an entire week-for five days, eight hours each day-as well as in a baseline physical desktop environment. This study aims to quantify the effects of exchanging a desktop-based work environment with a VR-based environment. Hence, during this study, we do not present the participants with the best possible VR system but rather a setup delivering a comparable experience to working in the physical desktop environment. The study reveals that, as expected, VR results in significantly worse ratings across most measures. Among other results, we found concerning levels of simulator sickness, below average usability ratings and two participants dropped out on the first day using VR, due to migraine, nausea and anxiety. Nevertheless, there is some indication that participants gradually overcame negative first impressions and initial discomfort. Overall, this study helps lay the groundwork for subsequent research, by clearly highlighting current shortcomings and identifying opportunities for improving the experience of working in VR.