Next Article in Journal
A Wi-Fi Fingerprinting Indoor Localization Framework Using Feature-Level Augmentation via Variational Graph Auto-Encoder
Next Article in Special Issue
Story Forge: A Card-Based Framework for AI-Assisted Interactive Storytelling
Previous Article in Journal
A Deep-Learning Framework with Multi-Feature Fusion and Attention Mechanism for Classification of Chinese Traditional Instruments
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Electronics
Volume 14
Issue 14
10.3390/electronics14142806
electronics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Designing for Dyads: A Comparative User Experience Study of Remote and Face-to-Face Multi-User Interfaces

by
Mengcai Zhou
,
Jingxuan Wang
,
Ono Kenta
,
Makoto Watanabe
and
Chacon Quintero Juan Carlos
*
Graduate School of Science and Engineering, Chiba University, Chiba 2638522, Japan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Electronics 2025, 14(14), 2806; https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics14142806
Submission received: 14 June 2025 / Revised: 6 July 2025 / Accepted: 10 July 2025 / Published: 12 July 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Innovative Designs in Human–Computer Interaction)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Collaborative digital games and interfaces are increasingly used in both research and commercial contexts, yet little is known about how the spatial arrangement and interface sharing affect the user experience in dyadic settings. Using a two-player iPad pong game, this study compared user experiences across three collaborative gaming scenarios: face-to-face single-screen (F2F-OneS), face-to-face dual-screen (F2F-DualS), and remote dual-screen (Rmt-DualS) scenarios. Eleven dyads participated in all conditions using a within-subject design. After each session, the participants completed a 21-item user experience questionnaire and took part in brief interviews. The results from a repeated-measure ANOVA and post hoc paired t-tests showed significant scenario effects for several experience items, with F2F-OneS yielding higher engagement, novelty, and accomplishment than remote play, and qualitative interviews supported the quantitative findings, revealing themes of social presence and interaction. These results highlight the importance of spatial and interface design in collaborative settings, suggesting that both technical and social factors should be considered in multi-user interface development.

1. Introduction

While technology promises to bridge any distance, the subtle nuances of human collaboration—eye contact, shared laughter, or a fleeting glance—may depend as much on our physical and digital proximity as our willingness to cooperate. Can a shared interface compensate for a lack of shared space, or does face-to-face interaction lose its edge when everyone is looking at their own device?
Directly impacting the effectiveness and satisfaction of collaborative experiences, the design of multi-user interfaces (MUIs) and shared screens is now a crucial topic in human–computer interaction (HCI) [1,2]. Foundational concepts such as social presence [3,4], mutual awareness [5,6], and emotional contagion [7,8] have been shown to play pivotal roles in shaping user experiences in co-located and distributed group work. These concepts suggest that physical co-presence and real-time feedback can enhance communication, foster engagement, and reduce misunderstandings in collaborative settings. However, the mechanisms by which interface sharing and spatial arrangements interact with these constructs—especially in dyadic, informal, or game-based scenarios—remain incompletely understood.
Prior studies have explored various collaborative environment configurations, such as co-located versus distributed setups [9] and single- versus multiple-device interfaces [10]. It has been suggested that physical proximity and interface sharing can influence factors such as engagement, communication, and user satisfaction [11]. However, findings are mixed and often context-dependent.
While research on multi-user interfaces and collaborative technologies is expanding, much of the work to date has concentrated on larger group interactions or formal professional settings [12,13]. In contrast, studies that systematically examine the social, experiential, and interactional dynamics of dyadic (two-person) collaboration—particularly through direct within-subject comparisons across single-screen and dual-screen configurations in both co-located and remote scenarios—remain comparatively rare. Recent research has begun to address these gaps by focusing on the unique emotional and relational processes in dyadic interactions [14], as well as synthesizing trends and design implications in multiplayer and dyadic gamification environments [15]. However, there is a lack of direct, within-subject comparisons between face-to-face single-screen (F2F-OneS), face-to-face dual-screen (F2F-DualS), and remote dual-screen (Rmt-DualS) conditions. Most existing studies either address these setups in isolation or use between-subject designs, making it difficult to disentangle the effects of the spatial arrangement and interface sharing on the user experience. As a result, important questions about how interface and spatial factors jointly affect engagement, mutual awareness, and perceived challenge in two-person collaborative activities remain unresolved.
Despite the growing interest, much of the existing research focuses on large group collaborations or professional contexts [16,17], leaving a gap in our understanding of how dyadic (two-person) collaboration is affected by spatial and interface configurations in casual or game-based settings. More specifically, direct comparisons of face-to-face single-screen (F2F-OneS), face-to-face dual-screen (F2F-DualS), and remote dual-screen (Rmt-DualS) scenarios remain underexplored.
Using a simple digital table tennis game as the experimental platform, this study aimed to systematically compare user experiences across these three typical two-person collaborative scenarios. By measuring both subjective user ratings and key demographic/personality factors, we sought to uncover how spatial and interface factors interact to shape collaborative experiences.
This work contributes to a broader understanding of how fundamental aspects of the user experience are shaped—or remain robust—across diverse technological and social configurations.
Moreover, the findings will provide empirical guidance for designers of multi-user digital interfaces, not only in entertainment but also in domains such as collaborative learning, remote teamwork, and shared-device usage in resource-constrained environments. By illuminating how foundational constructs like social presence and mutual awareness are affected by screen sharing and co-presence, this work offers both theoretical and practical contributions.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Apparatus and Game Interface

A two-player pong game was chosen because it offers a simple, well-controlled, and widely recognized paradigm for studying collaborative and competitive dynamics. Recent research has demonstrated that pong-based games are highly effective for investigating co-located collaboration with multi-display setups [18], exploring turn-taking and social interaction in educational and therapeutic contexts [19], and supporting novel interaction modalities such as augmented reality [20]. These studies highlight the flexibility and empirical value of pong games for probing the core mechanisms of real-time collaboration and interface-mediated interaction.
For all experimental conditions, identical 11-inch iPads were used as touchscreen devices to ensure consistency in the input modality and to minimize hardware-related confounds. The use of standardized tablets is well supported in multi-user interface research, as it facilitates both shared and individual interaction paradigms [21,22,23]. The digital table tennis game interface is illustrated in Figure 1. In this game, each user controlled the left and right on-screen buttons using both hands to move the paddle horizontally at the bottom of the screen. The objective was to return the ball sent by the opponent; missing the ball resulted in losing a point, while the opponent gained a point. A match was won by the first player to reach five points. The participants could pause or terminate the game at any time if they wished.
The game interface was developed specifically for this investigation using the Unity engine and the C# programming language. The physics of the ball movement were implemented programmatically: the ball’s position was updated by modifying the “Position” property of the ‘Transform’ component using a “Vector3” vector. We maintained the ball’s movement direction using two variables, “direX” and “direY”, which were reversed upon collisions with the walls. A new position was calculated each frame based on the current direction, velocity, and the time interval between frames by “Time.deltaTime”.

2.2. Participant Recruitment and Informed Consent

Participants were recruited through a combination of campus network postings, online advertisements, and referrals from previous participants. Prior to the experiment, all procedures and objectives were explained in detail, and the participants were informed of their right to withdraw at any time or to request that their data be deleted. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants.

2.3. Physical Setting and Experimental Arrangement

The face-to-face scenarios were conducted in a quiet laboratory room measuring approximately 5 m × 2.5 m. In both face-to-face conditions (F2F-DualS and F2F-OneS), two participants sat opposite each other at a table measuring 90 m × 75 cm, with a height of 70 cm. In the one-screen shared condition (F2F-OneS), the shared iPad was placed at the center of the table with its screen center aligned with the table’s center line (see Figure 2 and Figure 3). For the dual-screen condition (F2F-DualS), each participant placed their iPad flat on the table with the top edge aligned with the center line of the table. For the remote dual-screen condition (Rmt-DualS), the two participants were assigned to separate laboratory rooms with similar sizes and lighting. In each room, the iPad was positioned with the top edge aligned with the table’s center line. All iPads were used flat on the tabletop under indoor lighting, and curtains were drawn to avoid external glare. Self-talk was allowed in all conditions, and verbal communication was permitted in the face-to-face conditions. These spatial arrangements were designed to closely mirror real-world collaborative environments and to support natural patterns of social interaction, as emphasized in prior research on tangible and co-located interfaces [2,24].

2.4. Procedure and Condition Order

The order of the experimental conditions was counterbalanced across the groups. The first group followed the sequence Rmt-DualS → F2F-DualS → F2F-OneS; the second group followed the sequence F2F-DualS → F2F-OneS → Rmt-DualS; the third group followed the sequence F2F-OneS → Rmt-DualS → F2F-DualS; and so forth in rotation. After completing each scenario, the participants filled out a user experience questionnaire.

2.5. Questionnaire Source

The current study adapted the Game Experience Questionnaire (GEQ) for a multi-user collaborative context [25,26], following recent recommendations and validated modifications in the literature [27,28,29]. The revised items draw on both original GEQ constructs and updated research on social presence and collaborative game experiences [27,30,31].

3. Results

3.1. Questionnaire Results

3.1.1. Scenarios

In total, 22 participants (11 dyads) completed all three collaborative scenarios: remote dual-screen (Rmt-DualS), face-to-face dual-screen (F2F-DualS), and face-to-face one-screen (F2F-OneS) scenarios. Basic participant information is shown in Table 1. After each scenario, the participants completed a user experience questionnaire comprising 21 items covering multiple dimensions such as visual appearance, durability, sense of participation, attention, novelty, and perceived usability. The internal consistency of the questionnaire was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha, which yielded a value of 0.78, indicating good reliability.
To compare the user experiences across the three experimental conditions, repeated-measure ANOVAs were conducted for each questionnaire item. When significant main effects were found, post hoc pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni corrections were performed. Below, we report the results for each item in detail, highlighting both significant and non-significant findings. For the data analysis results, see Table 2.

3.1.2. Results from Questions with Significant Scenario Effects

Q1: I don’t resist the graphics and images used on this interface.
No significant main effect of the scenario was observed for Q1 (F = 3.174, p = 0.053) (see Table 2). However, post hoc pairwise comparisons revealed a significant difference between the “F2F-OneS” and “F2F-DualS” conditions (p = 0.008), with the former yielding higher ratings (see Figure 4). No other pairwise differences were significant (ps > 0.05).
Q4: I consider my gaming experience to be a success.
A significant main effect was found for Q4 (F = 14.356, p < 0.001) (see Table 2). Post hoc pairwise tests indicated significant differences between the “F2F-DualS” and “Rmt-DualS” conditions (p = 0.003) and between the “F2F-OneS” and “Rmt-DualS” conditions (p < 0.001), with both of the F2F scenarios scoring higher than “Rmt-DualS” (see Figure 5). The difference between the “F2F-OneS” and “F2F-DualS” conditions was not significant (p = 0.090).
Q8: I felt like I was part of this game mission.
For Q8, a significant main effect was detected (F = 5.505, p = 0.008) (see Table 2). Pairwise comparisons showed that only the “F2F-OneS” and “Rmt-DualS” conditions differed significantly (p = 0.029), with higher scores for the former (see Figure 6). No other pairwise differences reached significance.
Q9: The gaming experience of two players in this scenario is very interesting.
A significant main effect was observed for Q9 (F = 9.023, p = 0.001) (see Table 2). Both the “F2F-OneS” vs. “F2F-DualS” (p = 0.008) and the “F2F-OneS” vs. “Rmt-DualS” (p = 0.002) comparisons were significant, with the “F2F-OneS” condition scoring highest (see Figure 6). The difference between the two distributed conditions was not significant.
Q10: During the experiment, I kept my eyes on the screen.
There was a significant main effect for Q10 (F = 3.618, p = 0.036) (see Table 2). However, none of the pairwise comparisons reached significance (ps > 0.05) (see Figure 7), suggesting the observed overall difference was not strongly driven by a particular pair of scenarios.
Q14: Games can bring me a sense of novelty.
For Q14, a significant main effect was found (F = 11.533, p < 0.001) (see Table 2). Pairwise comparisons showed significant differences between “F2F-DualS” and “Rmt-DualS” (p = 0.015) (see Figure 8) and between “F2F-OneS” and “Rmt-DualS” (p = 0.004), with higher scores for both “face-to-face” scenarios compared to “Rmt-DualS.” The “F2F-OneS” vs. “F2F-DualS” difference was not significant (p = 0.545).
Q15: Opponents bring me novelty.
A significant main effect was detected for Q15 (F = 13.843, p < 0.001) (see Table 2). Post hoc tests revealed significant differences between “F2F-DualS” and “Rmt-DualS” (p = 0.036) (see Figure 8) and between “F2F-OneS” and “Rmt-DualS” (p = 0.009), with higher novelty scores in the face-to-face conditions than in “Rmt-DualS.” There was no significant difference between “F2F-OneS” and “Rmt-DualS” (p = 0.447).
Q17: I am interested in my opponents.
For Q17, a significant main effect was observed (F = 5.083, p = 0.011) (see Table 2). Pairwise comparison revealed a significant difference between “F2F-OneS” and “Rmt-DualS” (p = 0.008) (see Figure 9), with greater interest in opponents reported in the former condition. Other pairwise comparisons were not significant.
Q21: I can’t accomplish some of the things I want to do on this interface.
A significant main effect was found for Q21 (F = 4.501, p = 0.017) (see Table 2). However, only the “F2F-OneS” and “Rmt-DualS” comparison reached significance (p = 0.049) (see Figure 10), with greater perceived accomplishment in the former condition. Other pairwise differences were not significant.

3.1.3. Results from Questions Without Significant Scenario Effects

For Q2–3, Q5–7, Q11–13, Q16, and Q18–20, no significant main effects were observed (ps > 0.05) (see Table 2), and no significant differences were found in post hoc pairwise comparisons (see Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6, Figure 7, Figure 8, Figure 9 and Figure 10).
For instance, for Q2 (“Two people playing together interferes with my visual senses”) and Q3 (“The screen layout of the two-person interface feels visually crowded”), there were no significant differences in the ratings among the three scenarios (all ps > 0.05). This suggests that, regardless of whether the participants were playing in the F2F-OneS, F2F-DualS, or Rmt-DualS scenario, their sense of visual interference and perceived visual crowding remained similar.
Regarding Q6 (“I think it’s more fun to play with friends and family rather than strangers”), Q13 (“In this gaming experience, I let myself go”), and Q19 (“During the game, I felt the tension”), no significant scenario effects were found. This indicates that these aspects of enjoyment, relaxation, and perceived tension were stable across the three interaction contexts.

3.2. Qualitative Findings from Post-Experiment Interviews

To complement the quantitative results, post-experiment interviews were conducted with the participants. Several consistent themes emerged:
  • The F2F-OneS condition promoted the strongest sense of interaction and social presence. Many participants stated that “interaction was most intense when sharing a screen face-to-face” and “physical proximity increased tension and involvement”.
  • The remote condition heightened competitiveness and self-talk. Some noted the following: “I felt more pressure in the remote condition, my desire to win was stronger” and “playing apart led to more self-directed talk”.
  • Attention and strategy were influenced by the interface setup. Participants reported more focus on the opponent’s paddle and ball in both the dual-screen and same-screen conditions, while physical cues (such as seeing the partner’s hands) only affected same-screen play.
  • Verbal communication and emotional expression were shaped by partner closeness and gender pairing. A few mentioned the following: “if the partner is of the opposite sex, I would restrain my words” and “the more intimate, the more freely we talked”.
  • Visual crowding and distraction were mentioned in the same-screen conditions. Some felt that “the screen felt crowded when both hands were present”, especially in same-screen play.
  • With respect to game novelty and strategic discussion, the participants enjoyed sharing strategies, especially in face-to-face settings, but novelty decreased with repeated play.
These qualitative insights enrich the quantitative findings, suggesting that the spatial arrangement and social context not only shape scores but also the subjective experiences of interaction, attention, tension, and communication.

4. Discussion

4.1. Questionnaire Analysis

To provide a nuanced interpretation of the results, the following discussion individually addresses each questionnaire item that had significant scenario effects, focusing on how different collaborative scenarios and participant characteristics shaped specific aspects of the user experience. This approach enables us to identify both scenario-dependent and -independent patterns across various dimensions such as visual appearance, engagement, attention, and perceived usability.
Q1: I don’t resist the graphics and images used on this interface.
Although the main effect was not statistically significant for Q1, the post hoc comparison suggests that the participants rated the “F2F-OneS” condition more favorably in terms of visual acceptance than the “F2F-DualS” scenario. This indicates that sharing the same interface may help reduce visual resistance, possibly due to greater synchrony or mutual awareness. The absence of significant differences with the third scenario implies that visual comfort is more sensitive to face-to-face device separation than to remote collaboration. This is consistent with prior findings that co-located shared displays can facilitate mutual awareness and reduce perceived interface barriers [1,2,32].
Q4: I consider my gaming experience to be a success.
Q4 revealed that both the “F2F-OneS” and “F2F-DualS” conditions resulted in significantly higher ratings of perceived success compared with “Rmt-DualS”. This pattern highlights the positive impact of physical co-presence—whether sharing the same device or not—on perceived accomplishment in collaborative tasks. The lack of a significant difference between the two co-located conditions suggests that spatial proximity, rather than the display mode, plays a central role in supporting successful joint activity. This aligns with recent research showing that co-presence and social context remain critical for positive outcomes in collaborative digital activities [2,33].
Q8: I felt like I was part of this game mission.
The finding that only the “F2F-OneS” versus “Rmt-DualS” comparison was significant for Q8 suggests that interface sharing in particular strengthens the sense of participation. Co-located, same-screen play may heighten mutual engagement and immersion, whereas remote collaboration may dilute this sense of involvement. Similar results have been reported in recent studies on co-located gaming and shared-screen interaction, which have emphasized the roles of shared attention and bodily presence [34,35,36].
Q9: The gaming experience of two players in the F2F-OneS scenario is very interesting.
Q9 demonstrates the unique advantage of the “F2F-OneS” mode in delivering interesting and engaging experiences. Both co-located scenarios, especially when sharing one screen, foster greater fun than remote collaboration, supporting the idea that physical and digital proximity combine to promote enjoyable joint interaction. This finding is supported by recent work showing that same-screen play enhances engagement and joint enjoyment through physical and social closeness [37,38].
Q10: During the experiment, I kept my eyes on the screen.
Although a main effect was found for Q10, no specific scenario pairs were significantly different. This suggests a general tendency for high attentional focus across all modes, with slight variation that was insufficient to differentiate between conditions. The overall high attentional engagement underscores the immersive nature of the activity, regardless of the collaboration setting. This resonates with recent studies showing that digital collaborative tasks, whether co-located or remote, can sustain focused attention [39,40].
Q14: Games can bring me a sense of novelty.
For Q14, both co-located scenarios led to greater perceived novelty than the remote, net-connected condition. This suggests that physical presence, whether on the same screen or different screens, contributes substantially to the feeling of freshness and novelty during collaborative gameplay. This echoes research emphasizing the importance of spatial and social presence in fostering novelty and excitement in shared activities [41,42].
Q15: Opponents bring me novelty.
A similar pattern was observed for Q15, where both the “F2F-OneS” and “F2F-DualS” scenarios increased the novelty brought by opponents relative to remote play. The absence of a difference between the two co-located settings suggests that social cues and immediate feedback are more salient when players are physically present. Such findings are echoed by recent research on collaborative play, which highlights the benefits of embodied interaction and real-time feedback [33].
Q17: I am interested in my opponents.
For Q17, only the “F2F-OneS” and “Rmt-DualS” scenarios differed significantly, indicating that sharing a screen directly enhances social interest in opponents. This may be due to richer multimodal interaction and closer observation in the F2F-OneS condition. Recent collaborative interaction studies confirm that shared interfaces support social engagement and attention to partners [12,43].
Q21: I can’t accomplish some of the things I want to do on this interface.
The significant difference between “F2F-OneS” and “Rmt-DualS” for Q21 means that the user interface and task content are more demanding when users share a single interface compared to remote play. Reasons for this may include the inability to communicate in real time and network latency. This reflects previous and recent observations that face-to-face collaborative environments can reduce misunderstandings and improve perceived effectiveness [44,45].

4.2. Questions Without Significant Scenario Effects

For the questions without significant scenario effects (Q2–3, Q5–7, Q11–13, Q16, and Q18–20), no major differences were found between the collaborative modes. Notably, aspects such as perceived visual interference, crowding, general enjoyment, and the emotional response (e.g., tension and letting go) remained stable regardless of whether the participants were co-located or remote, or sharing or separating their screens. This suggests that some aspects of the user experience are robust across collaborative scenarios, indicating that fundamental perceptions of enjoyment, visual clarity, and emotional involvement are less affected by spatial or interface configurations. Recent work highlights the contextual stability of some UX factors, even in technologically dynamic environments [46].
Furthermore, studies such as [47] have found that the core aspects of hedonic quality, pragmatic quality, and the emotional response are often resilient to changes in the collaboration mode, particularly when the task is straightforward or game-like [48]. Heather L. O’Brien [28] also noted that key UX constructs, such as enjoyment and attention, are mainly shaped by intrinsic task properties rather than environmental factors unless the interaction context is highly disruptive or novel. Therefore, the present findings echo a growing consensus that many core user experience attributes—especially in game-like, light collaboration—demonstrate high stability across spatial and technological boundaries.

4.3. Interview Findings

These quantitative findings are supported by the identification of interview themes: The participants consistently reported that F2F-OneS play maximized their sense of social interaction and increased both tension and engagement. Conversely, remote settings heightened competitiveness and self-directed talk, reflecting a shift in the social dynamics toward individualism.

4.4. Limitations and Future Possibilities

This study has several limitations that should be noted. First, the participant pool was relatively small and homogeneous, consisting predominantly of university students. This lack of demographic diversity may limit the generalizability of the findings to broader populations. Variables such as age, cultural background, and technological familiarity could influence perceptions of social presence, engagement, and novelty in collaborative digital environments. Future research should recruit a larger and more diverse sample to examine how these factors may modulate the user experience in multi-user interface settings.
Second, most of the dyad partners were self-selected acquaintances or friends, rather than randomly assigned strangers. This introduced variability in the level of interpersonal closeness or familiarity between the participants, which may serve as a potential confounding variable. Differences in partner familiarity could influence social dynamics, communication styles, and collaborative behaviors during the task. Future research should systematically control or measure the degree of partner familiarity—for example, by recruiting both friends and strangers and/or using standardized scales of interpersonal closeness—to better understand its impact on the collaborative user experience.
Third, preliminary analyses suggest that pair composition (mixed-gender vs. same-gender dyads) may influence aspects of verbal interaction and perceived interaction quality. In future work, we plan to expand and balance the sample sizes for all three gender composition groups, enabling a more robust investigation of how gender composition affects the user experience.
Although the order of the conditions was counterbalanced among the participants, we did not conduct a systematic analysis of potential order effects. Therefore, the possibility that residual order effects may have influenced some outcomes cannot be entirely excluded. Future studies should include explicit tests for order effects to further strengthen the validity of the findings.
Finally, enabling remote voice chat would have required additional equipment and a technical setup, potentially introducing new sources of variability such as device quality, connectivity issues, and user familiarity with communication platforms. By omitting voice chat, we aimed to reduce these confounds and focus on the core interface and spatial variables under investigation. In future studies, however, systematically incorporating remote voice chat could yield valuable insights into how mediated communication channels interact with interface design and spatial arrangements to shape collaborative experiences. Examining these factors may help to clarify the trade-offs and synergies between technological mediation and social presence in remote multi-user settings.

5. Conclusions

This study investigated user experience differences across three two-person collaborative gaming scenarios: Rmt-DualS, F2F-DualS, and F2F-OneS. The results demonstrate that certain dimensions of the user experience, such as perceived participation, novelty, and social interest, are significantly enhanced when users share the same physical space or interface, particularly when they share the same screen. Meanwhile, fundamental perceptions of enjoyment, visual clarity, and the emotional response were found to be robust and stable across all modes, regardless of the spatial arrangement or device sharing.
These findings offer valuable guidance for the design of multi-user digital interfaces. Designers should prioritize features that foster physical co-presence, shared attention, and mutual engagement—such as shared displays, real-time feedback, and tangible interaction elements—when aiming to enhance collaborative experiences. At the same time, the robustness of basic enjoyment and usability across different collaborative setups suggests that even remote or parallel-interface scenarios can maintain a high baseline of user satisfaction, provided that interface clarity and task flow are well managed.
This study also demonstrates that face-to-face (F2F) and remote gaming environments elicit distinct social and psychological responses. Quantitative and qualitative findings consistently indicate that F2F settings enhance social interaction, tension, and engagement, fostering a more immersive and collaborative experience. In contrast, remote play amplifies competitiveness and self-directed talk, suggesting a shift toward individualistic dynamics. These insights highlight the critical role of the interaction modality in shaping player behavior and emotional responses. Future research should explore hybrid interaction models to optimize engagement across different gaming contexts.
However, several limitations must be acknowledged. The sample size was modest, and the participant pool mainly comprised university students, which may limit generalizability. The tasks were focused on a relatively simple, game-like activity, which may not reflect more complex or task-driven collaboration scenarios. Additionally, potential confounding factors such as prior relationships, gaming experience, and personality were only partially controlled.
Future research should extend these findings by exploring a broader range of user groups, more diverse tasks (including work-oriented or creative collaboration), and richer MUI modalities such as augmented or virtual reality. Longitudinal studies and field deployments could also reveal how the collaborative user experience evolves over time in naturalistic settings. Finally, integrating physiological or behavioral metrics alongside subjective ratings would enable a more holistic understanding of user engagement and social dynamics in collaborative digital environments.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.Z., O.K. and C.Q.J.C.; methodology, M.Z., O.K. and M.W.; experiments and data curation, M.Z.; software and formal analysis, M.Z. and J.W.; writing—original draft preparation, M.Z.; writing—review and editing, O.K.; visualization, M.Z. and O.K.; supervision, O.K., C.Q.J.C. and M.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study, as it was not invasive to humans or animals, met ethical compliance requirements, and protected the rights and privacy of the participants. All participants signed informed consent to take part in the experiment.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in this study.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets used are publicly available.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Stewart, J.; Bederson, B.B.; Druin, A. Single Display Groupware: A Model for Co-Present Collaboration. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems the CHI Is the Limit—CHI ’99, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 15–20 May 1999; ACM Press: Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 1999; pp. 286–293. [Google Scholar]
  2. Hornecker, E.; Buur, J. Getting a Grip on Tangible Interaction: A Framework on Physical Space and Social Interaction. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Montréal, QC, Canada, 22–27 April 2006; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2006; pp. 437–446. [Google Scholar]
  3. Short, J.; Williams, E.; Christie, B. The Social Psychology of Telecommunications; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1976; ISBN 0-471-01581-4. [Google Scholar]
  4. Kreijns, K.; Xu, K.; Weidlich, J. Social Presence: Conceptualization and Measurement. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 2022, 34, 139–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Schmidt, K. Some Notes on Mutual Awareness; COTCOS CTI DTU: Copenhagen, Denmark, 1998; pp. 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  6. Shu, Y.; Furuta, K. An Inference Method of Team Situation Awareness Based on Mutual Awareness. Cogn. Technol. Work 2005, 7, 272–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Herrando, C.; Constantinides, E. Emotional Contagion: A Brief Overview and Future Directions. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 712606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Hatfield, E.; Cacioppo, J.T.; Rapson, R.L. Emotional Contagion. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 1993, 2, 96–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Arroyo, E.; Righi, V.; Tarrago, R.; Santos, P.; Davinia, H.-L.; Blat, J. Remote Collaborative Multi-User Informal Learning Experiences: Design and Evaluation. In Proceedings of the 6th European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning, EC-TEL 2011, Palermo, Italy, 20–23 September 2011; Volume 6964, p. 56, ISBN 978-3-642-23984-7. [Google Scholar]
  10. Park, S.; Gebhardt, C.; Rädle, R.; Feit, A.M.; Vrzakova, H.; Dayama, N.R.; Yeo, H.-S.; Klokmose, C.N.; Quigley, A.; Oulasvirta, A. Adam: Adapting multi-user interfaces for collaborative environments in real-time. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Montréal, QC, Canada, 21–26 April 2018; pp. 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  11. Yuill, N.; Rogers, Y. Mechanisms for collaboration: A design and evaluation framework for multi-user interfaces. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 2012, 19, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Zhang, Z.; Peng, W.; Chen, X.; Cao, L.; Li, T.J.-J. LADICA: A Large Shared Display Interface for Generative AI Cognitive Assistance in Co-Located Team Collaboration. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Yokohama, Japan, 26 April–1 May 2025; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2025; pp. 1–22. [Google Scholar]
  13. Schneider, J.; Derboven, J.; Luyten, K.; Vleugels, C.; Bannier, S.; De Roeck, D.; Verstraete, M. Multi-User Multi-Touch Setups for Collaborative Learning in an Educational Setting. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Cooperative Design, Visualization, and Engineering, Calvia, Mallorca, Spain, 19–22 September 2010; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010; pp. 181–188. [Google Scholar]
  14. Somandepalli, K.; Siy, O.; Jou, B. Relational Affect in Dyadic Interactions. In Proceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Honolulu, HI, USA, 11–16 May 2024; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2024; pp. 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  15. Heryanto; Firmansyah, F.H.; Rosmansyah, Y. Exploring Collaboration in Multiplayer Gamification: A Systematic Literature Review. IEEE Access 2024, 12, 149399–149431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Isabwe, G.M.N.; Schulz, R.; Reichert, F.; Konnestad, M. Using Multi-Touch Multi-User Interactive Walls for Collaborative Active Learning. In Proceedings of the HCI International 2019—Late Breaking Posters, Orlando, FL, USA, 26–31 July 2019; Stephanidis, C., Antona, M., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 192–199. [Google Scholar]
  17. Creed, C.; Sivell, J.; Sear, J. Multi-Touch Tables for Exploring Heritage Content in Public Spaces. In Visual Heritage in the Digital Age; Ch’ng, E., Gaffney, V., Chapman, H., Eds.; Springer Series on Cultural Computing; Springer London: London, UK, 2013; pp. 67–90. ISBN 978-1-4471-5534-8. [Google Scholar]
  18. Eriksson, E.; Petersen, J.O.; Bagge, R.; Kristensen, J.B.; Lervig, M.; Torgersson, O.; Baykal, G.E. Quadropong—Conditions for Mediating Collaborative Interaction in a Co-Located Collaborative Digital Game Using Multi-Display Composition. In Proceedings of the Adjunct Proceedings of the 2022 Nordic Human-Computer Interaction Conference, Aarhus, Denmark, 8–12 October 2022; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2022; pp. 1–2. [Google Scholar]
  19. Huang, Y.; Wang, Y.; Xiao, T.; Bei, R.; Zhao, Y.; Lu, Z.; Tong, X. StarRescue: Transforming A Pong Game to Visually Convey the Concept of Turn-Taking to Children with Autism. In Proceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the 2022 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play, Bremen, Germany, 2–5 November 2022; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2022; pp. 246–252. [Google Scholar]
  20. Salas, J.; Vera, P.; Hernández, A.; Meza-de-Luna, M.-E. An Augmented Reality Implementation of the Pong Game. IEEE Trans. Games 2021, 13, 216–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Zagermann, J.; Pfeil, U.; Rädle, R.; Jetter, H.-C.; Klokmose, C.; Reiterer, H. When Tablets Meet Tabletops: The Effect of Tabletop Size on Around-the-Table Collaboration with Personal Tablets. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, San Jose, CA, USA, 7–12 May 2016; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 5470–5481. [Google Scholar]
  22. Hinrichs, U.; Carpendale, S. Gestures in the Wild: Studying Multi-Touch Gesture Sequences on Interactive Tabletop Exhibits. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 7–12 May 2011; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2011; pp. 3023–3032. [Google Scholar]
  23. Ifenthaler, D.; Schweinbenz, V. The Acceptance of Tablet-PCs in Classroom Instruction: The Teachers’ Perspectives. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2013, 29, 525–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Dillenbourg, P.; Evans, M. Interactive Tabletops in Education. Int. J. Comput.-Support. Collab. Learn. 2011, 6, 491–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. IJsselsteijn, W.A.; de Kort, Y.; Poels, K.; Jurgelionis, A.; Bellotti, F. Characterising and Measuring User Experiences in Digital Games. In Proceedings of the ACE2007: International Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology, Salzburg, Austria, 13–15 June 2007; pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar]
  26. Mahmoud, R.; Ben Aissa, M.; Tannoubi, A.; Saidane, M.; Guelmemi, N.; Puce, L.; Chen, W.; Chalghaf, N.; Azaiez, F.; Makram, Z.; et al. The Game Experience Questionnaire: Reliability and validity of the Web-based Revised Arabic Version (Preprint). JMIR Form. Res. 2022, 7, e42584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Abeele, V.V.; Spiel, K.; Nacke, L.; Johnson, D.; Gerling, K. Development and Validation of the Player Experience Inventory: A Scale to Measure Player Experiences at the Level of Functional and Psychosocial Consequences. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 2020, 135, 102370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. O’Brien, H.L.; Cairns, P.; Hall, M. A Practical Approach to Measuring User Engagement with the Refined User Engagement Scale (UES) and New UES Short Form. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 2018, 112, 28–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Law, E.L.-C.; van Schaik, P.; Roto, V. Attitudes towards User Experience (UX) Measurement. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 2014, 72, 526–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Hudson, M.; Cairns, P. 6 Measuring Social Presence in Team-Based Digital Games. In Interacting with Presence: HCI and the Sense of Presence in Computer-Mediated Environments; Walter de Gruyter: Berlin, Germany, 2014; pp. 83–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kandemir, H.; Kose, H. Development of Adaptive Human–Computer Interaction Games to Evaluate Attention. Robotica 2022, 40, 56–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Tang, A.; Neustaedter, C.; Greenberg, S. VideoArms: Embodiments for Mixed Presence Groupware. In People and Computers XX—Engage; Bryan-Kinns, N., Blanford, A., Curzon, P., Nigay, L., Eds.; Springer: London, UK, 2007; pp. 85–102. [Google Scholar]
  33. Zhou, M.; Li, M.; Ono, K.; Watanabe, M. A Comparative Study of the User Interaction Behavior and Experience in a Home-Oriented Multi-User Interface (MUI) During Family Collaborative Cooking. Future Internet 2024, 16, 478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Jansz, J.; Martens, L. Gaming at a LAN Event: The Social Context of Playing Video Games. New Media Soc. 2005, 7, 333–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Buisine, S.; Besacier, G.; Aoussat, A.; Vernier, F. How Do Interactive Tabletop Systems Influence Collaboration? Comput. Hum. Behav. 2012, 28, 49–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Voida, A.; Carpendale, S.; Greenberg, S. The Individual and the Group in Console Gaming. In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Savannah, GA, USA, 6–10 February 2010; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2010; pp. 371–380. [Google Scholar]
  37. Mueller, F.; Gibbs, M.R.; Vetere, F.; Edge, D. Designing for Bodily Interplay in Social Exertion Games. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 2017, 24, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. De Kort, Y.A.W.; Ijsselsteijn, W.A. People, Places, and Play: Player Experience in a Socio-Spatial Context. Comput. Entertain. 2008, 6, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ducheneaut, N.; Yee, N.; Nickell, E.; Moore, R.J. “Alone together?”: Exploring the Social Dynamics of Massively Multiplayer Online Games. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Montréal, QC, Canada, 22–27 April 2006; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2006; pp. 407–416. [Google Scholar]
  40. Nacke, L.; Drachen, A.; Göbel, S.; Darmstadt, T. Methods for Evaluating Gameplay Experience in a Serious Gaming Context. Int. J. Comput. Sci. Sport 2010, 9, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  41. Haidusek-Niazy, S.; Huyler, D.; Carpenter, R.E. Mentorship Reconsidered: A Case Study of K-12 Teachers’ Mentor-Mentee Relationships during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Soc. Psychol. Educ. 2023, 26, 1269–1288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Mainardi, I. Change management: Artificial Intelligence (AI) at the Service of Public Administrations. AI Soc. 2025, 40, 3953–3981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Gergle, D.; Kraut, R.E.; Fussell, S.R. Using Visual Information for Grounding and Awareness in Collaborative Tasks. Hum.–Comput. Interact. 2013, 28, 1–39. [Google Scholar]
  44. Jaidka, K.; Ahuja, H.; Ng, L.H.X. It Takes Two to Negotiate: Modeling Social Exchange in Online Multiplayer Games. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 2024, 8, 85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Wisiecka, K.; Konishi, Y.; Krejtz, K.; Zolfaghari, M.; Kopainsky, B.; Krejtz, I.; Koike, H.; Fjeld, M. Supporting Complex Decision-Making: Evidence from an Eye Tracking Study on In-Person and Remote Collaboration. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 2023, 30, 78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Caroux, L.; and Pujol, M. Player Enjoyment in Video Games: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Game Design Choices. Int. J. Hum.–Comput. Interact. 2024, 40, 4227–4238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Kujala, S.; Roto, V.; Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, K.; Karapanos, E.; Sinnelä, A. UX Curve: A Method for Evaluating Long-Term User Experience. Interact. Comput. 2011, 23, 473–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Schrepp, M.; Thomaschewski, J.; Hinderks, A. Design and Evaluation of a Short Version of the User Experience Questionnaire (UEQ-S). Int. J. Interact. Multimed. Artif. Intell. 2017, 4, 103–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Electronics 14 02806 g001
Figure 1. The MUI for two participants playing the game in three scenarios. The paddle for hitting the ball is located at the bottom of the interface (one user is green, and the other is red), and the control buttons are located on the left and right sides of the bottom of the interface to control the left and right movement of the paddle to hit the ball. The scoreboard and pause/end buttons are on both sides of the middle of the interface. The dark cyan background is the game field.
Figure 1. The MUI for two participants playing the game in three scenarios. The paddle for hitting the ball is located at the bottom of the interface (one user is green, and the other is red), and the control buttons are located on the left and right sides of the bottom of the interface to control the left and right movement of the paddle to hit the ball. The scoreboard and pause/end buttons are on both sides of the middle of the interface. The dark cyan background is the game field.
Electronics 14 02806 g001
Electronics 14 02806 g002
Figure 2. The seating arrangements for the three scenarios. (a) The F2F-OneS scenario: Two participants sit face to face on opposite sides of a table and operate the same screen. (b) The F2F-DualS scenario: Two participants sit face to face on opposite sides of a table and operate the screens in front of them. (c) The Rmt-DualS scenario: Two participants sit in separate rooms at their own tables and operate the screens in front of them.
Figure 2. The seating arrangements for the three scenarios. (a) The F2F-OneS scenario: Two participants sit face to face on opposite sides of a table and operate the same screen. (b) The F2F-DualS scenario: Two participants sit face to face on opposite sides of a table and operate the screens in front of them. (c) The Rmt-DualS scenario: Two participants sit in separate rooms at their own tables and operate the screens in front of them.
Electronics 14 02806 g002
Electronics 14 02806 g003
Figure 3. The operation methods of the three scenarios. (a) In the F2F-OneS scenario, two participants operate the game on the same screen. (b) In the F2F-DualS scenario, two participants operate the game on their respective screens. (c) In the Rmt-DualS scenario, two participants operate the game on their respective screens.
Figure 3. The operation methods of the three scenarios. (a) In the F2F-OneS scenario, two participants operate the game on the same screen. (b) In the F2F-DualS scenario, two participants operate the game on their respective screens. (c) In the Rmt-DualS scenario, two participants operate the game on their respective screens.
Electronics 14 02806 g003
Electronics 14 02806 g004
Figure 4. Post hoc pairwise comparison results of Q1–3. Boxplots show participants’ responses for acceptance of interface graphics (Q1), perceived visual interference (Q2), and perceived visual crowding (Q3) under three collaborative conditions. Significant differences were found for Q1 between F2F-OneS and Rmt-DualS (p = 0.008), while no significant differences were observed for Q2 and Q3.
Figure 4. Post hoc pairwise comparison results of Q1–3. Boxplots show participants’ responses for acceptance of interface graphics (Q1), perceived visual interference (Q2), and perceived visual crowding (Q3) under three collaborative conditions. Significant differences were found for Q1 between F2F-OneS and Rmt-DualS (p = 0.008), while no significant differences were observed for Q2 and Q3.
Electronics 14 02806 g004
Electronics 14 02806 g005
Figure 5. Post hoc pairwise comparison results of Q4–6. Boxplots illustrate participants’ ratings on three experience items—perceived gaming success (Q4), deviation from planned experience (Q5), and preference for playing with friends/family (Q6)—across three collaborative scenarios. Significant differences were observed for Q4 between F2F-OneS and Rmt-DualS (p = 0.0003) and between F2F-DualS and Rmt-DualS (p = 0.003). No significant differences were found for Q5 or Q6.
Figure 5. Post hoc pairwise comparison results of Q4–6. Boxplots illustrate participants’ ratings on three experience items—perceived gaming success (Q4), deviation from planned experience (Q5), and preference for playing with friends/family (Q6)—across three collaborative scenarios. Significant differences were observed for Q4 between F2F-OneS and Rmt-DualS (p = 0.0003) and between F2F-DualS and Rmt-DualS (p = 0.003). No significant differences were found for Q5 or Q6.
Electronics 14 02806 g005
Electronics 14 02806 g006
Figure 6. The post hoc pairwise comparison results of Q7–9. Boxplots showing the user ratings for desire to increase game difficulty (Q7), sense of involvement (Q8), and perceived game interest (Q9) across the three scenarios. Significant differences were found for Q8 and Q9, with Rmt-DualS yielding lower involvement and interest than the other scenarios (p < 0.05 or p < 0.01).
Figure 6. The post hoc pairwise comparison results of Q7–9. Boxplots showing the user ratings for desire to increase game difficulty (Q7), sense of involvement (Q8), and perceived game interest (Q9) across the three scenarios. Significant differences were found for Q8 and Q9, with Rmt-DualS yielding lower involvement and interest than the other scenarios (p < 0.05 or p < 0.01).
Electronics 14 02806 g006
Electronics 14 02806 g007
Figure 7. The post hoc pairwise comparison results of Q10–12. Boxplots of the user ratings for keeping one’s eyes on the screen (Q10), paying attention to the opponent’s operations (Q11), and task focus (Q12) across the three collaborative scenarios. No significant differences were found among the scenarios for these items.
Figure 7. The post hoc pairwise comparison results of Q10–12. Boxplots of the user ratings for keeping one’s eyes on the screen (Q10), paying attention to the opponent’s operations (Q11), and task focus (Q12) across the three collaborative scenarios. No significant differences were found among the scenarios for these items.
Electronics 14 02806 g007
Electronics 14 02806 g008
Figure 8. The post hoc pairwise comparison results of Q13–15. Boxplots of the user ratings for letting oneself go (Q13), perceived novelty from games (Q14), and novelty from opponents (Q15) across the three collaborative scenarios. Significant differences were found for Q14 and Q15, with Rmt-DualS showing lower ratings of novelty than the face-to-face scenarios.
Figure 8. The post hoc pairwise comparison results of Q13–15. Boxplots of the user ratings for letting oneself go (Q13), perceived novelty from games (Q14), and novelty from opponents (Q15) across the three collaborative scenarios. Significant differences were found for Q14 and Q15, with Rmt-DualS showing lower ratings of novelty than the face-to-face scenarios.
Electronics 14 02806 g008
Electronics 14 02806 g009
Figure 9. The post hoc pairwise comparison results of Q16–18. Boxplots of the user ratings for interest in the game (Q16), interest in opponents (Q17), and difficulty using the interface (Q18) across the three collaborative scenarios. A significant difference was found for Q17, with Rmt-DualS showing lower interest in opponents than F2F-OneS (p < 0.01); no significant differences were found for Q16 and Q18.
Figure 9. The post hoc pairwise comparison results of Q16–18. Boxplots of the user ratings for interest in the game (Q16), interest in opponents (Q17), and difficulty using the interface (Q18) across the three collaborative scenarios. A significant difference was found for Q17, with Rmt-DualS showing lower interest in opponents than F2F-OneS (p < 0.01); no significant differences were found for Q16 and Q18.
Electronics 14 02806 g009
Electronics 14 02806 g010
Figure 10. The post hoc pairwise comparison results of Q19–21. Boxplots of the user ratings for feeling tension (Q19), perceived control over the game (Q20), and difficulty accomplishing tasks on the interface (Q21) across the three collaborative scenarios. A significant difference was found for Q21, with F2F-OneS showing lower difficulty than F2F-DualS (p < 0.05); no significant differences were observed for Q19 and Q20.
Figure 10. The post hoc pairwise comparison results of Q19–21. Boxplots of the user ratings for feeling tension (Q19), perceived control over the game (Q20), and difficulty accomplishing tasks on the interface (Q21) across the three collaborative scenarios. A significant difference was found for Q21, with F2F-OneS showing lower difficulty than F2F-DualS (p < 0.05); no significant differences were observed for Q19 and Q20.
Electronics 14 02806 g010
Table 1. Basic information of participants.
Table 1. Basic information of participants.
Basic InfoCategoryn%
GenderMale940.9
Female1359.1
Age18–251359.1
26–30522.7
31–40418.2
Pair typeFemale–Female436.3
Female–Male545.5
Male–Male218.2
Table 2. Statistics and significance of UX questionnaire items in three scenario.
Table 2. Statistics and significance of UX questionnaire items in three scenario.
UXNo.QuestionnaireMean ± SD (n = 22)pSig.
F2F-OneSF2F-DualSRmt-DualS
Visual AppearanceQ1I don’t resist the graphics and images used on this interface.4.41 ± 0.67 4.09 ± 0.75 4.18 ± 0.91 0.38ns
Q2Two people playing together interferes with my visual senses.2.41 ± 1.37 2.77 ± 1.45 2.45 ± 1.10 0.66ns
Q3The screen layout of the two-person interface feels visually crowded.2.36 ± 1.26 2.50 ± 1.14 2.18 ± 0.96 0.7ns
DurabilityQ4I consider my gaming experience to be a success.4.45 ± 0.51 4.18 ± 0.80 3.41 ± 1.14 0**
Q5This gaming experience did not go as I planned.2.50 ± 1.22 2.95 ± 1.21 2.68 ± 1.17 0.42ns
Q6I think it’s more fun to play with friends and family rather than strangers.4.14 ± 1.13 3.86 ± 1.17 3.68 ± 1.09 0.36ns
Sense of ParticipationQ7I hope to increase the difficulty of the game.4.05 ± 1.00 4.18 ± 1.05 4.14 ± 0.89 0.79ns
Q8I felt like I was part of this game mission.4.45 ± 0.74 4.27 ± 0.70 4.05 ± 0.90 0.26ns
Q9The gaming experience of two players in this scenario is very interesting.4.64 ± 0.58 4.18 ± 0.80 3.91 ± 1.02 0.02*
AttentionQ10During the experiment, I kept my eyes on the screen.4.64 ± 0.66 4.59 ± 0.59 4.82 ± 0.50 0.27ns
Q11During the experiment, I will pay attention to my opponent’s operations.4.50 ± 0.91 4.27 ± 0.98 4.27 ± 1.08 0.71ns
Q12I focus on my task.4.41 ± 0.80 4.18 ± 0.96 4.41 ± 0.80 0.69ns
Q13In this gaming experience, I let myself go.3.59 ± 1.37 3.36 ± 1.29 3.18 ± 1.30 0.49ns
NoveltyQ14Games can bring me a sense of novelty.4.09 ± 1.11 3.95 ± 1.05 3.27 ± 1.24 0.04*
Q15Opponents bring me novelty.4.23 ± 0.81 4.14 ± 0.89 3.50 ± 1.22 0.07ns
Q16I'm interested in my game.4.00 ± 0.98 3.86 ± 1.04 3.64 ± 1.22 0.62ns
Q17I am interested in my opponents.4.14 ± 0.89 4.05 ± 0.95 3.73 ± 0.94 0.29ns
Perceived UsabilityQ18I have difficulty using this interface.2.68 ± 1.04 3.00 ± 1.11 2.91 ± 1.23 0.67ns
Q19During the game, I felt the tension.3.82 ± 1.14 3.77 ± 1.07 3.27 ± 1.16 0.14ns
Q20I feel like I have control over the game.3.82 ± 0.85 3.86 ± 1.08 3.86 ± 1.08 0.92ns
Q21I can’t accomplish some of the things I want to do on this interface.2.68 ± 1.09 2.95 ± 1.13 3.32 ± 0.89 0.07ns
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, ns: no significance.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zhou, M.; Wang, J.; Kenta, O.; Watanabe, M.; Carlos, C.Q.J. Designing for Dyads: A Comparative User Experience Study of Remote and Face-to-Face Multi-User Interfaces. Electronics 2025, 14, 2806. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics14142806

AMA Style

Zhou M, Wang J, Kenta O, Watanabe M, Carlos CQJ. Designing for Dyads: A Comparative User Experience Study of Remote and Face-to-Face Multi-User Interfaces. Electronics. 2025; 14(14):2806. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics14142806

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zhou, Mengcai, Jingxuan Wang, Ono Kenta, Makoto Watanabe, and Chacon Quintero Juan Carlos. 2025. "Designing for Dyads: A Comparative User Experience Study of Remote and Face-to-Face Multi-User Interfaces" Electronics 14, no. 14: 2806. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics14142806

APA Style

Zhou, M., Wang, J., Kenta, O., Watanabe, M., & Carlos, C. Q. J. (2025). Designing for Dyads: A Comparative User Experience Study of Remote and Face-to-Face Multi-User Interfaces. Electronics, 14(14), 2806. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics14142806

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop