Inclusive Museums and Augmented Reality: Affordances, Participation, Ethics, and Fun

Sheehy, Kieron; Carrizosa, Helena Garcia; Rix, Jonathan; Tai-Seale, Ming; Hayhoe, Simon

doi:10.18848/1835-2014/cgp/v12i04/67-85

Cited by 18 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, Letellier [84] developed a virtual tour for the remote, inaccessible area of Luang Prabang in Laos and argued that virtual tour can be the best option for visitors with health issues or difficulties to cope with environmental factors such as humidity and temperature. A study by Sheehy et al [86] provided a good overview of research on AR for museum visitors with special needs such as sensory, or physically impaired visitors. They concluded that AR is used widely to provide a multi-sensory experience for visitors, with a varied focus for different target groups, for example, the affordances of such technology or different techniques for specific special needs.…”

Section: Vr/ar and Visitors' Experiencementioning

confidence: 99%

Usability evaluation of a virtual reality smartphone app for a living museum

Othman

Nogoibaeva

Leong

et al. 2021

Univ Access Inf Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper elaborates the empirical evidence of a usability evaluation of a VR and non-VR virtual tour application for a living museum. The System Usability Scale (SUS) was used in between participants experiments (Group 1: non-VR version and Group 2: VR version) with 40 participants. The results show that the mean scores of all components for the VR version are higher compared to the non-VR version, overall SUS score (72.10 vs 68.10), usability score (75.50 vs 71.70), and learnability (58.40 vs 57.00). Further analysis using a two-tailed independent t test showed no difference between the non-VR and VR versions. Additionally, no significant difference was observed between the groups in the context of gender, nationality, and prior experience (other VR tour applications) for overall SUS score, usability score, and learnability score. Α two-tailed independent t test indicated no significant difference in the usability score between participants with VR experience and no VR experience. However, a significant difference was found between participants with VR experience and no VR experience for both SUS score (t(38) = 2.17, p = 0.037) and learnability score (t(38) = 2.40, p = 0.021). The independent t test results indicated a significant difference between participant with and without previous visits to SCV for the usability score (t(38) = −2.31, p = 0.027), while there was no significant differences observed in other components. It can be concluded that both versions passed based on the SUS score. However, the sub-scale usability and learnability scores indicated some usability issue.

show abstract

Section: Vr/ar and Visitors' Experiencementioning

confidence: 99%

Usability evaluation of a virtual reality smartphone app for a living museum

Othman

Nogoibaeva

Leong

et al. 2021

Univ Access Inf Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The tension around partners' understandings of participatory and design process also echoed our experience at the start of the ARCHES project and findings from other ARCHES systematic reviews; our technology partners were used to focusing their products and research upon specific impairment categories (Rix et al, 2020a) and having a more quantitative, quasi-experimental expectation of participation (Sheehy et al, 2019). This created a clear dichotomy for the project in light of how it had been designed, funded and the ways in which the exploration groups worked.…”

Section: Qrj 222mentioning

confidence: 92%

“…Within participatory action research projects though, it has been noted that the level of control the community have and their intentional influence on structures, topics and outcomes depends on the type of supports available and the manner in which supports are provided; these could be variously under the control of 'advisors', under shared control, or directed by participants with support (Garcia-Iriarte et al, 2009). In a systematic review of research in the development of technology, undertaken within the ARCHES project (Sheehy et al, 2019), despite a growing recognition of the need for participation of end users, it was evident that the 'community' were largely passive 'subjects' within the technology-focussed research or absent from it. The majority of studies were consultative at best, but tended towards experiment or review of a proposal.…”

Section: Background To the Projectmentioning

confidence: 99%

It soon became clear – insights into technology and participation

Travnicek

Stoll

Reichinger

et al. 2021

QRJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThis paper aims to explore the experience of working with different conceptualisations of participation and participatory practice. This is done through an examination of the involvement of a technology company within a multinational, 3-years participatory research project involving 13 partners and over 200 disabled people.Design/methodology/approachThis paper provides a case study, narrative account of a range of activities undertaken within the project, presenting a rare and much-needed explicit insight into the emergence of participatory ways of working and the reasoning and tensions behind them.FindingsThrough the case study gaze of one of the technology companies involved, it explicates the underpinning processes of the participatory approach and how these challenged the notions of various partners.Originality/valueThis paper shows how engaging in meaningfully participatory research creates profound institutional challenges for technology developers. The subsequent need to make hard decisions and compromises throughout disrupts traditional ways of working and anticipated outcomes. However, it also reveals opportunities for delivering unanticipated and transformative outcomes, highlighting the need for greater flexibility in funding research that aims to be participatory.

show abstract

“…All of the reported technologies demonstrated the potential for enhancing or even transforming the experiences of museum "users" (Sheehy et al, 2019). An emerging theme captured the ways in which the potential benefits of a technology were reflected in terms of everyday usability.…”

Section: Real-life Usabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Designing technologies for museums: accessibility and participation issues

Carrizosa

Sheehy

Rix

et al. 2020

JET

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This paper aims to report the findings of a systematized literature review focusing on participatory research and accessibly in the context of assistive technologies, developed for use within museums by people with sensory impairments or a learning disability. The extent and nature of participatory research that occurs within the creation of technologies to facilitate accessible museum experiences is uncertain, and this is therefore a focus of this paper. Design/methodology/approach This paper is a systematized literature review and subsequent thematic analysis. Findings A screening of 294 research papers produced 8 papers for analysis in detail. A thematic analysis identified that the concept of accessibly has nuanced meanings, underpinned by social values; the attractiveness of a technology is important in supporting real-life usability; and that the conceptualization of participation should extend beyond the end users. Social implications The argument is made that increasing the participation of people with sensory impairments and learning disabilities in the research process will benefit the design of technologies that facilitate accessibility for these groups. Originality/value An original notion of participation has emerged from this review. It includes the participation and goals of disabled people but has expanded the concept to encompass museum personnel and indeed the physical and social spaces of the museums and heritage sites themselves. This constructs a broad of participation, with different aspects being reflected across the review’s research papers.

show abstract

Inclusive Museums and Augmented Reality: Affordances, Participation, Ethics, and Fun

Abstract: The Open University's repository of research publications and other research outputs Inclusive museums and augmented reality. Affordances, participation, ethics and fun

Cited by 18 publications

References 37 publications

Usability evaluation of a virtual reality smartphone app for a living museum

Usability evaluation of a virtual reality smartphone app for a living museum

It soon became clear – insights into technology and participation

Designing technologies for museums: accessibility and participation issues

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About