Access to this full-text is provided by MDPI.
Content available from Multimodal Technologies and Interaction (MTI)
This content is subject to copyright.
Citation: Koutsabasis, P.;
Partheniadis, K.; Gardeli, A.;
Vogiatzidakis, P.; Nikolakopoulou, V.;
Chatzigrigoriou, P.; Vosinakis, S.;
Filippidou, D.E. Co-Designing the
User Experience of Location-Based
Games for a Network of Museums:
Involving Cultural Heritage
Professionals and Local
Communities. Multimodal Technol.
Interact. 2022,6, 36. https://doi.org/
10.3390/mti6050036
Academic Editors: Laura Maye and
Caroline Claisse
Received: 28 December 2021
Accepted: 27 April 2022
Published: 4 May 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Multimodal Technologies
and Interaction
Article
Co-Designing the User Experience of Location-Based Games for
a Network of Museums: Involving Cultural Heritage
Professionals and Local Communities
Panayiotis Koutsabasis 1, * , Konstantinos Partheniadis 1, Anna Gardeli 1, Panagiotis Vogiatzidakis 1,
Vasiliki Nikolakopoulou 1, Pavlos Chatzigrigoriou 1, Spyros Vosinakis 1and Despina Elizabeth Filippidou 2
1Interactive Systems Design Lab, Department of Product and Systems Design Engineering, University of
the Aegean, GR-84100 Hermoupolis, Greece; partheniadis.k@gmail.com (K.P.); agardeli@aegean.gr (A.G.);
panosvog@syros.aegean.gr (P.V.); v.nikolakopoulou@aegean.gr (V.N.); pavlos.chatzi@aegean.gr (P.C.);
spyrosv@aegean.gr (S.V.)
2Dotsoft S.A., GR-54625 Thessaloniki, Greece; elizabeth@dotsoft.gr
*Correspondence: kgp@aegean.gr
Abstract:
The design of location-based games (LBGs) for cultural heritage should ensure the active
participation and contribution of local communities and heritage professionals to achieve contextual
relevance, importance, and content validity. This paper presents an approach and methods of the
participatory and co-design of LBGs that promote awareness and learning about the intangible
cultural heritage of craftsmanship and artisanal technology throughout a long-term project from
sensitization to implementation. Following the design thinking process, we outline the participatory
methods (and reflect on results and lessons learnt) of involving cultural heritage professionals, local
communities, and visitors (users) of museums and cultural settlements, mainly: field visits, design
workshops, field playtesting, and field studies. We discuss issues of participatory design that we
experienced throughout the project such as participant centrality and representativeness, producing
tangible output from meetings, co-creation of content via playtesting, and implications from the
pandemic. This work contributes a case of participatory and co-design of LBGs for cultural heritage
that is characterized by longevity and engagement throughout the design process for three LBGs of a
museum network in different cultural sites.
Keywords:
mobile location-based games; cultural heritage; local communities; cultural heritage
professionals; design thinking; field visits; field playtesting; field study; constructive interaction;
MDA (Mechanics, Dynamics, Aesthetics); user experience; evaluation
1. Introduction
Over the last few years, there has been a notable increase in the development of inter-
active systems in museums, archaeological sites, and historical buildings or settlements for
visitors to access related digital content and augment their experience and knowledge about
the cultural heritage (CH) of tangible artifacts and intangible traditions. The development
of interactive technologies for cultural heritage is often guided by technological advances
and experimentation [
1
], rather than participatory design practice in co-operation with
heritage professionals and local communities such as museum curators and staff, folk-
lorists, archaeologists, architects, exhibition designers, local heritage scholars, experts, and
educators, etc. Community-based design in cultural heritage projects can be an enriching
and valuable process [2].
Location-based games (LBGs) for cultural heritage aim to convey stories and knowl-
edge about cultural heritage via various playful and engaging design patterns, such as
storytelling, role-playing, and treasure-hunts [
3
]. They are evolving into a game genre with
a unique combination of features [4]:
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2022,6, 36. https://doi.org/10.3390/mti6050036 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/mti
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2022,6, 36 2 of 30
•
They are concerned with the creation of awareness and learning about the heritage
of various cultural sites, such as GLAM (galleries, libraries, archives, museums),
archaeological sites, cities, or settlements of important heritage, etc.
•
Gameplay is interwoven with multifarious cultural content: narrative, characters,
media, photographs, 3D models, challenges, hints, rewards, etc.
•Cultural heritage content must be reviewed by heritage experts.
•A mobile game for cultural heritage must allow players (visitors of a heritage site) to
observe and explore the place at their own pace.
•
Players are expected to be pairs or small groups—people rarely visit cultural sites alone.
The design of mobile LBGs for cultural heritage presents numerous challenges that
must be addressed in close co-operation with local communities, cultural heritage profes-
sionals, and end-users (visitors of a cultural site), such as:
•
The locations or points of interest (POI) that can be included in the game must be
related to landmarks, monuments, and associated facts or stories about local cultural
heritage to afford contextual learning and sense-making.
•
Documentation about local heritage may include books, newspaper articles, pho-
tographs, testimonies, music, songs, etc., that can be provided by the local community
and professionals to allow for culturally accurate and valid content.
•
Various social, economic, political, and technological conditions affect the evolution of
local heritage in ways that may be better told to the design team by those who have
rigorously studied or experienced them.
•
There are often many intangible aspects of local heritage [
5
] such as oral traditions, social
practices and conventions, knowledge and practices concerning local nature and climate,
and skills to produce traditional crafts that must be incorporated into the game.
•
The cultural content must be curated and validated in close co-operation with local
communities and cultural heritage professionals.
•
Last but not least, the game must be played and tested in the field with visitors (end-
users), heritage professionals, and the community, all of whom may bring a different
perspective to some extent.
This paper presents an approach and methods for the participatory co-design of
location-based mobile games that promote awareness and learning about the (tangible and
intangible) cultural heritage of craftsmanship and artisanal technology. The approach and
methods are based on the design thinking process and concern a ‘suite’ or family of mobile
games for a museum network which have been developed in terms of a long-term project
with numerous participatory activities (field visits, online prototyping, field playtesting,
and field studies) from sensitization to implementation.
The paper is structured as follows: Section 2presents related work in terms of co-
design in cultural heritage in general, and in LBGs for cultural heritage in particular.
Section 3briefly presents the Mouseion Topos project, in the context of which this work
has been carried out. Section 4presents the participatory design activities followed for
the development of mobile games. These are mapped onto the design thinking process,
which was followed throughout the project. For each design activity, we report and reflect
on participants, methods, and results. Section 5discusses several issues of participation
and co-design that were realized in the overall development of mobile games. Section 6
presents the summary and conclusion.
2. On the Context of This Work: The Mouseion Topos Project
The mobile game design and development has been carried out in terms of the Mou-
seion Topos project [
6
] which is a collaborative R&D project with the aim of promoting
the cultural heritage of Aegean islands’ craftsmanship through actions of digitization,
development of interactive systems, and sustainability (Figure 1). Digitization involves
actions of digital documentation, the preservation of tangible artifacts mainly found in
local museums (exhibits), as well as architectural heritage [7]. Development of interactive
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2022,6, 36 3 of 30
systems involves kinesthetic installations and, more importantly for this paper, mobile
learning games that connect three museums of the Aegean with the nearby settlements:
•
In Tinos Island and the settlement of Pyrgos, the Museum of Marble Crafts presents
Tinian Marble Craftmanship [
8
]: the technology of marble, which holds a particular
place in Greek architecture and art, through the meshing of tools and techniques used
in working marble with the social and economic context.
•
In Lesvos island and the settlement of Aghia Paraskevi, the Museum of Industrial
Olive Production (olive oil is at the heart of the Mediterranean diet [
9
]) presents
the industrial heritage of the olive oil sector and incorporates it into the broader
architectural, social, and cultural context of the late 18th century.
•
In Chios island, the Mastic Museum presents the production history of the mastic tree’s
cultivation [
10
] and the processing of its resin, which it integrates into the cultural
landscape of Chios.
These museums are part of a broader network of nine museums (PIOP museum net-
work [
11
]) that support the preservation and showcasing of Greece’s cultural heritage, with
an emphasis on its artisanal and industrial technology. Thus, these mobile games are about a
network of museums. They share common system design and gameplay but have different
visual identities, media, content, and graphics inspired by local context and heritage.
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2022, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 31
promoting the cultural heritage of Aegean islands’ craftsmanship through actions of dig-
itization, development of interactive systems, and sustainability (Figure 1). Digitization
involves actions of digital documentation, the preservation of tangible artifacts mainly
found in local museums (exhibits), as well as architectural heritage [7]. Development of
interactive systems involves kinesthetic installations and, more importantly for this paper,
mobile learning games that connect three museums of the Aegean with the nearby settle-
ments:
• In Tinos Island and the settlement of Pyrgos, the Museum of Marble Crafts presents
Tinian Marble Craftmanship [8]: the technology of marble, which holds a particular
place in Greek architecture and art, through the meshing of tools and techniques used
in working marble with the social and economic context.
• In Lesvos island and the settlement of Aghia Paraskevi, the Museum of Industrial
Olive Production (olive oil is at the heart of the Mediterranean diet [9]) presents the
industrial heritage of the olive oil sector and incorporates it into the broader archi-
tectural, social, and cultural context of the late 18th century.
• In Chios island, the Mastic Museum presents the production history of the mastic
tree’s cultivation [10] and the processing of its resin, which it integrates into the cul-
tural landscape of Chios.
These museums are part of a broader network of nine museums (PIOP museum net-
work [11]) that support the preservation and showcasing of Greece’s cultural heritage,
with an emphasis on its artisanal and industrial technology. Thus, these mobile games are
about a network of museums. They share common system design and gameplay but have
different visual identities, media, content, and graphics inspired by local context and her-
itage.
Figure 1. Concept model of the Mouseion Topos project.
Figure 1. Concept model of the Mouseion Topos project.
3. Related Work: Co-Design in Cultural Heritage and Location-Based Games
3.1. Background on Co-Design and Participatory Design
Co-design is an approach or movement that draws on relevant approaches, such as
participatory design, collaborative design, and user-centered design. Participatory de-
sign [
12
] has its roots in the demand for community (or labor) participation in public (or
corporate) management. It includes methods mainly from the fields of action research and
sociotechnical design and emphasizes the role of stakeholders such as citizens, employees,
public bodies, customers, and end-users in decision making. Collaborative design [
13
]
has its roots in complex product design engineering practice (e.g., automation, mechanical
engineering, etc.), and emphasizes closely coupled, synchronous, intense co-operation
among designers who put together their skills and expertise to creatively produce con-
cept proposals or engineering solutions to design problems [
14
]. User-centered design
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2022,6, 36 4 of 30
(UCD) [
15
] is a design philosophy in which users are involved throughout the research and
development process, emphasizing empirical research and evaluation activities.
Co-design encourages joint design activity among end-users and designers aimed at
the co-creation or production of artifacts or information that may be directly or indirectly
incorporated into the final product [
16
]. These productions can reveal, implicitly or ex-
plicitly, tacit knowledge, values, and preferences about their anticipated user experience.
According to [
17
], design activity of products, systems, or services is essentially about
user experience, which may be revealed not only by what people say (e.g., via interview
methods), or do (e.g., via observation or self-reporting methods), but also by what people
make in productive co-design activities that have been planned and prepared by profes-
sional designers. Co-design is often carried out with co-design toolkits [
18
], i.e., a set of
paper-based or tangible artifacts that are used, modified, or articulated by participants and
may be studied at a later stage by the design team to reveal aspects of the UX. Co-design
toolkits are common in some cases of co-design (for example with/for children [
19
]), but
they are not common in cultural heritage projects where more participatory methods are
employed, such as co-design workshops.
Over the last few years, co-design has often been referred to in a broader sense than
co-creation activities and includes methods of participatory sensitization and decision-
and sense-making [
20
]. Thus, it may also refer to creative methods of talking about user
experiences (e.g., via storytelling [
21
] and workplace walkthroughs [
22
]) or doing (e.g.,
role-play and bodystorming [
23
]). Additionally, not only end-users may be involved in
co-design; other stakeholders are often invited to participate in the co-design activities [
24
].
Last but not least, the importance of long-term co-design has been acknowledged in
collaborative projects [25].
3.2. Participatory Design and Co-Design in Location-Based Games for Cultural Heritage
Participatory design and co-design activity in games for cultural heritage often in-
volves children [
26
–
28
]. In these cases, the aim is to develop serious games played from a
personal computer or the web, and not LBGs. There are not many approaches to co-design
with children for mobile games, possibly since location and context matter the most, and
an approach to inquiry about these with children would not suffice. Visiting a museum is a
social experience and people often come in small groups, such as friends, families, tourists,
etc. [
29
]. The involvement of families and groups of friends in co-design activity is again
not common for the case of interactive technologies for cultural heritage, and these groups
often provide input with participatory user research methods.
Location-based games for cultural heritage are a game genre with a unique combi-
nation of features [
4
]. They are played at various cultural sites such as GLAM (galleries,
libraries, archives, museums), archaeological sites, cities, or settlements of important her-
itage, etc. Gameplay is interwoven with multifarious cultural content: narrative, characters,
media, photographs, 3D models, challenges, hints, rewards, etc. Cultural heritage content
must be reviewed by heritage experts. A mobile game for cultural heritage must allow play-
ers (visitors of a heritage site) to observe and explore the place at their own pace. Players
are expected to be in pairs or small groups since people rarely visit cultural sites alone.
Earlier LBGs include the works of [
30
,
31
]. These works do not explicitly describe
methods for involving cultural heritage professionals in the design process, but they
indicate the active participation of users in the design process as an item of future research,
i.e., “for future research, it is suggested that the effects of game-based learning when pupils
not only play the game but are also involved in the creation of the game”. Later work in
mobile LBGs for cultural heritage often emphasizes important technical challenges such as
the work of [
32
], that makes use of Beacon sensors [
33
] for outdoor navigation, or the works
of [
34
,
35
] that apply augmented reality technology for mobile games in archaeological sites.
There are a few cases of co-design and participatory design of LBGs for cultural
heritage, which are summarized in Table 1. These cases present high variability in terms
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2022,6, 36 5 of 30
of the methodology/process, the methods employed, co-design participants, and type of
project (duration, game genre, etc.).
Bowser et al. (2013) [
36
] present PLACE, an iterative mixed-fidelity approach to Pro-
totyping Location, Activities, Collective experience, and Experience over time in LBGs.
PLACE consists of six design principles: start small and scale up the fidelity, treat partici-
pants as co-designers, test in a representative space, focus on activities more than interfaces,
respect authentic social experience, and represent time authentically. PLACE was em-
ployed in the design of ‘Floracaching’, a geocaching game for citizen science. Applying
PLACE requires a series of incremental design workshops with experts (plant experts),
designers, and developers who co-operatively prototype mixed fidelity prototypes. For
each workshop, the issues of location, activities, experience, and experience over time are
revisited among design participants.
Luiro et al. (2019) [
37
] present the co-design approach of a LBG about local history.
The approach involved a field trip to the location (the town of Kemijärvi, Northern Finland),
storytelling design, character design, and field testing. Co-design participants included a
local travel agency, local museum staff, and a historian. The content is about the town’s
history in the 1920s. This approach is similar to ours in the sense that it involves local
experts in various stages of the design process; however, the design methods and results
are not discussed in detail.
Jones and Papangelis (2019) [
38
] present the activity of board games as a method
to simulate the gameplay of a mobile LBG in the course of game design. Board games
are played by potential users who interact with each other under the supervision of a
game master. During board game play, the players review the game and provide various
types of feedback that is recorded and considered for the design of the LBG. The board
game may be redesigned and played again to test design improvements. This work did not
include cultural heritage experts to validate stories, content, or context and this would be an
important improvement. The games have been developed and tested in the field. A similar
approach was also followed in [
39
], where the iterative process of paper prototyping using a
board game was employed to co-design a location-based mobile application with potential
end users that aimed to motivate user reflection on historical topics about migration.
Slingerland et al. (2020) [
40
] have conducted co-creation workshops and field playtesting
to design location-based activities that can challenge citizens to explore their neighborhood in
playful new ways. Co-creation workshops involved the inhabitants of the neighborhood in
diverge–converge techniques about game design, challenges, and later in field playtesting
with the aim of collecting insights on the game. Previous mobile game design approaches
based on workshops include the MuseUs mobile game [
41
] in which players are invited to
create their own personal exposition of exhibits during a museum visit.
These approaches to the co-design of mobile games for cultural heritage present
specific tools or techniques that require contextual preparation and experienced moderation
to produce useful design artifacts. Additionally, they emphasize joint co-creation among
designers, users, and other stakeholders. Nevertheless, they do not present a holistic, ‘from
start to end’, design process to engage end-users and cultural heritage experts in co-design
activities over the course of a long-term project. In addition, it is not clear how particular
techniques such as board games, gameplay experiences, and workshops might be re-used
or adapted to similar contexts, e.g., in the case of a family of mobile games.
The work presented in this paper differs from previous approaches in a number of
dimensions: (a) it is about the case of a long-term project with many participatory activities
(such as field visits, online prototyping, field playtesting, and field studies) from sensitization
to implementation; (b) it is concerned with the co-design of a ‘suite’ or family of LBGs of a
museum network with a common general theme (intangible heritage of artisanal technology
and craftsmanship); (c) it presents the design of transferable user experience (UX) for mobile
games that have common conceptual design refined to the specifics of each case; and (d) it
applies a common generic approach, based on the thinking process, in different cultural sites.
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2022,6, 36 6 of 30
Table 1. Summary of co-design and participatory design approaches for location-based games for cultural heritage.
Citation LBG Genre (s) Cultural Heritage Project Duration Methodology or
Process Phase(s) Method(s) Participant
Group(s) Product
Bowser et al.
(2013) [36]Geocaching
Natural heritage
(local flora),
citizen science
Short (iterative
sessions)
PLACE
(Prototyping,
Location,
Activities,
Collective
Experience)
Prototype
Iterative
prototyping from
low to high
fidelity
Players One LBG.
Luiro et al. (2019)
[37]
Exploratory
learning,
storytelling
Local history Unspecified Unspecified Empathize, ideate,
test
Field trip,
narrative design,
character design,
field test
Local travel
agencies, museum
staff, art historian
One LBG.
Slingerland et al.
(2020) [40]
Exploratory
learning
Neighbourhood
stories
Short (iterative
workshops, two
weeks)
Unspecified Define, ideate, test
Co-creation
workshops, field
playtesting
Players
(neighbours) One LBG.
Jones and
Papangelis (2020)
Storytelling,
treasure hunt
Location—based
game; cultural
heritage (urban
history)
Short (three
co-creation
sessions)
Unspecified Define, ideate Board game Students (as
potential players)
Two LBGs for two
cities (different
UX).
This paper:
Role playing,
storytelling,
tresure hunt
Industrial heritage
(tangible and
intangible)
Long (over two
years)
Design thinking
process
Empathize, define,
ideate, prototype,
test, implement
Field visits,
workshops,
laboratory user
testing, experts’
field playtesting,
field studies
User groups, local
community, peers
(designers,
developers)
Three LBGs for
three cultural sites,
transferable UX.
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2022,6, 36 7 of 30
4. Participatory Design Based on Design Thinking Process: Participants, Methods,
and Results
In the context of the development of the Mouseion Topos project, we organized the
participation of cultural heritage experts and users in various co-design or participatory
design activities, mapping them onto the phases of the design thinking process. Design
thinking was proposed in the early 1990s by David Kelley and Tim Brown of IDEO as
an encapsulation of several methods and ideas into a single unified concept [
42
]. It is a
mindset that promotes the co-operation of designers, users, and other stakeholders in joint
learning and creative activities, and also a process to achieve these. According to the N/Ng
(Nielsen/Norman group) [43], the design thinking process comprises of 6 distinct phases:
•
Empathize: conduct contextual research to gain knowledge about users and their
experience.
•Define: identify user needs and project goals based on user experience research.
•Ideate: generate creative ideas for addressing user needs and meeting project goals.
•
Prototype: create representations and artifacts that demonstrate the ideas in practice
and test quickly and internally.
•Test: show prototype(s) to users and gather feedback for improvements.
•
Implement: refine, publish, and release the product, system, or service and ensure that
it reaches the intended users and groups.
We have adopted and refined various methods, principles, and resources that were
appropriate at each phase of the process. These methods combine joint activities (field
visits, content authoring, field playtesting, or studies) in the research and evaluation phases
of the project, along with design review activities (brief/MDA, concept) by local experts
and users. More specifically, we co-operated with various experts and users, who can be
classified into the following groups:
•
Cultural heritage professionals: these were the museum network research staff with
various backgrounds (archaeology, museology, project management), museum cura-
tors, and museum staff including local administration and guides.
•
Community: these were citizens or inhabitants of the settlements, local educators
and pupils, local heritage experts, local scientific advisors of the museums of various
backgrounds (e.g., folklorists, researchers on mastic applications), local craftsmen, and
producers. Notably, museum staff were also members of the local community.
•
Visitors of the museum and the settlement: mainly tourists, pupils, and educators
during school visits.
•Designers: interaction and UX designers, software developers, and HCI researchers.
In Figure 2we present the design thinking process of mobile games for cultural
heritage emphasizing participant groups, methods, and results. We report on method
selection, application, main results, reflections, and lessons learnt in the remainder of
this section.
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2022,6, 36 8 of 30
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2022, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 31
Figure 2 Illustration of main participant groups, methods, and results of participatory development
and co-design of mobile games for cultural heritage.
4.1. Empathizing with People, Location, Context, and Heritage
4.1.1. Methods
The first stage of the process is to empathize with the people, the context, and the
heritage. The main method employed for that purpose was field visits. At the start of the
project, one field visit with the whole of the design team was conducted for each museum
and settlement. Throughout the duration of the project, other field visits also took place
with fewer design team members. The first field visits were most important because they
actually initiated the project. Each one lasted 3 days in total. Each day was fast-paced with
an agenda of various participatory UX research activities: observation, interview, and con-
textual inquiries with the participation of the local community, heritage professionals, and
visitors of the museum and the settlement. Each field visit had the following general plan
as outlined in the four paragraphs below.
Museum/settlement guided tour. The guided tour in the museum was one of the first
activities of each field visit. It was conducted by the local museum director and staff, the
research personnel of the museum, and the design team. The guided tour in the settlement
Figure 2.
Illustration of main participant groups, methods, and results of participatory development
and co-design of mobile games for cultural heritage.
4.1. Empathizing with People, Location, Context, and Heritage
4.1.1. Methods
The first stage of the process is to empathize with the people, the context, and the
heritage. The main method employed for that purpose was field visits. At the start of the
project, one field visit with the whole of the design team was conducted for each museum
and settlement. Throughout the duration of the project, other field visits also took place
with fewer design team members. The first field visits were most important because they
actually initiated the project. Each one lasted 3 days in total. Each day was fast-paced
with an agenda of various participatory UX research activities: observation, interview, and
contextual inquiries with the participation of the local community, heritage professionals,
and visitors of the museum and the settlement. Each field visit had the following general
plan as outlined in the four paragraphs below.
Museum/settlement guided tour. The guided tour in the museum was one of the first
activities of each field visit. It was conducted by the local museum director and staff, the
research personnel of the museum, and the design team. The guided tour in the settlement
was conducted by selected members of the community administration: a major, the ex-
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2022,6, 36 9 of 30
major, and a member of the local administration, all of whom were heavily involved in the
creation and operation of the local museums as well.
Observations of visitors in the museum/settlement: We adopted a number of
observation
strategies
to learn about visitors, local context, and heritage, especially those of: ‘the fly on
the wall’, i.e., discrete and remote observation from selected viewpoints; and ‘shadowing’,
i.e., discrete following of visitors to get a sense of their journey. Observation was a continu-
ous process that occurred in the intervals of meetings and interviews. During observation
we took various notes, several photos, and videos that were put into a shared repository
for further study. Several of these were re-used in mobile app design and development.
Interviews with community members, heritage professionals, and visitors: We interviewed a
range of people in each field visit.
Interviews
were held in the most appropriate place to
allow for cues about heritage. For example, we interviewed former workers and masters
of olive oil production in the main hall of the museum (former olive press) where the
action took place, and the machinery was switched on to allow for schematic and bodily
illustration of the work. In the case of mastic heritage, we visited mastic fields and talked
to mastic producers about the cultivation process. We also visited the Chios gum mastic
growers’ association [
44
] to learn more about current research and applications of the
mastic resin. In the case of Tinian marble crafts, we visited two marble sculptors in their
workshops, where we talked with them as they were working and also had the chance to
experience the tools and processes. We also talked with the local scientific advisor of the
museum (folklorist) who provided us with hand-written notes of a tour and game that he
had developed for school visits at the settlement of Pyrgos.
Contextual inquiry with community members, heritage professionals, and museum staff: We
conducted
contextual inquiry
sessions with museum staff to learn about their everyday
work with an emphasis on tacit knowledge, possible breakdowns, and concerns that might
be addressed by the project. These were mainly related to issues about ensuring that the
museum is up and running according to schedule and providing quality information and
services to various kinds of visitors.
4.1.2. Results and Reflection
Field visits produced a wealth of insights and possibilities about the design of mobile
LBGs (Figure 3). We collected several
stories and experiences
about cultural heritage
from the local community and the museums while also highlighting visitor
journeys
and
identifying expectations from their visits.
Field visits were an exciting sensitization and learning experience for the design team
as well. The motivation of the team was strengthened after the field visits. We also estab-
lished sub-teams to further work on aspects of the mobile game design. The participatory
approach was also appreciated by the local community and heritage professionals. This laid
the ground for further contacts and collaboration throughout the duration of the project.
Thus, we established several points of contact with external experts and user groups.
An important result from the field visits related to the
resources and materials
ob-
tained. We took several hundred photographs and videos from places in the settlements,
museum exhibits, spaces, and visitors and their experiences. We identified possibilities of
cultural content for the mobile game based on museum exhibits, landmarks, and monu-
ments in settlements, as well as stories, and facts about heritage told by the local community
and presented at the museums. We were also provided with valuable resources, including
books about the history of settlements, books about aspects of cultural heritage (such as
about marble crafts tools and techniques [45]), and museum guides.
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2022,6, 36 10 of 30
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2022, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 31
Figure 3. Photographs from field visits. Left, up: Tinos, museum of marble crafts; observation of two
pupils who are watching a video in front of tools and marbles in the quarry section. Left, down:
Tinos, settlement; a member of the design team is learning to apply marble sculpting tools in a
workshop. Center, up: Lesvos, museum; a master of olive oil production explains the works to the
design team. Center, down: Lesvos, settlement; the design team on their way to the town hall, one
of the historic buildings in the settlement. Right, up: Chios, mastic museum; guided tour. Right,
down: Chios, settlement; a member of the design team taking video notes.
4.2. (Re-) Defining and Reviewing Goals, Needs, and Elements of Mobile Games
4.2.1. Methods
During the second stage of the process, the design team worked in co-operation with
cultural heritage professionals on the basis of insights from field visits. After several dis-
cussions and iterations, we produced: (a) needs statements concerning user groups of vis-
itors, (b) a refined set of goals for the development of the mobile games, and (c) a con-
densed description of the games and design brief.
Needs statements were about the anticipated user experience of visitors. For exam-
ple, in the case of the heritage of marble crafts, some of these statements were: “I want to
learn about / significant works of marble crafts / important marble sculptors / the story of
the life of Giannoulis Chalepas”, and, “I would like to experience the use of tools to create
a work of marble”. In the case of mastic heritage, some statements were: “I want to know
about uses and applications of mastic in cosmetics”, and, “I would like to use tools of
mastic cultivation”. Similar statements were also about industrial olive oil production, for
example, “I would like to understand the process of producing oil from olives and the use
of the machinery”.
Subsequently, the goals of the mobile games were refined in order to include insights
from field visits. Thus, we specified that the game would emphasize exploratory learning,
storytelling, role-playing, and rewards that users could experience (in augmented reality).
Exploratory learning is generally about the activities of observation and exploration,
which happen naturally to all people, especially in previously unknown situations [46].
These fit ideally with mobile games for cultural heritage since numerous visitors to the
cultural site will be visiting the museum and the settlement for the first time. Storytelling
would interweave stories about heritage with game missions and challenges to enhance
player engagement and sense-making. Role-playing, i.e., the assuming of a role by visitors
Figure 3.
Photographs from field visits. Left, up: Tinos, museum of marble crafts; observation of two
pupils who are watching a video in front of tools and marbles in the quarry section. Left, down: Tinos,
settlement; a member of the design team is learning to apply marble sculpting tools in a workshop.
Center, up: Lesvos, museum; a master of olive oil production explains the works to the design team.
Center, down: Lesvos, settlement; the design team on their way to the town hall, one of the historic
buildings in the settlement. Right, up: Chios, mastic museum; guided tour. Right, down: Chios,
settlement; a member of the design team taking video notes.
4.2. (Re-) Defining and Reviewing Goals, Needs, and Elements of Mobile Games
4.2.1. Methods
During the second stage of the process, the design team worked in co-operation with
cultural heritage professionals on the basis of insights from field visits. After several
discussions and iterations, we produced: (a) needs statements concerning user groups
of visitors, (b) a refined set of goals for the development of the mobile games, and (c) a
condensed description of the games and design brief.
Needs statements
were about the anticipated user experience of visitors. For example,
in the case of the heritage of marble crafts, some of these statements were: “I want to
learn about/significant works of marble crafts/important marble sculptors/the story of
the life of Giannoulis Chalepas”, and, “I would like to experience the use of tools to create
a work of marble”. In the case of mastic heritage, some statements were: “I want to know
about uses and applications of mastic in cosmetics”, and, “I would like to use tools of
mastic cultivation”. Similar statements were also about industrial olive oil production, for
example, “I would like to understand the process of producing oil from olives and the use
of the machinery”.
Subsequently, the
goals
of the mobile games were refined in order to include insights
from field visits. Thus, we specified that the game would emphasize exploratory learning,
storytelling, role-playing, and rewards that users could experience (in augmented reality).
Exploratory learning is generally about the activities of observation and exploration, which
happen naturally to all people, especially in previously unknown situations [
46
]. These
fit ideally with mobile games for cultural heritage since numerous visitors to the cultural
site will be visiting the museum and the settlement for the first time. Storytelling would
interweave stories about heritage with game missions and challenges to enhance player
engagement and sense-making. Role-playing, i.e., the assuming of a role by visitors in
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2022,6, 36 11 of 30
gameplay, can further engage them in exploring the museum and the settlement with
the company of the mobile game. In all three games, the player assumed the role of an
apprentice who had to fulfill learning missions and challenges to level-up and become
a master of heritage. Last, but not least, we decided to introduce rewards to players of
the game in the form of tools related to cultural heritage in augmented reality, so that the
players would ‘obtain’ them in digital form (3D), and see them in the space (via their mobile
phone camera).
We also constructed the storyline of the game in
‘design brief’ documents
that guided
the design team to further analysis of the constituting elements of the mobile games. For
each game, the main points of the design brief were as follows:
•
The goal of each mobile game is to help the player explore the museum and the
settlement in order to learn about (become ‘master’ of) various aspects (history, social-
economic conditions, everyday use, people, landmarks, tools, machinery, etc.) of local
heritage (olive oil production / mastic / marble crafts).
•
Through the game, the player is guided to specific locations where they can answer
learning challenges of various types. These locations are grouped geographically and
semantically into learning missions with appropriate names.
•
Regarding role-playing, the player helps a digital character who is an apprentice (at
the community olive oil press / at the mastic field / at the marble crafts workshop)
and can level-up to a master. Also, another digital character plays the role of a master
who poses questions and can also provide contextual (location-specific) help.
•
When the player completes a mission (group of challenges), they then receive a reward
in the form of a digital 3D tool that can be viewed in augmented reality.
•
The player earns experience points, earns experience levels, and can view their profile
that records their learning progress.
4.2.2. Results and Reflection
During meetings and reflections on the field visits and resources, it was quickly
realized that all mobile games should have a
common system and gameplay design
.
All games are part of the same project, as well as about a network of museums. These
museums present craftsmanship and artisanal technology use that was learned from the
older generation to the new through a ‘master-apprentice’ model. They also include
several elements of tangible and intangible culture that are bonded together (e.g., specific
tools with processes or skills, specific works carried out with appropriate and traditional
clothes, specific products connected to uses of everyday life in various activities) and
are strongly linked to the local communities who have been the living carriers of their
heritage for several generations. On the other hand, the mobile games should have several
distinguishable elements about narrative, visual identity, media, content, and graphics that
would reflect local context and heritage. Therefore, the design of the user experience should
be transferable across all three mobile games [
47
]. The three mobile apps have similar
mobile app names to reflect that they are part of the same project but concern different
islands. They also have different game titles that reflect the heritage and the challenge
(Table 2).
Table 2. Mobile app names (play store) and game titles.
Name of the Mobile App
(Google Play) Mouseion Topos #Tinos Mouseion Topos #Lesvos Mouseion Topos #Chios
Game title Explore the Marble Town People’s Machine Mastic and Mastichochora
In order to define the main elements of the mobile games, we adopted the
MDA
(Mechanics, Dynamics, Aesthetics)
model [
48
]. These elements are summarized in Table 3.
Mechanics are essentially the rules of the game at the level of data representation and
algorithms. In our games, the main mechanics are missions, challenges, player levels, expe-
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2022,6, 36 12 of 30
rience points, player inventory (or toolbox), hints, digital characters, maps, and rewards.
Dynamics refers to the “behavior” of the elements of engineering, at the level of interaction
with the player. Dynamics update some of the mechanics of the game (e.g., experience
points, player level, missions and challenges completed, etc.) with respect to user location
and provided answers to challenges. Aesthetics refers to the desired emotional responses
of the player while engaging in the game. Among others, the following aesthetics were
considered suitable for the mobile games: discovery, learning, competence, storytelling,
and engagement.
Table 3. Mechanics, Dynamics, and Aesthetics of the Mobile Games.
Mechanics
Components of the Game
Dynamics
Run-Time Behavior
Aesthetics
Desirable Responses
Experience Points (XPs):
Points gained after completing a challenge.
+50 XPs if successful, or
+10 if unsuccessful.
Sense of accomplishment,
competence.
Missions:
Semantically and spatially related groups of
challenges.
Mission is completed when all associated
challenges are undertaken.
Discovery, learning, sensitization
to CH.
Challenges:
Questions about CH, to be discovered in
settlement/museum.
Challenge is completed when answered
(successfully or not).
Discovery, learning, sensitization
to CH.
Tool:
A tangible artifact, most often a tool of a worker,
that is an exhibit of the museum.
It is earned when the player completes a
mission. Discovery, ‘Wow factor!’.
Toolbox or inventory:
A set of tools.
When the inventory is full, the game ends
and the player can view all tools in 3D. Sense of accomplishment.
Virtual characters:
A novice that the player must help to learn about
CH. An expert who sets challenges; provides
hints and rewards.
The novice character appears in reward
cards and the user profile.
The expert character appears to provide
hints or help.
Plausibility, engagement.
Narratives:
Short texts on stories and knowledge about CH.
They unfold in various user actions:
asking for hints, under rewards (more
information), in notification cards, in
mission introductory cards.
Storytelling, engagement.
Hints:
Short texts to help the player identify the location
of the answer, or about framing the context.
They appear when the player reads a
challenge and taps onto the expert
character.
Help, learning.
Maps:
A graphic map about missions. An actual map
about challenges (of a mission).
User location can be enabled
The color of push points indicated a
challenge has been undertaken.
Learning, wayfinding.
Player levels:
Three levels: novice, helper, expert.
Player levels up after gaining 1/3 of all
experience points.
Sense of accomplishment,
competence.
Rewards:
Challenge reward: a card with a message and
more. Mission reward: a challenge reward with a
tool earned.
Appears after the completion (successful
or not) of a challenge or a mission.
Sense of accomplishment,
learning.
4.3. Generating Ideas for Visuals with References to Heritage
4.3.1. Methods, Principles, and Resources
To organize idea generation and production, we conducted several design workshops
and meetings. These were generally scheduled every two weeks and were kept relatively
short in duration (between one to two hours maximum). They were held online to accom-
modate remote participants who were located in several geographical locations in Greece.
We used various conferencing and collaboration tools, especially Zoom [
49
] and Figma [
50
].
Depending on the goals of each workshop or meeting, the participants included members
of the design team and, sometimes, cultural heritage professionals and members of the
local community.
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2022,6, 36 13 of 30
The aim of
design workshops
was to come up with ideas and—to the extent possible—
visual illustrations or sketches about specific design issues. While each workshop aimed to
obtain concrete and agreed results, this was not always possible within the time frame of the
online meetings. In those cases, the design team was left to produce finer representations at
their convenience, until the next meeting. Design review and feedback was the main goal
of
design meetings
, which did not focus on production of new artifacts, but on discussion
and review of aspects of the produced visuals. Therefore, design workshops and meetings
were usually held interchangeably.
The design of the mobile games was guided by the
Material Design guidelines
[
51
],
which is an adaptable system of guidelines, components, and tools that supports best
practices of user interface design in native Android development applications. These are
also supported by open-source code patterns and samples that can be adapted by UX
designers and software developers.
In addition, we made a conscious effort to produce designs that were strongly inspired,
informed, and influenced by
metaphors
[
52
] from heritage and local context, and
mappings
between the real world and the designed system [
53
]. Metaphors or mappings were about
form, terminology, tangible artifacts of heritage (such as tools, clothes, etc.), and stories or
narratives. Respective examples of metaphors can be observed in the design of the games
(e.g., screen shots in subsequent Figure 5 and later in Figure 8), and include:
•
The shape (form) of olive oil drops and mastic resins is conveyed in the graphical
illustration of the (abstract) concepts of a mission on the mission map of the mobile
games about industrial oil production heritage and mastic heritage, respectively.
•
Local terminology is used throughout the game and concerns tasks, tools, clothes, etc.,
which were often the objects of player challenges, as well as the ‘levels’ of workers
and masters.
•
Tangible artifacts were selected, and designed or scanned into 3D, to be provided as
rewards to players.
•
Several stories or narratives were embedded in player character guidance, help, and
‘learn more’ (after a completion of a challenge) sections of the game.
4.3.2. Results and Reflection
During the ideation phase, we produced several visuals for the main concepts of the
mobile games. Figure 4presents the detailed design of some of the screens (including
onboarding screen with digital character, missions map, challenges view (map and list)) for
all three games. A few key visuals included:
•
Icons about several concepts of the game: experience points, missions, challenges,
type of challenge, and tools. These were common among all games.
•Mobile app logos: same design but different color palette for each game.
•
Illustrations about several graphical elements: art tools, craft tools, and artisanal
technology as well as digital characters; all of which were different for each game.
•
Missions map illustrating landmarks of the settlement and each mission. It was graph-
ical because challenges were not always spatially aligned (despite being semantically
related for each mission). Notably, when the users would select to view a specific
mission, they could see the actual map with locations of all challenges for the mission.
A principal result of the ideation phase was the design of wireframes and detailed
screens of the mobile game. These were designed in the Figma online prototyping tool, and
they were refined in several iterations. During this phase, the design of most significant
screens was completed (Figure 5).
Ideation is the most creative and iterative phase of the design thinking process. To
keep control of the process and present notable progress among workshops and meetings,
we kept a relatively tight schedule for our meetings. We worked in several iterations of the
core design and development team of the game, while also having fewer iterations with
larger participation, including other team designers, project members, cultural heritage
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2022,6, 36 14 of 30
professionals, and community members. These meetings were necessary to go through the
outcomes and further ideate and validate several visual elements.
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2022, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 31
with larger participation, including other team designers, project members, cultural her-
itage professionals, and community members. These meetings were necessary to go
through the outcomes and further ideate and validate several visual elements.
Figure 4.
Visual elements produced at the ideation phase: app logos, icons, graphics for tools, mission
maps; and photo collages used for inspiration.
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2022,6, 36 15 of 30
Figure 5.
Detailed designs of some of the screens of the mobile games. Upper row: People’s Machine
game (Mouseion Topos #Lesvos). From left to right: ‘Tour or Game’ screen; onboarding with digital
character; missions map; and challenges view (map and list). Lower row: First two screens are the
missions map and challenges view of the Mastic and Mastichochora game (Mouseion Topos #Chios).
Last two screens are the missions map and challenges view of the game Explore the Marble Town
(Mouseion Topos #Tinos).
4.4. Prototyping Mobile Games for Cultural Heritage
4.4.1. Methods, Principles, Resources
The prototyping stage included several iterations ranging from reviewing the detailed
screen designs from the Figma prototyping tool to software development in the Android
Studio SDK. We also kept the software in three GitHub [
54
] repositories to collaboratively
write code and share. We conducted three phases of prototyping:
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2022,6, 36 16 of 30
•
Software subprojects: Included basic use cases of the mobile game, such as onboarding,
character help, missions map, challenges views, reward cards, and AR views. For
some of the subprojects we experimented with open-source software. This phase
lasted for almost four months.
•
First integrated version: These were fully functional mobile games tested in the lab to
eliminate bugs, and then in the field with expert playtesting (described in the next section).
•
Release version: Several playability and usability issues were addressed in this stage.
Additionally, more functionality was added, especially regarding mobile AR, and
more animations.
In addition, in this phase we followed the Android Architectural Components frame-
work [
55
] to define the main software functionality of the mobile games. The Android
Architecture Components framework ensures that the software follows programming
patterns that are compatible with other Android software libraries and is structured in
a way that avoids boilerplate code and ensures data persistence and automated lifecycle
management of a mobile app. Furthermore, during software development and integration,
we developed other flows and diagrams about basic processes that should be supported in
the mobile game.
Throughout the software development phase, the main results were shared through
videoswhich were reviewed in meetings with designers. The main concern was that the design
had to be implemented with a few differences in some use cases. Therefore, the designers
would have to review software functionality and discuss whether this was acceptable.
4.4.2. Results and Reflection
Prototyping and software development eventually resulted in
functional mobile
games
. These were tested extensively in the lab for functionality, usability, and cross-
device operation. They were also reviewed by selected cultural heritage professionals and
community members. But they were not close to being released yet, since they had not
been tested in the field.
During the software development process, we experimented with new and contem-
porary features, especially concerning augmented reality. Thus, it was important to start
early with software development to realize technological capabilities and possible risks.
Another reason to start early with software experimentation and development is that one
has to review, and possibly adapt and utilize, open-source software (patterns).
Another result of the testing phase was the refinement of the
software architecture
of the mobile games (Figure 6). This consists of the main software modules grouped in a
layered system design that allows a modular software structure and adherence to modern
programming patterns. The main components of the system architecture include:
•
User interfaces: software that implements every visible aspect of the system and the
interactions with users.
•
View models: software that makes data available to all user interfaces and is responsible
for propagating data changes caused by user actions downwards to the system database.
•
Repository: this is an API (Application Program Interface) that is available to the view
models for requesting data from the database.
•
Database: This is a local database that holds all the data of the mobile game. It is built
during the installation of the mobile game. It is available in two languages (English
and Greek) and populates data from app resources.
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2022,6, 36 17 of 30
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2022, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 31
Figure 6. A common software architecture for mobile games, based on Android Architecture Com-
ponents.
4.5. Testing in the Field with the Participation of the Community, Heritage Professionals and
Visitors
4.5.1. Methods, Principles, and Resources
Mobile LBGs must be tested in the field to ensure that testing occurs in an authentic
context of use with the participation of representative users in the actual location, place,
and space. Despite having tested the games extensively in the lab for functionality and
usability, we were still uncertain about many aspects of gameplay, such as how much
time users would require to finish the game; if terminology was in accordance with mu-
seum and settlement signs; if navigational help was making sense for users in the museum
or settlements; if the challenges were all valid from a heritage perspective; if we needed
to add more learning challenges about heritage, and so on.
For the case of our mobile games, the ‘field’ was the museums and the settlements of
the three Aegean islands. Testing in the field was not immediately possible due to the
pandemic. It was planned as soon as museums opened to the public, but still there were
very few visitors. On the other hand, we were also interested to see the views of the local
community and heritage professionals on the mobile games. These groups have expert
opinions on some aspects of the design, and they are also end-users and visitors of the
museums. Thus, they may play the game to learn about particular challenges that they
might not be aware about.
Figure 6.
A common software architecture for mobile games, based on Android Architecture Components.
4.5. Testing in the Field with the Participation of the Community, Heritage Professionals
and Visitors
4.5.1. Methods, Principles, and Resources
Mobile LBGs must be tested in the field to ensure that testing occurs in an authentic
context of use with the participation of representative users in the actual location, place,
and space. Despite having tested the games extensively in the lab for functionality and
usability, we were still uncertain about many aspects of gameplay, such as how much time
users would require to finish the game; if terminology was in accordance with museum
and settlement signs; if navigational help was making sense for users in the museum or
settlements; if the challenges were all valid from a heritage perspective; if we needed to
add more learning challenges about heritage, and so on.
For the case of our mobile games, the ‘field’ was the museums and the settlements
of the three Aegean islands. Testing in the field was not immediately possible due to the
pandemic. It was planned as soon as museums opened to the public, but still there were
very few visitors. On the other hand, we were also interested to see the views of the local
community and heritage professionals on the mobile games. These groups have expert
opinions on some aspects of the design, and they are also end-users and visitors of the
museums. Thus, they may play the game to learn about particular challenges that they
might not be aware about.
To conduct a thorough testing in the field, we constructed a method called
field
playtesting with experts’ constructive interaction
[
4
]. This is a qualitative testing method
in which local ‘experts’, including cultural heritage professionals, representatives from
the local community, and peers (i.e., interaction designers and software developers) play
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2022,6, 36 18 of 30
the whole of the game co-operatively in pairs. Thus, the players are instructed to playtest
the game in pairs, perform tasks together, and uncover design issues indirectly via their
discussions and explanations to each other. Constructive interaction (or co-discovery learn-
ing) is a research protocol with psychological foundations (O’Mailey et al., 1984 [
56
]), and
has been reported to produce increased and more relevant results in usability studies [
57
].
Additionally, it is a very natural way to conduct the field testing of mobile LBGs. During
playtesting, interaction between evaluation researchers and players was minimal; however,
researchers did keep notes (we have developed a coding scheme for convenience). The
method resembles what people do when they visit cultural sites, i.e., they visit in pairs or
small groups. Additionally, further findings arise from players’ interactions with minimal
researcher intervention; therefore, the method enhances ecological validity.
In field playtesting we placed emphasis on the whole experience of playing a game and
on the playability of the game, which included issues of usability, functionality, gameplay,
cultural content, and local context:
•
Usability findings are about how easy it is for the players to make use of user interfaces
and interactions.
•
Functionality findings concern the technical quality of the game, e.g., smooth operation,
no bugs or crashes, short loading times, etc.
•
Gameplay findings are concerned with understanding game elements, rules, and
dynamics (how these are updated and interact into a cohesive whole).
•
Cultural Heritage Content findings concern the need to correct, add, create (new), or
update content.
•
Location context findings concern those related to information, indications, and guide-
lines that help the user understand if they are at the right location or are heading
accurately towards it.
We conducted three playtesting activities, one for each museum and settlement, in
which we employed cultural heritage professionals, local community heritage experts, and
peer designers and developers.
In Tinos, at the museum of marble crafts and the settlement of Pyrgos, we tested the
game ‘Exploring the Marble Town’. The participants were a total of ten experts, with an
average age of 41, of which four were women. Four of them were cultural heritage experts
as well as local community representatives: the museum director, two museum staff, and a
local heritage expert. The others were two game designers and developers, two interaction
designers, one graphics and 3D content developer, and one expert from IT (Information
Technology) and cultural heritage project management. The playtesting sessions took place
during a two-day project meeting at the Museum of Marble Crafts.
In Lesvos, at the museum of industrial olive oil production at the settlement of Aghia
Paraskevi, we tested the game ‘People’s Machine’. Fourteen experts were recruited in
playtesting with an average age of 39, of which seven were women. Six of them were
cultural heritage experts as well as local community members: a museum curator, the mu-
seum director, two museum staff, and two local heritage experts. Other experts were: four
game designers and developers, two interaction designers, one graphics and 3D content
developer, and one expert from IT (Information Technology) and CH project management.
In Chios, at the Mastic Museum and the settlement of Olympoi at Mastichochoria, we
tested the game ‘Mastic and Mastichochoria’. We employed twelve experts with an average
age of 38, of which six were women. Six of them were cultural heritage experts as well as
local community members: the museum curator, the museum director, two museum staff,
and two local heritage experts. Other experts were: two game designers and developers,
two interaction designers, one graphics developer, and one 3D content developer.
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2022,6, 36 19 of 30
Each field playtesting activity lasted for two full days. In each day, we conducted
playtesting sessions with two or three pairs of users. Each playtesting session lasted
approximately two hours for each pair of players, including note taking. For the case of
the game ‘Mastic and Mastichochoria’, we did not analytically record findings because we
immediately realized that cultural content about the game (challenges) was largely not
associated to specific places or exhibits, while accompanying narrations and help were not
linked to the locations. Additionally, since Chios was the last museum visited, we had
already identified several playtesting issues of more general nature that applied to this
game as well. Therefore, we emphasized the detailed review of existing cultural content
and the co-creation of new content for that game with all participants.
4.5.2. Results and Reflection
Field playtesting was an invaluable process for the development of the mobile games
for two main reasons: (a) UX insights and identification of design improvements, and (b)
correction, curation, and co-creation of cultural heritage content in the field.
Regarding
UX insights
, we first identified several
performance indicators
related to
playing the games. Table 4highlights performance indicators for two the of three games.
For example, the average time to complete the game ‘Exploring the Marble Town’ was
107 min (54 min of gameplay, 53 min time in-between, e.g., walking, talking, etc.). This
was much larger than the game ‘People’s Machine’ (66 min total, 40 min gameplay, 26 min
time in-between). This was anticipated, but it was not possible to safely estimate before
playtesting in the field, i.e., the first game originally included considerably more challenges
in the settlement (12 in the settlement, 6 in the museum) than the latter (5 in the settlement,
10 in the museum). This was also reflected in the distance covered in both games, which
was more than double for the first game (3.3 km/1.4 km). All performance indicators were
valuable data that were used to further enhance the UX of the games by introducing them
in gameplay, e.g., to the reward system or to add indications or warnings.
UX insights mainly included several
playability findings
about the games that were
classified into those about gameplay, usability, functionality, location context, and cultural
heritage (CH) content (Figure 7). Gameplay issues were related to understanding the
mechanics and dynamics of the game, e.g., about the player levels, experience points, what
players would have to do to complete a mission, and so on. Usability issues were mostly of
a general nature involving navigation, user guidance, and help, such as “It is not perceived by
users that the helper character icon can be clicked” and “Missions accomplished are not highlighted
onto the mission map”, etc. Functionality issues were about bugs identified for some devices
as well as some device-specific installation problems. Several location-specific issues were
valuably revealed through this process, such as: “Some users are not sure if they are at the right
spot to start looking for the answer (they wander around unnecessarily)” and “Some users cannot
locate the answer, despite on the spot (they need to be provided with a guideline, e.g., read the sign)”.
Multiple insights were common among the games. For the second game, more issues of
minor significance were identified, mostly related to cultural content issues.
Another important aspect of the field playtesting process was that it enabled
cor-
rections, curation, and co-creation of cultural content in the field
. Firstly, we identified
several findings that could be easily fixed, including several corrections to texts and narra-
tives. Additionally, we identified some challenges that were not accompanied with the most
appropriate or characteristic photographs. In those cases, it was also easy to take photos
immediately and make notes appropriately. For some challenges, their geo-location had
not been accurately marked on the map, which was also easily change to mark the exact
spot. However, more importantly, cultural heritage professionals and local community
heritage experts marked several challenges that did not convey an important takeaway
about local heritage. Furthermore, they could easily propose alternatives or modifications
to existing challenges. Therefore, co-creation of cultural content was performed in the field
between playtesting with designers and cultural heritage experts in close co-operation.
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2022,6, 36 20 of 30
Table 5presents a summary of cultural content in product versions of the mobile games,
before and after field playtesting.
Field playtesting is an empirical design review method which unfolds as experts expe-
rience the game, in contrast to typical design reviews or juries that examine presentations
or demonstrations of artefacts or systems, possibly based on guidelines or heuristics. How-
ever, a larger and broader pool of experts is assumed (combining designers with cultural
heritage professionals to allow breadth and depth of insights) than other expert review
methods, e.g., heuristic evaluation by Nielsen [
58
]. It requires playtesting, a standard
approach to game evaluation that emphasizes playability, i.e., a composite concept that
includes (at least) aspects of gameplay, usability, and functionality [59].
Table 4. Performance indicators in field playtesting of the mobile games.
Performance Indicators Mouseion Topos #Tinos
Exploring the Marble Town
Mouseion Topos #Lesvos
People’s Machine
Game completion time 107 min 66 min
–Gameplay time 54 min 40 min
–Time in-between 53 min 26 min
Distance covered 3.3 Km 1.4 km
Time to complete a challenge 3 min 2.7 min
Experience points gained 790 (max 900) 670 (max 750)
Challenges not answered
correctly 2.9 (total 18) 3 (all 15)
Challenge difficulty 4 h; 9 m; 5 e; 3 h; 8 m; 4 e;
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2022, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of 31
takeaway about local heritage. Furthermore, they could easily propose alternatives or
modifications to existing challenges. Therefore, co-creation of cultural content was per-
formed in the field between playtesting with designers and cultural heritage experts in
close co-operation. Table 5 presents a summary of cultural content in product versions of
the mobile games, before and after field playtesting.
Field playtesting is an empirical design review method which unfolds as experts ex-
perience the game, in contrast to typical design reviews or juries that examine presenta-
tions or demonstrations of artefacts or systems, possibly based on guidelines or heuristics.
However, a larger and broader pool of experts is assumed (combining designers with cul-
tural heritage professionals to allow breadth and depth of insights) than other expert re-
view methods, e.g., heuristic evaluation by Nielsen [58]. It requires playtesting, a standard
approach to game evaluation that emphasizes playability, i.e., a composite concept that
includes (at least) aspects of gameplay, usability, and functionality [59].
Table 4. Performance indicators in field playtesting of the mobile games.
Performance Indicators
Mouseion Topos #Tinos
Exploring the Marble Town
Mouseion Topos #Lesvos
People’s Machine
Game completion time
107 min
66 min
--Gameplay time
54 min
40 min
--Time in-between
53 min
26 min
Distance covered
3.3 Km
1.4 km
Time to complete a challenge
3 min
2.7 min
Experience points gained
790 (max 900)
670 (max 750)
Challenges not answered correctly
2.9 (total 18)
3 (all 15)
Challenge difficulty
4 h; 9 m; 5 e;
3 h; 8 m; 4 e;
Figure 7. Overview of findings from field playtesting of the mobile games.
8
14
5
12
1616 16
8
14
26
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Gameplay Usability Functionality Location
context
CH context
Number of findings
Typers of findings, from field play testing
MT#Tinos. Exploring the Marble Town MT#Lesvos. People's Machine
Figure 7. Overview of findings from field playtesting of the mobile games.
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2022,6, 36 21 of 30
Table 5.
Summary of cultural content in product versions of the mobile games (before and after
field playtesting).
Mobile Game Product Version Missions Challenges Comments
Mouseion Topos #Tinos
Exploring the Marble
Town
Fully Functional
prototype
(before field
playtesting)
5 18 •Corrections to almost all challenges.
•Four (4) challenges were deleted.
•Fourteen (14) challenges retained.
•Nine (9) new challenges added.
End-product
(after field playtesting) 5 23
Mouseion Topos
#Lesvos
People’s Machine
Fully Functional
prototype
(before field
playtesting)
4 15 •Corrections to almost all challenges.
•Five (5) challenges deleted.
•Ten (10) challenges retained.
•Thirteen (13) new challenges added.
End-product
(after field playtesting) 4 23
Mouseion Topos
#Chios
Mastic and
Mastichochora
Fully Functional
prototype
(before field
playtesting)
4 14 •Corrections to almost all challenges.
•Seven (7) challenges deleted.
•Seven (7) challenges retained.
•Nineteen (19) new challenges added.
End-product
(after field playtesting) 4 26
4.6. Implementation: Corrections, Release, Field Studies, and Dissemination
4.6.1. Methods and Resources
After field playtesting with experts, we consolidated all findings and authored the
software to incorporate them. Screenshots of the mobile games are depicted in Figure 8.
From usability and gameplay perspectives, numerous details had to be improved or cor-
rected in texts, photographs, guidelines, location point coordinates of challenges, etc. From
a UX design perspective, some important improvements from previous versions (Figure 5)
included: removal of the bottom navigation bar, addition of the backpack in the main
screen for collecting tools, enlargement of the digital character design so that they appear
in full screen, and clearer indications of player progress (e.g., challenges taken). The games
were then released on Google Play.
The public
release of the mobile games
was accompanied with a dissemination
campaign. This was conducted in social media [
60
] with various posts and news about the
final release of the mobile games. Additionally, the mobile games were presented in several
online or live events (e.g., design exhibitions [
61
]). For these reasons promotional videos of
the mobile games were also developed [
62
]. In addition, printed posters were also installed
in the museum and the settlements (Figure 9) to inform visitors about the mobile games
and present them with QR codes to download them.
4.6.2. Results and Reflection
Part of the dissemination activities was information days in the museums, in which
we invited local community experts and schools (junior and senior high schools) to play the
games. During the information days, we conducted
field studies
with pupils. We asked
them to play the game alone or in pairs. We observed their gameplay and we remained
available for any questions or clarifications. Participation was voluntary. The game was
played mainly in the museum; not all schools could visit the settlements because of time
restrictions. The participants for each field study were as follows:
•
Tinos (Explore the Marble Town): 40 pupils; all 1st grade senior high school (15 years old).
•Lesvos (People’s Machine): 84 pupils; all 3rd grade junior high school.
•Chios (Mastic Museum): 69 pupils; all 1st grade senior high school.
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2022,6, 36 22 of 30
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2022, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 22 of 31
Figure 8. Screen shots of the final implementation of mobile games. Upper row: game ‘Explore the
Marble Town’ (Mouseion Topos #Tinos). From left to right: a selected mission from mission map;
the challenges map and list; a challenge question (fill-in type); the user profile screen. Middle row:
‘People’s Machine’ game. From left to right: missions map; the master character helping on a chal-
lenge; a tool earned after mission completion; AR view of the tool. Lower row: ‘Mastic and Masti-
chochora’ game. From left to right: mission selected from the mission map; the young character
Figure 8.
Screen shots of the final implementation of mobile games. Upper row: game ‘Explore
the Marble Town’ (Mouseion Topos #Tinos). From left to right: a selected mission from mission
map; the challenges map and list; a challenge question (fill-in type); the user profile screen. Middle
row: ‘People’s Machine’ game. From left to right: missions map; the master character helping on
a challenge; a tool earned after mission completion; AR view of the tool. Lower row: ‘Mastic and
Mastichochora’ game. From left to right: mission selected from the mission map; the young character
onboarding; a challenge question (help is available in animation); challenge completion card with
more information.
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2022,6, 36 23 of 30
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2022, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 23 of 31
onboarding; a challenge question (help is available in animation); challenge completion card with
more information.
Figure 9. Posters in the museums and settlements that inform visitors about the mobile games.
4.6.2. Results and Reflection
Part of the dissemination activities was information days in the museums, in which
we invited local community experts and schools (junior and senior high schools) to play
the games. During the information days, we conducted field studies with pupils. We
asked them to play the game alone or in pairs. We observed their gameplay and we re-
mained available for any questions or clarifications. Participation was voluntary. The
game was played mainly in the museum; not all schools could visit the settlements be-
cause of time restrictions. The participants for each field study were as follows:
• Tinos (Explore the Marble Town): 40 pupils; all 1st grade senior high school (15 years
old).
• Lesvos (People’s Machine): 84 pupils; all 3rd grade junior high school.
• Chios (Mastic Museum): 69 pupils; all 1st grade senior high school.
In general, we observed that pupils were very enthusiastic with gameplay. They were
very keen to explore the museums and find the correct answers to challenges. For exam-
ple, several pupils were motivated to validate their correct answers (before submitting
them to the game) using exhibit poster descriptions or the museum guide. Many pupils
experienced the game competitively with peers, which was a fun experience for them,
although this was not intended by our design. In addition, pupils like to play the game
with one or two friends who share the same device. This is also the case with all other
visitors, who visit the museum in small groups and play the game together on a single
device.
At the end of the activity, we asked them to complete the UEQ (user experience ques-
tionnaire) [63], which is a fast and reliable questionnaire used to measure the user experi-
ence of interactive products. The responses to the UEQ are shown in Figure 10, and are
very positive (higher than +0.8) for all aspects of the UX measured. According to [64], “it
is extremely unlikely to observe values above +2 or below −2… the standard interpretation
of the scale means is that values between −0.8 and 0.8 represent a neutral evaluation of the
corresponding scale, values >0.8 represent a positive evaluation and values <−0.8 repre-
sent a negative evaluation.”
Figure 9. Posters in the museums and settlements that inform visitors about the mobile games.
In general, we observed that pupils were very enthusiastic with gameplay. They were
very keen to explore the museums and find the correct answers to challenges. For example,
several pupils were motivated to validate their correct answers (before submitting them to
the game) using exhibit poster descriptions or the museum guide. Many pupils experienced
the game competitively with peers, which was a fun experience for them, although this
was not intended by our design. In addition, pupils like to play the game with one or two
friends who share the same device. This is also the case with all other visitors, who visit
the museum in small groups and play the game together on a single device.
At the end of the activity, we asked them to complete the UEQ (user experience
questionnaire) [
63
], which is a fast and reliable questionnaire used to measure the user
experience of interactive products. The responses to the UEQ are shown in Figure 10,
and are very positive (higher than +0.8) for all aspects of the UX measured. According
to [
64
], “it is extremely unlikely to observe values above +2 or below
−
2
. . .
the standard
interpretation of the scale means is that values between
−
0.8 and 0.8 represent a neutral
evaluation of the corresponding scale, values >0.8 represent a positive evaluation and
values <−0.8 represent a negative evaluation.
Since the release of the games (July 2021) we have also been monitoring
user analytics
(selected data are depicted in Table 6). Based on user analytics, we have made the following
observations:
•
Most visitors prefer to play the game; however, some just download the app and
review the tour functionality of the app, possibly to identify more places to visit in the
settlement. Most users use both tour and game functionality.
•
The large majority of visitors are from Greece (according to their mobile network
provider), which was anticipated due to the lower number of tourists from abroad in
2021 because of the pandemic.
•
Engagement time ranges from 7 min to 19 min among the three islands. However, the
actual engagement time should be much larger because the app is not always active
during a visit (mobile phone screens timeout after a few seconds).
•
Visitors play the game mostly in the museums and do not continue the game in the
settlements. In Lesvos (People’s Machine game), more than half of visitors finished the
game (54%) because most of the challenges are in the museum and the surrounding
space, while the settlement is very close to the museum. The other settlements are not
that close to their museums.
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2022,6, 36 24 of 30
•
More than half of visitors select to view tools in AR in general. Notably, some older
devices may not support AR functionality, so this is expected to increase in the future.
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2022, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 25 of 31
Figure 10. User Experience Questionnaire: responses from field study participants.
Table 6. Summary of data from user analytics (August–November 2021).
Devices
1
% Game
%
Tour
% Greece
Engagement
Time
Completed
User Events
Game
Challenges
Missions
Learn More
Help
AR View
Tinos
347
44%
67%
86%
7 m
14%
8 (from 23)
1.4 (from 5)
24%
34%
62%
Lesvos
151
87%
51%
91%
19 m26 s
54%
17 (from 23)
2.9 (from 4)
21%
33%
48%
Chios
107
72%
50%
92%
10 m2 s
22%
14 (from 26)
2.0 (from 4)
28%
20%
66%
1 People visit museums in small groups (e.g., with friends or family) and often play the game on a
single device.
5. Discussion
5.1. Representativeness, Centrality, and Availability of Participants in Co-Design Activities
Co-design activities are conducted in co-operation with various groups and partici-
pants. In order to enhance the relevance and importance of contribution, it is important to
select participants that are representative of related groups that possess knowledge, skills,
and experiences about cultural heritage. The question of who should be participating in
co-design activities of cultural heritage has not been discussed deeply in the relevant lit-
erature, but we can draw a few conclusions from current practice.
In a project of LBGs for cultural heritage, participant groups may be numerous and
include people with variable specialties, skills, and personal schedules. When the goal of
co-design was the production of artifacts or tangible results, then our strategy of involve-
ment was to include people in pairs (field playtesting, field studies) or small groups (in
some sessions of field visits and field study). When the goal was to get feedback or review
on several intermediate project outcomes (e.g., design brief, ideation), we tried to ensure
the cross-disciplinary background of all people involved. In this case, and due to re-
strictions from the pandemic, we rested on synchronous and asynchronous communica-
tion to acquire feedback (e.g., video sharing of prototypes, walkthroughs in online proto-
typing tools, zoom meetings). Thus, several people in the community participated in the
process and provided valuable input, including arts and crafts masters and workers,
members of local administration (major, members of council), local scientific advisors of
the museums, educators, pupils, etc.
Figure 10. User Experience Questionnaire: responses from field study participants.
Table 6. Summary of data from user analytics (August–November 2021).
Devices 1% Game % Tour %
Greece
Engagement
Time
Completed User Events
Game Challenges Missions Learn
More Help AR
View
Tinos 347 44% 67% 86% 7 m 14% 8 (from 23) 1.4 (from 5) 24% 34% 62%
Lesvos 151 87% 51% 91% 19 m26 s 54% 17 (from 23) 2.9 (from 4) 21% 33% 48%
Chios 107 72% 50% 92% 10 m2 s 22% 14 (from 26) 2.0 (from 4) 28% 20% 66%
1
People visit museums in small groups (e.g., with friends or family) and often play the game on a single device.
In addition, during the past few months, after the mobile games were made available,
we have often observed visitors and asked them the question of why they do not select to
play the games. The most common answers to this question include:
•
“I did not realize that there is a mobile game I can download and play” (did not see
signs or they were not informed).
•“I do not have enough time for the visit.”
•“I don’t want to play. It may distract me from the visit.”
•
“Not ready to play” (for various reasons, e.g., families with infants or smaller children,
people who carry luggage or bags from the beach, etc.).
•“The time of the day is not appropriate” (e.g., too hot).
•“I am an iPhone user.”
•
“My Android device does not support it” (either not a touch phone, or android OS
less than version 7.0; notably the game can be installed and played in devices that do
not support AR functionality; however, the user will not be able to view tools in AR).
Thus, there are several other reasons that may prevent them from playing the mobile
games, such as visitor readiness, availability, as well as technical or weather conditions.
These mobile games for cultural heritage require some of the visitors’ time and effort;
therefore, they could be further integrated into museum and visitor visits in many ways.
Local museums and communities can help with information passing and sharing so that
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2022,6, 36 25 of 30
mobile games are located and found promptly by visitors. In addition, the mobile games
could be further integrated into museum activities, tours, and school visits.
5. Discussion
5.1. Representativeness, Centrality, and Availability of Participants in Co-Design Activities
Co-design activities are conducted in co-operation with various groups and partici-
pants. In order to enhance the relevance and importance of contribution, it is important
to select participants that are representative of related groups that possess knowledge,
skills, and experiences about cultural heritage. The question of who should be participating
in co-design activities of cultural heritage has not been discussed deeply in the relevant
literature, but we can draw a few conclusions from current practice.
In a project of LBGs for cultural heritage, participant groups may be numerous and
include people with variable specialties, skills, and personal schedules. When the goal of co-
design was the production of artifacts or tangible results, then our strategy of involvement
was to include people in pairs (field playtesting, field studies) or small groups (in some
sessions of field visits and field study). When the goal was to get feedback or review on
several intermediate project outcomes (e.g., design brief, ideation), we tried to ensure the
cross-disciplinary background of all people involved. In this case, and due to restrictions
from the pandemic, we rested on synchronous and asynchronous communication to acquire
feedback (e.g., video sharing of prototypes, walkthroughs in online prototyping tools,
zoom meetings). Thus, several people in the community participated in the process and
provided valuable input, including arts and crafts masters and workers, members of
local administration (major, members of council), local scientific advisors of the museums,
educators, pupils, etc.
5.2. Getting Tangible (Specific) Outputs from Participatory Design Processes
In cultural heritage technology projects, it is not common to use tangible artifacts
or toolkits to co-design with participants to motivate their active participation and help
them reveal tacit or latent knowledge. On the other hand, when participatory methods are
used, such as co-design workshops, it is not always easy to reach tangible, specific results
about the project progress. The design thinking mindset and process followed has helped
participants to focus on results rather than on deliverables, timings, and other important
but modifiable aspects of project development. However, what is tangible or specific output
differs depending on each project phase and the goal of a co-design or participatory activity.
In a broad research activity, such as field visits, tangible output had many forms:
stories, facts, knowledge, opinions, ideas, photographs, landmarks, videos, books, and
others; therefore, it was important for us to store and share various resources obtained,
as well as to create detailed minutes and notes to document the process and results. The
ways we involved people in those visits were decided based on their own expertise and
capacity. Field visits were essentially an exploratory method, and we also received tangible
inputs in terms of local experts’ own work that they shared with us, such as the fact that
an educator, local heritage expert, and member of the community of Tinos (marble crafts)
provided us with a mobile learning game he had developed several years ago with pen and
paper. With other participants we followed other appropriate techniques based on their
input and capacity, such as walkthroughs in the museums (local museum administrators)
or the settlements (an architect in Chios, a civil engineer in Tinos, a former major in Lesvos);
or representations of the work process (workers in Lesvos olive oil press, marble sculptors
in the workshops, etc.).
In more focused activities, such as the field playtesting sessions where we were
interested in specific actions that would reflect the UX, UI, and cultural content of the
games, we provided participants with guidelines on how they would play the game (i.e., in
pairs, they would talk aloud to discuss their questions, findings, etc.). Furthermore, we
had constructed a documentation schema to classify findings quickly as we observed the
participants. In any case, we did not intervene throughout the playtesting process to allow
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2022,6, 36 26 of 30
players to move at their own pace and naturally interact with the games (except when we
realized the need to co-create cultural content).
5.3. Transferable UX Design Insights from Field Playtesting
A unique aspect of our project was that the mobile games were a family of games for a
museum network. This was a problem of both user experience and software engineering.
From a UX perspective, we had to make design decisions early about the aspects that would
be common among games, namely, high-level UX goals (sensitize visitors to local heritage,
promote exploratory learning) and game elements (missions, challenges, experience points,
player levels, rewards, tools). All cultural content, resources, and media were different,
as were most of the graphics (including digital characters) to reflect local context. From a
software engineering perspective, there was a need to start software development from
several sub-projects that could be re-used in all three games, and to integrate them following
a common system design (software architecture).
Field playtesting was also important for further distinguishing aspects of the game
between the three locations. For example, in one game (Tinos), after playtesting it was
decided to offer all missions unlocked from the start, in contrast to the other two games
where the player must first complete the first mission to unlock the second, and so on. This
was decided because it was not known if the user would start from the museum or from
the settlement. For the other two games, we were advised and convinced that the large
majority of players would first visit the museum, which is a landmark of the settlements
and that most people visit first. These were to some extent investigated during the early
phases of the project, but the decisions were finalized after field playtesting.
5.4. Co-Creation of Cultural Heritage Content via Field Playtesting
The possibility of co-creating cultural content between field playtesting sessions of
mobile LBGs has not been discussed deeply in related work.
Content creation and curation were not initially trivial. For example, each challenge is
stored in a table with 26 fields in the local database, including texts (x2 for Greek and English
versions), numbers, recourse ids, etc. Additionally, content had to be historically sound
and precise. There were multiple issues with terminology related to artisanal technology,
processes, and tools. In addition, all terms had to be consistent with museum signs and
guides. Thus, various errors appeared in cultural content production in the first version of
the games that had to be identified by local and heritage experts.
Cultural heritage professionals had reviewed content twice before they played the
game in field playtesting. During these reviews, they viewed content in documents or
spreadsheets. However, when they played the game in the field it was far easier to make
sense of the content and respond to other issues as well, e.g., about its appropriateness,
and to propose better alternatives to particular challenges. Furthermore, it was easy to
review content bound to the place and spaces, such as guidelines to navigate to the next
challenge locations. Notably, even more ideas for content were produced but were not
incorporated into the games because they would last even longer (they have been kept for
possible future updates or enhancements).
One important prerequisite condition for productive playtesting in the field is the
availability of fully functional games that have been tested in the lab beforehand. This
ensures the emphasis on field testing is not distracted by possible bugs or trivial usability
issues. When this is the case, it is possible for cultural professionals and experts to focus on
content and provide various corrections, improvements, and further ideas on new content
that is more appropriate or suitable.
5.5. How COVID-19 Affected Participatory Co-Design and Field Work
The restrictions imposed due to the pandemic affected project development in numer-
ous ways.
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2022,6, 36 27 of 30
The members of the research and design team were located in three different loca-
tions in Greece, and they could not meet in person for long periods of time during travel
restrictions. The co-ordination of the design team was more difficult during these periods
since that work had to progress asynchronously, or with extra flexibility to personal sched-
ules. Of course, we made strong use of teleconferencing, online prototyping, and software
development collaboration technologies.
The museums were closed for two extended periods of time due to lockdowns: a
four-month period (March–June 2020) during the first wave of the pandemic and an eight-
month period (November 2020–June 2021). The first lockdown period delayed the field
playtesting for about three months, while the second lockdown caused a project delay to
the release of the games of about six months. When museums were closed it was generally
not possible to connect to the museum spaces even from distance, for example, to conduct
a teleconference with museum staff inside the museum in order to confirm or complement
data and content.
When museums were opened to the public this was according to COVID-19 protocols
(including the use of face masks, limited number of visitors, etc.). All these limitations
caused a considerable decrease in visitors in 2021 at about 40% compared to the year 2019
(the last year before the pandemic). Furthermore, school visits were very few since most
schools visit museums in spring. The time duration of museum visits also dropped due to
people taking precautions. These facts have certainly affected the adoption and engagement
of visitors to mobile games as well.
6. Summary and Conclusions
This paper presented the participatory and co-design thinking process, methods,
and outcomes for the development of LBGs for cultural heritage that promote intangi-
ble heritage about artisanal technology and arts and crafts acknowledged by UNESCO.
Throughout the duration of the project, there was close co-operation with cultural heritage
professionals and local communities in the three cultural sites. We emphasized the con-
struction of fieldwork methods: field visits at the start of the project, field playtesting to
inform the detailed design and software prototypes, and field studies at the release of the
mobile games for fine-tuning and further user experience issues.
Previous work in the co-design and participatory design literature has focused on
particular co-creation methods that may be applied in short-term, focused activities, while
the work in this paper presents a long-term articulation of methods with a detailed account
of results and reflections. The work presents the following contributions to contemporary
participatory and co-design for LBGs for cultural heritage:
•
It presents a detailed case study of applying the design thinking process to LBGs for
cultural heritage, with emphasis on long-term involvement of professionals, local
experts, and visitors (players, users) in various phases (empathize, define, ideate,
prototype, test, and implement). Previous work on the co-design of mobile games for
cultural heritage emphasizes the co-creation phase with particular methods such as
workshops and board games.
•
It presents the design of transferable user experience (UX) of mobile games for a
network of museums. We illustrate how these games can have common high-level UX
goals, game elements, and system design, but different cultural content, resources, and
media and graphics. This is distinct from previous work which emphasizes co-design
of a single LBG.
•
It introduces the methods of field visits, which is a composite, fast-paced method to
gain empathy for and sensitization to the people, the context and heritage.
•
It further documents the method of field playtesting with the constructive interaction
of experts (originally introduced in [
4
]) with respect to outcomes related to co-creation
and curation of cultural content in the field.
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2022,6, 36 28 of 30
We envisage that this work can provide a useful account of applying participatory
design and the design thinking process in mobile games for cultural heritage to other
designers and practitioners.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, P.K., K.P. and A.G.; methodology, P.K.; software, P.K. and
K.P.; validation, P.K., P.V.; formal analysis, P.K.; investigation, P.K., K.P., A.G., P.V., V.N., P.C., S.V. and
D.E.F.; resources, P.K., K.P., A.G., P.V., P.C. and D.E.F.; data curation, P.K.; writing—original draft
preparation, P.K.; writing—review and editing, P.K.; visualization, P.K.; supervision, P.K.; project
administration, P.K.; funding acquisition, P.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding:
This research has been co-financed by the European Union and Greek national funds
through the Operational Program Competitiveness, Entrepreneurship, and Innovation, under the call
RESEARCH—CREATE—INNOVATE (project code: T1EDK-15171).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement:
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the studies.
Data Availability Statement:
The data of this research can be accessed under the ODC-BY 1.0 license
after contacting the corresponding author. According to the ODC-BY 1.0 you are free to share, create
or adapt the data if you attribute its use by citing this manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
Nikolakopoulou, V.; Koutsabasis, P. Methods and practices for assessing the user experience of interactive systems for cultural
heritage. In Applying Innovative Technologies in Heritage Science; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2020; pp. 171–208.
2.
Crooke, E. The politics of community heritage: Motivations, authority and control. Int. J. Herit. Stud.
2010
,16, 16–29. [CrossRef]
3.
Malegiannaki, I.; Daradoumis, T. Analyzing the educational design, use and effect of spa-tial games for cultural heritage: A
literature review. Comput. Educ. 2017,108, 1–10. [CrossRef]
4.
Koutsabasis, P.; Gardeli, A.; Partheniadis, K.; Vogiatzidakis, P.; Nikolakopoulou, V.; Chatzigrigoriou, P.; Vosinakis, S. Field
playtesting with experts’ constructive interaction: An evaluation method for mobile games for cultural heritage. In Proceedings
of the 2021 IEEE Conference on Games (CoG), Virtual, 17–20 August 2021; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2021; pp. 1–9.
5.
UNESCO What is Intangible Cultural Heritage? Available online: https://ich.unesco.org/en/what-is- intangible-heritage- 00003
(accessed on 15 December 2021).
6. Mouseion Topos Project, Homepage. Available online: http://www.mouseion-topos.gr/en (accessed on 15 December 2021).
7.
Chatzigrigoriou, P.; Mavrikas, E. Saving historic buildings with multi-criteria GIS tool: The case of hermoupolis—cyclades. In
Proceedings of the 2013 Digital Heritage International Congress (Digital Heritage), Marseille, France, 28 October–1 November
2013; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2013; Volume 2, pp. 53–59.
8.
UNESCO Intangible Heritage. Tinian Mable Craftmanship. Available online: https://ich.unesco.org/en/RL/tinian-marble-
craftsmanship-01103 (accessed on 15 December 2021).
9.
UNESCO Intangible Heritage. Mediterranean Diet. Available online: https://ich.unesco.org/en/RL/mediterranean-diet-00884
(accessed on 15 December 2021).
10.
UNESCO Intangible Heritage. Knowhow of Cultivating Mastic on the Island of Chios. Available online: https://ich.unesco.org/
en/RL/know-how-of-cultivating-mastic-on-the-island-of-chios-00993 (accessed on 15 December 2021).
11.
PIOP (Piraeus Bank Group Cultural Foundation), Homepage. Available online: https://www.piop.gr/ (accessed on 15 December 2021).
12. Schuler, D.; Namioka, A. (Eds.) Participatory Design: Principles and Practices; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1993.
13. Kvan, T. Collaborative design: What is it? Autom. Constr. 2000,9, 409–415. [CrossRef]
14.
Vosinakis, S.; Koutsabasis, P.; Stavrakis, M.; Viorres, N.; Darzentas, J. Virtual environments for collaborative design: Requirements
and guidelines from a social action perspective. Co-Design 2008,4, 133–150. [CrossRef]
15. Norman, D.A. The Psychology of Everyday Things; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 1988.
16. Sanders, E.B.N.; Stappers, P.J. Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. Co-Design 2008,4, 5–18. [CrossRef]
17.
Sanders, E.B.N. From user-centered to participatory design approaches. In Design and the Social Sciences; CRC Press: Boca Raton,
FL, USA, 2002; pp. 18–25.
18.
Logler, N.; Yoo, D.; Friedman, B. Metaphor cards: A how-to-guide for making and using a generative metaphorical design toolkit.
In Proceedings of the 2018 Designing Interactive Systems Conference, Hong Kong, China, 9–13 June 2018; pp. 1373–1386.
19.
Van Mechelen, M. Designing Technologies for and with Children: Theoretical Reflections and a Practical Inquiry towards a
Co-Design Toolkit. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Hasselt, Hasselt, Belgium, 2016. Available online: https://lirias.kuleuven.be/
retrieve/391859 (accessed on 15 December 2021).
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2022,6, 36 29 of 30
20.
Huybrechts, L.; Benesch, H.; Geib, J. Co-Design and the public realm. Co-Design Int. J. Co-Creation Des. Arts
2017
,13, 148–159.
[CrossRef]
21.
Gruen, D. Stories and storytelling in the design of interactive systems. In Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Designing
Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods, and Techniques, New York, NY, USA, 17–19 August 2000; pp. 446–447.
22.
Rasila, H.M.; Rothe, P.; Nenonen, S. Workplace experience–A journey through a business park. Facilities
2009
,27, 486–496.
[CrossRef]
23.
Oulasvirta, A.; Kurvinen, E.; Kankainen, T. Understanding contexts by being there: Case studies in bodystorming. Pers. Ubiquitous
Comput. 2003,7, 125–134. [CrossRef]
24. Steen, M. Co-design as a process of joint inquiry and imagination. Des. Issues 2013,29, 16–28. [CrossRef]
25.
Avram, G.; Ciolfi, L.; Maye, L. Creating tangible interactions with cultural heritage: Lessons learned from a large scale, long term
co-design project. CoDesign 2020,16, 3. [CrossRef]
26.
De Andrade, B.A.; de Sena, Í.S.; Moura, A.C.M. Tirolcraft: The quest of children to playing the role of planners at a heritage
protected town. In Euro-Mediterranean Conference 2016; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 825–835.
27.
Dindler, C.; Iversen, O.S.; Smith, R.; Veerasawmy, R. Participatory design at the museum: Inquiring into children’s everyday
engagement in cultural heritage. In Proceedings of the 22nd Conference of the Computer-Human Interaction Special Interest
Group of Australia on Computer-Human Interaction 2010, Brisbane, QLD, Australia, 22–26 November 2010; pp. 72–79.
28.
Khaled, R.; Vasalou, A. Bridging serious games and participatory design. Int. J. Child-Comput. Interact.
2014
,2, 93–100. [CrossRef]
29.
Rennick-Egglestone, S.; Brundell, P.; Koleva, B.; Benford, S.; Roussou, M.; Chaffardon, C. Families and mobile devices in museums:
Designing for integrated experiences. J. Comput. Cult. Herit. JOCCH 2016,9, 1–13. [CrossRef]
30.
Angelopoulou, A.; Economou, D.; Bouki, V.; Psarrou, A.; Jin, L.; Pritchard, C.; Kolyda, F. Mobile augmented reality for cultural
heritage. In International Conference on Mobile Wireless Middleware, Operating Systems, and Applications; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg,
Germany, 2011; pp. 15–22.
31.
Huizenga, J.; Admiraal, W.; Akkerman, S.; Dam, G.T. Mobile game-based learning in secondary education: Engagement,
motivation and learning in a mobile city game. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 2009,25, 332–344. [CrossRef]
32.
Georgiadi, N.; Kokkoli-Papadopoulou, E.; Kordatos, G.; Partheniadis, K.; Sparakis, M.; Koutsabasis, P.; Vosinakis, S.; Zissis, D.;
Stavrakis, M. A pervasive role-playing game for introducing elementary school students to archaeology. In Proceedings of the
18th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services Adjunct, Florence, Italy, 6–9
September 2016; pp. 1016–1020.
33. Beacon Zone Home Page. Available online: https://www.beaconzone.co.uk/sensor (accessed on 15 December 2021).
34.
Ekonomou, T.; Vosinakis, S. Mobile augmented reality games as an engaging tool for cultural heritage dissemination: A case
study. Sci. Cult. 2018,4, 5.
35.
Laato, S.; Laato, A. Augmented reality to enhance visitors’ experience at archaeological sites. In World Conference on Information
Systems and Technologies; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 349–358.
36.
Bowser, A.E.; Hansen, D.L.; Raphael, J.; Reid, M.; Gamett, R.J.; He, Y.R.; Preece, J.J. Prototyping in PLACE: A scalable approach to
developing location-based apps and games. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
2013, Paris, France, 27 April–2 May 2013; pp. 1519–1528.
37.
Luiro, E.; Hannula, P.; Launne, E.; Mustonen, S.; Westerlund, T.; Häkkilä, J. Exploring local history and cultural heritage through
a mobile game. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia, Pisa, Italy, 27–29
November 2019; pp. 1–4.
38.
Jones, C.; Papangelis, K. Reflective practice: Lessons learnt by using board games. In International Conference on Geographic
Information Science; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 291–307.
39.
Jones, C.E.; Liapis, A.; Lykourentzou, I.; Guido, D. Board game prototyping to co-design a better location-based digital game. In
Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Denver, CO, USA, 6–11
May 2017; pp. 1055–1064.
40.
Slingerland, G.; Fonseca, X.; Lukosch, S.; Brazier, F. Location-based challenges for playful neighbourhood exploration. Behav. Inf.
Technol. 2020,41, 433–451. [CrossRef]
41.
Coenen, T.; Mostmans, L.; Naessens, K. MuseUs: Case study of a pervasive cultural heritage serious game. J. Comput. Cult. Herit.
JOCCH 2013,6, 1–19. [CrossRef]
42. Brown, T. Design Thinking. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2008,86, 84.
43.
Nielsen-Norman Group, Design Thinking 101. Available online: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/design-thinking/ (accessed
on 15 December 2021).
44.
Chios Gum Mastic Growers’ Association, Homepage. Available online: https://www.gummastic.gr/ (accessed on 15 December 2021).
45.
Florakis, A. Tinian Marble Crafts: History and Technique; Piraeus Bank Group Cultural Foundation: Athens, Greece, 2008; ISBN 978-
960-244-112-1.
46.
Rieman, J. A field study of exploratory learning strategies. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. TOCHI
1996
,3, 189–218. [CrossRef]
47.
Fedosov, A.; Boos, D.; Schmidt-Rauch, S.; Ojala, J.; Lewkowicz, M. Challenges of transferring UX designs and insights across
products and services. In Proceedings of the 19th European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work: The
International Venue on Practice-Centred Computing on the Design of Cooperation Technologies—Exploratory Papers, Reports of
the European Society for Socially Embedded Technologies, Zurich, Switzerland, 7–11 June 2021. [CrossRef]
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2022,6, 36 30 of 30
48.
Hunicke, R.; LeBlanc, M.; Zubek, R. MDA: A formal approach to game design and game research. Proc. AAAI Workshop Chall.
Game AI 2004,4, 1722.
49. Zoom, Homepage. Available online: https://zoom.us/ (accessed on 15 December 2021).
50. Figma, Homepage. Available online: https://www.figma.com/ (accessed on 15 December 2021).
51. Material Design, Homepage. Available online: https://material.io/design (accessed on 15 December 2021).
52. Madsen, K.H. A guide to metaphorical design. Commun. ACM 1994,37, 57–62. [CrossRef]
53.
Vosinakis, S.; Nikolakopoulou, V.; Stavrakis, M.; Fragkedis, L.; Chatzigrigoriou, P.; Koutsabasis, P. Co-Design of a Playful Mixed
Reality Installation: An Interactive Crane in the Museum of Marble Crafts. Heritage 2020,3, 1496–1519. [CrossRef]
54. GitHub, Homepage. Available online: https://github.com/ (accessed on 15 December 2021).
55.
Android Architecture Components Explained. Available online: https://medium.com/@petergichia/android-architecture-
components-explained-part-1-8ce37ad413e0 (accessed on 15 December 2021).
56.
O’Mailey, C.; Draper, S.; Riley, M.S. Constructive interaction: A method for studying user-computer-user interaction. In Proceedings
of the IFIP INTERACT’84 1st International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, London, UK, 4–7 September 1984.
57.
Koutsabasis, P.; Spyrou, T.; Darzentas, J. Evaluating usability evaluation methods: Criteria, method and a case study. In
International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2007; pp. 569–578.
58.
Nielsen, J. Finding usability problems through heuristic evaluation. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors
in Computing Systems, Monterey, CA, USA, 3–7 May 1992. [CrossRef]
59.
Paavilainen, J. Playability: A game-centric definition. In CHI PLAY ’17 Extended Abstracts; ACM Digital Library: New York, NY,
USA, 2017; pp. 487–494. [CrossRef]
60. Mouseion Topos, Facebook Page. Available online: https://www.facebook.com/mouseio.topos/ (accessed on 15 December 2021).
61. Thessaloniki Design Week, Homepage. Available online: https://thessalonikidesignweek.gr/ (accessed on 15 December 2021).
62.
Mouseion Topos—Mobile Games Promo Videos—You Tube. Available online: https://t.ly/kFoJ (accessed on 15 December 2021).
63.
Schrepp, M.; Hinderks, A.; Thomaschewski, J. Construction of a benchmark for the User Experience Questionnaire (UEQ). Int. J.
Interact. Multimed. Artif. Intell. 2017,4, 40–44. [CrossRef]
64.
Schrepp, M. User Experience Questionnaire Handbook. 2018. Available online: https://www.ueq-online.org/Material/
Handbook.pdf (accessed on 15 December 2021).
Content uploaded by Panayiotis Koutsabasis
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Panayiotis Koutsabasis on May 04, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
