Improving User Experience for Lost Heritage Sites with a User-Centered Indirect Augmented Reality Application

  • Christian L. Jakobsen
  • Jon B. Larsen
  • Mads Luther Nørlem
  • Martin Kraus
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering book series (LNICST, volume 229)


Using digital media technology, e.g. augmented reality, to convey information about cultural heritage, is becoming increasingly more common. While augmented reality is considered useful and innovative for this purpose, systems based on this technology do at times fail to meet the end users’ needs. This paper describes the continued user-centered development and evaluation of an indirect augmented reality application, used to convey information and to visualize the lost Viking ring fortress of Aggersborg, with the larger goal of improving the user experience currently available at the Aggersborg site.

The app was evaluated on users representing the visitors of Aggersborg. The participants were evaluating their user experience of the Aggersborg information board with and without the app as well as the usability of the app by answering user experience and usability questionnaires. It was found that the app did significantly increase user experience for children, while not doing so for seniors.


Augmented reality Indirect augmented reality User experience Virtual cultural heritage Narrative 



We would like to thank Vesterhimmerlands Museum, especially museum cultural heritage supervisor Maria Clement Hagstrup. The collaboration throughout the semester resulted in invaluable knowledge and feedback on the topic of Aggersborg, what content was important to focus on developing as well as crucial assistance during the evaluation of the project.


  1. 1.
    Simon, N.: The participatory museum. In: Museum 2.0 (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dunleavy, M., et al.: Affordances and limitations of immersive participatory augmented reality simulations for teaching and learning. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 18(1), 7–22 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kounavis, C.D., et al.: Enhancing the tourism experience through mobile augmented reality: challenges and prospects. Int. J. Eng. Bus. Manag. 4, 10 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cipolla Ficarra, F.V., Nicol, E., Cipolla-Ficarra, M.: Usability, communicability and cultural tourism in interactive systems: trends, economic effects and social impact. In: Cipolla Ficarra, F.V., de Castro Lozano, C., Nicol, E., Kratky, A., Cipolla-Ficarra, M. (eds.) HCITOCH 2010. LNCS, vol. 6529, pp. 100–114. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schiavottiello, N., Brigola, J.: ArkTeller: a new 3D real-time storytelling platform for cultural heritage interpretation. In: 2015 Digital Heritage, pp. 753–754 (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jakobsen, C.L., et al.: Reviving Aggersborg - conveying lost heritage sites through indirect augmented reality. In: VRIC 2017, Laval, France (n.d.)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bachi, V., Fresa, A., Pierotti, C., Prandoni, C.: The digitization age: mass culture is quality culture. Challenges for cultural heritage and society. In: Ioannides, M., Magnenat-Thalmann, N., Fink, E., Žarnić, R., Yen, A.-Y., Quak, E. (eds.) EuroMed 2014. LNCS, vol. 8740, pp. 786–801. Springer, Cham (2014). Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Slater, M.: Place illusion and plausibility can lead to realistic behaviour in immersive virtual environments. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 364(1535), 3549–3557 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bimber, O., Raskar, R.: Modern approaches to augmented reality. In: ACM SIGGRAPH 2006 Courses. ACM, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wither, J., et al.: Mobile augmented reality: indirect augmented reality. Comput. Graph. 35(4), 810–822 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Liestøl, G.: Augmented reality and digital genre design; situated simulations on the iPhone. In: 2009 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality - Arts, Media and Humanities, pp. 29–34 (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Liestøl, G., et al.: Exploring situated knowledge building using mobile augmented reality. Qwerty - Open Interdiscipl. J. Technol. Cult. Educ. 11, 26–43 (2016)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Liestøl, G., Morrison, A.: The power of place and perspective: sensory media and situated simulations in urban design. In: Sheller, M., de Souza e Silva, A. (eds.) Mobility and Locative Media, pp. 207–223. Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Liestøl, G., Rasmussen, T.: In the presence of the past: a field trial evaluation of a situated simulation design reconstructing a Viking burial scene. In: Szücs, A., Tait, A.W. (eds.) Proceedings of EDEN 2010. European Distance and E-Learning Network Budapest (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Field, A., Hole, D.G.J.: How to Design and Report Experiments. Sage Publications Ltd, Thousand Oaks (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Self-Determination Theory: Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI).
  17. 17.

Copyright information

© ICST Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian L. Jakobsen
    • 1
  • Jon B. Larsen
    • 1
  • Mads Luther Nørlem
    • 1
  • Martin Kraus
    • 1
  1. 1.Aalborg UniversityAalborgDenmark

Personalised recommendations