Conference PaperPDF Available

Cooperative Visits for Museum WWW Sites



3D interactive interfaces for museum Web sites have sometimes been advocated, but never became really popular. Several reasons have contributed to this lack of success: lack of (serious) 3D for low-medium range machines; cost of development; poor visual quality (crucial for museum applications); lack of real added value (why should I do it?). As matter of fact "traditional", 2D, multimedia sites is what is currently available. New technical developments, such as VRML (or 3DJAVA, in the near future), are slowly changing the situation: cost is not an issue anymore; the technical quality is becoming reasonable. Still, as it was shown also at the 98 version of this conference, there is still a lack of real motivations to go 3D (in an interactive way). In this paper we argue that, cooperative visit could add a decisive motivation. Most of the visitors don't go by themselves to "real" museum; they go with friends (or guide), they talk to each other, they teach (or listen to), they point to exhibits, they follow each other, etc. etc. So there is a complex human interaction, making the experience much more rewarding. The main point of the paper is that adding the possibility of having several "virtual" visitors visiting (from different locations) the same machine, interacting each other, as they do in the real word, can make a virtual visit much more interesting and rewarding. The paper will discuss a prototype developed using a special technique developed at the HOC laboratory of the Politecnico of Milan: VRML-TALK. VRML-Talk is an authoring technique which allows to develop custom 3D environments in which actions and situations can be shared throughout a computer-based network. The VRML-Talk makes use of standard web-based Internet/Intranet technology. It is composed of a VRML (Virtual Reality Modeling Language) graphical engine and a Java-based TCP/IP (the Internet Protocol) communication layer. The two elements are executed together from a single web page which can be browsed with a standard Internet browser such as Netscape. A central server takes care of distributing the events and managing the connections to the cooperative virtual environments. The server application is also written in Java, and can be run on any kind of platform supporting a Java Virtual Machine. When the system is active every single action performed by the user of a 3D virtual world is sent to the server, which broadcasts the event to the other clients, so that the action is propagated to all the other users. Each user can "see" the position of the other users, being represented by avatars. Also a user may look at a world "through the eyes" of an other user. The paper will be presented by demonstrating the effectiveness and the appeal of a demonstrator, that uses VRML-Talk in the context of a (fictitious)museum site. In other words a cooperative visit of several user to the same site will be shown. References [Gar93] Garzotto F., Paolini P., Schwabe D. "HDM - A Model Based Approach to Hypermedia Application Design". ACM Trans. Inf. Syst., 11 (1), January 1993. [Gar98a] Garzotto F., Matera M., Paolini P. «To Use or not to Use? Evaluating the Usability of Museum Web Sites». Proc. of Museum and Web'98 Conference, Toronto, Canada, April 1998. [Gar98b] Garzotto F., Matera M. «A Systematic Method for Hypermedia Usability Inspection». New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia. In print. Proceeding of SIGGRAPH-98, ACM, Orlando Florida, July 1998
5/29/2020 Archives & Museum Informatics: MW99 - Papers
file:///Users/giulianomariagaia/Desktop/mw99/papers/paolini/paolini.html 1/12
Archives & Museum Informatics
2008 Murray Ave.,
Suite D
Pittsburgh, PA
15217 USA
Join our Mailing List.
Cooperative Visits for Museum WWW Sites
Thimoty Barbieri , Politecnico di Milano, Italy
Paolo Loiudice , Politecnico di Milano, Italy
Paolo Paolini , Politecnico di Milano, Italy
Francesca Alonzo , Politecnico di Milano, Italy
Giuliano Gaia , Museo Nazionale della Scienza e della Tecnica,
Table of Contents
1. Introduction and background
2. Our approach, "Shareable Visits" and VRTalk
3. The Shareable Visit to the Virtual Museum of Science and
Technology of Milan
4. Conclusions and future work
5. References
1. Introduction and background (top)
The notion of "Virtual Visit", to any place, or, more specifically,
to a Museum, may take several different meanings; the following
could be examples of them:
a. The virtual visit consists into browsing the web-site of the
museum. The organization of the "virtual" content mimics
the actual organization of the "real" content within the
museum (therefore accepting and reproducing the physical
limitation of it).
b. The virtual visit consists into browsing the web-site of the
museum. The organization of the digital content it is not
related to the actual organization of the actual content
within the museum (therefore neglecting the physical
limitation of it, and fully exploiting the possibilities offered
by Hypermedia).
c. The visit consists into browsing within a "virtual"
representation of the actual building hosting the museum,
with the digital content located and exhibited mimicking the
actual exhibition.
Just to make clear what we mean, let us be more explicit:
a. the "visitor" perceives the content of the museums logically
arranged according to actual arrangement within the
museum; he/she has little understanding (or no
understanding at all) of the museum as a physical facility;
b. the "visitor" is in "hyperspace", not related at all, nor to
the actual logical organization of the content, nor to the
physical appearance of the building;
5/29/2020 Archives & Museum Informatics: MW99 - Papers
file:///Users/giulianomariagaia/Desktop/mw99/papers/paolini/paolini.html 2/12
c. an actual physical visit to real museum is simulated; the
"visitor" perceives both the physical structure of the
museum, and actual location of the exhibits within it.
Which one is the best way of organizing a virtual visit, cannot be
said in general, but it depends upon the goals and the aims of the
intended visit.
If the intention is to allow the "visitor" to precisely organize a
physical visit to the museum, or to let him/her to recall an actual
visit already performed, the virtual visit of type "c" is the most
effective. Also, the visit of type "c" is of particular interest when
the container, i.e. the museum as a building, is interesting, almost
at same level as the content.
If the goal, however, is simply to get the visitor interested in the
content of the museum (possibly, but not necessarily, encouraging
a visit), the approach b is preferable. Approach "a" falls
somehow in between the two extremes, since it communicates the
conceptual organization of the physical museum, but it does not
attempt to visually reproduce it.
In most cases, in current hypermedia, a mixture of different styles
of visits is often used.
Approach "a" and "b" are the most popular, with added,
sometimes, a little of "c".
The "classical" CD-ROM [Art Gallery, 1993], for example, uses
the approach "b", since the actual organization of the museum is
completely neglected. A CD-ROM like [Louvre, 1994] or a site as
[] are between "a" and "b," with the latter
prevailing: the overall organization of the content is independent
from the physical organization of the museum, still the location of
the exhibit in each room is also made available,
A CD-ROM such as [Orsay, 1996], provides a good combination
of "b" and "c", since, at the same time, the museum can be
physically navigated , or the content of the museum can be
browsed independently from the physical organization.
For a number of, mostly technical, reasons, approach "c" is not
very common today, on the web. If not completely missing is used,
in limited amount, as a "divertissement" or as a show of
technology. Within [], for example, a limited
amount of physical rendering of physical rooms is also available,
but it is clearly not being considered as the most important, or a
very important way of accessing the information.
The approach "c", in addition has a serious intrinsic drawback: it
couples technological problems (the choice of tools and of the
delivery platforms, with difficult compatibility among the
different choices), with possible low performances (on the web,
above all), and with a not to accurate rendering of the visual
quality of the exhibits. In all the applications, we have seen so far,
the visitor can look, for example, at paintings hanging from the
walls, but he/she can’t see them with adequate visual quality such
a to appreciate them aesthetically. At most he/she can vaguely
5/29/2020 Archives & Museum Informatics: MW99 - Papers
file:///Users/giulianomariagaia/Desktop/mw99/papers/paolini/paolini.html 3/12
recognize the paintings, and often only with the help of the title
being shown somewhere.
The main point of this paper is not to discuss merits and demerits
of virtual visits nor to discuss technical issues. We wish to discuss,
instead, a related problem: how to transform a lonely experience,
as are the virtual visits today, in a more engaging experience,
where several people can be involved together.
There are computer applications where several people can
interact together: forums, chats, virtual communities, etc, are
places where several people can "virtually" meet, talk to each
other, exchange opinions, share experiences, etc. While engaged in
these activities, however, people do not do anything else, but
interact each other. It is our goal, instead, to provide the "virtual"
visitor of a museum with the possibility of interacting with other
people, while being engaged in a immersive experience of visiting
a museum, with large and deep information being involved,
A second starting point for observation are the typical
"GroupWare" applications Using NetMeeting, combined with
digital videoconferences, for example, two o more people can look
at each other, talk to each other, share applications (e.g. an
hypermedia application or a whiteboard). The interaction has a
good bandwidth ) in the sense that it is easy and effective to
interact with other people. The virtual visit is missing, however.
One of the participants, of course, may start to navigate within a
virtual world. The overall setup, however, is rigid (in the sense
that the application is actually local to one of the participant) and
it is in practice a solitary browsing made visible to others, not a
true cooperation.
In the next section we will examine the possible different
paradigms of interaction, and how we have decided to implement
them in the first prototype.
2. Our approach, "Shareable Visits" and VRTalk (top)
The starting point is to observe how the people interact each other,
while visiting together a museum.
All sorts of different situations may arise, but let us focus, for
simplicity, upon three of them:
A. Visitor X goes alone at the Museum. He/she can browse across
the different rooms, focus upon the exhibits of his/her interest,
resume the wandering. While he/she is doing this, he/she can
look at the other people, see what they are focusing upon,
overhear their conversation, listening to the lecture for a group
of tourists in a guided tour, etc.
B. Visitors X, Y, Z … go to the museum together. They talk each
other, exchanging comments, opinions, suggestions. Again they
can partially share the experience of (some of) the other people
being in the museum at the same time. Sometimes X takes the
lead, conducts the group, and guides the conversation, etc., with
the other members following him/her, listening to him/her and
also exchanging opinions among themselves. At other times Y
(or Z..) takes the leading. The group, anyway, is a loose one: its
members can always go by themselves, or they can stop
5/29/2020 Archives & Museum Informatics: MW99 - Papers
file:///Users/giulianomariagaia/Desktop/mw99/papers/paolini/paolini.html 4/12
somewhere, or form subgroups, …. At moments, however, the
members of the original group rejoin together and proceed in
the visit.
C. There is an organized tour: a group leader goes across the
museum, pointing at the exhibits of special interest; stopping
whenever is needed, providing comments and explanations.
Most of the times the members of the group closely follow the
guide and listen to him/her. Sometimes, however, they
"whisper" comments each other, or they stop somewhere, in
order to look to something of their interest, or they wander
freely around, and then go back to join the group. After a while,
however, the memebers join again the group and continue
following the guide.
A countless number of variations and combination of the above-
mentioned paradigms, i.e. ways of visiting a museum can be devised.
We focus, for simplicity, upon them calling them, respectively, "free-
visit", "loose-group" and "guided-group".
In the rest of this section we will examine, briefly, what type of
functionality we would need in order to support those types of visits,
while in the next section we will examine our specific technical
approach, and a prototype application being developed in cooperation
with the Museum of Science and Technology of Milan.
Our goal is to allow the user experiencing a "virtual visit" to share, at
some degree, the visit with other users. Our starting point has been an
analysis of the three paradigms above described, end trying to
implement them in a virtual visit.
Assuming the subjective point of view of a virtual visitor, the
following elements of a virtual visit have been analyzed:
Whom other visitors may I see.
Who can see me.
I could look at the scene from fixed points of view, or from my
eyes, from the eyes of someone else (e.g. my friend or my
group leader), …
My movement within the virtual scene can be free, can follows
predefined paths, can be dependent upon the movement of
somebody else (e.g. my friend or my group leader), ….
I can talk to everybody else ("broadcast"), I can talk to a single
person ("whisper"), I can talk to a small group of people
("chat"), …
5/29/2020 Archives & Museum Informatics: MW99 - Papers
file:///Users/giulianomariagaia/Desktop/mw99/papers/paolini/paolini.html 5/12
I can listen to everybody, I can listen to a single person, I can
listen to a small group, ..
The messages can remain the same everywhere within a virtual
world, the messages can degrade with distance, the messages
can be confined within a world, or span over to neighboring
worlds, ….
The objects within the virtual world can be "duplicated"
(each one gets his/her copy), shared without possibility
of manipulating them, shared with possibility for
everybody of manipulating them, shared within a group
but duplicated across groups, …
Several other elements could have been considered, of course, but the
above list seemed long enough to us for an initial experiment.
The question then naturally arises: what type of technology should be
used for the virtual visit?
Without getting into technical details, for the time being not
interesting, we rapidly came to the following conclusion: 2D
techniques (the standard Web techniques) are very good at providing
information (images, text, graphic), and very bed for grasping the
overall aspect of a complex situation, with a complex arrangement of
objects, and several people sharing the situation. 3D techniques
(either photographic or graphic) are very good for grasping complex
environments, with several people, and quite bad at communicating
information (images, text, video, etc.) of acceptable quality.
Since our goal was to experiment with cooperation, while performing
virtual visits, we have chosen 3D virtual environment as the fastest
way to get an experimental prototype. Therefore in our current
approach 3D is used to browse the museum and to find the way
around, while standard WWW techniques are used to provide more
substantial information.
VRTalk is our experimental environment; it is a powerful tool that
allows creating Virtual Reality three-dimensional worlds, in which
people can meet, by means of an Internet connection. Each one of the
virtual visitors can remotely explore the Virtual world. In addition a
virtual visitor can examine and interact with components of the
world. Like in a real world situation, a visitor can see where the other
visitors are currently located, where they are going, and what they are
doing. Visitors exchange opinions or information, with other visitors,
through the keyboard. Visitors can interact with 3D objects, sharing
the experience of the interaction, with other visitors.
At the moment the virtual world must be a VRML world (a 3D-Java
version is planned for summer 99).
With respect to standard VRML worlds a few extra lines in the code
are needed in order to declare which objects are "shareable" with
5/29/2020 Archives & Museum Informatics: MW99 - Papers
file:///Users/giulianomariagaia/Desktop/mw99/papers/paolini/paolini.html 6/12
other users. Our experience is that any "reasonable" VRML world can
be shared, at a substantial degree. The little modifications required
today, need an experienced VRML programmer; by the summer 99 a
tool is envisioned in order to automate the transformation.
In terms of delivery, any user connected via Internet, that can execute
a VRML application (i.e. that has the proper VRML plug-ins
installed) can access a VRTalk application.
In terms of performances, we have experienced excellent results using
Intranets based on LAN’s. Using standard Internet connections
degrades performances, of course; in some cases this degradation can
be very disturbing, spoiling the user satisfaction. In other cases,
however, low performances can be even helpful, since in a
cooperative visit everybody should move and react slowly, in order to
get everybody else understanding what he/she is doing or attempting
to do. This point will be exemplified in the next section.
Explaining how VRTalk works, without going into technical details, it
must be said that the shared application runs on a server. All the
clients, i.e. the machines of the actual users, have a local copy of the
shared application. When a client machine (i.e. a visitor) "acts" upon
the world, it "sends" a notification of they action to the server; the
server collects all the notifications of actions, and sends them back to
all the clients. Each client, in turn, when gets notified of an action
performed by someone else, updates its local copy of the shared
application. The mechanism above described explains why there can
be a certain delay between the action performed by Visitor X, and the
awareness of the action by Visitor Y. Therefore the application is
conceived for "well behaving" visitors; in other world VRTalk
supports a cooperative application (where everybody tries to help
everybody else), and not a competitive application, where someone
tries to compete with someone else for resources.
The user of a VRTalk application sees a browser window, which is
split in two parts. The upper half shows the 3D representation on the
world, in which the visitor can move and interact with objects. In this
part the user can also see other visitors moving and performing
actions. A human-shaped figurine, named avatar, represents every
visitor. In the lower half a chat window is provided, in which visitors
can write messages to other visitors, and can read incoming messages.
Textual, audio and video information can be linked directly within the
three-dimensional world, or by popping up contextual 2D web pages
along the VRTalk browser window.
In terms of shaping the cooperation pattern, at discussed in the
previous section, at the moment we are experimenting with very
simplified features, while a more sophisticated environment is
envisioned by the summer 99. At the moment visitors can either
belong to the "global environment" or can cluster themselves into
Groups. The cooperation rules are the following:
Global environment
A visitor sees the world as populated with the avatars of the
other visitors (placed according to the position of each visitor).
A visitor can see through "his eyes" (subjective camera) or
through a set of standard cameras; in the latter case he/she
5/29/2020 Archives & Museum Informatics: MW99 - Papers
file:///Users/giulianomariagaia/Desktop/mw99/papers/paolini/paolini.html 7/12
can’t see his/her own avatar.
A visitor is aware of whoever is in the world (through an
explicit list of names).
The chat is global in the sense that everybody can speak and
everybody gets what is being said.
Each visitor can play the role of group leader, but only one
visitor can play the role at any given time point.
A visitor sees the world as populated with the avatars of the
other visitors (placed according to the position of each visitor),
of his/her own group only.
A visitor can see through "his eyes" (subjective camera) or to a
set of standard cameras; in the latter case he/she can’t see
his/her own avatar.
A visitor can also see through the eyes of the group leader,
i.e. can see at what he/she is looking at.
In the normal situation the visitor can move around
independently from the group leader, and it is up to visitor to
try to "follows" the leader.
If, however, the visitor sees through the eyes of the group
leader, he/she is physically tied to the group leader itself,
following all its movements. When the visitor drops off the
connection with the group leader, he/she will find
himself/herself in the physical position of the group leader.
A visitor is aware of whoever is in the world (through an
explicit list of names), but only within the limits of the group.
The chat is global only within the limits of the group.
In the next section we briefly illustrate, mainly through pictures, a
prototype application, which is a virtual tour within a portion of the
MST (Museum of Science and Technology) of Milan. It is clear that it
is impossible to reproduce on paper the actual "feeling" of a
cooperative virtual visits, but only a few hints are provided.
3. The Shareable Visit to the Virtual Museum of Science and
Technology of Milan (top)
The prototype application allows a virtual visit across a few rooms of
the MST. The MST hosts several objects, artifacts, pictures and
documents concerning the development of science and technology
around the world, but with a specific emphasis upon Italy. The
museum is hosted in an old building, which was used once as a
monastery; one of the nicest spot, in fact, is a cloister. Among the
objects hosted by the museum, specific relevance have the "Leonardo
machines": they are wood machines (build in the period across the
end of the last century and the beginning of this century), trying to
physically recreate what is understandable from the drawings of
Leonardo da Vinci. Most of the machines do actually work, in the
sense that the visitor of the "real" museum may operate them.
In our virtual visit we have reproduced the cloister and a few rooms;
we have "slightly" modified the actual floor plan, since the true one
was a little "boring" for a virtual visit. The rooms are "populated"
with a few interactive virtual machines, in the sense that that the
5/29/2020 Archives & Museum Informatics: MW99 - Papers
file:///Users/giulianomariagaia/Desktop/mw99/papers/paolini/paolini.html 8/12
virtual visitor may interact with them. A few billboards are used to
access standard Web pages providing explanatory text.
Therefore, overall, our virtual reproduction is quite crude or poor. Our
goal, at the moment, is mainly to gain experience with cooperative
visits; by summer ’99 a more refined representation of the museum is
In the experiment, used to generate the pictures, there were four
virtual visitors.
Figure 1 shows the point of view of one of the visitors: he/she sees 2
avatars representing two other people currently visiting the cloister.
Figure 2 shows the cloister with three other visitors and a chat (lower
half of the page) going on among them.
Figure 3 shows a room with one of the machines (a giant screw) that
is possible to interact with. The visitor is actually looking at a group
5/29/2020 Archives & Museum Informatics: MW99 - Papers
file:///Users/giulianomariagaia/Desktop/mw99/papers/paolini/paolini.html 9/12
Figure 4 shows the same situation depicted in picture 3, with the
visitor looking through the eyes of its leader, i.e. looking at what the
leader was actually looking.
4. Conclusions and future work (top)
The authors of this paper have the firm belief that transforming virtual
visits, from an (essentially) lonely experience, into an experience that
can be shared with other people is a very interesting goal.
Applications can range from commercial ones (cooperative shopping)
to cultural ones. Sharing with friends a virtual visit to a museum, for
example, or being lectured by an expert while virtually visiting a
museum, can greatly enhance the pleasure and the cultural outcome
of the experience.
Several problems still make the goal not easily attainable, and we
discuss below a few of them:
visiting a museum while interacting with other people
Interacting with other people, while virtually visiting can
be helpful, or can be disturbing; the same medium (a
very small screen) is used for both activities and the
overall "bandwidth", i.e. the visual communication
capacity, is quite small. In addition current virtual
museums assume that the full screen is available to them;
subtracting part of the small screen for other purposes
can spoil the whole experience. So, should we design
virtual visits (either 2D or 3d) with specific features, in
5/29/2020 Archives & Museum Informatics: MW99 - Papers
file:///Users/giulianomariagaia/Desktop/mw99/papers/paolini/paolini.html 10/12
order to make them suitable for cooperative visits? On
the other hand it is appealing to allow any virtual visit, as
currently designed and implemented, to become
shareable with other visitors
cooperative visits metaphors
As we have briefly discussed in the previous sections,
there are several ways to organize the group of visitors
who can cooperate, several ways to organize what each
visitor can see or can listen to, several ways to coordinate
the movements around, etc.
Our opinion is that we must consider real-life interactions
among visitors as a starting point for requirements, in
order to build the initial prototypes. With these
prototypes we can learn about what virtual visitors like to
use or do not like to use or would desire to have. Later,
on the basis of the previous experiences and user
reactions, we can develop better metaphors and
3D and 2D integration
As we have said in previous sections, we are convinced
that 3D graphic is very god at conveying the physical
appearance of a building and the presence (or absence) of
objects and people in it. 3D technology, however, at the
moment and for a while, does not have the capability of
communicating high quality content.
2D technology, on the contrary, can easily deliver high
quality images, text and graphics; it does not easily allow,
however, to recreate the feeling of being somewhere,
and, even less, of being with someone else.
One possible development is to find a better way to
combine 3D graphics, with standard ways of organizing
web-sites. We need better logical organization, and
smoother ways to perform the transition from one
representation to the other one.
Another possibility is to improve the quality of the 3D
representation, bringing it at the same level as the
standard 2D; this possibility, however, is tied to the
development of technology (both HW and SW), rather
than to the to ability of the application developers.
Performances are an issue for cooperating virtual visits; it
takes a while, over Internet, in order to notify every
virtual visitors of what the other visitors are doing. This
inherent slowness can create three types of problems:
Annoyance of the visitor, for the slowness of the response.
Application confusion and difficulty of coordinating the
5/29/2020 Archives & Museum Informatics: MW99 - Papers
file:///Users/giulianomariagaia/Desktop/mw99/papers/paolini/paolini.html 11/12
Think, for example, of visitors X and Y, both
wishing to move an object a little bit on the
X does it, and after a while Y (who has not
received, yet, the notification of the action of
X) does the same; the result is that the object
gets moved twice as much as it was desired.
If now both visitors want to remove the
anomaly and move the object a little on the
left, the same wrong procedure can be
System trash.
The slowness of the incoming messages and
the sudden bursts of messages coming from
several clients at the same time may confuse
the server.
On the ground of the above considerations, the following is our
research agenda for the near future:
to better understand the nature of a cooperative virtual visit,
and to improve (also completing) the prototype application for
the MST, in order to meet those requirements.
To define a wide range of ways of cooperating for virtual
visitors and to implement them.
To better coordinate the relationship between the 3D
environment and a standard, well-structured, WWW site, also
improving the transition from one representation to the other
To develop a better communication among visitors, in order to
improve their interaction, and also trying to avoid chaotic
The above agenda should be completed by the summer ’99. Even
before that time (around the spring 99) we will start, in cooperation
with the Museum of Science and Technology, collecting data about
the user satisfaction and about usability of the application. The data
collected from usability testing and the user reactions, will be the
ground to devise better ways to let the "visitors" to cooperate, while
performing their virtual visits.
5. References  (top)
Rohel B., Couch J., Reed-Ballereich C., Rohaly T., Brown G. (1997).
Late Night VRML 2.0 with Java. Emeryville (CA): Ziff-Davis Press.
Journal Articles:
Garzotto F., Paolini P., Schwabe D. (1993). HDM - A Model Based
Approach to Hypertext Application Design in ACM Trans. on
Information Systems, Vol. 11, No. 1, Jan.
5/29/2020 Archives & Museum Informatics: MW99 - Papers
file:///Users/giulianomariagaia/Desktop/mw99/papers/paolini/paolini.html 12/12
Garzotto F., Mainetti L., Paolini P. (Oct. 1996). Navigation Patterns in
Museum Hypermedia in Proc. ICHIM'95 - International Conference
on Hypermedia for Museums, S. Diego (CA).
Garzotto F., Mainetti L., Paolini P. (Oct. 1996 ). Navigation Patterns
in Museum Hypermedia in Proc. ICHIM'95 - International
Conference on Hypermedia for Museums, S. Diego (CA).
Garzotto F., Matera M., Paolini P. (April 1998). To Use or Not to
Use? Evaluating Usability of Museum Web Sites Proc. of M&W'98 -
International Conference on Museums and Web, Toronto, Canada.
Electronic Materials with No Printed Analogue:
Reunion des Muséés Nationaux (1994). Le Louvre. CD ROM.
Mountparnasse Multimédie.
Reunion des Muséés Nationaux (1996). Musées d'Orsay. CD ROM.
Mountparnasse Multimédie.
Art Gallery (1993) The Collection of the National Art Gallery,
London. Microsoft.
Web sites:
Lombard University Consortium Internet Access:
National Gallery of Art:
Silicon Graphics - References to Cosmo Software Products
... Questo aspetto sociale non riguarda solo il web a due dimensioni, quello a cui siamo abituati, ma anche i mondi a tre dimensioni. Jaron Lanier, il creatore del concetto di Realtà Virtuale nei primi anni Ottanta ha definito in maniera netta l'importanza della presenza umana nei mondi virtuali: "The visceral realness of human presence within an avatar is the most dramatic sensation I have felt in Virtual Reality" (Lanier 2017, p. 179) Nel 1999 ad esempio il Museo della Scienza e della Tecnologia di Milano, in collaborazione con il Politecnico di Milano, ha realizzato Leonardo Virtuale, un sistema di visualizzazione multiutente di un museo virtuale (Gaia et al. 1999). Il sistema permetteva ad utenti di tutto il mondo di collegarsi ad una ricostruzione virtuale in tre dimensioni del Museo ed esplorarlo sia in modalità individuale sia seguendo visite guidate, come pure di interagire con gli altri utenti presenti nel sistema via chat. ...
Full-text available
Conference Paper
LA PRIMA VISITA VIRTUALE-11 MARZO 2020 InvisibleStudio, studio di innovazione culturale fondato da Stefania Boiano e Giuliano Gaia, svolge un'intensa attività didattica nel campo culturale in collaborazione con diverse università ed enti privati di formazione. In collaborazione con uno di questi enti, RCS Academy, era prevista per l'11 marzo 2020 una visita al Museo Poldi Pezzoli per i circa 20 partecipanti al master di Management della Cultura e dei Beni Artistici. Purtroppo, come noto, proprio in quei giorni l'Italia entrava in lockdown totale. Il Museo Poldi Pezzoli, nella persona della Responsabile della Promozione Stefania Rossi, e InvisibleStudio si sono quindi trovati nella necessità di decidere immediatamente se annullare la visita o tentare comunque di condurla virtualmente. Di comune accordo si è deciso di tentare ugualmente la visita a museo chiuso, sfruttando le tecnologie già esistenti: le riproduzioni fotografiche in 3D del museo effettuate da Google Arts&Culture e la piattaforma di videoconferenza Zoom. (Boiano, Gaia 2020) Fig. 1-Visita Virtuale al Museo Poldi Pezzoli nel marzo 2020 Google Arts&Culture è una piattaforma gratuita offerta da Google per la fruizione dei beni culturali. Una delle sue caratteristiche principali è la ricreazione online degli ambienti dei musei aderenti al progetto tramite riprese fotografiche a 360°. Tali ambienti possono essere poi percorsi online dagli
Full-text available
Hypertext development should benefit from a systematic, structured development, especially in the case of large and complex applications. A structured approach to hypertext development suggests the notion of authoring-in-the-large. Authoring-in-the-large allows the description of overall classes of information elements and navigational structures of complex applications without much concern with implementation details, and in a system-independent manner. The paper presents HDM (Hypertext Design Model), a first step towards defining a general purpose model for authoring-in-the-large. Some of the most innovative features of HDM are: the notion of perspective; the identification of different categories of links (structural links, application links, and perspective links) with different representational roles; the distinction between hyperbase and access structures; and the possibility of easily integrating the structure of a hypertext application with its browsing semantics. HDM can be used in different manners: as a modeling device or as an implementation device. As a modeling device, it supports producing high level specifications of existing or to-be-developed applications. As an implementation device, it is the basis for designing tools that directly support application development. One of the central advantages of HDM in the design and practical construction of hypertext applications is that the definition of a significant number of links can be derived automatically from a conceptual-design level description. Examples of usage of HDM are also included.
Electronic Materials with No Printed Analogue: Reunion des Muséés Nationaux
  • F Garzotto
  • M Matera
  • P Paolini
Garzotto F., Matera M., Paolini P. (April 1998). To Use or Not to Use? Evaluating Usability of Museum Web Sites Proc. of M&W'98 -International Conference on Museums and Web, Toronto, Canada. Electronic Materials with No Printed Analogue: Reunion des Muséés Nationaux (1994). Le Louvre. CD ROM. Mountparnasse Multimédie.