16 Use of Mobile

Augmented Reality
forCultural Heritage
John Krogstie and Anne-Cecilie Haugstvedt

CONTENTS
16.1 Introduction .................................................................................................. 411
16.2 Background on Mobile AR for Cultural Heritage ........................................ 412
16.3 Application Example: Historical Tour Guide ............................................... 416
16.3.1 Overview of Application................................................................... 418
16.3.2 Technical Details .............................................................................. 419
16.4 Evaluation of User Interest of the Application ............................................. 421
16.4.1 Results............................................................................................... 421
16.5 Conclusion .................................................................................................... 427
References.............................................................................................................. 429

16.1 INTRODUCTION
Cultural heritage is the legacy of physical artifacts and intangible attributes of a
group or society that are inherited from past generations and maintained in the pres-
ent for the benefit of current and future generations. An important societal challenge
is to both preserve and make cultural heritage artifacts accessible to the general
public in both short- and long-term time frames. One recent technology that is being
used to help preserve cultural heritage is augmented reality (henceforth AR).
To preserve cultural artifacts, several cultural heritage institutions have developed
their own mobile AR applications using cultural heritage resources. These applica-
tions combine AR technology with historical pictures and other cultural artifacts.
Aquestion investigated in this chapter is how effective is AR technology for present-
ing cultural heritage information, and how acceptable is the technology from a users
perspective? A number of studies have examined the acceptance of mobile applica-
tions and services (Gao etal. 2011, 2014, Ha etal. 2007, Kaasinen 2005, Liang and
Yeh 2010, Liu and Li 2011, van der Heijden etal. 2005, Verkasalo etal. 2010), in
some cases adding to the traditional technology acceptance model (TAM) based on
limitations of TAM for mobile applications (Gao etal. 2008, Wu and Wang 2005).
Further, while recent studies of mobile technology have examined user acceptance of
mobile tourist guides (Peres etal. 2011, Tsai 2011), we have found only one study that
has examined user acceptance of mobile AR (van Kleef etal. 2010). Therefore,user

411
412 Fundamentals of Wearable Computers and Augmented Reality

acceptance studies of mobile AR applications with cultural heritage resources are

rare. Thus, despite the popularity of AR for cultural heritage applications, and that
user acceptance of technology has been of interest to researchers and practitioners
for decades, little research has been done to study users acceptance or willingness
to use mobile AR applications combined with cultural heritage resources.
The aim of this chapter is to present an overview of current approaches that use
AR, including mobile AR, for the presentation of cultural heritage. Interestingly,
many studies on AR technology have not looked specifically on the acceptance and
use of AR for different tasks and applications. Therefore, in this chapter, we high-
light one recent example of a mobile AR system that was designed specifically for
cultural heritage; we also report the results of a study focusing on factors influencing
the acceptance of mobile AR systems, and we evaluate to what extent there seems to
be interest in AR-based applications, both to a tourist and to local community mem-
bers that have an interest in local cultural history. Finally, cultural heritage includes
tangible culture (such as buildings, monuments, works of art, and artifacts), intan-
gible culture (such as folklore, traditions, language, and knowledge), and natural
heritage (including culturally significant landscapes, and biodiversity). Our focus in
this chapter is on tangible culture, with additional annotations to different artifacts
and information where appropriate.
Following the introduction, in Section 16.2, additional background information is
provided on the use of mobile AR for cultural heritage. In Section 16.3 we present
the results of a detailed case study using mobile AR for the presentation of cultural
heritage, and in Section 16.4 we describe a user study designed to evaluate the AR
application. The chapter concludes with a summary of the use and acceptability of
mobile AR for cultural heritage.

16.2 BACKGROUND ON MOBILE AR FOR CULTURAL HERITAGE

AR aims to enhance our view of the world by superimposing virtual objects on
thereal world in a way that persuades the viewer that the virtual object is part of
thereal environment (Butchart 2011). Generally, mobile AR technology provides the
same functionality as standard (nonmobile) AR systems, but without constraining
the individuals whereabouts to a specially equipped area (Karimi and Hammad
2004). According to Azuma etal. (2011), mobile AR is one of the fastest-growing
research areas in the AR field; this is due, in part, to the emergence and widespread
use of smartphones and tablets that provide powerful platforms for supporting AR
in a mobile setting. Current smartphones and tablets combine a fast processor with
graphics hardware, a large touch screen, and relevant embedded sensors such as a
high-resolution camera, GPS, Wi-Fi (for indoor positioning; Krogstie 2012), com-
pass, and accelerometer, making mobile AR ideal for both indoor and outdoor appli-
cations (Billinghurst and Dnser 2012). Currently, there are two main approaches
to commercial AR applications: AR browsers based on geo-referenced positioning
and image recognitionbased AR. As we will discuss in a following section of the
chapter, most of the AR applications for cultural purposes use AR browsers and
rarely use image recognitionbased AR systems, such as Google Goggles; but this
may change in the future.
Use of Mobile Augmented Reality forCultural Heritage 413

Whereas other chapters in this book describe AR technology in terms of industry

and medical science applications, the focus of this chapter is on the application of AR
technology to cultural heritage. According to Johnson etal. (2010), Museum edu-
cators, arguably, have always been in the business of AR, creating bridges between
objects, ideas, and visitors. For example, both artifacts and exhibition areas in muse-
ums are often accompanied by extra materials such as descriptions, pictures, maps,
or movies. And for archaeological sites, there are on-site guides with pictures of how
a site looks now, printed on normal paper, and images of how the site appeared in the
past printed on transparent material. Audio guides are also used to annotate cultural
artifacts, especially at museums. Some social scientists also use physical mock-ups
with virtual overlays as presented in Laroche et al. (2011). However, mobile AR
applications takes the technology used to preserve cultural heritage a step further,
allowing an institution to provide historical information to the user, in the context
of where the user is located and when the user is there. Mobile AR technology also
generates publicity, and thus helps the institution attract and reach a new audience
(Boyer and Marcus 2011).
The following material should by no means be regarded as a complete list of all
mobile AR projects currently employed in the cultural heritage sector; however, it
describes the shift from projects that use AR systems equipped with head-mounted
displays and special hardware (which tether the user to a specific location) to projects
using contemporary AR systems with smartphone applications. A review of repre-
sentative AR systems follows.
The Archeoguide system (Vlahakis etal. 2002) used mobile AR technology at
cultural heritage sites, and was launched in 2001. The system was built around the
historical site of Olympia, Greece, and provided personalized contextual informa-
tion based on the users position and orientation at the site. Three different mobile
clients were supported within the system: a laptop, a tablet, and a personal digital
assistant (PDA) (the smartphones of those days).
The functionality typically provided by AR technology was only available on the
laptop system and required the use of a see-through head-mounted display with an
external web camera, a digital compass, a backpack with a GPS receiver, a laptop,
wireless communication equipment, and a battery. Further, the laptop display used a
hybrid approach in which a GPS and compass system were used to provide a rough
estimate of the users position, followed by vision-based tracking technique that was
used to find the users exact position and orientation. The vision-based tracking was
based on natural landmarks instead of artificial markers.
The tablets used with mobile AR were more conveniently sized and had a GPS
receiver, digital compass, and wireless communication equipment integrated in a
small box at the bottom of the screen. The tablets did not have a camera, but pro-
vided customized information and reconstructed augmented views of the surround-
ings aligned with the users position and orientation. Moving on to the PDA system,
while it did not support user-tracking, it did act as an electronic version of a written
tour guide.
The AR system used by PhillyHistory.org (Boyer and Marcus 2011) was developed
as a joint project between Azavea, a software company specializing in Geographic
Information Systems, and the City of Philadelphia Department of Records.
414 Fundamentals of Wearable Computers and Augmented Reality

The cultural heritage application was built on top of the Layar platform and is avail-
able for both Android and iPhone devices. The system enables users to view historic
photographs of Philadelphia as overlays on the camera view of their smartphones.
The application contains almost 90,000 geo-positioned images, 500 of which can
be viewed in 3D, while a selection of 20 images contain additional explanatory text
developed by local scholars. The entire development process is thoroughly docu-
mented in a white paper and numerous blog posts covering technical and cultural
challenges that the designers confronted and overcome as they developed the system.
The Streetmuseum (ML 2014) cultural heritage system represents an AR appli-
cation for iPhone and was developed by the Museum of London. The application
contains over 200 images from sites across London. Users with an iPhone can view
these images in 3D as ghostly overlays on the present day scene; however, users
with a 3G phone cannot access the complete AR functionality, but are still able to
view the images in 2D. The Streetmuseum application is different from the applica-
tions built by other cultural institutions, mainly because the Museum of London was
able to tailor their system for their particular uses, rather than using an existing AR
browser not tailored to specific users. The result is an application that offers a far
better experience than Layar, but only works on a limited number of devices (Chan
2010). As a measure of its success, the system had more than 50,000 downloads in
the first 2 weeks of its use.
The Netherlands Architecture Institutes UAR application (NAI 2011) is a mobile
architecture device developed by the Netherlands Architecture Institute. The appli-
cation is built on top of Layar and is available for both Android and iPhone devices.
It uses AR to provide information about the built environment and is similar to the
Streetmuseum and the AR system developed by PhillyHistory.org. However, unlike
those systems, UAR also contains design drawings and 3D models of buildings that
were either never built, are under construction, or in the planning stage.
Another cultural heritage system, the Powerhouse Museums AR system
(Powerhouse 2014) allows visitors to use their mobile phones to visualize Sydney,
Australia as it appeared 100 years ago. The Powerhouse Museum system is not a
custom application, but is implemented as a channel in Layar. It is thus available on
all devices with a Layar browser. Their web page contains detailed instructions on
how to download Layar and search for the Powerhouse Museum channel.
Still another AR system designed to preserve cultural heritage was intelligent
tourism and cultural information through ubiquitous services (iTACITUS) (BMT
2011). This AR system was developed in connection to a European research proj-
ect that was completed in July 2009. While the project was ongoing, researchers
explored various ways of using AR to provide compelling experiences at cultural
heritage sites, with an additional aim to encourage cultural tourism. One of the sys-
tems developed under the iTACITUS program, was Zllner et al.s AR presenta-
tion system for remote cultural heritage sites (2009). This system has been used
to produce several installations, among them the 20years representing the Fall of
the Berlin Wall installation at CeBIT in 2009. In that installation, users used Ultra
Mobile PCs (UMPCs) to visualize images of Berlin superimposed on a satellite
image of the city laid out on the floor. By touching the screen, users were able to
navigate through visualizations of Berlin as it appeared in different decades, thus
Use of Mobile Augmented Reality forCultural Heritage 415

recognizing the historical geographical location and politics in Berlin before and
after World War II, followed by the construction of the Berlin Wall. The installation
also consisted of an outdoor component where interested users were able to take pho-
tos of a building and receive historical overlays from the server that corresponded to
the current view of the site.
In another example of mobile AR, the CityViewAR system (Billinghurst and
Dnser 2012) was developed to be used in a city. A particular goal of this AR
system was to support learning. With the system students used a mobile phone
application to see buildings in the city of Christchurch as they existed before the
2011 earthquakea natural event that resulted in much damage to the city. The
application was regarded to be user-friendly and thus designed to be used by any
citizen.
In Keil etal. (2011) a mobile app was designed to use AR technology to explain
the history and the architectural visual features at a real building viewed outdoors.
Inthe application, Explore! (Ardito etal. 2012), one can create an AR outdoor envi-
ronment based on 3D models of monuments, places, and objects of historical sites,
and also extend the cultural heritage experience with contextual sounds.
Finally a recent paper from the European project Tag Cloud (de los Ros etal.
2014) provides an overview of current trends in information technology that are most
relevant to cultural institutions. The project investigates how AR, storytelling, and
social media can improve a visitors experience of local culture. Following the over-
view of techniques for cultural heritage, members of the project note recent develop-
ments related to the use of AR in the field.
Lights of St. Etienne (Argon 2014) use the AR browser Argon to create an embod-
ied, location-based experience. Further, Historypin (2014) is a system that allows
community members to share images of the past. However, most of the applications
and research projects related to culture heritage are tourism oriented, and do not
consider the importance of engaging local community members about their own
cultural past.
In addition to these systems, there are many image recognitionbased AR appli-
cations available: one of the most popular is StickyBits and another is Holey and
Gaikwad (2014); both are in the process of becoming mature technologies with
the capability to show relevant information about any object in the users vicinity.
Vuforia (2014) is a Solution Development Kit (SDK) for AR image recognition sys-
tem that supports iOS, Android, and Unity 3D. These functionalities are only to a
limited degree being used in cultural heritage MAR applications. One use is culture
and nature travel (kulturog naturreise), which is a project whose goal is to pres-
ent cultural heritage and natural phenomena in Norway using mobile technology
(Kulturrdet 2011). The project is being done in collaboration with the Arts Council
Norway (Kulturrdet), the Directorate for Cultural Heritage (Riksantikvaren), the
Norwegian Directorate for Nature Management (Direktoratet for naturforvaltning),
and the Norwegian Mapping Authority (Statens kartverk). The first pilot experiment
in the project used AR and QR codes to present information from the historical river
district in Oslo, Norway. Future pilot projects will be conducted to identify what
information and technology is needed to present information from archives, muse-
ums, and databases on smartphones, tablets, and other mobile devices.
416 Fundamentals of Wearable Computers and Augmented Reality

16.3 APPLICATION EXAMPLE: HISTORICAL TOUR GUIDE

In this section we present in detail, a representative application of the use of mobile
AR for presenting cultural heritage; following this section is a discussion of user inter-
est and acceptance of the AR application presented here. The application was first
presented in Haugstvedt and Krogstie (2012). The presented application allows us to
describe in detail a representative MAR application for cultural heritage, which pro-
vides a basis for the important discussion on appropriate adaptations of MAR for cul-
tural heritage (not only including the possibility of making such solutions technically).
The application discussed and presented is the Historical Tour Guide. It is a
location-aware mobile information system that uses mobile AR to present localhistori-
cal photographs of Trondheim, Norway together with additional data about the houses
and historical inhabitants of the houses. Through the website Trondheimsbilder.no,
people have for a number of years been able to access a large and growing collection
of historical local photographs using an Internet platform. The website is frequently
visited by historians and members of local historical organizations and new pictures are
added to the site regularly. In connection with work occurring during the last 5years
over the course of the Wireless Trondheim Living Lab project (Andresen etal. 2007),
we have developed and evaluated a number of applications combining local historical
pictures with user positioning, providing access to these pictures on a mobile platform
close to where these pictures were originally taken (Ibrahim 2008). Although techni-
cally successful, the system has been deficient in generating large interest from users in
the local community.
In Billinghurst and Dnser (2012) the claim is made that providing AR experi-
ences on mobile devices can provide unique benefits over offering non-AR content on
the same topic; in our project, we thus wanted to investigate the application of mobile
AR for presenting the historical pictures. Feedback on the use of Trondheimsbilder.
no and similar systems has indicated that such systems serve both purposesto
learn about the city and offer a certain fun/enjoyment factor. Thus it is hypothesized
that the use of AR applications can have both hedonic and utilitarian purposes.
The following questions guided the research:

1. Do the previously established relationships between the constructs in the

TAM, extended with perceived enjoyment, hold for AR applications provid-
ing historical pictures and information?
2. Is there an interest among people in using AR applications with historical
pictures and information?
3. If yes to 2, what are the characteristics of users that have a specific interest
in using such AR applications for cultural heritage?

The first research question deals with relationships between constructs discussed in
the TAM acceptance model. Van der Heijden (2004) showed that perceived enjoy-
ment and perceived ease of use were stronger predictors of intention to use a hedonic
system than perceived usefulness. Based on this observation, our goal was to dis-
cover whether the same finding held for mobile AR applications that presented his-
torical pictures and information. Information about user acceptance of technology
Use of Mobile Augmented Reality forCultural Heritage 417

and its hedonic qualities, pragmatically, can be used to find ways to make cultural
heritage information more acceptable to users.
The second and third question guiding the research dealt with a users interest
in using mobile AR technology for accessing cultural heritage. Here the research
aim was to discover whether there is an interest in the technology with respect to its
application for cultural heritage, and if so, whether this interest is dependent on the
specific application being used on a specific type of device. It was also of interest to
discover whether people wanted to use the application that was developed in their
home town, or when visiting a new city (as a tourist). We were also interested in
discovering how previous interest in local history influenced whether people wanted
to use the application or not.
To research these questions, a preliminary study was first conducted to explore
the need for an AR application presenting historical photographs. A number of simi-
lar solutions were reviewed and stakeholders from local cultural heritage institutions
were interviewed to gather user and system requirements. Next, a prototype was
developed and evaluated for its usability. Based on the results derived from this anal-
ysis, another design and development phase was performed. Furthermore, different
models for technology acceptance were reviewed and a questionnaire was designed
to measure usability. The questionnaire consisted of five major parts:

1. Perceived usefulness
2. Perceived ease of use
3. Perceived enjoyment
4. Behavioral intention
5. Individual variables

Figure 16.1 shows the research model used in this study. Note that this is the TAM
with perceived enjoyment as used by Davis etal. (1992) and van der Heijden (2004).
The measure for perceived usefulness was developed specifically for this project in
line with the thinking of van der Heijden (2004). For some time it has been clear that
mobile applications have certain specific challenges regarding usability that should
be taken into account (Krogstie 2001, Krogstie etal. 2003).

Perceived ease
of use (PEOU)

H4 H3

Perceived Perceived
enjoyment (PE) H1 usefulness (PU)

H5 H2
Behavioral
intention to use
(BI)

FIGURE 16.1 Technology acceptance research model.

418 Fundamentals of Wearable Computers and Augmented Reality

Four constructs are included in the model: perceived enjoyment, perceived use-
fulness, perceived ease of use, and behavioral intention. While it was expected that
the predicative strength of the paths may change, it was also expected that the struc-
ture of the relationships from TAM would hold for this model as well. This conclu-
sion led to the following hypotheses:

H1: There is a positive relationship between perceived ease of use and inten-
tion to use.
H2: There is a positive relationship between perceived usefulness and inten-
tion to use.
H3: There is a positive relationship between perceived ease of use and per-
ceived usefulness.

Perceived enjoyment has the same position in the research model as perceived use-
fulness that led to the following hypotheses:

H4: There is a positive relationship between perceived ease of use and per-
ceived enjoyment.
H5: There is a positive relationship between perceived enjoyment and inten-
tion to use.

16.3.1 Overview Of ApplicAtiOn

The concrete system was built atop CroMAR (Mora etal. 2012), a system that uses
mobile AR to support reflection on crowd management. There are three ways to
access information using the application:

1. Clicking on a point of interest (POI)

2. Clicking on a photo in the list of available photos
3. Looking on the map of an area where you are currently

All three methods can be combined with filtering to allow users to only look at
photos and related information from a specific decade. We next present the main
functionality of the system:

AR view: The AR view is the main view of the application where POIs are
shown as floating icons overlaying the camera feed. The name of the appli-
cation is shown in the toolbar at the top. The view is shown in Figure 16.2.
Photo overlay: The applications provided transparent photo overlays. These
let the user see historical images overlaid over the present day scene. The
buttons in the toolbar at the top of the screen are used to close the overlay or
go to the detailed information view belonging to the picture.
Detailed information view: Each of the photographs in the application has
an associated detailed information view. For pictures it would contain a
description of the motive and also lets the user know when the picture was
taken, the source of the photograph, and the name of the photographer.
Use of Mobile Augmented Reality forCultural Heritage 419

FIGURE 16.2 AR view of the Historical Tour Guide application.

Timeline: The timeline is always visible at the bottom of the screen. It lets
the user filter the amount of incoming information so they only see photo-
graphs from a specific decade. The selected decade is marked in green and
written in the upper left corner of the display.
Map: The map shows the users current position and the position of photos
from the decade selected on the timeline. Each pin is tagged with the name
of the photo and the current distance from the user.
List view: This view shows the user a list of all photographs from the
selected decade and provides a convenient method to open detailed views
without having to locate the associated markers.

16.3.2 technicAl DetAils

As mentioned earlier, the Historical Tour Guide application is built on top of
CroMAR. Therefore, most of the technical details of these two applications are simi-
lar. The code for CroMAR is written in Objective-C, the programming language for
native iOS applications. The Historical Tour Guide is written in the same language
but was updated to use automatic reference counting (ARC), a compiler feature of
XCode that provides automatic memory management of Objective-C objects.
Figure 16.3 shows the key objects in the Historical Tour Guide. The application is
organized around the model-view controller (MVC) pattern. This pattern separates
the data objects in the model from the views used to present the data. It facilitates the
independent development of different components and makes it possible to swap out
views or data without having to change large amounts of code. The system objects in
the diagram are standard objects that are part of all iOS applications. These are not
subclassed or modified by application developers. This is unlike the custom objects
that are instances of custom classes written for this specific application.
420 Fundamentals of Wearable Computers and Augmented Reality

Model Custom objects

System objects
Data objects
Either system or
custom objects

Controller View

Event View and UI

loop View controllers objects

Application
UIApplication delegate UIWindow

FIGURE 16.3 System architecture.

The UIApplication object is the system object that manages the application event
loop. It receives events from the system and dispatches these to the applications cus-
tom classes. It works together with the application delegate, a custom object created
at launch time that is responsible for the initialization of the application. The view
controller objects manage the presentation of the applications content on the screen.
Each of the controller objects manages a single view and its collection of subviews.
The other custom view controllers in the application also manage subclasses, or one
of the other standard iOS view controllers.
Each view covers a specific area and responds to events within that area. Controls
are a specialized type of view for implementing buttons, check boxes, text fields,
or similar interface objects. Further, the views and view controllers are connected.
When a view controller is presented, it makes its views visible by installing them
in the applications window. This is represented by a system object of the type
UIWindow. The last group of objects is the data model objects. These objects store
the applications content, such as the POIs, photographs, and historical information.
The Historical Tour Guide is launched when the user taps the custom application
icon. At this point in time, the application moves from the not running state to the
active state, passing briefly through the inactive state. As part of this launch cycle,
the system creates a process and a thread for the application and calls the applica-
tions main function. The Historical Tour Guide is an event-driven application. The
flow of the program is determined by two types of events:

1. Touch events, generated when users touch the views of the application
2. Motion events, generated when users move the device

Events of the first type are generated when a user presses a button, scrolls in a list, or
interacts with any of the other views. An action message is generated and sent to the
target object that was specified when the view was created.
Use of Mobile Augmented Reality forCultural Heritage 421

During initialization, the system also registers as an observer for orientation

changes. As a result, the system receives the notifications that are generated when a
user changes location or moves the device to look in another direction. The applica-
tion uses this information to redraw the marker icons and update the distance labels
shown on the map and in the list.
Both CroMAR and the original tour guide prototype showed all POIs in the
direction the user was looking. However, this became a problem when the number
of POIs increased and the marker icons started to overlap. In this situation, the users
would have to use the timeline to filter the POIs, not because they were interested in
photographs from a specific decade, but because they needed to reduce the number
of visible icons. The current version of the application implements additional filter-
ing and only shows icons for POIs less than 50 m away.
The map in both CroMAR and the Historical Tour Guide are implemented using
Apples Map Kit framework. This is a framework that uses Google services to pro-
vide map data. The framework provides automatic support for the touch events that
let users zoom and pan the map. The application also uses Apples UIKit, Foundation,
CoreGraphics, and CoreLocation frameworks.

16.4 EVALUATION OF USER INTEREST OF THE APPLICATION

As described earlier we used an extended version of the TAM (Venkatesh and Davis
2000) to investigate the potential acceptance of the AR application for cultural heri-
tage described earlier. A prototype usability analysis was developed in accordance
with general principles for usability design, and two surveys were conducted to eval-
uate usability and acceptance. The web survey involved participants from an online
market research panel. Specifically, 200 participants answered a questionnaire after
having watched a video showing the application in use. The video lasted about 1min
and 30 s, and illustrated the use of the AR application by interspersing explanatory
text with pictures showing the use of the application in practice. A similar survey
has been used by Hella and Krogstie (2011) for validating similar research models,
since the methodology enables one to get feedback from sufficiently many users to
be able to apply the prescribed appropriate statistical techniques. The participants
were recruited from different parts of Norway by a market research company. Given
that the participants were part of the market research companys user pool, we had
no direct contact with the respondents.
In the street survey, 42 participants received the opportunity to try the applica-
tion in practice in the streets of Trondheim before they answered the questionnaire,
allowing more qualitative input to the evaluation. None of the respondents were
known to us before being stopped on the street. And as to our knowledge, there was
no overlap between the groups used in the web survey.

16.4.1 results
This section presents the descriptive analysis of the results from the two surveys.
Astatistical test of the overall research model is presented by Haugstvedt and Krogstie
(2012), and we only present the main result here. In the street survey, the age range
422 Fundamentals of Wearable Computers and Augmented Reality

was 1460years, with a mean age of 27.8. Overall, 59.5% of the respondents were
male, and about a fifth of the respondents replied that they had previously completed
a similar questionnaire. In the web survey the age range was 2045years, with a mean
age of 33.3. The gender distribution was about equal, but with slightly more female
respondents.
Interestingly, for the street survey, the respondents did not use the entire scale.
Apart from some responding 3, all answers were in the range from 4 to 7, which
indicate that those having the opportunity to test the system properly themselves were
all either neutral or positive. On the web survey the entire scale was used, which partly
explains the shift in the average value of the responses between the two surveys.
The responses to the questions on perceived usefulness are found in Table 16.1. First
the individual question is presented (e.g., PU1by using the app, I can more quickly
and easily find historical pictures and information), before first the gradings from the
web survey and then the gradings from the street survey are presented for each ques-
tion. Inthe final two lines we present the average response for all four questions in the
category perceived usefulness. Although the median answer is the same on most ques-
tions, we see that the average is generally higher on the street survey. Still we can regard
the responses to usefulness to be quite high compared to what we have experienced in
similar surveys relative to other mobile applications such as (Hella and Krogstie 2010).
The responses to the four items on perceived ease of use are found in Table 16.2.
First the individual question is presented (e.g., PEOU1interaction with the app is
clear and understandable), before first the gradings from the web survey and then
the gradings from the street survey are presented for each question. In the final two
lines we present the average response for all four questions in the category perceived

TABLE 16.1
Comparing Answers between the Surveys on Perceived Usefulness
Item N Min Max Mean Median STD
PU1: By using the app, I can more quickly and easily find historical pictures and information.
PU1web 200 1 7 5.35 6 1.181
PU1street 42 4 7 6.00 6 0.963
PU2: By using the app, I learn more about history in Trondheim.
PU2web 200 1 7 5.34 6 1.171
PU2street 42 4 7 6.38 6 0.661
PU3: By using the app, I can quickly find historical pictures and information from places nearby.
PU3web 200 1 7 5.39 6 1.202
PU3street 42 4 7 6.24 6 0.726
PU4: By using app, I am more likely to find historical pictures and information that interest me.
PU4web 200 1 7 5.08 5 1.393
PU4street 42 3 7 6.05 6 0.963
PUaverage
PUweb 200 1 7 5.29 5.5 1.13
PUstreet 42 4 7 6.17 6.25 0.648
Use of Mobile Augmented Reality forCultural Heritage 423

TABLE 16.2
Comparing Answers between the Surveys on Perceived Ease of Use
Item N Min Max Mean Median STD
PEOU1: Interaction with the app is clear and understandable.
PEOU1web 200 1 7 5.31 6 1.233
PEOU1street 42 3 7 5.52 6 1.215
PEOU2: Interaction with the app does not require a lot of mental effort.
PEOU2web 200 1 7 4.87 5 1.361
PEOU2street 42 3 7 5.88 6 0.993
PEOU3: I find the app easy to use.
PEOU3web 200 1 7 5.16 5 1.182
PEOU3street 42 4 7 5.79 6 1.001
PEOU4: I find it easy to get the app to do what I want it to do.
PEOU4web 200 1 7 4.97 5 1.223
PEOU4street 42 4 7 5.57 6 1.016
PEOUaverage
PEOUweb 200 1 7 5.08 5.13 1.117
PEOUstreet 42 4 7 5.69 5.75 0.860

ease of use. Here we find a similar pattern as earlier, with higher averages and also
for several of the questions higher medians. The responses are on average a bit less
positive though; thus even if the application first had undergone a separate usability
test and had been improved before being used in this specific investigations, this is
an indication that there is still room for improvements. It is positive though that the
responses to the street survey is more positive, with averages of around six as for
finding the app easy to use and not requiring a lot of mental effort.
For perceived enjoyment the respondents in both surveys used a semantic dif-
ferential with contrasting adjectives at each end of the scale to rate these items.
Thescale used in the street survey was a discrete scale with seven categories while
the scale used in the web survey was continuous. The replies from the continuous
scale were later on coded into seven categories. Results are shown in Table 16.3.
First the individual scale is presented (e.g., PE1disgustingenjoyable) before first
the gradings from the web survey and then the gradings from the street survey are
presented for each question. In the final two lines we present the average response
for all four scales in the category perceived enjoyment. The data reveal a higher aver-
age in the web survey, which indicate quite high perceived enjoyment of this kind
of service, although we find a higher standard deviation on the result of this than in
the categories perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness, pointing to that here
the opinions of the respondents are more mixed.
In Table 16.4, we provide similar data for intention to use. First the individual
question is presented (e.g., BI1I intend to use the app on a smartphone), before first
the gradings from the web survey and then the gradings from the street survey are
presented for each question. In the final two lines we present the average response
424 Fundamentals of Wearable Computers and Augmented Reality

TABLE 16.3
Comparing Answers between the Surveys on Perceived Enjoyment
Item N Min Max Mean Median STD
PE1: disgustingenjoyable
PE1web 200 1 7 6.06 7 1.562
PE1street 40 3 7 5.83 6 1.130
PE2: dullexciting
PE2web 200 1 7 5.60 6.5 1.881
PE2street 40 3 7 5.45 5 1.131
PE3: unpleasantpleasant
PE3web 200 1 7 6.17 7 1.514
PE3street 40 4 7 5.70 6 1.067
PE4: boringinteresting
PE4web 200 1 7 5.67 7 1.993
PE4street 40 3 7 6.00 6 1.038
PEaverage
PEweb 200 1 7 5.9 6.5 1.500
PEstreet 40 3.75 7 5.74 5.75 0.893

for all eight questions in the category intention to use. Intention to use is the only
area in the street survey where the respondents used the entire scale in answering.
As can be seen from the higher standard deviations on many of these questions,
opinions arequite mixed, although the responses on questions on some modes of
usages (e.g.,the use of the app if visiting a city as a tourist) are very positive. We will
discuss some of the other results in more detail in the following.
An important aspect with the use of the web survey was the opportunity to vali-
date the hedonic research model. Figure 16.4 shows the structural model calculated
with data from the web survey. The structural model shows that all five hypotheses
were supported. With the exception of the path between PEOU and BI, all paths were
significant at the p < 0.001 level. The path between PEOU and BI was significant at
the p < 0.05 level. A more detailed treatment of the statistical validity of these results
is found in (Haugstvedt and Krogstie 2012).
To summarize the hypothesis relative to the research model in light of Figure 16.4

H1: There is a positive relationship between perceived ease of use and inten-
tion to use. Accepted at p < 0.05.
H2: There is a positive relationship between perceived usefulness and inten-
tion to use. Accepted at p < 0.001.
H3: There is a positive relationship between perceived ease of use and per-
ceived usefulness. Accepted at p < 0.001.
H4: There is a positive relationship between perceived ease of use and per-
ceived enjoyment. Accepted at p < 0.001.
H5: There is a positive relationship between perceived enjoyment and inten-
tion to use. Accepted at p < 0.001.
Use of Mobile Augmented Reality forCultural Heritage 425

TABLE 16.4
Comparing Answers between the Surveys on Intention to Use
Item N Min Max Mean Median STD
BI1: I intend to use the app on a smartphone.
BI1web 200 1 7 4.58 5 1.760
BI1street 40 3 7 5.98 6 1.121
BI2: I predict that I will use the app on a smartphone.
BI2web 200 1 7 4.07 4 1.700
BI2street 41 3 7 5.80 6 1.229
BI3: I intend to use the app on a tablet.
BI3web 200 1 7 4.01 4 1.779
BI3street 41 2 7 5.22 5 1.557
BI4: I predict that I will use the app on a tablet.
BI4web 200 1 7 3.55 4 1.695
BI4street 42 1 7 4.81 5 1.784
BI5: I intend to use the app in a city I visit as a tourist.
BI5web 200 1 7 5.05 5 1.577
BI5street 42 4 7 6.45 7 0.889
BI6: I predict that I will use the app in a city I visit as a tourist.
BI6web 200 1 7 4.45 5 1.692
BI6street 42 3 7 6.12 6 1.109
BI7: I intend to use the app in my hometown.
BI7web 200 1 7 4.54 5 1.779
BI7street 42 1 7 5.43 5 1.548
BI8: I predict that I will use the app in my hometown.
BI8web 200 1 7 4.16 4 1.810
BI8street 42 1 7 5.24 5 1.620
BIaverage
BIweb 200 1 7 4.3 4.5 1.520
BIstreet 40 3.63 7 5.7 5.5 0.966

On a detailed level, the descriptive results from the street survey and the web survey
have some differences. The street survey participants were generally more positive
about the application than their web survey counterparts, and to a lesser extent used
the whole (negative part of) scale. This might be caused by unwanted bias by the
presence of the investigator, but can also be the effect of using and experimenting
with the app freely themselves. The web survey participants rated the application
higher on the scale for perceived enjoyment, but it is likely that this is due to the
different format that was used for this scale in the web survey. The company that
collected the data used a continuous slider to program this question instead of having
seven distinct categories. The answers were afterward mapped into seven categories.
It is possible that this format caused the respondents to use the endpoints of the scale.
426 Fundamentals of Wearable Computers and Augmented Reality

Perceived ease
0.549 of use (PEOU) 0.760
(8.085***) (23.821***)

Perceived Perceived
0.152
enjoyment (PE) usefulness (PU)
(2.060*)
0.301 0.578

0.333 0.382
Behavioral
(5.416***) (4.680***)
intention to use
(BI) 0.301

*Signicant at p < 0.05.

***Signicant at p < 0.001.

FIGURE 16.4 Structural model with data from web survey.

That would at least explain the high number of scores of 7 in this scale in the web
survey compared to the street survey. The participants in both surveys were more
interested in using the application in a city they visited as a tourist than to using it in
their hometown. This indicates that it is relevant to compare the input of people from
other places with those from locals.
Finally, the generalizability of the results should be investigated. As mentioned
earlier a similar application had been made on a normal mobile platform with maps
and geo-tagged historical pictures with limited success, not getting past the proto-
type stage. The application on a mobile AR platform has received better feedback as
reported here. This mirrors the results reported by Billinghurst and Dnser (2012)
claiming that providing AR on mobile devices can have benefits over offering non-
AR content on the same topic.
Norwegians are known to quickly adopt new technologies. It is hard to judge if
users in other countries where the use of smartphones and tablets are not so wide-
spread would be less positive to applications of this sort. Given that the applica-
tion does not store any private data, aspects of trust that carry different weight in
different cultures (Gao and Krogstie 2011) would not be expected to influence the
results.
Having established the basic research model, we have looked further on rela-
tionships between the individual variables and intention to use (BI) using the
web survey. Given that the data are on a Likert scale, we have used nonpara-
metric techniques to investigate correlations and find the following significant
results looking at the web survey. In addition to the overall bivariable (on inten-
tion to use), we have also looked at variables relative to use of the app on a smart-
phone (BI-smart), on a tablet (like tested, BI-tablet), as a tourist (BI-tourist), or
as a local (BI-local).
In Table 16.5, the first column shows the test variable, whereas the second
shows the grouping value that is one of the background variables. The next column
indicates the average value of the test variable for those responding yes on the
Use of Mobile Augmented Reality forCultural Heritage 427

TABLE 16.5
Significant Relationships between Main Variables and Background Variables
Test Variable Grouping Variable A (Yes) B (No) N(A) N(B) p
BI Interest in local history 4.53 4.12 89 95 0.048
BI Have tablet 4.63 4.16 61 139 0.036
BI Have smartphone 4.44 3.69 163 27 0.006
BI-smart Have smartphone 4.52 3.44 163 27 0.000
BI-smart Interest in local history 4.65 4.09 89 95 0.008
BI-tablet Have tablet 4.40 3.51 61 139 0.001
BI-tourist Have smartphone 4.90 4.08 163 27 0.004
BI-local Have smartphone 4.46 3.85 0.033
PEOU Have smartphone 5.14 4.78 163 27 0.021
PE Interest in local history 6.10 5.75 89 95 0.018
PE Used similar app 5.10 6.00 27 169 0.002

grouping variable. The next column is the average of the no answer and the next
columns indicate the number of yes and no answers for the grouping variable, and
p is the probability that there is not a difference between the groups on the test
variables.
As we see from the table, those who already have expressed an interest in local
history seem more likely to use such applications, which should come as no sur-
prise. On the technology side, we see that those already having a smartphone or
a tablet find it more likely that they will adopt an application of this sort, which
necessarily must be mobile. This can also explain the large differences in answers
on questions BI1BI4 in Table 16.4. Those having a tablet are more likely to use a
cultural heritage application on a tablet. Similarly those having a smartphone are
more inclined to use a cultural heritage application on a smartphone. We see also
a positive correlation between interest in local history and the usage of the app on
a smartphone. Smartphone users may desire to use the app both as a tourist and
as a local. Finally, those having a smartphone perceived the tablet app to be more
easy to use than those not having a tablet, which also can explain the spread of the
responses to usability. Asmore people get used to using tablets, these applications
exploiting the possibilities of tablets will also be experienced as more easy to use.
Those already having interest in local history expressed significantly higher per-
ceived enjoyment. Somewhat surprising is that those not familiar with such an app,
had a higher perceived enjoyment than those (quite few) that had used such applica-
tions before. Possibly, this can be explained by a novelty factor.

16.5 CONCLUSION
As have been illustrated in this chapter, mobile AR has been implemented for
a large range of situations, both for indoor and outdoor use, applying a large
variety of techniques to enhance the experience of the spectators, view of cul-
tural heritage. As the technology is developed further, such that a person can
428 Fundamentals of Wearable Computers and Augmented Reality

eventually use standard technology for viewing cultural heritage information, it

is likely that the actual usage of such solutions will increase.
To illustrate the last point, in the chapter we evaluated the acceptance of a particu-
lar application of mobile AR. Further, we applied a TAM for combined utilitarian
and hedonic systems to examine the determinants of intention to use an AR applica-
tion with historical information and pictures. An application was built and used to
demonstrate the concept for the participants in the street survey that was conducted
as part of the project. A questionnaire was used for data collection. The same ques-
tionnaire was also used in a web survey, conducted online using a market research
panel. The participants in the web survey watched a video presentation of the use of
the application before answering the questionnaire.
Returning to our research questions we can conclude the following:

1. Do the previously established relationships between the constructs in the

TAM, extended with perceived enjoyment, hold for AR applications pro-
viding historical pictures and information? As illustrated in Figure 16.4, it
seems this established research model for application with both utilitarian
and hedonic aspects is useful for this type of application.
2. Is there an interest among people in using AR applications with historical
pictures and information? Based on the responses as reported in Tables 16.1
through 16.4, we can say that there is an interest for such applications, but
that this varies quite a bit between different people.
3. If yes to 2, what are the characteristics of users that have a specific interest in
using such AR applications for cultural heritage? As illustrated in Table16.5,
an existing interest in local history and thus cultural heritage relative to local
history seems to be important for intention to use. Also that one already
has a device of the sort that the application is provided on seems to have
significant impact on intention to use. Although many will like to use such
apps locally, the interest seems to be even higher for the usage of such apps
when one is visiting other places as a tourist.

This chapter discussed also the differences in the results based on feedback on see-
ing a mock-up outside the actual usage environment, and the experiences with a real
application in the real environment. This study was done to allow participants to
judge results from the evaluation of a more low-fidelity solution, where it is easier to
get feedback from many users at an early stage (here originally done to validate the
research model, and investigate the significant correlations between the variables in
the research model and background variables). It appears that the responses in the
low-fidelity case were more conservative. One exception was the result on perceived
enjoyment, which seems to have been influenced by how this question was imple-
mented with sliders rather than discrete values in the questionnaire. On the other
hand, we saw limitations with the more real setting, in the sense that there could be
possible investigator bias which leads to not getting the local respondents even at
the local site (which here might be tourists and not locals). Thus when investigating
the more detailed mechanisms for acceptance, we have focused in particular on the
results from the web-based survey.
Use of Mobile Augmented Reality forCultural Heritage 429

REFERENCES
Andresen, S. H., J. Krogstie, and T. Jelle. 2007. Lab and research activities at wireless
trondheim. In: Fourth International Symposium on Wireless Communication Systems,
Trondheim, Norway.
Ardito, C., M. F. Costabile, A. De Anegeli, and R. Lanzilotti. 2012. Enriching archaeological
parks with contextual sounds and mobile technology. ACM Transactions on Computer
Human Interaction, 19(4): 130, ISSN: 1073-0516, DOI: 10.1145/2395131.2395136.
Argon. 2015. Georgia tech augmented environments. http://argon.gatech.edu/ (accessed June
7, 2014).
Azuma, R., M. Billinghurst, and G. Klinker. 2011. Special section on mobile augmented real-
ity. Computer and Graphics, 35: viiviii.
Billinghurst, M. and A. Dnser. 2012. Augmented reality in the classroom. IEEE Computer,
45(7): 5663.
BMT. 2011. BMT research and development directorate. iTacitusIntelligent tourism and
cultural information through ubiquitous services. http://www.itacitus.org/ (accessed
June 22, 2014).
Boyer, D. and J. Marcus. 2011. Implementing mobile augmented reality applications for
cultural institutions. In: J. Trant and D. Bearman (eds.), Museums and the Web 2011:
Proceedings (MW2011), Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Butchart, B. 2011. Augmented reality for smartphones. Technical report, JISC observatory.
Brighton, UK.
Chan, S. 2010. On augmented reality (again)Time with UAR, Layar, streetmuseum & the CBA.
http://www.powerhousemuseum.com/dmsblog/index.php/2010/10/26/on-augmented-
reality-again-time-with-uar-layar-streetmuseum-the-cba/ (accessed June 22, 2014).
Davis, F. D., R. P. Bagozzi, and P. R. Warshaw. 1992. Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use
computers in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(14): 11111132.
de los Ros, S., M. F. Cabrera-Umpirrez, M. T. Arredondo, M. Pramo, B. Baranski, J. Meis,
M. Gerhard, B. Prados, L. Prez, and M. del Mar Villafranca. 2014. Using augmented
reality and social media in mobile applications to engage people on cultural sites
universal access in humancomputer interaction. Universal access to information and
knowledge. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 8514: 662672.
Gao, S. and J. Krogstie. 2011. Explaining the adoption of mobile information services from a
cultural perspective. In: Proceedings ICMB 2011, June 2021, Como, Italy, pp. 243252.
Gao, S., J. Krogstie, and P. A. Gransther. 2008. Mobile services acceptance model. Paper
presented at the International Conference on Convergence and Hybrid Information
Technology (ICHIT2008), Daejeon, Korea.
Gao, S., J. Krogstie, and K. Siau. 2011. Developing an instrument to measure the adoption
of mobile services. International Journal on Mobile Information Systems, 7(1): 4567.
Gao, S., J. Krogstie, and K. Siau. 2014. Adoption of mobile information services: An empirical
study. International Journal on Mobile Information Systems, 10(2): 147171.
Ha, I., Y. Yoon, and M. Choi. 2007. Determinants of adoption of mobile games under mobile
broadband wireless access environment. Information and Management, 44(3): 276286.
Haugstvedt, A.-C. and J. Krogstie. 2012. Mobile augmented reality for cultural heritage:
A technology acceptance study. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on
Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR), November 58, Atlanta, GA.
Hella, L. and J. Krogstie. 2011. Personalisations by semantic web technology in food shopping.
In: Proceedings of WIMS 2011, Sogndal, Norway.
Historypin. 2014. A global community collaborating around history. http://www.historypin.
com (accessed June 7, 2014).
Holey, P. and V. Gaikwad. 2014. Google glass technology. International Journal of Advanced
Research in Computer Science and Management Studies, 2(3): 278.
430 Fundamentals of Wearable Computers and Augmented Reality

Ibrahim, M. 2008. Utvikling og evaluering av ulike mobile, lokasjonsbaserte tjenester (in

Norwegian). Technical report, IDI, NTNU. Trondheim, Norway.
Johnson, L. F., H. Witchey, R. Smith, A. Levine, and K. Haywood. 2010. The 2010 Horizon
Report: Museum Edition. The New Media Consortium, Austin, TX.
Kaasinen, E. 2005. User Acceptance of Mobile ServicesValue, Ease of Use, Trust and Ease
of Adoption. VTT Publications 566, Espoo, Finland.
Karimi, H. and A. Hammad (eds.). 2004. Mobile augmented reality. Telegeoinformatics:
Location-Based Computing and Services, Chapter 9. CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, FL.
Keil, J., M. Zllner, M. Becker, F. Wientapper, T. Engelke, and H. Wuest. 2011. The house of
OlbrichAn augmented reality tour through architectural history. In: Proceedings of
10th International Conference on Mobile Business (ICMB 2011), pp. 243252. Como,
Italy.
Krogstie, J. 2001. Requirements engineering for mobile information systems. Paper presented
at the Seventh International Workshop on Requirements Engineering: Foundations for
Software Quality (REFSQ01), Interlaken, Switzerland.
Krogstie, J. 2012. Bridging research and innovation by applying living labs for design science
research. In: Proceedings SCIS 2012, August 1720, Uppsala, Sweden.
Krogstie, J., K. Lyytinen, A. L. Opdahl, B. Pernici, K. Siau, and K. Smolander. 2003. Mobile
information systemsResearch challenges on the conceptual and logical level. Paper
presented at the MobiMod02, Tampere, Finland.
Kulturrdet. 2011. The Norwegian directorate for nature management arts council Norway,
the directorate for cultural heritage and the Norwegian mapping authority. Kulturog
naturreise. http://www.kulturognaturreise.no/, 2011 (accessed June 22, 2014).
Laroche, F., M. Servirest, D. Lefvre, and J.-L. Kerouanton. 2011. Where virtual enhances
physical mock-up: A way to understand our heritage. In: Proceedings of ISMAR 2011,
Basel, Switzerland, pp. 16.
Liang, T.-P. and Y.-H. Yeh. 2010. Effect of use contexts on the continuous use of mobile ser-
vices: The case of mobile games. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 15(2): 187196.
Liu, Y. and H. Li. 2011. Exploring the impact of use context on mobile hedonic services adop-
tion: An empirical study on mobile gaming in China. Computers in Human Behavior,
27(2): 890898.
Mora, S., A. Boron, and M. Divitini. 2012. CroMAR: Mobile augmented reality for support-
ing reflection on crowd management. International Journal of Mobile Human Computer
Interaction, 4(2): 88101.
ML. 2014. Museum of London, http://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/Resources/app/you-are-
here-app/home.html (accessed June 7, 2014).
NAI. 2011. The Netherlands Architecture Institute. See what is not (yet) there with the NAI
and augmented reality. http://en.nai.nl/museum/architecture_app/item/_pid/kolom2-
1/_rp_kolom2-1_elementId/1_601695 (accessed June 22, 2014).
Peres, R., A. Correia, and M. Moital. 2011. The indicators of intention to adopt mobile elec-
tronic tourist guides. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, 2(2): 120138.
Powerhouse. 2014. Layar: Augmented reality browsing of Powerhouse Museum around
Sydney. http://www.powerhousemuseum.com/layar/ (accessed June 22, 2014).
Tsai, C.-Y. 2011. An analysis of usage intentions for mobile travel guide systems. Journal of
Business Management, 4(13): 29622970.
Van der Heijden, H. 2004. User acceptance of hedonic information systems. MIS Quarterly,
28(4): 695704.
Van der Heijden, H., M. Ogertschnig, and van der Gast, L. 2005. Effects of context relevance
and perceived risk on user acceptance of mobile information services. In: ECIS 2005
Proceedings, Paper 7.http://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2005/7, Regensberg, Germany.
Use of Mobile Augmented Reality forCultural Heritage 431

van Kleef, N., J. Noltes, and S. van der Spoel. 2010. Success factors for augmented real-
ity business models. In: Study Tour Pixel 2010. University of Twente, Twente, the
Netherlands, pp. 136.
Venkatesh, V. and F. D. Davis. 2000. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance
model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2): 186204.
Verkasalo, H., C. Lpez-Nicolsb, F. J. Molina-Castillo, and H. Bouwman. 2010. Analysis
of users and non-users of smartphone applications. Telematics and Informatics, 27(3):
242255.
Vlahakis, V., N. Ioannidis, J. Karigiannis, M. Tsotros, and M. Gounaris. 2002. Virtual real-
ity and information technology for archaeological site promotion. In: Proceedings of
the Fifth International Conference on Business Information Systems (BIS02), Poznan,
Poland.
Vuforia. 2014. https://www.qualcomm.com/products/vuforia (accessed March 3, 2015).
Wu, J.-H. and S.-C. Wang. 2005. What drives mobile commerce? An empirical evaluation of
the revised technology acceptance model. Information Management, 42: 719729.
Wst, H., M. Zllner, J. Keil, and D. Pletinckx. 2009. An augmented reality presentation system
for remote cultural heritage site. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium
on Virtual Reality, Archaeology and Cultural Heritage VAST (2009). Atlantic City, NJ.