Drha2020 martin debattista presentation final

Digitised heritage:
is it an alternative or just
a complement to the real
thing?
Martin Debattista
with Tara Portelli & Ylenia Marmarà 9th September 2020

2
We are going to discuss
Definitions and context
1. Immersive digital technologies
2. Immersive technologies and cultural heritage
3. Immersive technologies and education
The Mġarr WWII air raid shelter cinematic VR production
Research Methodology
Results and conclusion

4
The holodeck in Star Trek - sci-fiction showing us
the way forward?

Immersive technologies are not a 21st century idea at all …
“The ultimate display would, of course, be a room within
which the computer can control the existence of matter. A
chair displayed in such a room would be good enough to
sit in. Handcuffs displayed in such a room would be
confining, and a bullet displayed in such a room would be
fatal. With appropriate programming such a display could
literally be the Wonderland into which Alice walked.”
Ivan Sutherland, 1965
5

6
“The definition of virtual reality is based on concepts
of “presence” and “telepresence” which refer to the
sense of being in an environment, generated by
natural or mediated means, respectively.
Steuer,1992, p.73

7
Milgram & Kishino (1994). A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays.

9
“creating compelling VR experiences is an incredibly
complex challenge. When VR is done well, the results
are brilliant and pleasurable experiences that go
beyond what we can do in the real world. When VR is
done badly, not only do users get frustrated, but they
can get sick. There are many causes of bad VR; some
failures come from the limitations of technology, but
many come from a lack of understanding perception,
interaction, design principles, and real users.”
Jerald, 2015, p.1

10
Slater and Wilbur, 1997, p.603
Immersion and presence in VR
“We propose that the degree of immersion can be objectively
assessed as the characteristics of a technology, and has
dimensions such as the extent to which a display system can
deliver an inclusive, extensive, surrounding and vivid illusion
of virtual environment to a participant.
“ Presence is a state of consciousness that may be
concomitant with immersion, and is related to a sense of
being in a place.”

11
“...probably the most important element to any VR
experience is the participant(s). All the magic of VR
happens in the mind of the participants, hence,
every VR experience is different for each of them”
Sherman & Craig, 2018, p.6

12
Stone & Ojika, 2000, p.73
“Virtual Heritage—the use of computer-based
interactive technologies to record, preserve, or
recreate artifacts, sites, and actors of historic, artistic,
religious, and cultural significance and to deliver the
results openly to a global audience in such a way as
to provide formative educational experiences
through electronic manipulations of time and
space”
Immersive technologies and cultural heritage

13
“So virtual heritage projects typically aim to provide
three-dimensional interactive digital environments
that aid the understanding of new cultures and
languages rather than merely transfer learning
terms and strategies from static prescriptive media
such as books.”
Champion, E. (2015) p.5
Immersive technologies and education

14
“the choice/adoption of VR in education is limited by
various factors” – subject, curriculum, technology,
budget, resources
“In both face-to-face or in distance education, the most
effective use of VR will be when it is combined with
other technologies such as videos, podcasts, wikis,
blogs or forums, and mobile apps … The adoption of
VR is still in its infancy.”
Minocha, Tudor, & Tilling, 2017, p.44

15
“Our findings suggest that virtual agents add interactivity
and may result in greater student engagement, but such
(or even greater) engagement is also achievable in
traditional classroom scenarios with humans. At present,
no virtual agent is capable of being as engaging as a
teacher or a fellow student can be. Therefore, our findings
should not be interpreted as evidence in favour of using
virtual worlds and virtual agents to replace traditional
classroom instruction.”
Ijaz, Bogdanovych & Trescak, 2017, p.926

Literature review summary
16
● Immersive technologies is a new field but with
relatively old roots in the vision of a digital society
● Adoption of such technologies in heritage and
education is expanding but not taking the place of
the traditional classroom
● Immersion and presence have both a
technological and psychological aspect

The Mġarr WWII air raid shelter
cinematic VR production
17

18
“Surround (or 360) movies expose the fuzzy edges of what is
or is not VR. A spherically presented movie allows a viewer
to interactively choose the region of the movie they are able
to see. Facing forward they see a particular subset of the
action, and turning around they can see what’s going on
behind them. This is sometimes referred to as a 360-degree
(or 360 × 180 degree) movie, or as Cinematic-VR.”
Sherman & Craig, 2018, p.13

The production equipment
• Insta 360 One 360-degree
camera
• Final Cut Pro X editing
software on an Apple iMac
computer
• Recording (narration,
music and sound effects)
in MP3 format provided by
the site owner
19

The
consumption
equipment
Smartphone
with Google
Cardboard
OR
VR headset
20

The Research Question
23
Can the creation of an
immersive digital experience
of original heritage replace the
experience and resulting
interpretation of the real
thing?

Sample
VR experience only
Ø ITS Certificate Level students (EQF Level 3)
Ø n= 44
Ø 47% had never experienced VR before
Site visit + VR experience
Ø ITS Higher National Diploma in Tour Guiding students (EQF
Level 5)
Ø n= 5
Ø 60% had never experienced VR before
24

VR Only (1)
26
● “Yes and no because being there has a more realistic feel in temperature
and real life, but than you can still get a good experience from vr”
● “While Vr is fun, It doesn't give the same atmosphere feeling and visual
quality”
● “I think that for those who cannot go to the site, it is a good substitute to
experience it through AR.

VR Only (4)
28
● “The video was nice but I got dizzy looking at all the stones”
● “It was a fun and easy lesson where you can enjoy your
time doing something different”
● “Was interesting and i like it but it wasn’t so clear”
Star rating 1 to 10 (10 highest) as an educational
experience:
1-5 stars: 35% 6-10 star: 65%

Site + VR (1)
29
● “I think the VR experience is very interesting, but … I still
prefer the real on site”
● “you will never get 100% the feeling of the place without
being there”.

Site + VR (2)
30
● “no … because it will never involve all senses”
● “It already is, to some extent”

Site + VR (3)
31
What did you experience while on the physical site that
cannot be replicated with VR, AR and 360 degree
multimedia?
● “Humidity, uneven floor in some areas”
● “The involvement of all senses and the physical walk
through, but the virtual experience was surprisingly truly
claustrophobic”
● “The smell, the sense of discovery while walking, the
anticipation of what to find around every corner”
● “Smells, perception of size, being fully in control of the tour
(eg walking wherever I wanted to)”

Site + VR (4)
32
What did you experience using 360 degree
multimedia that you could not experience on the
physical site?
● “there was no danger to walk, no sign mind your head etc …”
● “The narration is synchronized with the timing of the VR. While
on site, you take longer to walk through and the narration
would have stopped earlier than your visit”
● “Potentially location, being able to do it remotely. Also pausing
and replaying”

Site + VR (5)
33
● “experiencing it first hand would be a much more education
enhancing experience”
● “effective claustrophobic effect”
● “no wasted time for travel. for a basic experience it works well”
● “the inconsistent movements give physical discomfort.”
● “Reminded me of playing video games”

Aggregate results VR only with Site + VR
34
● Participants who watched the VR and went
on site gave higher star quality rating for
the cinematic VR production
● The participants’ responses and comment
reflect literature - immersion, presence,
education potential, health issues.

The answer to the research question is …
35

36
● Immersive technologies can create a
complementary experience and are not a
substitute for the real thing (presence)
● The sense of presence is limited: smelling,
feeling the environment (temperature,
humidity) cannot be replicated virtually yet.
● The technology is not mature enough to
completely replace the physical site
(immersion)
NO!

38
Azuma, R., Baillot, Y., Behringer, R., Feiner, S., Julier, S., & Macintyre, B. (2001).
Recent advances in augmented reality. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications,
21(6), 34-47
Bower, M., & Sturman, D. (2015). What are the educational affordances of wearable
technologies? Computers & Education, 88, 343-353.
Champion, E. (2015). Introduction to Virtual Heritage. In R. Gilliam & J. Jacobs (Eds.),
The Egyptian Oracle Project; Ancient Ceremony in Augmented Reality. UK:
Bloomsbury.
Cummings, J. J., & Bailenson, J. N. (2016). How Immersive Is Enough? A Meta-
Analysis of the Effect of Immersive Technology on User Presence.
Jerald, J. (2015). The VR book: Human-centered design for virtual reality: ACM
Books.
Milgram, P., & Kishino, F. (1994). A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. IEICE
TRANSACTIONS on Information and Systems, 77(12), 1321-1329.
References (1)

39
Minocha, S., Tudor, A. D., & Tilling, S. (2017, July). Affordances of mobile virtual reality
and their role in learning and teaching. In Proceedings of the 31st British Computer
Society Human Computer Interaction Conference (p. 44). BCS Learning & Development
Ltd.
Sherman, W. R., & Craig, A. B. (2018). Introduction to Virtual Reality. In W. R. Sherman
& A. B. Craig (Eds.), Understanding Virtual Reality (Second Edition) (pp. 3-4). Boston:
Morgan Kaufmann.
Slater, M., & Wilbur, S. (1997). A framework for immersive virtual environments (FIVE):
Speculations on the role of presence in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators &
Virtual Environments, 6(6), 603-616.
Stone, R., & Ojika, T. (2000). Virtual heritage: what next? IEEE Multimedia, 7(2), 73-74.
Sutherland, I. E. (1965). The ultimate display. Paper presented at the Proceedings of
IFIP Congress.
References (2)

www.its.edu.m
t
Martin Debattista
martin.debattista@its.edu.mt
40

Drha2020 martin debattista presentation final

More Related Content

Similar to Drha2020 martin debattista presentation final

Recently uploaded

Drha2020 martin debattista presentation final