Content uploaded by Matthias Wölfel
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Matthias Wölfel on Nov 22, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Staging Virtual Reality Exhibits for Bystander
Involvement in Semi-Public Spaces
Daniel Hepperle, Andreas Siess, Matthias W¨olfel
Faculty of Computer Science and Business Information Systems
Karlsruhe University of Applied Sciences
Moltkestr. 30, 76133 Karlsruhe, Germany
firstname.lastname@hs-karlsruhe.de
Abstract. As virtual reality becomes more popular to be used in semi-
public spaces such as museums and other exhibition venues, the question
on how to optimally stage such an experience arises. To foster interaction
between participants and bystanders, to lower the primary threshold in
regards to participation and to moderate the transition between real
and virtual worlds we propose to augment a virtual hot-air balloon ride
by a large scale floor projection in addition to a physical basket and
other extras. Exhibited at a venue in Stuttgart, Germany a total of 140
participants evaluated our approach. We could confirm that adding a
floor projection helped to attract additional users, to increased the overall
motivation on using the installation, and to established a connection
between the real and the virtual worlds.
Keywords: virtual reality ·exhibition ·(semi-)public space ·museum ·
staging ·bystander ·head-mounted display
1 Introduction
The question on how virtual reality (VR) technologies will shape our future lives
has been around since at least the renaissance of VR in the second decade of the
21st century. We believe that one essential question which needs to be addressed
in this regard is not how, but where this will happen. The question on where
arises because VR enfolds its full potential only in those cases when the physical
surrounding is also taken into consideration. Setting up consisting or matching
mixed world environments where virtual and real are intermingled can usually
not be realized at home, because it requires complex hardware constructions. It
has been shown that, if done right, that mixed reality setups can help improve
presence [7, 8]. Because of that, we argue that for high-end VR installations,
museums, exhibitions, and amusement parks are perfectly suitable for staging
VR installations in the most engaging way. In this context, one is able to create
spectacular, immersive experiences, whereby the complete isolation of the phys-
ical outside world at the same time is a major hurdle for wearing head-mounted
displays (HMDs). This has to be overcome, especially for cases where one might
be under possible observation such as semi-public spaces. Next to a complete
2 D. Hepperle et al.
“leap into the unknown”1, VR technology tends to give rise to uncertainty in
regards to possible motion sickness and also to hygienic concerns which prevent
many potential visitors from getting involved in a VR experience. To counteract
this problem, the team extended a VR installation already shown at the ZKM —
Zentrum f¨ur Kunst und Medien Karlsruhe by a large-scale floor projection. For
the viewers, this led to a more attractive installation, it encouraged them to par-
ticipate better and optimally prepared them for the upcoming VR experience.
Thus, the participants were able to gently lift off in a replica balloon basket:
They felt the vibrations of the flight imitated by jiggling plates. The heat of the
burner’s virtual flames was reflected in hot studio lamps. A light breeze, created
by a fan, blew through their hair. The high congruence between the real and the
virtual always created a safe environment, which even made it possible to hold
on to the balloon basket in the event of a fear of heights.
2 Related Work
Already in the year 1900, Raoul Grimoin-Sanson exhibited a virtual hot air bal-
loon ride called Cin´eorama at the Exhibition Universelle in Paris. Their setup
consisted of 10 synchronized 70 mm film projectors, which they used to project
hand-colored aerial film on a screen that was 9m tall and 100m in circumference.
The projectors were placed right beneath the balloon’s gondola [13]. While this
early installation was done using large scale projections to generate a multi-
person experience, immersive VR using HMD is most of the time an isolated
single-user experience. Also, almost any (semi-)public venue that exhibits im-
mersive VR content usually is not presenting the virtual content to the public
in an appropriate way—or even worse—not at all. If the respective content is
shown at all, it is common to present it in first-person view on a screen mounted
near the person using the HMD. This ego-perspective makes it harder for others
to catch what is happening within VR because it lacks to articulate the spatial
layout of the current scene and the image itself is quite shaky. The scientific
community is catching up on the topic lately; e.g. there has been a first work-
shop dedicated to discussing the upcoming challenges using HMDs in shared
and social spaces2. Here topics such as bystander in- and exclusion, privacy and
safety concerns, and augmentation by using projections have been discussed [4].
But, as it is still a niche research topic, it is necessary to also take a look outside
of the scientific community and analyze what is the actual state of the art in
exhibition pieces other than ours. In the following, we separate related works
into two groups: VR exhibitions relevant to our topic and related research that
has been conducted in this area.
1When only seeing a person wearing a HMD in a semi-public space as a passer-by,
one does not directly know what to expect from the upcoming experience and this
might scare off (timid) visitors.
2See: https://www.medien.ifi.lmu.de/socialHMD/ for more information
Staging VR Exhibits for Bystander Involvement 3
2.1 Research
The experience of isolation while using VR in public was demonstrated by Mai
et al., who interviewed their respondents in qualitative interviews about their
feelings during use [12]. Although, it has to be noted that different spatial layouts
and amounts of bystanders had no significant influence on measured presence.
Mai and Khamis [11] investigated user behavior around public HMDs by adapt-
ing the “audience funnel” by Brignull and Rogers [2] to public HMDs. They
replaced “subtle interactions” by “get in touch with the hardware” to empha-
size that the bystanders need to familiarize themselves with the hardware by
inspecting and even touching it. Siess et al. [16], on the other hand, introduced
an adapted version of the audience funnel to fit to immersive VR installations
in (semi-)public places.
Engaging VR and non-VR users to a common experience was investigated
by Gugenheimer et al. with their “Share VR” installation [5] that used floor
projections as output device for the non-VR player. In regards to floor projec-
tions the “ReverseCAVE” of Ishii et al. [9] also presents an interesting concept
to engage bystanders via wall projections. This especially is helpful in semi-
public spaces since it enables all visitors to take photos of VR content. Chan
and Minamizawa tried to engage communication between HMD-users and non-
HMD-users by attaching a screen on the front of each HMD [3]. Other concepts
that try to facilitate cooperation between users and non-users include multi-
touch-tables [17].
To summarize these findings and ideas it can be stated that there is a high
demand for concepts that are able to attract bystanders to engage with presented
VR hardware as well as for concepts that foster interaction between these by-
standers and users. Engaging visitors in new and unexpected ways will be a key
element to successfully set up (semi-)public VR installations [14].
2.2 VR-Exhibitions
The presented approaches in Section 2.1 are seldom found “in the wild”. To
get a brief overview on how VR exhibits currently are presented in semi-public
spaces, we conducted a brief inquiry using common search engines. The following
keywords were used for our investigation: “VR Exhibit Museum; Virtual Reality
Staging Museum”; It resulted in 15 exhibitions from different kinds of venues
around the world that use immersive VR3as a gateway to present content to
a semi-public audience. Table 1 lists the different venues in combination with
the way, the actual VR experience as seen by the current user was presented
to the audience technologically (via TV, Projection, etc.) and in regards to the
respective perspective of this presentation.
3When talking about immersive VR we only consider VR using HMDs in the context
of this publication.
4 D. Hepperle et al.
Venue Presentation System Point of View Link Suffix
Louvre Museum TV First Person 1
York Museum TV First Person 2
Saarland Informatics Campus Wall-Projection Third Person 3
Deutsches Museum Wall-Projection First Person 4
The Franklin Institute TV First Person 5
Smithsonian Museum TV First Person 6
Historium Bruges TV First Person 7
Zeiss Science Vision Lab TV First Person 8
National Museum of Finland None None 9
Museen Narrenschopf None None 10
Zeppelin Museum TV First Person 11
St¨adel Museum None None 12
HEK Basel TV & Wall-Projection First Person 13
Gazelli Art House Wall Projection First Person 14
Tate Modern — — 15
Table 1. Overview of exhibited and documented VR venues. To visit a link mentioned
above just replace the asterisk in the following url “http://bit.ly/artsit19-*” with the
corresponding number found in the table. All links has been visited 2019-10-16.
3 Installation & Setup
The general idea of our installation “Super Nubibus”4is to present a ride in a hot
air balloon over the town of Karlsruhe in the year 1834. A first version, without
floor projection, had already been presented at the ZKM Karlsruhe [16]. Users
can experience the ride using a physical replica of a balloon basket and an HTC
Vive Pro VR headset. By placing the basket precisely in the virtual environment,
it was possible to ensure that the virtual and haptic representation matched
exactly: a concept proven to be very valuable [6]. The basked also allowed the
VR user to lean on the railing and hold on to it. The user could start the ride and
determine the height of the balloon by pulling a physical rope that would ignite
the burner’s flame in the virtual environment. To enrich the overall experience
two powerful PAR spotlights were included that would light up every time the
rope is pulled to simulate the burner’s heat on the user’s head. Furthermore,
a wind machine was activated once the ride started. In contrast to the setup
presented at the ZKM, two other significant features were added: a large TV
monitor in three meters height (see Figure 2), which exactly reproduced the
VR spectator’s field of view, and a floor projection around the balloon basket,
which showed the scene from a bird’s eye view (see Figure 1). For passers-by, this
resulted in a panoramic view of a balloon basket that conveyed the impression
of being levitated over a landscape.
4www.super-nubibus.de
Staging VR Exhibits for Bystander Involvement 5
3.1 Location and Venue
Being visited by over 10.000 individuals the new.New.Festival is the largest
startup and entrepreneurship festival in Germany. It took place at the Hanns-
Martin-Schleyer-Halle in Stuttgart. Our installation was located at the end of a
long curve of the main visitor path. Next to our exhibition space, the entrance
to an action space was located, where, several times a day, events with a high
number of visitors took place. On the opposite, there was an area where visitors
could eat and charge their mobile devices. Therefore, our booth was noticed by
a large number of visitors.
Fig. 1. Booth at new.New.Festival: Floor pro jection, TV screen and haptic sensations
(wind, temperature, balloon basket) providing remarkable experiences for users and
bystanders.
3.2 Physical Setup
As chassis for our installation we built a 4,60m ×3,60m ×3,30m truss construc-
tion to which we could attach all necessary devices (see Figure 1 and 2A). To
create the floor projection, we used two WUXGA projectors that were attached
to the truss that aimed downwards almost vertically. Manually stitching the two
images resulted in one large projection area. Since the venue’s floor surface was
not suitable for a high-contrast projection (too inhomogeneous and too dark),
6 D. Hepperle et al.
we placed a white molleton on the entire surface, which ensured vibrant colors
and enough brightness for a satisfying result. A large TV screen (see Figure 2B)
mirroring the HMD’s point of view was mounted at the top corner of the truss
construction.
Fig. 2. A: the setup as seen from behind; B: view at the booth from the rest area
3.3 Adaption of the Audience Funnel
Based on new observation and data gathered at the latest exhibition, we adapted
the previous version of the VR audience funnel in regards to the latest add-ons
“floor projection” and “TV”, see Figure 3. The main difference in regards to
the former installation is, that the so-called voyeurs could interact with each
other based on the story but did not have to interact with the current user.
Quite obvious but also worth to be mentioned is, that honeypots complement
themselves.
4 User Test
In this section we briefly explain the questionnaire and the analysis of the de-
mographic structure of the test population.
4.1 Questionnaire
A printed questionnaire that the participants were asked to answer after interact-
ing with our installation was used, because of limited online access on location.
Since we asked all individuals that somehow interacted with our installation to
fill out the questionnaire it was separated into two main slots: One slot for all
Staging VR Exhibits for Bystander Involvement 7
2. (Passive)
Interac�on
4. Subtle
Interac�on
Floor Projec�on
Honeypot Area
2. Voyeurs
5. Voice driven Interac�on
based on Storyline
1. Uninvolved
Visitor
3. Viewing and
Reac�ng
Physical Barrier
First Person TV View
TV Honeypot Area
Play Area
Floor Projec�on
Fig. 3. Audience Funnel for new.New.Festival VR exhibition.
participants that took the ride and one for all other individuals who refused to
fly with the hot air balloon. Participation was voluntary. Skipping a question
was also possible at any time. The regular questionnaire (for everyone but those
who did not use the installation) consisted of 23 individual questions. Besides
demographic information (age, gender, VR experience, fear of height, prevalence
of motion sickness) the participants were asked what part of the installation
has played a decisive role in interacting with the exhibit (multiple choice). Fur-
thermore, the users were presented statements that they could rate via a Likert
scale [10]. At the end of the questionnaire, there was space for the participants
to write down impressions might not have been covered by the questionnaire.
Visitors that did not want to take part in the installation, but were willing to fill
out the survey, only were asked questions (besides demographic data) in regards
to the reasons they were not willing to try out the installation.
4.2 Test Population
Our installation was exhibited for three consecutive days. During this period
we were able to question 140 individuals of which 134 (95.7%) did use the in-
8 D. Hepperle et al.
stallation. 63 test subjects were female (mean age: 28; standard deviation: 9;
min: 20; max: 59); 76 persons were male (mean age: 31; standard deviation: 11;
min: 19; max: 64). One participant preferred to not specify. Regarding previous
VR experience, 31 individuals (22.1%) reported that they have never tried VR
before, 21 (15.0%) used an HMD once, 48 (34.3%) 2-5 times, 35 (25.0%) more
than 5 times, 4 (2.9%) regularly and 1 (0.7%) developer.
5 Results
The majority of participants appreciated our installation: On a scale from 1
(strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) the statement “overall I liked the instal-
lation” achieved an average of 6.22 (standard deviation: 1.07) and the statement
“I would recommend the installation” a mean of 6.14 (standard deviation: 1.09).
For better categorization, we separated this chapter into two subsections. In the
first section, we discuss which features of the installation motivated passers-by
to interact with the setup. In the second section, we investigate the question of
whether VR applications in semi-public spaces require special staging and what
advantages can be derived from creative forms of presentation.
5.1 Motivation
As the main question, we wanted to find out, what factors would motivate in-
dividuals to actively take part in a VR installation in (semi-)public spaces. The
answers we received in the questionnaire are discussed below. The majority (80
persons, 61.1%) took part because they wanted to try VR.Seeing other persons
using the installation was also a huge motivator to try out the setup (60 persons,
45.8%). 28 persons (21.4%) were attracted by observing the floor projection and
24 (18.3%) came by since they wanted to try out unknown hardware. 23 (17.6%)
answered that they were interested in the installation because others told them
about it. 22 (16.8%) were pulled in by other persons.The monitor was a decisive
factor for 12 (9.2%) users to actively try out the exhibit. 13 participants took
the chance to give free-text answers. Their answers ranged from general interest
in the installation up to technical aspects about programming. Many answers
revolved around the topic of combining several devices (i.e. VR with balloon
basket) and staging the exhibition booth.
Regarding the forecast of the technology’s market size worldwide [1] it is to be
expected that VR will discard its aura of the new in the near future and become
a common device in the everyday media routine of many recipients. Therefore
the strongest motivator in this study (“I wanted to try VR”) may soon no longer
be relevant since almost everyone has come into contact with VR before. It is
worthwhile to take a look at the other aspects that also motivated passers-
by to try out the installation. As already stated in the previous paper [16],
the honeypot effect is also a good motivator to convince passers-by. Watching
another person try it out seems to be an excellent way to break down the barriers
Staging VR Exhibits for Bystander Involvement 9
80
60
28 24 23 22
12
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
I wanted to
try VR
I saw others
interac�ng
…of the floor
projec�on
I wanted to
try unknown
hardware
others told
me about it
somebody
pulled me in
…of the
monitor
Fig. 4. Questionnaire answers on “I did use the installation because ...” (absolute
numbers, multiple choice)
to entry. For all designers who want to address this aspect, the question is how
this activity can be staged without exposing the individual user too much.
At this point, the difference between the output devices has to be emphasized.
The current state of the art in staging VR in public spaces is a large screen
mirroring the image of the VR headset in a first-person perspective. However, our
survey showed that over twice as many bystanders were motivated to participate
by the floor projection compared to the monitor. The screen alone was only
relevant for a minority (9.2%) in their individual decision to participate in the
installation.
Looking at the second part of the questionnaire, these findings can be sub-
stantiated. Using a common Likert scale setup, we evaluated different statements
on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
The question of whether the floor projection had increased the interest in the
installation was answered with an average of 5.43 (standard deviation: 1.43). In
comparison, for the monitor, the same question was rated with an average of 4.47
(standard deviation: 1.78). An ANOVA revealed: Users who were attracted by
the floor projection were also more likely to recommend the installation to others
(p<0.05) and to like the visual style (p<0.05). They were also more likely to share
the opinion that the floor projection established a connection between VR and
the real world (p<0.05). Whether the person in VR increased the interest in the
installation was answered with an average of 5.30 (standard deviation: 1.52). We
did not find any statistically significant differences between the genders or age
groups respectively in regards to motivational factors.
All visitors who used the installation filled out the questionnaire afterward.
Among the passers-by who refused to try out the exhibit, the number of people
10 D. Hepperle et al.
who completed the questionnaire was negligible, so eventually we could only
gather six participants who wanted to participate in the survey but not in the
installation. Due to this small sample size, the respective answers are probably
not easy to generalize. For the sake of completeness, their reasons for not taking
part in the balloon ride are briefly explained here (multiple answers possible):
twice it was stated that fear of heights was a decisive factor, twice hygienic
concerns were another criterion and once in each case fear of motion sickness
and being watched by others was an exclusion criterion.
5.2 Staging of VR Installations
Exhibiting VR in semi-public spaces raises the question if and what kind of
staging is necessary to motivate visitors to interact with the exhibit. Without
any further specification, all participating users were asked directly using a Likert
scale from 1 (strongly disagree) and 7 (strongly agree) whether staging of VR
installations has an impact on:
–observing the installation
–interacting with the installation
Across all participants the first question was answered with a mean of 5.67
(standard deviation: 1.21); the second with a mean of 5.76 (standard deviation
1.31). We did not find any statistical significant differences regarding these two
questions across genders as well as users’ prior VR experience or age. Although
these numbers may seem unconvincing at first, we want to point out that staging
VR experiences by including multimodal sensations has further effects that go
beyond the first impression. In total 19 participants (14%) answered that they
have “severely” fear of heights or that they suffer from Acrophobia; 47 partici-
pants (34%) stated that they are “a little” afraid of heights. Motion sickness is
still prevalent among all VR users [15]. In our case almost every fourth visitor
(34 users; 24%) reported that they have previously experienced motion sick-
ness. When asking the participants if they experienced motion sickness during
the balloon ride using a Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) and 7 (strongly
agree), these findings could not be reflected. Among all participants, the mean
value was considerably low (1.61, standard deviation: 1.17). When only users
are examined that had prior experience with motion sickness this value hardly
changes (1.74, standard deviation: 1.29). We interpret this phenomenon that our
installation does not evoke motion sickness, even when sensitive users are put
into consideration. Therefore it seems interesting to find out what exact feature
of the exhibit achieved that desirable effect. We questioned—also via Likert scale
from 1 (strongly disagree) and 7 (strongly agree)—if touching real objects while
in VR improved the overall experience. This question was answered with a mean
of 6.00 (standard deviation: 1.29) for all participants. When only users are put
into consideration that had previously experienced motion sickness, the mean
value changes to 6.42 (standard deviation 1.03). An ANOVA revealed that this
Staging VR Exhibits for Bystander Involvement 11
correlation is statically significant (p<0.05). Therefore, the staging of VR instal-
lations not only offers the potential to motivate more visitors to engage but also
enriches the experience for the user.
Furthermore, the participants could rate if they felt dizzy after the ride. This
question was answered with a mean of 2.32 (standard deviation: 1.69). When
only participants are put into consideration that had previous experience with
motion sickness, this value changes only marginally to 2.78 (standard deviation:
1.88). Also the prevalence of Acrophobia and severe fear of heights had almost no
effect on the incidence of post-ride uneasiness (mean: 2.78, standard deviation:
2.26). We interpret these results in that way that simulator sickness is still a topic
that needs attention but can also be addressed by combining suitable content
with considerate staging.
6 Conclusion
Renowned museums try to make use of the new possibilities VR offers. But
staging VR in semi-public spaces is not yet common. This might be because
even basic VR setups currently require an increased maintenance expanse and
are difficult to handle.
The most influential motivator for visitors to interact with a VR-related ex-
hibit we identified (experience new technology) is not dependent on any staging
at all. In contrast to that, when asked directly, visitors state that staging could
have an impact on the general interest as well as on the final decision to interact.
But the staging of VR installations reveals further advantages: we observed that
motion sickness can be reduced by merging the virtual and physical world accord-
ingly. Staging not only has the potential to convince passers-by to participate
but also has a direct influence on the actual user’s well-being (e.g. not feeling
isolated from the physical surroundings while maintaining a sense of presence).
By articulating the content to the public, a connection is created between the
otherwise isolated VR user and the bystanders. This reduces the fear of entering
VR and, at the same time, improves the VR experience itself because the user
is no longer overwhelmed by the unexpected content, but can mentally adjust
to the environment and the content before the experience.
References
1. Global Augmented/Virtual Reality market size 2016-2023 |Statista (Oct 2019),
https://www.statista.com/statistics/591181/global-augmented-virtual-
reality-market-size, [Online; accessed 7. Oct. 2019]
2. Brignull, H., Rogers, Y.: Enticing people to interact with large public displays in
public spaces. In: Proceedings of INTERACT. vol. 3, pp. 17–24 (2003)
3. Chan, L., Minamizawa, K.: Frontface: Facilitating communication between hmd
users and outsiders using front-facing-screen hmds. In: Proceedings of the 19th
International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices
and Services. pp. 22:1–22:5. MobileHCI ’17, ACM, New York, NY, USA (2017)
12 D. Hepperle et al.
4. Gugenheimer, J., Mai, C., McGill, M., Williamson, J., Steinicke, F., Perlin, K.:
Challenges using head-mounted displays in shared and social spaces. In: Extended
Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
pp. W19:1–W19:8. CHI EA ’19, ACM, New York, NY, USA (2019)
5. Gugenheimer, J., Stemasov, E., Frommel, J., Rukzio, E.: Sharevr: Enabling co-
located experiences for virtual reality between hmd and non-hmd users. In: Pro-
ceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
pp. 4021–4033. ACM (2017)
6. Hepperle, D., W¨olfel, M.: Do you feel what you see? Multimodal perception in
virtual reality. In: Proceedings of the 23rd ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality
Software and Technology. pp. 56:1–56:2. VRST ’17, ACM, New York, NY, USA
(2017)
7. Hoffman, H.G.: Physically touching virtual objects using tactile augmentation en-
hances the realism of virtual environments. In: Proceedings. IEEE 1998 Virtual
Reality Annual International Symposium (Cat. No.98CB36180). pp. 59–63 (1998)
8. Insko, B.E.: Passive Haptics Significantly Enhances Virtual Environments. Ph.D.
thesis (2001)
9. Ishii, A., Suzuki, I., Tsuruta, M., Nakamae, S., Suzuki, J., Ochiai, Y.: Reversecave:
Cave-based visualization methods of public vr towards shareable vr experience. In:
Extended Abstracts of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems. p. VS01. ACM (2018)
10. Lazar, J., Feng, J., Hochheiser, H.: Research Methods in Human-Computer Inter-
action. Elsevier Science (2017)
11. Mai, C., Khamis, M.: Public HMDs: Modeling and understanding user behavior
around public head-mounted displays. In: Proceedings of the 7th ACM Interna-
tional Symposium on Pervasive Displays. pp. 21:1–21:9. PerDis ’18, ACM, New
York, NY, USA (2018)
12. Mai, C., Wiltzius, T., Alt, F., Hussmann, H.: Feeling alone in public: Investigating
the influence of spatial layout on users’ vr experience. In: Proceedings of the 10th
Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. pp. 286–298. NordiCHI ’18,
ACM, New York, NY, USA (2018)
13. Mancini, M.: Pictures at an exposition. Film Comment 19(1), 43 (1983)
14. Pantile, D., Frasca, R., Mazzeo, A., Ventrella, M., Verreschi, G.: New technologies
and tools for immersive and engaging visitor experiences in museums: The evo-
lution of the visit-actor in next-generation storytelling, through augmented and
virtual reality, and immersive 3d projections. In: 2016 12th International Confer-
ence on Signal-Image Technology Internet-Based Systems (SITIS). pp. 463–467
(Nov 2016)
15. Siess, A., Beuck, S., W¨olfel, M.: Virtual Reality–Quo Vadis? How to address the
complete audience of an emerging technology. In: Collaborative European Research
Conference 2017. pp. 245–247 (2017)
16. Siess, A., Hepperle, D., W¨olfel, M., Johansson, M.: Worldmaking: Designing for
Audience Participation, Immersion and Interaction in Virtual and Real Spaces. In:
Brooks, A.L., Brooks, E., Sylla, C. (eds.) Interactivity, Game Creation, Design,
Learning, and Innovation. pp. 58–68. Springer International Publishing, Cham
(2019)
17. Sund´en, E., Lundgren, I., Ynnerman, A.: Hybrid Virtual Reality Touch Table - An
Immersive Collaborative Platform for Public Explanatory Use of Cultural Objects
and Sites. In: Schreck, T., Weyrich, T., Sablatnig, R., Stular, B. (eds.) Eurograph-
ics Workshop on Graphics and Cultural Heritage. The Eurographics Association
(2017)
