Multi-User XR Experience Coordination via Arbitrated Settings
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Existing extended reality (XR) systems struggle to coordinate multi-user experiences effectively, leading to inconsistencies in settings such as relative poses, ambient light, and sound levels, which can result in confusion and a poor user experience.
Innovation Solution
A system and method for coordinating multi-user experiences by partitioning settings into arbitrated and non-arbitrated categories, using a settings arbitration engine to generate adjusted arbitrated settings, and an experience adaptation engine to enforce these settings, ensuring consistency across all participants while allowing individual preferences for non-arbitrated settings.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Adaptability or versatility
If a unified multi-user experience environment is created, then user engagement and interaction quality improve, but coordinating inconsistent settings among multiple users becomes complex
Solution Approach 1:
The patent segments settings into two distinct categories: arbitrated settings (which require consistency across all users) and non-arbitrated settings (which allow individual user preferences). This segmentation resolves the contradiction by organizing the complexity of coordinating multiple user settings into manageable categories, enabling the system to handle both unified and personalized experiences without overwhelming complexity.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent introduces a settings arbitration engine as an intermediary component that automatically resolves conflicts between different user settings. This mediator processes arbitrated settings to ensure consistency across the multi-user environment while allowing non-arbitrated settings to maintain individual preferences, thus improving coordination quality without directly increasing system complexity.
2Adaptability or versatility
If individual user preferences are allowed for all settings, then user customization and satisfaction improve, but consistency and coordination across users deteriorate
Solution Approach 1:
By dividing settings into arbitrated and non-arbitrated categories, the system enables individual preferences for non-arbitrated settings while maintaining consistency for arbitrated settings. This segmentation allows the system to simultaneously satisfy both user customization needs and coordination requirements without compromise.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent applies different quality requirements to different settings: arbitrated settings require high consistency (local quality of uniformity) while non-arbitrated settings allow high adaptability (local quality of individuality). This local differentiation resolves the contradiction by allowing both consistency and customization to coexist in appropriate contexts within the same system.
3Stability of the object's composition
If arbitrated settings are enforced for all users, then settings consistency and coordination improve, but user customization and individual preferences deteriorate
Solution Approach 1:
The segmentation of settings into arbitrated and non-arbitrated categories ensures that consistency is enforced only where necessary (arbitrated settings) while preserving user flexibility for other settings (non-arbitrated). This selective application of consistency requirements resolves the contradiction by avoiding over-enforcement that would eliminate all customization options.
Solution Approach 2:
The system applies different levels of control to different settings: high control and consistency for arbitrated settings, and high flexibility and adaptability for non-arbitrated settings. This local differentiation allows the system to achieve consistency where needed without sacrificing user preference flexibility elsewhere.
4Adaptability or versatility
If settings arbitration and experience adaptation processing is performed, then multi-user experience quality improves, but computational complexity and processing time increase
Solution Approach 1:
The system segments processing into two distinct pipelines: settings arbitration for consistency-critical parameters and experience adaptation for personalized experience tuning. This segmentation allows the system to focus computational resources on arbitrated settings first, ensuring consistency, then apply adaptation for personalization, thereby managing complexity through structured processing stages.
Solution Approach 2:
The settings arbitration engine performs preliminary processing to establish consistent settings before the experience adaptation engine applies personalized adjustments. This preliminary action ensures that the foundation of consistency is laid first, reducing the complexity of subsequent adaptation processing by working with already-resolved baseline settings.
Data Source
AI summary
Systems and techniques are provided for coordinating multi-user experiences. For example, a process can include obtaining a plurality of settings associated with a plurality of multi-user experience participants. The plurality of settings includes one or more arbitrated settings and one or more non-arbitrated settings. The process can include arbitrating, by a settings arbitration engine, the one or more arbitrated settings to generate one or more adjusted settings for each arbitrated setting. The process can include generating, by an experience adaptation engine, an adapted multi-user experience, wherein the adapted multi-user experience is configured to enforce the one or more adjusted settings for each arbitrated setting.