untitled (1)

6
Virtual Reality Museum of Consumer Technologies Avinash Subramanian Michigan Technological University Houghton, MI USA [email protected] Jaclyn Barnes Michigan Technological University Houghton, MI USA [email protected] Naveena Vemulapalli Michigan Technological University Houghton, MI USA [email protected] Sumeet Chhawri Michigan Technological University Houghton, MI USA [email protected] ABSTRACT Given the rapid pace of technical development in the past several decades, many people have fond memories of using devices that are no longer common. We built a prototype of a virtual museum of consumer technologies to explore this with the intention of prompting memories of using past tech in the visitors. The prototype was created using the Janus VR browser and evaluated on a 2D display by 7 young adult users. It successfully prompted memories in all of the evaluators and all users rated the pleasure of touring the museum neutral or better. Future work involves making a more comprehensive museum and exploring better ways to utilize virtual reality for more engaging experiences. ACM Classification Keywords H.5.1. Information Interfaces and Presentation (e.g. HCI): Ar- tificial, augmented, and virtual realities; K.3.1. Computer Uses in Education: Computer-assisted instruction (CAI); K.3.2. Computer and Information Science Education: Computer sci- ence education Author Keywords Virtual reality museum; history of technology; memory INTRODUCTION Museums are important sources for presenting information about the past. However, these museums have some limitations like time, space, and the modes of interaction [7]. Moreover, most museums do not have the space and resources to exhibit all of their collections and also some objects are so fragile that the museum curators hesitate to make them available to public [13]. Due the the increasing use of computer and 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 cita- tion on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the owner/author(s). Copyright is held by the author/owner(s). the advanced technologies, virtual reality museums or digital museums are becoming a good alternative to the physical museums. They allow all the users to interact with 3D models of objects in different ways [10]. Taking all these reasons into consideration, we have created a virtual reality museum that covers some of the recent history of technology. Our virtual reality museum consists of displays that are similar to those in physical museums [9, 13]. We focused mainly on three main categories of technologies that are used by people in daily life during approximately the last three decades: telephones, personal computers, and office equipment. The main goal of this project is to trigger nostalgia in people who experience this virtual reality museum and have used some of the objects represented in the past. Our hypothesis is threefold: 1. Touring the museum will be sufficient to prompt users’ memories of past interactions with the devices shown. 2. Both the experience of viewing the museum and the memo- ries it triggers will be mostly pleasant. 3. There will be some variance in the pleasure of the memories in accord with emotion regulation theory [5]. BACKGROUND AND RELATED RESEARCH From large national museums with vast collections to tiny local historical societies, historical museums serve as a form of institutional and collective memory maintaining, preserving, and interpreting history and culture [6]. Our understanding of current circumstances and events is shaped by our knowledge of the past. That knowledge however is quite fragile and subject to distortion. Individual memory lacks the context and multiple perspectives that can be provided in a museum or by other forms of collective memory. Museums, as can well be expected, are not a perfect solu- tion. There are a variety of challenges. First, there is the difficulty of appropriate curation. While we make no pretense of addressing the thorny social issues of adequately and fairly

Upload: naveena-vemulapalli

Post on 13-Apr-2017

76 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: untitled (1)

Virtual Reality Museum of Consumer TechnologiesAvinash SubramanianMichigan Technological

UniversityHoughton, MI [email protected]

Jaclyn BarnesMichigan Technological

UniversityHoughton, MI [email protected]

Naveena VemulapalliMichigan Technological

UniversityHoughton, MI [email protected]

Sumeet ChhawriMichigan Technological

UniversityHoughton, MI [email protected]

ABSTRACTGiven the rapid pace of technical development in the pastseveral decades, many people have fond memories of usingdevices that are no longer common. We built a prototype ofa virtual museum of consumer technologies to explore thiswith the intention of prompting memories of using past techin the visitors. The prototype was created using the Janus VRbrowser and evaluated on a 2D display by 7 young adult users.It successfully prompted memories in all of the evaluators andall users rated the pleasure of touring the museum neutral orbetter. Future work involves making a more comprehensivemuseum and exploring better ways to utilize virtual reality formore engaging experiences.

ACM Classification KeywordsH.5.1. Information Interfaces and Presentation (e.g. HCI): Ar-tificial, augmented, and virtual realities; K.3.1. Computer Usesin Education: Computer-assisted instruction (CAI); K.3.2.Computer and Information Science Education: Computer sci-ence education

Author KeywordsVirtual reality museum; history of technology; memory

INTRODUCTIONMuseums are important sources for presenting informationabout the past. However, these museums have some limitationslike time, space, and the modes of interaction [7]. Moreover,most museums do not have the space and resources to exhibitall of their collections and also some objects are so fragilethat the museum curators hesitate to make them availableto public [13]. Due the the increasing use of computer and

Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal orclassroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributedfor profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full cita-tion on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must behonored. For all other uses, contact the owner/author(s). Copyright is held by theauthor/owner(s).

the advanced technologies, virtual reality museums or digitalmuseums are becoming a good alternative to the physicalmuseums. They allow all the users to interact with 3D modelsof objects in different ways [10].

Taking all these reasons into consideration, we have created avirtual reality museum that covers some of the recent historyof technology. Our virtual reality museum consists of displaysthat are similar to those in physical museums [9, 13]. Wefocused mainly on three main categories of technologies thatare used by people in daily life during approximately the lastthree decades: telephones, personal computers, and officeequipment.

The main goal of this project is to trigger nostalgia in peoplewho experience this virtual reality museum and have usedsome of the objects represented in the past. Our hypothesis isthreefold:

1. Touring the museum will be sufficient to prompt users’memories of past interactions with the devices shown.

2. Both the experience of viewing the museum and the memo-ries it triggers will be mostly pleasant.

3. There will be some variance in the pleasure of the memoriesin accord with emotion regulation theory [5].

BACKGROUND AND RELATED RESEARCHFrom large national museums with vast collections to tinylocal historical societies, historical museums serve as a formof institutional and collective memory maintaining, preserving,and interpreting history and culture [6]. Our understanding ofcurrent circumstances and events is shaped by our knowledgeof the past. That knowledge however is quite fragile andsubject to distortion. Individual memory lacks the context andmultiple perspectives that can be provided in a museum or byother forms of collective memory.

Museums, as can well be expected, are not a perfect solu-tion. There are a variety of challenges. First, there is thedifficulty of appropriate curation. While we make no pretenseof addressing the thorny social issues of adequately and fairly

Page 2: untitled (1)

represented complex events of the past, professionals who dohave raised the concern that museums often lack necessaryartifacts to illuminate the stories and experiences of minoritiesand others whose possessions never made their way to a mu-seum’s collection [6, 11]. Second, many artifacts are fragileand degrade with the everyday exposure that comes from be-ing in a exhibit. Both the danger of damaging the objects andthe cost of maintaining them can be prohibitive [11]. Next,space can be a significant challenge for museums, which oftencan only afford to display a fraction of their collections at anyone time [11].

Virtual reality has been used to create museums and exhibits, topreserve artifacts, and to make them more accessible. Virtualreality has a number of advantages over traditional physicalmuseums. For one, virtual models can be used to supple-ment physical collections when suitable physical object arenot available. A virtual museum also takes up far less physicalspace than a traditional museum and, depending on the imple-mentation, can be portable or accessible from geographicallydistant locations. This presents a wide range of possibilitiesfor traveling museums and displaying a larger portion of acollection. Finally, digitizing fragile artifacts allows them tobe displayed virtually without risk of physical damage and canmake them more accessible to general museum patrons [13].

Current work on virtual museums and similar technology oftenfocuses on digitizing the collections of large museums aroundthe world and sharing these digitized models. Other work isbeing done to preserve virtual models of archaeological digs,where the very act of collecting the artifacts destroys the scene.Existing projects include SCULPTEUR [3], Virtual Dig [13],and 3D Murale [4].

Our museum focuses on the history of consumer technolo-gies, by which we mean technologies used by individuals andbusinesses as opposed to industrial, military, or scientific en-deavors (though, there is inevitably some overlap). One of thecharacteristic aspects of the history of technology is the paceof change. In the span of a decade or two, new innovations andapplications radically alter the use of consumer technologies.At the same time, many people have strong emotional ties tothe technologies they use. The programs and devices presentan interesting opportunity for historical preservation.

USER NEEDS ANALYSISOur target users are young adult and middle aged adult En-glish speakers. This broad category was chosen because wedeemed this demographic likely to have significant memoriesof consumer technology of the past 30 years or so. The lan-guage restriction was necessary as a significant portion of theinformation in our museum is conveyed via text or speech.

Informal interviews were conducted discussing the possibil-ities of a virtual reality museum and well remembered tech-nologies. Four young adults were interviewed, two Americanfemales and two Indian males. Strong preference for designingthe virtual museum to resemble a physical museum was ex-pressed, though asking whether they would prefer the exhibitsbe organized by era or technology produced divided opinions.One person requested hyper-realism to the point that reality

and virtual reality were difficult to distinguish. The most com-mon group of technologies listed as remembered and missedwere entertainment devices, such as the Sony Walkman® orGame Boy™ Color.

Two middle aged American adults were also interviewed. Wefound there was a great deal of potential for nostalgia withthis group as they had seen more of the rapid history of tech-nological innovation and seemed intrigued by the prospect ofbeing able to revisit these devices in a virtual reality museum.One suggested having the museum give a guided audio-visualtour of itself. The other was more interested in having anaugmented reality museum rather than a pure virtual real-ity experience. Interestingly, as with young adults, it wasentertainment technologies that had some of the strongest sen-timental appeal. None of those interviewed were familiar withthe idea of 3D browsing.

Overall, the user needs analysis suggested that a virtual realitymuseum of technology was likely to be interesting to usersand had the potential to trigger memories as desired. It alsopointed toward designing a virtual reality museum to mimicthe structure of a physical museum for familiarity.

ALTERNATIVE ANALYSISThree mediums for showcasing the history of technology wereconsidered in the initial stages of the development:

1. Website

2. Mobile application

3. Virtual reality and head mounted display

Our first inclination was to create a website. However, evena cursory web search quickly shows that a plethora of suchsites already exist. Second, we considered developing anapplication on the Android or iOS platform for hand-helddevices. The limitation of this was the smaller sizes of thehand-held devices and the potential that such an applicationwould be less engaging than our third option, virtual realityvia a head mounted display. With its potential for immersiveand engaging interactions, virtual reality was a natural choice.

SYSTEM DESIGNFor any virtual reality system, its design plays a pivotal role infulfilling the desired user experience demanded by the context.Our design was centered around two aspects: first, to main-tain the realistic nature of any museum by building a roombased traversal inside and second, to enhance the museumwith virtual reality elements such as 3D models and audiodescriptions [14]. The system comprises of four basic com-ponents: the JanusVR browser, 3-dimensional models, audio,and image galleries.

JanusVR 3-Dimensional BrowserJanusVR (http://www.janusvr.com/) is a 3-dimensional virtualreality browser developed by James McCrae. It changes thetraditional scenario of viewing web pages on two dimensionalmonitors. Virtual reality has a lot of potential in web technol-ogy in the future with the advent of Oculus Rift and similarHMDs [2]. JanusVR is built to work with Oculus Rift. In

Page 3: untitled (1)

this browser, every web page is represented as a room witha door and to visit the webpage, users enter through the doorrather than just clicking on it. The contents of the web pageappear in three dimensions and supports the viewing with theOculus Rift head mounted display. A defined set of syntaxand semantics exists to build web pages which can be viewedin the JanusVR browser. The room to the web page can bechosen from a set of built-in templates or the user can definetheir own dimensions and create their own rooms. Contentslike images, audio, video, text, objects, etc. can be added tothe room as assets and various parameters like the speed oftraversal, gravity, light, etc. can be controlled through theroom by modifying room parameters.

3-Dimensional ModelsIn our system, we used .obj 3D models to display various tech-nology exhibits as it is the only format supported by JanusVR.Most of the models use mtl files to apply lighting, shadows,detailing to the objects and some of them use multiple imagetextures to make them more realistic. Our museum prototypehas seven models distributed among three exhibit rooms.

In our museum, each model was given a description which wasplaced on a plank next to it as is common in physical museums.In addition to including the standard factual information, weattempted to word the descriptions in such a way that the userswere reminded of instances where they would have used theparticular or a similar technology, thereby attempting to makethem nostalgic when they see the model. When people areprovided with content which triggers positive nostalgia, theytend to maintain that throughout the system [12]. The 3Dmodels were placed in the middle of each room in order togive the user enough space to maneuver around the modelwithout obstructing any views.

AudioAudio was used in a number places throughout the museumwith the intention of enriching the experience. Upon first en-tering the museum, a female synthetic voice reads a welcomemessage. At other points, entering a room or standing near amodel triggers sound effects characteristic of the technologybeing viewed, such as the mechanical beeping of a modemdialing near the fax machine model or the boot up tones ofan older Windows desktop. Having audio embedded acts asa tour guide to the museum and the user is more focused andinformed about the exhibits [1].

Image GalleriesThe sidewalls of each room were made to resemble a photogallery containing displays related to the corresponding sec-tion of technology. Every image was displayed with framesin order to make them realistic. The back wall of every roomcontained a general description which introduces the user towhat they are about to view inside the room.

System FlowThe system block diagram of the virtual museum was as shownin figure 1. The first phase of the system is the interaction ofthe user with the Oculus. This allows the user to explore thevirtual museum. Once the user reaches the virtual museum,

Figure 1: System Diagram for Virtual Museum

Figure 2: Virtual Museum Layout

the models, images, text, and audio accompanying the modelsis used to induce memories. These experiences lead towardsthe user experience, specifically memory induction and finallythe flow reaches the exit survey. The exit survey providesinsight into the experience of the user and validates memoryinduction in users.

Virtual Reality Museum of Technology LayoutThe layout of our museum is shown in figure 2. It has a totalof four rooms - one for each section of technology covered(computers, telephones, and office equipment) and a mainroom which serves as the lobby to the museum. All the roomsin the museum have open ceilings. The main reason for thiswas to induce mood into the users as they step into the virtualmuseum. Having a sky filled with clouds generally inducesmemory in people [8]. The main room museum entrance iscontrolled by a single door which the user enters to step intothe virtual museum. As they enter this room, an audio cliprecorded using text-to-speech software welcomes them to themuseum and guides the user of what the museum is made upof and gives directions which would help the user to traversethrough the museum. A written description is also placedin the center of the room for the same purpose. The mainroom contains doors to the other rooms in the museums. Thecomputers section is placed in the left, the telephones sectionin the middle, and the office equipment room is to the right.The user then moves ahead to view the exhibits set up in theserooms one after another.

The computers section room has two 3D models - a Bondwellpersonal computer on the left and an Apple iMac desktop onthe right. The walls show several models of personal comput-ers which have been in use over the last three decades like theIBM machines, mainframe desktops, and the evolution of the

Page 4: untitled (1)

(a) (b)

Figure 3: (a) Welcome Room 2D View (b) Computer Technologies Section

Windows operating system over the years. As the user entersthe room, they are greeted with the audio of a Windows startup sound and when they get closer to the iMac model, theApple start up sound is played.

The telephones exhibit contains three models - an AppleiPhone, an old cellular phone, and a cordless phone. TheiPhone and the cordless phones have their trademark ringtonesembedded to play when a user approaches. The walls showthe evolution of mobile phones over the years and how thecellular technology has grown from large dial phones to thelatest bendable smartphones.

The office equipment room contains two models: a fax ma-chine and a typewriter embedded with sounds that are usuallyheard when they are in use. The walls show a variety oftechnology generally used in offices like the copy machines,printers, and calculators.

EVALUATIONWe evaluated our system during a demonstration session ina graduate level computer science course. Due to technicaldifficulties, the participants were unable to view the museumusing a head mounted display. Instead, they experienced aan unrelated demo of the Oculus Rift to get a feel for virtualreality and then viewed the museum on a standard 2D monitor.After touring the museum, they were asked to fill out a shortsurvey. As participants were going through the demonstrationand following, there was an ongoing, unstructured discussionand critique of the system.

There were 7 respondents to the survey, but not all participantsresponded to all questions. To the question “Did you enjoy themuseum?”, all participants rated the experience as neutral orhigher on a 5 point Likert-type scale ranging from 0 Not at allto 4 Very much. All respondents indicated that they recalled us-ing some of the displayed devices as they toured the museum,showing that we were successfully able to prompt memories.When asked “Which technologies do you remember using?”,the most common answer was cordless phones with 5 peopleremembering using them, followed by Windows desktops with4. Fax machines and iMacs were listed least with only one re-sponse each. Most people remembered using the technologiesthey listed remembering at home (6) and school (4).

We also asked about specific memories to help address thesecond and third portions of our hypothesis. There were only6 complete responses to this section of the questionnaire. Halfrated their memory as neutral (a 2 on a 5 point Likert-typequestion from 0 to 4) and half rated their memory positively(one response of a 3 and two 4s, the highest rating on ourscale).

DISCUSSIONBased on the answers provided to the questionnaire, we con-clude that hypothesis 1 was supported, touring the museumwas sufficient to trigger memories. It is of course possiblethat asking about memory in the questionnaire increased orcreated this effect, but we attempted to avoid this by framingthe question to apply only to memories experienced whiletouring the museum. Hypothesis 2 was not strictly supported.While no one rated either touring the museum or the memoriesit prompted negatively, many did rate either or both as neutral.Hypothesis 3 was somewhat supported as there was variationin both the ratings of enjoyment of the museum and pleasureof the memories, however, as previously mentioned no onerated either negatively.

All of these conclusions are of limited validity because ofthe small sample size of our evaluation, because users werenot experiencing the museum in virtual reality as intended,and because our evaluation did not take place under normalcircumstances for viewing a museum. Our evaluation occurredduring a class with a number of people and a single viewingstation for each part of the demonstration, which may haveinfluenced people to proceed through the museum rapidly.

User FeedbackDirectly contrary to what was suggested by our user needsanalysis, several of the participants during the demo suggestedthat they would prefer more game-like interactions rather thantraditional museum interactions. Suggestions included allow-ing the users to fly, “clickable" displays, more fanciful models,and requiring users to interact with the displays, i.e., pick up amodel telephone to make it stop ringing.

While it was not stated directly by any of our participants, itwas noticeable that many users did not stop to read the textdescriptions included with the displays. Whether this was due

Page 5: untitled (1)

to time constraints or lack of interest cannot be establishedfrom our work. However, it might be worthwhile to experimentwith other ways of conveying important facts more rapidlywithout requiring reading.

Other useful suggestions included adding a thumbnail map tothe display as users became disoriented quickly despite therelatively simple layout of our environment. Improving thestylistic elements of the exhibits was also suggested such ashaving the decor of a room change to characterize styles com-mon at the time the model being viewed was used. Gatheringmore data about the demographics of users in the survey wasalso suggested to allow for customized displays in the future.

LimitationsOur virtual museum has a number of limitations:

• Intrusive and cumbersome to use Oculus Rift: the Oculushead mounted display is intrusive to the user compared tothe alternative designs of a web or smartphone application.It is cumbersome for first time users and those who wearglasses.

• Low fidelity to reality: As the consumer grade virtual realitydevices are still quite a recent development, the technol-ogy is not yet mature. In particular, the fidelity to realityachieved is fairly low.

• Limited number of 3D models: The museum prototypewe developed has only 7 models. This is tiny percentageof the technologies actually used during the timeframe weattempted to cover. While it is possible to create or buymore models, we were limited by time, file format, andbudget constraints.

• Simulator sickness: Some users experience simulator sick-ness when interacting with virtual reality which makes themuseum effectively inaccessible or at least quite uncomfort-able to them.

• Passive System: The user was limited to viewing the mu-seum as an observer. No user input or adaptive output wasdeveloped or utilized in this prototype system.

AdaptationsWe made a number of adaptations to our system to mitigatethe effects of the identified limitations.

• Images, Audio, & Text: As the 3D models had low fidelitycompared to physical systems, they were supplementedwith photographs, audio, and text descriptions. The imagegalleries on the exhibit walls provided supplementary ma-terial and detailed visuals. The audio clips, as explained inprior sections, included specific sounds characteristic of themodels. Text included references to the model, its usageand history, and similar devices.

• Categorization of Models: We attempted to work around ourlimited number of models by organizing them in meaningfulcategories rather than by time period or some other method.

• Exit Survey: To gather user input without encountering thechallenges of providing an input method suitable for virtual

reality, an exit survey was created in Google Forms andcompleted by users after exploring the museum.

FUTURE WORKThe most obvious next step would be to expand the collectionof 3D models and make a more complete museum. However,there are plenty of other enhancements possible. Our proto-type does not take full advantage of the flexibility of virtualreality. It would be worthwhile to make the exhibits moreinteractive, using large scale models of internal components,visualizing invisible processes, and so forth. While our initialuser analysis suggested users desired interacting with the vir-tual museum the same way they would a physical museum,the evaluation suggested people may prefer to have less tra-ditional interactions including flying avatars, breaking walls,and interacting with objects. It would also seem wise to exper-iment with utilizing less text-heavy exhibits than in our initialdesign as users in the demo tended to ignore the descriptionswe included. Improving the visual design and aesthetics ofthe museum and displays would also be a potentially valuableimprovement.

CONCLUSIONThe idea of a virtual museum of technology has a great dealof potential, particularly among the young adult demographicwith whom we evaluated our system. Virtual reality has advan-tages over physical museums in a number of areas and, despiteit’s accompanying limitations, is still sufficient to prompt mem-ories and emotional connections in the viewers. Any numberof questions remain to be explored about how best to designvirtual museums. Particularly interesting avenues for future re-search would be how to allow for user interaction both with thedisplays and with other users and how closely virtual museumsneed to align with traditional museum paradigms.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSWe’d like to thank Dr. Scott Kuhl for allowing us to borrowthe Oculus Rift for the demonstration.

REFERENCES1. Benjamin B Bederson. 1995. Audio augmented reality: a

prototype automated tour guide. In Conferencecompanion on Human factors in computing systems.ACM, 210–211.

2. Richard Coyne. 1994. Heidegger and virtual reality: theimplications of Heidegger’s thinking for computerrepresentations. Leonardo (1994), 65–73.

3. Simon Goodall, Paul H Lewis, Kirk Martinez, Patrick ASSinclair, Fabrizio Giorgini, Matthew J Addis, Mike JBoniface, Christian Lahanier, and James Stevenson. 2004.SCULPTEUR: multimedia retrieval for museums. InImage and Video Retrieval. Springer, 638–646.

4. Edward Grabczewski, John Cosmas, Peter Van Santen,Damian Green, Takebumi Itagaki, and Fred Weimer.2001. 3D MURALE: multimedia database systemarchitecture. In Proceedings of the 2001 conference onVirtual reality, archeology, and cultural heritage. ACM,315–322.

Page 6: untitled (1)

5. James Gross and Ross Thompson. Handbook of emotionregulation. Guilford Press, New York NY, ChapterEmotion regulation: Conceptual foundations. in press.

6. Sharon Macdonald. 2011. A companion to museumstudies. Vol. 39. John Wiley & Sons.

7. Zhigeng Pan, Wenzhi Chen, Mingmin Zhang, JianfengLiu, and Gangshan Wu. 2009. Virtual reality in the digitalOlympic museum. IEEE Computer Graphics andApplications 5 (2009), 91–95.

8. W Gerrod Parrott and John Sabini. 1990. Mood andmemory under natural conditions: Evidence for moodincongruent recall. Journal of personality and SocialPsychology 59, 2 (1990), 321.

9. Thomas D Parsons and Albert A Rizzo. 2008. Affectiveoutcomes of virtual reality exposure therapy for anxietyand specific phobias: A meta-analysis. Journal ofbehavior therapy and experimental psychiatry 39, 3(2008), 250–261.

10. Giuseppe Riva, Fabrizia Mantovani, Claret SamanthaCapideville, Alessandra Preziosa, Francesca Morganti,Daniela Villani, Andrea Gaggioli, Cristina Botella, andMariano Alcañiz. 2007. Affective interactions usingvirtual reality: the link between presence and emotions.CyberPsychology & Behavior 10, 1 (2007), 45–56.

11. Rainey Tisdale. 2011. Do History Museums Still NeedObjects? History News, Summer (2011), 19–24.

12. Tim Wildschut, Constantine Sedikides, Jamie Arndt, andClay Routledge. Nov 2006. Nostalgia: Content, Triggers,Functions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology91, 5 (Nov 2006), 975–993.

13. Rafal Wojciechowski, Krzysztof Walczak, Martin White,and Wojciech Cellary. 2004. Building virtual andaugmented reality museum exhibitions. In Proceedings ofthe ninth international conference on 3D Web technology.ACM, 135–144.

14. Christopher Yavelow. 1991. Macworld music and soundbible. IDG Books Worldwide, Inc.