MÜZE SERGİLERİNDE MOBİL ARTIRILMIŞ GERÇEKLİK UYGULAMALARI

Full text

Review Article / Derleme Makalesi
Cite as/ Atıf: Bayrak Uluğ, A. & Ertürk, N. (2022). Mobile augmented reality applications for museum exhibitions.
Turkish Studies - Social, 17(2), 255-266. https://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.57579
Received/Geliş: 11 February/Şubat 2022
Checked by plagiarism software
Accepted/Kabul: 25 April/Nisan 2022
© Yazar(lar)/Author(s) | CC BY- NC 4.0
Published/Yayın: 30 April/Nisan 2022
Mobile Augmented Reality Applications for Museum Exhibitions
Müze Sergileri için Mobil Artırılmış Gerçeklik Uygulamaları
Ayça Bayrak Uluğ* - Nevra Ertürk**
Abstract: Augmented reality experience is becoming mainstream with the advancements in mobile
computing as well as wireless communication technologies (cellular communication, global positioning
system known as GPS, Wi-Fi, etc.), and proliferating personal usage of mobile technology in everyday life.
Usage areas of AR have expanded from military technology to health, from manufacturing to education, and
even to entertainment. Mobile AR experiences are widely accepted socially with the increasing usage of
games and mobile applications (apps) such as Pokémon GO, Snapchat or Instagram. Besides pioneering
technology companies like Apple, Facebook and Google have already initiated research activities and made a
great deal of investment in augmented reality to explore creative and innovative ways of using it. Museums,
as repositories of material evidence, are seen as fundamental sources of establishing and advancing
knowledge. On the other hand, emerging information and communication technologies (ICT) and mobile
media continue to transform the ways of presenting information in museums. In recent years, museums
started to become curious about the potentials of augmented reality as a “visitor technology” for education
and enjoyment purposes of museums and the first applications of augmented reality have been used in the
museums. As a result, a couple of the prominent museums have conducted and/or supported various research
about augmented reality applications in museums in order to explore how this technology can be used more
efficiently and innovatively yet defining the surplus-value of augmented reality experience in museums
requires more scientific research and tests about its potentials, benefits, and pitfalls. The findings of this
article are the result of a postgraduate thesis that focuses on the potentials of mobile augmented reality as a
new media for museum interpretation. In the article, mobile augmented reality is used to refer to the
convergence of augmented reality experience with “visitor technologies”, mobile augmented reality
experience that superimposes an extra interpretive layer on objects and museum environments. Taken into
consideration that the next few years are likely to witness a considerable increase in the mobile museum
guides, games, or apps featured with augmented reality, the article discusses mobile augmented reality as a
new media which is used with the purpose of merging observational and interpretational aspects of visiting
an exhibition by intertwining collection objects and the related contextual information.The article, which
* Sorumlu Yazar: Doktora öğrencisi, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Müzecilik Bölümü
Corresponding Author: PhD Student, Dokuz Eylul University, Graduate School of Social Sciences, Department of
Museology
0000-0002-5186-1420
aycabayrak@gmail.com
** Doç. Dr., Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi, Mimarlık Fakültesi, Kültür Varlıklarını Koruma ve Onarım Bölümü
Assoc. Prof. Dr., Yildiz Technical University, Faculty of Architecture, Department of Conversation and Restoration of
Cultural Property
0000-0001-8389-1280
nevra.erturk@gmail.com

256 Ayça Bayrak Uluğ - Nevra Ertürk
Turkish Studies - Social, 17(2)
provides literature review and evaluation of prominent cases, starts with generally accepted definitions of
augmented reality and continues with its usage areas in museum exhibitions as a “visitor technology”. The
part called “Mobile Augmented Reality for Museum Interpretation” suggests the content and type of
interaction as two significant components that develop compelling mobile augmented reality experiences.
The conclusion presents practical recommendations for museums in order to promote the compelling use of
mobile augmented reality as an emerging media for interpretation in museum exhibitions.
Structured Abstract: Augmented reality experience is becoming mainstream with the advancements in
mobile computing as well as wireless communication technologies (cellular communication, global
positioning system known as GPS, Wi-Fi, etc.), and proliferating personal usage of mobile technology in
everyday life. Usage areas of AR have expanded from military technology to health, from manufacturing to
education, and even to entertainment. Mobile AR experiences are widely accepted socially with the
increasing usage of games and mobile applications (apps) such as Pokémon GO, Snapchat or Instagram.
Besides pioneering technology companies like Apple, Facebook and Google have already initiated research
activities and made a great deal of investment in augmented reality to explore creative and innovative ways
of using it. The aim of this article is to add to a growing body of literature on mobile AR as new media for
museum interpretation. The article, which provides literature review and evaluation of prominent cases, starts
with generally accepted definitions of augmented reality and continues with its usage areas in museum
exhibitions as a “visitor technology”. The part called “Mobile Augmented Reality for Museum
Interpretation” suggests the content and type of interaction as two significant components that develop
compelling mobile augmented reality experiences. The conclusion presents practical recommendations for
museums in order to promote the compelling use of mobile augmented reality as an emerging media for
interpretation in museum exhibitions. Museums, as repositories of historical and archeological material
evidence, are seen as fundamental sources of establishing and advancing knowledge. On the other hand,
emerging information and communication technologies (ICT) and mobile media continue to transform the
ways of presenting information in museums. In recent years, museums started to become curious about the
potentials of augmented reality as a “visitor technology” for education and enjoyment purposes of museums
and the first applications of augmented reality have been used in the museums. As a result, a couple of the
prominent museums have conducted and/or supported various research about augmented reality applications
in museums in order to explore how this technology can be used more efficiently and innovatively yet
defining the surplus-value of augmented reality experience in museums requires more scientific research and
tests about its potentials, benefits, and pitfalls. According to the literature review, it is determined that some
prominent possibilities created by AR are:
- Reconstructing the missing parts/things or showing the modifications in alignment with object
(Barry et al. 2012, ElShafie 2015, Huang et al. 2011, Barbieri et al. 2017, Yoon et al. 2014),
- Contributing edutainment by intrinsic gamification which requires players to follow both objects
(content) and gameplay in order to succeed by image and face recognition, GPS etc. (Johnson et al. 2015,
Schavemaker et al. 2011, Craig 2013, Vayanou et al. 2014),
- Simultaneous translations of texts on the objects (Dream Stela Experience by Harvard Museum of
Ancient Near East),
- Pointing out details of objects (Chess Project, Terracotta Warriors: The First Emperor and His
Legacy app, Dream Stela Experience by Harvard Museum of Ancient Near East),
- Creating different interaction possibilities like x-raying, zoom-in, restoring ob-jects, witnessing
production processes, asking questions etc. (San Diego Museum of Art app, Lumin app),
- Navigating in real time (Paucher & Turk,2010),
- Storytelling via diverse media (Vayanou et al., 2014, Azuma, 2015, Azuma, 2016),
- Substituting the real object, person by presenting digital 3-D versions (Hack-ing the Heist app).
As new technologies are becoming more accessible, it is likely to see a considerable rise in the
mobile museum apps featuring AR gaming and/or AR storytelling in the next decade. Museums and
technology companies are keen to explore AR applications as a new interactive media used for interpretation
which has both educational and entertaining value. Most museums are outsourcing the digital content design
and production to commercial companies and digital media departments. Nevertheless, according to Falk and

Mobile Augmented Reality Applications for Museum Exhibitions 257
www.turkishstudies.net/social
Dierking (2008, p.28), this situation creates a “research silence”. In other words, museum studies, especially
curatorial studies literature on AR is very limited. For this reason, the design, implementation and
maintenance processes of mobile apps featuring AR will be a challenge for museums in the upcoming years.
Taken into consideration that the next few years are likely to witness a considerable increase in the
mobile museum guides, games, or apps featured with augmented reality, the article discusses mobile
augmented reality as a new media which is used with the purpose of merging observational and
interpretational aspects of visiting an exhibition by intertwining collection objects and the related contextual
information. The aim of this article is to add to a growing body of literature on mobile AR as new media for
museum interpretation. It draws attention to content and type of interaction as two significant components for
compelling mobile AR experiences in museum exhibitions. Future work on the current topic is therefore
suggested in order to establish mobile AR as a new media for museum interpretation and future studies
should focus on exploring the compelling ways of the mobile AR experiences in museums.
Keywords: Museology, curatorial studies, museum experience, interpretation, augmented reality (AR)
Öz: Artırılmış gerçeklik, mobil programlamayla birlikte kablosuz iletişim teknolojilerindeki (hücresel
iletişim, GPS olarak bilinen global konumlama sistemi, Wi-Fi vb.) gelişmeler ve mobil teknolojinin günlük
yaşamda artan kişisel kullanımıyla ana akım bir deneyim haline geldi. Artırılmış gerçekliğin kullanım alan-
ları askeri bir teknoloji olmanın ötesine geçerek sağlık alanına; üretim alanından eğitime hatta eğlenceye
kadar genişledi. Mobil artırılmış gerçeklik deneyimlerinin sosyal kabul edilebilirliği, Pokémon GO, Snapchat
ya da Instagram gibi oyunlar ve mobil uygulamaların sık kullanımı sonucunda yaygınlaştı. Bunun yanı sıra,
Apple, Facebook ve Google gibi öncü teknoloji şirketleri artırılmış gerçekliğin yaratıcı ve yenilikçi kullanım
yollarını keşfetmek için araştırma faaliyetlerine büyük yatırımlar yaptılar. Maddi kanıtların depoları olan
müzeler, bilgi oluşturma ve geliştirmenin en temel kaynaklarından biri olarak görülmektedir. Öte yandan,
gelişen bilgi ve iletişim (ICT) teknolojileri ve mobil medya, müzelerde bilgi sunma biçimlerini dönüştürmeye
devam etmektedir. Son yıllarda müzeler, eğitim ve eğlence amaçları için artırılmış gerçekliğin “ziyaretçi
teknolojisi” olarak kullanılmasıyla ilgilenmeye başladılar. Bunun sonucunda, ön plana çıkan birkaç müze,
artırılmış gerçekliğin nasıl daha yenilikçi ve verimli kullanılabileceğini keşfetmek için çeşitli araştırmalar
yürüttü ve/veya araştırmaları destekledi; ancak müzelerde artırılmış gerçeklik deneyiminin katma değerini
tanımlamak için potansiyelleri, faydaları ve tuzakları hakkında daha fazla bilimsel araştırma ve test
yapılmasına ihtiyaç vardır. Bu makalenin bulguları, mobil artırılmış gerçekliğin müzelerde yorumlama için
yeni bir medya olarak kullanım potansiyellerine odaklanan bir yüksek lisans tezinin sonucudur. Makalede
mobil artırılmış gerçeklik, artırılmış gerçeklik deneyiminin “ziyaretçi teknolojileri” yle yakınsadığı, nesnelere
ve müze ortamlarına fazladan bir yorumlayıcı katman eklenmesi anlamında kullanılmaktadır. Önümüzdeki
birkaç yılda, artırılmış gerçeklik özelliğine sahip mobil müze rehberleri, oyunları ve uygulamalarında (apps)
artış olması ihtimali dikkate alınarak; makalede mobil artırılmış gerçeklik, nesneler ve bu nesnelerin
bağlamsal bilgilerini bir araya getirmesiyle sergi ziyaret etmenin yorumlama ve gözlemleme yönlerini
birleştirme amacıyla kullanılan yeni bir medya olarak tartışılmaktadır. Alanyazın taraması ve öne çıkan
örneklere ait değerlendirilmelerin yer aldığı makale, artırılmış gerçekliğin genel kabul görmüş tanımlarıyla
başlamakta; artırılmış gerçekliğin “ziyaretçi teknolojisi” olarak müze sergilerinde kullanım alanlarıyla devam
etmektedir. “Müze Yorumlaması için Mobil Artırılmış Gerçeklik” adlı bölümde, etkili mobil artırılmış
gerçeklik deneyimleri geliştirmek için içerik ve etkileşim türü iki önemli bileşen olarak önerilmektedir.
Sonuç olarak, müze sergilerinde kullanımı yakın zamanda ortaya çıkmış bir medya olan mobil artırılmış
gerçekliğin etkili kullanımını teşvik etmek amacıyla müzeler için pratik öneriler sunulmaktadır.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Müzebilim, küratöryel çalışmalar, müze deneyimi, yorumlama, artırılmış gerçeklik
Introduction
Computer scientists Thomas P. Caudell and David Mizell introduced the term “augmented
reality”, shortly known as AR, in the early 1990’s. AR is defined by Caudell and Mizell (1992,
p.660) as “This technology is used to augment the visual field of the user with the information
necessary in the performance of the current task.” By pointing out three requirements of AR,
Azuma (1997, p.356) has provided a generally accepted definition of AR: “Combines real and

258 Ayça Bayrak Uluğ - Nevra Ertürk
Turkish Studies - Social, 17(2)
virtual, is interactive in real-time and registered in three dimensions”. The term has been
considered by Craig (2013, p.65) as a medium not as a technology which refer to “Augmented
reality is a medium in which digital information is overlaid on the physical world that is in both
spatial and temporal registration with the physical world and that is interactive in real time.”
These definitions indicate the physical world as an essential ingredient of AR experience.
Similarly, Azuma (1997, 2015, 2016), Bimber and Raskar (2005), Carmigniani and Furcht (2011)
and Craig (2013) refer to “remaining” in the physical world as one of the most determinant
characteristics of AR.
First examples of AR applications were designed for professionals in the 1990’s.
Technological developments in computer and communication sciences and high rates of mobile
penetration in daily life enabled AR to become a consumer application in the 2010’s. The Horizon
Report (2005, p.21) foresaw the growth of AR technologies within the next four to five years by
stating “Already beginning to surface in disciplines like medicine, engineering, the sciences, and
archaeology, context aware computing and augmented reality show promising new ways for
humans to interact with technology”.
The first systematic report (Johnson et al., 2010) on AR in museums was carried out in
2010 by New Media Consortium (NMC) which points out that AR as a technology which will
become relevant in the area of museum education and interpretation within the next two to three
years. In line with this report, several projects have been carried on usage of AR for museums in
the last decade. “Museum Lab” a collaborative project of Louvre Museum and Dai Nippon
Printing Co. Ltd. (2006-2013); “ARtours” by Stedelijk Museum (2009-2011); “Terracotta
Warriors: The First Emperor and His Legacy” exhibition’s mobile app in Asian Civilizations
Museum (2011); “Chess Project” in Acropolis Museum sponsored by European Commission
(2011-2016); a game developed for Pantheon Hall of British Museum named “A Gift to Athena”
(2013); “Skin and Bones” app by the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History (2015) and
“Lumin” app by Detroit Institute of Arts (2017), are just some of these inspiring examples.
According to the literature review, it is determined that some prominent possibilities created by AR
are:
- Reconstructing the missing parts/things or showing the modifications in alignment with
object (Barry et al. 2012, ElShafie 2015, Huang et al. 2011, Barbieri et al. 2017, Yoon et al. 2014),
- Contributing edutainment by intrinsic gamification which requires players to follow both
objects (content) and gameplay in order to succeed (Johnson et al. 2015, Schavemaker et al. 2011,
Craig 2013, Vayanou et al. 2014),
- Simultaneous translations of texts on the objects (Dream Stela Experience by Harvard
Museum of Ancient Near East),
- Pointing out details of objects (Chess Project, Terracotta Warriors: The First Emperor and
His Legacy app, Dream Stela Experience by Harvard Museum of Ancient Near East),
- Creating different interaction possibilities like x-raying, zoom-in, restoring objects,
witnessing production processes, asking questions etc. (San Diego Museum of Art app, Lumin
app),
- Navigating in real time (Paucher & Turk,2010),
- Storytelling via diverse media (Vayanou et al., 2014, Azuma, 2015, Azuma, 2016),
- Substituting the real object, person by presenting digital 3D versions (Hack-ing the Heist
app).
Museums and technology companies are keen to explore AR applications as a new
interactive media used for interpretation which has both educational and entertaining value. Most

Mobile Augmented Reality Applications for Museum Exhibitions 259
www.turkishstudies.net/social
museums are outsourcing the digital content design and production to commercial companies.
Nevertheless, according to Falk and Dierking (2008, p.28), this situation creates a “research
silence”. Eventually, the decision-making processes about these novel visitor technologies are
mostly based on anecdotes and assumptions which may be misleading and slowing down the
maturing of this technology in museums. This silence shows the need for empirical data and
scientific knowledge for decision making processes in order to follow scientific facts rather than
assumptions (Marques et al., 2018). Researchers continue to examine AR in museums while
questioning the surplus value of it. Especially with the proliferating personal usage of smartphones
and tablets, mobile AR is becoming a promising new media for museum interpretation. Recently,
Akçayır and Akçayır (2017) stated that sixty percent of AR applications are developed for mobile
technologies. Museums are curious about the potentials of AR especially when it converges with
mobile devices defined as “visitor technologies” (Tallon 2008, p. xiii), “interpretive technologies”
(Samis, 2008, p.5), “personal museum technologies” (Gottlieb, 2008, p.167) “exhibition
technologies” (Ambrose and Paine 2006, p.85) or “digital handhelds” (Parry, 2008, p.180).
Moreover, “Bring Your Own Device” (BYOD) trend encourages visitors to use their own devices
(smartphones, tab-lets etc.) as a “visitor technology” during museum visits (Johnson et al., 2015)
and diminishes additional high operational costs of AR experiences for museums. These
developments pave the way for investigating especially mobile AR in museums as a novel, eye
catchy, relatively inexpensive (no hardware installation and maintenance costs) and promising
media for interpretation. In the last ten years, many different types of AR experiences were applied
to museum exhibitions which provided alternative ways of interpretation, interaction in museum
environment, engagement with objects, user generated content, gaming, navigation and
wayfinding. In the upcoming years, more information about experimentations of mobile AR in
museums will become available and it is certain that all of these developments will contribute to
the expansion of aforementioned list.
Mobile Augmented Reality for Museum Exhibitions
Museums, as repositories of material evidence, are seen as sources of establishing and
advancing knowledge. On the other hand, emerging information and communication technologies
(ICT) and mobile media are transforming ways of presenting information in museums. In the first
examples of museum practice, it was considered that objects have their own knowledge, and
displaying objects with basic label information such as period, material, inventory number etc. was
accepted to be sufficient. In the 21st century museum, the object is accepted as a source of diverse
information. In this context, revealing the information and stories of displayed objects by
interpretation is becoming a significant function of museums (ICOM Museum Definition; ICOM
Code of Ethics for Museums 2017, Ambrose et al., 2006).
Freeman Tilden was one of the pioneers who laid stress on the importance of heritage
interpretation in the early 1950’s. He (1977, p.8) set six principles for interpretation and defines the
term of interpretation as “An educational activity which aims to reveal meanings and relationships
through the use of original objects, by firsthand experience, and by illustrative media, rather than
simply to communicate factual information.” In ICOM’s Key Concepts of Museology, the term
“mediation” is preferred as a synonym of interpretation and it is described as “a whole range of
actions carried out in a museal context in order to build bridges between that which is exhibited
(seeing) and the meanings that these objects and sites may carry (knowledge)” (Desvalles et al.
2010, p. 47). Similarly, Yani Herreman (2004, p. 93) points out the significance of interpreting
objects displayed in museums by stating “need the interpretative support that curators, educators
and designers give them”. Shortly, interpretation is defined as “explaining an object and its
significance” (Ambrose et al. 2006: 78) and Gillian Wilson (2004) referred to interpretation as an
essential part of museum work in Tate Modern by saying “Interpretation is at the heart of the
gallery’s mission”.

260 Ayça Bayrak Uluğ - Nevra Ertürk
Turkish Studies - Social, 17(2)
According to “The J. Paul Getty Museum’s Complete Guide to Adult Audience
Interpretive Materials: Gallery Texts and Graphics” (2011) labels, introductory statements, sup-
plementary materials, panels etc. are commonly used text-based interpretation methods in museum
exhibitions which are challenged by technological developments (Bradburne, 2008). “Traditional”
audio guides are one of the earliest mobile technologies used for interpretation in museums. First
handheld mobile guides introduced in 1952 for Stedelijk Museum are referred to as the pioneers of
mobile “visitor technologies” in the form of museum audio guides (Tallon, 2008), but these were
not digital. In line with the developments in mobile digital media, museums offer both mobile and
digital multimedia guides that combine a variety of media including audio, text, images, videos,
and interactives as well (Fantoni et al., 2008; Murphy, 2018) besides supporting mobile AR
experiences. Nowadays, the interpretation ecosystem in museums embraces various digital methods
such as touch screen kiosks, multimedia guides, holograms, virtual reality etc.
Mobile AR is one of the most recent tech-savvy method for interpretation, because it has
potentials for creating more interactive museum exhibitions by imposing extra virtual/digital
interpretive layers on displayed objects (Johnson et al., 2010; Angelopoulou et al., 2012; Boyer et
al., 2011; Murphy, 2018) in an engaging manner. In this article, mobile AR is used to refer the
convergence of AR experience with mobile apps, implicitly mobile AR experience that
superimposes an extra interpretive layer on museum objects and museum environments.
Mobile AR is a new form of media constituting new types of experiences in museums that
differ from traditional media. It provides interpretive and educational layers on displayed objects
which can reveal invisible contextual information that can help enhance visitor’s/user’s knowledge
on the displayed objects in a more interactive manner (Bimber et al., 2005; Tesoriero et al., 2014;
Yoon et. al 2014; Rothfarb, 2011; Tallon 2008). Moreover, mobile AR does more than just provide
an extra digital space for museum interpretation; it superimposes an extra interpretive layer on
objects which contributes to make museum experience more interactive, engaging and entertaining.
In brief, capability of merging observational and interpretational aspects makes mobile AR
(Elinich, 2011) a beneficial media for enhancing the interaction between visitors and objects
(Rothfarb, 2011; Gammon et al., 2008; Falk et al., 2008, Bimber et al., 2005; Samis, 2008; Craig,
2013) by providing their contextualized information named interpretation.
Proliferation of AR experiences in museums also raises new issues and there are some
skeptical perspectives about AR experiences. Recently Marques and Castello (2018) reviewed the
concerns and challenges about adoption and implementation of mobile AR in museums. These are
as follows; “detraction or replacement of the museum experience”, “gimmickry” and “onboarding
and duration of content” and “indoor exhibitions: light, line of sight, noise and internet access”.
“Detraction or replacement of the museum experience” is the most common concern not only about
mobile AR, but also about all of the digital visitor technologies in museums. It is interchangeably
called “screen-centeredness” and means disconnecting visitors from the surrounding displays in a
museum environment, and changing the nature of museum experience from looking at “authentic
and unique objects” to looking at small screens of mobile devices. “Gimmickry” means employing
AR as a “trendy and must have” technology without questioning its real contributions to museum
experience (Thian, 2012). “Onboarding and duration of content” concern is about visitor’s
experience in museums while using mobile apps and “indoor exhibitions: light, line of sight, noise
and internet access” covers technical and practical issues related to the usage of AR in closed areas
like exhibition halls. The researchers conducted a visitor study in the Bone Hall of the Smithsonian
National Museum of Natural History to examine these concerns and challenges. Surprisingly, their
visitor study has not confirmed the aforementioned assumptions and validated that the concerns
about museum technologies which depend on assumptions are misleading. Their study confirms
the need for broadening the empirical data and scientific knowledge on mobile AR in museums.

Mobile Augmented Reality Applications for Museum Exhibitions 261
www.turkishstudies.net/social
In the last couple of years, mobile AR has been considered either a technological dis-
ruption in overall museum experience or a new exciting technology for enhancing interaction
between objects and visitors and increasing engagement in museum environments. Only a few
researchers have addressed the suggestions about fulfilling AR’s ultimate potentials in museums in
more compelling ways. In this respect, this article outlines the relationship between mobile AR and
interpretation, while suggesting the content and type of interaction as significant ingredients of
mobile AR experience.
Implementation of mobile AR as an interpretation method in museum exhibitions is closely
relevant to curatorial and educational practices and educational content is the key for overriding
aforementioned concerns for that reason. Therefore, educational value of content and defining the
interaction types, which affect visitor experiences directly, have become two critical issues in terms
of making design decisions for compelling mobile AR experiences in museums. Making the best
decisions about mobile AR firstly requires an understanding of AR’s differentiating characteristics
as a “new media” and then the use of these characteristics while designing content and interactions
to create engaging AR experiences. Craig (2013, p. 82) draws attention to the importance of
content by stating “Indeed, without compelling content, augmented reality becomes nothing more
than a technological novelty” and he (2013, p. 66) defines content as
“Content includes all objects, ideas, stories, sensory stimuli, and “laws of nature” for the
experience. The laws of nature govern what actions take place during the experience. This may
include computational simulations, game rules, or any other aspects of the content that are under
computer control”.
Similar to Craig, Schavemaker (2011) remarks that the importance of content for AR
applications as “The AR technology alone is not enough for a real user experience. Simply putting
art in an AR layer is not good enough. It's all about the content.”
Essentially, three distinguishing characteristics of AR (overlay of real and digital world,
real-time interaction, registration and alignment in 3D) are enabling new ways of interaction with
museum collections that were previously not possible. Mobile AR provides “natural user
interactions” (Mannion, 2012), offering not only new ways of interactions with objects but also
more engaging content possibilities which go beyond “traditional” interpretation methods like
descriptive texts and sounds. Nonetheless, using mobile AR as a new interactive interpretation
method in museums requires more than entertaining interactions. The educational value
differentiates museum interactions from interactions in theme parks. Therefore, balancing the
educational and entertaining values, which are referred to shortly as edutainment, is a critical issue
for museums (Thian, 2012). Balancing entertainment and education is another real challenge for
museums while developing compelling AR mobile experiences as noted by Ciolfi and Bannon
(2003) “the next challenge is to retain and expand attention spans and promote learning through
multiple layers and meaningful activities” for all mobile technologies. Briefly, real time
interactivity feature of mobile AR has the capacity to create new possibilities for intertwining the
museum object and its related information by merging the observational and interpretational
aspects in an entertaining manner. To be able to achieve the utmost benefit from AR, Azuma
(2016, p. 235) suggested:
“the key to establishing AR as a new form of media is to make the combination of the real
and virtual crucial, where virtual con-tent is connected to reality in compelling and meaningful
ways, and the experience cannot be derived solely from the real content or solely from the virtual
content”.
In short, mobile AR has numerous potentials to be discovered for further development of
research, education and enjoyment purposes of museums. Its merging observational and
interpretational capacity creates new experience possibilities for museum interpretation. For an

262 Ayça Bayrak Uluğ - Nevra Ertürk
Turkish Studies - Social, 17(2)
effective implementation of AR in museum exhibitions, it should be approached as a new media
with its distinguished characteristics where content and type of interaction are two significant
factors in terms of designing compelling AR experiences.
Conclusion
In the last decade, there has been a rise in the use of mobile AR in museums as a new
media which enables new types of experiences that differ from traditional media. In the museum
exhibitions context, the most significant contribution of mobile AR experiences has been making it
possible to achieve new ways of interactions covering both entertaining and educational purposes
of museums while merging the observational and interpretational aspects of visiting an exhibition.
The aim of this article is to add to a growing body of literature on mobile AR as new media
for museum interpretation. It draws attention to content and type of interaction as two significant
components for compelling mobile AR experiences in museum exhibitions.
It’s important to note that collaborative work of collection managers, curators, technology
developers, education specialists and consultants are required for designing tailor-made
interpretations and AR experiences. In this context, the following general recommendations can be
implemented for the improvement of mobile AR experiences in museum exhibitions.
Firstly, there are different methods of mobile AR (pattern, outline/image recognition, GPS
etc.) and the choice of AR methods affects the type of interaction profoundly. Decisions on the AR
method depends on the collection and physical conditions of the museum.
Secondly, creating not only digital but also engaging and interpretive content is significant
for improving the edutainment aspect of visiting an exhibition. To be more specific, using mobile
AR to reinforce visual information (like photos, 3D modeling, videos etc.) rather than textual
information would have positive impacts on enhancing visitors’ understanding on museum objects
and their context. For example, completing the missing parts of objects or putting the totally
missing objects back in the museum environment digitally by mobile AR is an alternative way of
providing visual information
Another general suggestion for more compelling mobile AR experiences is combining
storytelling, gamification and AR technologies for enhancing game-based learning in order to
foster edutainment in museums. Benefiting AR layers for the purpose of intrinsic gameplay creates
opportunities to increase the level of engagement with the displayed museum objects and deepen
visitor experience.
Consequently, mobile AR allows visitors to experience the objects in the museum’s
collection. The most significant contribution of mobile AR to museum exhibitions is enabling new
ways of interactions in museums. Especially, the capability of merging observational and
interpretational aspects makes it a promising media for edutainment purpose of museums. As
digital demands continue to grow in line with technological developments, AR may be employed in
various ways as a new media. Depending on the purpose, there is a possibility of exploring new
ways of using it as a fruitful interpretation method. It is important to note that implementing mobile
AR can be just an entertaining eye catchy digital media without any interpretational aim or
educational purpose. Therefore, linking the AR experience closely and carefully to the collection
and overall museum experience and designing content which is engaging and increases visitors’
interaction with the museum objects are the main requirements. Therefore, this article draws
attention to the significance of content and type of interaction as two critical issues for compelling
AR experiences. In other words, if mobile AR is preferred as an interpretive method, it is important
to use the charachteristics of mobile AR. If mobile AR apps are designed well in terms of content
and interaction, they can be one of the fruitful digital interpretation methods providing alternative
ways for in-depth understanding about the objects rather than replacing them.

Mobile Augmented Reality Applications for Museum Exhibitions 263
www.turkishstudies.net/social
As new technologies are becoming more accessible, it is likely to see a considerable rise in
the mobile museum apps featuring AR gaming and/or AR storytelling in the next decade. On the
other side, experimentations with AR in the museums, museum studies, especially curatorial
studies literature on AR are very limited. For this reason, the design, implementation and
maintenance processes of mobile apps featuring AR will be a challenge for museums in the
upcoming years. Conducting experiments with visitors, usability testing and systematic visitor
surveys, establishing a digital department, forming an interpretive plan for digital exhibiting,
iterative and collaborative design processes and especially developing museum professionals’
knowledge and understanding on the AR experiences are some prominent issues which should be
taken into consideration. Future work on the current topic is therefore suggested in order to
establish mobile AR as a new media for museum interpretation and future studies should focus on
exploring the compelling ways of the mobile AR experiences in museums.
References
Akçayır, M.& Akçayır, G. (2017). Advantages and challenges associated with augmented reality
for education: A systematic review of the literature. Educational Research Review, (20), 1-
11. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11184990
Ambrose, T. &Paine, C. (2012). Museum basics. Routledge.
Angelopoulou, A., Economou, D., Bouki, V., Psarrou, A., Jin, L., Pritchard, C.& Kolyda, F.
(2012). Mobile augmented reality for cultural heritage In N. Venkatasubramanian, V.
Getov & S. Steglich (Eds.), Mobile wireless middleware, operating systems, and
applications. MOBILWARE 2011. Lecture notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences,
Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering (pp. 15-22). Springer.
Azuma, R. T. (1997). A survey of augmented reality. Teleoperators and Virtual Environments,
6(4), 355-385.
Azuma, R. T. (2015). “Location-Based Mixed and Augmented Reality Storytelling.” In W. Barfield
(Ed.), 2nd Edition of Fundamentals of Wearable Computers and Augmented Reality
(pp.259-276). CRC Press.
Azuma, R. T. (2016). The Most Important Challenge Facing Augmented Reality. Presence:
Teleoperators and Virtual Environments. 25(3), 234-238.
https://doi.org/10.1162/PRES_a_00264
Barry, A., Thomas, G., Debenham, P. & Trout, J. (2012). Augmented reality in a public space: the
Natural History Museum, London. Computer 45(7), 42– 7. IEEE.
https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2012.106
Bimber, O., & Raskar, R. (2005). Spatial augmented reality: merging real and virtual worlds. A K
Peters.
Boyer, D. & Marcus, J. (2011). Implementing mobile augmented reality applications for cultural
institutions. In J. Trant & D. Bearman (Eds.) Museums and the Web 2011: Proceedings.
Archives & Museum Informatics.
Bradburne, J. (2008). Foreword. In L. Tallon & K. Walker (Eds.) Digital technologies and the
museum experience (pp. ix-xii). Alta Mira.
Bruno, F., Lagudi, A., Barbieri, L., Muzzupappa, M., Ritacco, G., Cozza, A., Cozza, M., Peluso,
R., Lupia, M. & Cario, G. (2016) Virtual and augmented reality tools to ımprove the
exploitation of underwater archaeological sites by diver and non-diver tourists in digital

264 Ayça Bayrak Uluğ - Nevra Ertürk
Turkish Studies - Social, 17(2)
heritage. in M. Ioannides, E. Fink, A. Moropoulou, M. Hagedorn-Saupe, A. Fresa, G.
Liestøl, V. Rajcic and P. Grussenmeyer (Eds.), Progress in Cultural Heritage:
Documentation, Preservation, and Protection EuroMed 2016 (pp. 269-280). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48496-9_22
Carmigniani, J. & Furht, B. (2011). Augmented reality: an overview. In B. Furth (Eds.), Handbook
of augmented reality (pp. 3-46). Springer.
Caudell, T. & Mizell, D. (1992). Augmented reality: An application of heads-up display technology
to manual manufacturing processes. Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences (2), 659 – 669.
https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.1992.183317
Ciolfi, L., Bannon, L. J. & Fernström, M. (2007). Visitors’ contributions as cultural heritage:
designing for participation. In J. Trant and D. Bearman (Eds.) International Cultural
Heritage Informatics Meeting (ICHIM07). Archives & Museum Informatics.
Craig, A. B. (2013). Understanding augmented reality: concepts and applications. Morgan
Kaufmann.
Dean, D. (1996). Museum exhibition: theory and practice. Routledge.
Desvallées, A. & Mairesse, F. (2010). Key concepts of museology. Arman Colin.
Elinich, K. (2014, February 2-4). Augmented reality for interpretive and experiential learning.
MW2014: Museums and the Web, Baltimore, MD, USA.
https://mw2014.museumsandtheweb.com/paper/augmented-reality-for-interpretive-and-
experiential-learning/.
ElShafie, S. J. (2015). Ultimate dinosaurs: Giants of gondwana. Royal ontario museum traveling
exhibit. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 35(4).
https://doi.org/10.1080/02724634.2014.943401
Falk, J.; Dierking, L.H.D. (2008). Enhancing visitor interaction and learning with mobile
technologies. In L. Tallon & K. Walker (Eds.), Digital technologies and the museum
experience (pp.19-33). Alta Mira.
Fantoni, S. F. & Bowen, J.P. (2008). “Mobile multimedia: reflections from ten years of practice.”
In L. Tallon & K. Walker (Eds.), Digital technologies and the museum experience (pp.
167-178). Alta Mira.
Gammon, B. & Burch, A. (2008). “Designing mobile digital experiences.” In L. Tallon & K.
Walker (Eds.), Digital technologies and the museum experience (pp. 35-60). Alta Mira.
Gottlieb, H. (2008). “Interactive adventures.” In L. Tallon & K. Walker (Eds.), Digital
technologies and the museum experience (pp. 167-178). Alta Mira.
Herreman, Y. (2004). Display, Exhibits and Exhibitions. In P. J. Boylan (eds.), ICOM running a
Museum (pp. 91-103). ICOM – International Council of Museums.
NMC: The New Media Consortium National Learning Infrastructure Initiative. (2005, January 1).
Horizon Report 2005 Edition. EDUCASE.
https://library.educause.edu/resources/2005/1/2005-horizon-report
Huang, Y., Jiang, Z., Liu, Y. & Wang, Y. (2011). Augmented reality in exhibition and
entertainment for the public. In B. Furth (Ed.), Handbook of augmented reality (pp. 707-
720). Springer.
ICOM Code of ethics for museums (2017). ICOM

Mobile Augmented Reality Applications for Museum Exhibitions 265
www.turkishstudies.net/social
https://icom.museum/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/ICOM-code-En-web.pdf.
The J. Paul Getty Museum. (2011). Complete guide to adult audience interpretive materials:
gallery texts and graphics.
https://www.getty.edu/education/museum_educators/downloads/aaim_completeguide.pdf.
Johnson, L., Witchey, H., Smith, R.S., Levine, A. & Haywood, K. (2010, February 15). The 2010
Horizon Report: The New Media Consortium. EDUCASE.
https://library.educause.edu/resources/2010/1/2010-horizon-report
Johnson, L., Becker S.A., Estrada, V. & Freeman, A. (2015). NMC Horizon Report: 2015 Museum
Edition. EDUCASE. https://library.educause.edu/resources/2015/2/2015-horizon-report
Kipper, G.& Rampolla, J. (2013). Augmented reality: an emerging technologies guide to AR.
Elsevier.
Mannion, S. (2012, April 11-14). Beyond cool: making mobile augmented reality work for
museum education. Museum and the Web 2012, San Diego, CA, USA.
https://www.museumsandtheweb.com/mw2012/programs/beyond_cool_making_mobile_a
ugmented_reality_.html.
Marques, D. & Castello, R. (2018). Concerns and challenges developing mobile augmented reality
experiences for museum exhibitions. Curator the Museum Journal 61 (4), 541-558.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cura.12279.
Milgram, P. & Kishino, F. (1994). A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays.
IEICETRANSACTIONS on Information and Systems 77.12 (1994), 1321-1329.
Murphy, A. (2018, October 29). Digital Museum Guides: enhancing modern-day visits with audio
guides, apps and AR.” Museum and Heritage.
https://advisor.museumsandheritage.com/features/digital-museum-guides-audio-apps-
augmented-reality/.
Parry, R. (2008). “Afterword: The future in our hands? Putting potential into practice.” In L. Tallon
& K. Walker (Eds.), Digital technologies and the museum experience (pp. 179- 193). Alta
Mira.
Paucher, R. & Turk, M. (2010, June 13-18). Location-based augmented reality on mobile phones.
IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition
Workshops. San Francisco, CA, USA. https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPRW.2010.5543249
Rothfarb, R. (2011, April 6-9). Mixing Realities to Connect People, Places, and Exhibits Using
Mobile Augmented-Reality Applications. Museums and the Web 2011, Philadelphia, PA,
USA.https://www.museumsandtheweb.com/mw2011/papers/mixing_realities_to_connect_
people_places_and_.html
Samis, P. (2008). The Exploded museum. In L. Tallon & K. Walker (Eds.), Digital technologies
and the museum experience (pp.3-18). Alta Mira.
Schavemaker, M., Wils, H., Stork, P. & Pondaag, E. (2011). Augmented Reality and the Museum
Experience. Museums and the Web 2011, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
https://www.museumsandtheweb.com/mw2011/papers/augmented_reality_and_the_museu
m_experience
Tallon, L. (2008). Introduction: Mobile, Digital and Personal. In L. Tallon & K. Walker (Eds.),
Digital technologies and the museum experience (pp. xiii-xxv). Alta Mira.

266 Ayça Bayrak Uluğ - Nevra Ertürk
Turkish Studies - Social, 17(2)
Tesoriero, R., Gallud, J. A., Lozano, M. & and Penichet, V. M. R. (2014). Enhancing visitors’
experience in art museums using mobile technologies. Inf Syst Front 16, 303–327.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-012-9345-1.
Thian, C. (2012, April 11-12). Augmented reality-what reality can we learn from It? Museums and
the Web 2012. Philadelphia, PA,
USA.https://www.museumsandtheweb.com/mw2012/papers/augmented_reality_what_reali
ty_can_we_learn_fr
Tilden, F. (1977). Interpreting our heritage. The Univ. of North Carolina Press.
Wilson, G. (2004). Multimedia Tour Programme At Tate Modern. Museum and the Web 2004.
https://www.museumsandtheweb.com/mw2004/papers/wilson/wilson.html#:~:text=Tate%
museumsandtheweb.com/mw2004/papers/wilson/wilson.html.
Wither, J., Tsai, Y. & Azuma, R. (2011). Indirect augmented reality. Computers & Graphics 35(4),
810-822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cag.2011.04.010
Yoon, S. A. & Wang, J. (2014). Making the ınvisible visible in science museums through
augmented reality devices. TechTrends 58(1), 49-55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-013-
0720-7
Beyan ve Açıklamalar (Disclosure Statements)
1. Araştırmacıların katkı oranı beyanı / Contribution rate statement of researchers:
1. Yazar/First author %70,
2. Yazar/Second author %30.
2. Yazarlar tarafından herhangi bir çıkar çatışması beyan edilmemiştir (No potential conflict of
interest was reported by the authors).