http://dx.doi.org/10.14236/ewic/EVA2018.

15

Virtual Exhibitions:
What do we win and what do we lose?

Katrin Wolf & Jens Reinhardt Markus Funk

Hamburg University of Applied Sciences Technical University Darmstadt
Hamburg, Germany Darmstadt, Germany
[email protected] [email protected]

Virtual reality (VR) promises to allow for replicating the physical world. As consequence, it is used
in the context of digital curating to enable remote exhibition visits. In this paper, we are exploring
what visitors win and what they lose in virtual exhibitions compared to their original. We created a
virtual representation of a physical exhibition those values highly depend on its authenticity by
being located in an original historical place and showing only original artefact. In a user study, we
compared the exhibition experience of the physical with the virtual exhibition and gathered ideas
about how the pure virtual exhibition can be augmented using digital media. Afterwards, we
conducted an interview with museum experts. We discussed the results and ideas proposed in the
first experiment. In conclusion, we summarise potential application for augmented VR exhibitions
and highlight their values and limitations.

Virtual Reality. Augmented virtuality. Virtual cultural heritage. Virtual museums.

1. INTRODUCTION travelling to their physical location, previous

research has shown that simply replicating a
As virtual reality (VR) promises to allow for physical space fails a good user experience
replicating the physical world, it is used in the (Styliani 2009). We hypothesis that a virtual
context of digital curating to allow for virtual museum can use mediated augmentation to
museum visits. While everybody with an Internet increase user experience, which in turn could
connection could theoretically visit virtual attract more visitors. To better understand how to
museums, only few people do. Interestingly, more increase UX in virtual museums, we aim to better
and more people visit physical museums (Jung understand the challenges of virtual exhibitions
2017). Consequently, one may suggest that virtual from the visitors’ perspective, but we also want to
exhibitions are not fully understood and that more learn from people that know museums best, their
people will visit them if that changes. Therefore, the curators and employees, what kind of VR museum
question that motivates this work is: they would appreciate.

 What do we win and what do we lose in In a user study, we compared UX in a physical

virtual exhibitions? museum, the Otto Weidt Museum for the Blind, with
the experience in its virtual replica. We gathered
While VR has successfully entered the games data about advantages of both, the physical and
market in the last few years through creating highly the virtual museum. Furthermore, we collected
immersive experiences, virtual exhibitions do not ideas about how media, content, and interactivity
provide similar user experience (UX). could be designed to beneficially augment the
museum.
Using digital media in museums and exhibitions is
not new. There has been a long tradition in Afterwards, we presented these study results to the
showing digital representations of cultural heritage curators and employees of the physical museum.
artefacts in web-based archives, such as the We interviewed these experts regarding their
museum-digital (http://www.museum-digital.de). favours and doubts imagining a virtual replica of
Nowadays, VR technology allows for more their museum presented to their visitors and to the
authentic experiences through creating a 3D replica world through the Internet.
of a museum or 360° views. Although such virtual
museums do neither cost entry fee nor require

© Wolf et al. Published by 79

BCS Learning and Development Ltd.
Proceedings of Proceedings of EVA London 2018, UK
 Virtual Exhibitions: What do we win and what do we lose?
Katrin Wolf, Jens Reinhardt & Markus Funk

Figure 1: Left column: 360° camera captures of the last three museum rooms, the last one is the hideout. Right column: VR
views of the last three museum rooms with highlighted exhibits and corresponding labels.

(2001) stated that while we are still at the early

stages of using immersive VR for public access,
2. RELATED WORK such systems have great potential to enrich
learning experiences. Farella et al. (2005)
Digital media in museums and exhibitions has been introduced a platform for interactive virtual heritage
used for decades, and virtual museums, for applications that integrates a VR system with
example virtual replica of existing museums wireless, connected portable and wearable
(Deggim 2017, Reinhardt 2018), are a slowly but computers for peer-to-peer information exchange.
constantly growing application domain (for Ramic-Brkic et al. developed an augmented real-
example, see the list available online at: time virtual environment of the church of the holy
http://www.virtualfreesites.com/museums.museums trinity in Mostar (2009). Gomes et al. (2012)
.html). Moreover, Augmented Reality (AR) has implemented a cave application; Ilha Musical is an
been widely used to enrich UX in exhibitions since interactive panoramic experience for children using
many years (Benko 2004, Hornecker 2010, Linaza a game competition and cooperation as a means of
2007, Risseeuw 2016, Woods 2004). engaging children with each other. Gaitatzes et al.
(2005) present a VR system informing about the
Previous work mainly implemented VR systems to Olympic Games in ancient Greece. The application
explore UX aspects. Neovesky and Peinelt (2015) uses interactivity to generate educational value
published an open source generic software that through making the user/spectator be an interacting
allows its users to build virtual tours for all kinds of part of the edutainment activity. Park et al. (2006)
buildings and sites without any knowledge of developed Digital Koguryo, a virtual reality
programming. This software make it possible to reconstruction of a Koguryo mural tumulus,
create more advanced VR exhibitions than those designed to educate visitors in the cultural
generated with Google Open Gallery background and life style of the ancient Koguryo.
(https://www.google.com/opengallery), which still The authors of the related work agree that VR has
lacks in smooth navigation and is limited to only great potential to enrich and expand museums,
few interaction possibilities. Through analysing an exhibitions and cultural heritage. With this paper,
immersive interactive virtual archaeology we intend to better understand how to realise that
application for the broad public, Gaitatzes et al. aim.

80
 Virtual Exhibitions: What do we win and what do we lose?
Katrin Wolf, Jens Reinhardt & Markus Funk

3. RESEARCH QUESTIONS For isolating the factor of virtuality, our approach

was to compare the physical exhibition with an
It is widely accepted that virtual exhibitions result in exact virtual replica showing the rooms of the
a decrease in quality of UX compared to a visit in a Workshop for the Blind in Berlin and allowing for
real exhibition. We assume that this effect will watching the same content as the one that is
particularly occur when originality and authenticity available in the exhibition. Aiming for fair
matter in a real exhibition, such as for original art conditions, we did not add content but also tried to
works or authentic historical places. not omit details that exist in the real exhibition.
Hence, we created a pure virtual replica of the
Therefore, we selected as research context a exhibition without any (content or interaction)
museum that is highly authentic and full of original augmentation.
artefact and traces, as it is located at a historic
original place. We chose the museum Otto Weidt’s As previous work suggested that pure virtual
Workshop for the Blind in Berlin replicas of physical museums lack in UX, we see
(http://www.museum-blindenwerkstatt.de). The the replica as base to be able to understand
museum used to be a brush workshop where blind limitations of VR but also as interaction probe that
and deaf people worked. During the era when the may trigger ideas about how to improve VR. Media
Nazi regime was in power, the owner of the augmentation or augmented virtuality (Milgram
workshop, Otto Weidt, employed Jewish people to 1994) is a promising candidate to enhance UX.
protect them from the deportation to concentration Hence, our second research question aim to gather
camps. A cabinet occludes the entrance of the last idea for augmented virtual (AV) reality in the
room of the workshop, and a Jewish family was museum context.
hidden there for nine months until the secret room
was found during a Gestapo razzia. The family was  RQ2: What concepts for an augmented
then deported to Auschwitz and murdered. The virtual Workshop for the Blind may be
Workshop for the Blind is located in the East of appropriate and would add value to the
Berlin. During the socialistic area, it was closed in existing physical exhibition?
1952 and afterwards partly used as storage rooms.
Hence and gladly, the four last rooms of the
workshop, including the secret hideout, were kept 4. USER STUDY
unchanged. The paint of the walls, the old creaking
wooden floor, and some of the furnishing of the We conducted a user study where visitors of the
rooms have been conserved until the workshop Workshop for the Blind experienced both, the real
rooms became a museum in 1999. That historic and a virtually created exhibition, aiming to get
patina, the authentic atmosphere, and the dramatic qualitative feedback on different UX aspects as well
events that took place in these rooms make a visit as ideas for AV exhibitions.
in the Workshop for the Blind a unique and an
4.1. Experiment design
extremely emotional experience. Since a few years,
visitors can have a look into the hideout room, but Our study had a within subject design with the
entering it is now forbidden to protect the original independent variable exhibition type (real
paint on the walls aiming to keep that place as exhibition, virtual exhibition). The dependent
authentic as possible. variables were qualitative feedback on the
exhibition types (RQ1) as well as ideas about
Using VR would, of cause, allow visitors to enter media augmentation that may improve the UX of a
the hideout as digital wall texture is neither virtual Workshop for the Blind (RQ2). We measured
authentic nor it can get damaged when touching it. that feedback through a semi-structured post-
While visitors could enter the hideout in a virtual experiment interview asking the following
Workshop for the Blind, we are sceptic if this would questions:
create an authentic experience. Hence, the
Workshop for the Blind seems to be a museum (i) What exhibition did you like more, the real
where UX in VR is challenged and where the or the virtual one and why?
current fascination of VR technology may not (ii) What gets lost in the virtual exhibition
compensate the loss of authenticity. Therefore, we compared with the real one?
believe that this museum is a perfect research (iii) What benefits has the virtual exhibition
context to answer research questions around UX compared with the physical one?
limitations in VR. Hence, our first research question (iv) What benefits could the virtual exhibition
is: have if it would be available as free
download in the Internet?
 RQ1: How does virtuality change the user (v) Which additional possibilities/content you
experience of an exhibition, in particular could image for the virtual exhibition?
what gets lost and how does UX benefit?

81
 Virtual Exhibitions: What do we win and what do we lose?
Katrin Wolf, Jens Reinhardt & Markus Funk

(vi) What additional interaction would enrich the being back in the movable state, could be realised
virtual exhibition? through a drag gesture downwards. Pressing the
space key allowed also for looking around when
The answers were recorded using Google docs on using the drag gestures at the same time. Without
a laptop that we provided. pressed space key, looking around (as mentioned
above) was realised through head movements.
4.2 Participants
Our basic interaction design followed common
We recruited 18 participants (7 females) aged from conventions in VR control, such as view change
18 to 77 (mean=29.7, SD=16.4) that were visiting through head movements. The motion and
the museum. Our participants came from 10 selection control using drag gesture was iteratively
countries but mainly from Germany (Germany: 8, designed in our lab and evaluated in pilot studies
USA: 2, Canada: 1, GB: 1, Italy: 1, Hungary: 1, with students.
Serbia: 1, Spain: 1, Sweden: 1, Syria: 1). The
participants were mainly tourists visiting Berlin. The 4.4 Procedure
time the participants spent was compensated with
10 EUR. The entry of the museum is always free In the beginning of the user study, participants filled
for everybody. in a demographic questionnaire and signed a
consent form. The experimental task was to
4.3 Apparatus explore the exhibition, once in VR and once in real.
The condition order was counterbalanced. Before
For the real exhibition type, the physical Workshop the exploration of the virtual exhibition, participants
for the Blind was used. For the condition of the were equipped with the head mounted displays
virtual exhibition, we implemented an as authentic (HMD) and got a training to learn the interaction
as possible virtual copy of the Workshop for the techniques. The VR condition took place in the
Blind in Unity3D. We captured the rooms with a seminar room of the museum, and also the post-
360° camera (RICOH THETA S), as shown in experimental interview was done there. The
Figure 1 on the images on the left column. Detailed experiment took place in the last three rooms of
information, like documents and photographs, were both, the real and the virtual exhibition to not let the
captured with higher resolution using an SLR study last too long.
camera, such as the photograph highlighted at the
second column in the first row in Figure 1. Labels During the condition of the real exhibition,
were recreated using Adobe Photoshop to allow for participants were guided to the beginning of the
better readability than photographs, see at the third last room. They were told that they should visit
images in the first and seconds rows of the second the exhibition from there on till the end. We
column in Figure 1. The participant’s position in the mentioned that participants could visit the rest of
virtual exhibition was visualised in a map through a the exhibition after the experiment, so that they
yellow arrow that pointed into the direction the user were not afraid to miss anything. We asked the
was watching and/or moving. During that condition, participants to explore the exhibition as if they
participants wear Oculus Rift Dk2 while sitting on a would not be part of an experiment, in their own
chair in the seminar room of the museum. speed and without a special memory task. We told
them that we were interested in their personal
The VR control worked as follow: As commonly exhibition experience.
used, head movements changed the VR
perspective accordingly. We chose the touchpad After participant felt familiar with the commands for
on a laptop for additional gesture control as it can navigation, content selection and content
be eyes-freely found through the haptic feedback of navigation, the conditions of the virtual exhibition
its borders. Movements in VR could be realised could start. Here, the application was started from
through drag gestures on the touchpad of the the beginning of the third last room. We mentioned
laptop, which was placed on a table in front of the (like in the other condition) that participants should
participants. The drag directions corresponded with explore the virtual exhibition as if they would not be
the movement directions (left/right, up for forwards, part of an experiment, in their own speed and
down for backwards). If additional content was without a special memory task. Again, we told them
provided for an exhibit, it got a light shine as that we were interested in their personal virtual
highlight when it appeared in the centre of the VR exhibition experience.
view. Selecting/showing the additional content was
possible with a drag upwards using the touchpad. If When both conditions were completed, participants
content was selected, drag gestures to the right answered the questions of the semi-structured
and left resulted in scrolling the content fore- and interview.
backwards. Deselecting the content, and thus

82
 Virtual Exhibitions: What do we win and what do we lose?
Katrin Wolf, Jens Reinhardt & Markus Funk

5. RESULTS access for impaired people was envisioned,

e.g. using an auditory text augmentation of
We analysed the interview answers using a bottom- the documents or descriptions of photos.
up analysis and open coding keeping the structure Finally, accessibility for less mobile people
of our questions. Hereby, we found general trends was highlighted, which would, for example,
that we describe in the following paragraphs, and elderly people ease to visit the virtual
we also highlight individual opinions when they are museum.
particularly relevant for our research questions:
(v) Participants could imagine having
(i) 12 out of 18 participants preferred the additional content in VR, such as “more
physical exhibition as it best represents the languages”, “more text”, and “more things
authenticity of the historical place, while to learn” as well as video, auditory content
another two equally liked both experiences. and interactivity. One participant wished to
have rotatable 3D models of the exhibits.
(ii) Participants that favoured the real One would like to have a virtual guide, and
exhibition felt that its spatial atmosphere, one proposed to include questions in the
the creaking sounds when walking across virtual exhibition application. For increasing
the old wooden floor, the originality of the the authenticity in VR, participants
documents, details of the room, such as the proposed to include sound effects of a
old texture of the walls, and the haptic factory or of the actual museum, smell, and
experience of the workshop tools as well of the ability to physically walk in VR.
the braille labels get lost. 8 participants
missed the authentic mood in VR. One (vi) Participants wished to allow for even more
participant even missed the view out of the zooming, to see much more detail. That
window where graffiti signs are visible on a would actually allow to extend the visibility
wall, which represents the typical Berlin of the original document through showing
atmosphere of having historical places and details that visitors barely can see with their
street art next to each other. Moreover, one eyes in the physical exhibition due to the
participant mentioned that in VR, limitation of the eye or due to the fact that
“orientation in space is more difficult” and documents are placed behind glass in
another participant similarly stated to “lose showcases.
the sense of space” in VR.
In summary, participants wish an increase of
(iii) Participants appreciated the option to presence in the virtual exhibition and criticise that
select a language in VR as well as the authentic atmosphere gets lost in VR. However, the
opportunity to zoom into content. One ability to focus on content increases in VR. Content
participant highlighted that the real accessibility from everybody, everywhere, and at
exhibition “allowed for closer approaching any time was highlighted to be the major advantage
exhibits and enabled to better read texts” of VR, and an augmentation with more content,
and another stated in the real exhibition interactive content and a better visibility of the
“you can see more details of the place but content was proposed to enrich UX. Furthermore, a
on the VR it is easier to read the gamification approach was proposed, such as
information”. 6 participants highlighted that having a virtual guide and including questions.
the information accessibility worked better
in VR, as it was more visible, easier to
read, no other people occluded the view, 6. EXPERT INTERVIEWS
and one could longer and better
concentrate on the content. In summary, As employees of museums decide whether a virtual
even though the experience is suffering museum will be developed and made accessible to
from a loss of atmosphere, the VR museum the public, we decided to involve museum
was still perceived to be authentic and to professionals into our research. As decision making
give a good virtual experience. in institutions is often a group process in which
Interestingly, the possibility to access the hierarchical relations matter, we aimed to conduct a
hideout in VR, which is impossible in group interview with the entire staff of the museum.
reality, has not been mentioned.
6.1 Participants
(iv) Benefits of virtual exhibitions with web-
The Workshop for the Blind has only two
based accessibility were highlighted, like a
employees, but it is affiliated with the organization
widespread access for people to visit such
Silent Heroes Memorial Center. For our interview,
exhibitions from wherever there are and at
we recruited three women, the employee
any time. Moreover, suitable content
(museologist, 45 years old) of the Workshop for the

83
 Virtual Exhibitions: What do we win and what do we lose?
Katrin Wolf, Jens Reinhardt & Markus Funk

Blind and an intern of the museum (academic high denied as that would be only speculation and errors
school graduate, 21 years old) as well as an would definitely occur in the stories. The
employee of the Silent Heroes Memorial Center museologist mentioned that Germans per se do not
(historian, 57 years old). like staged story telling in historical contexts. In
other counties people are more open, and the
6.2 Procedure Empirical War Museum in UK is only one example.
There, bombings are staged while visitors are in a
For the interview, we were welcomed in the office bunker setting. The museologist said that no
of the museum and presented the results of our German museum would create such scene as the
user study to the professionals highlighting the creation of artificial emotions related to topics like
recommendations how to augment museums in the World War II would not be liked in Germany. The
future. Afterwards, we asked semi-structured historian agreed that simulating the situation when
questions about feedback on these ideas. In the the Gestapo found the Jews in the hideout would
end, we asked for opinions on general benefits and be inappropriate. The museum professionals
concerns regarding a virtually augmented questioned that such scene would be beneficial for
Workshop for the Blind. The interview lasted anybody.
approximately 90 minutes.
6.3.3 General value of VR/AV exhibitions
We present here feedback on AV application ideas As general benefit of a virtual museum, the experts
for an augmented virtual Workshop for the Blind pointed out that a virtual museum could encourage
followed by feedback on the general value of people to visit the exhibition who are currently not
VR/AV exhibitions. addressable, such as young people and kids.
These groups become very excited through VR and
6.3 Interview Results spend already a lot of their time in the Internet. The
possibility to support more languages than in the
6.3.1 Gamification real exhibition, where only German and English
The experts liked gamification as they saw much texts are provided, was desired. The option to add
potential to address young people. The hyperlinks referring to external archives and to
museologist could image such application being show more content, even though the Workshop for
used for introducing children to the exhibition topic the Blind has none, was highlighted to be
before they would visit the real exhibition. The visit beneficial.
of the real exhibition was highlighted to be still
important as it is at an authentic place. The intern Even though the experts agreed that a virtual
liked the possibility to learn about the exhibition in a exhibition visit couldn’t replace a real one, the
playful way, and also saw potential for using such museologist mentioned that the museum has
playful learning approach after the exhibition visit, difficulties to let all visitors in, as many people want
maybe even on a smartboard to involve the whole to enter the museum whilst it is a small place.
school class. Offering a virtual replica of the exhibition would
enable more people to see the exhibition.
6.3.2 Content augmentation
Participants had wished to get additional content,
In the end, the museum professionals discussed
such as sounds from workshops to create the
about the option of supporting VR for other
feeling of authenticity and to get a time travel
museums. They agreed on the dependency of the
experience. While the idea of adding digital
kind of exhibits on the appropriateness to present
information to a virtual exhibition was in general
them in VR. Museums that do not rely on authentic
appreciated, the experts mentioned that the
places and original artefacts as much as the
museum has no archive and does not have any
Workshop for the Blind, may lose less when being
additional information that could be shown. The
virtualised. For example, replicas may also be
museum is small and shows already everything it
viewed in VR. Moreover, some exhibitions, like the
has.
Jewish Museum Berlin, are too large to allow for
seeing everything during one visit. Visitors could
The museum professionals were explicitly sceptic
virtually “come back” and continue their visit at
about creating content based on suggestions how
home. Finally, some exhibitions, like the Anne
life would have looked like. Producing content,
Frank exhibition in Amsterdam, are often too
which is not original, would in their opinion create a
crowded to be enjoyable. One could go through the
wrong impression how the place used to be in the
entire exhibition in VR without being distracted by
past. They found it a huge problem that they do not
other visitors, and nobody would occlude the view
have original material, especially texts, that could
at exhibits.
be used. Creating content that tells history by
guessing what people would have told was highly

84
 Virtual Exhibitions: What do we win and what do we lose?
Katrin Wolf, Jens Reinhardt & Markus Funk

7. CONCLUSION Gaitatzes, A., Christopoulos, D., and Papaioannou,

G. (2005) Virtual Reality Systems and Applications:
While VR technology enables the development of The Ancient Olympic Games. In: Proceedings of
virtual museums and many VR exhibitions already the 10th Panhellenic Conference on Advances in
exist, virtual exhibitions are not visited as often as Informatics (PCI’05). Springer-Verlag, Berlin,
theoretically possible via the web. Previous worked Heidelberg, pp.155–165. DOI:
stated that there is still space of improvement for 10.1007/11573036_15
existing VR museums regarding their UX.
Gaitatzes, A., Christopoulos, D., and Roussou, M.
To better understand how to improve virtual (2001) Reviving the Past: Cultural Heritage Meets
museum experience, we conducted two Virtual Reality. In: Proceedings of the 2001
experiments: first a VR/real museum comparison Conference on Virtual Reality, Archeology, and
and second an expert interview with museum Cultural Heritage (VAST ’01). ACM, New York, NY,
professionals. USA, pp.103–110. DOI: 10.1145/584993.585011
Gomes, A., Oh, H., Chisik, Y., and Chen, M. (2012)
Being in line with previous work, we found that pure Ilha Musical: A CAVE for Nurturing Cultural
VR indeed has benefits in comparison to real Appreciation. In: Proceedings of the 11th
museums, as space, time, location, and money are International Conference on Interaction Design and
no barriers of museum visits. We moreover confirm Children (IDC ’12). ACM, New York, NY, USA,
that authenticity and sensation of space get lost in pp.232–235. DOI: 10.1145/2307096.2307133
VR. We identified media augmentation, interaction,
and gamification to be promising concepts for Hornecker, E. (2010) Interactions Around a
augmenting virtual exhibitions, while the Contextually Embedded System. In Proceedings of
augmentation content has to fit the exhibition the Fourth International Conference on Tangible,
concept. In particular, we highlight context as Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (TEI ’10).
limiting factor of VR and AV in museums. Some ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp.169–176. DOI:
content may be not appropriate to be virtualised, 10.1145/1709886.1709916
e.g., original artefacts, and some content may not Jung, Y., and Rowson Love, A. (2017) Systems
be appropriate to be augmented, e.g., information Thinking in Museums: Theory and Practice.
of sensitivity. Rowman & Littlefield.
Linaza, M. T., Cobos, Y., Mentxaka, J., Campos,
8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS M. K., and Penalba, M. (2007) Interactive
Augmented Experiences for Cultural Historical
This work is supported by the German Ministry of Events. In: Proceedings of the 8th International
Education and Research (BMBF) within the Conference on Virtual Reality, Archaeology and
GEVAKUB project (01JKD1701B). Intelligent Cultural Heritage (VAST’07). Euro-
graphics Association, Aire-la-Ville, Switzerland,
pp.23–30. DOI: 10.2312/VAST/VAST07/023-030
9. REFERENCES
Milgram. P., and Kishino, F. (1994) A Taxonomy of
Benko, H., Ishak, E. W., and Feiner, S. (2004) Mixed Reality Visual Displays. IEICE Transactions
Collaborative Mixed Reality Visualization of an on Information and Systems 77(12) (1994),
Archaeological Excavation. In Proceedings of the pp.1321–1329.
3rd IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Mixed
and Augmented Reality (ISMAR ’04). IEEE Neovesky, A., and Peinelt, J. (2015) A Virtual Tour
to the Inscriptions of the UNESCO World Heritage
Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, pp.132–
Site St. Michael in Hildesheim. In: Proceedings of
140. DOI: 10.1109/ISMAR.2004.23
the Conference on Electronic Visualisation and the
Deggim, S., Kersten, T. P., Tschirschwitz, F., and Arts. British Computer Society, pp.285–290.
Hinrichsen, N. (2017) Segeberg 1600 –
Park, K. S., Cho, Y., and Park, S. (2006) Lessons
Reconstructing a Historic Town for Virtual Reality
Learned from Designing a Virtual Heritage
Visualisation as an Immersive Experience.
International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Entertainment Application for Interactive Education.
Remote Sensing & Spatial Information Sciences, In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference
on Entertainment Computing (ICEC’06). Springer-
42.
Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp.233–238. DOI:
Farella, E., Brunelli, D., Benini, L., Ricco, B., and 10.1007/11872320_28
Bonfigli, M. E. (2005) Pervasive Computing for
Interactive Virtual Heritage. IEEE MultiMedia 12(3) Ramic-Brkic, B., Karkin, Z., Sadzak, A., Selimovic,
D., and Rizvic, S. (2009) Augmented Real-time
(July 2005), pp.46–58. DOI:
10.1109/MMUL.2005.54 Virtual Environment of the Church of the Holy
Trinity in Mostar. In: Proceedings of the 10th

85
 Virtual Exhibitions: What do we win and what do we lose?
Katrin Wolf, Jens Reinhardt & Markus Funk

International Conference on Virtual Reality, pp.340–341. DOI:

Archaeology and Cultural Heritage (VAST’09). 10.1145/2909132.2926064
Eurographics Association, Aire-la-Ville, Switzer-
Styliani, S., Fotis, L., Kostas, K., and Petros, P.
land, pp.141–148. DOI:
(2009). Virtual Museums, a Survey and Some
10.2312/VAST/VAST09/141-148
Issues for Consideration. Journal of Cultural
Reinhardt, J., Rzayev, R., Henze, N., and Wolf, K. Heritage, 10(4), pp.520–528.
(2018) GhostVR: Enhancing Co-Presence in Social
Woods, E., Billinghurst, M., Looser, J., Aldridge, G.,
Virtual Environments. CHI’18 Workshop on Novel
Brown, D., Garrie, B., and Nelles, C. (2004)
Interaction Techniques for Collaboration in VR.
Augmenting the Science Centre and Museum
Risseeuw, M., Cavada, D., Not, E., Zancanaro, M., Experience. In: Proceedings of the 2Nd
Marshall, M. T., Petrelli, D., and Kubitza, T. (2016) International Conference on Computer Graphics
Authoring Augmented Digital Experiences in and Interactive Techniques in Australasia and
Museums. In: Proceedings of the International South East Asia (GRAPHITE ’04). ACM, New York,
Working Conference on Advanced Visual NY, USA, pp.230–236. DOI:
Interfaces (AVI ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 10.1145/988834.988873

86