Domus: An On-Gallery Digital Museum Experience in Two Parts

Abstract

In September 2014, the Allard Pierson Museum, the archaeology museum of the University of Amsterdam, opened its new Roman gallery. Leading to the redevelopment, the Museum's NewMediaLab explored how interactive technologies, particularly virtual re-contextualization, could be used to aid visitor interpretation of the collections. Based on earlier studies, the Museum developed and tested an interactive prototype consisting of two parts. In the first part, visitors enter a virtual environment , exploring with gesture-based navigation. In this virtual Roman house they were challenged to locate and collect seven objects, all replicas of museum objects. In the second part, visitors could explore the original objects in a display case nearby and use a touch screen computer to uncover additional information. The study focused both on the effect of virtual contextualiza-tion, and the learnability of gesture-based navigation in the museum context. Through a series of observations and interviews with adult visitors, the Museum has examined the impact of instruction on the use of this kind of navigation. The study compared the ability for visitors to navigate the virtual space after receiving one of two forms of instruction and asked them about their instruction needs and ease of use of the installation. Furthermore, the Museum wanted to better understand how visitors see the relationship between both the virtual installation and the real objects. Through interviews and guided visits, the team examined whether the use of digital replicas and virtual environments in the museum served to support the interpretation of the physical collections. This paper will discuss the development of the installation, as well as the research outcomes, and will reflect upon potential future developments.

Full text

193
NODEM 2014 CONFERENCE & EXPO
Domus: An On-Gallery Digital Museum
Experience in Two Parts
Merel van der Vaart, Christie A. Ray
PhD Candidates University of Amsterdam – NewMediaLab, Allard Pierson Museum, the Netherlands
http://mesch-project.eu/
http://www.v-must.net/
Abstract: In September 2014, the Allard Pierson Museum, the archaeology museum of the University of Amsterdam, opened its
new Roman gallery. Leading to the redevelopment, the Museum’s NewMediaLab explored how interactive technologies, par-
ticularly virtual re-contextualization, could be used to aid visitor interpretation of the collections. Based on earlier studies, the
Museum developed and tested an interactive prototype consisting of two parts. In the rst part, visitors enter a virtual environ-
ment, exploring with gesture-based navigation. In this virtual Roman house they were challenged to locate and collect seven
objects, all replicas of museum objects. In the second part, visitors could explore the original objects in a display case nearby and
use atouch screen computer to uncover additional information. The study focused both on the eect of virtual contextualiza-
tion, and the learnability of gesture-based navigation in the museum context. Through a series of observations and interviews
with adult visitors, the Museum has examined the impact of instruction on the use of this kind of navigation. The study compared
the ability for visitors to navigate the virtual space after receiving one of two forms of instruction and asked them about their
instruction needs and ease of use of the installation. Furthermore, the Museum wanted to better understand how visitors see the
relationship between both the virtual installation and the real objects. Through interviews and guided visits, the team examined
whether the use of digital replicas and virtual environments in the museum served to support the interpretation of the physical
collections. This paper will discuss the development of the installation, as well as the research outcomes, and will reect upon
potential future developments.
Keywords: Virtual environment, re-contextualization, 3D models, instruction, museum, embodied virtual navigation,
Microsoft Kinect, evaluation
Introduction
A bucket, a spoon, a jug, damaged through use or neglect, and their once shiny bronze surface has turned
agreenish brown. They are every-day Roman objects from the Allard Pierson Museum’s (APM) collection. Al-
though not necessarily examples of great craftsmanship, they tell us about the lives of people that lived cen-
turies ago. In preparation of the redevelopment of the museum’s Roman gallery, which opened in September
2014, the APM expressed a desire to help visitors engage with objects that are physically less attractive, yet
have interesting stories to tell. Re-contextualizing objects, showing them in (a representation of) their original
context of use, is one way to achieve this.
The NewMediaLab of the APM carries out research related to the (digital) museum experience, both with re-
gards to visitor engagement, and the usability of new tools. Building on previous research (Ray & Van der Vaart,
2013a; Ray, 2013), the NewMediaLab developed the Domus project, in which visitors were asked to collect
seven virtual replicas of museum objects from a virtual Roman house. Afterwards, visitors could further explore
the physical objects in a nearby display case.

194
NODEM 2014 CONFERENCE & EXPO
Domus: An On-Gallery Digital Museum Experience in Two Parts
One of the aims of this pilot was to better understand the relationship, as perceived by visitors, between physi-
cal museum objects and virtual environments. Secondly, the study wanted to investigate the impact instruc-
tions can have on the usability of novel digital tools.
Real objects and virtual environments
A virtual reconstruction of a Roman Domus-type house was projected on the wall of a cinema space near the
Roman gallery. Seven virtual replicas of museum objects, modelled to look new, were placed in this virtual
Domus. Visitors were invited to navigate the Domus and to ‘collect’ the replicas. Navigation relied on physical
gestures. If visitors stepped forward, they moved forward in the virtual space. If they stepped back, they would
move back. Stepping to the left or right meant a 90-degree turn in that direction. A Microsoft Kinect sensor
was used to read visitors’ gestures. The gesture vocabulary was developed based on earlier experiences with
embodied virtual navigation (Ray & Van der Vaart, 2013b). One of the main challenges was to strike the right
balance between autonomy and guidance. Visitors should be allowed freedom to explore the space, but be
prevented from getting lost. The 90-degree angle turn was introduced to simplify navigation, as was blocking
o spaces that did not contain any virtual replicas. Short audio clips gave hints that indicated where each ob-
ject could be found. Visitors could collect objects by pointing at them. The object would then disappear from
the virtual environment and appear in a bar at the top of the screen.
Figure 1. A visitor exploring the virtual Domus
Source: Merel van der Vaart, APM.
To emphasise the connection between the virtual and the real, it was important to present them in close prox-
imity to each other (Ray & Van der Vaart; 2013b). The seven physical objects were placed in a built-in display
case in the corridor adjacent to the cinema space. A touch screen was installed in front of it. Visitors who had
successfully selected one or more objects in the virtual space were given a code with which they could unlock
the touch screen content.

195
NODEM 2014 CONFERENCE & EXPO
Domus: An On-Gallery Digital Museum Experience in Two Parts
Embedding virtual contextualization in the museum visit
As described, the Domus project had dual research aims. On the one hand, there were questions in relation
to how visitors experience and appreciate the relationship between virtual environment and physical objects.
Secondly, there was a desire to better understand how instruction could help visitors engage with novel tech-
nology, such as embodied virtual navigation.
The study consisted of observations of un-recruited visitors engaging with the virtual environment, as well
as guided visits to both the virtual environment and the physical objects, combined with questionnaires and
a semi-structured interview. For the guided visits, participants were recruited from visitors to the temporary
exhibition of the museum. Over a period of three months, 40 visitors were observed using the installation and
17 guided visits took place.
The guided visits, followed by a structured interview and questionnaires focussed on the question: How do
visitors perceive the combined oer of virtual environment and physical objects? The expectation was that
allowing visitors to encounter the virtually restored replicas in their ‘original environment’ before being pre-
sented with the originals in a museum display would enable higher levels of visitor engagement. To test this
hypothesis, participants were presented with one of two experiences. Nine participants (Group 1) rst inter-
acted with the virtual environment and looked at the physical objects afterwards. Eight participants (Group
2) were asked to look at the objects, before navigating the virtual space. While looking at the physical objects,
all visitors were asked which objects they found interesting and what questions they would ask about these
objects. They were then given time to interact with the touch screen application in front of the display case,
which contained more in-depth information about the objects. Afterwards, participants were asked if they
remembered where they had found the objects they had collected in the virtual space, and if they knew why
the objects were located there.
Figure 2. The original museum objects on display together with touch screen application
Source: Merel van der Vaart, APM.
The visitors who participated in the guided visits matched the museum’s general visitor prole. The age group
50 to 64 was well represented, with eleven out of 17 participants falling within that age bracket. Five par-
ticipants were younger than 49, and one was 65 or over. Nine participants said they somewhat knew what

196
NODEM 2014 CONFERENCE & EXPO
Domus: An On-Gallery Digital Museum Experience in Two Parts
a Roman house looked like, while eight claimed to know outright. There were no great demographic discrep-
ancies between Groups 1 and 2, except for the fact that six out of nine participants of Group 1 were male, while
the genders were equally represented within Group 2.
The goal of virtually re-contextualizing, was to help visitors engage with the objects on display. Therefore,
it was expected that participants who had explored the virtual environment rst would ask more questions
about the objects on display. Interestingly, the opposite was true. When asked what objects interested them
and what questions they would ask about the objects, the participants from Group 1 together identied 13 ob-
jects they wanted to know more about. In total they asked 14 questions about these objects. The participants
of Group 2 equally identied 13 objects, but asked a total of 21 questions. In addition, participants of this group
asked more varied questions about the objects. Furthermore, participants of Group 1 spent less time with the
touch screen application, which provided more information about the objects.
The study also showed that participants of the second group were slightly more successful at navigating the
virtual environment. Together, the participants of Group 2 collected 27 objects, as opposed to 19 objects col-
lected by Group 1. The individuals in this second group also had a better understanding of the navigation
concept (e.g. the automatic 90 degree turn) and needed less guidance with regards to nding various objects.
Although it must be said that almost all participants, of both groups, indicated they found navigating the vir-
tual environment challenging. As the rst group, which was least successful in navigating the virtual Domus,
had a majority of male participants, the dierence in gender balance must be taken into consideration. Inter-
estingly, most research into gender dierences in virtual navigation has identied men to be more successful
than women (Tlauka et. al., 2005; Tan, Czerwinski & Robertson, 2006), making the discrepancy between the two
groups all the more striking.
In order to measure how much participants engaged with the content of the virtual environment, they were
asked if they could remember where they found the objects they had collected and why they thought the
objects were in that location (see table 1). Here, again the participants of Group 2 had an overall better score
than those of Group 1. Not only were they able to describe the correct nd location in more instances, they
also described more locations in detail. There were also less instances when a participant could not remember
where s/he had found an object, although there were slightly more instances when an incorrect room was
described. It is important to note that for Group 1 more time passed between nding the virtual objects and
answering questions about their location. However, in the interview it also became clear that the participants
who had rst seen the physical objects (Group 2) were better at linking the information they had acquired
through the touch screen application to the virtual replicas in the Roman Domus. When discussing the objects
in the virtual environment, after the guided visit, they were more likely to rely on information they had read in
the touch screen application than those participants who had read the information after navigating the virtual
environment.
Table 1. Number objects for which the virtual location was described by participants
Group 1 Group 2
Vaguely described correct room 8 10
Described correct room in detail 4 11
Describes the wrong room 1 3
Does not remember 6 3
Source: Domus research NewMediaLab APM.

197
NODEM 2014 CONFERENCE & EXPO
Domus: An On-Gallery Digital Museum Experience in Two Parts
To summarise, contrary to expectations, the participants who were rst asked to look at the objects on display,
and were asked to navigate the virtual environment afterwards (Group 2), appeared to be more engaged with
the physical objects, were more successful in navigating the virtual environment, and seemed to remember
what they had seen in the virtual space better than the other group. They also asked more questions about the
original objects, spent more time with the touch screen application, and were also more likely to link informa-
tion they had acquired through this application to the virtual experience.
Often, the museum visit is an act of browsing, rather than attentive engagement (Falk & Dierking, 1997; Serrell,
1997; Rounds, 2004). The guided visit that was part of this research, however, expected rather high levels of
engagement from visitors. Of the two parts of the installation, engaging with the objects on display in com-
bination with the touch screen application was the easiest task of the two. Failure was not a risk, as the task
was based on visitors’ interests and opinions. In comparison, navigating the virtual environment was more
challenging and some visitors failed to navigate the space successfully. In this light, it might be helpful to use
S.Bitgood’s model for attention to explain the discrepancies between both groups described earlier. According
to Bitgood, ‘attention’ has three main characteristics; attention is selective, attention is motivated, and one only
has a limited amount of it (Bitgood, 2000). If one only has a limited amount of attention, it is to be expected that
participants who rst engage with a more dicult task will have less attention for their second task, than par-
ticipants who are given the easier task rst. This could explain why Group 1 was less engaged with the physical
objects, after starting with the more dicult task of navigating the virtual environment. When we also take into
account the second characteristic of attention, it being motivated, it seems logical that those participants who
successfully completed their rst task would be more motivated in the second. This explains why Group 2 was
more successful at navigating the virtual Domus. Since all participants were given tasks as part of the guided
visit, the selective nature of attention is less relevant in this case.
Instructions for novel technology
The aspect of the study that focussed on the impact of instructions on visitors’ understanding of novel technol-
ogy mainly focused on the eect of two dierent kinds of instructional videos. The rst video, presented to 20
observation participants (Group A), aimed to engage visitors with the installation through a quest-like ctional
narrative. This video was 1.46 minutes long and combined scenes representing a family archive, with spoken
and ambient audio. The second video, also shown to 20 participants (Group B), consisted of three stills giving
clear, step-by-step instructions of how to use the installation, with focus on navigation and object collection.
This video did not use audio and lasted 15 seconds. This second video duplicated the instructions provided on
a printed text panel on a wall to the right of the projection.
By replacing the storytelling introduction with clear and concise instructions for interaction, the authors hoped
to observe a higher success rate in the navigation of the space and collection of objects, as well as a longer
period of interaction among users. Surprisingly, the average length of observed interaction was relatively bal-
anced; excluding the time of the instruction videos, Group A had an average interaction time of 2.38 minutes,
while Group B had an average interaction time of 2.00 minutes.
The most signicant dierence was the observed use of supplemental instructions, notably the instructive text
panel. Members of Group A were observed looking to the instruction text panel more consistently through-
out their interaction, with 40% (8 of 20) of participants actively seeking the instruction on the text panel both
before and during their interaction in the virtual environment. From Group B, on the other hand, only 5% (1of
20) of participants were observed looking to the instructive text panel before and during their interaction. This
seems to indicate that the instruction needs of Group B were satised through the instruction given in the
instruction video, whereas Group A had to rely on the instructions given on the text panel in order to use the
installation successfully.

198
NODEM 2014 CONFERENCE & EXPO
Domus: An On-Gallery Digital Museum Experience in Two Parts
Looking now from a perspective of instructional design, M. D. Merrill’s principles of instruction provide a basic
framework for the ideal approach to instruction for the purpose of learning. To paraphrase the ve principles,
learning may be best achieved through instruction that is (1.) demonstrated, (2.) applied, (3.) task-centred,
(4.) activates relevant previous knowledge, and (5.) is integrated with everyday lives (Merrill, 2002). Develop-
ing instruction panels for a museum installation that can adhere to each of Merrill’s principles is somewhat
challenging, especially when the learning outcome is to be able to interact with a new or unfamiliar piece of
technology in the museum context.
In its original version, the storytelling video was meant to introduce visitors to three things: the storytelling
narrative, the virtual Domus environment, and the task of collecting objects within the virtual Domus. All of
this was presented in less than two minutes, culminating in the visitor being placed in the virtual Domus en-
vironment with the expectation to collect objects in a limited amount of time. Unfortunately, what this intro-
duction failed to do was instruct visitors on the interactions they would need to navigate through the virtual
environment and collect the objects. The authors came to the conclusion that the storytelling introduction was
not suitable for instructing visitors, as it only provided the task-centred instruction described by Merrill (2002).
Observation showed that visitors seemed to know what they were meant to do in the virtual Domus, but the
introduction lm was not instructing how to navigate.
In creating the second introduction video, to be shown in place of the storytelling introduction, the primary
goal was to provide visitors with instructions for navigation and object selection. The team wanted to be cer-
tain that visitors would understand how to interact in the virtual Domus (i.e. navigation) before providing in-
formation about what should be achieved in the virtual environment (i.e. object collection). The gesture-based
interactions required for navigation and object selection were demonstrated through the text and gures used
in the instruction introduction. Through visual and textual demonstration of the interaction, followed by ap-
plication of the interaction, the rst and second of Merrill’s principles of instruction are met, albeit in a limited
way. The instruction for object selection also provided an opportunity to reintroduce the task of collecting
objects located throughout the virtual Domus, meeting the third principle of instruction.
The two remaining principles of instruction, activation of previous knowledge and integration with everyday lives,
are more dicult to incorporate into museum instruction relating to on-gallery digital technologies. The context
of a museum creates a unique learning environment and oers learning opportunities that most visitors do not
experience on a regular, let alone daily, basis (Falk et al, 2011). Additionally, the activation of previous knowledge
is challenged by the use of new (approaches to) interaction technologies that visitors may be unfamiliar with.
The dierences in interactions between the two groups who experienced the two dierent introductions are
especially noted in the success of user navigation. Group A participants, who had to read the text panel for
instruction on navigation, were observed to be much more cautious with their physical movements and were
more likely to walk away from the installation when navigational errors occurred. For Group B participants, the
observed attempts at navigation were made with more condence and were met with greater success and
fewer errors than those in Group A.
While the change in instructional approach had an impact on the success of navigation, it also had an unex-
pected impact on the objects collected within the virtual Domus. Participants in Group A, who experienced
the storytelling introduction that emphasized the task of collecting the objects for a family archive, were likely
to collect more objects (and a wider variety of objects) than participants in Group B. Although navigation for
Group A participants was problematic, the storytelling introduction provided clear instruction for the task of
object collection. Alternatively, participants in Group B were more successful at navigating through the virtual
space, but only ever collected the most obvious and easily collectable object. Despite being more condent
and capable with navigation, the task of object collection was not prioritized by Group B participants, as it had
been by those in Group A. This suggests neither introduction video was completely successful in instructing
and motivating visitors.

199
NODEM 2014 CONFERENCE & EXPO
Domus: An On-Gallery Digital Museum Experience in Two Parts
Conclusion
This research set out to answer two questions. First, it wanted to better understand how visitors perceive the
relationship between physical objects and their virtual re-contextualization. Secondly, it asked how instruc-
tions could inuence the usability of novel digital installations.
Findings from the guided visits and interviews seem to indicate that virtual re-contextualization can help visi-
tors engage more deeply with museum objects. Also, it shows that visitors are able to link information about
the physical objects to the experience of navigating a virtual space. However, the research also shows that
the level of engagement is highly inuenced by the ordering of content and experiences within the visit as
a whole. A higher level of engagement with both the virtual environment and the objects seems attainable
when visitors are rst encouraged to engage with an exhibit’s content in a way that is easy and without risk
of failure, before being confronted with more complex and demanding tasks, such as virtual gesture-based
navigation.
Through observations it has become clear that although dierent types of introduction video might not inu-
ence the time visitors spend interacting with a virtual installation, it can inuence their level of condence and
the way they interact. Although a ctional narrative can stimulate deeper engagement with the task at hand,
a lack of practical instructions as to how to complete a task might result in visitors being less condent about
their abilities.
The results of this study have inuenced the nal design of the APM’s new Roman gallery. The ctional narra-
tive and practical instructions, which are both part of the introduction video of the gallery, have been sepa-
rated. Also, rather than starting the gallery visit by virtually navigating a Roman house, this experience is now
used to nalise the visit. Future research will explore other ways in which visitors can be encouraged to engage
with, and closely look at, museum objects that are less visually attractive.
Acknowledgements
The Allard Pierson Museum is the archaeology museum of the University of Amsterdam. The Domus project
was a pilot for the new Roman Gallery, Keys to Rome, and made possible with funding from the SNS Reaal
Fonds Digital Innovation in Museums 2012 Programme. The museum would also like to thank all the visitors
who participated in the study and made it possible for us to learn and develop our digital oer. We could not
have developed the pilot without the contributions of Robotfunk, Visual Dimension, the 3/4D Research Lab of
the Archaeology Department of the University of Amsterdam, Grhound Oce, Wil Theuns and Hans Fieggen.
References
Bitgood, S. (2000). The role of attention in designing eective interpretive labels. Journal of Interpretation Research, 5(2), 31-45.
Falk, J.H., Dierking, L.D. (1997). The Museum Experience. Washington, D.C.: Whalesback Books.
Falk, J.H., Dierking, L.D., & Adams, M. (2011). Living in a Learning Society: Museums and Free-Choice Learning. In S. Macdonald (Ed.),
A Companion to Museum Studies. Pp. 323-39.
Merrill, D.M. (2002). First Principles of Instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43-59.
Tlauka, M., Brolese, A., Pomeroy, D. & Hobbs, W. (2005). Gender dierences in spatial knowledge acquired through simulated explo-
ration of a virtual shopping centre. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 111-118.

200
NODEM 2014 CONFERENCE & EXPO
Domus: An On-Gallery Digital Museum Experience in Two Parts
Ray, C.A. (2013). Virtual Reconstructions in the Museum: Evaluating User Experiences of a Virtual Museum Application Embedded
in an Exhibition. In C.A. Ray and J. Vos (Eds.), Etruscanning: Digital Encounters with the Regolini-Galassi Tomb. (pp. 97-109). Am-
sterdam: Allard Pierson Museum.
Ray, C.A., & van der Vaart, M.J. (2013a). Contextualizing Collections: Using Virtual Reality in Archaeology Exhibitions. Exhibitionist,
32(2), 73-79.
Ray, C.A., & van der Vaart, M.J. (2013b). Towards an Integrative Approach to Interactive Museum Installations. In A.C. Addison, L. de
Luca, G. Guidi & S. Pescarin (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2013 Digital Heritage International Congress (pp. 701-704). Marseille, France:
IEEE.
Rounds, J. (2004). Strategies for the Curiosity-Driven Museum Visitor. Curator: The Museum Journal, 47(4), 389-412.
Serrell, B. (1997). Paying attention: the duration and allocation of visitors’ time in museum exhibitions. Curator: The Museum Journal,
40(2), 108-125.
Tan, D.S., Czerwinski, M.P. & Robertson, G.G. (2006). Large displays enhance optical ow cues and narrow the gender gap in 3-D
virtual navigation. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 48, 318-333.