Int J Interact Des Manuf

DOI 10.1007/s12008-017-0414-z

ORIGINAL PAPER

User-centered design of a virtual reality exhibit for archaeological

museums
Loris Barbieri1 · Fabio Bruno1 · Maurizio Muzzupappa1

Received: 2 May 2017 / Accepted: 29 May 2017

© Springer-Verlag France 2017

Abstract Nowadays, the adoption of virtual reality (VR) 1 Introduction

exhibits is increasingly common both in large and small
museums because of their capability to enhance the commu- For a long time, museums were considered mere reposito-
nication of the cultural contents and to provide an engaging ries of archaeological finds and artworks, accessible only to
and fun experience to its visitors. The paper describes a user- a prosperous and educated minority. In the last decades the
centered design (UCD) approach for the development of a principles of the ‘New Museology’ movement have become
VR exhibit for the interactive exploitation of archaeological very popular: as attested by its founder Peter Vergo, they
artefacts. In particular, this approach has been carried out for would repudiate “the ‘old’ museology that is too much about
the development of a virtual exhibit hosted at the “Museum of museum methods, and too little about purposes of museums”
the Bruttians and the Sea” of Cetraro (Italy). The main goal [1]. The new vision abandoned the traditional principles of
was to enrich the museum with a playful and educational museology in favour of a broader audience, new communi-
VR exhibit able to make the visitors enjoy an immersive and cation languages and, above all, a more direct involvement
attractive experience, allowing them to observe 3D archae- of visitors. According to the New Museology, the muse-
ological artefacts in their original context of finding. The ums should not exist only in order to acquire, safeguard,
paper deals with several technical issues commonly related conserve and display objects, artefacts and works of art of
to the design of virtual museum exhibits that rely on off- various kinds, but also to educate and entertain its visitors
the-shelf technologies. The proposed solutions, based on an and involve an even more diverse public. This marriage of
UCD approach, can be efficiently adopted as guidelines for fun and learning became stronger in the last years, thanks to
the development of similar VR exhibits, especially when the large and incessant spreading of edutainment, where the
very low budget and little free space are unavoidable design attention is focused on compensating the strains of the visit
requirements. with playful-educational activities, and on the ability to offer
experiences able to involve physically, psychologically and
Keywords User-centered design · User interface design · emotionally any kind of people [2]. More recently, the 2009
Human–computer interaction · Virtual reality · Virtual UNESCO Framework for Cultural Statistics started to take
museum systems into account the new technologies which have so drastically
transformed culture and the ways it is accessed [3,4]. And,
in 2010, the Arts Council of England confirmed that cultural
consumption is increasing in quantity and typologies thanks
to the use of new interactive technologies [5]. The European
Commission too is promoting and commissioning studies
B Loris Barbieri for the definition of innovative and successful approaches
[email protected] and methods aimed to improve audience development and
1 engagement, shifting the perspective from “users” to “par-
Department of Mechanical, Energy and Industrial
Engineering (DIMEG), University of Calabria, ticipants”, in different cultural sectors (museum, heritage,
Ponte P. Bucci, 46C, 87036 Rende, CS, Italy library, etc.) [6,7].

123
 Int J Interact Des Manuf

Then, nowadays, museums need to combine the educa- to learn and use a system. Since VR exhibits aim to be
tional purpose with the capability to involve their visitors immediate and easy to use, enjoyable and educative, these
through emotions. In order to achieve these goals and over- applications represent a typical case study that needs to be
come the old principles of traditional museology, a great addressed through a UCD approach.
support has been provided by modern technologies, such There is a large quantity of researches in literature that
as Virtual Reality (VR), Augmented Reality (AR) and Web have demonstrated the effectiveness of the UCD approach in
applications, that have been spreading in the last decades and many application fields such as industrial and civil design,
have been efficiently applied especially in the entertainment mobile and web application development, software develop-
field thanks to their feature to intensify the human senso- ment, healthcare technology, etc. Other researches are also
rial experience. This union has involved the development related to systems and applications that can be efficiently
of a large number of instruments and systems that allow used in museums [15–17], but there are not works concerning
users to enjoy a culturally vivid and attractive experience. specifically the UCD of VR museum exhibits. Therefore, this
There are many examples of such systems that have been effi- paper represents a first attempt to describe a UCD approach
ciently applied to the museum field: projection systems that carried out for the development of VR exhibits for archaeo-
could turn any surface into an interactive visual experience; logical museums that rely on off-the-shelf technologies.
multi-touch displays; devices for gesture based experiences,
e.g., Microsoft Kinect and the Leap Motion Controller; Head
Mounted Displays (HMDs) or 3D displays that turn the visit 3 VR museum exhibit design
into an immersive and fun experience; low-cost and simple
desktop devices that involve kids and their parents to create The development process of a VR museum exhibit has to
onsite, real-life replicas of exhibits [8–13]. Even if all these be carried out in accordance to the recommendations (ISO
systems are appealing and really appreciated by their users, 13407 [18]) for a UCD project which design stages are
many devices present some limitations or weaknesses due to depicted in Fig. 1.
their expensive installation or maintenance costs, the large
volume of work, or a poor user-system interaction caused by
an incomplete maturity of that specific technology in museum
applications. On the basis of these considerations, and tak-
ing into account that 90% of museums are small-sized and
with low budgets, there is an unmet need in the development
and design of more affordable virtual museum systems. To
this end, the paper describes a user-centered design (UCD)
approach for the development of a VR exhibit for the inter-
active exploitation of archaeological artefacts. In particular,
this approach has been carried out for the development of
an interactive virtual exhibit hosted at the “Museum of the Fig. 1 Design stages of an UCD approach for the development of a
VR museum exhibit
Bruttians and the Sea” of Cetraro (Italy). Furthermore, the
paper provides technical guidelines and pragmatic advices
that support engineers to put into practice the UCD approach. Prior to the design phase, it is fundamental to take into
account the requirements that are often specified by museum
directors and are generally related to budget reasons. In fact
2 UCD for VR museum exhibit the great majority of museums are small-sized and most of
them are public-owned, with less than 10,000 visitors per
The UCD is a project approach that puts the intended users annum. As a consequence, these museums can rely on a
at the centre of its design and development. In particular, the very low budget if compared to private institutions or large
product end-users, both expert and naïve, participate to the museums that have more than 50,000 visitors per annum.
different design stages in order to support decision making Furthermore, with a share of 1.2 %, ‘museums, libraries and
and to interactively explore design spaces [14]. The result of zoological gardens’ is the category with one of the lowest
employing this approach is a product that offers a more effi- private expenditure at EU level [19]. Then the economic
cient, satisfying, and user-friendly experience. So the UCD concerns severely affect the development and modernisation
approach should be adopted by engineers whenever there is plans that, in the era of “experience economy” [2], all the
the need to design a system that supports its intended users’ museums have to be competitive and to attract more visitors.
existing beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours, rather than requir- The following graph (Fig. 2) depicts the connection between
ing users to adapt their attitudes and behaviours in order the economic value of a certain product and the competitive

123
Int J Interact Des Manuf

constraints influence and limit designers’ choices from a

technical and technological point of view.

4 Guidelines for selecting the visualization

and interaction device

In this section some guidelines have been defined for

selecting the hardware to be adopted for the VR exhibit, con-
sidering the economic reasons and the types of information
we want to offer to the visitors.
Among the different commercial devices, projectors and
high definition (HD) monitors have been selected as an alter-
Fig. 2 The progression of value [2] native for the visualization of the virtual exhibit. In the
following table some suggestions to support the designer’s
position; the price, that people are willing to pay, will rise choices are provided (Table 1).
when an experience is added [2]. If this progression of value Among the most commonly device controllers that can be
is applied to museums then the design of a VR exhibit cannot included in a cheap VR exhibit trackballs, touch-screen con-
be limited to the hardware/software development but it has soles and gesture recognition devices (i.e. MS Kinect or Leap
to be extended to the design of the experience too. Motion) have been analyzed. All these kind of devices can be
Starting from these considerations, a VR museum exhibit used as pointing devices to allow users to interact with the VR
have to satisfy two fundamental requirements: low-cost and exhibit. In particular, the first ones provide an indirect action
provides a fun pedagogical experience. that occurs by means of a ball moved by thumbs and fingers,
About the first requirement, we focus our research on and four buttons for the selection. The touchpad provides a
the most commonly adopted architecture for VR exhibits more direct action such as touching and moving the buttons
which consist in monitors, for the visualization of the con- and icons directly on the screen. As for the previous devices
tents, and desktop device controllers for the interaction. The also in this case the interaction is possible thanks to common
success of this kind of architecture is due to its maturity and controls, with the difference, in this case these are digitals
strength gained in the field of VR applications and also its low instead of the analogs. The last ones are computer hardware
cost budget if compared to newly, even if more immersive, sensor devices that support hand and finger motions as input,
technologies such as HMD and CAVE (Cave Automatic Vir- analogous to a mouse, but requiring no hand contact or touch-
tual Environment) for the visualization or wearable haptics ing. The following table shows the synthesis of our analysis
and gesture recognition devices for the interaction. There- (Table 2).
fore, although limited, this kind of architecture represents When a touch-screen console is adopted for the user-
for many museum curators and exhibition managers the only system interaction then some additional considerations are
cost-effective and then realistically possible access to VR required. In fact, this device offers two alternative design
exhibits. solutions: the adoption of a touch-screen console for control-
About the second requirement, usability, intended as both ling the objects and data that are visualized on a HD monitor
affordance and users’ satisfaction, should be the key quality (Fig. 3a), or the adoption of a unique touch-screen monitor
of the system. that can be used both for the visualization and interaction of
In addition, museum curators usually dictate other require- the virtual exhibit (Fig. 3b).
ments that could affect the overall dimensions of the systems The weaknesses and peculiarities of the two different solu-
and their aesthetics. Indeed, the curator has to choose the tions, depicted in Fig. 3, have been analysed taking into
right positioning of the VR exhibit in the museum and indi- account also some ergonomic requirements that are funda-
cates the maximum volume that the system can occupy. These mental in an UCD approach. Our considerations are:

Table 1 HD monitors versus projectors

HD monitors Projectors

Layout Many Limited

Quality of visualization Up to 4K resolution—high brightness and contrast Up to full HD resolution—up to 300 inch diagonal size
Environment Small and light Large and dark
Maintenance costs Low High

123
 Int J Interact Des Manuf

Table 2 Device controllers

Trackball/mouse Touch screen Gesture recognition devices

Costs Low High Medium

Quality of interaction Unattractive Very intuitive Intuitive
Effort to integrate the device Low Medium High
Training required No No Yes

reach a point where image pixelation happens and the

blocky appearance of the individual pixels become vis-
ible. Once this happens, the perceived quality of the
displayed images drops, and, consequently, the sense of
presence and enjoyment fall down too.
– Visual obtrusion limitations The adoption of touch-
screens bring users closer to the display device for the
interaction and fruition of the digital contents. This close
interaction entails visual obstruction due to the physical
presence of the user. This means that only a few num-
ber of viewers can have a complete vision of the screen
Fig. 3 System composed by HD monitor and touch-screen controller
(a); touch-screen monitor based system (b) (Fig. 3b). On the contrary, the dislocation between the
visualization and the interaction device allows viewers
to keep a certain distance from the screen hence there is
– Human visual system In order to get the optimum the advantage that all subjects can satisfy the optimum
immersive visual experience, viewers should be located viewing distance that definitely help to increase the num-
at the theoretical spot known as optimum HD monitor ber of audience members too (Fig. 3a).
viewing distance [20]. Recommendations on optimum – 3D stereoscopic Based on 3D industry professionals’
viewing distances fall into two general classes; a fixed experience, the optimum seating distance for 3D mon-
distance or a range of distances based both on the display itor sets does not appear to be much different than the
size and content resolution. For example, for a Full HD optimum range for regular HD monitors. If the view-
monitor of 50 SMPTE standards suggests a fixed dis- ers are too close to the screen, then they could end
tance of 1.9 m while THX standards recommends a range up with uncomfortable eye strain and headache and,
distance of 1.5–2.2 m. It is possible to satisfy these rec- in some cases, the 3D experience may resulting in an
ommendations only in the first case (Fig. 3a) in fact the underwhelming, nausea-inducing experience. The view-
viewers can stand at the distance that they prefer for their ing distance is affected also by the type of stereoscopic
optimal viewing experience thanks to the displacement projection adopted. In fact, a 3D passive projection uses
of the control. On the contrary, the adoption of a touch- glasses that cut the 1080p resolution of the HD monitor
screen (Fig. 3b) limits viewer positioning because the in half (540p) to each eye. This means that the aforemen-
interaction occurs by means of users’ hands. On the basis tioned optimum viewing distance should be recalculated
of anthropometric measurements (including allowances in function of the new resolution. If these recommen-
for clothing) the standing forward reach measurement for dations are not followed it is not uncommon for faint
small and large males and females is ranged respectively: black lines to appear horizontally from the top of the
from 0.78 m to 0.92 m and from 0.86 m to 1 m [21]. These screen to the bottom or to lose 3D image quality at rel-
ranges are inferior to the recommended viewing distance atively short vertical angles. Consequently, even more
and, furthermore, imply a field of view that would be in this case, touch-screen monitors (Fig. 3b) result inap-
exceedingly uncomfortable and induce nausea and dis- propriate for the visualization and interaction with 3D
orientation. scenarios. At the moment, in the market it is possi-
– Technology limitations As just mentioned, viewing the ble to find also auto-stereoscopic (glasses free) sets but
display from a distance inferior to those recommended this newly technology is quite primitive because they
by standards can have adverse effects. This consequence have more problems with viewing distances and viewing
depends by the fact that the displays have a fixed num- angles. Furthermore, eye strain and headaches are usual
ber of pixels. Viewed from far enough away the pixel side effects of long viewing exposure to autostereoscopic
blend together to create a complete and smooth image. displays.
But, as the viewer get closer to the screen, he/she will

123
Int J Interact Des Manuf

To sum up, the optimum viewing distances have to be The VR exhibition should allow users to engage into an
taken into account to create an effective immersion and educational and fun experience. In particular, as requested
stereoscopic experience of the VR exhibit. Therefore, the by the museum director, the virtual system should permit its
adoption of a touch-screen for the visualization and inter- visitors to experience two different 3D scenarios that realis-
action of the virtual exhibit (Fig. 3b) should be avoided. tically reproduce:
Nevertheless, if a simple information system is required, the
second solution (Fig. 3b) offers a more compact design easier
– a tomb belonging to the necropoli of Treselle discovered
to implement too.
in the territory of Cetraro. The visitors should be able
A further consideration is that the touch-screen remote
to visit the virtual tomb, with its Bruttian burials, and
control for the interaction with the VR exhibit could be a
visualize and manipulate its contents, such as bronze and
handheld device, i.e., tablet, or fixed in a specific position. In
iron weapons (bronze belts, spearheads, javelin), pottery,
particular, the first solution can be adopted when there is an
drinking cups (skyphoi, kylikes, bowls, cups) and eating
operator that stands over the system and gives the controls
dishes (plates, paterae);
to the visitors that want to enjoy the virtual exhibit. Instead,
– an underwater archaeological deposit, located 20 km
the second solution, that sets the control device in a prede-
away from Cetraro, a few meters from the shore 2/4 m
fined and fixed position, can be employed when the system
deep. The residual deposit consists of some remains and
is intended for unattended operation and, since the console
fragments of amphorae of the MGS V and VI types, dat-
cannot be moved, it is possible to increase the screen size of
ing back to the middle of the III century BC.
the touchscreen in order to enhance its legibility.

5.2 Selection of the visualization and interaction device

5 The case study
The configuration with an HD monitor and a touch-screen
remote control has chosen in accordance to the volume
The VR exhibit described in this paper was intended to be
(width, length and height dimensions were 2 m, 3 m and 3 m,
installed in a small archaeological museum, the “Museum
respectively) that the VR exhibit can occupy in the museum
of the Bruttians and the Sea”, hosted in the beautiful set-
and following the specification described in the previous sec-
ting of the Palazzo del Trono of Cetraro (Italy). The museum
tion, i.e. not a simple information device, but an attractive and
has three sections, the first two are located in the attic and
multimedia exhibit.
the third on the second floor, enriched by a number of educa-
The volume requirements guided us toward the individ-
tional models and reconstructions. The first section describes
uation of a 46 HD monitor, model LG 46LM615S, that in
the history of settlement in the Upper Thyrrenian Coast
accordance to THX standards has an optimum viewing dis-
of Cosenza, in the Hellenistic period (IV-III century BC).
tance range of 1.5–2.5 m. The minimum viewing distance is
The second one is dedicated to sea, navigation and com-
set to approximate a 40◦ view angle (considering the aver-
merce along the Tyrrhenian Sea in ancient times, and the
age human vision, the upper limit for maximum field of view
third is instead related to the Middle Age and the Renais-
is around 70◦ , which corresponds to the maximum field of
sance in the old town of Cetraro, one of the most important
view inclusive of peripheral vision) and the maximum view-
settlements in the Tyrrhenian coast. The VR exhibit has
ing distance is set to 28◦ approx. This range allows us to
been placed in the first section surrounded by archaeolog-
satisfy both the constraints on the volume and the minimum
ical pieces, found in a small group of necropolis and housing
distance necessary to perceive the stereoscopic experience
facilities that were built by the Bruttian people. Among the
that is commonly considered to be 1.5 m. It is worth to notice
archaeological finds there are bronze and iron weapons,
that, due to many objective and subjective factors, the user
ceremonial vases, drinking cups, eating dishes, pins and
experience provided by the virtual exhibit changes from per-
jewellery.
son to person. For example, the age affects 3D perception:
children have a lower ocular distance if compared with adults.
5.1 Requirements specifications This means that, if placed at the same distance from the mon-
itor, children have a more immersive 3D viewing experience
As clearly expressed by the ISO 9241-210:2010 [22] (stan- than adults.
dards for human-centred design for interactive systems), in In this case, since the presence of a supervisor is not always
a UCD approach the design and evaluation stages should assured, we have preferred to fix the touch-screen console
be preceded by the gathering of requirements and speci- into a specific position. Once this decision was taken, we
fications to better define the context of use and the users’ proceeded with the selection of the model: a 23 T232HL by
needs. Acer.

123
 Int J Interact Des Manuf

5.3 System architecture development

Once the devices for the visualization and user interaction of

the VR exhibit have been defined, the following step was the
definition of the position of these devices in space.
In particular, the relative positions and distances of the HD
monitor and the touch-screen console should be identified,
trying to take into account the ergonomic standards for a
better experience of the VR system.
Since the virtual exhibit, as required by the museum cura-
tor, is intended to be used by many different audiences, such
as middle and high school students, college students, tourists,
etc., we tried to find a solution that could be adequate for per-
sons of different age and sex. To achieve this goal, as shown
in Fig. 4, ergonomic studies have been performed in order to
find the optimal positioning of the visualization device and
its control system. In particular, the studies have been car-
ried out with the adoption of various anthropometric models,
classified from the 5th% to the 95th% percentile, in order to
include approximately 90% of the population [23,24].
Also the grade of the touch-screen console has been stud- Fig. 5 Alternative design solutions
ied in accordance to ergonomic standards related to the
standing posture. For a comfortable experience of the VR
exhibit, we tried to keep users’ movements as natural as pos- range and enjoy an optimal immersion and visualization of
sible, with particular attention to the most repetitive ones, i.e. the 3D contents.
the neck and shoulder extension movements. As detailed in Once the relative positioning of the monitor and controller
the previous section, a 46 HD monitor allows for an opti- has been defined, we focused on the design of the struc-
mum viewing distance range of 1.5–2.5 m. Therefore, the ture. In order to accomplish this task, as recommended by
touch-screen console has been placed at a distance of 1.5 m UCD standards, various virtual prototypes of the VR exhibit
from the HD monitor, in order to take advantage of the full architecture have been designed (Fig. 5) which differ in their
materials, dimensions, and aesthetics.
These prototypes have been subjected to an iterative
design process that allowed us to improve each version, but
also to exclude those ones that were less performing in terms
of ergonomic and technical requirements. The screening of
the alternative design solutions has occurred by means of
a simplified version of the weighted method proposed by
Pahl and Beitz [25]. In particular, the matrix scoring adopts
the cost, materials, aesthetics, dimensions, ergonomics, pro-
duction and assembly as criteria. These parameters have
been assigned by engineers but also by museum’ director
and curator. The result of this selective process is showed
in the following picture (Fig. 6) where the final virtual
prototype is realized with white and orange folded pan-
els made of PPMA (Polymethyl methacrylate). Aluminium
builtin elements were adopted to support and fasten the mon-
itors.

5.4 User interface design

The design process started with the firm belief that, since
the VR exhibit will be used by a large variety and differ-
Fig. 4 Device positioning driven by ergonomic design ent types of users (such as tourists and museum curators,

123
Int J Interact Des Manuf

– it focuses on understanding the system’s learnability for

new or infrequent users. Indeed, the CW was originally
designed as a tool to evaluate walk-up-and-use systems
like postal kiosks, automated teller machines (ATMs),
and interactive exhibits in museums where users would
have little or no training [27–29].
– It is rooted in the notion that users typically prefer to learn
a system by using it to accomplish tasks, rather than, for
example, studying a manual. Therefore, it is very suitable
for the virtual museum exhibit.
– The method is prized for its ability to generate results
quickly with low expenses, especially when compared to
usability testing, as well as the ability to apply the method
in the early design phases, before coding has even begun.
In fact, the walkthrough will often identify many more
problems than one would find with a single, unique user
in a single test session. Hence, for this early stage of
UI design the CW could be very efficient for the whole
design process in terms of money and time.

Fig. 6 Final virtual prototype According to the CW standards and recommendations [30]
a group of 6 evaluators (2 user interface designers, 2 soft-
ware developers, 1 archaeologist and 1 museum curator)
performed an UI inspection going through a set of tasks
technologically experienced people, persons of different age, and evaluating UI understandability and ease of learning.
etc.), according to the requirements detailed in Sect. 5.1, the Standard questions [30] have been adopted during the action
user interfaces (UIs) should clearly communicate its purpose, sequences that have been performed for each task from the
so that users with no experience with technological devices perspective of the “typical” users of the product. The inputs
should be able to understand immediately what they should to the walkthrough have been:
do. For this reason, the UI design process was firstly focused
on the development of minimalistic design of UIs to make
the layout and graphic features of the VR exhibit as simple as – The users, i.e., visitors, scholars and art lovers, do not
possible. To achieve this goal, issues concerning graphic ele- have background experience or technical knowledge
ments have been prioritized, such as colours and dimensions about the system and virtual reality system. Users do
of the buttons and controls. The layout of the menus has been not have also any knowledge of the interfaces and of the
designed to include all the elements for a simple navigation, tasks. We consider that users have a good experience with
i.e. where the user is in the system, how to go forward or indirect input devices (mouse and trackball), but also with
back, how select a different source of information, etc. In direct ones, such as touch-screen, due to the enormous
the composition of the graphical elements as a whole, UIs diffusion of smart-phones.
should provide the users all the essential features to manip- – The tasks. According to the Wharton’s [31] recommen-
ulate virtual objects, but also to get access to a database of dations we start with simple tasks and move to more
media contents, such as images, texts and sounds, so that the complex ones for a total of 4–5 tasks for each session
interaction could also have an educational value. This kind where the more complex tasks involve multiple features.
of approach allowed us to define a first low-fidelity prototype – The correct action sequence for each task to verify that
(paper prototyping) of the UIs. users always can achieve the requested task and never got
Prior to proceed with the development of a fully opera- lost.
tional software for the management of the VR exhibit, the first
UI prototypes should be submitted to an user-centered evalu- The results of the UI design and CW analyses was a “three
ation in order to drive and refine their design. The evaluation level” user interface. In the first level there is the “home
has been performed by means of a usability study. Among the screen” (Fig. 7) where visitors can choose the preferred lan-
different usability inspection methods, the Cognitive Walk- guage, but most important, he/she can select the experience.
through (CW) [26] method could be more convenient than Once the user has selected the desired option, he/she accesses
others for three main reasons: to the second level.

123
 Int J Interact Des Manuf

Fig. 7 First interface of the VR exhibit

Depending on the selected scenario, the second interface

that appears to users could be the Tomb of Treselle (Fig. 8a)
or the underwater environment (Fig. 8b). In particular, the
tomb of Treselle (Fig. 8a) features a Bruttian burial dating
back to the IV century BC and contains:

– weapons, both defensive (bronze belts) and offensive

(spearheads, javelin) made of bronze and iron;
– pottery, such as ceremonial vases, drinking cups (skyphoi,
kylikes, bowls, cups) and eating dishes (plates, paterae);
– a lead set used in meat banquets and consisting of skew- Fig. 8 Second UI levels that allow users to experience a 3D immersive
ers, a grill and a pair of andirons made of iron or lead. reconstruction of the tomb of Treselle (a) or an underwater environment
(b)
While the underwater site (Fig. 8b) contains a residual
– on the lower section of the screen there is a text field that
archaeological deposit, concreted to the seabed and large
gives historical and cultural information about what the
rocky blocks, that consists of a merchant vessel carrying a
user is going to experience. Next to the text field, there
load of transport amphorae of the MGS V and VI types, dat-
is an icon that allows users to start and stop an audio file
ing back to the middle of the III century BC.
that replicates the text.
The two different scenarios present the artefacts in their
original context of finding. This choice allows to enrich the
overall experience by improving and increasing the quan- When the user selects one of the virtual objects, he/she enters
tity of information and details provided to the users. In this in the third level (Fig. 9) in which it is possible to manipulate,
manner, indeed, users have a better comprehension about zoom-in and get specific information about the artwork.
the functioning, dimensions and mutual proportions among
the artefacts and about their symbolic meaning, especially 5.5 VR exhibit evaluation
in the case of the first scenario (Fig. 8a) related to a burial
ceremony. The same approach can be extended also in the The final stage of the UCD approach consists in the assess-
case of sporadic findings or in all those cases that lack of a ment of the VR exhibit in order to verify if it is a very effective
detailed documentation about the historical and archaeolog- solution for communicating cultural contents by means of a
ical context relating to the excavated artefacts. In fact, in the playful and educational interactive experience. To this end,
second scenario (Fig. 8b), the underwater environment has starting from the assumption that the VR exhibits are hold-
been reproduced in order to allow users to experience the ers of digital contents that can be accessed by its visitors
context in which the archaeological finds were discovered. by means of UIs it is possible to approach to the prob-
About the UIs, as shown in Fig. 8, most of the screen area lem of their evaluation according to traditional methods and
is reserved to the visualization of the 3D scenario while the instruments adopted in UCD field. These methods allow to
remaining part of the screen is organized as follows: evaluate the usability of interactive systems performing user
studies that analyse human performance in target acquisition
– on the left side some basic information explain to vis- tasks.
itors how to navigate through the 3D environment and However, in order to assess the capability of these kind
manipulate its 3D contents; of systems to provide to its users a meaningful and pleas-

123
Int J Interact Des Manuf

Fig. 9 The third UI level for the visualization and manipulation of the
artefacts belonging to the tomb of Treselle (a) or to the underwater
environment (b)

ant experience, it is necessary to perform a more deeper

insight of user experience by exploring the subjective
notion of the perceived enjoyment and knowledge trans-
mission of users after experiencing the interactive virtual
exhibits.
As above mentioned, there is a large quantity of researches
in literature that have demonstrated the effectiveness of the
UCD approach in many application fields, but, as a matter
of fact, there is a lack of literature concerning the overall
evaluation of VR exhibits and nothing really explicative has
be done, such as criteria and parameters that could be used Fig. 10 Visitors while experiencing the VR exhibit
as reference.
On the basis of these considerations, the VR exhibit has
been evaluated by means of a user study that adopts a com- attention and the system’s capability to transfer knowledge
bination of traditional and non-traditional metrics in order have been evaluated by means of a questionnaire and the
to optimize its outcome in terms of usability and potential measurement of the holding time spent by the user exploring
for entertainment and education [32]. In particular, the tra- the VR exhibit.
ditional metrics adopted are related to the functioning of We notices that when the monitor is controlled through
the system, such as time and number of errors [33], and a a touchscreen remote control, the users may get confused,
questionnaire too that, as an alternative to the think-aloud inattentive and annoyed due to the information arrangement
protocol, allows for catching cognitive aspects related to user between the two screens. For this reason the user study has
satisfaction. About the non-traditional metrics, a question- been carried out by comparing two different solutions. In the
naire, based on the Likert scale and developed on the basis of first solution, both the HD monitor and the touch-screen con-
the Smileyometer and the Again–Again table [34] for adult sole display the same information and contents. Instead, in
users, has been used to evaluate user enjoyment. The user the second solution, the HD monitor is dedicated exclusively

123
 Int J Interact Des Manuf

to visualize the 3D contents, while all the textual data are 3. Pessoa, J., Deloumeaux, L.: 2009 UNESCO Framework for Cul-
accessible on the touch-screen console. tural Statistics. UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS), Quebec
(2009)
The results of the comparative user study has shown that, 4. Bruno, F., Lagudi, A., Muzzupappa, M., Lupia, M., Cario, G.,
from an objective point of view, there is not a statistical sig- Barbieri, L., Passaro, S., Saggiomo, R.: Project VISAS—virtual
nificant difference between the two configurations but on the and augmented exploitation of submerged archaeological sites:
contrary, from a subjective point of view, the participants to overview and first results. Mar. Technol. Soc. 50(4), 119–129
(2016)
the test clearly expressed their preference for the second solu- 5. Arts Council England: Digital audiences Engagement with arts
tion. In particular, according to the user feedbacks, when the and culture online MTM London: Digital audiences: Engage-
touch-screen controller duplicates the information provided ment with arts and culture online. Arts Council England, London
by the main monitor (first solution), from one hand, it reduces (2010)
6. European Commission, European Audiences: 2020 and beyond,
misunderstanding problems since it prevents the user from
conclusions of the Conference organized by the European Com-
inquiring both screens to find the desired information, but, mission on 16–17 October 2012 (2012)
on the other hand, it reduces the perceived user experience of 7. Bollo, A., Da Milano, C., Gariboldi, A., Torch, C.: Final
the virtual exhibit. Differently from the first design solution, report—study on audience development—how to place audiences
at the centre of cultural organisations. European Commission,
when the main monitor provides a full-screen visualization
directorate-general for education, youth, sport and culture. Pub-
of 3D contents and menus and texts are displayed on the lications Office of the European Union (2017)
touchscreen device (second solution) it increases the user’s 8. Blanchard, E.G., Zanciu, A.N., Mahmoud, H., Molloy, J.S.:
immersion and the contents appear more pleasant and attrac- Enhancing in-museum informal learning by augmenting artworks
with gesture interactions and AIED paradigms. In: Artificial Intel-
tive from an aesthetic point of view. ligence in Education, pp. 649–652. Springer, Berlin (2013)
On the basis of these results and user feedbacks, the second 9. Pescarin, S., Pietroni, E., Rescic, L., Wallergård, M., Omar, K.,
solution has been chosen as final design of the VR museum Rufa, C.: NICH: a preliminary theoretical study on natural interac-
exhibit (Fig. 10). In particular, with the exception of the home tion applied to cultural heritage contexts. Digit. Herit. Inter. Congr.
Marseille 2, 355 (2013)
screen (Fig. 7), the second (Fig. 8) and the third (Fig. 9) UI 10. Koutsabasis, P., Vosinakis, S.: Adult and children user experience
levels are not duplicated on the touch-screen console. In fact, with leap motion in digital heritage: the cycladic sculpture applica-
while the main monitor is dedicated exclusively to the visual- tion. In: Euro-Mediterranean Conference. pp. 350–361. Springer
ization of virtual scenarios and 3D archaeological finds, the (2013)
11. Pierdicca, R., Malinverni, E.S., Frontoni, E., Colosi, F., Orazi, R.:
touch-screen console provides to the users information, edu- 3D visualization tools to explore ancient architectures in South
cational contents and the controls to interact with the exhibit. America. Virtual Archaeol. Rev. 7(15), 44–53 (2016)
12. Bruno, F., Lagudi, A., Barbieri, L., Muzzupappa, M., Ritacco, G.,
Cozza, A., Cozza, M., Peluso, R., Lupia, M., Cario, G.: Virtual and
6 Conclusions augmented reality tools to improve the exploitation of underwater
archaeological sites by diver and non-diver tourists. Digital her-
itage. Progress in cultural heritage: documentation, preservation,
In this paper an UCD approach for the development of and protection. In: Proceedings of 6th International Conference,
interactive VR exhibit for archaeological museums has been EuroMed: Nicosia, Cyprus, 2016. Part I, vol. 10058, pp. 269–280.
described. In particular, this approach has been carried out for Springer (2016)
13. Wang, C.S., Chiang, D.J., Wei, Y.C.: Intuitional 3D museum
the development of a virtual exhibit hosted at the “Museum navigation system using kinect. In: Information Technology Con-
of the Bruttians and the Sea” of Cetraro (Italy). vergence, pp. 587–596. Springer, Dordrecht (2013)
The paper gives many technical advices and suggestions 14. Fischer, X., Nadeau, J.P.: Research in Interactive Design. Springer,
which can be adopted to overcome several typical and recur- Paris (2006)
15. Barbieri, L., Angilica, A., Bruno, F., Muzzupappa, M.: An inter-
rent problems related to the development of VR exhibits, active tool for the participatory design of product interface. In:
especially when low budgets and space constraints are among IDETC/CIE 2012 Chicago, pp.1437–1447 (2012)
the design requirements. 16. Petrelli, D., Not, E.: User-centered design of flexible hypermedia
The results of user testing and the opinions gathered by the for a mobile guide: reflections on the hyperaudio experience. User
Model. User Adapt. Interact. 15(3–4), 303–338 (2005)
participants to the study demonstrated that the adoption of 17. Raptis, D., Tselios, N., Avouris, N.: Context-based design of mobile
an UCD approach can efficiently improve the design of VR applications for museums: a survey of existing practices. In: The
exhibits, and gives birth to a product that offers a more effi- 7th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction
cient, satisfying, and user-friendly experience for the users. with Mobile Devices & Services (MobileHCI ’05), pp. 153–160.
Salzburg, Austria (2005)
18. ISO/IEC. 13407 Human-centred design processes for interactive
systems, ISO/IEC 13407:1999 (E) (1999)
References 19. European Union. Culture statistics, 2016 edition. Publications
Office of the European Union (2016)
1. Vergo, P.: New Museology. Reaktion Books, London (1989) 20. Craig, J.C., Johnson, K.O.: The two-point threshold not a measure
2. Pine II, B.J., Gilmore, J.H.: The Experience Economy: Work is of tactile spatial resolution. Curr. Directions Psychol. Sci. 9(1),
Theatre & Every Business a Stage. Harvard, Cambridge (2000) 29–32 (2000)

123
Int J Interact Des Manuf

21. Woodson, W.E., Tillman, B., Tillman, P.: Human Factors Design 30. Wharton, C., Rieman, J., Lewis, C., Polson, P.: The cognitive walk-
Handbook, 2nd edn. Woodson, Fremont (1992) through method: a practitioner’s guide. In: Nielsen, J., Mack, R.L.
22. ISO/IEC. 9241-210 Ergonomics of human–system interaction. Part (eds.) Usability Inspection Methods, pp. 79–104. Wiley, New York
210 Human-centred design for interactive systems, ISO/IEC 9241- (1994)
210: 2010 (E) (2010) 31. Wharton, C., Bradford, J., Jeffries, R., Franzke, M.: Applying cog-
23. Dreyfuss, H.: The Measure of Man and Woman. Henry Dreyfuss nitive walkthroughs to more complex user interfaces: experiences,
and Associates, NY (1993) issues, and recommendations. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Con-
24. Salvendy, G.: Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics, 2nd ference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 381–388
edn. Wiley, New York (1997) (1992)
25. Pahl, G., Beitz, W.: Engineering design. In: Ken W. (ed.), vol. 984. 32. Barbieri, L., Bruno, F., Muzzupappa, M.: Virtual museum system
Design Council, London (1984) evaluation through user studies. J. Cult. Herit. (2017). doi:10.1016/
26. Lewis, C., Polson, P., Wharton, C., Rieman, J.: Testing a walk- j.culher.2017.02.005
through methodology for theory-based design of walk-up-and-use 33. Nielsen, J.: Usability Eng. Academic, Boston (1993)
interfaces. In: Proceedings ACM CHI’90 Conference, Seattle, pp. 34. Lewis, J.R.: Usability testing. In: Salvendy, G. (ed.) Handbook of
235–242 (1990) Human Factors and Ergonomics, pp. 1275–1316. Wiley, New York
27. Huart, J., Kolski, C., Sagar, M.: Evaluation of multimedia appli- (2006)
cations using inspection methods: the cognitive walkthrough case.
Interact. Comput. 16(2), 183–215 (2004)
28. Karoulis, A., Sylaiou, S., White, M.: Usability evaluation of a vir-
tual museum interface. Informatica 17(3), 363–380 (2006)
29. Sylaiou, S., Mania, K., Karoulis, A., White, M.: Exploring the
relationship between presence and enjoyment in a virtual museum.
Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 68(5), 243–253 (2010)

123