Optimizing augmented reality for visual communication design and user experience in public Art to support sustainable engagement

Abstract

Augmented reality (AR) is increasingly adopted in public art as a medium for extending spatial storytelling, interaction, and audience engagement. However, the lack of empirically grounded design frameworks and standardized user experience (UX) evaluation methods has limited its consistent and sustainable deployment in public spaces. This study empirically investigates how visual communication design parameters influence user experience in AR-enabled public art and validates an optimization-based UX framework through a comparative analysis of digitized and digital-native AR sculptures. A mixed-method experimental study was conducted with 60 participants interacting with ten site-specific AR public artworks. User experience was assessed using a modified Augmented Reality Immersion (ARI) scale measuring engagement, engrossment, and immersion, complemented by WebAR behavioral metrics (dwell time, revisit frequency, and navigation patterns) and qualitative interviews. Results from inferential statistical analysis reveal statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) favoring digitized AR sculptures across all UX dimensions, highlighting the role of physical anchoring in enhancing spatial coherence and emotional resonance. Correlation analysis further identifies spatial layout, content clarity, and interaction complexity as key predictors of immersion. Qualitative findings corroborate quantitative results by revealing user preferences for context-aware narratives and low-friction interactions. Based on these findings, the study derives evidence-based design guidelines that link empirical UX outcomes to sustainable, non-intrusive AR deployment strategies for public art. The proposed framework provides actionable insights for artists, designers, and technologists seeking to create accessible, immersive, and context-sensitive AR public art experiences.

Introduction

Public art has long served as a medium of cultural expression, civic engagement, and collective memory. With emerging technologies reshaping how and even what art is created and experienced, augmented reality (AR) has emerged as a transformative medium within visual communication design. AR enables artists and designers to integrate digital content into physical space, inviting audiences into participatory, interactive, and context-sensitive narrative experiences¹. Incorporating AR into public art does not merely expand technological engagement; rather, it enhances how audiences relate to their environment and to artistic meaning.

While traditional public artworks primarily rely on spectatorship, AR-enabled public art encourages viewers to actively explore, interpret, and co-construct meaning in real time². This shift aligns with broader trends in media and design that emphasize participatory culture, experiential learning, and user-centered storytelling³. Despite its promise, the adoption of AR in public art remains limited due to technological barriers, the absence of standardized design practices, and fragmented collaboration between artists and developers^4,5. As a result, there remains a need for systematic investigation into how AR design choices shape user engagement, emotional connection, and spatial orientation.

Through a combination of literature review, case studies, and design experiments, this research offers practical insights for artists, designers, and technologists working at the intersection of public art and digital innovation^6,7. By reimagining urban spaces such as streets, parks, and public plazas as interactive platforms, AR holds the potential to democratize access to art, enhance community engagement, and enrich cultural experiences. Building upon existing scholarly discourse, this study contributes by proposing and empirically examining a structured design framework for creating accessible, meaningful, and impactful AR public artworks^8,9. Figure 1 illustrates the Site-specific augmented reality (AR) enhanced public sculpture. The artwork overlays virtual sculptural elements onto a real-world urban environment, enabling viewers to interact with digital forms that are spatially anchored to the physical site through markerless AR. The piece illustrates how AR can extend public sculpture by introducing interactive, narrative, and context-aware visual layers.

Fig. 1.

Site-specific augmented reality (AR)–enhanced public sculpture. Reproduced from Reference 1.

Therefore, the primary objective of this study is to empirically evaluate how visual communication design parameters influence user experience in AR-enabled public art and to validate an optimization-based UX framework through a comparative study of digitized versus digital-native AR sculptures. Specifically, the study examines how spatial layout, interaction complexity, content clarity, accessibility, and emotional resonance affect engagement, engrossment, and immersion in public AR installations. To operationalize this objective, the study is guided by the following research questions:

• RQ1: Do digitized AR sculptures produce significantly higher levels of engagement, engrossment, and immersion than digital-native AR sculptures?

• RQ2: Which visual communication design parameters most strongly influence user immersion in AR-enabled public art?

• RQ3: How does interaction complexity affect user friction and engagement outcomes in public AR installations?

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section “Review of literature on AR and public art integration” presents a comprehensive review of the literature on AR in public art, focusing on integration methods and user interaction strategies. Section “Methodology” describes the methodology, including the conceptual framework, material selection, and data collection procedures. Section “Discussion and integrated analysis of AR in public art” discusses and analyzes the findings from design experiments and user evaluations, with a comparative assessment of digitized and digital-native AR sculptures. Finally, section “Conclusion” concludes the paper by summarizing key findings, highlighting interdisciplinary implications, and outlining directions for future research in AR-enhanced public art.

Review of literature on AR and public art integration

According to⁵, a portion of the research lies within the constraints and capabilities of conventional art programs. For designers and artists without any programming background, programs like Adobe Aero and Art Vive are made to be user-friendly and easily accessible, with a low to moderate learning curve. These uses expand the potential of AR technology beyond conventional scientific and commercial applications, making it available to creative individuals. This step toward democratizing material creation opens new avenues for creative and inventive multimedia storytelling. The general focus is on how augmented Reality (AR) might upend conventional sketching methods by enabling the merging of real and virtual spaces to produce rich, multi-layered visual narratives². Even though more and more designers and artists are operating in this field, a lack of practice-based academic research examines and validates this new field of study. It is also unclear how beneficial interactive augmented Reality is in these situations, as well as what technological and interaction prerequisites would be needed for designers and artists to produce these kinds of stories and for consumers to comprehend and engage with them.

In today’s world, technology is increasingly a mediator in interactions and communication. It is contended that the technologies developing severe or weakened ties to physical space, eroding the sense of belonging and encouraging engagement with the public sphere². Conversely, augmented Reality (AR) is a constructed environment in which things are produced and constructed digitally and physically¹⁰. The user’s connection to the physical area can be restored by AR’s capacity to add a digital layer that interacts with our spatial surroundings rather than obfuscating it, making them more socially tangible and present. It has been observed that augmented Reality (AR) impacts not just the expanded space but also the users and creators of the technology and how they perceive the environment.

Encouraging and supportive methods and inclusive disciplines are necessary to make sure AR is used to extend physical space rather than colonize it. This finding implies that who gets to develop these new technologies and their goals will determine how they develop and affect society¹⁰. The advantages for artists and audiences who utilize augmented Reality (AR) in their work are how designers and artists may use AR to construct spatial stories and how AR can add additional narrative layers to public artworks. This article presents a variety of works that have developed as a result of this research, talks about the method and practice of generating augmented reality artworks in public settings, and talks about the lessons that can be used in future AR artwork creation for professionals and scholars who are interested in the application of augmented Reality in interactive public art.

Establishing guidelines and encouraging inclusive, constructive behavior is critical to ensure augmented Reality (AR) is utilized to improve physical spaces rather than colonize them. According to this observation, the advancement of new technologies and how they affect society rely on who gets to use them and what their intended to use AR. Our research concerns center on how designers and artists may use AR to tell spatial stories, how it can enhance public artworks with additional layers of narrative, and how both audiences and artists can profit from using AR in such works³. This article presents a sample of the works produced as part of the research, talks about the method and process of generating augmented Reality works for public arts, and talks about the lessons gained and potential applications of the research.

According to³, AR has become an ultimate choice among new was and new learning technologies. This technology allows the public to engage in the art and get immersed in it. The artists spend too much time discussing the challenges digital innovations bring, reformatting the artwork’s environment. Instead, we are going to thoroughly think about the way AR can create a novel dimension of public art that will satisfy the demand for generative and interacting art followed by the audience’s interest⁹.

In the contemporary world, art has played a critical role as the backbone of culture, a platform for articulated views, and an instrument that can update the usual norms. Showing up in the public area mimicking sculptures and murals planted on every street space, public art can suddenly get beyond its physical limit to have the entire audience understand the pleasures they have never felt before. In contrast, the savoring of traditional artworks with their monotonous static habit and little audience participation audience participation is the essential condition for interaction between the artist and viewer. These most consummate patterns related to artistic communication may not be used.

Virtual Reality (VR) technology typically creates fully immersive and isolated environments through head-mounted displays and computer-based systems, whereas Augmented Reality (AR) overlays digital content onto the physical world, enabling contextual and spatially anchored experiences without isolating users from their surroundings⁹. The audience can immerse into the art world with the combination of real-world scenery into which virtual content is superimposed by AR technology. Ordinary space is turned into a multi-functional canvas; hence, the audience can engage with the art actively; it is no longer a passive process. Art entails all technologies that strangely combine mobile applications, wearable gadgets, and projection-using techniques. Upon that, AR offers artists the potential of virtual illustration, making it easy to create installations that engross and inspire.

Although AR positively influences public art, particularly the concept of tunneling into public art, it also presents other relevant and profound issues. It is a choice-making process which is necessarily difficult. Resource constraints and ethical issues of personal space and the right to access information have a bearing on AR implementation¹¹. Also, the concept of alternative Reality is related to AR connecting with the audience or helping them enjoy the product or the services since the suitable mass communication materials of visual type are being used.

AR storytelling and user experience

It has been suggested that through the use of augmented Reality, artists can create works of art that merge the real and virtual worlds by incorporating digital content into real-world settings. Because of this, art can be experienced in locations where it is not often seen, and the general public has yet to specifically seek it out, but they become more conscious of it as it becomes a part of their everyday lives. Augmented reality art has some leverage because of its surprising and unique qualities, which enable it to be art created covertly rather than requiring payment before seeing. With a few notable exceptions that should benefit artists using scratch AR, not much scholarly research has been done to incorporate augmented Reality (AR) into artistic practice, even though many artists who use this technology to create autonomous works of art on location find AR art to be quite popular¹². Alternatively, they could rely on the expertise of those who have previously dealt with this technology.

Existing AR public art projects often focus on the creation of artist-specific or installation-specific AR artworks, emphasizing individual artistic expression rather than transferable design frameworks or systematic user experience evaluation¹³. In this approach, technology is utilized to tell a story or stories about a location or the people who visit it¹⁴. The globe is complete of locations that are connected to stories: sites of significant historical occurrences, locations of old structures and infrastructure, and birth, residence, or death sites of historical personalities.

These tales can all be shared in various ways, including through tours, posters, and stories. But we can present these stories in novel ways thanks to augmented Reality. For example, we may combine digital content with the actual world by displaying images, videos, audio, animations, drawings, and more in a physical location. For instance, the Museum of London Street Museum app lets users view context and variations from images by superimposing digital content (such as old photos) over the original location¹⁵. This example demonstrates how augmented reality can extend public artworks by introducing interactive and context-aware digital layers within physical environments. AR allows for presenting multiple tales in one location, whereas physical items, such as tiles, are limited to remembering a single section of a place. Stories about present residents may fall under this category, as May’s fictional works in which the locales play a significant role in the primary narrative.

AR methods for activating public spaces

In the context of public art and urban installations, augmented reality (AR) systems can be broadly categorized into location-based AR, marker-based AR, and marker-less AR, based on how virtual content is anchored to physical space^16,17. This classification provides a consistent framework for discussing AR deployment strategies and user interaction modalities in public environments.

Location-based AR relies on geographic positioning, using sensors such as GPS and compass data to determine a user’s physical location and orientation. Digital content is placed at specific real-world coordinates, allowing users to view it from multiple angles and distances. However, accuracy can be compromised by GPS signal propagation issues, interference, and shadowing, particularly in densely built urban environments¹⁸. Marker-based AR uses predefined visual markers to align virtual content with physical objects. While effective for precise placement, it requires the installation and maintenance of physical markers, which can limit deployment flexibility in public spaces¹⁹.

Marker-less AR employs computer vision–based tracking to detect ambient features such as flat surfaces, enabling AR content to be placed without physical markers. This approach allows users greater freedom to move around and explore virtual objects from different perspectives and distances, offering interaction possibilities that more rigid systems may not provide²⁰. Recent studies have highlighted the advantages of marker-less AR for open-space and public art documentation, including non-intrusive deployment, ease of use, reduced infrastructure requirements, and sustainability benefits such as minimal material usage and lower maintenance overhead. These systems are particularly suitable for heritage sites and urban environments where physical modifications are undesirable.

In the project presented here, we implemented a token-based, marker-less AR approach. Large panels and murals were installed at specific sites to serve as AR interaction surfaces. Although functionally similar to optical markers, these visual tokens do not rely on fiducial patterns; instead, they act as non-intrusive spatial anchors that enable stable alignment of virtual content through computer vision–based tracking. Due to their scale and visibility, the panels provide a larger and more intuitive interaction space for users while preserving the integrity of public environments. Examples such as the Bowery Wall and Parabola projects demonstrate how AR signage can enhance urban spaces. This approach was particularly well suited to our study, as it supports artist-controlled AR applications while promoting audience engagement and interactive exploration without requiring physical markers.

Narrative design and visual communication in AR public art

The research on the application of augmented Reality in place-based narratives presented in this article is practitioner-oriented¹. Our focus is on the potential of augmented reality art to support local storytelling and revitalize public areas. In this context, we look at problems related to using and producing augmented reality art in public areas. We concentrate on how to design the user experience to provide value to the audience and the installation site from the perspective of usability and interactivity. The narrative should be the center of the AR experience, with the message taking precedence over the medium. It is critical to consider the interaction between website architecture, physical graphics that reflect AR activation, and AR graphics while building AR experiences. The partnership must needs be harmonious and well-balanced¹.

For instance, excess digital content obscures the real world rather than unveiling fresh facets of its past. Conversely, insufficient digital content might make augmented Reality seem like a cheap trick that does not enrich the artwork or narrative. We also need to consider the artists who produce the artwork and narrate the stories regarding location-based augmented reality stories. Explicitly addressing this issue are some of the initiatives covered in the next section of this article, which looks at up-and-coming artists and how we might support them in incorporating AR-based spatial narrative into their work.

Art created with augmented Reality has become increasingly popular in the virtual and real worlds. Since many contemporary art forms emphasize one over the other, fusing digital and physical media may call for developing new tools, methods, and workflows²¹. In the upcoming chapter, we will go into this topic more. The artists’ attention is mainly on the artwork itself, even if these sections discuss the techniques and process of producing AR art. Some contend that rather than entirely changing actual objects, augmented Reality should be used to extend and improve them. This strategy is indeed taken by many of the works covered in this article, which emphasize augmented Reality’s “augmented” aspect to enhance physical production²¹. However, most physical artworks was made especially formulated Reality. As summarized in Table 1, existing studies on AR in public art and urban environments primarily focus on either technical deployment, artistic exploration, or qualitative observations. Where ✓ is explicitly addressed △ is partially addressed, ✗is not addressed. However, several gaps remain. First, integrated user experience (UX) metrics combining subjective immersion measures with objective behavioral analytics are rarely employed. Second, many studies lack empirical validation in real public-space contexts, limiting the generalizability of their findings. Finally, prior work seldom proposes optimization-driven design frameworks that translate evaluation outcomes into actionable design guidelines. The present study addresses these gaps by integrating empirical UX assessment, WebAR behavioral metrics, and an optimization-based analytical framework within a comparative evaluation of AR public art installations.

Table 1.

Comparison of related work on AR in public Art and the scope of the present Study.

Study/focus area	AR type	Public-space deployment	UX metrics (quantitative)	Behavioral analytics	Sustainability/non-intrusion	Optimization-based framework	Refs.
Early AR public art installations	Marker-based	Limited	✗	✗	✗	✗	1,12
Location-based AR storytelling	Location-based	Partial	△ (qualitative only)	✗	△	✗	13,14
Marker-less AR for open-space art documentation	Marker-less	✓	✗	✗	✓	✗	8,10
AR art focusing on narrative & aesthetics	Mixed	✓	△ (survey-based)	✗	△	✗	11,15
AR UX studies (non-public contexts)	Mixed	✗	✓	△	✗	✗	3,6
This study	Marker-less WebAR	✓	✓ (ARI-based)	✓ (WebAR metrics)	✓	✓

Although prior research has investigated marker-less AR technologies, sustainability considerations, and public-space deployment independently, few studies integrate these technical advances with empirical user experience (UX) evaluation and behavioral analytics. In particular, existing work rarely combines quantitative UX measurement, observed interaction behavior, and optimization-driven design guidelines within a single evaluative framework. The present study addresses this gap by empirically assessing user engagement, engrossment, and immersion in AR-enabled public art and translating these findings into evidence-based design guidelines grounded in comparative analysis.

Methodology

This study adopts a mixed-method approach comprising literature review, case studies, and design experiments to examine how visual communication strategies shape user interaction in AR-enabled public art. The methodology is structured to establish a conceptual framework, define data selection criteria, and test design prototypes with participants, thereby generating both theoretical and empirical insights.

Conceptual framework development

The first stage involved developing a conceptual framework that integrates theories of augmented reality (AR), public art, and visual communication design. The framework is centered on an optimization model of user experience, in which user friction defined as inefficiencies or barriers in AR interaction is minimized through systematic design. Figure 2 is shown the Optimization & Visual Communication Framework for AR in Public Art. At the heart of the framework is an optimization approach that quantifies overall user friction as a weighted sum of design parameters:

1

Fig. 2.

Optimization and visual communication framework for AR in public art.

where denotes overall user friction, represents design parameters (e.g., spatial layout, interaction complexity, content clarity, accessibility, and emotional resonance), and is the relative weight assigned to each parameter. The design goal is:

This formulation aligns design evaluation with measurable user experience outcomes. High interaction complexity or low content clarity increases friction, whereas intuitive interfaces and contextual narrative coherence reduce it. Although not computationally solved in this study, the function serves as a heuristic model to guide designers in balancing technical, aesthetic, and experiential considerations.

The distinction between digitized and digital-native AR sculptures was intentionally introduced to examine how physical anchoring to an existing public artwork versus purely digital creation affects user perception and experience. Digitized sculptures preserve material cues and spatial context from the physical environment, whereas digital-native sculptures allow greater formal freedom but may lack physical grounding. This comparison directly supports RQ1 by enabling systematic evaluation of differences in spatial coherence, emotional resonance, and immersive experience. To ensure methodological clarity and replicability, each design parameter in the optimization model (Eq. 1) was operationally defined and measured using a combination of self-reported scales, behavioral analytics, and observational coding. Spatial layout (x₁) refers to the perceived coherence between the AR content and the surrounding physical environment, including alignment, scale, and spatial anchoring. Interaction complexity (x₂) denotes the number of interaction steps required to access content and the associated cognitive load experienced by users. Content clarity (x₃) reflects the ease with which users understand the visual narrative, symbolism, and informational intent of the AR artwork. Accessibility (x₅) captures the ease of use of the AR system across different age groups and levels of digital literacy, including onboarding and interface intuitiveness. Emotional resonance (x₄) represents users’ affective responses and perceived narrative connection with the artwork. These parameters collectively form the input vector of the optimization framework and provide a structured basis for evaluating user friction and immersive experience in AR-enabled public art.

Data selection process

Following the conceptual framework, the study progressed to the selection of participants, case studies, and design materials. To ensure rigor, inclusion and exclusion were modeled using a constraint-based approach:

2

Here, U is the set of all potential participants or cases, and S is the selected subset. Inequality constraints reflect thresholds (e.g., minimum technological familiarity, age ≥ 18), while equality constraints specify conditions such as prior engagement with public art. A tolerance margin of allows for up to 5% deviation, balancing inclusivity with methodological consistency.

The selection process was guided by three key criteria to ensure methodological rigor and representativeness. First, participants were chosen to reflect demographic diversity across age, gender, cultural background, and varying levels of digital literacy, allowing the study to capture a broad spectrum of user experiences. Second, case studies were selected based on their ability to demonstrate meaningful integration of AR within public art across diverse cultural and spatial contexts, ensuring that findings would be relevant and adaptable to different environments. Finally, design materials were curated to include artworks and visual prototypes that emphasized spatial storytelling, narrative depth, and intuitive human–machine interaction, thereby aligning closely with the study’s focus on enhancing user engagement and immersion in AR-enabled public art. A total of 60 participants were recruited for the study, representing a balanced demographic mix of age (18–65 years), gender, cultural background, and levels of digital literacy. The demographic characteristics of the participants are summarized in Table 2, including age range, gender distribution, cultural background, and levels of digital literacy. This information provides transparency regarding the study sample and supports the generalizability of the findings. This ensured diversity in perspectives and allowed the study to capture differences in usability and engagement across distinct user groups. All procedures involving human participants were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the relevant national and institutional research committees. The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Boards of Multimedia University, Malaysia, and Shaqra University, Saudi Arabia, and informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to their participation.

Table 2.

Participant characteristics.

Characteristic	Category	n	Percentage (%)
Age (years)	18–30	18	30.0
	31–45	22	36.7
	46–65	20	33.3
Gender	Male	32	53.3
	Female	28	46.7
Cultural background	Asian	38	63.3
	Middle Eastern	14	23.3
	Other	8	13.4
Digital literacy	Low	14	23.3
	Moderate	26	43.4
	High	20	33.3

Prototype design and implementation

This study implemented ten augmented reality (AR) public art prototypes to support an empirical evaluation of user experience and visual communication design parameters. The prototypes included both digitized sculptures derived from existing physical artworks and digital-native sculptures created entirely within a virtual design environment. A standardized technical workflow was followed to ensure consistency, reproducibility, and fair comparison across all conditions. Physical public sculptures were digitized using a photogrammetry-based process. Multiple high-resolution images were captured from diverse viewpoints and reconstructed into detailed three-dimensional meshes. These meshes were then cleaned, retopologized, and texture-optimized to balance visual fidelity with the real-time rendering constraints required for mobile AR deployment.

Figure 3 illustrates (top) the AR visual interaction and interface layout, showing a user engaging with a site-specific AR sculpture through a mobile device, including spatially anchored overlays, navigation icons, and touch-based interaction (e.g., tap-to-activate and viewpoint-dependent exploration). The bottom panels depict (left) the user evaluation setup in a public space, highlighting field testing, interaction logging, and UX assessment using the ARI scale, surveys, and interviews, and (right) the AR development and deployment pipeline, covering 3D scanning/modeling, content optimization, WebAR integration, and markerless deployment for public installation.

Fig. 3.

AR visual interaction, user evaluation, and system development workflow.

Digital-native AR sculptures were designed entirely in Blender, allowing for greater formal abstraction and narrative experimentation unconstrained by physical materials. These models were created to explore spatial storytelling possibilities unique to AR while maintaining scale, alignment, and interaction consistency with the digitized sculptures. To ensure smooth performance across a wide range of mobile devices, all 3D assets underwent WebAR-specific optimization, including polygon count reduction, texture compression, simplified materials, and lighting adjustments. The optimized models were exported in web-compatible formats suitable for browser-based AR experiences, eliminating the need for dedicated applications.

The finalized models were deployed on a markerless WebAR platform utilizing computer vision–based tracking and simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM). This approach enabled stable spatial anchoring of virtual sculptures within real-world public environments without physical markers, supporting non-intrusive installation, accessibility, and sustainability. Interaction mechanisms such as touch-based activation, viewpoint-dependent exploration, and spatial movement around the sculptures were designed to remain consistent across all prototypes. This consistency minimized potential confounding variables, ensuring that observed differences in user experience could be attributed primarily to design parameters rather than technical variation. By following this structured and standardized workflow, the study ensured technical consistency, efficient deployment, and fair comparability between digitized and digital-native AR sculptures. This foundation supports the user experience evaluation and comparative analysis presented in “Discussion and integrated analysis of AR in public art”.

Additionally, the AR prototypes were deployed using a WebAR framework, enabling app-free access through standard mobile web browsers. Marker-less tracking was achieved using computer vision–based feature detection and simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) to ensure robust spatial anchoring in outdoor public environments. All 3D assets were optimized for real-time rendering through polygon reduction, texture compression, and lightweight materials to maintain performance across heterogeneous mobile devices. This WebAR-based implementation supports scalable deployment, ease of access, and sustainable, non-intrusive installation in public art contexts.

Data collection

Data collection followed a mixed-method strategy integrating quantitative, qualitative, and case-based approaches to capture a comprehensive understanding of user interaction with AR-enabled public art. Across all sessions, the study gathered 720 interaction logs via WebAR analytics (including dwell time, revisit frequency, and navigation patterns), 180 completed ARI-scale responses, and 45 semi-structured interviews. Additionally, field observations across six deployment sites produced over 200 annotated notes documenting behavioral and spatial interaction patterns. This combined dataset provided both breadth and depth for evaluating engagement, engrossment, and immersion outcomes.

Quantitative measures of engagement, engrossment, and immersion were captured using a modified Augmented Reality Immersion (ARI) scale. Objective behavioral metrics were automatically recorded via WebAR analytics. Dwell time was defined as the total duration (in seconds) a participant actively engaged with an AR sculpture, measured from initial activation to disengagement. Revisit frequency indicated the number of repeat interactions with the same sculpture, reflecting sustained interest beyond initial exposure. Navigation patterns captured users’ spatial movements and viewpoint changes around the AR content, recorded through interaction logs tracking positional changes, camera orientation, and interaction events. Minimum interaction thresholds were applied to ensure consistency across participants, and all metrics were aggregated at both participant and sculpture levels prior to statistical analysis. These objective measures were triangulated with self-reported ARI-scale responses to provide a robust evaluation of engagement and immersion.

Each participant completed an individual AR interaction session in a public deployment setting, interacting with three to four AR sculptures that included both digitized and digital-native works. To minimize order and learning effects, the presentation sequence of sculptures was counterbalanced across participants. Session durations averaged approximately 25 min, encompassing onboarding, interaction, and post-interaction evaluation. Exposure to digitized and digital-native AR sculptures was randomized to ensure that no participant encountered the same category first by design. This controlled protocol enabled fair comparisons of user experience outcomes while maintaining ecological validity in real-world public art environments, allowing participants to explore naturally within structured experimental constraints. To enhance transparency and replicability, representative items from the modified Augmented Reality Immersion (ARI) scale are provided below. All items were rated on a five-point Likert scale 1 is strongly disagree, 5 is strongly agree.

Engagement:

1. “I felt actively involved while interacting with the AR sculpture.”

2. “The AR experience maintained my attention throughout the interaction.”

Engrossment:

1. “I lost awareness of time while exploring the AR artwork.”

2. “The AR experience absorbed my focus more than the surrounding environment.”

Immersion:

1. “The AR sculpture felt well integrated into the physical space.”

2. “I felt a strong sense of presence while interacting with the AR artwork.”

Data analysis

The collected data were analyzed using a two-tiered approach combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Thematic analysis was applied to qualitative data, coding responses and field observations into recurring themes such as usability, inclusivity, spatial awareness, and narrative engagement. Simultaneously, statistical analysis was conducted on quantitative measures, with descriptive statistics including means and variance computed for engagement, engrossment, and immersion scores. Group-wise comparisons between digitized and digital-native sculptures were performed to identify statistically significant differences in user interaction patterns.

To complement these analyses, a sustainability assessment was conducted conceptually using a life-cycle assessment (LCA) framework. This enabled comparison between AR-enabled installations and conventional physical artworks regarding material resource use, infrastructure requirements, and energy consumption associated with AR devices. The overall methodological workflow is summarized in Table 3.

Table 3.

Data selection and research Workflow.

Step	Description
1. Framework setup	Developed optimization model linking design parameters with user friction.
2. Define criteria	Established inclusion/exclusion conditions using constraint-based model.
3. Literature review	Identified prior AR-in-public-art projects and design frameworks.
4. Participant selection	Applied constraints for balanced demographic and AR literacy representation.
5. Prototype creation	Designed digitized and digital-native AR sculptures with signage and HMI.
6. Field deployment	Implemented prototypes in public spaces via markerless WebAR.
7. Data collection	Captured quantitative interaction metrics and qualitative feedback.
8. Data analysis	Conducted thematic analysis and statistical evaluation of UX outcomes.

The Augmented Reality Immersion (ARI) scale employed in this study was adapted from established immersion and presence measurement instruments widely used in human–computer interaction and extended reality research²². The scale was modified to reflect the context of AR-enabled public art while preserving the core constructs of engagement, engrossment, and immersion. To ensure measurement rigor, the internal consistency, content validity, and construct validity of the adapted ARI scale were evaluated prior to inferential analysis. Reliability and validity statistics are reported in this section. The methodological design aligns explicitly with the research questions outlined in the Introduction. The comparative experimental setup of digitized versus digital-native AR sculptures addresses RQ1, enabling statistical evaluation of engagement, engrossment, and immersion differences. Operationalization of visual communication design parameters such as spatial layout, interaction complexity, content clarity, accessibility, and emotional resonance supports RQ2 by allowing correlation and optimization-based analysis of their influence on immersive experience. Measurement of interaction complexity through ARI-scale responses and WebAR behavioral metrics further facilitates examination of user friction, addressing RQ3. This structured alignment ensures that data collection and analysis systematically support the study’s empirical objectives.

Each operational parameter was assessed through triangulation of measurement methods. User perceptions of spatial layout, interaction complexity, content clarity, accessibility, and emotional resonance were captured using a modified Augmented Reality Immersion (ARI) scale. Behavioral metrics, including dwell time, revisit frequency, and navigation patterns, were extracted from WebAR analytics to complement self-reported measures. Field observations and interview data were coded to validate and contextualize quantitative findings. This multi-method approach ensured construct validity and a robust linkage between design parameters and user experience outcomes.

The reliability and validity of the modified ARI scale were rigorously evaluated prior to hypothesis testing. Internal consistency reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha, with results indicating good reliability across dimensions: α = 0.87 for Engagement, α = 0.85 for Engrossment, and α = 0.89 for Immersion, exceeding the commonly accepted threshold of 0.70. Content validity was established through expert review by researchers specializing in augmented reality, user experience, and visual communication design, ensuring relevance and clarity of scale items. Construct validity was further supported through correlation analysis between ARI dimensions and objective WebAR behavioral metrics (dwell time and revisit frequency), demonstrating theoretically consistent relationships between subjective immersion scores and observed user behavior.

Discussion and integrated analysis of AR in public art

This section presents the empirical findings in direct relation to the research questions posed in the Introduction. RQ1 is addressed through comparative statistical analysis of user experience metrics between digitized and digital-native AR sculptures. RQ2 is examined through correlation analysis linking visual communication design parameters to engagement, engrossment, and immersion outcomes. RQ3 is evaluated by analyzing the impact of interaction complexity on user friction and behavioral engagement, interpreted through the proposed optimization-based UX framework. Together, these analyses provide a coherent and evidence-based validation of the study’s conceptual model.

Analysis of AR-enabled public art experiences

Participants frequently reported strong emotional engagement with the AR sculptures, particularly when virtual elements were perceived as meaningfully integrated within the physical environment. One participant remarked, “It felt like the artwork was responding to the space around me, not just floating on my phone screen.” Another observed, “The story behind the sculpture became clearer as I moved around it, which made the experience more personal.” Field observations further indicated that participants exhibiting higher emotional resonance tended to spend longer durations interacting with the AR content, supporting the quantitative relationship between emotional resonance and dwell time.

Despite generally positive engagement, several participants noted usability challenges related to interaction complexity. For example, one participant stated, “At first, I wasn’t sure where to tap or move it took a bit of trial and error.” Observational notes revealed that increased interaction steps sometimes led to hesitation or disengagement, particularly among participants with lower digital literacy. These qualitative findings align with the negative correlation observed between interaction complexity and engagement metrics.

Overall, the results suggest that AR transformed public interaction with art, shifting spectatorship into participatory and immersive engagement. Consistent with prior studies^1,3,10,13, participants reported higher presence and emotional resonance when AR overlays were spatially coherent and narratively integrated. This observation aligns with the optimization model (Eq. 1), where parameters such as interaction complexity x₂ and content clarity x₃ exerted significant influence on user friction. Installations with excessive complexity or ambiguous content increased f(x), reducing overall immersion, whereas digitized sculptures anchored in familiar physical forms minimized friction and achieved higher engagement scores. The strong internal consistency of the modified ARI scale further supports the reliability of these user experience outcomes.

To validate these interpretations, correlation analysis was conducted between key design parameters (from Eq. 1) and user experience outcomes (engagement, engrossment, immersion). The results indicated that content clarity x₃ and emotional resonance x₄exhibited the strongest positive correlations with immersion, whereas interaction complexity x₂ showed a negative correlation, confirming its role as a friction-inducing factor. These findings reinforce prior research highlighting the importance of intuitive interfaces and coherent narrative integration in AR-based cultural installations^16–18.

Table 4 presents the correlations between design parameters and user experience metrics. The inclusion of participants across diverse age groups and digital literacy levels also enabled examination of differential usability and engagement patterns across demographic segments.

Table 4.

Correlation between design parameters and user experience Metrics.

Parameter	Engagement (r)	Engrossment (r)	Immersion (r)	Significance (p)
: spatial layout	0.62	0.58	0.65	p < 0.01
: interaction complexity	− 0.54	− 0.49	− 0.57	p < 0.05
: content clarity	0.78	0.74	0.81	p < 0.01
: emotional resonance	0.70	0.76	0.83	p < 0.01
: accessibility	0.55	0.60	0.63	p < 0.05

The Table 3 demonstrates a strong positive correlation between content clarity and immersive flow r=0.81, consistent with the abstract and earlier literature^1,9. Emotional resonance also significantly contributed to engagement r=0.70, while interaction complexity was negatively correlated across all metrics, reinforcing the model’s prediction that higher complexity increases friction. Spatial layout and accessibility showed moderate positive correlations, underscoring their role as enabling but not dominant variables.

These results provide empirical evidence supporting the optimization heuristic (Eq. 1) and illustrate how multi-variable balancing is essential for minimizing friction and maximizing user immersion. Moreover, demographic trends observed in this study validated the constraint-based selection model (Eq. 2), as younger, digitally literate participants adapted more readily, while less experienced users required onboarding support. This demonstrates the value of structured inclusion criteria in ensuring that findings are generalizable across user groups^23,24.

User experience evaluation of AR sculptures

Building on the implemented AR prototypes described in “Prototype design and implementation”, this section presents the empirical evaluation results and comparative analysis. Participants consistently reported that digitized AR sculptures felt more “grounded” within the public space compared to digital-native works. One participant remarked, “The digitized sculpture felt more real, like it belonged here.” In contrast, digital-native sculptures were sometimes perceived as visually engaging but less contextually anchored, with one participant noting, “It looked impressive, but it felt more like a floating animation.” These qualitative insights reinforce the statistically significant differences observed in engagement, engrossment, and immersion scores between the two sculpture types.

This study examined ten augmented reality (AR) sculptures five digitized from physical models, and five created in a digital 3D design space to explore how well they engage viewers through user experience metrics of engagement, engrossment, and immersion. Data were collected through participant interactions and mean scores emerged for each individual sculpture, which could be examined on average based on every sculpture’s origin (digitized vs. derived from digital 3D design space). Figure 4 illustrates the augmented reality (AR) sculptures²⁵.

Fig. 4.

Augmented reality (AR) sculptures.

Figure 5 displays the Mean Engagement Score for each sculpture, revealing that digitized sculptures generally achieved higher scores. For example, S1 (4.17) and S9 (4.14) received the highest marks, suggesting that users found these sculptures particularly compelling and enjoyable. The average engagement score across digitized sculptures was 4.09, while digital-native sculptures averaged 3.68, indicating a significant preference for sculptures with physical-world roots. Although the current evaluation provides valuable insights into short-term interaction, future studies should incorporate longitudinal engagement tracking to assess sustained user interaction with AR installations. By embedding analytics in WebAR platforms, user behaviour over extended periods such as revisit frequency, dwell time, and evolving interaction styles can be monitored. Furthermore, machine learning clustering models may be applied to identify behavioural patterns and predict long-term cultural impact. This approach would enable a richer understanding of AR’s role in fostering continuous public engagement beyond initial novelty.

Fig. 5.

Mean engagement score per sculpture.

Table 5 illustrates the Mean Engrossment and Immersion Scores for each sculpture. Again, digitized sculptures outperformed, with S1 (4.20 engrossment, 4.28 immersion) and S9 (4.16 engrossment, 4.24 immersion) emerging as the most immersive and emotionally captivating. Digital-native sculptures like S4 and S6 scored lower in both engrossment and immersion, implying a need for stronger narrative or aesthetic cues in digitally created artworks.

Table 5.

Mean engrossment and immersion scores per sculpture.

Sculpture	Engrossment	Immersion
S1	4.20	4.28
S2	4.04	4.15
S3	3.59	3.61
S4	3.46	3.35
S5	3.44	3.66
S6	3.32	3.74
S7	3.92	4.10
S8	3.89	4.20
S9	4.16	4.24
S10	4.04	4.10

Finally, Table 6 aggregates the mean scores by category across both groups. Digitized sculptures scored an overall average of 4.09 (engagement), 4.02 (engrossment), and 4.14 (immersion). In contrast, digital-native sculptures averaged 3.68, 3.47, and 3.59 respectively. These results suggest that digitized sculptures more successfully bridge the gap between the digital and physical realms, providing users with a more connected, immersive experience. The lower engagement with digital-native sculptures suggests a need for technical enhancements to increase realism and narrative depth. Methods such as photogrammetry-based surface mapping and AI-driven texture generation can be employed to enrich the visual fidelity of digital-native models. Additionally, haptic feedback integration through AR wearables or mobile vibration patterns may enhance the sense of tangibility. Hybrid workflows combining physical artistry with algorithmic design (e.g., GAN-based style transfer) can bridge the gap between digital-native abstraction and user preference for physical realism. Digitized AR sculptures exhibited higher mean scores across all user experience dimensions, with moderate variability as reflected by the reported standard deviations.

Table 6.

Experience scores by sculpture type.

Sculpture type	Engagement		Engrossment		Immersion
	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
Digitized (S1, 2, 7–10)	4.09	0.62	4.02	0.58	4.14	0.60
Digital-native (S3–6)	3.68	0.65	3.47	0.61	3.59	0.63

The observed differences between digitized and digital-native AR sculptures highlight the influence of physical anchoring on user experience. Digitized sculptures consistently exhibited higher engagement, engrossment, and immersion scores, suggesting that spatial continuity between physical and virtual elements enhances emotional resonance and perceptual coherence. Comparative analysis within each category further indicates that these effects are robust across individual works, reinforcing the validity of the proposed UX framework. These findings validate the optimization framework (Eq. 1): digitized sculptures provided higher content clarity and emotional resonance , lowering overall friction and producing more immersive experiences. Conversely, digital-native sculptures often lacked realistic textures or cultural grounding, which reduced clarity and resonance, raising friction values. This suggests that hybrid workflows combining physical artistry with digital innovation may be optimal for minimizing friction. The evaluation also reflects the role of the constraint-based selection model (Eq. 2). By including participants with varying levels of digital literacy, the study identified differential responses: digitally fluent users navigated abstract digital-native works more easily, whereas less experienced participants required clearer guidance and context. This demonstrates how the structured inclusion criteria contributed to experimental control and robustness of the user experience evaluation, ensuring that observed effects could be reliably attributed to the AR design parameters under study.

To determine whether the observed differences between digitized and digital-native AR sculptures were statistically significant, independent-samples t-tests were conducted for engagement, engrossment, and immersion scores. The analysis revealed that digitized sculptures achieved significantly higher mean scores than digital-native sculptures across all three dimensions (p < 0.05). Specifically, statistically significant differences were observed for engagement, engrossment, and immersion, confirming that the origin of the AR sculpture (digitized versus digital-native) has a measurable impact on user experience outcomes.

These findings provide empirical support for RQ1 and validate the comparative component of the proposed optimization-based UX framework. All tests satisfied assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variance, and effect sizes indicated a moderate to strong practical impact.

Sustainable impact and design strategies in AR public art

By minimizing the need for permanent physical infrastructure, AR-based public art installations support more sustainable and non-intrusive deployment strategies, particularly in urban and heritage-sensitive environments. Beyond immediate user interaction, augmented reality (AR) in public art contributes to sustainability by reducing reliance on physical infrastructure, activating underutilized urban spaces, and fostering cultural awareness. Deployments using markerless WebAR platforms minimized technical entry barriers and infrastructure costs while broadening accessibility, confirming that lower friction values in Eq. (1) extend not only to usability but also to social and environmental sustainability. For example, app-free access optimized the accessibility parameter ensuring inclusivity across diverse demographics, while cultural storytelling overlays increased emotional resonance , reinforcing civic pride and identity^10,15.

Augmented Reality (AR) in public art plays a crucial role in promoting sustainability by transforming how individuals engage with urban spaces, cultural narratives, and environmental awareness²⁶. By leveraging location-based storytelling, interactive design, and accessible digital platforms, AR fosters deeper emotional connections and cognitive engagement with public artworks. These immersive experiences not only enhance cultural appreciation but also activate underutilized public areas, encouraging community use and stewardship. Moreover, the use of WebAR and low-barrier technologies reduces the need for physical infrastructure, minimizing environmental impact while promoting digital inclusion^27,28. Through participatory design and educational overlays such as ecological or historical content AR public art supports both social and cultural sustainability, making it a powerful tool for creating resilient, informed, and inclusive communities^29,30.

The integration of narrative-driven overlays further validated the heuristic model by demonstrating that optimized content clarity and spatial layout reduced experiential friction, producing deeper engagement and longer dwell times. Conversely, poorly anchored or overly complex overlays increased friction, echoing earlier observations that high ​ (interaction complexity) undermines sustained immersion¹¹. These patterns emphasize that achieving sustainability requires maintaining a balance across the full vector of design parameters rather than optimizing a single dimension. The design guidelines summarized in Table 7 are derived directly from the empirical evaluation results presented in section “Analysis of AR-enabled public art experiences” and “User experience evaluation of AR sculptures”. Quantitative findings from the ARI-based user experience analysis and WebAR behavioral metrics were triangulated with qualitative interview quotations and field observations to identify recurring patterns related to spatial coherence, interaction complexity, accessibility, and emotional resonance.

Table 7.

Evidence-based design guidelines for AR-enabled public art.

Design dimension	Guideline	Empirical basis (source)	Supporting evidence
Spatial layout	Anchor AR content precisely to physical site geometry to enhance spatial coherence and realism	Quantitative + Qualitative	Higher immersion scores for digitized sculptures; participant comments on “belonging to the space”
Interaction complexity	Minimize interaction steps and cognitive load during initial engagement	Quantitative + Qualitative	Negative correlation between interaction complexity and engagement; observed hesitation during onboarding
Content clarity	Use clear visual hierarchy and concise narrative cues to guide interpretation	Quantitative + Qualitative	Strong correlation between content clarity and immersion; interview feedback on narrative understanding
Accessibility	Design for broad age and digital literacy levels with intuitive onboarding	Qualitative + Behavioral	Observed usability challenges among low-literacy users; longer dwell times when guidance was clear
Emotional resonance	Integrate contextual storytelling tied to the physical environment	Quantitative + Qualitative	Higher emotional resonance scores linked to increased dwell time and revisit frequency
Sustainability/deployment	Prefer marker-less WebAR for non-intrusive and scalable public installations	Qualitative + Technical	Field observations; ease of deployment without physical infrastructure

As shown in Table 7, each guideline is grounded in empirically observed user experience outcomes. Guidelines related to spatial anchoring and content clarity reflect statistically significant differences between digitized and digital-native AR sculptures, while recommendations addressing interaction simplicity and onboarding are informed by observed usability challenges and participant feedback. This evidence-based mapping ensures that the proposed guidelines are not speculative but are firmly rooted in the study’s quantitative and qualitative findings.

Beyond qualitative cultural benefits, sustainability can be quantified by employing life-cycle assessment (LCA) models that compare AR-enabled art with traditional physical installations³¹. Monitoring energy consumption profiles of AR experiences across devices can guide optimization of rendering pipelines for reduced environmental load. Moreover, AR installations themselves can incorporate eco-feedback overlays, showing audiences real-time information on carbon savings or resource reductions, thereby linking user engagement with environmental awareness. Table 8 shown challenges and solutions for AR Public Art.

Table 8.

Challenges and solutions for AR public art.

Challenge	Observed impact	Solution
Short-term evaluation of engagement	Lacks evidence of sustained user behavior and cultural impact	Implement longitudinal tracking with WebAR analytics; apply ML clustering to model long-term engagement patterns
Digital-native sculptures less engaging	Lower immersion and user preference compared to digitized models	Enhance with photogrammetry-based textures, AI-driven rendering (GANs), and haptic feedback integration
Accessibility barriers for older/low-tech users	Reduced inclusivity and engagement across demographics	Adopt multi-modal interfaces (voice, gesture), progressive onboarding, and WCAG-compliant AR UI
Absence of standardized design guidelines	Inconsistent AR experiences across sites/projects	Develop AR design ontology, open-source templates, and ISO-inspired usability benchmarks
Weakness in spatial anchoring	Inaccurate placement in dense urban areas; limited persistence	Use hybrid anchoring (GPS + CV + NFC/QR), SLAM with 5G positioning, and cloud anchors for shared AR
Lack of sustainability metrics	No quantifiable environmental assessment of AR impact	Employ LCA models, energy profiling of devices, and eco-feedback overlays in AR installations
Limited demographic scope	Findings less generalizable across cultures and age groups	Apply stratified sampling, AI-based sentiment analysis, and adaptive personalization algorithms

Conclusion

This study empirically examined how visual communication design parameters shape user experience in AR-enabled public art and validated an optimization-based UX framework through a comparative evaluation of digitized and digital-native AR sculptures. By integrating quantitative UX assessment, behavioral analytics, and qualitative user insights, the research provides evidence-based understanding of how spatial anchoring, interaction complexity, content clarity, accessibility, and emotional resonance influence engagement, engrossment, and immersion in public AR installations.

Experimental results demonstrate that digitized AR sculptures anchored to existing physical artworks consistently produced higher levels of engagement, engrossment, and immersion than digital-native AR sculptures. These findings highlight the importance of spatial coherence and physical context in strengthening emotional connection and narrative comprehension in public AR experiences. Correlation and inferential analyses further revealed that simplified interaction flows and clear visual narratives significantly reduce user friction and enhance immersive outcomes, particularly in open and heterogeneous public environments.

Beyond empirical findings, this study contributes a structured, optimization-driven UX framework and a set of design guidelines grounded directly in evaluation results. Unlike prior work that primarily offers conceptual or artistic reflections, the proposed framework establishes traceable links between measurable UX outcomes and practical design decisions, supporting sustainable, non-intrusive, and scalable AR deployments in public spaces. These contributions are particularly relevant for artists, designers, and urban stakeholders seeking to integrate AR into civic and cultural contexts without permanent physical infrastructure.

Several limitations should be acknowledged. The study was conducted within a limited number of public sites and focused on short-term interaction sessions, which may not fully capture longitudinal engagement patterns. Future research should investigate long-term user behavior, cross-cultural contexts, and adaptive personalization strategies, as well as explore the integration of physiological or biometric measures to further enrich UX evaluation. Overall, this work advances the empirical and methodological foundations of AR public art by demonstrating how design-driven, data-informed approaches can enhance immersive experiences while supporting accessibility and sustainability in public environments.

Author contributions

Author Contributions: Marran Al Qwaid: Conceptualization, Methodology, Literature Review, Data Curation, Writing—Original Draft.Md Tanjil Sarker*: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Visualization, Writing—Review & Editing, Project Administration.Hezerul Abdul Karim*: Supervision, Funding Acquisition, Validation, Writing—Review & Editing.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Data availability

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

All methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. All experimental protocols were approved by the Institutional Review Boards of Multimedia University, Malaysia, and Shaqra University, Saudi Arabia. Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to their participation.