skip to main content
research-article

Improving Accessibility to Intangible Cultural Heritage Preservation Using Virtual Reality

Published:30 May 2020Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Presentations of virtual cultural heritage artifacts are often communicated via the medium of interactive digital storytelling. The synergy of a storied narrative embedded within a 3D virtual reconstruction context has high consumer appeal and edutainment value. We investigate if 360° videos presented through virtual reality further contribute to user immersion for the application of preserving intangible cultural heritage. A case study then analyzes whether conventional desktop media is significantly different from virtual reality as a medium for immersion in intangible heritage contexts. The case study describes bridge diving at Stari Most, the old bridge in Mostar Bosnia. This application aims to present and preserve the bridge diving tradition at this site. The project describes the site and history along with cultural connections, and a series of quiz questions are presented after viewing all of the materials. Successful completion of the quiz allows a user to participate in a virtual bridge dive. The subjective evaluation provided evidence to suggest that our method is successful in preserving intangible heritage and communicating ideas in key areas of concern for this heritage that can be used to develop a preservation framework in the future. It was also possible to conclude that experience within the virtual reality framework did not affect effort expectancy for the web application, but the same experience significantly influenced the performance expectancy construct.

References

  1. 3D CoForm. 2009. 3D CoForm Website. Retrieved June 14, 2018 from http://www.culturalinformatics.org.uk/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. E. Ahmed and R. Ward. 2016. Analysis of factors influencing acceptance of personal, academic and professional development e-portfolios. Campus-Wide Information Systems 63 (2016), 152--161.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Irene Aicardi, Filiberto Chiabrando, Andrea Maria Lingua, and Francesca Noardo. 2018. Recent trends in cultural heritage 3D survey: The photogrammetric computer vision approach. Journal of Cultural Heritage 32 (2018), 257--266.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Eike Anderson, Leigh McLoughlin, Fotis Liarokapis, Christopher Peters, Panagiotis Petridis, and Sara de Freitas. 2010. Developing serious games for cultural heritage: A state-of-the-art review. Virtual Reality 14, 12 (2010), 255--275.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Ferran Argelaguet and Carlos Andujar. 2013. A survey of 3D object selection techniques for virtual environments. Computers 8 Graphics 37, 3 (2013), 121--136.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. L. Argyriou, D. Economou, and V. Bouki. 2017. 360-degree interactive video application for cultural heritage education. In Proceedings of the 3rd Annual International Conference of the Immersive Learning Research Network. 297--304.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. D. Arnold and G. Geser. 2007. Research Agenda for the Applications of ICT to Cultural Heritage. Archaeolingua, Budapest, Hungary.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Ruth Aylett. 2000. Emergent narrative, social immersion and “storification.” In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Narrative and Interactive Learning Environments. 35--44.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Manon Bertrand and Stéphane Bouchard. 2008. Applying the technology acceptance model to VR with people who are favorable to its use. Journal of Cyber Therapy 8 Rehabilitation 1, 2 (2008), 200--210.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Doug A. Bowman and Chadwick A. Wingrave. 2001. Design and evaluation of menu systems for immersive virtual environments. In Proceedings of the IEEE 2001 Virtual Reality Conference (VR’01). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 149--156.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Plewe Brandon. 2002. The nature of uncertainty in historical geographic information. Transactions in GIS 6, 4 (2002), 431--456.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Erik Champion. 2016. Entertaining the similarities and distinctions between serious games and virtual heritage projects. Entertainment Computing 14 (May 2016), 67--74.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Dimitrios Christopoulos, Pavlos Mavridis, Anthousis Andreadis, and John N. Karigiannis. 2013. Digital storytelling within virtual environments: “The battle of Thermopylae.” In Transactions on Edutainment IX. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 7544. Springer, 29--48. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37042-7_2Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Karin Coninx, Frank Van Reeth, and Eddy Flerackers. 1997. A hybrid 2D/3D user interface for immersive object modeling. In Proceedings of Computer Graphics International. IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 47--55.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Raimund Dachselt and Anett Hübner. 2007. Three-dimensional menus: A survey and taxonomy. Computers 8 Graphics 31, 1 (2007), 53--65.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Fred D. Davis. 1986. A Technology Acceptance Model for Empirically Testing New End-User Information Systems: Theory and Results. Ph.D. Dissertation. MIT Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Fred D. Davis. 1989. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 13, 3 (Sept. 1989), 319--340. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2307/249008Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Fred D. Davis, Richard P. Bagozzi, and Paul R. Warshaw. 1989. User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science 35, 8 (Aug. 1989), 982--1003. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. H. Denard and S. Hermon. 2009. London Charter. Retrieved June 14, 2018 from http://www.londoncharter.org/history.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Yuanfa Dong, Mark Webb, Carlo Harvey, Kurt Debattista, and Alan Chalmers. 2017. Multisensory virtual experience of tanning in medieval coventry. In Proceedings of the Eurographics Workshop on Graphics and Cultural Heritage. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2312/gch.20171297Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Declan Dowling, Colm O. Fearghail, Aljoscha Smolic, and Sebastian Knorr. 2018. Faoladh: A case study in cinematic VR storytelling and production. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Interactive Digital Storytelling.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Ahmed Elmezeny, Nina Edenhofer, and Jeffrey Wimmer. 2018. Immersive storytelling in 360-degree videos: An analysis of interplay between narrative and technical immersion. Journal of Virtual Worlds Research 11 (April 2018), 1--15.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Laia Pujol-Tost and Maria Economou. 2008. Educational tool or expensive toy? Evaluating VR evaluation and its relevance for virtual heritage. In New Heritage: New Media and Cultural Heritage, Y. E. Kalay, T. Kvan, and J. Affleck (Eds.). Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon, 242--260.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. M. H. Fagan, V. Pandey, and C. Kilmon. 2012. Exploring the adoption of a virtual reality simulation: The role of perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness and personal innovativeness. Campus-Wide Information Systems 29, 2 (2012), 117--127.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Dominique Gerber and Dominique Bechmann. 2005. The spin menu: A menu system for virtual environments. In Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality (VR ’05). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 271--272.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. A. Grande and V. Bendicho. 2011. The Principles of the Seville Charter. Retrieved June 14, 2018 from http://smartheritage.com/seville-principles/seville-charter-project.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Sarajevo Graphics Group. 2018. Mostar Cliff Diving VR—WebGL version. Retrieved March 27, 2019 from http://h.etf.unsa.ba/mostar-jumps/WebGLEng/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Sarajevo Graphics Group. 2018. Sarajevo Charter. Retrieved March 27, 2019 from http://h.etf.unsa.ba/sarajevocharter/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Pierre Grussenmeyer, Tania Landes, Thomas Voegtle, and Konrad Ringle. 2008. Comparison methods of terrestrial laser scanning, photogrammetry and tacheometry data for recording of cultural heritage buildings. International Archives of Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences 37, B5 (2008), 213--218.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Jassim Happa, Thomas Bashford-Rogers, Alexander Wilkie, Alessandro Artusi, Kurt Debattista, and Alan Chalmers. 2012. Cultural heritage predictive rendering. Computer Graphics Forum 31, 6 (2012), 1823--1836.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Richard Heiberger and Naomi Robbins. 2014. Design of diverging stacked bar charts for Likert scales and other applications. Journal of Statistical Software 57, 5 (April 2014), 1--32.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Vedad Hulusic, Carlo Harvey, Kurt Debattista, Nicolas Tsingos, Steve Walker, David Howard, and Alan Chalmers. 2012. Acoustic rendering and auditory-visual cross-modal perception and interaction. Computer Graphics Forum 31, 1 (2012), 102--131. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8659.2011.02086.xGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. I. Ivkovic, N. Klisura, and S. Sljivo. 2018. Bridges of Sarajevo. In Proceedings of the Central European Seminar on Computer Graphics. 107--114.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Jeff Sauro and James R. Lewis. 2016. Quantifying the User Experience: Practical Statistics for User Research. Morgan Kaufmann.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Richard H. Jacoby and Stephen R. Ellis. 1992. Using virtual menus in a virtual environment. In Visual Data Interpretation, Vol. 1668. International Society for Optics and Photonics, Bellingham, WA, 39--49.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Jonathan Lazar, Jinjuan Heidi Feng, and Harry Hochheiser. 2010. Research Methods in Human-Computer Interaction. Wiley Publishing.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Patrick Lemoine, Frederic Vexo, and Daniel Thalmann. 2003. Interaction techniques: 3D menus-based paradigm. In Proceedings of the 1st Research Workshop on Augmented Virtual Reality (AVIR’03).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Sandy Louchart and Ruth Aylett. 2003. Solving the narrative paradox in VEs—Lessons from RPGs. In Intelligent Virtual Agents, T. Rist, R. S. Aylett, D. Ballin, and J. Rickel (Eds.). Springer, Berlin, Germany, 244--248.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Kerry T. Manis and Danny Choi. 2018. The virtual reality hardware acceptance model (VR-HAM): Extending and individuating the technology acceptance model (TAM) for virtual reality hardware. Journal of Business Research 100 (2018), 503--513.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Bonn Maria, Kendall Lori, and McDonough Jerome. 2016. Preserving intangible heritage: Defining a research agenda. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology 53, 1 (2016), 1--5.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. John McCarthy. 2014. Multi-image photogrammetry as a practical tool for cultural heritage survey and community engagement. Journal of Archaeological Science 43 (2014), 175--185.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. Daniel Mendes, Daniel Medeiros, Maurício Sousa, Eduardo Cordeiro, Alfredo Ferreira, and Joaquim A. Jorge. 2017. Design and evaluation of a novel out-of-reach selection technique for VR using iterative refinement. Computers 8 Graphics 67 (2017), 95--102.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Helen C. Miles, Andrew T. Wilson, Frédéric Labrosse, Bernard Tiddeman, Seren Griffiths, Ben Edwards, Panagiotis D. Ritsos, et al. 2016. Alternative representations of 3D-reconstructed heritage data. Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage 9, 1 (2016), 4.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Hermitage Museum and Videofabrika. 2017. The Hermitage VR Experience. Retrieved June 14, 2018 from http://www.inavateonthenet.net/case-studies/article/immersive-history-russia-s-hermitage-museum-embraces-vr.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. F. Nicolucci and S. Hermon. 2004. A fuzzy logic approach to reliability in archaeological virtual reconstruction. In Proceedings of Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology (CAA’04). 1--8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Cecilia Pisa, Fabiana Zeppa, and Gabriele Fangi. 2011. Spherical photogrammetry for cultural heritage: San Galgano Abbey and the Roman Theater, Sabratha. Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage 4, 3 (Dec. 2011), Article 9, 15 pages. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2069276.2069278Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Athena Plus. 2017. Digital Cultural Heritage and Tourism: Recommendations for Cultural Institutions. Retrieved June 14, 2018 from http://www.athenaplus.eu/index.php?en/220/digital-cultural-heritage-and-tourism-recommendations-for-cultural-institutions.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Fabio Remondino, Stefano Girardi, Alessandro Rizzi, and Lorenzo Gonzo. 2009. 3D modeling of complex and detailed cultural heritage using multi-resolution data. Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage 2, 1 (July 2009), Article 2, 20 pages. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1551676.1551678Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Selma Rizvic, Dusanka Boskovic, Vensada Okanovic, and Sanda Sljivo. 2017. Kyrenia—Hyper storytelling pilot application. In Proceedings of the Eurographics Workshop on Graphics and Cultural Heritage.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. S. Rizvic, N. Djapo, F. Alispahic, B. Hadzihalilovic, F. F. Cengic, A. Imamovic, V. Okanovic, and D. Boskovic. 2017. Guidelines for interactive digital storytelling presentations of cultural heritage. In Proceedings of the 2017 9th International Conference on Virtual Worlds and Games for Serious Applications (VS-Games’17) 253--259.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Ruth Aylett. 1999. Narrative in Virtual Environments—Towards Emergent Narrative. AAAI Technical Report FS-99-01. AAAI.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Paola Salomoni, Catia Prandi, Marco Roccetti, Lorenzo Casanova, Luca Marchetti, and Gustavo Marfia. 2017. Diegetic user interfaces for virtual environments with HMDs: A user experience study with Oculus Rift. Journal on Multimodal User Interfaces 11, 2 (2017), 173--184.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  53. Sarajevo Graphics Group. 2018. Mostar VR Gameplay. Retrieved April 21, 2020 from https://youtu.be/v-HoWOKOtMs.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Sarajevo Graphics Group. 2018. VR Simulation of Mostar Bridge Diving. Retrieved April 21, 2020 from https://tinyurl.com/sarajevographicsgroup.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Henrik Schoenau-Fog. 2015. Adaptive storyworlds: Utilizing the space-time continuum in interactive digital storytelling. In Interactive Storytelling, H. Schoenau-Fog, L. E. Bruni, S. Louchart, and S. Baceviciute (Eds.). Springer, 58--65.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. Elmedin Selmanovic, Selma Rizvic, Carlo Harvey, Dusanka Boskovic, Vedad Hulusic, Malek Chahin, and Sanda Sljivo. 2018. VR video storytelling for intangible cultural heritage preservation. In Proceedings of the Eurographics Workshop on Graphics and Cultural Heritage. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2312/gch.20181341Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Rod Sims. 1997. Interactivity: A forgotten art?Computers in Human Behavior 13, 2 (1997), 157--180.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. Efstathios Stavrakis, Andreas Aristidou, Maria Savva, Stephania Loizidou Himona, and Yiorgos Chrysanthou. 2012. Digitization of Cypriot folk dances. In Progress in Cultural Heritage Preservation, M. Ioannides, D. Fritsch, J. Leissner, R. Davies, F. Remondino, and R. Caffo (Eds.). Springer, Berlin, Germany, 404--413.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. Jonathan Steuer. 1992. Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence. Journal of Communication 42, 4 (1992), 73--93.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  60. Stella Sylaiou, Katerina Mania, Ioannis Paliokas, Laia Pujol, Vassilis Killintzis, and Fotis Liarokapis. 2017. Exploring the educational impact of diverse technologies in online virtual museums. International Journal of Arts and Technology 10 (Jan. 2017), 58.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  61. Bjoern Flindt Temte and Henrik Schoenau-Fog. 2012. Coffee tables and cryo chambers: A comparison of user experience and diegetic time between traditional and virtual environment-based roleplaying game scenarios. In Interactive Storytelling, D. Oyarzun, F. Peinado, R. M. Young, A. Elizalde, and G. Méndez (Eds.). Springer, Berlin, Germany, 102--113.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. Ashima Thomas, Abhi Kumar, Race Krehel, Kay Vasey, Eng Tat Khoo, Tim Marsh, and Benjamin Li. 2018. Oceans we make: Immersive VR storytelling. In Proceedings of SIGGRAPH Asia 2018 Virtual and Augmented Reality (SA’18). 1--2.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  63. UNESCO. 2019. What Is Intangible Cultural Heritage. Retrieved September 1, 2019 from https://ich.unesco.org/en/what-is-intangible-heritage-00003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  64. ICH UNESCO. 2003. Text of the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. Retrieved April 21, 2020 from https://ich.unesco.org/en/convention.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  65. Marilena Vecco. 2010. A definition of cultural heritage: From the tangible to the intangible. Journal of Cultural Heritage 11, 3 (2010), 321--324.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  66. Viswanath Venkatesh and Fred D. Davis. 1996. A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: Development and test. Decision Sciences 27, 3 (1996), 451--481. DOI:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1996.tb00860.xGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  67. Viswanath Venkatesh, Michael G. Morris, Gordon B. Davis, and Fred D. Davis. 2003. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly 27 (2003), 425--478.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  68. Virtual Reality Toolkit. 2018. VRTK—Virtual Reality Toolkit. Retrieved June 14, 2018 from https://vrtoolkit.readme.io.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  69. Naci Yastikli. 2007. Documentation of cultural heritage using digital photogrammetry and laser scanning. Journal of Cultural Heritage 8, 4 (2007), 423--427.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  70. Haci Murat Yilmaz, Murat Yakar, Saadet Armagan Gulec, and O. Nuri Dulgerler. 2007. Importance of digital close-range photogrammetry in documentation of cultural heritage. Journal of Cultural Heritage 8, 4 (2007), 428--433.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Improving Accessibility to Intangible Cultural Heritage Preservation Using Virtual Reality

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in

        Full Access

        • Published in

          cover image Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage
          Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage   Volume 13, Issue 2
          June 2020
          172 pages
          ISSN:1556-4673
          EISSN:1556-4711
          DOI:10.1145/3403613
          Issue’s Table of Contents

          Copyright © 2020 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 30 May 2020
          • Online AM: 7 May 2020
          • Accepted: 1 December 2019
          • Revised: 1 September 2019
          • Received: 1 April 2019
          Published in jocch Volume 13, Issue 2

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article
          • Research
          • Refereed

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader

        HTML Format

        View this article in HTML Format .

        View HTML Format