IMPULSE #7: Life Story

A few days ago I had a very simple mission. Go to the store, buy a few things, get out. Instead it turned into an unplanned usability study. I needed cornstarch. That is not exactly an exotic product, so I walked to the baking section, then to the sauces, then to the international food aisle, then back to baking. I walked the same path again and again and still could not find it. At some point I just stood there in the middle of the aisle and realised that I was living inside my own thesis problem.

I knew the store had cornstarch, it is a common product and I had bought it there before, but my internal map completely failed. Shelf labels were tiny and placed at odd positions. My working memory was full of other items from my shopping list. After about twenty minutes of wandering, I finally found it at the very middle of a shelf in a place that was too easy to notice but there I am did not see it at all. That moment was the first impulse. If I had my imagined AR glasses, connected to the store’s inventory, this would have been a two second problem.

The story did not end there. When I finally picked up the cornstarch, there were two brands. The packaging looked almost identical. I could not see at a glance what the difference was, apart from a small price variation and some vague marketing text. I stood there comparing ingredients, Googling on my phone, opening product pages and reviews, trying to understand which one to choose. That felt like a second micro usability test. Finding the product is one task, choosing between options is another. Both were slower and more frustrating than they needed to be.

Later I told this story to friends and a few people immediately answered with similar experiences. They knew the store had a product, but could not locate it. Or they found something, then spent ten minutes trying to compare slightly different versions without any help. Some of them are very tech comfortable, so this is not a “user error”. It is a mix of confusing layout, poor signage and the cognitive load of doing small decisions in a crowded noisy environment.

This small field visit also changed how I think about evaluation. It is easy to say “AR will save time in the supermarket”. Now I have a real reference situation where I can ask people how long they typically search for items, how often they feel lost, and how they currently make product choices. I can imagine measuring the difference between the current experience and a guided AR version in a prototype study. The frustration I felt in front of that shelf is exactly the kind of pain point that can justify the complexity of an AR and IoT system.

In the end, this was just a normal shopping trip, but it gave me a very strong validation that my topic is grounded in everyday life. People are already hacking the system with their phones and Google. My research question is how to turn that into a seamless, spatially aware experience that lives in the environment itself instead of on a small screen.

AI Disclaimer
This blog post was polished with the assistance of AI.

IMPULSE #6: Book “Practical Augmented Reality”

The book Practical Augmented Reality: A Guide to the Technologies, Applications, and Human Factors for AR and VR, I expected to be a technical overview. Instead, it turned into a kind of design manual for my master’s thesis on leveraging AR and IoT to improve the shopping experience with context aware AR glasses. The book helped me connect big technological concepts to very concrete design decisions for my own project.

Seeing AR as “aligned, contextual and intelligent”

Early in the book, Aukstakalnis defines augmented reality as not just overlaying random graphics on the real world, but aligning information with the environment in a spatially contextual and intelligent way.
This sounds simple, but it actually shifted how I thought about my shopping glasses. It is not enough to place floating labels next to products. The system needs to understand where I am, what shelf I am looking at, and which task I am trying to complete, then lock information to those objects. This definition pushed me to think more seriously about IoT integration and precise tracking so that a price, rating, or nutrition label is always attached to the right item in space.

Designing from the human senses outward

The structure of the book also influenced how I plan my thesis. Aukstakalnis starts with the mechanics of sight, hearing and touch, and only then moves on to displays, audio systems, haptics and sensors.
That “inside out” perspective reminded me that my AR glasses concept should begin from human perception, not from whatever hardware is trendy. Reading about depth cues, eye convergence and accommodation, and how easily they can be disturbed by poorly designed displays, made me much more careful about how much information I want to show and at what distances.

For my thesis this means keeping overlays light, avoiding clutter in the central field of view, and respecting comfortable reading distances. It also supports my idea of using short, glanceable cards in the periphery instead of stacking lots of text in front of the user’s eyes.

Translating cross domain case studies into retail

The applications section of the book covers fields like architecture, education, medicine, aerospace and telerobotics.
None of them are about grocery shopping, but a common pattern appears: AR and VR are most powerful when they help people understand complex spatial information, rehearse tasks safely, or make better decisions with contextual data. I realised that retail has the same ingredients. Shelves, wayfinding and product comparisons are all spatial problems with hidden data behind them.

This insight strengthened the core vision of my thesis. My AR and IoT concept is not just about showing coupons in the air. It is about turning the store into an understandable information space, where digital layers explain what is currently invisible: where a product is, how fresh it is, how it fits personal constraints like allergies or budget, and how it compares to alternatives.

Impact on my thesis work

Overall, Practical Augmented Reality gave me three concrete things for my master’s project. First, a precise vocabulary and mental model for AR systems, which helped me write a clearer research question and background section. Second, a checklist of human factor issues that I now plan to address through prototype constraints and user testing. Third, a library of real world examples that prove similar technologies already deliver value in other domains, which I can reference when I argue why AR glasses for shopping are realistic in the near future.

Reading the book was less about copying solutions and more about understanding the hidden structure behind successful AR systems. That structure now guides how I want to combine AR, AI and IoT in an everyday retail scenario without forgetting the humans wearing the glasses.

AI Disclaimer
This blog post was polished with the assistance of AI.

IMPULSE #5: Preperation for Ph.D

This impulse is a bit unusual compared to a museum or a festival, because it did not happen in one specific room. It happened at my desk, in front of piles of PDFs. I had to start preparing my PhD proposal even before finishing my master’s thesis, mainly because of time pressure and my personal situation with the army. That pressure turned into a very intense, focused research sprint. I spent several evenings reading and analysing work on AR, AI and IoT to frame a possible PhD topic that extends my master’s project instead of repeating it.

The three main sources that shaped this impulse were the paper “IoT + AR: pervasive and augmented environments for ‘Digi-log’ shopping experience” by Dongsik Jo and Gerard Jounghyun Kim, the CHI paper “UI Mobility Control in XR: Switching UI Positionings between Static, Dynamic, and Self Entities” by Siyou Pei and colleagues, and the book “Practical Augmented Reality” by Steve Aukstakalnis. Together they created a kind of mini-course for me: one about the future of physical retail, one about interaction patterns in XR, and one about the broader technology and human factors behind all of this.

Observations: From “Cool Idea” To Structured Research Questions

Reading Jo and Kim’s “Digi-log shopping” paper was the moment where my retail ideas suddenly felt less like a personal fantasy and more like part of an actual research landscape. Their concept of blending digital overlays with the physical store confirmed that the direction of my thesis is relevant, but it also showed what has already been tried: navigation, in-store recommendations, context-aware content. While I was reading, I kept noting down where my own IKEA and grocery scenarios overlap and where they differ. That helped me see that my contribution should not just be “AR in shopping”, but more specifically about interaction patterns and how to keep users in control in these pervasive systems.

The UI mobility paper pushed me even harder in that direction. It analyses how interface elements can be anchored in XR: fixed to the world, attached to the body, or moving with the user. I realised that many of my early sketches for AR glasses assumed a single style of UI placement without questioning it. The paper gave me vocabulary and structure to ask concrete questions: when should a navigation cue be world-locked, when should it follow the head, when should it sit on the wrist. This was very useful both for tightening my master’s concept and for defining a sharper PhD angle around “interaction patterns for context-aware AR glasses”.

Main Concept: PhD Preparation As Shared Fuel For Master And Future Work

The biggest impact of this impulse is that PhD preparation stopped feeling like a separate project. The literature review I did for the proposal feeds directly back into my master’s thesis. It gave me language, references and frameworks that I can already use now: “digi-log experiences” for describing hybrid retail journeys, XR UI mobility for structuring my interaction designs, and a more precise understanding of AR hardware constraints for my scenarios.

So this impulse was not a public event, but it was a very strong push for my Design & Research. Writing the PhD proposal turned my scattered interests in AR, AI and IoT into a more coherent research trajectory. It made me read deeper, think more critically about gaps in existing work, and see my master’s thesis as the first chapter of a longer exploration instead of a one-off project.

“IoT + AR: pervasive and augmented environments for ‘Digi-log’ shopping experience” by Dongsik Jo and Gerard Jounghyun Kim – an HCI paper on blending AR and IoT in retail environments. (PDF via https://d-nb.info/1177365146/34

“UI Mobility Control in XR: Switching UI Positionings between Static, Dynamic, and Self Entities” by Siyou Pei et al. – a CHI 2024 paper on how XR interfaces move and anchor in space. (Project page: https://duruofei.com/projects/fingerswitch/

“Practical Augmented Reality: A Guide to the Technologies, Applications, and Human Factors for AR and VR” by Steve Aukstakalnis – a comprehensive AR / VR textbook. (Publisher page: https://eu.pearson.com/practical-augmented-reality-a-guide-to-the-technologies-applications-and-human-factors-for-ar-and-vr/9780134094359

AI Disclaimer
This blog post was polished with the assistance of AI.

Impulse #7: The Manual for My Hörtner-Inspired Pivot

It’s funny how things come full circle. After my transformative talk with Horst Hörtner about strategically tackling my Master’s thesis, I immediately went looking for resources to solidify that new way of thinking. Lo and behold, a book I’d previously added to my maybe later-list suddenly shot to the top: Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving by Arnaud Chevallier. Diving into it now, it feels less like a new read and more like a detailed instruction manual for the approach Horst outlined.

From Vague Notion to Strategic Framework

My biggest takeaway from Horst was the concept of moving beyond just liking a topic or disliking a problem, and instead using those intuitions as strategic starting points. Chevallier’s book is essentially the blueprint for that process. It doesn’t just tell you to think strategically, it shows you how.

The core connection lies in how Chevallier tackles problem framing. Before I spoke with Horst, my approach was probably typical: identify a broad area, then try to force a research question into it. Now, with Horst’s guidance and Chevallier’s detailed steps, I’m learning to:

  1. Deconstruct: Break down the big, messy problem (like ocean plastic) into its fundamental components.
  2. Analyze: Identify the specific lever points where my current knowledge can actually make an impact.
  3. Synthesize: Reassemble these components into a clear, actionable research question.

It’s a methodical process that directly addresses the collect and form strategy Horst talked about, helping me organize those scattered thoughts into a logical attack plan.

The Power of Issue Mapping

One of the most impactful tools in Chevallier’s book for me has been Issue Mapping. This technique directly mirrors Horst’s advice to look at both what fascinates me and what I want to change. Instead of just holding these ideas in my head, Issue Mapping forces me to visually lay out:

  • The main question/problem: What exactly am I trying to solve?
  • The sub-questions: What smaller questions need to be answered to address the main one?
  • The hypotheses: What are my initial educated guesses or potential solutions?

This is exactly what I needed after those stressful weeks. It transforms the overwhelming feeling of a complex problem into a structured, navigable diagram. It’s like building a custom roadmap, where each turn represents a sub-problem, and each destination is a potential research outcome.

Aligning Knowledge with Leverage

The most practical part of Chevallier’s book is the focus on leverage. Horst challenged me to use my current knowledge. The framework helps me map my skills (like web development, prototyping, or systems design) against the sub-questions in my logic tree.

If I find a sub-question that is both a high-impact friction point and perfectly aligns with my technical portfolio, that’s the sweet spot for my thesis. It takes the guesswork out of the pivot. I’m no longer choosing a topic because it sounds cool. I’m choosing it because the logic tree proves it’s the most effective use of my skills to solve a problem I actually care about.

Impulse #6: A Conversation with Horst Hörtner

Finding a master’s thesis topic is often framed as a linear process, but in practice, it’s rarely that simple. I recently had a conversation with Horst Hörtner to discuss my current academic trajectory. I came to the meeting prepared with my previous projects and a defined topic, but I had to be direct: the current direction wasn’t working. Over the past few weeks, my interests have shifted significantly due to new input, leaving my original proposal feeling disconnected from my current goals. The talk centered on moving away from a random search for ideas and toward a strategic approach to problem-solving.

The Strategic Framework

Hörtner suggested a specific method for filtering thoughts into a viable research project. In a typical work environment, we don’t always get the chance to align our technical skills with our personal observations of the world. He proposed a dual-axis approach to bridge this gap:

  • Positive Indicators: What is currently fascinating or working well in the world?
  • Negative Indicators: What is broken, inefficient, or fundamentally frustrating?

By looking at the world through this lens, the goal is to identify a problem that isn’t just an academic exercise, but a “pain point” that requires a solution. The challenge is to use my existing knowledge base to address these frustrations in a systematic way.

Organizing the Thought Process

We used the example of ocean plastic pollution to test this logic. It’s a massive, complex issue, but the conversation focused on how to break it down. Instead of just thinking about the problem, the goal is to collect and form those thoughts into a technical solution.

This involves:

  1. Observation: Identifying the specific aspect of the problem.
  2. Analysis: Assessing if my current skill set can realistically impact that area.
  3. Synthesis: Structuring those observations into a formal research goal.

Key Takeaways

The most valuable part of the discussion was learning how to organize a high volume of new information and interests, especially after a particularly stressful few weeks of intensive learning. It wasn’t about finding an “eureka” moment, but about applying a more experienced, strategic filter to my ideas.

While I haven’t officially committed to the ocean plastic topic yet, the meeting provided a clear method for organizing my thoughts. I now have a framework to evaluate my new interests objectively and decide which one can be transformed into a solid, defensible thesis.

Meta Quest Headsets vs Smartphones in Retail AR:

When comparing AR on smartphones with VR headsets such as Meta Quest, the discussion should not only focus on immersion, but also on practical use in real retail environments.

Defining the technologies briefly

  • Smartphone-based AR (Augmented Reality) means digital elements are added to the real world through a phone screen. The user stays fully aware of their surroundings.
  • VR (Virtual Reality) uses head-mounted displays that fully replace the real environment with a virtual one.

While VR offers stronger immersion, this strength also creates operational challenges in retail.

Hardware management and constant care in stores

One major difference between smartphones and VR headsets is device ownership and responsibility.

Smartphones are personal devices. Customers bring their own phones, meaning:

  • no shared hardware
  • no setup by staff
  • no maintenance by the store
  • no hygiene management

VR headsets, on the other hand, are shared devices in retail settings. This means they require:

  • staff supervision
  • setup assistance
  • regular cleaning and sanitization
  • technical troubleshooting

Retail research on VR adoption highlights operational complexity and maintenance effort as key barriers to implementing VR experiences in stores. Studies reviewing VR use in retail environments point out that head-mounted displays require additional resources and management, which makes them harder to integrate into everyday shopping situations.
(Source: Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 2025 – VR adoption barriers)
 https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/virtual-reality/articles/10.3389/frvir.2025.1721321/full

Throughput and waiting time: one user vs many users

Another critical issue is throughput, meaning how many people can use a system at the same time.

  • Smartphone AR allows many users simultaneously, because everyone uses their own device.
  • VR headsets allow only one user at a time per headset.

In busy retail environments, this creates waiting times, which research in consumer behavior shows can reduce satisfaction and willingness to engage. Even highly engaging experiences lose value if customers have to wait, ask for assistance, or interrupt their shopping flow.

low-effort, fast-access solutions are more likely to be adopted than complex systems that slow down the shopping process.

Security and loss prevention as a realistic concern

Another practical issue is security.

VR headsets are:

  • expensive
  • portable
  • visually attractive

In open retail environments, this means they often need:

  • constant supervision
  • fixed stations
  • anti-theft measures

This adds another layer of operational effort. Smartphones avoid this issue entirely because the store does not provide the hardware. From a retail management perspective, this significantly lowers risk and responsibility.

Why smartphones fit everyday retail better

Research on mobile AR in retail shows that smartphones work well because they:

  • integrate into existing shopping behavior
  • require no additional learning or equipment
  • allow users to start and stop instantly
  • support short, spontaneous interactions

 ease of use and familiarity strongly influence acceptance and engagement in retail contexts.

Conclusion: immersion vs reality

VR headsets like Meta Quest are powerful tools for guided experiences, events, or brand storytelling. However, in everyday retail environments, they introduce challenges related to:

  • hardware care
  • waiting times
  • staff involvement
  • security and maintenance

Smartphone-based AR avoids these issues by using devices people already own. This makes it more scalable, safer, and better aligned with real shopping behavior.

For these reasons, smartphone AR currently represents a more realistic and responsible solution for retail experiences focused on comfort, accessibility, and smooth user flow.

In public store environments, VR users must often remain in fixed positions for safety, while wearing highly visible head-mounted displays. Studies show that this increases self-consciousness and feelings of being observed or judged by others, making VR less suitable for casual, everyday shopping experiences. As a result, VR is often better suited to private or controlled environments than open retail spaces.

I particularly appreciate the approach taken by Schwind et al. (2018), as the authors do not only theorize about social acceptance, but empirically investigate how people actually feel when using VR glasses in public spaces—and how the surrounding public reacts to this use. By testing VR glasses in different everyday contexts, the study shows that while VR use is more accepted in private or socially isolated situations (such as at home or on a train), acceptance decreases significantly in public environments where social interaction is expected. This finding is especially relevant for retail contexts, as the high level of immersion provided by VR glasses also makes the user more visible and socially exposed, which can increase self-consciousness and discomfort.

Virtual Reality on the Go? A Study on Social Acceptance of VR Glasseshttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/327256690_Virtual_reality_on_the_go_a_study_on_social_acceptance_of_VR_glasses

(In the development of this blogpost, AI (ChatGPT) was used as a supportive writing and structuring tool. I provided the conceptual content, research direction, theoretical preferences, and methodological decisions, while the AI assisted in translating it to English, refining the wording, organising the material and generating coherent academic formulations based on my input. The AI did not produce research or arguments but helped transform my ideas into a clear and well-structured text draft.)

One on One Sessions – Impulse #7

Yesterday, I got to talk to two people, to get some feedback on my masters thesis. Ursula Lagger during the “Proseminar Master’s Thesis” class and Martin Kaltenbrunner during the “Final Crit” session. These discussions have changed, what I will/ want to du during the creation of my masters thesis.

For better understanding let me outline my thesis shortly. My thesis aims to explore and create a clear path for designers who want to contribute their skills to the world of open-source software. The initial plan was to research existing barriers and create a practical “workpiece” to demonstrate a viable contribution method. However, thanks to the input from my professors, the focus and form of that workpiece will change.

The first major insight came during my “Proseminar Master’s Thesis” class with Ursula Lagger. I was heavily focused on the parallels between open-source maintainers and my experience in social volunteering (in my scout group), looking at it through the lens of social science. She pointed out that while this comparison is interesting, it was pulling my thesis away from my actual field of study. How do people interact with the project and the code? How do they communicate and document their process? How do designers get involved? It was a sort of sobering clarification. I realised the core connection to interaction design was secondary and I will change my focus.

The second, and more disruptive, piece of feedback came from Martin Kaltenbrunner during my “Final Crit.” My plan was to create an open-source Figma plugin as a workpiece, to outline the whole process of the creation, maintenance and distribution of an Open Source project. He challenged this directly, arguing that building a plugin for a proprietary, closed-source tool like Figma is more of a simulation of open source rather than a genuine contribution to it. He made me question whether a project can be truly “open” if it’s fundamentally tied to a closed ecosystem.

I will probably move away from the Figma plugin idea. Instead, focus on contributing to an existing, truly open-source project. For example could address an UX issue I found in the Pi-hole project. This new approach feels more authentic and will serve as a much stronger, more “translatable” case study for the final outcome of my thesis: the guideline for other designers. This actually was a third, unifying piece of feedback from them. They suggested that the most valuable result would be a practical, reusable guideline for designers. The idea is to create a “manifesto” of sorts on how to get started and contribute to open source, something that goes beyond my personal project and can empower others.

The biggest shift in perspective probably came through Ursula Lagger, which revealed a blindspot in my own thinking. What are negative sides of Open Source Software? How could giving work away for free to be used by anyone change ones reputation? what impact could OS have on the day to day work of designers? In my next and final blog post, I plan to dive into this blindspot and investigate the other side of the open-source coin.

Ai was used to formulate this blogpost (Gemini + WisprFlow)

Impulse #8 – Trust the process, I guess?

This final impulse isn’t really about one single event but more about my next steps and some reminders for myself, that hopefully help me shape my thesis, since I am kind of lost at the moment.

Instead of moving forward with my thesis I find myself circling, questioning and mostly doubting my current direction. It feels uncomfortable, but maybe this phase is necessary for the whole process, since everyone always says “the journey is the reward”. Up until now I tried to define what my thesis should be, what the outcome should look like and what form it should take, and how can I justify or measure it. I realized the more and harder I tried to answer all of these questions the more pressured I felt. Also, I realized that defining the workpiece kind of in the beginning, blocked me even more because I felt like I already defined a way and I can’t move away from it. Rationally, I know that I can always change the direction, but somehow, I still feel stuck at the moment.

Since I am not 100% happy with my current direction, my next step is a step back. I think I need to go back to a more open and exploratory phase. The process doesn’t need to be linear, and I want to allow myself to also move sidewards not only forwards. I want to explore different topics, topics that I truly care about. But I want to explore them without immediately trying to turn them into a solution asking myself if this would be a good thesis. I want to ask myself more open questions: What excites me? What makes me curious? What topics do I come back to? I think this next phase should be less about creating and more about researching through reading, watching, observing and experimenting and see what resonates with me. I want to spend time writing down thoughts, questions, references or any ideas that come to my mind, without the pressure of turning it into a concept right away.

I need to remind myself that I don’t need to have all the answers right away. For someone who loves to have a clear goal and all the steps that lead me to reach this goal, this feels very unnatural and hard, but maybe this is exactly what I need right now. I need to trust the process and accept uncertainty as part of it. Additionally, going back doesn’t mean going back to zero. The impulses from the past weeks aren’t wasted, they formed a good foundation I can build on if I want to. Now that I finished all my courses, I finally have more time and mental space to really take a step back and sit with some ideas longer, sketch, reflect and finding out what I really want to do. Maybe I just need to narrow down my current idea or maybe I need to go into a completely different direction, but anyways I think my goal right now is to be curious, to explore, to ask questions instead of searching for the perfect thesis.

AI was used to check spelling and grammar.

Installing a PiHole (Homelabbing_3) – Impulse #6

In my last homelabbing post, I talked about getting my server set up with Docker and hosting my first applications. A logical next step on my list was to tackle network-wide ad-blocking. As I hinted before, the time finally came to set up a PiHole. I was excited to improve my own network but also to get my hands on a piece of open-source software that is widely loved.

For those unfamiliar, PiHole works differently than an add blocking browser extension. Instead of scanning websites for ad-like code, it operates as a DNS sinkhole. In simple terms, when any device on your network tries to contact a server known for serving ads, the PiHole intercepts that request and sends back an empty response, so the ad never even loads. The biggest advantage? It works for everything on your network, your laptop, your phone, and even your Smart TV, where ad-blockers are often non-existent.

The setup process itself was a great hands-on experience. I used a tiny Raspberry Pi Zero that I got from my brother for christmas, flashed the operating system to an SD card, enabled SSH for remote access, and plugged it into my router. From there, running the single install command and watching it work its magic was incredibly satisfying. A few configuration changes on my router to direct all DNS traffic through the Pi, and it was up and running, protecting me from ads. ;D

Impact for my Masters Thesis

This is where this little project became a huge impulse for my thesis. While exploring the PiHole’s web dashboard, I stumbled upon a perfect, real-world UX issue. To block a domain, you add it to a blocklist. To allow one, you add it to an “allow list.” On the dashboard, the button to add a domain to the allow list is green.

As a designer, green signifies a positive action, like adding something while red signals a negative action, like deleting something. More than once, I found myself accidentally clicking the green “Allow” button when my actual intention was to block a domain. It’s a classic UX problem where the visual signifier conflicts with the user’s intent. For a developer, a green button for “allow” might make perfect sense, it’s the “good” list. But for a user managing blocklists, it creates confusion.

This was a firsthand example of a barrier a designer could help lower. I immediately thought, “This is open source, I should be able to fix this!” I wanted to change the button color, maybe add an icon, or just improve the layout. But then I hit another wall: the documentation on how to change interface elements wasn’t straightforward for a non-developer. I literally had no idea, where to start.

This entire experience perfectly encapsulates the core of my thesis. It’s not just about finding UX issues, but about the entire process: identifying a problem, understanding the contribution workflow, and finding the right documentation. My simple home lab project has given me a tangible case study, a real problem to solve, and a clear path to explore for my “Designer’s Guide to Open Source.” It’s the first step in moving from theory to a real, practical contribution.

Accompanying Links

Pi-hole official website – https://pi-hole.net/

Raspberry Pi Zero – https://www.raspberrypi.com/products/raspberry-pi-zero/

Ai was used to formulate this blogpost (Gemini + WisprFlow)

Interviewing an AKH Psychiatrist for My Master’s Thesis:

The interview was conducted on January 17, 2026

Medical Perspectives on Sensory Overload, AR, and Emotional Comfort in Retail

My focus in this case lies particularly on people who experience shopping as stressful or overwhelming, such as introverted individuals, people with social anxiety, and users on the autism spectrum.

To support my design research with a medical perspective, I conducted a qualitative expert interview with Dr. Sofia Kuhn, a psychiatrist working in the clinical context of AKH Wien.

About her:

Dr. Sofia Kuhn is a medical doctor working in the field of psychiatry, with clinical experience in the context of child and adolescent mental health. She is affiliated with AKH Wien, one of Austria’s largest university hospitals, which is closely connected to the Medical University of Vienna.

Her professional work focuses on the diagnosis and treatment of psychiatric and developmental conditions, including autism spectrum conditions, anxiety-related disorders, and social difficulties in children and adolescents. Through her clinical practice, she works closely with patients and families who face challenges related to sensory sensitivity, emotional regulation, and social interaction.

Due to her medical background and daily clinical experience, Dr. Kuhn brings a psychiatric and therapeutic perspective to questions of environmental stress, sensory overload, and behavioral responses. This makes her expertise particularly relevant for research at the intersection of mental health, user experience, and design, especially when exploring how digital or immersive tools may influence comfort, stress, and participation in everyday environments.

The aim of this interview was to gain insight into how sensory environments are experienced from a psychiatric point of view—and how design decisions may support, but also potentially challenge, mental wellbeing.

Reaching the interview: more complex than expected

Arranging this interview was already part of the research process. I initially contacted AKH Vienna via email, explaining my academic background and research topic. Due to institutional structures, several emails were required before an appropriate specialist could be assigned. I also went there personally to support the process.

After Dr. Kuhn was assigned, I sent a short written presentation of my thesis topic together with several versions of interview questions. She asked to see the questions in advance and selected the ones she felt were most relevant and realistic to answer within the given time. I agreed to this approach, as it respects both clinical workload and qualitative research ethics.

Interview setting, consent, and technical limitations

The interview was conducted via Zoom and recorded as audio and screen video, with explicit consent given at the beginning of the conversation. I clearly stated that the interview was being documented for academic purposes.

Originally, the interview was planned for 10 minutes only. Despite this strict limitation, we managed to slightly extend the conversation beyond the original 10-minute limit, especially toward the end, when the discussion became more reflective.

For transcription, I used AmberScript. Due to the limitations of the free version, only 10 minutes of audio could be transcribed. The transcript therefore contains minor grammatical inaccuracies and repetitions. However, for qualitative thematic analysis, this is acceptable, as the focus lies on meaning and content rather than linguistic perfection. I asked for permission to record it and use it in the future.


Selected interview questions (original wording)

Dr. Kuhn selected and answered the following questions during the interview. The wording below is documented in its original form, as prepared and shared with the interviewee in advance:

  1. Before we start, could you briefly tell us about your medical background and your current position?
  2. It is well known that visual sensitivity is common in children on the autism spectrum. In your opinion, can autistic children benefit from predictable and visually simple screen interfaces rather than complex or highly animated ones?
  3. In your experience, can controlling brightness, color intensity, and visual clutter on screens help reduce stress or anxiety in autistic children?
  4. What aspects of shopping environments—such as visual stimuli, unpredictability, mirrors, or fitting rooms—you think can be especially overwhelming for autistic, introverted and people with social anxiety?
  5. Could screen-based AR guidance, such as step-by-step instructions or visual navigation, help people feel more in control during shopping experiences?
  6. Does this mean that digital or AR-based try-ons on phones or tablets could reduce sensory overload compared to physical try-ons in stores?
  7. From a psychiatric perspective, what visual design principles should designers consider when developing screen-based tools or AR applications for autistic children?
  8. What main problems or challenges do you see with this concept in practice and how accessible do you think this concept is for different groups of people?
  9. In Austria, do you see a growing need for sensory-friendly digital solutions in everyday environments such as retail, public services, or education?

These questions structured the entire conversation

key moments from the interview (quoted)

One of the most valuable outcomes of this interview was the unexpected depth of medical reflection, especially given the strict 10-minute time limit. Several statements by Dr. Sofia Kuhn stood out.

1. Shopping environments as cumulative sensory stressors

When asked which aspects of shopping environments can be overwhelming, Dr. Kuhn clearly described shopping as a multi-layered sensory challenge, especially for autistic children and their families:

“Shopping can be particularly difficult for autistic children and their parents. Retail environments are often overwhelming and tiring, as children are required to process multiple sensory stimuli at the same time, including bright lights, loud sounds, crowded spaces, and visually intense product displays.” 

She further emphasized that overload is not limited to one space, but builds up through constant transitions:

“Frequent transitions, for example moving from one store to another, being exposed to street noise and entering new environments, can further heighten sensory overload and make the experience especially challenging.”…

Why this is important:
This confirms that sensory overload in retail is cumulative, not isolated. From a design perspective, this means AR should aim to reduce overall mental effort, not just improve one single interaction.


2. AR guidance as a tool for stress reduction and focus

When discussing screen-based AR guidance, Dr. Kuhn highlighted its potential to improve concentration and reduce stress—if designed carefully:

“I think it could be helpful by reducing stress and increasing concentration. Such tools may help children focus better on their actions.” 

She directly linked this to visual design choices:

“The use of soft colors and gentle animations could make the experience more comfortable and enjoyable for such children.” 

Why this is important:
This statement validates key design principles for my AR prototype from a psychiatric perspective, not just a UX one.


3. Simplicity and visual restraint in design

When asked which visual design principles should guide AR tools for autistic children, Dr. Kuhn gave a very clear answer:

“Visual design should remain uncluttered and include only the elements and symbols that are essential for the given context. Color should be selected very thoughtfully and kept at a moderate intensity.” 

She also stressed the importance of motion control:

“Animations, if used, should be subtle and smooth, avoiding sharp or sudden movements. Overall, the design should be intuitive and easy for children to understand.” 

When I asked directly whether simpler design is better, her response was unambiguous:

“Yes. Of course.” 

Why this is important:
This supports the idea that “less is better” is not a stylistic trend, but a mental health requirement for certain user groups.


4. Digital try-ons as a way to avoid stressful physical experiences

Regarding AR-based try-ons, Dr. Kuhn confirmed their potential benefit:

“Yes, they certainly could. Digital trials may help avoid some of the stressful sensory experiences associated with physical fitting rooms.” 

Why this is important:
This quote directly supports the relevance of AR try-ons as a stress-reducing alternative, not merely as a technological novelty.

5. The most critical insight: when innovation can become harmful

The most unexpected and influential part of the interview emerged when discussing limitations and risks. Dr. Kuhn emphasized that innovation is never universally positive:

“Every innovation has both positive and negative aspects. Not everyone will benefit from such innovations.” 

She explained that for certain psychiatric conditions, reduced interaction can conflict with therapeutic goals:

“For a person with social phobia, Asperger’s syndrome, depression, or other disorders, avoiding social interactions is part of the condition. Such innovative technologies may even reduce direct contact with anxiety, which is especially necessary in exposure-based psychotherapy.”

She stated this very clearly:

“This is not the goal of therapy. The goal is for the person to be able to communicate.” inteview 10 min at end verion t…

Why this is important:
This insight fundamentally changed my thinking. It introduced an ethical boundary for AR design: reducing stress must not mean reinforcing avoidance.


6. AR as encouragement, not replacement

Toward the end of the interview, Dr. Kuhn clarified how such technologies can still be useful when applied responsibly:

“An easier form of communication may help people decide to go to a shop, knowing that they will only need minimal interaction. This can be beneficial at a certain stage, as a form of encouragement.” 

However, she immediately added a clear limitation:

“This is beneficial only up to a certain stage. At later stages, we would expect a stronger therapeutic effect.” 

She concluded with a statement that strongly frames my design responsibility:

“It’s essential that such innovative approaches are introduced with great care. These advancements should not reduce real-world communication or lead to social isolation. Sensory-friendly technology should support interaction with the outside world, not replace it.” inteview 10 min at end verion t…

Summary: Key insights from the interview

Understand AR not as a tool to remove social interaction, but as a supportive layer that reduces stress while still allowing real-world engagement.

From a psychiatric perspective, shopping environments were described as highly demanding sensory spaces, especially for autistic and sensitive individuals. Sensory overload results from the combination of bright lights, noise, crowds, visual clutter, and frequent transitions between environments, making shopping exhausting rather than neutral.

Dr. Kuhn emphasized that predictable, visually simple, and uncluttered interfaces—using moderate colors and gentle animations—can help reduce stress and improve concentration. This confirms that visual simplicity is a psychological necessity, not just an aesthetic choice.

She also confirmed that digital or AR-based try-ons can reduce sensory overload compared to physical fitting rooms by avoiding confined spaces, mirrors, and time pressure.

At the same time, the interview highlighted a critical limitation: for certain psychiatric conditions, reducing social interaction too much can reinforce avoidance behavior. Therefore, sensory-friendly technologies should support gradual participation, not eliminate communication entirely.

Overall, the interview strengthened the medical and ethical foundation of my thesis and directly informed the design principles of my AR prototype, reinforcing the idea that AR should support interaction with the outside world rather than replace it.

(In the development of this blogpost, AI (ChatGPT) was used as a supportive writing and structuring tool. I provided the conceptual content, research direction, theoretical preferences, and methodological decisions, while the AI assisted in translating it to English, refining the wording, organising the material and generating coherent academic formulations based on my input. The AI did not produce research or arguments but helped transform my ideas into a clear and well-structured text draft.)