Views of the past
Virtual Reality vs Augmented Reality
Virtual Reality Immerses visitors in the past whereas Augmented Reality overlaps a layer of history on today’s world. What is the effect of VR and AR on visitors? Do VR and AR fit with the heritage environment? How?
We reused content from two environmental narrative VR videogames (created as part of the EU project REVEAL to create interactive experiences to look back in time at two very different cultural heritage sites: Dr Jenner’s House Museum and Garden and fragments of the decoration of the Forum of Augustus now hosted in the Trajan Market Museum.
Scenes from the videogames were repurposed to be used on a mobile device as part of a visit. The scenes captured the reconstructions and embedded fragments of narratives from the game. This content was proposed to visitors as a VR experience in a stereoscope or as a 2D display on a tablet for an AR experience to compare today and the past.
Scenes from the videogames were repurposed to be used on a mobile device as part of a visit. The scenes captured the reconstructions and embedded fragments of narratives from the game. This content was proposed to visitors as a VR experience in a stereoscope or as a 2D display on a tablet for an AR experience to compare today and the past.
Findings:
The two devices were evaluated in the two different heritage sites with visitors and museum professionals. The study showed that there is a clear synergy between the place, the device, and the narrative. We suggest six guidelines:
Guideline 1:
VR should be preferred when the heritage is in ruin or lost and is particularly effective when the space was imposing and grandiose. 3D reconstructions experienced in AR are instead ideal to compare today and the past and foster a more cognitive approach to heritage.
Guideline 2:
Effort should be spent to create an outstanding visual reconstruction (rather then adding characters or additional layers such as quiz) as this is the single most important element in the experience.
Guideline 3:
The outstanding visual reconstruction should be paired with an equally accurately crafted and compelling storytelling that fits the heritage and the self-exploratory experience. Nothing else is needed to make the experience memorable.
Guideline 4:
VR or AR as part of the visit should be designed for a minimal interaction and to leave ample space for the enjoyment of the real setting.
Guideline 5:
The interaction should be tested in place in a naturalistic way, observed usability issues should be removed or at least contained.
Guideline 6:
VR and AR can be part of the visiting experience but the design must be bespoke for the place as to implement a manageable solution, e.g. a few devices locked to specific points of interest may be enough to create a memorable experience. What is important is a compelling visual and auditory content and ease of use.
Project dates
2017-2018
2017-2018
Publications
Daniela Petrelli (2019) Making Virtual Reconstructions Part of the Visit: An Exploratory Study. Digital Applications in Archeology and Cultural Heritage.
Research by
Daniela Petrelli
Nick Dulake
Partners & Stakeholders
Steel Minions Studio
Dr Jenner’s House Museum and Garden
Funders
REVEAL EU Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme
Steel Minions Studio
Dr Jenner’s House Museum and Garden
Funders
REVEAL EU Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme