The Role of Virtual and Augmented Reality in Industrial Design: A Case Study of Usability Assessment

Abstract

The integration of virtual and augmented reality is transforming processes in the field of product design. This study evaluates the usability of immersive digital tools applied to industrial design through a combined market research and empirical case study, using the software ‘Gravity Sketch’ and the immersive headset ‘Meta Quest 3’. An embedded single case study was conducted based on the international standard ISO 9241-11, considering the dimensions of effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction, analysed through nine indicators: tasks completed, time to complete tasks, dimensional accuracy, interoperability, interactivity, fatigue, human error, learning curve, and perceived creativity. The results show a progressive improvement in user–system interaction across the seven Design Units, as users become more familiar with immersive technologies. Effectiveness improves as users gain experience, though it remains sensitive to design complexity. Efficiency shows favourable values even in early stages, reflecting operational fluency despite learning demands. Satisfaction records the greatest improvement, driven by smoother interaction and greater creative freedom. These findings highlight the potential of immersive tools to support design processes while also underlining the need for future research on sustained usability, interface ergonomics, and collaborative workflows in extended reality environments.

1. Introduction

The digitisation of the product design and development process became established in the 1960s with the emergence of the first computer-aided design (CAD) systems. These enabled products to be modelled accurately, technical drawing tasks to be automated, and design documentation to be optimised. Although processing capacity was limited and the systems were expensive, their potential to increase accuracy, reduce errors, and speed up development cycles justified their gradual introduction. In the context of increasing digitalisation, immersive technologies such as virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) have emerged as tools with great potential [1,2]. VR allows users to fully immerse themselves in simulated digital environments, offering highly realistic experiences that can be manipulated interactively [3,4,5]. And AR overlays digital information, such as 3D models, onto the perception of the real physical world, enriching existing reality [6,7].

VR began to develop in the 1960s with pioneering devices such as the ‘Sensorama’ (1962) and ‘The Sword of Damocles’ (1968) [8]. Its evolution continued over the following decades, driven by organisations such as NASA [9,10] and the United States Department of Defense [11,12]. They promoted technologies such as data gloves [13], tracking systems [14], and computer-generated graphical environments [15]. In the 1990s, VR established itself as an interdisciplinary field with applications in design and engineering [16,17]. The first generations of hardware were expensive, voluminous, heavy, low-resolution, and required additional hardware, limiting general interest and research in the early 2000s [18,19]. In recent years, a new generation of much more affordable and accessible VR hardware has been developed. This has allowed the study of previously unfeasible applications [20,21]. AR has also experienced notable growth, largely driven by the development of smartphones and their applications [22,23].

The incorporation of VR and AR into industrial design has gradually evolved. Integration into the workflow is usually complemented by computer-aided design tools and additive manufacturing. Currently, immersive technologies are being integrated into all phases of the industrial design process [1,24,25]. They allow you to work directly in 3D environments, overcoming the limitations of traditional tools such as 2D sketches or traditional CAD [26,27]. They facilitate 3D sketching [28,29], immersive 3D modelling [30], rapid iteration of ideas [31,32], product validation [33,34], real-scale visualisation [35,36] and integration with 3D printing [37]. They also improve creativity [32,38], reduce time and costs [18], improve product quality [19], and enable more efficient remote collaboration [39,40]. In this sense, immersive technologies represent a major contribution to the complete digitalisation of the design process.

The application of immersive technologies has been led by large companies in the automotive and aerospace sectors. With the evolution of more affordable tools, their use has spread to academic settings, design studios, and small and medium enterprises [25,41]. Several companies use immersive technologies to sketch and review concepts in 3D, optimising processes through simultaneous collaboration at different locations [42]; to apply AR and MR in their sales processes to improve customer experience through real-time customisation [43]; and to explore complex designs for 3D printing [44]. In recent years, increasing interest in immersive technologies has led to a large body of literature becoming available. More general studies have focused on the definition of technology and its evolution, components, and technical challenges. Representative works of this approach provide a broad conceptual framework on VR and its applications in various fields, without a specific focus on industrial design [45]; describe the state of the art of VR technology in general [8]; review AR technologies, systems, and applications [6]; and study registration errors and calibration methods in AR [46]. In addition, immersive technologies are increasingly applied to industrial automation, including robotic navigation and simulation systems using virtual environments [47,48]. Another group of studies focuses on the integration of VR and AR in design processes, particularly in industrial design. There is research that relates existing AR studies to design practice, identifying phases of the process where it is not possible to apply AR [49]; examines the potential of low-cost VR to improve the design process [18]; studies the application of VR in all phases of design, beyond the early stages [20]; and analyses the usefulness of AR in the presentation and prototyping phases [26]. Although this article does not focus on the educational field, there is a related study that analyses the potential of VR for the development of various product representation techniques, such as sketching, modelling, and prototyping [50].

Most studies on the usability of immersive technologies are conducted in contexts unrelated to product design, such as architecture [51], academic education [52], or commercial product presentations [53]. Much of this research focuses on a single dimension, mainly effectiveness [51,54,55] or efficiency [56], and does not adopt established standards such as ISO 9241-11. Although some studies consider all three dimensions (effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction) [52,57,58], their scope does not cover the use of these technologies in real industrial design processes, but rather related activities such as the validation of VR usability analysis questionnaires [57], hardware analysis [59], or their impact on usability and ergonomics during the design of consumer products [58]. Several studies address the analysis of human–machine interaction (HMI), either through experimental tasks or in academic contexts. For example, Ahn et al. [59] identify factors that influence the user experience depending on the type of interaction that VR allows (remote controller, head tracking or hand gestures), although without linking these results to tasks specific to the design process. In a similar approach, Hinricher et al. [56] analyse how the size, shape, or haptic feedback of virtual controls affect operational efficiency and cognitive load. Alsswey et al. [52] also study the perception of usability in design and architecture students using HMD headsets, but in an exclusively academic context far removed from real professional design environments. Some studies focus on specific devices such as HTC Vive headsets [60], without considering a broader analysis of technological tools adapted to industrial design. Finally, publications addressing market research are from prior to 2023, which limits their ability to reflect the current state of immersive technologies, characterised by rapid evolution in recent years. Recent contributions have predominantly addressed the healthcare domain [61,62,63,64], with the specific overview of tools applicable to industrial design remaining outdated.

The main goal of this work is to analyse the integration and impact of using immersive virtual, augmented, and mixed reality technologies in the industrial product design process. To do this, research was carried out in two fundamental and complementary phases. First, market research of available resources was conducted, including hardware and software tools, followed by the selection of the most suitable ones for application in product design. This phase provided an updated overview of technical resources and trends in professional usage. Secondly, a case study was conducted to evaluate the usability of immersive technologies in industrial design, using the ‘Gravity Sketch’ software in combination with the ‘Meta Quest 3’ headset. The research followed an embedded single-case-study design, comprising seven Design Units that served as embedded subunits of analysis. Usability was assessed based on the ISO 9241-11 standard [65], which defines usability through the dimensions of effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction. The following nine usability indicators were included: tasks completed, time to complete tasks, dimensional accuracy, interoperability, interactivity, fatigue, human error, learning curve, and perceived creativity. This comparative analysis allowed an assessment of the effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction associated with the use of VR and AR technologies in product sketching, modelling, and visualisation tasks.

This study addresses several of the limitations identified in the recent scientific literature. In contrast to previous works, it is not restricted to the analysis of a single immersive technology but instead provides an integrated comparison of VR, AR, and MR. This enables a assessment of their applicability in various scenarios within the design process. It also includes a current market analysis to support the selection of tools representative of the professional context of industrial design, encompassing both hardware and software resources. From a methodological perspective, the study proposes a structured and comprehensive set of indicators for effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction, aligned with the ISO 9241-11 standard and specifically adapted to the product development workflow; this approach is suitable for evaluating the performance of immersive technologies in real industrial design tasks.

The article is structured as follows: Section 2 presents the methods used in the research; Section 3 describes the current state of immersive technologies in industrial design; Section 4 presents the results of the usability assessment of immersive technologies in the design process; Section 5 discusses the results obtained; and Section 6 presents the main conclusions of the work.

2. Methods

The methodology used in this study was organised into two phases related to each specific objective of the study (Figure 1): (1) market research; (2) case study.

In the first phase, market research was conducted to perform a commercial analysis of devices and applications that implement immersive technologies (VR, AR, and MR) in the product design process. The study was divided into two scopes: (1) hardware, which included a comparative technical analysis, differentiating between wired and wireless solutions and using the variables of connection mode, type of compatible immersive technology, resolution, graphic quality and accuracy, latency and tracking capability, compatibility with design software, user mobility, ease of transport and installation, release date, and cost; (2) immersive software for 3D sketching and sculpting, 3D modelling, simulation, and visualisation, taking into account the compatibility with VR, AR and MR, with different types of immersive hardware, with other compatible software, and with the possibility of team collaboration. This analysis allowed us to establish an updated map of immersive solutions applicable to industrial design.

In the second phase of the study, the usability of immersive technologies applied to the design of industrial products was evaluated. A methodological design based on a single case study with embedded units of analysis and an exploratory approach was adopted. This type of design is suitable for empirical studies that aim to describe and interpret complex phenomena in depth, integrating qualitative and quantitative methods [66]. The main case focused on a professional designer as the sole participant, which allowed for a controlled observation of the learning curve and gradual adaptation to the use of immersive technologies. The embedded units of analysis corresponded to seven products designed by the participant: (1) ring, (2) candle holder, (3) vehicle, (4) mouse, (5) outdoor armchair, (6) reading armchair, (7) high stool. The selection of Design Units was focused on covering a representative range of types of industrial products. Diversity was prioritised in terms of scale and geometric complexity, functionality and use, context of use, and applicability to different industrial sectors. In addition, all products cover different stages of the design process, from sketching and conceptual design to visualisation and validation. In each Design Unit, the main design techniques were analysed: sketching, immersive modelling and rendering with VR, and validation in a real context of use with AR. The case study was conducted in a controlled design environment, using VR headsets (Meta Quest 3) and immersive modelling software (Gravity Sketch) as the technological setup, with an industrial designer with initial inexperience in virtual reality. The participant signed an informed consent form before the start of the study. Given the continued use of immersive environments, basic measures were adopted to mitigate potential adverse effects, such as cybersickness, including limited session durations, frequent breaks, and personalised calibration of the visualisation device.

Each Design Unit was developed through two sequential times. First, a traditional sketching stage was conducted in which the participant created hand-drawn concept sketches to explore initial ideas and define the basic structure of each product. These sketches served as the foundation for the second stage, in which the same design concepts were further developed using an immersive design workflow with ‘Meta Quest 3’ headsets (Meta Platforms, Inc., Menlo Park, CA, USA) [67] and ‘Gravity Sketch 6.4’ (Gravity Sketch Ltd., London, UK) [68]. This sequential approach reflects a common progression in industrial design practice and allowed the study to observe how immersive tools contribute to design development following early ideation.

The following were considered for the selection of immersive design software: (Adobe Inc., San Jose, CA, USA) [69]; Autodesk Alias (Autodesk Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA) [70]; Autodesk Create VR Maya (Autodesk Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA) [71]; Gravity Sketch 6.4 (Gravity Sketch Ltd., London, UK) [68]; Mindesk (Vection Technologies Ltd., Bologna, Italy) [72]; Shapelab; Shapes XR (ShapesXR Inc., Palo Alto, CA, USA) [73]; and VectorSuite (Vector Suite Ltd., London, UK) [74]. However, comparative analysis was only carried out between the Gravity Sketch and Shapes XR applications, as they were the only ones compatible with head-mounted displays (HMDs) that had free versions.

The selection of the software was carried out through a multi-criteria decision-making process based on a pairwise comparison matrix (PCM) [75]; the results are presented in Table 1. To determine the relative importance (w), all possible pairs of criteria were compared and a binary score (1/0) was assigned depending on which was considered more relevant in the context of sketching, conceptual design, and 3D modelling. The final weight of each criterion was obtained from the number of times it was dominant over the others. Based on these weights and the user experience with both pieces of software, an overall technical score was calculated for ‘ShapesXR’ and ‘Gravity Sketch’. ‘Gravity Sketch 6.4’ was selected as the most suitable option for the purposes of this study, due to its balance between functionality, accessibility, and compatibility with other industrial design software.

To assess the usability of the selected immersive technologies, a multi-criteria analysis (MCA) [66] was used based on the three dimensions defined by the ISO 9241-11:2018 standard (Ergonomics of human-system interaction-Part 11: Usability: Definitions and concepts) [65]: (1) effectiveness, (2) efficiency, (3) satisfaction. For each dimension, an overall usability index was calculated based on nine indicators that measure the performance of immersive technologies.

The analysis was based on the evaluation of the following nine individual indicators. The values were obtained by combining screen recordings and quantitative data collection during the sessions. All usability indicators, whether quantitative (such as time to complete tasks or tasks completed) or qualitative (such as perceived creativity or satisfaction), were based on direct observation and on the assessments given by the participating designer. The scope of each indicator is defined below, and Table 2 shows the assessment thresholds used.

Tasks completed (TC): The proportion of design tasks successfully completed according to established objectives.

Time to complete tasks (T): The total time required to complete a design task in an immersive environment.

Dimensional accuracy (A): The degree to which the designed model conforms to the intended dimensions or characteristics of the actual product.

Interoperability (IO): How easily the generated models can be transferred and used between different platforms or design software.

Interactivity (IA): The ability of the user to perform actions in the virtual environment and receive immediate responses.

Fatigue (F): The level of physical and/or mental effort accumulated by the user while performing the tasks.

Human error (HE): The ability of the user to perform tasks without making errors that require restarting or relevant correction.

Learning curve (LC): The speed with which the user improves their performance by repeating tasks in the virtual environment.

Perceived creativity (C): The ability of the environment to facilitate the generation of diverse ideas during the design process.

It should be noted that, unlike other indicators that can be obtained directly from simple quantitative measurements, human error (HE) represents a more complex dimension due to the multifactorial nature of human error. Therefore, a set of submetrics associated with task execution, interface interaction, and error management were identified. The final calculation of the HE indicator was carried out using Equation (1), based on principles of cognitive ergonomics and international standards for quality of use (ISO 9241-11 and ISO/IEC 25010), and aligned with previous studies in virtual reality and design engineering environments [76,77]:

(1)$HE={\displaystyle \frac{S}{S+F+R+I+L+\frac{T_e}{T_t}}}$

where

S (successfully completed tasks): Number of tasks completed correctly without errors or interruptions.

F (failures or incomplete tasks): Number of errors or tasks that were not completed.

R (restarts): Number of restarts required due to loss of control or serious errors during the task.

I (interruptions): Number of interruptions caused by interface interaction difficulties.

L (loss of control): Number of times work control was lost, forcing task to be abandoned or redone.

T_e (error correction time): Total time spent correcting errors, including repetitions or adjustments needed to proceed.

T_t (total task time): Total time required to complete task, including errors, interruptions, and repetitions.

After analysing the individual indicators, a weighted usability index (UI) was calculated for each dimension (effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction) using Equation (2). This index combines the values of the indicators according to their relative contribution to each dimension:

(2)$UI={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sum w_i}}\sum _{i=1}^9{w}_i·x_i$

where $x_i$ is the score obtained in indicator i (ordinal scale: 1, 2, or 3) and $w_i$ is the weight assigned to each indicator. To maintain comparability across dimensions, the sum of the weights was normalised ($\sum w_i$ = 1), setting the UI limits within the [1, 3] range.

The weights assigned to each indicator were established according to ISO 9241-11 [65] based on the degree of impact on each dimension of usability (see Table 3). A high value (0.25) was assigned to indicators that have a direct influence on achieving the primary objective of the corresponding dimension; a medium value (0.10) was given to those that support or facilitate performance, although they are not sufficient by themselves to ensure it; and a low value (0.05) was attributed to indicators with an indirect contribution, meaning they may influence the outcome without substantially affecting the achievement of the assessed dimension. Additionally, a sensitivity analysis was conducted using different weighting schemes to verify the robustness of the results: the original scenario (S1) and two alternative configurations, one with uniform weighting, assigning equal weight to all indicators (S2), and another with inverse weighting, assigning greater weight to the less dominant or more subjectively interpreted indicators (S3).

3. Market Research: Current State of Immersive Technologies in Industrial Design

This section examines the current state of immersive technologies applied to industrial design, dividing the results of the market study into two parts: Section 3.1 addresses the current usage within the sector, identifying applications and levels of adoption; Section 3.2 provides a review of the resources available on the market, analysing the technical and functional characteristics of the main hardware and software solutions orientated towards product design in virtual environments.

3.1. Application of Immersive Technologies in Industrial Design

Existing research has demonstrated the relevance of immersive technologies for industrial design and their potential applications. Currently, various sectors, academic environments, and design-orientated companies are incorporating virtual technologies into their workflows.

Historically, large corporations have been the primary users of immersive technologies, such as CAVE systems, due to the level of investment required [18,41]. The automotive and aeronautical industries have recognised the potential of virtual reality (VR) and have implemented it accordingly [25,41]. The automotive sector, in particular, has been the most extensively studied [60]. However, other sectors, including aerospace, agriculture, construction, consumer goods, energy, and defence, have also contributed to the adoption of virtual environments [78], and design-orientated businesses and major firms have also begun integrating immersive technologies [79]. The current trend, driven by more advanced and affordable solutions, is the growing adoption in more general commercial enterprises, including small and medium-sized enterprises [1,25].

Major automotive companies use VR in product design because of its ability to support the sketching of fluid, organic forms in three dimensions. The possibility of visualising a full-scale sketch during the creative process assists designers in addressing complex problems. Ford was the first car manufacturer to work with the VR tool ‘Gravity Sketch’, achieving substantial reductions in time and cost thanks to simultaneous collaboration in locations such as Dearborn, Shanghai, and others [80]. Companies like McLaren employ 3D sketching software such as ‘Vector Suite’ for design purposes [74]. Other firms, such as Jeep, Nissan, Rivian, Volkswagen, and Polaris Industries, have also incorporated ‘Gravity Sketch’ [68] into their design workflows to create, review, and refine vehicle concepts in VR. Additional companies, including KIA, Toyota, BMW, Lamborghini, Volvo, Jaguar, Renault, Mazda, and Tesla, are accelerating direct iterations from CAD to immersive environments [42]. VR and AR are not only used to optimise product development, but are also applied to end-user sales processes. They enable immediate real-time customisation, enhance the purchasing experience, and contribute to increased sales. Companies such as Porsche [81], BMW [82], Audi [43], Renault [83], and Mercedes [84] have developed applications and showrooms that integrate AR and MR.

Another sector that is adopting these technologies is footwear. Considerable benefits are obtained in terms of innovation, and they also enable the production of more personalised products. Various companies are integrating immersive software to design trainers. Some examples include Zellerfeld [85], Adidas [86], Reebok [44], and New Balance [87]. These tools allow them to test different shapes, materials, and colours in a virtual environment prior to physical prototyping. Design times are reduced, and creativity levels are enhanced. These are designs orientated towards 3D printing, due to the geometric complexity of the products.

The furniture sector, particularly in relation to conceptual design, could also benefit from the use of these emerging technologies to generate new designs. AR enables visualisations within the environment of the user; one example of this type of application is the IKEA brand [6]. This sector has the potential to make use of these technologies for ergonomic analysis and collaborative design. No publicly accessible applications using VR have been identified among commercial brands. However, several initiatives in academic contexts have shown promising outcomes through their application [37]. Some individual designers, such as Nicholas Bakes, are also using these tools to develop forms with higher geometric complexity. The award-winning piece ‘Superchair’ was created from a basic flat surface, which was manipulated to obtain the final organic geometry [88].

3.2. Available Resources of Immersive Tools for Industrial Design

This section presents an analysis of the current market for immersive technologies applied to industrial design. Two key areas are addressed: (1) a study of available hardware devices and their suitability for the requirements of immersive product design; (2) a comparative analysis of software for sketching, modelling, simulation, and immersive visualisation. This examination of available technological resources aims to provide an objective and critical foundation for the specific selection and implementation of these tools in industrial design.

Technologies based on VR, AR, and MR have been examined, with a focus on the product design process. The target audience includes product designers, design engineers, R&D teams, and companies specialised in industrial design. Understanding the available solutions and their characteristics is essential to support informed decision-making about implementation in academic and professional environments.

3.2.1. Hardware Analysis for Immersive Design

The effective implementation of immersive technologies in industrial design depends to a large extent on the type of hardware used. Hardware represents the essential physical component for conducting design activities in immersive environments. The development of these devices has been characterised by improvements in visual performance, the accuracy of motion sensors, and comfort during extended use. The quality of the experience in product design is defined by the following parameters: visual fidelity, or the precision in image reproduction (including spatial resolution, colour depth, contrast, and field of view); latency, understood as the time delay between the user’s action and the visual response projected through the headset; and tracking capability, meaning the accuracy and speed with which the system detects and replicates user movements. These parameters, respectively, enable detailed and realistic product representation, ensure precise manipulation while reducing motion sickness, and allow for observation of the product from multiple angles or interaction through subtle gestures. In the context of industrial design, it is also essential that these devices ensure spatial accuracy, interoperability with design software, and ergonomic features adapted to long working sessions.

The selection of the included immersive devices was based on their direct applicability to industrial design (Table 4). Those enabling sketching, modelling, and prototype validation in immersive environments were considered. Priority was given to equipment compatible with a specialised software, with established presence in the international market, and with documented real-world use cases. Devices representative of the three fundamental technology categories were included (RV, RA, and RM). The analysis was conducted distinguishing connection types—wireless and wired. In addition, other complementary tools were incorporated to improve the design accuracy.

Wired systems require direct connection to a high-performance computer. This enables the execution of demanding applications and ensures superior graphical quality, minimal latency, and advanced tracking capabilities. However, this configuration limits user mobility and requires a more complex physical infrastructure. Such systems are suitable for advanced simulation applications, technical product evaluation, and high-resolution CAD visualisation. Generally, these devices enable the designer to interact with the virtual model in a richer and more detailed manner, simulating pressure, textures, or resistance. For products requiring ergonomic validation, functional assessment, or accessibility testing, these technologies considerably expand the possibilities of immersive design. For conceptual product design, VR styluses that improve point selection accuracy are particularly useful [89].

The first commercial VR systems, such as the HTC Vive (2016) and Oculus Rift (2016), featured wired connections. These devices offered excellent visual quality and accuracy but exhibited some limitations in mobility, ease of installation, and cost. Consequently, their use was restricted to advanced industrial or academic environments. Over time, a shift towards wireless connections has occurred. This transition began with the release of Oculus Quest (2019) and was consolidated with its successors Meta Quest 2 (2020) and Meta Quest 3 (2023). These devices integrate the processor, battery, and inside-out tracking system, allowing users to move freely without external sensors or cables. This trend has been accompanied by a considerable reduction in cost. There is a wide price range between early wired devices and the latest wireless models. Increased hardware accessibility has been essential for the expansion of immersive technologies beyond exclusively industrial settings.

From a technical perspective, devices have evolved from VR to the integration of AR and MR. Specifically, wireless devices, while prioritising portability and accessibility, have implemented substantial improvements in resolution and processing capacity. Headsets such as ‘Meta Quest 3’ and ‘Apple Vision Pro’ incorporate RGB cameras, allowing MR experiences in addition to pure VR. This evolution makes these systems fully functional for the early stages of conceptual design, educational settings, collaborative review, and product presentation. Consequently, these hybrid devices have helped blur the boundaries between VR, AR, and MR.

In the field of product design, the choice between a wired or wireless system must be guided by criteria of use, context, and budget. For tasks requiring high-precision modelling, functional simulation, or detailed validation in controlled environments, wired systems remain the most suitable option. However, for rapid ideation, 3D sketching, collaborative processes, or product presentations to clients, wireless devices represent a better solution.

The selection of appropriate immersive hardware should be based on a technical assessment that considers the balance between visual quality, interactive response, mobility, and cost. Additionally, it must be in accordance with project objectives, user profiles, and operational environment, whether educational, professional, or research-orientated.

3.2.2. Analysis of Software for Immersive Design

The available software for working in immersive environments is analysed in the following. This section aims to understand how VR, AR, and MR technologies are implemented in the industrial design process through software. These tools expand the creative and collaborative capabilities of designers. They also enable the integration of new methodologies focused on spatial experience, real-time interaction, and three-dimensional product validation. The evolution of this type of software has produced specialised tools for spatial sketching, technical review, interactive simulation, and remote collaboration.

Immersive software can be classified into five categories according to its primary purpose (Table 5): (1) 3D sketching and sculpting; (2) technical modelling and CAD review; (3) collaborative design; (4) interactive simulation and animation; (5) augmented visualisation.

One of the most widely used types of immersive software is 3D sketching. This practice transfers the freedom of manual drawing to the three-dimensional environment. Through natural gestures, spatial strokes are generated at full scale. A prominent example is ‘Gravity Sketch’ [68], one of the most established platforms, used by professionals in product, automotive, and footwear design worldwide. Its compatibility with wireless headsets, such as ‘Meta Quest’, and its accessible learning curve, based on a visual and gesture-driven interface, have facilitated its adoption in both professional and educational contexts. ‘Autodesk Alias Create VR’ [70] also incorporates 3D sketching as part of the technical surface modelling workflow. This type of software supports the transition from sketching to modelling. There is also the option of creating models directly through a 3D sculpting approach. This involves intuitively and gesturally shaping or manipulating 3D forms using haptic controllers as if working with a physical material. An example of suitable software for this is ‘Adobe Substance 3D Modeler’ [69]. Overall, this type of software is highly suitable for the early stages of conceptual design.

Some platforms allow for the visualisation, editing, or review of parametric models directly within virtual environments. ‘Mindesk’ [72] stands out for offering native integration with ‘Rhinoceros’ and ‘Solidworks’. It is possible to work on the original model in real time without the need for prior export. This is suitable in cases where geometric precision must be maintained and multidisciplinary teams are involved, combining engineering and design. Although technically demanding, it preserves model fidelity in VR environments. Another example is ‘Autodesk Alias Create VR’ [70], which enables surface modelling in VR with industrial-level precision. Its approach is clearly orientated towards the automotive and transportation industries, where surfaces require visual assessment that immersive environments can effectively provide.

The evolution and integration of collaborative processes across all areas have supported the development of immersive platforms that incorporate such capabilities. ‘ShapesXR’ [73] is one of the most prominent. It is an application for conceptual design applied to product development, primarily focused on rapid prototyping and collaborative design. Multiple users can share sessions, comment on models, modify geometries, and create user experience scenarios. ‘Mindesk’ [72], beyond its primary function of CAD and BIM model design and review, is also aimed at supporting collaboration and decision-making. It includes synchronous multi-user presence and hybrid collaboration between desktop and VR, making it a suitable tool for co-design processes. Finally, ‘Gravity Sketch’ [68] also presents an effective option for real-time collaboration. Spatial communication is particularly intuitive through the ‘LandingPad Collab’ application, which enables the creation of virtual rooms and facilitates the invitation and management of participants.

Interactive simulation and animation in this type of software provide dynamic representations of product behaviour, functionality, and user experience. They are particularly useful for early-stage design validation, visual iteration, and narrative communication in collaborative contexts. Platforms such as ‘Unity’ [90] and ‘Unreal Engine’ [91], in addition to supporting the import of CAD models, enable interactive behaviour programming and simulation of realistic usage environments. ‘Unity’, with its integrated physics engine and ‘Mecanim’ animation system, is notable for its accessibility, large user community and versatility across-platforms. ‘Unreal Engine’, which incorporates the Chaos Physics Engine and the advanced ‘Animation Blueprints’ and ‘Sequencer’ systems, is distinguished by its high-fidelity graphics and cinematic tools. Although these are not direct design tools and were initially developed as video game engines, their ability to validate interactions, test configurations, or produce dynamic presentations makes them powerful complements. These platforms require more advanced technical knowledge, but are essential in user-centred design (UX) processes and functional simulation [92,93].

Some immersive software solutions include augmented visualisation features through AR and MR (Figure 2). These are particularly useful for validating the placement of a product within the intended environment or for exploring design alternatives directly in the field. ‘Gravity Sketch’ supports ‘passthrough’ functionality (visualisation of the physical environment through cameras integrated into the headset), on devices such as ‘Meta Quest’, enabling full-scale model review in real-world scenarios. ‘Mindesk’ enables accurate immersive real-time interaction in mixed contexts, while ‘Vector Suite’ facilitates ergonomic evaluations and product reviews from a spatial perspective. Although these functionalities remain under development, they represent progress towards more dynamic and context-sensitive hybrid design environments.

The interoperability among the leading immersive software solutions for industrial design is progressing towards more integrated workflows. This development is driven by the possibility of exporting models in standard formats such as OBJ, FBX, or STEP, as well as by increasing compatibility with platforms for visualisation, review, or simulation. For example, ‘Gravity Sketch’ [68] enables model export for refinement in ‘Mindesk’ [72] or evaluation in ‘ShapesXR’ [73], which facilitates continuity between conceptual sketching and technical modelling. This interoperability is strengthened by using complementary software, such as ‘Immersive Designer’ for Siemens NX [94], ‘eDrawings Viewer’ for Solidworks [95] or ‘Workshop XR’ for Autodesk [96]. These tools enhance technical validation by allowing review and manipulation of complex CAD models within immersive environments. In addition, other auxiliary tools expand design possibilities by linking the immersive environment with experience analysis or interactive presentation. Examples include ‘Adobe Aero’ [97] to integrate prototypes into real contexts through AR, ‘KeyVR’ [98] for realistic visualisation and immersive model review, and ‘Cognitive 3D’ [99] for user interaction. This level of interoperability among immersive platforms and CAD or advanced visualisation tools contributes to more flexible, iterative, and collaborative design environments.

The learning curve of this type of software varies according to its complexity. Platforms such as ‘Gravity Sketch’ [68] or ‘ShapesXR’ [73] feature intuitive interfaces and accessible visual environments. This allows for rapid adoption even by users without experience in 3D modelling. However, tools such as ‘Mindesk’ [72], ‘Autodesk Alias Create VR’ [70], ‘Unity’ [90], or ‘Unreal Engine’ [91], require advanced technical knowledge in parametric design, programming, or simulation. Complementary software, such as ‘KeyVR’ [98] or ‘Adobe Aero’ [97], generally occupies an intermediate position. They offer user-friendly interfaces, but depend on prior understanding of CAD workflows or AR. Ultimately, mastering these environments and software demands progressive technical familiarisation. Therefore, its inclusion in industrial design training processes would be advisable.

The adoption of immersive software in industrial design has experienced steady growth in recent years. According to data from ‘Gravity Sketch’ (2023), the platform has more than 100,000 active monthly users, with presence in more than 170 educational institutions and established use in companies such as Adidas, Volkswagen, Ford, Nissan, and Reebok [100]. This growth is attributed to hardware accessibility, the maturation of interfaces, and the need for methodologies that are more visual, collaborative, and user-centred. In professional settings, its use has expanded to design studios, engineering, and advanced manufacturing. It is used primarily for early concept validation, collaborative review, and interactive simulation. Within academia, design and engineering schools have integrated these platforms to enable more experimental and immersive learning environments. They have been incorporated as part of training in three-dimensional design, virtual prototyping, and user experience. This trend reflects a shift in traditional workflows toward more iterative and multisensory models, with increasing acceptance in educational contexts and applied innovation.

The analysed software demonstrates high compatibility with the main hardware devices. They are primarily compatible with headsets such as Meta Quest 2/3, HTC Vive Pro, Varjo XR-3, Vive XR Elite, or HP Reverb G2. Some platforms, such as Gravity Sketch or ShapesXR, operate natively on standalone headsets like Meta Quest, which enhances portability and accessibility. In contrast, more advanced tools such as Mindesk, Alias Create VR, Unity, or Unreal Engine require PC-connected headsets to fully leverage their technical and graphical capabilities. Hardware has recently evolved toward models with advanced passthrough and mixed reality capabilities. This development has also driven the creation of specific software functions, enabling smoother integration between physical and virtual environments. This technical compatibility between software platforms and immersive hardware is essential to ensure efficient, realistic workflows that are adaptable to different stages of the product design process.

To conclude the analysis, immersive software is changing the industrial design process. Its adoption does not rely solely on technology, but on its ability to integrate into existing workflows, add value at various stages, and enable more effective communication among teams. Platforms such as ‘Gravity Sketch’ and ‘ShapesXR’ stand out for providing a balanced combination of functionality, accessibility, and scalability, while others such as ‘Mindesk’, ‘Alias Create VR’, and ‘Unity’ allow for addressing specific tasks that require high precision or greater functional complexity. The interoperability and gradual integration with CAD environments point to a smoother transition between visual thinking, technical modelling, and immersive experiences. The choice of software should be aligned with the specific project needs, design phase, product type, required immersion level, and available hardware.

4. Results: Analysis of the Integration of VR, AR, and MR in the Design Process

This section presents the results obtained from the analysis of the usability of immersive technologies applied to product design. Information is organised at two levels: (1) individual results for the nine performance indicators defined in the methodology (Table 2), which allows for a detailed analysis of the behaviour of VR, AR, and MR (Section 4.1); (2) aggregated results by usability dimension (effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction) according to the ISO 9241-11:2018 standard (Section 4.2).

The Design Units encompass a wide range of design situations and conditions of user-immersive technology interaction, which allowed evaluation of the different defined usability indicators: (1) type of design task, involving varying technical and creative capabilities of the designer in terms of control, precision, and expressiveness, including sketching, 3D modelling, geometric modifications on meshes, and morphological adjustments aimed at ergonomic adaptation (for example, 3D sketching of a vehicle, detailed modelling of a ring, or morphological adaptation of a reading chair); (2) work environment, which enabled observation of how the type of immersive setting influences perception, control, and the quality of the obtained result, including (i) VR environments without physical references (such as the outdoor chair), (ii) virtual spaces incorporating anatomical models or elements from the usage context (such as the mouse in a virtual hand or the reading chair with a human figure), (iii) AR and MR environments where the design is performed directly on the visualisation of the real physical environment (such as the candle holder modelled on the real candle); (3) cognitive and motor demands placed on the designer, aimed at analysing important variations in mental workload, human error, or learning, including sequential and mechanical tasks, tasks with high attentional requirements, or free exploration tasks; (4) scale of intervention, covering different spatial magnitudes, such as small pieces requiring precise manipulation in a compact setting (for example, jewellery), medium-sized components with functional adjustment needs (such as furniture), and complex volumes involving movement and navigation within an extended immersive space (such as the vehicle); (5) ergonomic conditions, to analyse the physical–spatial relationship between the user and the designed product, observing the degree of anthropometric and biomechanical adaptation and the precision achieved under simulated usage conditions (such as the mouse adapted to the hand, the reading chair, or the outdoor chair modelled with postural criteria); (6) interoperability and physical validation, with designs exported and used in other modelling and 3D printing software, aiming to verify the quality of workflows between process stages and the reliability of immersive technologies as integrated tools within the design process.

4.1. Results of Usability Indicator Analysis

The individual results for the nine indicators are presented in Figure 3 and are described separately in this section. In some Design Units, indicators have been grouped according to their affinity, such as the analysis of designer performance (including comfort and human error) and the performance of the design process (including time to complete tasks and completed tasks). The results of the learning curve analysis have been integrated transversally due to their direct influence on the performance of all indicators.

4.1.1. Dimensional Accuracy

One of the most notable features of immersive technologies applied to design is the ability to sketch and model directly within a three-dimensional environment. This allows the user to interact with the product model from multiple perspectives in real time. Controllers function as drawing tools, capable of adopting roles equivalent to pencils, pens, digital rulers, or compasses, depending on the software used [101]. In VR environments, spatial selection of points achieves higher dimension accuracy thanks to controllers with position and orientation tracking. This contrasts with traditional paper sketching, where accuracy depends on the graphic skills of the designer, or traditional 3D modelling using peripherals such as mouse and keyboard. Specific tools, such as the digital pen in Gravity Sketch, enable reaching dimensional accuracy levels comparable to those achieved with a mouse in CAD environments but with greater gestural freedom. To empirically evaluate the accuracy of geometric dimensions in immersive environments, specific tests were carried out in Design Units 1 (ring) and 2 (candle holder).

To evaluate dimensional accuracy in VR, the design and modelling of a ring was performed using the freehand drawing function of the ‘Gravity Sketch’ controllers, adjusting the anthropometric dimensions with a female hand model (Figure 4a). The model was exported in OBJ format, processed with the software ‘Ultimaker Cura’ (UltiMaker B.V., Utrecht, Netherlands), and manufactured using 3D printing (Figure 4b). The final model showed an absolute error of 0.1 mm (0.55% relative error), which is considered acceptable for conceptual prototyping tasks in immersive environments (Figure 4c).

To analyse dimensional accuracy in the use of AR, the design and direct modelling of the product from Design Unit 2 (candle holder) were carried out on a physical element (candle). First, the scale of the augmented environment was validated (Figure 4d). Next, a three-dimensional model was developed, adjusted to the real geometry (Figure 4e), by modelling the surface wrap and editing the thickness of the candle holder; the design was manufactured using 3D printing (Figure 4f) and validated dimensionally by fitting it onto the candle (Figure 4g). The absence of deviation in measurements (absolute error of 0.0 mm and 0.0% relative error) indicates a complete match between the AR design and the physical result (Figure 4h), demonstrating that immersive tools can maintain high dimensional accuracy in modelling tasks involving real elements.

4.1.2. User Performance

User performance was evaluated from an ergonomic perspective, focusing on comfort and human error.

The comfort assessment considered fatigue generation or decline in physical and cognitive performance caused by prolonged exposure to stress factors—in this case, the controllers (Meta Quest 3 headset, hand controllers) and the ‘Gravity Sketch’ interface. Key aspects included (1) physical fatigue resulting from maintaining strained postures (head, neck, and shoulders) and repetitive movements (arms and wrists), which caused muscle overload; (2) visual fatigue, associated with sustained eye concentration in the digital environment of ‘Gravity Sketch’, which led to dizziness, headaches, and loss of focus during extended modelling sessions. Fatigue was exacerbated by the initial lack of familiarity of the designer with immersive environments, and these symptoms limited effective work duration, requiring interruptions or breaks in all Design Units. However, this difficulty gradually decreased as experience with the system increased.

Human error was evaluated using a composite indicator that integrates various factors related to user performance during VR design sessions (Table 6). The definition and rationale of each variable included in the human error (HE) index are detailed in the Methods Section. Successful completions (tasks completed correctly) and different types of errors and difficulties were considered, including failures, restarts due to serious errors, interruptions caused by interface problems, loss of work control, and the time spent correcting errors relative to total task time. The results show a high rate of iteration, correction, and task modification during the design process. The ability to undo actions and edit directly in VR/AR models reduces the severity of errors, although it does not reduce their frequency. In most Design Units (such as the ring, candle holder, vehicle, mouse, or outdoor chair), multiple interruptions and partial restarts were recorded; these situations were more frequent during the learning phase. This reflects a great dependence on mastering the interface to ensure smooth interaction. Although technology allows quick error recovery, interruptions due to lack of knowledge of functions, export difficulties, or loss of model control were recurrent. The high proportion of tasks not successfully completed, compared to those completed, reveals navigation difficulties within the interface and loss of control over the model, attributed to disconnection from the physical reality and low cognitive adaptation to fully virtual environments. In most Design Units, solutions were not achieved linearly, but through iterative trial-and-error processes. Although the time spent correcting technical errors was relatively low compared to the total work time, the accumulation of failures, restarts, and unsatisfactory decisions directly affected the efficiency of the process. However, this characteristic also promoted creativity by turning errors into opportunities for new ideas (as happened in the design of the reading chair and the high stool).

4.1.3. Interoperability

During the development of the Design Units, the functional interoperability between the VR devices used and other digital software and hardware platforms (‘iPad’, ‘Stylus Pen’, ‘Ultimaker Cura’, ‘Procreate’, and ‘Keyshot’) was analysed. OBJ or FBX files were used as standard formats for model transfer, although adjustments to scale and alignment were sometimes required to ensure proper visualisation or manipulation in the target platforms.

In Design Units 1 and 2 (ring and candle holder), for example, files were exported in OBJ format to check the print parameters in ‘Ultimaker Cura’ and manufacture prototypes using a 3D printer (Figure 4b,f). This process required a specific review of the scale and orientation to ensure the technical feasibility of printing. In Design Unit 4 (mouse), the workflow began with preliminary modelling on an iPad Pro (Figure 5a) using the device-specific version of ‘Gravity Sketch’, allowing high precision with the digital pen and flexible tactile interaction (Figure 5a). The file was exported in OBJ format and imported into ‘Procreate’, where complementary details were added using 2D digital sketching (Figure 5b). The mouse design was then finalised in VR with ‘Gravity Sketch’ by generating surfaces on the previous structure and selecting the appropriate colours (Figure 5c). This process enabled the achievement of high-quality graphic output for conceptual presentations (Figure 5d).

The transition from ‘Gravity Sketch’ to ‘KeyShot’ was implemented in Design Units 5 (outdoor armchair) and 6 (reading armchair) using the FBX file format. The ability to retain geometry, textures, and colours applied within the immersive environment avoided the need for manual reassignment of materials and accelerated the rendering process. The outdoor armchair was rendered in ‘KeyShot’ (Figure 6a). In the reading armchair Design Unit, materials were assigned in ‘Gravity Sketch’ (Figure 6b) and successfully retained in ‘KeyShot’ (Figure 6c). Further material and finish tests were performed in the rendering software for each of the designed models (Figure 6d).

For Design Units 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7 (ring, candle holder, mouse, reading armchair, and high stool), the design outcomes were integrated directly into MR using ‘Gravity Sketch’. The models were visualised at full scale in the physical environment to verify the dimensions of the ring (Figure 7a), create the revolved surface of the candle holder (Figure 7b), visualise the mouse and check the dimensions using a real hand (Figure 7c), and analyse the spatial and aesthetic integration of the reading armchair (Figure 7d) and the high stool (Figure 7e)). This representation enabled validation within the intended context of use, taking into account aspects such as proportions, aesthetic integration within the environment, spatial arrangement, and ergonomic suitability for the user. Other software, such as ‘KeyXR’, also allows the integration of designed models into virtual environments within real physical settings through MR visualisation.

4.1.4. Interactivity

‘Gravity Sketch’ is characterised by highly direct and intuitive interactivity (Figure 8). It allows users to act directly on a three-dimensional model without the need for complex menus or hierarchical commands. This immediacy supports a fast learning curve for 3D sketching tasks (Figure 8a), particularly in the conceptual stages of the design process. The use of controllers, such as the ‘Touch Plus Controllers’ included with ‘Meta Quest 3’ (Figure 8b), enables direct manipulation of geometry in space, freehand drawing, and immediate surface editing. Furthermore, the integrated hand tracking option on the device provides a more natural alternative to certain navigation tasks or basic interactions, although with more limited functionality for precision design (Figure 8d). However, the wide range of stroke selection options offers considerable versatility for modelling (Figure 8e). ‘Gravity Sketch’ offers specific tools for volumetric modelling, symmetry application, and thickness or proportion adjustments, without relying on overloaded interfaces. It also supports the import of human models (Figure 8c,f) and elements from the intended context of use, facilitating usability analysis in real-world scenarios.

The main advantage is that the user is literally inside the model, eliminating the need to interpret perspective from 2D projections. Any action is performed directly in three-dimensional space at the desired scale and angle. This enhances the formal, spatial, and ergonomic understanding of the design, reduces errors, and allows for more immediate validation of decisions. The manipulation of the model is more intuitive and physical, resulting in a more natural and fluid design process. Although interactivity is high, some limitations are identified. Millimetre-level accuracy is difficult to achieve without additional peripherals, such as VR styluses, haptic gloves, or high-precision optical tracking devices. Likewise, it is common to need to refine the model later in complementary software such as ‘Rhinoceros’ or ‘SolidWorks’, especially when technical geometry, tight tolerances, or exportation for manufacturing processes are required. While command access is fluid, the software interface design does not always allow for clear organisation of advanced tools. This can slow down work during later stages of product development.

4.1.5. Design Process Performance

The time to complete tasks, tasks completed, and learning curve show a clear progression across the different Design Units. Time to complete tasks tended to increase in the latter Design Units due to the greater formal and functional complexity of the designed products (such as the armchairs or the stool). The increase in the rate of tasks completed and the gradual improvement in the learning curve in the latter Design Units suggest better mastery of the immersive tools, ‘Gravity Sketch’ software, and ‘Meta Quest 3’ device.

Immersive technologies considerably facilitate the execution of industrial design tasks by enabling direct three-dimensional interaction, real-scale manipulation, and precise spatial representation. However, they initially present a steep learning curve, especially for users without prior experience, due to the need to adapt to new interfaces and devices. This initial phase may increase the time to complete tasks. Once the familiarisation stage is overcome, the time required to complete tasks is considerably reduced, and the efficiency of the process improves. Overall, these technologies demonstrate strong potential to optimise the workflow once the familiarisation phase has been surpassed.

4.1.6. Perceived Creativity

Perceived creativity was evaluated on the number of design variants generated. The results show a progressive increase in the production of proposals as greater mastery of the virtual environment is acquired. The products with stronger expressive and ergonomic components, Design Units 6 (Figure 9a,b) and 7 (Figure 9c,d), registered the highest levels of perceived creativity. This may indicate that immersive design stimulates idea generation in Design Units where formal language plays a central role. It may also be influenced by the ease of creating new models within the immersive environment of ‘Gravity Sketch’.

The general analysis suggests that immersive technologies support divergent thinking. The possibility to work at full scale, modify geometries in real time, and move around the product enhances spatial exploration and creative flow. This could help overcome some limitations of traditional design tools, such as paper sketching and 2D screen CAD modelling. VR encourages a more intuitive, embodied, and iterative process. However, this advantage is strengthened after an initial familiarisation phase with the physical and digital interfaces of the software and hardware. In other words, the learning curve also affects the full development of creative potential.

4.2. Aggregated Results by Usability Dimension: Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Satisfaction

Figure 10 summarises the results obtained for the three dimensions of usability—effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction—in the different Design Units. A positive development is observed, directly proportional to the accumulated experience of the designer within the immersive environment.

The dimension ‘Effectiveness’ shows the degree to which users can complete tasks with accuracy and completeness in relation to the established goals. The results indicate a positive development throughout the Design Units, from a value of 1.55 in Design Unit 1 (ring) to 2.85 in Design Unit 7 (high stool). This increase reflects an improvement in the ability to achieve design purposes, mainly from Design Unit 5 onwards, where the consolidation of the learning curve and effective adaptation to the immersive environment are observed. However, Design Units 3, 4, and 5 present lower effectiveness values (1.25, 1.20 and 1.40) compared to Design Unit 2 (1.60). This discontinuity could be due to the increase in the geometric complexity of the models developed (vehicle, mouse, and outdoor armchair), or also to an intermediate learning stage, where the designer had not reached sufficient mastery of the immersive environment to face more demanding tasks. In these Design Units, effectiveness was also the dimension with the lowest score compared to efficiency and satisfaction. Only in Design Unit 2 (candle holder) was it the highest rated, while in Design Units 4, 5, and 6 it obtained lower results. These observations indicate that effectiveness is the dimension that requires the highest level of experience to be achieved in immersive environments, being more sensitive to task difficulty and to the familiarity of the user with the software and hardware platform.

The dimension ‘Efficiency’ analyses the resources used (time, physical effort, cognitive effort, and actions required to complete a task) in relation to the accuracy and completeness with which users achieve their goals. The results reflect a general positive progress throughout the study, especially from Design Unit 5 onwards. The earlier Design Units show lower and similar values, reaching higher levels in the latter ones (1.85 in Design Unit 6 and 2.45 in Design Unit 7). This suggests a gradual improvement in operational performance related to greater familiarity with immersive technologies, which encouraged a reduction in task interruptions and better management of errors during the design process. Although the time to complete task indicator worsened in Design Units 6 and 7, this result was offset by improvements in other aspects (human error, interactivity, and learning curve), consolidating sustained overall efficiency. It is worth noting that in two intermediate Design Units (1 and 3), efficiency exceeded effectiveness and satisfaction, suggesting that this result can be achieved even before full mastery of the immersive environment. Overall, the results show that efficiency is sensitive to the balance between user experience, design complexity, and interface ergonomics.

The ‘Satisfaction’ dimension assesses the extent to which users perceive their immersive experience as positive, comfortable, and acceptable in relation to their expectations and needs. The results indicate a gradual growth. However, it is worth noting that good results appear in the first two Design Units, possibly due to the initial satisfaction obtained from discovering this type of environment. Afterwards, there is a slight decline, possibly related to increased difficulty in the type of products developed. Satisfaction reaches its highest values in the last two Design Units (6, reading chair, and 7, high stool) with scores of 2.35 and 2.85, respectively, surpassing effectiveness and efficiency. These Design Units coincide with those in which better results were observed on the learning curve and for perceived creativity. This outcome indicates that improving the mastery of the immersive environment, task execution fluency, and the freedom for creative exploration promote a more rewarding experience for the user. The high levels of satisfaction observed are related to an intuitive interface that facilitates control, an error-free workflow, and smooth interaction; furthermore, the ability to make real-time adjustments and the coherence between actions and results contribute to generating a positive user experience.

These Design Units show that usability which supports the full potential of immersive technologies requires a period of adaptation and learning; once this stage is overcome, the advantages of immersive technologies over traditional design approaches become evident in terms of both result quality and user experience.

4.3. Sensitivity Analysis

To verify the robustness of the results obtained, a sensitivity analysis was conducted comparing the effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction scores between the original scenario (S1) and two alternative weighting configurations: uniform weighting, assigning equal weight to all indicators (S2), and inverse weighting, assigning higher weights to less dominant or more interpretive indicators (S3). For each scenario, the usability results were recalculated. Figure 11 shows the progression of effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction values for the seven Design Units analysed under the three scenarios, S1, S2, and S3; all graphs show consistency in the overall trend, with isolated low-magnitude differences between scenarios. Although there are slight variations in absolute values, particularly in intermediate Design Units, the curves maintain a very similar shape, indicating that the behaviour of the indicators is not significantly affected by the changes in applied weights.

This conclusion is supported by the numerical results obtained through the calculation of the Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) and the Relative Standard Deviation (%RSD) metrics. The results are presented in Table 7:

The %RSD and RMSE results obtained under the different weighting scenarios (S1, S2, and S3) do not show significant deviations. Although a degree of sensitivity is expected when modifying the values, the %RSD results remain below the 25% threshold, which is considered acceptable when human judgement or subjective metrics are involved. This indicates an acceptable level of variability across the evaluated scenarios.

These results support the robustness of the proposed indicator system under different weighting schemes. They also confirm that the methodology used to calculate usability exhibits a high degree of stability when the weights assigned to each indicator are modified; that is, the conclusions of the study are not critically dependent on any single weighting configuration.

5. Discussion

This study analyses the actual potential of immersive technologies in the specific context of industrial product design. Through an embedded single case study, the capacity of VR, AR, and MR was assessed in terms of transforming traditional workflows, enhancing creativity, and facilitating design validation. The empirical approach made it possible to verify the advantages and challenges of using immersive tools. The study examined the efficiency and effectiveness of these tools and also evaluated designer satisfaction in terms of their impact on the user experience.

The results obtained confirm that the use of immersive technology helps streamline and improve the industrial design process. According to several previous studies, it has been found that these technologies have a great capacity to integrate into design workflows from the early stages to faciliate (1) ideation and concept generation [2,31,50,102,103]; (2) validation and visualisation of product designs in real contexts [34,78,104,105]; (3) interactivity in the design process [1,18,28,34]; (4) reduction in the learning curve [18,19,105]; (5) reduction in the time to complete tasks [1,18]. Specifically, within the conceptual design stage, especially for the inspiration phase, VR enables the creation of spatial Moodboards. Designers immerse themselves in virtual environments where the generation of ideas is stimulated and creative activities are facilitated. By presenting information in a highly realistic way, these immersive spaces promote creative insights that are difficult to achieve with traditional media. Thanks to immersive 3D sketching, the limitations of two-dimensional surfaces such as paper or screens are eliminated. Immersive sketching tools allow drawing directly in three-dimensional space through natural gestures. This turns ideation into a fluid, fast, and flexible process, serving as a transition between early sketches and detailed 3D models. During the detailed design stage, immersive technologies are fundamental for generating prototypes and interactive virtual models. Virtual prototypes can be iterated quickly after simulations and analysis of results, reducing the costs and time associated with the production of physical prototypes. Regarding immersive 3D modelling, it allows the creation of parametric and mesh-based geometric representations. In addition, the different peripherals facilitate the manipulation of 3D shapes (controllers, haptic gloves, or gesture actions with hands and arms). In the validation phase, they facilitate the simulation and evaluation of user–product interaction through virtual usability tests and ergonomic evaluations. The combination of VR with 3D printing, as mixed prototyping, facilitates the interaction of the design team with design solutions, evaluating their suitability for the context of use. Specifically, AR facilitates the validation of 3D models directly superimposed on the real physical environment, allowing real-time adjustment of geometries, dimensions, proportions, and positions. Finally, in the phase of communication with the client, immersive technologies provide an intuitive and high-quality 3D visualisation of products, showing results at full scale, with the goal of facilitating the understanding of dimensions, proportions, and aesthetic and functional aspects from multiple perspectives, enabling walking around or through the product and facilitating early detection of errors or the need for changes. This spatial experience is especially interesting in the design of large or structurally complex products. In the field of product presentation, these technologies are effective tools for displaying design ideas, as they allow the generation of multiple concepts or modifications in an interactive and immediate way.

Likewise, it is confirmed that the technologies overcome the limitations of traditional methods of manual representation or CAD environments. One of the main benefits is their potential to enhance creativity, as they facilitate rapid idea generation with a lower cognitive load for the transition from 2D to 3D. Instant visualisation and versatile interaction favour ideation in the creative process due to the ease of exploration, immersion, and the enjoyment of an experience highly close to reality (the latter speeds up experimentation, the exchange of ideas, and enhances the search for originality). Similarly, collaborative processes also find these technologies to be useful tools. It is possible to collaborate remotely, test different options, and communicate design proposals; this is due to the fact that this type of tool minimises communication difficulties and improves the quality of the collaborative design process. VR allows teams to collaborate on an infinite 3D canvas, visualising 3D models and full-scale prototypes, being able to modify designs in real time. It enables review tasks to be completed more quickly and with greater participant satisfaction. It also facilitates more cost-effective and flexible design iterations, without sacrificing the quality of interaction or productivity in the co-design process. AR has a relevant role, improving decision-making and enriching collective creativity, thanks to the possibility of integrating virtual models developed by the design team into a real environment. Finally, the following benefits related to resource optimisation in the design process are identified: (1) reduction in time and costs due to the rapid creation and modification of digital models, the construction of digital prototypes, the ability to iterate designs almost instantly, and the early detection of errors and design problems; in addition, the current decrease in the cost of VR and AR hardware has made these technologies more accessible and cost-effective in the design process; (2) the achievement of appropriate product design solutions in the early stages of the project because of their ability to simulate and evaluate solutions through more precise and detailed feedback during the conceptual design stage than with traditional models; (3) the enrichment of technical documentation due to the digitalisation of the design project, designated as expanded digitalisation, which integrates all stages of the product life cycle. This is made possible by the convergence of CAD-VR/AR workflows, full-scale virtual prototyping, continuous simulation, global cloud-based collaboration, and integration with additive manufacturing.

Limitations and Future Work

Analysing the scope of this work, several limitations are identified that allow future lines of work to be defined. One limitation of the present study is the small sample of participants, focused on a single designer, which restricts the generalisation of the results. No systematic comparison between different immersive devices and tools was conducted. Likewise, individual variables that can significantly influence the results, such as prior experience in 3D design, cognitive profile, or physical tolerance, were not included. Another limitation of the study is that some of the indicators, such as perceived creativity, are based on the self-assessment of the participant and were not validated by external evaluators, which introduces a possible subjective bias in the results. Finally, the study does not include control groups using traditional methodologies, which makes it difficult to establish direct comparisons with non-immersive approaches.

It is proposed to replicate this study with methodological improvements in terms of (1) a broader sample of designers with different levels of experience; (2) the comparative study of different software–hardware solutions, expanding immersive design applications and immersive design peripherals in equivalent tasks; (3) inclusion of external concomitant variables that may influence usability indicators, such as previous experience in 3D design or CAD software, cognitive profile, physical tolerance to immersive environments, degree of familiarity with specific immersive tools, and participants’ subjective expectations or motivation; (5) the introduction of control groups working with traditional methodologies to compare with immersive ones; (6) external evaluators and inter-rater reliability assessments. Other future work could also analyse immersive collaborative processes and, finally, evaluate the entire design cycle, including the evaluation of design outcomes, such as the level of creativity and innovation of the developed products.

6. Conclusions

This study reveals the potential of immersive technologies, specifically virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR), to improve industrial design processes from a usability perspective. These tools have a positive impact on product design, and they offer an accessible user experience that enables the creation of products in less time, with a higher success rate in task completion, in a highly interactive environment, and with high levels of creativity.

The results of the study demonstrate that the dimension of efficacy in the use of immersive technologies is related to the ability of users to complete tasks with accuracy and in accordance with the defined goals. Its progression depends on the level of technical proficiency, the complexity of the design, and the suitability of the immersive environment in relation to the demands of the task. As users gain fluency and an understanding of the system, their ability to make the right decisions and take actions precisely increases. However, even in the early stages, immersive environments allow acceptable levels of efficacy, provided that the design conditions and the interface do not represent an excessive barrier. The dimension of efficiency depends on a combination of operational factors. Although design complexity may influence the time taken to complete tasks, efficiency improves through greater control during task execution, better handling of errors, and reduced physical and cognitive effort. This reduction occurs when users adapt to the virtual work environment and overcome the discomfort resulting from the sensory dissociation from reality. Familiarity with immersive tools facilitates smoother workflow integration, enabling more effective use of hardware and software resources. It has also been observed that even in early learning phases, efficiency can remain at positive levels if the environment offers a well-structured interface aligned with user expectations. And satisfaction is related to the technical success of the task and the perception of autonomy, creative flow, and the opportunity to experiment without restrictions. This is reflected in perceived creativity, especially in designs that offer greater formal and functional freedom. Furthermore, user satisfaction in immersive environments increases as the cognitive load generated by prolonged tool use decreases, a phenomenon associated with a positive evolution in the learning curve. These factors indicate that immersive technologies enhance the experience of designers within the workflow.

Finally, the results obtained allow us to state that immersive technologies provide an effective, efficient, and satisfactory operational environment for design tasks, even during the early learning stages. Their integration into academic and professional settings can support the transition to workflows with higher levels of digitalisation, collaboration, and creativity. They also enable time optimisation and improvement in the quality of the designed products.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, A.M.-M., C.T.-L. and E.P.; methodology, A.M.-M. and E.P.; software, C.T.-L. and T.A.-P.; validation, C.T.-L. and T.A.-P.; formal analysis, A.M.-M. and E.P.; investigation, A.M.-M., C.T.-L. and E.P.; resources, E.P.; data curation, A.M.-M., T.A.-P. and E.P.; writing—original draft preparation, A.M.-M. and E.P.; writing—review and editing, A.M.-M., T.A.-P. and E.P.; supervision, E.P.; funding acquisition, E.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are only available upon request from the corresponding author due to privacy reasons.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:

VR	Virtual Reality
AR	Augmented Reality
MR	Mixed Reality
HMD	Head-Mounted Display
CAD	Computer-Aided Design
2D	Two-Dimensional
3D	Three-Dimensional
PC	Personal Computer
OBJ	Object Replacement Character Files
FBX	Filmbox Files
MCA	Multi-Criteria Analysis

Footnotes

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Figures and Tables

Figure 1 Phases of research methodology.

Figure 2 Compatibility matrix of selected VR design software with AR and MR visualisation tools.

Figure 3 Comparative analysis of usability indicators of Design Units.

Figure 4 Verification of dimensional accuracy with Gravity Sketch: (a) ring anthropometric adjusting with hand model; (b) ring 3D printing; (c) ring dimensional accuracy; (d) environment scale validation; (e) candle holder real geometry adjustment; (f) candle holder 3D printing; (g) dimensional validation; (h) candle holder dimensional accuracy.

Figure 5 Interoperability process of mouse design: (a) 3D sketching with Gravity Sketch for iPad; (b) presentation sketch with Procreate for iPad; (c) surfaces and colour generation with Gravity Sketch for computer; (d) final mouse design.

Figure 6 Gravity Sketch and Keyshot interoperability: (a) outdoor armchair rendered in KeyShot; (b) reading armchair, materials assigned in Gravity Sketch (freehand sketching included within the immersive environment); (c) reading armchair rendered in KeyShot; (d) final rendered results.

Figure 7 Design verification using RM in Gravity Sketch: (a) ring designed and visualised with MR (freehand sketching included within the immersive environment); (b) candle holder dimensional accuracy with MR; (c) visualisation of mouse with AR; simulation in real context with AR of armchair (d) and high stool (e).

Figure 8 Interactivity with the Gravity Sketch interface and Touch Plus Controllers. Vehicle design: (a) Creation of 3D strokes on the symmetry plane; (b) modification of stroke nodes; (c) creation of 3D strokes on the solid surface of an imported model. High stool design: (d) Modification of surface nodes (freehand sketching included within the immersive environment); (e) stroke selection; (f) importation of human models to create context-of-use scenes.

Figure 9 Design variants generated with Gravity Sketch: (a) the ideation process for the design of the reading armchair (freehand sketching included within the immersive environment) and (b) definition of the selected solution; (c) the ideation process for the high stool (freehand sketching included within the immersive environment) and (d) a presentation of colour and backrest variations.

Figure 10 Usability dimension analysis in the Design Units.

Figure 11 Comparison of usability results across the three weighting scenarios S1, S2, and S3: (a) effectiveness; (b) efficiency; (c) satisfaction (X-axis: Design Units; Y-axis: dimension results).

Table 1

Comparative analysis for software selection.

Indicator	w	Shapes XR	Gravity Sketch
(a) Includes advanced tools	10	70	100
(b) Intuitive learning	5.72	45.76	51.48
(c) Visual quality of materials	1.42	8.52	11.36
(d) Exchangeable formats	5.72	34.32	40.04
(e) Collaborative tool	8.57	68.56	68.56
(f) File accessibility	5.72	34.32	45.76
(g) Creation of environments	2.85	25.65	19.95
Total	40	287.13	337.15

Table 2

Indicators and evaluation criteria of Design Units.

Indicator	Evaluation Criteria	LowLevel (1)	MediumLevel (2)	High Level (3)
Tasks completed (TC)	Success rate or successful tasks	TC < 5	5 < TC < 10	TC > 10
Time to complete tasks (T)	Total time to complete a design	T > 6 h	2 h < T < 6 h	T < 2 h
Dimensional accuracy (DA)	Difference between model dimensions and reality	p > 5 mm	0 mm < p < 5 mm	p = 0 mm
Interoperability (IO)	Number of applications used	IO = 0	1 < IO < 3	IO > 3
Interactivity (IA)	Ease of interacting with the system (Likert scale)	IA < 3	3 < IA < 5	IA = 5
Fatigue (F)	Continuous time without discomfort	E < 15 min	15 min < E < 30 min	E > 30 min
Human error (HE)	Error rate per task or ratio of success to errors	HE < 0.06	0.06 < HE < 0.12	HE > 0.12
Learning curve (LC)	Decrease in task completion time between successive trials	LC < 1 min	1 min < LC < 5 min	LC > 5 min
Perceived creativity (C)	Number of different variants produced	C < 4	4 < C < 10	C > 10

Table 3

Weighting coefficients of indicators by dimension.

Indicator	w_Effectiveness	w_Efficiency	w_Satisfaction
Tasks completed (TC)	0.25	0.1	0.1
Time to complete tasks (T)	0.1	0.25	0.05
Dimensional accuracy (A)	0.25	0.1	0.05
Interoperability (IO)	0.1	0.05	0.05
Interactivity (IA)	0.05	0.05	0.1
Fatigue (F)	0.05	0.1	0.1
Human error (HE)	0.1	0.25	0.05
Learning curve (LC)	0.05	0.05	0.25
Perceived creativity (C)	0.05	0.05	0.25

Table 4

Comparative analysis of immersive hardware devices for industrial design applications.

Device	VR	AR	MR	Connection	Resolution	FOV	Release Date	Price (USD)	Software Compatibility
Apple Vision Pro	✓	✓	✓	Wireless	3660 × 3200	≈100°	2024	3499	In development (Apple apps, Unity, Gravity Sketch)
HP Reverb G2	✓	X	X	Wired	2160 × 2160	114°	2020	599	High (Windows MR, SteamVR, Unity, Mindesk)
HTC Vive	✓	X	X	Wireless	1080 × 1200	110°	2016	599	High (SteamVR, Unity, Unreal, Gravity Sketch)
HTC Vive Pro 2	✓	X	X	Wired	2448 × 2448	120°	2021	799	High (SteamVR, Mindesk, Unity, Gravity Sketch)
Magic Leap 2	X	✓	✓	Wireless	1440 × 1760	70°	2022	3200	Medium (Unity, Unreal, contextual AR)
Meta Quest 2	✓	✓	✓	Wireless	1832 × 1920	90°	2020	299	High (native apps and Air Link for design software)
Meta Quest 3	✓	✓	✓	Wireless	2064 × 2208	110°	2023	499	Very high (Gravity Sketch, ShapesXR, Unity, Unreal, etc.)
Microsoft HoloLens 2	X	✓	✓	Wireless	2048 × 1080	52°	2019	3500	Medium (Unity AR, Vuforia, industrial apps)
Oculus Rift	✓	X	X	Wired	1080 × 1200	110°	2016	399	High (SteamVR, Unity, Unreal, Gravity Sketch PC)
Pico 4	✓	✓	✓	Wireless	2160 × 2160	105°	2022	429	Medium (limited support for creative apps)
Pico Neo 3	✓	✓	✓	Wireless	1832 × 1920	98°	2021	699	Medium (enterprise, Unity, limited AR)
Valve Index	✓	X	X	Wired	1440 × 1600	130°	2019	999	High (SteamVR, Unity, Unreal, Gravity Sketch PC)
Varjo XR-3	✓	✓	✓	Wired	1920 × 1920	115°	2021	6495	Very high (Mindesk, Unity, Unreal, professional design)
Varjo XR-4	✓	✓	✓	Wired	1920 × 1920 (estimate)	120°	2024	5990	Very high (CAD, Mindesk, Unity, Unreal, etc.)
Vive Focus 3	✓	✓	✓	Wireless	2448 × 2448	120°	2021	1300	High (XR Suite, Unity, Unreal, Gravity Sketch)
Vive XR Elite	✓	✓	✓	Wireless	1920 × 1920	110°	2023	1099	High (Unity, Unreal, increasing compatibility)

Table 5

Comparative analysis of immersive software for industrial design applications.

Software	Primary Category 1	Requires PC	Recommended Hardware	CAD Compatibility 2	Collaboration	Learning Curve 3
Adobe Substance Modeler	(1)	✓	Meta Quest, Reverb G2	Medium	Low	Medium
Autodesk Alias Create VR	(2)	✓	HTC Vive Pro 2, Valve Index	High	Medium	High
Autodesk Create VR (Maya)	(1)	✓	Vive Pro, Index, Reverb	High	Medium	Medium
Gravity Sketch	(1) (3) (5)	X	Meta Quest 2/3, Vive XR Elite	Partial	Medium	Low
Mindesk	(2) (5)	✓	Varjo XR-3, Reverb G2, Vive Pro	Very high	High	High
ShapesXR	(3) (5)	X	Meta Quest 2/3, Pico 4	Partial	High	Low
Tilt Brush/OpenBrush	(1)	X	Meta Quest 2/3, Pico Neo 3	None	Low	Low
Tvori	(4)	✓	PC VR	Low– medium	Medium	Medium
Unity	(4) (5)	✓	Varjo XR, Quest Pro, Vive XR Elite	High	High	Very high
Unreal Engine	(4) (5)	✓	Varjo XR, Reverb, Vive XR Elite	High	High	Very high
Vector Suite	(1) (5)	✓	Vive Pro, Reverb G2, Index	Partial	High	Medium

¹ (1) 3D sketching and sculpting; (2) technical modelling and CAD review; (3) collaborative design; (4) interactive simulation and animation; (5) augmented visualisation. ² High/Very high: direct integration with CAD software; Medium: export compatible with CAD, but without direct integration; Low or none: non-existent or limited to generic formats. ³ Very high: professional use requiring advanced knowledge in programming, simulation, or parametric design; High: requires prior experience in technical design and CAD tools; Medium: requires some experience with three-dimensional environments; Low: immediate use, intuitive interface, requires little or no prior experience.

Table 6

Analysis of human error in Design Units.

Design Units	S	F	R	I	L	Te	Tt	Human Error (HE)
1. Ring	1	4	3	20	10	1	2	0.03
2. Candle Holder	1	8	10	5	5	5	7	0.03
3. Vehicle	1	5	4	10	5	1	1	0.04
4. Mouse	1	6	5	9	4	1	8	0.04
5. Outdoor Armchair	1	5	8	4	5	2	6	0.04
6. Reading Armchair	2	14	3	2	3	1	8	0.08
7. High Stool	4	15	4	3	3	2	8	0.14

S: successfully completed tasks; F: errors or incomplete tasks; R: restarts due to loss of control or serious errors; I: interruptions caused by interface difficulties; L: loss of work control; T_e: total time spent correcting errors; T_t: total time to complete tasks (including errors).

Table 7

Sensitivity analysis results.

	Effectiveness	Efficiency	Satisfaction
%RSD S1/S2	12.61	12.32	10.86
%RSD S1/S3	22.4	19.95	21.45
RMSE S1/S2	0.2	0.19	0.17
RMSE S1/S3	0.35	0.31	0.33

References

1. Liu, R.; Peng, C.; Zhang, Y.; Husarek, H.; Yu, Q. A Survey of Immersive Technologies and Applications for Industrial Product Development. Comput. Graph.; 2021; 100, pp. 137-151. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cag.2021.07.023]

2. Stadler, S. Potential Usages of Virtual Reality in Design Research and Practice–A Review. Proceedings of the En 4th International Conference Business Meets Technology 2022, Universitat Politecnica de Valencia; Valencia, Spain, 10 January 2023.

3. Yu, W.; Zhao, Y.; Zhao, J.; Yu, W.; Wen, L.; Zhao, L.-A.; Min, S. Application Research of VR Technology in Product Design. J. Phys. Conf. Ser.; 2021; 1966, 012028. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/2087/1/012028]

4. Andreoletti, D.; Paoliello, M.; Luceri, L.; Leidi, T.; Peternier, A.; Giordano, S. A Framework for Emotion-Driven Product Design Through Virtual Reality. Lect. Notes Bus. Inf. Process.; 2022; 442, pp. 42-61. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-98997-2_3]

5. Yuan, Q.; Huai, Y. Immersive Sketch-Based Tree Modeling in Virtual Reality. Comput. Graph.; 2021; 94, pp. 132-143. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cag.2020.12.001]

6. Dargan, S.; Bansal, S.; Kumar, M.; Mittal, A.; Kumar, K. Augmented Reality: A Comprehensive Review. Arch. Comput. Methods Eng.; 2023; 30, pp. 1057-1080. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11831-022-09831-7]

7. Muñoz-Saavedra, L.; Miró-Amarante, L.; Domínguez-Morales, M. Augmented and Virtual Reality Evolution and Future Tendency. Appl. Sci.; 2020; 10, 322. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/app10010322]

8. Anthes, C.; García-Hernández, R.J.; Wiedemann, M.; Kranzlmüller, D. State of the Art of Virtual Reality Technology. Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE Aerospace Conference; Big Sky, MT, USA, 5–12 March 2016; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/AERO.2016.7500674]

9. Maher, S.; Cohen, J. Virtual Reality at NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center. Comput. Graph. ACM; 1996; 30, pp. 49-50. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1145/240806.240814]

10. Mcgreevy, M.W. The Virtual Environment Display System. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Technology 2000; National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA Ames Research Center: Moffett Field, CA, USA, 1991; Volume 1.

11. Robertson, G.G.; Card, S.K.; Mackinlay, J.D. Three Views of Virtual Reality: Virtual Environments in the US Military. Computer; 1993; 26, pp. 81-82. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/2.192002]

12. Rosenberg, L.B. The Use of Virtual Fixtures as Perceptual Overlays to Enhance Operator Performance in Remote Environments. Available online: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA292450 (accessed on 6 May 2025).

13. Zimmerman, T.G.; Lanier, J.; Blanchard, C.; Bryson, S.; Harvill, Y. A Hand Gesture Interface Device. ACM SIGCHI Bull.; 1986; 18, pp. 189-192. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1165387.275628]

14. Souza, D.F.L.; MacHado, L.S.; Moraes, R.M. Integration of Tracking Systems for the Development of Virtual Reality Applications. IEEE Lat. Am. Trans.; 2010; 8, pp. 714-721. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TLA.2010.5688100]

15. Fisher, S.S.; Wenzel, E.M.; Coler, C.; McGreevy, M.W. Virtual Interface Environment Workstations. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society Annual Meeting; Anaheim, CA, USA, 24–28 October 1988; SAGE PublicationsSage CA: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 1988; Volume 32, pp. 91-95.

16. Billinghurst, M.; Kato, H. Collaborative Mixed Reality. Proceedings of the Mixed Reality; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1999; pp. 261-284.

17. Cruz-Neira, C.; Sandin, D.J.; DeFanti, T.A. Surround-Screen Projection-Based Virtual Reality: The Design and Implementation of the CAVE. Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, SIGGRAPH 1993; Anaheim, CA, USA, 2–6 August 1993; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 1993; pp. 135-142.

18. Coburn, J.Q.; Freeman, I.; Salmon, J.L. A Review of the Capabilities of Current Low-Cost Virtual Reality Technology and Its Potential to Enhance the Design Process. J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng.; 2017; 17, 031013. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.4036921]

19. Wolfartsberger, J.; Zenisek, J.; Sievi, C.; Silmbroth, M. A Virtual Reality Supported 3D Environment for Engineering Design Review. Proceedings of the 2017 23rd International Conference on Virtual Systems and Multimedia, VSMM 2017; Dublin, Ireland, 31 October–4 November 2017; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/VSMM.2017.8346288]

20. Berni, A.; Borgianni, Y. Applications of Virtual Reality in Engineering and Product Design: Why, What, How, When and Where. Electronics; 2020; 9, 1064. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/electronics9071064]

21. Salim, A.; Indra, I.; Nugraha, U.; Abdulghani, T.; Anwar, S. Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality Applications: Enhancing User Experience Across Industries. Glob. Int. J. Innov. Res.; 2024; 2, pp. 840-849. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.59613/global.v2i4.126]

22. Sharma, A.; Mehtab, R.; Mohan, S.; Mohd Shah, M.K. Augmented Reality–an Important Aspect of Industry 4.0. Ind. Robot.; 2022; 49, pp. 428-441. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IR-09-2021-0204]

23. Shen, Y.; Ong, S.K.; Nee, A.Y.C. Augmented Reality for Collaborative Product Design and Development. Des. Stud.; 2010; 31, pp. 118-145. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2009.11.001]

24. Wiedenmaier, S.; Oehme, O.; Schmidt, L.; Luczak, H. Augmented Reality (AR) for Assembly Processes Design and Experimental Evaluation. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact.; 2003; 16, pp. 497-514. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327590IJHC1603_7]

25. Ottosson, S. Virtual Reality in the Product Development Process. J. Eng. Des.; 2002; 13, pp. 159-172. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09544820210129823]

26. Topal, B.; Sener, B. Appraisal of Augmented Reality Technologies for Supporting Industrial Design Practices. International Conference on Virtual, Augmented and Mixed Reality, Proceedings of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2–7 August 2015; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; Volume 9179, pp. 513-523.

27. Bernardo, N.; Duarte, E. Industrial Design Education and Immersive Virtual Reality: Perceptions on Utility and Integration. Proceedings of the Design, User Experience, and Usability—12th International Conference DUXU 2023; Copenhagen, Denmark, 23–28 July 2023; Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2023; Volume 14031, pp. 371-387.

28. Oti, A.; Crilly, N. Immersive 3D Sketching Tools: Implications for Visual Thinking and Communication. Comput. Graph.; 2021; 94, pp. 111-123. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cag.2020.10.007]

29. Giunchi, D.; James, S.; Steed, A. 3D Sketching for Interactive Model Retrieval in Virtual Reality. Proceedings of the Proceedings-Expressive 2018: Computational Aesthetics Sketch-Based Interfaces and Modeling Non-Photorealistic Animation and Rendering; Victoria, BC, Canada, 17–19 August 2018; Association for Computing Machinery, Inc: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 1-12.

30. Lorusso, M.; Rossoni, M.; Colombo, G. Conceptual Modeling in Product Design within Virtual Reality Environments. Comput. Aided. Des. Appl.; 2020; 18, pp. 383-398. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.14733/cadaps.2021.383-398]

31. Vo, H. Design Creativity in Industry 4.0: Gravity Sketch and 3D Printing in a Luminaire Design Project. J. Eng. Des. Technol.; 2022; 22, pp. 1413-1432. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JEDT-01-2022-0053]

32. Chang, Y.S. Influence of Virtual Reality on Engineering Design Creativity. Educ. Stud.; 2022; 48, pp. 341-357. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2020.1754767]

33. Hinricher, N.; König, S.; Schröer, C.; Backhaus, C. Influence of Virtual Reality on User Evaluation of Prototypes in the Development Process—A Comparative Study with Control Rooms for Onshore Drilling Rigs. Appl. Sci.; 2023; 13, 8319. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/app13148319]

34. Berg, L.P.; Vance, J.M. An Industry Case Study: Investigating Early Design Decision Making in Virtual Reality. J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng.; 2017; 17, 011001. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.4034267]

35. Korkut, E.H.; Surer, E. Visualization in Virtual Reality: A Systematic Review. Virtual Real.; 2023; 27, pp. 1447-1480. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10055-023-00753-8]

36. Huang, Y.C.; Huang, P.H. A Study on the Application of Visualization Technology in Virtual Product Design. Proceedings of the 2023 9th International Conference on Computer and Communications, ICCC 2023; Chengdu, China, 8–11 December 2023; pp. 2483-2487. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICCC59590.2023.10507533]

37. Using Gravity Sketch & 3D Printing to Make Outdoor Furniture. Available online: https://gravitysketch.com/blog-post/articles/meet-the-designers-using-gravity-sketch-and-3d-printing-to-make-rough-and-ready-outdoor-furniture/ (accessed on 9 May 2025).

38. Bourgeois-Bougrine, S.; Bonnardel, N.; Burkhardt, J.M.; Thornhill-Miller, B.; Pahlavan, F.; Buisine, S.; Guegan, J.; Pichot, N.; Lubart, T. Immersive Virtual Environments’ Impact on Individual and Collective Creativity. Immersive Virtual Environ. Impact Individ. Collect. Creat.; 2022; 27, pp. 237-253. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000481]

39. Conesa, J.; Mula, F.J.; Bartlett, K.A.; Naya, F.; Contero, M. The Influence of Immersive and Collaborative Virtual Environments in Improving Spatial Skills. Appl. Sci.; 2023; 13, 8426. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/app13148426]

40. Herodek, A.; Vilmar, A. Collaborative Creativity in Ad Hoc Virtual Teams: Testing and Evaluating the Acceptance and Usability of Selected Creativity Techniques in a Virtual Workspace. Braz. Creat. Ind. J.; 2021; 1, pp. 23-48. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.25112/bcij.v1i1.2673]

41. Bellalouna, F. Industrial Case Studies for Digital Transformation of Engineering Processes Using the Virtual Reality Technology. Procedia CIRP; 2020; 90, pp. 636-641. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2020.01.082]

42. Fedko, D. Virtual Reality (VR) in the Automotive-Guide with Examples. Available online: https://wear-studio.com/vr-in-automotive-industry/ (accessed on 9 May 2025).

43. A Showcase Becomes a Reality: Audi Brings VR Experience Platform to CES 2023|Audi MediaCenter. Available online: https://www.audi-mediacenter.com/en/press-releases/a-showcase-becomes-a-reality-audi-brings-vr-experience-platform-to-ces-2023-15106 (accessed on 9 May 2025).

44. Khamis Studio x Gravity Sketch Footwear Workflow. Available online: https://get.gravitysketch.com/khamis-studio-gravity-sketch/ (accessed on 9 May 2025).

45. Halarnkar, P.; Shah, S.; Shah, H.; Shah, H.; Shah, A. A Review on Virtual Reality. Int. J. Comput. Sci. Issues IJCSI; 2012; 9, pp. 325-330.

46. Azuma, R.T. A Survey of Augmented Reality. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ.; 1997; 6, pp. 355-385. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1162/PRES.1997.6.4.355]

47. Jahangir Moshayedi, A.; Reza, K.M.S.; Sohail Khan, A.; Nawaz, A. Integrating Virtual Reality and Robotic Operation System (ROS) for AGV Navigation. EAI Endorsed Trans. AI Robot.; 2023; 2, e3. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4108/airo.v2i1.3181]

48. Ajayakumar Sujatha, A.; Kolahdooz, A.; Jafari, M.; Hajfathalian, A. Simulation and Control of the KUKA KR6 900EX Robot in Unity 3D: Advancing Industrial Automation through Virtual Environments. EAI Endorsed Trans. AI Robot.; 2025; 4, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4108/airo.8026]

49. Giunta, L.; O’Hare, J.; Gopsill, J.; Dekoninck, E. A Review of Augmented Reality Research for Design Practice: Looking to the Future. Proceedings of the DS 91: Proceedings of NordDesign 2018; Linköping, Sweden, 14–17 August 2018.

50. Hamurcu, A.; Timur, Ş.; Rızvanoğlu, K. An Overview of Virtual Reality within Industrial Design Education. J. Eng. Des. Technol.; 2020; 18, pp. 1889-1905. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JEDT-02-2020-0048]

51. Ma, J.H.; Erdogmus, E.; Kangisser, S.; Yang, E. A Comparative Analysis of the Effectiveness of Immersive Virtual Reality on End-User Design Review. Build Environ.; 2025; 267, 112237. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2024.112237]

52. Alsswey, A.; Malak, M.Z.; El-Qirem, F.A. Effect of Virtual Reality on Perceptions of Usability, Suitability, Satisfaction, and Self-Efficacy among Architecture and Design University Students. Arch. Sci. Rev.; 2025; 68, pp. 56-64. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2024.2338212]

53. Xiao, L. A Review of Interactive Design and User Experience Research on Virtual Simulation Technology in Commercial Product Presentation. Proceedings of the ICADI ‘24: Proceedings of the 2024 International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Digital Media Technology and Interaction Design; Tianjin, China, 29 November–1 December 2024; pp. 170-178. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3726010.3726035]

54. Xin, C. Exploring the Effectiveness of VR-Based Product Demonstrations Featuring Items of Furniture. Libr. Hi Tech; 2024; 42, pp. 471-495. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/LHT-01-2022-0001]

55. Prabhakaran, A.; Mahamadu, A.M.; Mahdjoubi, L.; Manu, P.; Che Ibrahim, C.K.I.; Aigbavboa, C.O. The Effectiveness of Interactive Virtual Reality for Furniture, Fixture and Equipment Design Communication: An Empirical Study. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag.; 2020; 28, pp. 1440-1467. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-04-2020-0235]

56. Hinricher, N.; Schröer, C.; Backhaus, C. Design of Control Elements in Virtual Reality: Investigation of Factors Influencing Operating Efficiency, User Experience, Presence, and Workload. Appl. Sci.; 2023; 13, 8668. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/app13158668]

57. Kim, Y.M.; Rhiu, I. Development of a Virtual Reality System Usability Questionnaire (VRSUQ). Appl. Erg.; 2024; 119, 104319. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2024.104319]

58. Falcão, C.S.; Soares, M.M. Ergonomics, Usability and Virtual Reality: A Review Applied to Consumer Product. Advances in Usability Evaluation Part II; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2012; pp. 297-306. ISBN 9781466560550

59. Ahn, J.; Choi, S.; Lee, M.; Kim, K. Investigating Key User Experience Factors for Virtual Reality Interactions. J. Ergon. Soc. Korea; 2017; 36, pp. 267-280. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5143/JESK.2017.36.4.267]

60. Vinicius De Freitas, F.; Vinicius Mendes Gomes, M.; Winkler, I. Benefits and Challenges of Virtual-Reality-Based Industrial Usability Testing and Design Reviews: A Patents Landscape and Literature Review. Appl. Sci.; 2022; 12, 1755. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/APP12031755]

61. Arnfred, B.; Svendsen, J.K.; Adjourlu, A.; Horthøj, C. Scoping Review of the Hardware and Software Features of Virtual Reality Exposure Therapy for Social Anxiety Disorder, Agoraphobia, and Specific Phobia. Front. Virtual Real.; 2023; 4, 952741. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2023.952741]

62. Kugler, L. The State of Virtual Reality Hardware. Commun. ACM; 2021; 64, pp. 15-16. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3441290]

63. Kourtesis, P.; MacPherson, S.E. How Immersive Virtual Reality Methods May Meet the Criteria of the National Academy of Neuropsychology and American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology: A Software Review of the Virtual Reality Everyday Assessment Lab (VR-EAL). Comput. Hum. Behav. Rep.; 2021; 4, 100151. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2021.100151]

64. Smutny, P. Learning with Virtual Reality: A Market Analysis of Educational and Training Applications. Interact. Learn. Environ.; 2023; 31, pp. 6133-6146. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2028856]

65.ISO 9241-11:2018 Ergonomics of Human-System Interaction—Part 11: Usability: Definitions and Concepts; ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018.

66. Yin, R.K. Case Study Research and Applications Design and Methods; 6th ed. SAGE Publications, Inc: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2017; Volume 43, ISBN 9781506336169

67. Meta Quest MR, VR Headsets and Accessories-Meta Store. Available online: https://www.meta.com/gb/quest/ (accessed on 18 June 2025).

68. Gravity Sketch. Available online: https://gravitysketch.com/ (accessed on 9 May 2025).

69. 3D Modeling Software for 3D Sculpting-Adobe Substance 3D. Available online: https://www.adobe.com/products/substance3d/apps/modeler.html (accessed on 16 May 2025).

70. Autodesk Alias Create VR. Available online: https://help.autodesk.com/view/ALIAS/2024/ENU/?guid=Alias_CreateVR_aboutcreatevr_html (accessed on 16 May 2025).

71. Autodesk Create VR for Autodesk Maya. Available online: https://apps.autodesk.com/MAYA/en/Detail/Index?id=3751509454670639690 (accessed on 19 June 2025).

72. Mindesk-Your Real-Time BIM and CAD Platform. Available online: https://mindeskvr.com/ (accessed on 16 May 2025).

73. ShapesXR-Bring Ideas to Life in 3D and XR. Available online: https://www.shapesxr.com/ (accessed on 16 May 2025).

74. Vector Suite. Available online: https://vectorsuite.co.uk/ (accessed on 9 May 2025).

75. Ishizaka, A.; Nemery, P. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis: Methods and Software; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2013; pp. 1-296. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118644898]

76. Salvendy, G. Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics; 4th ed. John Wiley and Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012; ISBN 9780470528389

77. Bowman, D.A.; Rhoton, C.J.; Pinho, M.S. Text Input Techniques for Immersive Virtual Environments: An Empirical Comparison. Proc. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. Annu. Meet.; 2002; 46, pp. 2154-2158. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/154193120204602611]

78. Berg, L.P.; Vance, J.M. Industry Use of Virtual Reality in Product Design and Manufacturing: A Survey. Virtual Reality; Springer: London, UK, 2017; Volume 21, pp. 1-17.

79. Hoang, D.; Naderi, E.; Cheng, R.; Aryana, B. Adopting Immersive Technologies for Design Practice: The Internal and External Barriers. Proc. Des. Soc. Int. Conf. Eng. Des.; 2019; 1, pp. 1903-1912. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/dsi.2019.196]

80. Ford Collaboration with Gravity Sketch Introduces Co-Creation Feature, Allowing Designers Across Globe to Work in Same Virtual Reality Space. Available online: https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2019/05/06/ford-collaboration-gravity-sketch-co-creation.html (accessed on 9 May 2025).

81. New Apple Vision Pro App for the Porsche 911 Spirit-Porsche Newsroom. Available online: https://newsroom.porsche.com/en/2025/products/porsche-apple-vision-pro-app-911-spirit-70-39299.html (accessed on 9 May 2025).

82. BMW i Augmented Reality Visualiser Launches on Google Play. Available online: https://www.press.bmwgroup.com/global/article/detail/T0268031EN/bmw-i-augmented-reality-visualiser-launches-on-google-play?language=en (accessed on 9 May 2025).

83. Renault and Dacia Make New Car Buying Easier than Ever. Available online: https://www.press.renault.co.uk/releases/2726 (accessed on 9 May 2025).

84. How Mercedes-Benz Uses Virtual And Augmented Reality To Sell Cars, Train Staff, And Create New Customer Experiences. Available online: https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2023/05/12/how-mercedes-benz-uses-virtual-and-augmented-reality-to-sell-cars-train-staff-and-create-new-customer-experiences/ (accessed on 9 May 2025).

85. Zellerfeld Designs Using Gravity Sketch-Gravity Sketch. Available online: https://gravitysketch.com/resources/type/community/zellerfeld-designs-using-gravity-sketch/ (accessed on 9 May 2025).

86. Live Project with Adidas and Gravity Sketch Sets Footwear Design Students up for Success. Available online: https://www.dmu.ac.uk/about-dmu/news/2024/may/live-project-with-adidas-and-gravity-sketch-sets-footwear-design-students-up-for-success.aspx (accessed on 9 May 2025).

87. Apparel & Footwear-Gravity Sketch. Available online: https://gravitysketch.com/apparel-footwear/ (accessed on 9 May 2025).

88. Super Chair. Available online: https://www.baker.studio/work/super (accessed on 9 May 2025).

89. Batmaz, A.U.; Mutasim, A.K.; Stuerzlinger, W. Precision vs. Power Grip: A Comparison of Pen Grip Styles for Selection in Virtual Reality. Proceedings of the Proceedings-2020 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces, VRW 2020; Atlanta, GA, USA, 22–26 March 2020; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2020; pp. 23-28.

90. Creative Tools for Artists and Designers-Unity Tools. Available online: https://unity.com/solutions/artist-designers (accessed on 16 May 2025).

91. Unreal Engine for Extended Reality (XR): AR, VR & MR. Available online: https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/xr (accessed on 16 May 2025).

92. Qin, L.; Si, Z. Visual Information Transfer Design of Packaging Product Instructions Based on Unity Platform. Advances in Graphic Communication, Printing and Packaging Technology and Materials; Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2021; Volume 754 LNEE, pp. 257-262.

93. Avdonina, N.; Russo, M. VR Feedback System for Product Design Service. Advances in Representation. Digital Innovations in Architecture, Engineering and Construction; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2024; pp. 923-935. ISBN 978-3-031-62963-1

94. NX Immersive Designer-Siemens Software. Available online: https://plm.sw.siemens.com/en-US/nx/products/nx-immersive-designer/ (accessed on 16 May 2025).

95. Review 2D & 3D Designs with EDrawings-EDrawings Viewer. Available online: https://www.edrawingsviewer.com/ (accessed on 16 May 2025).

96. Immersive Design Review Workspace-Autodesk Workshop XR. Available online: https://workshopxr.autodesk.com/ (accessed on 16 May 2025).

97. Create Augmented Reality with AR Software-Adobe Aero. Available online: https://www.adobe.com/products/aero.html (accessed on 16 May 2025).

98. KeyShot Studio VR KeyShot. Available online: https://www.keyshot.com/es/keyshot-studio-vr/?srsltid=AfmBOorc6oW2n-DW3ry_jOczDe59Qhgil1c-aRQ_4BDT6JaoCgxlmJ-h (accessed on 16 May 2025).

99. Cognitive3D|Analytics for VR, AR, MR. Available online: https://cognitive3d.com/ (accessed on 16 May 2025).

100. Nelis, H. Product Design, as It Should Be: Our Investment in Gravity Sketch. Available online: https://www.accel.com/noteworthies/product-design-as-it-should-be-our-investment-in-gravity-sketch (accessed on 16 May 2025).

101. Zou, Q.; Bai, H.; Gao, L.; Lee, G.A.; Fowler, A.; Billinghurst, M. Stylus and Gesture Asymmetric Interaction for Fast and Precise Sketching in Virtual Reality. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact.; 2023; 40, pp. 8124-8141. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2023.2278294]

102. Joundi, J.; Christiaens, Y.; Saldien, J.; Conradie, P.; De Marez, L. An Explorative Study towards UsingVR Sketching as a Tool for Ideation and Prototyping in Product Design. Proc. Des. Soc. Des. Conf.; 2020; 1, pp. 225-234. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/dsd.2020.61]

103. Rieuf, V.; Bouchard, C.; Omhover, J.-F. Emotional Activity in Early Immersive Design: Sketches and Moodboards in Virtual Reality. Des. Stud.; 2017; 48, pp. 43-75. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2016.11.001]

104. Roberts, S.; Page, R.; Richardson, M. Designing in Virtual Environments: The Integration of Virtual Reality Tools into Industrial Design Research and Education. DRS Biennial Conference Series; Design Research Society: London, UK, 2020; Volume 4, pp. 11-14.

105. Liao, T.; She, J. How Does Virtual Reality (VR) Facilitate Design? A Review of VR Usage in Early-Stage Engineeging Design. Proc. Des. Soc.; 2023; 3, pp. 2115-2124. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/pds.2023.212]