On establishing contact with cultural objects: The role of a location based game in supporting visitors to engage with contemporary art Nikoleta Yiannoutsou1, Stela Anastasaki2, Christina Mavini2, Vasiliki Manoli1, Evangelia Dimaraki1, Nikolaos Avouris1, Christos Sintoris1 1
HCI Group , University of Patras, Rio Patras, Greece,
[email protected] 2 Macedonian Museum of Contemporary Art, Thessaloniki, Greece
Abstract—In this paper we discuss the difficulty of museum visitors to engage and relate with cultural objects focusing mainly on pieces of contemporary art. We present Taggling a location based game designed to support learning in the Macedonian Museum of Contemporary Art. The results of a qualitative user study with volunteers helped us to outline the learning potential of the game and supported us to gain an insight on the integration of the game in the educational activities of the museum. Furthermore, our data analysis showed that the game experience revolves around revisiting the same artwork and viewing it with the help of curatorial information constructed in the form of tags, casting visitors in an active role and helping them to engage with the exhibits. Keywords—location based games; game based learning; artwork; curatorial information; establishing contact
I.
INTRODUCTION
Audience research, exploring visitor behavior in contemporary art galleries has observed the lack of contact between the public and contemporary art, as manifested by various visitors’ behaviors i.e. in the time spent in front of each artwork (just a few seconds in each piece); visitors’ declarations such as “I don’t know much about art” strengthening the evidence that many visitors feel uncomfortable or inadequate [1]; or in visitors’ explicit comments devaluing contemporary art because they cannot understand it [2]. A basic claim, however, of contemporary art is that “only what can be seen there is there. It [the painting] really is an object ... What you see is what you see” (Frank Stella as cited in [3] p.7). But if this is true, why is it that so often you can’t actually see what you see as it is indicated in visitor reactions? Bibliography offers various explanations. Wolfe [3] for example begins with the following exclamation: “without a theory to go with it I can’t see a painting”(p.3) only to conclude at the end that contemporary art is theory driven; an affair between artists and art theorists where “[t]he public is not invited - it gets a printed announcement later”(p.18). Other, less critical voices, explain that it is difficult for the public to develop personalized links with contemporary art because of the absence of collective meanings and recognizable collective symbols associated with the artwork [2]. Having identified the problem the suggested solutions involve: a) providing contextual knowledge; b) offering information on the
institutional validation, i.e. why the museum values the specific objects and with what criteria; and, c) structuring the development of personalized and idiosyncratic meanings [2]. In this paper we describe how Taggling, a location based game we designed, supports visitors to establish contact with selected artworks of the Macedonian Museum of Contemporary Art (hereinafter MMCA). Specifically, we focus in the forms of learning that emerge in the context of the game-play experience of Taggling that involves re-arranging predefined “tags” which convey various types of the content we mentioned above i.e. contextual information, institutional interpretations and artwork details. II.
BACKGROUND
The gap of communication between the public and cultural institutions is not an issue that concerns only contemporary art museums. On the contrary, recent studies on the audience of cultural institutions in general report a decrease in the numbers of visitors, who also become older and more middle class [4]. Part of the problem is considered to be the information provided by the cultural institutions to support their visitors. With the term information we refer in this paper to authoritative curatorial information which includes contextual knowledge and institutional validation, as mentioned earlier. This information is criticized as superfluous and disconnected from the public’s interests leading to what has been described [5] as museum fatigue i.e. public’s difficulty to digest and utilize this information. Digital technologies, amongst other, have been employed by cultural institutions to address this problem. One solution focuses on personalization of the information so as to be closer to each visitor’s interests and experiences. Another involves integration of the information in games so as to ensure the public’s engagement with it. As we observed in our recent work [6] in many cases this approach does not change what we called the consumption metaphor where the museum holds the knowledge about the validity of the artwork and passes it on to the public who simply “consumes” it. Contextual information can be a hindrance to cultural experience if its presentation is based on a content delivery model casting visitors in a passive role, guiding them to knowledge about the artwork but limiting the possibility for developing a personalized relationship with the artwork [7]. On the other hand, the history of the display of art since the “white
Authors’ copy of a paper to be presented at IMCL2014, to be sited as: N.Yiannoutsou, S.Anastasaki, C.Mavini, V.Manoli, E.Dimaraki, N.Avouris, C.Sintoris, (2014), On establishing contact with cultural objects: The role of a location based game in supporting visitors to engage with contemporary art, Proc. 8th International Conference on Interactive Mobile Communication Technologies and Learning, IMCL2014, Thessaloniki, November 2014.
cube” aesthetic ([8] p. 11) developed in the 1930’s brought out into open that no information at all results in the phenomena we have illustrated in our introduction, because it strips museums from one of their important roles: they are not only offering access to the cultural capital, but also creating a learning environment, where people can obtain the background knowledge necessary to appreciate and understand the value of a piece of art (embodying the idea of “objectified cultural capital” [9]). Thus, the question here becomes what kind of information museums offer, in what way and what they expect their visitors to do with it. When considered carefully and integrated in suitable learning activities “[i]nformation can foster more detailed perception and open up viewers’ appreciation. It can change, guide, and develop the way people see, deepening and enriching their experience”([7] p. 18). This can only happen if visitors have an active role in this process, appropriating the offered information to generate idiosyncratic and personal meaning about the cultural objects. In [10] it was argued that the use of object focused interpretive devices may facilitate visitors in generating personalized interpretations congruent with the curatorial information. A key characteristic of such interpretive tools is structuring curatorial information to function as a stimulus for the public to generate open ended, not prescribed interpretations. Here, based on the observations from audience research mentioned earlier, we argue that between the object and the interpretation there is an intermediate step which is the process of establishing contact with the object. Establishing contact means becoming acquainted with those properties, characteristics or background information that will allow visitors: a) to spend time with the cultural object observing it in its completeness [1]; b) to put the object into a meaningful context [1]; c) to find connections with personal experiences, interests, ideas, emotions etc.; d) to ‘feel something about the cultural object (even if they decide that they don’t like it). This list is not exhaustive and, of course, it is not meant to imply that contact is established only if all these behaviors occur, instead some or one of these behaviors might be an indicator of contact between the visitor and the artwork. The discussion on visitor interaction with cultural objects and the role of curatorial information in supporting the cultural experience can be seen from a new perspective with the proliferation of location-based technologies [11]. The mediation of the cultural experience by powerful mobile devices with sensing capabilities, connected to the internet, has expanded the range of possible visitor activities relating to a cultural object, allowing visitors to digitally touch, open, transform, de-construct, annotate, “take home” an object, compare it, couple it with other objects (belonging to a specific museum or to a digital archive), with other pieces of artistic expression or with related information. Furthermore, the one way flow of information from the artwork (and its accompanying information) to the visitor has been transformed with the mediation of location-based technologies to a dialectic relationship where visitors can perform all the above actions with a cultural object for other visitors to see and expand, comment and transform, thus reinforcing the social dimension of the cultural experience [12].
However, this potential is not necessarily fulfilled by location-based games in cultural institutions. Even though, relevant studies report that they are engaging for those that participated, they often focus only on factual information about the exhibits and in several cases this information is fragmented and de-contextualized [13]. In the study described here we explore how the content and the mechanics of a location based game instead of offering curatorial information contribute into a learning process where the focus is on establishing contact with artwork and raising questions instead of providing answers. III.
TAGGLING: GAME DESCRIPTION AND DESIGN RATIONALE
Taggling is a multiplayer mobile game designed to reinforce visitors’ engagement with contemporary art. The game -content and mechanics- was the result of an interdisciplinary collaboration between the Human-Computer Interaction Group of the University of Patras and the Macedonian Museum of Contemporary Art in Thessaloniki. One to seven players or teams sharing a device, can play against each other using a single android device, e.g. tablet or smartphone. A. Game play Taggling is like a card sorting game where players are engaged in untangling a set of tags that describe different artworks so as each tag to be placed in the corresponding artwork. The game is designed to be played by teams, each equipped with a device. Teams play against each other to gain as many points as possible until the game is over. The game ends when all tags are placed in the correct artworks. Each of the artworks integrated in the game is associated to a set of tags (5 in the implementation we describe here) that apply to it. Tags are treated as individual objects and exhibits as placeholders for tags. The mobile devices are used for moving tags between exhibits. Tags are mixed up at the beginning of every session: some “are located” in the wrong exhibits and some others in the players’ devices. The aim is to move tags to the right exhibits using the mobile devices as a “means of transport”. This is achieved by scanning the QR codes associated to exhibits in order to transfer tags from the exhibits to the mobile devices and vice versa. Each team is invited to approach the artwork, observe its characteristics, inspect and transfer tags, by replacing irrelevant tags with the correct ones. B. Design Rationale Taggling mechanics were inspired by the concept of carrying around items in order to place them in the right places using the mobile device as a carriage and special places in the museum as placeholders for these items. This concept is exemplified in the pervasive game Plug: Secrets of the Museum [14]. In the game of Plug players move around the museum space with their handheld devices collecting virtual image cards representing objects, exhibits or people and trying to assemble collections of the same color – theme. They can collect cards from special points near exhibits or by exchanging them with other players. The technology used is RFID tags.
In Taggling we took further this idea mainly from a learning perspective. Specifically, we identified for each object “items of contact” and we verbalized them as tags. Thus tags represent keywords or short phrases that are designed to guide the players’ attention on specific characteristics associated with the object. The tags have been organized in certain categories that assent to the diversity of contemporary art. Talking about the contemporary artwork might be more challenging than dealing with traditional art, as contemporary practices are so diverse that sometimes an artist’s work may have no permanent physical presence, may be “invisible” or may be a complicated interaction of space, place and viewer [15]. Therefore the categories of information driven by the tags were built in order to respond to its different intrinsic qualities. One of the major objectives of Taggling is to engage the visitor with contemporary art on as many levels as possible, starting from the obvious, perceivable and concrete components (such as size, material, constructive properties, kinetic parts etc.) to the more abstract and conceptual qualities, such as aesthetic values or notions regarding the artworks’ content. The categories that occurred respond to the key-questions reported in Table I. TABLE I. Category
Key Question
Form
What do I see, listen, smell? What does it represent?
Material
What is the material of the artwork?
Media Content
Context
What media of artistic expression are employed? Painting, video, photography, installation, mixed media etc.? What is the focus of the artwork? What are the ideas and concepts related to it? What is the additional information that can support visitor contact with the artwork? Historical context, other artwork, biographical information about the artist.
To further illustrate how these categories were employed for the content design of Taggling we will present the example of the “Lonely Chair” (see Fig.1). For this artwork in the category “Form” the keywords are: chair, overcoat; For the category. “Material”: porcelain; For “Medium” : sculpture; For “Content”: loneliness, Presence – Absence; For “Context” Theatricality
from visible to non-visible properties. Being motivated to make new connections and observe again and again the same objects from different points of view, the players activate their experience, enhance their critical skills and engage in establishing contact that renders them more capable than before to approach contemporary art. Hence, the game aims at a first exploratory contact with the museum collection, which will be the springboard for the development of a relationship with contemporary art. The artworks have a central role during the gameplay. The image that is provided by the device serves only as a reference to the real object and does not substitute the artwork. The player is invited to come in contact with the artwork, observe it, identify its characteristics, revisit it and explore in detail its components, view it from different angles, unfold its secrets and discover its identity. The selection of the artworks was guided by a combination of goals and objectives that meet the following criteria: To include artwork which is characteristic of the museum's collection consisting of contemporary artworks mainly by Greek and international artists. To include representative works donated to the museum by important collectors and artists such as Al. Iolas, Al. and D. Xidis, A. Apergis, whose contribution and their role to contemporary art was essential. To include artworks made by artists that acted in the same period, (during the 1970’s and 1980’s) in the same or different locations (Paris and Greece), so that the players can compare trends and different artistic directions. To include works made by different artistic media, such as painting, sculpture, kinetic sculpture, mixed media, sound works, etc. so the viewer can create an overview of the new trends in contemporary art. To support a learning process where the users through their contact with the works of art, will be able to distinguish how Contemporary art differs from traditional forms of expression and to create a stock of contemporary arts’ bizarre characteristics. To take into account spatial limitations during the game play activity. Specifically we selected artwork located in the same wing of the museum and spread in two floors. This is a consideration related mainly to the physical activity of the players as moving back and forth between floors can be exhaustive. IV.
Fig. 1. Marina Karella, Lonely Chair, 1975 (Al. Iolas Collection)
By matching tags like the above with artworks, we intend to engage players in a process of critical viewing and observation. In this process visitors gradually construct a “supply” of different dimensions and notions for interpreting art that range
METHOD
The study we report here aims at investigating the role of Taggling as a tool for facilitating the establishment of contact between the visitor and the artwork and as a trigger to deepen and open up the visitor’s viewing process. To this end we employed design-based research which is a method that intertwines three aspects: research, design and learning in context [16]. The participants of our study were 10 adults (ranging from 25 to 50 years of age) who volunteered after they contacted to participate. The profiles of the participants fall in two main
categories, experts and visitors, each group consisting of five members. The experts’ group consisted of two researchers and two museum curators who belonged to the design group of the game. The experts’ group included also an artist who was invited by the museum curators but it was the first time he was seeing the game. The visitors’ group consisted of five individuals who were acquaintances of the researchers and did not have any previous contact with the museum or the game. The study was implemented in three sessions taking place in consecutive days. Each session consisted of game play by different groups (one session per day) and a reflective discussion at the end. Game play lasted from 30 minutes (sessions 2 and 3) to 1 hour (session 1). Session 1 involved two groups of experts playing against each other. In session 2, a group a group of two visitors and one museum curator (Group A) and a group of three visitors (Group B) played against each other. Session 3 involved only one expert who played alone. In this paper we will focus on Session 2 and especially on data drawn from Group B (visitor’s Group) At the beginning of each session one of the researchers made a short presentation of the game and its rules on-site. In the second session, from which we mainly draw our data two researchers followed the groups during game-play and answered questions –especially with respect to the functionalities of the game– or asked the players to explain more some of their thoughts and ideas. We recorded group discussions and video-recorded instances of game-play in each session. We also used log files that captured user interaction with the application on the smartphones. V.
DATA ANALYSIS
We follow group B consisting of three adults who were acquainted with the researchers and offered voluntarily to participate in the evaluation of the game. A. Viewing the object through the tags The dialogue presented in the excerpt below occurs while the group visits the artwork of D. Alithinos, an installation which centers on a set of dustbins (see fig 2). The group before scanning the QR code, checked the tags of the artwork on their device where they see that two of the tags were wrong. One of the functionalities of the game was to indicate with green color the number of correct tags i.e. a green line per correct tag – and with orange the wrong tags. This way the players can only see the number of correct or wrong tags but they are required to infer by observing the artwork which of them are right or wrong. In the extract bellow the players of group B seek to identify the wrong tags and transfer them to their repository so as to move them to another artwork.
1
1
In Greece during the dictatorship citizens used to hide in the dustbins in order to avoid patrols.
Fig. 2. D. Alithinos, Untitled, 1975
Excerpt 1: Viewing the object through the tags 102 M: There are two wrong ones here. 103 J: What are the tags? Can we see them? 104 M: Dustbins and repetition. 105 J: Dustbins is correct. 106 S: I think the repetition is wrong. 107 M: I am not so sure. 108 J: The repetition seems to be ok since we have many times the samething (the dustbin). 109 M: Now! It appears that the repetition is wrong [They apply trialand error by removing the tags one by one and check the green and the orange lines on the overview screen] Social commentary. This is also wrong. 110 J: Censorship. But aren’t we supposed to get the bonus of the 10 points? 111 M: We are missing one. There is one wrong but we don’t have it. 112 J: Repetition? 113M: Repetition is wrong. 114 J: Illusion? 115 M: We don’t have the final one. It might be on another object. 116 S: Or they might have it [She means group A].
In this dialogue we intend to highlight three points which are related to how players engage with the actual object. First, the process of identifying the wrong tags offers the opportunity for engaging for some time with the actual artwork. Second, players seem to attempt an analysis that justifies a connection between the tag and the object when different opinions arise (see lines 106-109 on repetition). This is not to say that this is a practice always followed, but we see here the learning potential when such incidents occur. On the other hand some right tags that win the group points like the censorship tag (line 111, it offered 3 points), did not raise any discussion, even though the relationship with the cultural object is not obvious (in the case of the censorship tag, the relation presupposes contextual knowledge1). These instances of the learning process we suggest that cannot always be addressed during game play but they can be exploited during a reflection discussion with the curators after game play; i.e. in this case curators can raise issues like the above that they know they might leave players with questions (i.e. how censorship relates to dustbins). In this extract we showed how the matching of the tags with an exhibit offered an opportunity to the players to engage with the artwork for some time and start looking for properties of the artwork using as starting point the available tags. In the extract below
we see how players after finding four out of the five tags of an exhibit (see Fig. 3) use the tags to describe it.
identifying tags that they can relate to specific exhibits (line 54 ‘this one with the technology seems to belong to this exhibit’, line 56 ‘Pop Art. It is over there’). As new tags become available this latter process leads them to revisit the same artwork several times. Thus, the tag worthless material immediately invokes for them the Alithinos exhibit, with the dustbins and motivates a revisit (Line 136-139). An important question is, whether this revisiting process contributes to the visitors ‘connecting’ with the artwork. The following excerpt from the reflective discussion that followed this game session is illuminating:
Fig. 3, Jimmie Durham, Sculpture in three parts, 2003
Excerpt 4: Reflection on revisiting-field notes day 1
Excerpt 2: Synthesizing the object through the tags
R1: Ok. We’ ve been up and down one hundred times [she refers to the fact that the objecs included in the game were spread in two floors]. I don’t feel my legs. BUT I do know all titles of the artworks included in the game. It would be good if we also had the artists, this way we would remember them. Another thing is that everytime I was going there with a new tag, it was like I was discovering something new about the object.
102 M: Ok now we have a set of four correct tags. It is abstract (tag 1) as a form, It is intercultural (tag 2) because we have the Native American (Indian) and the Western culture, the material is marble (tag 3) and the artist is a Cherokee Indian (tag 4).
In excerpt 2, we observe that players resume their interaction with the artwork by constructing a description based on the correct tags combined with elements of the artwork (material, artist, form etc.). We consider this description interesting for the following reasons: a) it is produced by the visitors-through a process of collecting and matching the tagsas opposed to information offered to be consumed, b) it includes a set of elements that as a first step allows a deeper viewing process (i.e. beyond the form) which next can be used as building blocks of interpretation and c) with this description the players seem to start “seeing” the exhibit as they acquire all the necessary elements to establish contact with it. B. Revisiting the cultural objects Game play with “Taggling” involves revisiting of the cultural objects. Revisiting is a structural element of the game mechanics, as objects are constantly populated with new tags because players not only aim at scoring with placing correct tags, but also use objects as temporary placeholders of tags. In the following instance the group revisits the Alithinos exhibit with the dustbins (Fig.2), when a tag that they consider appropriate becomes available. Excerpt 3: Revisiting artwork during game play 53 M: I am taking the forest. It is in the 1st floor. 54 J: This one with the technology seems to belong to this exhibit (he points to the piece of Takis). Let’s go to the next one. 55 M: It might be, but we have no space in our repository. 56 J: Ok. Leave that one (inaudible). Ahh, Pop art. It is over there. Take it [He points at the Story with the Chicken]. 57 M: Ok. Let me leave something else. 136 M: Let’s move to that one .. “Worthless material!” [They take this tag from an exhibit] Ahaaa! 137 J: Aha! [They all move towards the dustbins again]. That’s why she is the brain of the group! And now we will get the bonus of the 10 points that will make the difference! 138.M: No! 139 J: This is dissapointing I didn’t expect it.
The activity of the group in excerpt 3 is related to dealing with their unassigned tags. It is a combination of moving tags around using the objects as temporary placeholders (line 56 ‘leave that one’, line 57 ‘OK let me leave something else’) and
This extract strengthens the idea of re-discovering the exhibit, of seeing new things through the tag in it. Even if the tag proves to be wrong as it was in the case we presented earlier (excerpt 3). C. Handling mismatches Indeed, another perspective on excerpt 3 above is related to wrong responses. The players feel certain that the tag worthless material matches the dustbins and they are disappointed when it doesn’t. This mismatch reveals a gap in their understanding of how worthless material is used in the contemporary art. But for the time being the players do not have the chance to figure out what is wrong with this match (they don’t know why this tag isn’t appropriate for this artwork). Rejecting or verifying a hypothesis is an important aspect of the learning process. What helps learners to move on when a hypothesis is rejected is to formulate another one based on what they think it was wrong with the first one. In the mechanics of the game it is expected that visitors will rectify this pending conception about worthless material when and if they encounter an artwork where the specific tag fits. In this case, the tag “Worthless material” refers to ‘The forest’ by Pavlos (Fig.3) which is created entirely out of steel wool kitchen pad.
Fig.4, The forest- Pavlos, 1982
This group (i.e. Group B) visited “The forest” and placed correctly the tag. Our data however show that no discussion followed this action – considering that the group was surprised
that the specific tag did not belong to the dustbins. Furthermore it appeared that although the group placed correctly the tag, they did not notice the material of the artwork. A researcher brought this up during the reflective discussion after the game play session: Excerpt 5: Reflection discussion - Visitor Group R1:From the artworks included in the game which one did you like most. M: I liked the forest. R1: Why? M: I like the feeling... It is big and it is dense. It makes you feel like you are in a forest. R1: Did you notice that it is made completely out of steel wool strands? R1: No way! This is amazing!
The players never discovered that the worthless material tag fitted this artwork instead of the dustbins. Furthermore contact with the artwork seems to have been established in its own right, rather than through the tags – though it can be argued that the game lead the player to engage with the object and thus to like it. In any case, this discussion reveals an opportunity to take advantage of the mismatches in a reflection discussion after the visitors have played the game. VI.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The starting point of this paper was the observation that many visitors fail to relate with cultural objects and more specifically with pieces of contemporary art. In our analysis we investigated how the mechanics and the content of Taggling, a location based game facilitated the process of active visitor engagement with artwork through matching a set of tags with selected exhibits. Our results showed that tags functioned as points of view and as teasers to further explore the exhibits and to construct descriptions that exploit the tags and allow deeper viewing of the object. Furthermore, revisiting the same artwork many times allowed for a process of discovering new elements and attributes. Even mismatches and pending questions offered rich learning opportunities that in some cases caused interesting discussions among the players or they could be explored in an after game discussion. These results do not mean to define the average visitor experience, instead they mainly outline the learning potential of the game and provide us with valuable insights in the process of integration of such a game in the educational activities of the museum. With respect to this issue we argue that a location based game like the one we presented here can be better exploited from a learning perspective if it is followed by a reflective session guided by the curators (see also [17] on debriefing sessions). Our analysis showed that the learning experience is extended outside the course of the game through
a reflection discussion guided by the curators. These discussions can use as a starting point unanticipated events (like mismatches), game play strategies, and pending questions to support personal and idiosyncratic interpretations. From a design perspective this process can be better facilitated if, after the end of the game, the exhibits with the completed tags are projected for all groups to see and comment. REFERENCES [1] [2]
[3] [4] [5] [6]
[7] [8] [9]
[10] [11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15] [16]
[17]
D. Worts, “The computer as catalyst: Experiences at the Art Gallery of Ontario,” ILVS Rev., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 91–108, 1990. D. Worts, “Extending the Frame: Forging a New Partnership with the Public,” in Art in Museums, S. Pearce, Ed. London: The Athlone Press, 1995, pp. 164–191. T. Wolfe, The painted word. Macmillan, 1975. N. Simon, The participatory Museum. Santa Cruz, California: Museum 2.0, 2010. S. Bitgood, “Museum Fatigue: A Critical Review,” Visit. Stud., vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 93–111, Sep. 2009. N. Yiannoutsou and N. Avouris, “From information consuming to participating: game-design supporting learning experiences in museums,” in Proceedings of the 8th Pan-Hellenic Conference with International Participation «ICT in Education» University of Thessaly, Volos, Greece, 2012, pp. 1–6. O. M. Hubard, “Productive Information: Contextual Knowledge in Art Museum Education,” Art Educ., vol. 60, no. 4, pp. 17–23, Jul. 2007. W. B. Birkett, “To Infinity and Beyond: A Critique of the Aesthetic White Cube,” Paper 209, 2012. P. Bourdieu, “The forms of capital,” in Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, J. Richardson, Ed. New York, Greenwood: Wiley Online Library, 1986, pp. 241–258. E. Dimaraki, “Visitor Engagement through Location-Sensitive Mobile Applications: The Case for Object-Focused Interpretive Tools.” N. M. Avouris and N. Yiannoutsou, “A Review of Mobile Location-based Games for Learning across Physical and Virtual Spaces.,” J. Univers. Comput. Sci., vol. 18, no. 15, pp. 2120–2142, 2012. N. Yiannoutsou, I. Papadimitriou, V. Komis, and N. Avouris, “Playing with museum exhibits: designing educational games mediated by mobile technology,” in Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, 2009, pp. 230–233. N. Yiannoutsou and N. Avouris, “Mobile games in Museums: from learning through game play to learning through game design,” ICOM Educ., vol. 23, pp. 79–86, 2012. M. Simatic, I. Astic, C. Aunis, A. Gentes, A. Guyot-Mbodji, C. Jutant, and E. Zaza, “‘Plug: Secrets of the Museum’: A Pervasive Game Taking Place in a Museum,” in Entertainment Computing–ICEC 2009, Springer, 2009, pp. 302–303. H. Charman, K. Rose, and G. Wilson, Eds., The Art Gallery Handbook: A resource for teachers. London: Tate Publishing, 2006. D. Joseph, “The Practice of Design-Based Research: Uncovering the Interplay Between Design, Research, and the Real-World Context,” Educ. Psychol., vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 235–242, Dec. 2004. C. Ardito, M. F. Costabile, A. De Angeli, and R. Lanzilotti, “Enriching Archaeological Parks with Contextual Sounds and Mobile Technology,” ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact., vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 1–30, Dec. 2012.
