=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2084/paper5
|storemode=property
|title=Cultural Heritage ‘In-The-Wild’: Considering Digital Access to Cultural Heritage in Everyday Life
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2084/paper5.pdf
|volume=Vol-2084
|authors=David McGookin,Koray Tahiroğlu,Tuomas Vaittinen,Mikko Kytö,Beatrice Monastero,Juan Carlos Vasquez
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/dhn/McGookinTVKMV18
}}
==Cultural Heritage ‘In-The-Wild’: Considering Digital Access to Cultural Heritage in Everyday Life==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2084/paper5.pdf
Cultural Heritage ‘In-The-Wild’: Considering
Digital Access to Cultural Heritage in Everyday
Life
David McGookin1 , Koray Tahiroğlu2 , Tuomas Vaittinen1 , Mikko Kytö1 ,
Beatrice Monastero1 , and Juan Carlos Vasquez2
1
Department of Computer Science, Aalto University, Espoo, Finland
{firstname.lastname}@aalto.fi
http://davidmcgookin.net
2
Department of Media, Aalto University, Espoo, Finland
{firstname.lastname}@aalto.fi
Abstract. As digital cultural heritage applications begin to be deployed
outwith ‘traditional’ heritage sites (such as museums, open-air museums
or galleries), there is an increased need to consider their use amongst
individuals who are open to learning about the heritage of a site, but
where that is a clearly secondary purpose of their visit. Parks, recre-
ational areas and the everyday built environment represent places that
although often rich in heritage, are often not visited primarily to access
that heritage. We present the results of a study of a mobile application,
called Explore, that supports accessing heritage on a Finnish recreational
island. Evaluation with 45 participants, who were not visiting primarily
to access the heritage, provided insight into how digital heritage applica-
tions can be developed for this user group. Our results showed how low
immersion and lightweight interaction support individuals to integrate
cultural heritage around their primary visit purpose. Although partic-
ipants were willing to include heritage as part of their visit, they were
not willing to be directed by Explore. Our work outlines future directions
that should be considered when expanding the reach of heritage access
beyond ‘traditional’ sites.
Keywords: Mobile Cultural Heritage, Notifications, Seurasaari
Island, Heritage, Non-Primary Heritage Access, Explore
1 Introduction and Related Work
Accessing digital cultural heritage resources is often considered within the con-
text of a visit to a museum, gallery or other similar place. Such sites might
often be considered as ‘traditional’ heritage sites. They have clear entry and exit
points, which are usually controlled in some way (e.g. by charging an entrance
fee). They are also clearly advertised as supporting access to historical or her-
itage content (e.g. being labelled a museum, living museum, heritage park, etc.).
Whilst visitors may visit these sites for a wide variety of purposes (e.g. taking
the kids to the museum to pass a rainy holiday), the common characteristics
of traditional sites - in having to explicitly enter (and potentially pay to do so)
and exit - mean that accessing cultural heritage is clearly a primary goal of the
visitor, and they are dedicating time to it. However, Human-Computer Inter-
action, as well as heritage professionals, have begun to consider how cultural
heritage can be communicated outside of these ‘traditional’ heritage sites. In
part, consideration that “heritage is not the historic monument, archaeological
site, or museum artefact, but rather the activities that occur at them” [1], has
led researchers to consider how everyday environments, including city centres
[2] and other built environments [3, 4], are themselves heritage sites and can be
digitally enhanced. The consideration is that all of the environment is a cultural
heritage site, which can be augmented with digital content. Individuals do not
need to ‘visit’ the heritage site, they are always within it. However, in designing,
studying and evaluating digital technologies in everyday cultural heritage envi-
ronments the same assumption, that visitors have accessing cultural heritage as
a primary purpose of their visit and are dedicating a significant period of time
to do so, may not hold. For example, Betsworth et al. [3], in considering the
digital heritage solutions for a disused copper works, noted how a number of
people passing through were not focused on the heritage of the site, but were
just using the area for a walk, cycle or run. They note the importance of devel-
oping solutions that engage these users. More recently, Han et al. [2] developed
an ‘app’ to investigate how local residents would record and contribute to the
cultural heritage (e.g. with photographs, comments or stories) of places in their
community in-situ. Although their focus was on curating the cultural heritage of
a community, how to access that content in-situ is an obvious extension. In the
practical use of such heritage applications, it cannot be assumed that all users
would either be visitors (and thus new to the area) or, more importantly, have
accessing cultural heritage as a primary part of their visit (in the same way as
when visiting a ‘traditional’ museum site). Whilst visitors may be open to expe-
riencing or learning of cultural heritage, their main goal may be a pleasant walk
or jog (e.g. from Betsworth et al. [3]), or going about other everyday business
(such as going home from work, or to the shops - such as with Han et al. [2]). It
is not clear how digital heritage applications should be designed, or would work,
in such situations. Whilst individuals may not be actively attempting to engage
in the cultural heritage of the area, they may be open to finding out about it
as a part of everyday life. It is this we argue, that drives the need to consider
evaluation of digital cultural heritage where it is not the primary focus of users.
Existing work has developed solutions to be used in non-traditional heritage
sites. Reid et al. [4] developed a location-based mobile app that triggered audio
vignettes of the Bristol riots of 1831 as a visitor explored the same public square
in Bristol where the riots occurred. Szymczak et al. [5] developed a mobile An-
droid app to support both sighted and visually impaired users to experience a
multimedia tour of the history of Lund, Sweden. However, in evaluating how
such heritage applications are used, researchers often pre-recruit participants
and arrange a time and place for them to carry out the evaluation. In doing so,
Bridge Area
Museum
Area
Festival
Grounds
Fig. 1. An overview of Seurasaari Island, with images illustrating the key areas that
we augmented with Explore. Map image c OpenStreetMap contributors.
as with explicitly entering a museum, the participant has set aside time explic-
itly to carry out the study; making this their primary goal. There is no work
that considers how individuals who are interested in heritage, but where it is
not amongst the primary goals of their activity (as it would be in a ‘traditional’
heritage site), would use a digital cultural heritage application. It is unclear how
the digital heritage application would be incorporated around the primary ac-
tivity, or the issues in doing so, and how it should be designed to support such
interaction.
We take the first steps in doing this through the design and evaluation of a
mobile cultural heritage application, called Explore, that considers its use as a
clearly secondary purpose for a visit. We firstly outline the site we augmented -
the Finnish recreational island of Seurasaari - and how it is both rich in cultural
heritage but attracts visitors for a variety of purposes, before outlining our design
of Explore and its evaluation.
2 Seurasaari Island
Located in central Helsinki, Finland, Seurasaari Island (see Figure 1) was founded
as a recreational park in 1889 [6]. It is permanently open and free. Visitors arrive
by foot over a footbridge linking the mainland to the island. This serves as a
common entrance and exit point, but has no barriers, gates or signs that mark
the island from its surroundings. The park contains an open-air museum [7],
founded in 1909, with traditional wooden buildings (such as a farmstead, church
and homes) relocated from other parts of Finland. These are integrated into the
wider park, with the main paths around the island cutting through the museum
area. Whilst the museum grounds are part of the park, and any visitor can walk
around the exterior of the buildings, visitors must buy a ticket (a small worn
sticker) to enter the buildings. Though not all are open.
Whilst the open-air museum is a major attraction for visitors, the park has
significant natural and cultural heritage itself, with buildings dating from its
founding as a park that house a cafe and restaurant, as well as the boathouse
used by visitors to reach the island by steamboat before a bridge to the mainland
was built. Ponds that are now home to rich wildlife were originally dug to extract
clay for significant buildings in the city. This is coupled to intangible heritage,
where the island hosts cultural events, such as numerous folk dancing and music
concerts during the summer. Whilst these are often free, they are irregular and
not widely publicised. The island also hosts traditional midsummer and Easter
celebrations each year. This mix makes the island popular for both locals and
tourists. For tourists, the open-air museum is a key attraction. For locals, the
many kilometres of walking paths in nature make the island popular for walks,
jogging and general relaxation. However, beyond the open-air museum, the rich
cultural heritage of the island remains invisible to both.
3 Explore
We worked with the Seurasaarisäätiö foundation (www.seurasaarisaatio.fi) - who
manage the island - to develop a mobile ‘app’ intended to reveal this hidden
cultural heritage to visitors (both tourists and locals) whilst visiting the island.
The foundation wanted the ‘app’ to focus on the wider ‘hidden’ cultural heritage
of the island. In this way supporting both locals and visitors to gain new insight
into its history. Whilst this included the open-air museum, it also focuses on
the history of the museum itself, rather than the lived experience of historical
characters in the museum (e.g. such as Ciolfi and McLoughlin [8]). As previously
discussed, it is important to consider the primary goal of the user may not be
to experience cultural heritage. The ‘app’ should therefore not be the primary
focus of the visit (such as with McGookin et al. [9] or Szymczak et al. [5]),
rather respecting the varied reasons individuals visit the island, and support
free exploration rather than a directed tour [5].
Our final design, called Explore (see Figure 2), ran as an application on an
Android mobile device. We choose to augment 6 main areas of the island (see
Figure 1), although some content was placed outside these. Historical images
and videos from the foundation’s archive (both with text descriptions), as well as
audio vignettes describing something about the activities of a place recorded as
if spoken by historical people, were geo-located at relevant locations in each area.
The app used the on-board GPS unit to define activation zones (between 10-30m)
around real world locations. As a user entered into an activation zone he/she was
presented with nearby digital content. The use of activation zones is a common
(A) (B) (C)
Fig. 2. Screenshots of the Explore interface. A: Notifications used the standard Android
notification system, and if the app was active, presented this via a dialog on-screen.
B: Responding to a notification presented the content (either an image, video or audio
recording). C: Previously viewed content was marked on a map and could be viewed
at any time.
technique, and has been used in existing cultural heritage work [10]. As a user
entered an activation zone, Explore presented a standard Android notification
(using a notification sound and vibration). These are familiar to users, and a
standard way that applications create awareness of available content to mobile
users [11]. As the use of environmental sound has been effective in other work
[9], we also incorporated a low level ambient soundtrack in each of the 6 main
augmented areas to highlight that there was content there. For example, a folk
music track was played in the festival area. A mute button was provided in the
app toolbar to switch this off if desired.
On entering the activation zone, a standard Android notification was pre-
sented (see Figure 2 (A)). Note that the screen did not need to be on for the
notification to be presented. If the screen was off, the user could activate the
notification from the Android notification drawer like any other notification. If
Explore was active (Explore was the current app and the screen was on), or the
user decided to open the application rather than directly access the notification
from the drawer, an on-screen dialog was presented (see Figure 2 (A)). Activating
this caused a screen to present the digital content (either image, movie or audio.
See Figure 2 (B)). The notification was then cleared (future notifications were
not fired for this content), and a marker representing the content was placed
on an historical map of the island (see Figure 2 (C)). This allowed the content
to be reviewed at any time. The user could also ignore the notification, which
was automatically cleared after the user had walked 10m from the activation
zone. This ensured that participants would not see content unrelated to their
location. In discussions with Seurasaarisäätiö, they were keen to consider how
seasonality (the significant variation between summer and winter at the site)
could be incorporated into Explore. As such we tested two variants. Both had
the same content (which included content relevant to summer and winter on the
island) and worked in the same way as outlined above. However, they varied
in how users accessed seasonal content. Roughly half the participants (evenly
split between tourists and locals) used each variant. Whilst results did reveal
significant information about how variations in seasonality should be included
in content (as reported in McGookin et al. [12]), there was no difference between
how the variants were used or for how long. We therefore combine them in our
results and discussion and do not explicitly discuss the seasonal aspects in this
paper.
4 Study Outline
Participants were recruited in groups as they arrived on the island. By doing
so, participants had themselves decided to visit the island for their own reasons,
and not necessarily to experience cultural heritage. Although by taking part in
our study they were at least open to experiencing it. 45 participants (aged 15-
79, mean 44.7 years, 24 female) in 26 groups (10 individuals, 11 groups of two,
4 groups of three and 1 group of four) took part. Our demographic question-
naire asked participant’s nationality, if they lived in Finland and if they lived in
Helsinki. If neither, then a free text box allowed them to state where they were
from. The demographic questionnaire also asked why they visited the island that
day. From these responses we classified 10 groups as composed of locals, with 15
composed of tourists (either Finnish or Foreign). One group was a mixture. This
was largely based on living in Helsinki, with the free text visit purpose showing
a clear divide between these two groups. Each group was provided with a Nexus
5X Android smart phone running Explore, and were given a short demonstration
on its use. After that, participants were able to continue their visit. Participants
were informed that they could use Explore as little or often as they wished, and
they should return the device when leaving the island. We also instructed partic-
ipants they should not reduce or cut short their visit to return the device. When
participants were ready to leave the island they returned the device and were
given a short group interview. Each participants was compensated with either
a Moomin mug or movie ticket (approx. 11 Euro). Interviews were transcribed
and thematically grouped using a framework approach [13]. These supplemented
instrumented logging of Explore application use.
5 Results
5.1 Differences Between Tourists and Visitors
A clear code in our analysis was considering the difference between tourist groups
and local groups. Tourist groups discussed how they had made an opportunis-
tic decision to visit the island, often that day. This was based on a number of
factors, but included their overall goal for the day (PG5 (tourist): “I thought
about a combination of something like a museum and being in nature and out-
side would be good.”), and the weather conditions (PG20 (tourist): “the weather
was very fine.”). Whilst most had accessing cultural heritage as a primary part
of their visit, that heritage was described solely as the open-air museum and
its buildings. In comparison, Explore provided the heritage of the island as a
whole. This reflects that there may not be a distinction between cultural her-
itage, and not, as a primary goal of users, but also between different layers of
that heritage. Local groups also often made opportunistic decisions to visit the
island, but their goals were described as relaxation, such as having a walk, or a
pleasant passing of time with a friend (PG3 (local): “we also visit just to walk
around with the kids, so fresh air. And recreational or whatever it’s called”). In
considering both groups, we consider locals as having a clearly non-primary goal
in interacting with heritage. Tourists being more focused on heritage, although
that heritage is of the open-air museum and not the island as a whole. From
log files, locals spent less time on the island (Locals M=66min S.D.=20mins,
Tourists M=150min S.D.=42min). The differences were also seen in the GPS
traces where participants walked. Locals largely walked a path around the is-
land, usually around the coast. Whilst they walked through the open-air mu-
seum (as the main path runs through this area), they did not stop or dwell at it.
Tourists however, focused their explorations on the open-air museum, with large
GPS jumps illustrating when individuals went in and out of the buildings. In
the following sections we discuss both locals and tourists together but highlight
differences where appropriate.
5.2 Intergroup Tensions
For each group we supplied one Android device. As 16 of the 26 groups of par-
ticipants contained more than one person, we were keen to understand how one
device within the group was managed, and how the group used it. In practice
the device was largely controlled by the participant who was most interested in
its use, and by extension the heritage content. This ‘in charge’ participant would
often directly interact with Explore, and then communicate either by reading,
or by showing the screen to others in the group. Often this participant would
curate, or restrict the content that was communicated to others in the group.
PG10 (tourist) who noted that although she responded to all notifications, she
curated what was shared with her partner: (PG10 (tourist) I: “Okay. So did you
always decide to respond to the notification or...” R: “Yes, I did always. And
sometimes I stopped him and tell him to listen now.” ). This curation was often
used as a way to manage varying levels of interest in heritage between members
of the group, with the ‘in charge’ user curating content based on interest. That
individuals in a group have a varying interest in heritage is also common in
traditional museum environments. However, we argue that as heritage becomes
a less primary purpose of visits, the variance between members of a group will
become greater. For example, PG21 (local) highlighted this particular point, and
although it is the only code which clearly revealed a tension between members
caused by Explore, it did highlight that engagement within groups is an impor-
tant consideration: “I was carrying it and she would have liked me to silence it
offline. Was annoyed by the sounds but I said that we have to.”. Engagement
can also vary over time. PG26 (local) noted how his partner had become less
interested over time: “I think they just looked at it in the beginning, but after
that she was carrying our grandchildren more than this application. I took care
of this.”. In considering use more widely, such as solutions in a city centre (such
as envisaged by Han et al. [2]), engagement in the heritage may vary signifi-
cantly on each visit an individual makes to the environment. For example, the
importance of an individual’s accessing of heritage in the same location would
likely be significantly different if she was running to catch a train to work, or was
taking a leisurely stroll to meet a friend for coffee. How to take these variations
into account in the design of heritage applications remains an open question.
5.3 Weaving Use into the Visit
In taking Explore into use, both locals and tourists described interaction in the
same way. Explore was used when it provided a notification (PG25 (tourist):
“Every time it buzzed I said yes and I read what it provided me. That was about
it.”). Whilst a few tourists described how they opened the app occasionally to
view the map (see Figure 2 (C)), unless there was a notification, participants
did not interact with it. Participants also described how they felt able to ignore
notifications if it wasn’t convenient to access them (PG5 (tourist): “...it’s more
up to me if I pass something or if I miss something. So it’s okay”). However,
participants ignored a relatively low number of notifications (M=3.7 S.D.=2.9
notifications were not responded to per visit out of M=42, S.D.=17 notifications
fired). So most notifications were accessed at some point.
Notifications could also be seen as being disruptive to existing activities,
where they might interrupt an on-going conversation (PG11 (local): “sometimes
in our conversations, when we were talking, then [imitates a beep] again.”). Such
disruption was more often discussed by locals, and more often discussed about
areas where there was a higher density of content, and therefore more notifica-
tions. For such users, where accessing cultural heritage is a clearly secondary
goal of a visit, it is important not to present too much content or present it too
often. Such issues were not so much discussed with tourists, who had a clearly
greater focus on cultural heritage during their visit.
In using Explore, participants (particularly locals) were clear that it did not
affect where they chose to go on the island, and did not change the purpose why
they visited (PG11 (local):“No. We walked the route we had planned”). Tourists
expressed the same view. Though some did note how awareness of the map in
Explore (although not often directly accessed the map (see Figure 2 (C)) was
the main view of the application and was seen when closing notification content)
encouraged them to visit beyond the open-air museum area on the island. Unlike
existing ‘tour’ based guides (e.g. [5]), where individuals visit locations in a set
order, when accessing cultural heritage as a clearly secondary goal the cultural
heritage application must be sensitive to, and fit with, the primary goal of the
user, and cannot make assumptions on the order in which individuals will visit
locations. Participants were clearly not open to having Explore direct their visit.
5.4 Immersion in Content
A final important code was the level of immersion that participants wanted with
content. As participants interacted only through notifications, and because of the
potential distraction from their primary activity (e.g. having a walk) in access-
ing these, immersion within the content was at a lightweight level. Apart from
videos, participants often read the persona text in Explore rather than playing
the audio files. As we did not give participants headphones for the mobile device
(this would have created isolation issues [14] and made sharing difficult (see Sec-
tion 5.2)), audio was played over the phone speaker. However, only two groups
mentioned the impact on others nearby of this, and one group noted how they
were not bothered by the reaction of others. However, environmental audio, used
by prior work to enhance the feeling in an area [9, 15, 16], and used in Explore
to contextualise the content in each of the six marked areas we augmented, was
often muted by participants as soon as it started being played (or participants
turned down the volume control on the mobile device). Log files showed that the
number of instances where participants activated the mute button for environ-
mental sounds (M=3.4, S.D.=4.7) was similar to the number of activations of
those sounds (M=3.4, S.D.=1.4). Participants were also of the view that rather
than such sounds being an ambient soundtrack in the background, they should
not be long and only played for a short time (PG3 (local): “It was just for the
moment okay, now I know that, I don’t need to listen to it for a long time.”).
Overall, when considering cultural heritage access as a non-primary activity,
interactions should be lightweight and do not offer the more immersive possibil-
ities that have been studied at other sites (e.g. augmented reality [9, 17]) where
heritage access is a primary goal. In reference to our discussion in Section 5.2,
it may also be that as the degree of engagement an individual has in heritage
will contextually vary, solutions should provide access to the same content with
varying degrees of immersion. Whilst this may include highly immersive con-
tent, such as augmented reality, from our results it is clear that low-immersion,
lightweight and fast interactions with a system to access heritage content must
be supported.
A B
Fig. 3. As future work, from the discussion in Section 5.2, and using a similar approach
to Explore, we are considering everyday access to cultural heritage sites in more ur-
ban environments (such as Helsinki city centre), where individuals may not always be
present for leisure (A). We are also exploring both the level of engagement by intro-
ducing physical and tangible interaction ‘crates’ that supplement areas of the island
and work in conjunction with Explore (B).
6 Discussion
Results have highlighted how the use of digital cultural heritage applications
is impacted when used in contexts where accessing and learning about cultural
heritage is a clearly secondary purpose of visitors. Such understanding is im-
portant as researchers begin to consider how non-traditional heritage sites (such
as parks, city centres and other public spaces) can be augmented with digital
cultural heritage. Our findings illustrated how individuals were both interested
in learning of the heritage of Seurasaari Island (as they took part in our study),
but were not willing to let that interest determine or control the purpose why
they visited the island. Explore was used only as a companion, and was inter-
acted with only when it had something to present. Participants did not review
or go back to previously seen content. In places where Explore tried to provide
more immersive experiences, such as presenting contextual environmental audio,
this was quickly muted. Participants were willing to have Explore come along
to enhance their visit, but not to define its purpose. Although we identified two
general categories of users, with a greater (tourists) and lesser (locals) primary
focus on cultural heritage, we identified fewer differences between them than
we expected. There are several possibilities why. Firstly, locals were engaged in
recreation, so may have been more willing to engage with Explore during their
visit. In a city environment (such as envisaged by Han et al. [2]), individuals
may have more dynamic and variable willingness to engage with a cultural her-
itage application during the day. Accessing content may be spread over multiple
visits with several weeks between each, rather than over the few hours spent
on the island. As locals were all engaging in recreation during their visit, their
time was flexible and allowed engagement with Explore. Alternatively, whilst the
lightweight interaction with Explore may have been the maximum level of en-
gagement locals would have tolerated (given their interview comments), tourists
may have been more willing, at least at times, to deepen engagement with Ex-
plore.
In future work we are exploring both of these. Firstly, by developing and eval-
uating an Explore like application that works in the city centre of Helsinki, and
provides in-situ discovery of historical images taken in the vicinity (see Figure 3
(A)). Secondly, we are enhancing Explore (as discussed in Section 5.4) to support
deeper engagement with content through tangible ‘crates’ that activate in the
same way as the notifications in Explore (see Figure 3 (B)). For example, pre-
senting audio through an old rotary telephone that rings as a user approaches, or
emitting the scent of a bonfire when Explore notifies of the midsummer tradition.
By doing so we will be able to better understand these issues.
As digital heritage applications are extended beyond traditional sites, it be-
comes important to consider why individuals are at those sites, and how impor-
tant accessing cultural heritage is for them. Our results have shown that even if
cultural heritage is not the primary purpose of a visit, individuals may still be
open to learning about it. However, such digital heritage applications must be
considered from this perspective, supporting fast, lightweight interaction, and
not attempting to guide or direct users along tours. Our study of Explore takes
an important step towards realising ubiquitous cultural heritage access.
Acknowledgements
We thank Seurasaarisäätiö, Jutta Jaakkola and Tanhu-Visa folk dancing group
for their help in this work. We also thank all participants who took part.
References
1. Smith, L.: The ‘Doing’ of heritage: heritage as performance. In Jackson, A., Kidd,
J., eds.: Performing heritage: research, practice and innovation in museum theatre
and live interpretation. Manchester University Press (2011) 69–81
2. Han, K., Shih, P.C., Rosson, M.B., Carroll, J.M.: Enhancing Community Aware-
ness of and Participation in Local Heritage with a Mobile Application. In: Pro-
ceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work.
CSCW ’14, New York, NY, USA, ACM (2014) 1144–1155
3. Betsworth, L., Bowen, H., Robinson, S., Jones, M.: Performative Technologies
for Heritage Site Regeneration. Personal Ubiquitous Comput. 18(7) (oct 2014)
1631–1650
4. Reid, J., Geelhoed, E., Hull, R., Cater, K., Clayton, B.: Parallel worlds: immersion
in location-based experiences. In: CHI ’05 extended abstracts on Human factors
in computing systems. CHI EA ’05, New York, NY, USA, ACM (2005) 1733–1736
5. Szymczak, D., Rassmus-Gröhn, K., Magnusson, C., Hedvall, P.O.: A Real-world
Study of an Audio-tactile Tourist Guide. In: Proceedings of the 14th International
Conference on Human-computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services.
MobileHCI ’12, New York, NY, USA, ACM (2012) 335–344
6. Nieminen, A.: Seurasaari: Puisto Meren Syleilyssä. Maahenki Seurasaarisäätiö
(2016)
7. Järvelä-Hynynen, R.: Seurasaari: Kuvakirja Ulkomuseosta. The National Board of
Antiquities (1992)
8. Ciolfi, L., McLoughlin, M.: Designing for Meaningful Visitor Engagement at a
Living History Museum. In: Proceedings of the 7th Nordic Conference on Human-
Computer Interaction: Making Sense Through Design. NordiCHI ’12, New York,
NY, USA, ACM (2012) 69–78
9. McGookin, D., Vazquez-Alvarez, Y., Brewster, S., Bergstrom-Lehtovirta, J.: Shak-
ing the dead: Multimodal location based experiences for un-stewarded archaeolog-
ical sites. In: Proceedings of the 7th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer
Interaction: Making Sense Through Design. NordiCHI ’12, New York, NY, USA,
ACM (2012) 199–208
10. Vazquez-Alvarez, Y., Oakley, I., Brewster, S.: Auditory display design for explo-
ration in mobile audio-augmented reality. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing
(2011) 1–13
11. Sahami Shirazi, A., Henze, N., Dingler, T., Pielot, M., Weber, D., Schmidt, A.:
Large-scale Assessment of Mobile Notifications. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. CHI ’14, New York, NY,
USA, ACM (2014) 3055–3064
12. McGookin, D., Tahiroglu, K., Vaittinen, T., Kytö, M., Monastero, B., Vasquez,
J.C.: Exploring Seasonality in Mobile Cultural Heritage. In: Proceedings of the
2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. CHI ’17, New
York, NY, USA, ACM (2017) 6101–6105
13. Ritchie, J., Spencer, L.: Qualitative Data Analysis for Applied Policy Research.
In Bryman, A., Burgess, R., eds.: Analysing Qualitative Data. Routledge, London
(1993) 173–194
14. Petrelli, D., Ciolfi, L., van Dijk, D., Hornecker, E., Not, E., Schmidt, A.: Integrating
material and digital. Interactions 20(4) (2013) 58–63
15. Fosh, L., Benford, S., Reeves, S., Koleva, B., Brundell, P.: See Me, Feel Me,
Touch Me, Hear Me: Trajectories and Interpretation in a Sculpture Garden. In:
Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
CHI ’13, New York, NY, USA, ACM (2013) 149–158
16. Petrelli, D., Dulake, N., Marshall, M.T., Pisetti, A., Not, E.: Voices from the
War: Design As a Means of Understanding the Experience of Visiting Heritage.
In: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems. CHI ’16, New York, NY, USA, ACM (2016) 1033–1044
17. Ardito, C., Costabile, M.F., Lanzilotti, R., Simeone, A.L.: Combining multimedia
resources for an engaging experience of cultural heritage. In: Proc. of the 2010
ACM workshop on Social, adaptive and personalized multimedia interaction and
access. SAPMIA ’10, New York, NY, USA, ACM (2010) 45–48