See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/329209704

Understanding User eXperience aspects in Cultural Heritage interaction

Conference Paper · November 2018

DOI: 10.1145/3291533.3291580

CITATIONS READS
2 1,056

4 authors:

Markos Konstantakis John Aliprantis

University of the Aegean University of the Aegean
27 PUBLICATIONS 60 CITATIONS 23 PUBLICATIONS 91 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Alexandros Teneketzis George Caridakis

University of the Aegean University of the Aegean

5 PUBLICATIONS 9 CITATIONS 108 PUBLICATIONS 1,732 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

cultural user experience View project

TRACCE - Travelogue with Augmented Cultural and Contemporary Experience project. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Markos Konstantakis on 27 November 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Understanding User eXperience aspects in Cultural Heritage
interaction
Markos Konstantakis
Department of Cultural Technology and Communication
Mytilene, Greece
mkonstadakis@aegean.gr
Alexandros Teneketzis
Department of Cultural Technology and Communication
Mytilene, Greece
alexandrosteneketzis@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
In recent years, user experience has became a rather popular re-
search field for services or products development. To meet the high
user expectations, designers tend towards bringing users into the
design process on creating a new product or service, in an attempt
to understand and then satisfy efficiently users’ needs. The aim of
this paper is to analyze users’ requirements, propose methods to
enhance user modeling and describe the interaction process
between users and Cultural Heritage applications and products,
giving the latest the opportunity to develop a strategic and imagi-
native roadmap that will help them define their vision and a map for
the future of how they’re going to achieve it, in order to achieve
exploitation and sustainability.. To this end, we try show the im-
portance to incorporate new technologies to the whole lifecycle of
cultural data in order to elucidate how important is the use and re-
use of content destined to be "seen" to existing and new physical
and digital audiences, hence open to all possible platforms.
CCS CONCEPTS
• Human-centered computing; • Human computer interac-
tion → HCI design and evaluation methods; • HCI theory,
con-cepts and models;
KEYWORDS
User experience, user interfaces, cultural heritage, user
require-ments,digital strategy, sustainability
ACM Reference Format:
Markos Konstantakis, John Aliprantis, Alexandros Teneketzis, and George
Caridakis. 2018. Understanding User eXperience aspects in Cultural Heritage
interaction. In Proceedings of 22nd Pan-Hellenic Conference on Informatics
(PCI’18). ACM, Athens, ATH, Greece , 5 pages.
1 INTRODUCTION
User Experience (UX) is considered a rather intriguing research
field as a widely acceptable and universally recognized term in the
Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or
classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or
distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and
the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work
must be honored. For all other uses, contact the owner/author(s).
PCI’18, Nov. 2018, Athens, Greece
© 2018 Copyright held by the owner/author(s).
John Aliprantis
Department of Cultural Technology and Communication
Mytilene, Greece
jalip@aegean.gr
George Caridakis
Department of Cultural Technology and Communication
Mytilene, Greece
gcari@aegean.gr
Human - Computer Interaction but at the same time it lacks a
clear definition [23]. UX can be described as a multidimensional
concept that covers all the research on designing, studying and
evaluating the events that characterize user’s behavior during
his interac-tion with a service, a product or a system. UX is a
consequence of a user’s internal state (behavior, expectations,
needs, motivation, etc.), the characteristics of the designed
system or product (com-plexity, purpose, usability, functionality,
etc.) and the context (or the environment) within which the
interaction occurs (e.g. organi-zational/social setting,
meaningfulness of the activity, voluntariness of use, etc.) [18].
User Experience has gained increased popularity in recent years,
particularly due to the fact of the user-centered design, the tendency
to bring user into the design process on creating a service/product.
Understanding user needs and requirements is critical to the suc-
cess of interactive systems, with multiple benefits to be derived from
users’ profile analysis, including increased productivity, en-hanced
quality of work, reductions in support and training costs, and
improved user satisfaction [27]. It is also important though not to
focus only on the service we intend to design, but take into
consideration the interaction method and the work environment that
hosts this interaction around.
In the following sections, we describe user experience
aspects, such as interaction and evaluation, and we focus on
Cultural Heritage applications. Furthermore, the semantic
representation of user’s profile is being introduced, while also
we analyze user’s interac-tion in 3D environments, regarding
Virtual and Augmented Reality applications (VR/AR).
2 RELATED WORK
MultiMatch project [29] presents a detailed user requirement anal-
ysis which will provide input for the definition of the functional
specifications of the MultiMatch system prototype. One hundred
person-to-person interviews were conducted with domain experts in
order to collect their opinions and needs. The interviews were
conducted mainly in a face-to-face mode using a questionnaire, and
backed-up by a set of scenarios and a vision document in order to
give the respondents an idea of the proposed system functionality.
The final result was a subset of those requirements which seemed
to represent the major needs of the user groups studied and which
also matched the project vision.
PATHS [14] is exploring the use of "paths" or trails as a way of
PCI’18, Nov. 2018, Athens, Greece Konstantakis et al.

enabling users to navigate their way through large and complex

collections and the use of a range of visualization techniques to
enhance their experience of using digital libraries. A mixture of
methods was used to gather information about potential users of
the PATHS system and their requirements including an online
ques-tionnaire, face-to-face interviews with expert users and
workshops. In ToARist [33] a novel and functional tourism app
requirements analysis conducted through a synthesis of domain
analysis, tourist observation and semi-structured interviews.
Through four rounds of iterative development, users test and
refine the app. The final product evaluated by 20 participants,
who engage in a tourism task around a UK city. Users regard
the system as usable but find technical issues can disrupt AR.

3 CULTURAL USER EXPERIENCE

AND REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS
User requirements research methods are great at producing data
and insights, while ongoing activities help get the right things done.
Notwithstanding some enthusiastic catalysts for progress, a lack of
understanding and a fear of change in the status quo from some,
has the potential to block ambition and hinder positive Figure 1: Usability and UX aspects.
developments in the future. Ongoing URS activities can make
everyone’s efforts more effective and valuable.
shown in the below figures, in which we summarize the
At every stage in the design process, different URS methods can keep
product- development efforts on the right track, in agreement with true relation between usability and user experience.
user needs and not imaginary ones. User research can be done at any
point in the design cycle. The evaluation of the cultural visitors’
experience is a crucial part. In recent decades, studies in cultural spaces
have been revolutionized by the change of direc-tion and the methods
used to study the cultural spaces themselves. There are various
methodologies available to support such research: qualitative,
quantitative, experimental, grounded theory and many others. The
choice of methodology to be used in every research project is based on Figure 2: Usability and UX relationship summary.
the scope and aspects of the research itself.
In addition, the choices of the methodology used must also be in ac-
cordance with the components that will be evaluated. To date, there 4 USER MODELING AND
are various evaluation methods available for museum educators, SEMANTIC REPRESENTATION
researchers and curators, such as formative evaluation, summative Cultural institutions are primarily about conservation and preser-
evaluation, and front-end evaluation [21]. vation of art and artefacts, which communicates a proprietorial and
Hassenzahl and Tractinsky suggest that user experience, in prohibitive sense of ownership. In contrast, several newer galleries
contrast with usability, put emphasis on positive human explicitly disavow this impression of private property, and insist on
factors (such as positive emotions) as an outcome of communality. Furthermore, they seek to convert their cultural
interaction with the system. In addition, they have identified heritage information in forms that can be displayed, exploited and
three primary aspects that distinguish between usability and highlighted widely. To achieve this, they opt to construct forms of
user experience [18], as illustrated in the Figure 1. structured data and linked them to the Semantic Web. Structured
According to Hassan [17], neither usability nor user experience data can benefit both the institution and the wider community by
alone can determine if the product meets user’s needs and goals or expanding the semantic web and establishing an institution as a
can guarantee good and satisfying user experience as well as win- trusted source of high quality data [28]. They have many drawbacks
ning user’s loyalty to keep using the product. They argue that these though, as the heterogeneity of cultural heritage data and the inter-
three classifications of the relationship between user experience connection of different sources around the world are considered
and usability (1) usability is a part of user experience, (2) usability is challenging.
a user experience measure, and (3) usability and user experience Ontologies are used to describe shared and common understanding of
complete each other, all can describe the relationship between the some domain that can be communicated between both people and
usability and user experience. In summary, usability can be seen as application systems [16]. In general, ontology can be defined as a
a subset of user experience and we consider it as the heart of user linguistic artifact that defines a shared vocabulary of basic concepts for
experience. Usability and user experience complete each other as
discourse about a piece of reality (subject domain) and
Understanding User eXperience aspects in Cultural Heritage interaction PCI’18, Nov. 2018, Athens, Greece

specifies what precisely those concepts mean [20]. CIDOC CRM is

the leading ontology on Cultural Heritage domain and museums that
facilitates the integration and exchange of heterogeneous cul-tural
heritage information [13], while also it has been the base for
extensions development in order to meet the needs of specialized
fields and tasks [30]. To make the most of this opportunity, key
questions need to be answered about what you’re trying to achieve
and the impact that you want to make.
Meanwhile, user profile and interests are considered crucial for a
constructive Cultural User eXperience (CUX). Cultural institutions
seek to filter the increasing amount of their data in order to display
the most appropriate, thus exploiting their CH information in the most
advantageous way for each of their visitors. An accurate rep-
resentation of a user’s interests, generally stored in some form of Figure 3: Usability and UX relationship framework.
user profile, is crucial to the performance of personalized search or
browsing agents [32]. A semantic representation of user’s profile and
two-dimensional input devices (mouse, touch screen) and output
needs could lead to more efficient and accurate user modeling
devices (monitors, tablets), has dominated the past decades and
methods, which then combined with the structured data of the CH
users are intimately familiar with the functionalities of these UI
institutions, would result to more complete and substantive person-
components. But recent years have seen the development of mod-
alized user experience. This strategic thinking needs to be shared
ern UIs adapted on spatial input in a physical three-dimensional
with staff and delivered through tangible actions and decisions. At
(3D) context, as classic input devices cannot support the interaction
the end of the day, this is a way to build a successful brand, to in 3D environments that state-of-the-art Mixed Reality (Augmented
translate art into stories and myth, in order to accumulate meaning and Virtual Reality - AR/VR) applications require.
through consumption by the audiences and succeed sustainability. 3D Interaction is a Human - Computer interaction (HCI) in which
user’s tasks are performed directly in a real or virtual 3D spatial
5 ADAPTATION AND PERSONALIZATION context [5]. Interfaces which allow 3D interaction can be gesture-
One of the major drawbacks that guides and applications face in based, motion-controlled, direct, controller-less, or natural, with all of
Cultural Heritage is the problem of overwhelming users with a vast them being characterized by the spatial input on a 3D en-vironment
amount of data, an issue that is known as information overload [4]. Classic devices like mouse and keyboard are now replaced by
[31]. With the extensive use of handheld mobile devices that feature sensors and devices that track user’s movement on 6 DOF (degrees
limited resources (small screen, low capacity battery) and at the of freedom, three position values (x, y, z) and three orientation
same time the integration of new technologies that increase the values (yaw, pitch, roll)) in real world, and translate these inputs to
available data for users, such as the Semantic Web, the information commands on the 3D UI. Users can communicate with the 3D
overload has escalated and new methods that filter data have been
environment via hand gestures, speech recognition, head
proposed. One of the most efficient ways to handle this issue is by
movements, tangible interfaces, or a combination of the above.
filtering information based on user profile and interests.
Although the 3D interaction seems to be much more demanding and
The use of personalization technologies has become very com-mon
difficult to learn for users, this scientific field is still at its in-fancy and
in cultural institutions, which provide users with personalized guides
new interfaces and interaction methods can be designed and
that enhance their cultural experience [25]. Personalization of
implemented to fully the potential of the 3D interaction and help
cultural heritage information requires a system that is able to extract
users get familiar with the new UI components.
the features that characterize each user, such as prior knowl-edge,
interests, purpose of visit and personal information, as well as 7 AUGMENTED REALITY AND 3D
contextual aspects, then adapt the available information to the above
INTERFACES IN CULTURE
aspects and deliver it in the most suitable way [1]. However, multiple
The increasing performance of computational and graphics hard-
issues like the cold start problem, the diversity of the vis-itors (each
ware on mobile devices on recent years have resulted in the incred-
user could be a unique persona) and the inefficiency of
ible growth of Augmented Reality applications, as modern smart-
personalization in case of a group of visitors, are still yet to be
phones are now equipped with multiple sensors like the depth
addressed effectively [22].
camera, which that can track the spatial movement and positioning
of user’s body (usually hands, fingers and feet), using this data for
6 USER INTERFACES AND 3D INTERACTION virtual object manipulations in the AR environment [2, 34]. Mobile
User interface (UI) is the layer through which users can commu- AR (MAR) applications present many advantages regarding the 3D
nicate with the computers. The UI layer translates user’s inputs and interaction, such as the absence of additional cumbersome devices
actions to equivalent and unique commands for the computer, which like head-mounted displays or gloves that may annoy users, and the
then displays the outputs / results in a way user can under-stand constant and easy swapping to the real world that facilitate a
and interact with them. User interfaces based on the tradi-tional collaborative interface, supporting an immersive viewing mode.
WIMP metaphor (windows, icons, menu, pointer), which uses While MAR is continuously showing us its great potential, current
PCI’18, Nov. 2018, Athens, Greece
applications have still a long way in front to meet users’ increas-ing
demand for more intuitive interaction [9]. Multiple interaction
modalities are needed to enhance user experience, with the com-
bination of gesture and speech recognition to be among the most
powerful, efficient and natural way of communication [26]. As mo-bile
devices become more powerful, methods like the above, which
enhance naturalism and deliver intuitive and effective interaction, are
promising for mobile devices as built-in sensors can be used without
resorting to additional devices or sensors, thus enabling the
development of natural user interfaces (NUI) that would not obtrude
the user experience and are natural to learn [24].
Cultural Heritage (CH) is one of the scientific fields that have been widely
influenced by the emergence of AR applications. AR tech-niques can be
used to "animate" archaeological sites, "repair" statues and cultural
artifacts that have been damaged, "construct" monu-ments that have
been lost over the years and give museums the ability to "talk" to their
visitor and present him additional informa-tion about their exhibits.
Cultural institutions have taken advantage of this rather new technology,
designing and producing cultural applications that accompany their users
during their visit. Typical examples are mobile applications that guide the
user in the museum, three-dimensional representations of monuments
and objects that have been damaged or deteriorated [35], and digital
storytelling that turns the museum tour into a narrative of a story tailored
to the profile of each visitor [19]. These applications augment the users
view with relevant cultural information without becoming the main focus
of her attention, which stays focused on what really matters, the real
world and its buildings, monuments and landscapes [6].
Interaction in MAR applications in CH align with the techniques
exploited in other fields, thus enhancing user’s experience through
natural interaction. Many cultural applications display additional in-
formation or digitally reconstructed parts of cultural artifacts using
tablets or user’s mobile devices through the AR browser interface,
allowing user to interact with the 3d content by manipulating clas-sic
input devices like touch screen and keyboard [8]. Furthermore,
touch less (or freehand) interaction requires additional equipment
such as binocular see-through glasses or head mounted display to
display digital information but to provide additional services and data
to users with minimum effort and using their own natural skills [6, 7].
Finally, body tracking and gesture recognition can also be applied to
cultural AR applications by using depth cameras and sensors [3],
while also new interactive methods (metaphors) can be learned
easily and entertain users by imitating casual actions to interact with
the 3d content ("open window to the 3d world") [15].
8 CULTURAL USER
EXPERIENCE EVALUATION
Cultural Heritage represents a worldwide resource of inestimable
value, attracting millions of visitors every year to monuments, mu-
seums and art exhibitions. It has been playing an increasingly im-
portant role in the cultural fabric of society; in the current rapidly
changing and globalized world, museum collections, ancient ruins,
and artifact exhibitions represent at the same time sources and
instruments of education that should be available to a wide range of
people. Indeed, achieving a wide fruition of a cultural space and its
objects that are effective and sustainable, is necessary in order
Konstantakis et al.
to enhance visitors’ experience during their interaction with cul-tural
institutes [10]. It remains to be seen if technology will be a valuable
part of cultural exhibitions enhancing user experience in order to
connect the physical space with the digital world. However, another
factor that affects user experience besides the wide range and
diversity of the cultural objects, is the cultural background and profile
of the individual user. Each user has its own cultural char-acteristics,
learns and interacts differently with a certain artifact and finally
obtains a unique cultural experience. The interaction between
different cultural objects and user’s cultural backgrounds defines the
cultural user experience (CUX) as "The unique produced knowledge
and experience from different cultural identities" [11]. The first vital
gist of CUX is understanding and consequently meet-ing the cultural
heritage users need. Secondly, it will lead to the simplicity and
elegant attributes of a cultural product or system that creates
positive experience such as joy to own and to use [36]. The methods
of evaluating the UX are distinguished:
- In terms of their emphasis: on usability assessment
methods and design methods.
- In terms of data they collect, analyze and present:
qualitative and quantitative.
- As far as the place is concerned: in the lab, in the field and online.
- In terms of user interaction time, in evaluations: expected use,
appreciation, experience in interaction, and time-based experience.
User-experience research methods are great at producing data and
insights, while ongoing activities help get the right things done.
Ongoing UX activities can make everyone’s efforts more effective
and valuable. At every stage in the design process, different UX
methods can keep product-development efforts on the right track, in
agreement with true user needs and not imaginary ones. User
research can be done at any point in the design cycle [12].
9 CONCLUSION - DISCUSSION
To sum up, new technologies are vital not only to enrich the
cultural experience but also to the sustainability of cultural
organisations. It has to be examined the new European digital
cultural policies and business policies of cultural organisations
in order to develop digital strategy, increase the visibility, create
online and physical communities, manage, edit and enhance
cultural goods in a digital manner, as well as open and reusable
content, and bring together experts from various fields of
cultural management in a participa-tory process.
Last but not least, understanding User eXperience aspects,
muse-ums can fulfil another main principle, that of equity and
inclusion which asserts facilitating access to participants with
disadvantaged backgrounds and fewer opportunities compared
to their peers. With the user-experience research the museum’s
staff will have the op-portunity to engage with issues of limited
accessibility and reflect upon them, as well as become more
active in contributing to society inclusiveness.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research work was supported by the Hellenic Foundation for
Research and Innovation (HFRI) and the General Secretariat for
Research and Technology (GSRT) under the TRACCE: TRavelogue
with Augmented Cultural and Contemporary Experience project
 Understanding User eXperience aspects in Cultural Heritage interaction PCI’18, Nov. 2018, Athens, Greece

(T1EDK-02146) and under the HFRI PhD Fellowship grant (GA. 234). [24] Lin, S., Cheng, H. F., Li, W., Huang, Z., Hui, P., & Peylo, C. (2017). Ubii:
Physical World Interaction Through Augmented Reality. IEEE Trans. Mob.
Comput., 16(3), 872-885.
[25] Lykourentzou, I., Claude, X., Naudet, Y., Tobias, E., Antoniou, A.,
Lepouras, G., & Vassilakis, C. (2013, July). Improving museum visitors’
Quality of Experience through intelligent recommendations: A visiting style-
based approach. In Intelligent Environments (Workshops) (pp. 507-518).
[26] M. Billinghurst, Haptic Input, 2011, ch. 14. Gesture based interaction.
[27] Maguire, M., & Bevan, N. (2002). User requirements analysis. In
Usability (pp. 133-148). Springer, Boston, MA.
[28] Marden, J., Li-Madeo, C., Whysel, N., & Edelstein, J. (2013,
September). Linked open data for cultural heritage: evolution of an
information technology. In Proceed-ings of the 31st ACM international
REFERENCES conference on Design of communication (pp. 107-112). ACM.
[1] Ardissono, L. et al.,: Personalization in cultural heritage: the road travelled and the [29] Minelli, S. (2007), Gathering requirements for a multilingual search of audiovisual
one ahead. User modeling and user-adapted interaction 22(1-2), 73–99 (2012) material in cultural heritage, In Proc. of Workshop on User Centricity âĂŞ state of the art
[2] Azuma, R., Billinghurst, M. and Klinker, G. (2011). Special section on (16th IST Mobile and Wireless Communications Summit), Budapest, Hungary.
mobile augmented reality. [30] Moraitou, E., Aliprantis, J., & Caridakis, G. (2018, October). Semantic
[3] Bostanci, E., Kanwal, N.and Clark, A. F. (2015). Augmented reality Bridging of Cultural Heritage Disciplines and Tasks. In the 26th annual
applications for cultural heritage using Kinect. Human-centric Computing CIDOC - ICOM Confer-ence, Heraklion, Crete (To be published)
and Information Sciences, 5(1), 20. [31] Noor, S., & Martinez, K. (2009, June). Using social data as context for
[4] Bowman, D. A., McMahan, R. P., & Ragan, E. D. (2012). Questioning naturalism in making recommendations: an ontology based approach. In Proceedings of
3D user the 1st Workshop on Context, Information and Ontologies (p. 7). ACM.
[5] Bowman, D., Kruijff, E., LaViola Jr, J. J., & Poupyrev, I. P. (2004). 3D User [32] Trajkova, J., & Gauch, S. (2004, April). Improving ontology-based user
interfaces: theory and practice, CourseSmart eTextbook. Addison-Wesley. profiles. In Coupling approaches, coupling media and coupling languages for
[6] Brancati, N., Caggianese, G., Frucci, M., Gallo, L., & Neroni, P. (2017). Experiencing information retrieval (pp. 380-390). LE CENTRE DE HAUTES ETUDES
touchless interaction with augmented content on wearable head-mounted displays in INTERNATIONALES D’INFORMATIQUE DOCUMENTAIRE.
cultural heritage applications. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 21(2), 203-217. [33] Williams, M., Yao, K. K. K., Nurse, J. R. C. (2017). ToARist: An
[7] Caggianese, G., Neroni, P., & Gallo, L. (2014, September). Natural augmented real-ity tourism app created through user-centered design.
interaction and wearable augmented reality for the enjoyment of the cultural Association for Computing Machinery.
heritage in outdoor conditions. In International Conference on Augmented [34] Yusof, C. S., Bai, H., Billinghurst, M., & Sunar, M. S. (2016, January). A Review of
and Virtual Reality (pp. 267-282). Springer, Cham. 3D Gesture Interaction for Handheld Augmented Reality. In In Proceedings of the
[8] Chang, Y. L., Hou, H. T., Pan, C. Y., Sung, Y. T., & Chang, K. E. (2015). 3rd International Conference on Interactive Digital Media. ICIDM (Vol. 14).
Apply an augmented reality in a mobile guidance to increase sense of place [35] Zaccarini, M., Iannucci, A., Orlandi, M., Vandini, M., & Zambruno, S. (2013,
for heritage places. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(2). October). A multi-disciplinary approach to the preservation of cultural heritage: a
[9] Chen, Z., Li, J., Hua, Y., Shen, R., & Basu, A. (2017, October). Multimodal case study on the piazzetta degli ariani, ravenna. In Digital Heritage International
inter-action in augmented reality. In Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC), 2017 Congress (Digital Heritage), 2013 (Vol. 2, pp. 337-340). IEEE.
IEEE International Conference on (pp. 206-209). IEEE.
[36] Zahidi, Z., (2013), User Experience for Digitisation and Preservation of Cultural
[10] Chianese, A., Piccialli, F., Improving User Experience of Cultural
Environment Through IoT: The Beauty or the Truth Case Study, Springer HeritageâĂİ, International Conference on Informatics and Creative Multimedia.
International Publishing, Switzerland, 2015.
[11] de Souza, T. R. C. B., & Bernardes Jr, J. L. (2016, July). The
Influences of Culture on User Experience. In International Conference on
Cross-Cultural Design (pp. 43-52). Springer International Publishing.
[12] Dhir, A., (2013), A Case Study on User Experience (UX) Evaluation of Mobile
Augmented Reality Prototypes, Journal of Universal Computer Science, vol.19, no. 8.
[13] Doerr, M. (2003). The CIDOC conceptual reference module: an ontological
ap-proach to semantic interoperability of metadata. AI magazine, 24(3), 75.
[14] Fernie, K. et al., (2012), PATHS: Personalising Access to cultural
Heritage Spaces, Published in Virtual Systems and Multimedia (VSMM),
2012 18th International Con-ference on Milan.
[15] Gabellone, F. (2015, August). Integrated technologies for museum
communication and interactive apps in the PON DiCet Project. In International
Conference on Augmented and Virtual Reality (pp. 3-16). Springer, Cham.
[16] Giri, K. (2011). Role of ontology in semantic web. DESIDOC Journal of
Library & Information Technology, 31(2).
[17] Hassan, H. et al., (2017), From usability to user experience, International
Confer-ence on Intelligent Informatics and Biomedical Sciences (ICIIBMS).
[18] Hassenzahl, M. and Tractinsky, N., (2006), User Experience âĂŞ A
Research Agenda, Behaviour and Information Technology, Vol. 25, No. 2,
pp. 91-97. interfaces. Communications of the ACM, 55(9), 78-88.
[19] Ioannidis, Y., El Raheb, K., Toli, E., Katifori, A., Boile, M., & Mazura, M.
(2013, Oc-tober). One object many stories: Introducing ICT in museums and
collections through digital storytelling. In Digital Heritage International
Congress (Digital Heritage), 2013 (Vol. 1, pp. 421-424). IEEE.
[20] Kalinichenko, L., Missikoff, M., Schiappelli, F., & Skvortsov, N. (2003,
October). Ontological modeling. In Proc. of the 5th Russian Conference on
Digital Libraries RCDL2003, St.-Petersburg, Russia (pp. 7-13).
[21] Konstantakis M., Aliprantis J., Caridakis G., Michalakis M., Kalatha E.,
(2017), For-malising and evaluating Cultural User Experience, SMAP
Special Session Personalized delivery of cultural heritage content.
[22] Konstantakis, M., Michalakis, K., Aliprantis, J., Kalatha, E., Moraitou, E.,
& Cari-dakis, G. (2018). A Methodology for Optimised Cultural User
Personas Experience-CURE Architecture.
[23] Law, E. L. C., Roto, V., Hassenzahl, M., Vermeeren, A. P., & Kort, J.
(2009, April). Understanding, scoping and defining user experience: a
survey approach. In Proceed-ings of the SIGCHI conference on human
factors in computing systems (pp. 719-728). ACM.

View publication stats