Setting the scene
Cyber technology is pervasive, and its key role is growing up every day, citizens consider cyber technology as a commodity. Mobile position aware devices represent the most recent revolution in both technology and society, they are perceived as something different from computers even if they play, among others, the same role and immediately became part of our daily life, a wearable accessory as our wallet or wristwatch. Extremely user-friendly devices are nowadays used with relevant satisfaction by formerly digital divided citizens [24]. Accordingly with some technology forecast by the year 2030, half of the world population will adopt merely online and internet-based materials, this is part of the so-called “digital transformation” even termed DT or DX. This is not the “full” scene, in 2020 an additional event took the stage: the pandemic. This unexpected event found major part of the countries unprepared even at public health level to do not mention all the other sectors. Extended lockdowns, a variety of national ad even local policies, many times changed very quickly led to the paralysis of major parts of the activities including the traditional ones in the field of culture: concerts, operas, museums, exhibits, travels, etc. Citizens were forced to reinvent their “life”.
In such a scenario it becomes vital for cultural institutions and heritage in general to deal with another buzzword after digital transformation: “resilience”. This means to ensure cultural assets fruition continuity even in case of exceptional events. This can be considered a new paradigm that requires new solutions and the rethinking of cultural enjoyment. This paper analyses the phenomenon and the potential outcomes of such renovated approach starting from the technological aspects and actual scenario to point out the effects on cultural institutions.
Digital Transition or Transformation in brief
Digital Transformation: We all agree on the meaning of the term “transformation” but “Digital” has different meanings. Jim Swanson, CIO of Johnson & Johnson says, “Digital is a loaded word that means many things to many people”. “Say 'digital' to persons and they think of going paperless; another might think of data analytics and artificial intelligence; another might picture agile teams; and yet another might think of open-plan offices". A comprehensive definition of the term digital transformation should be the integration of digital technology into all areas of activity, from business to public sector, fundamentally changing how we operate and deliver value to citizens or customers. To frame the digital transformation phenomenon, we can consider 1995 and the motto “Where do you want to go today” the “disclosure” of the web technology to families and citizens, next significant step was the rapid market penetration of mobile position aware devices such as smart phones and tablets. Cyber domain become and additional dimension of human and social life. The concepts of “pervasive computing”, “disappearing computers” and “ubiquitous computing” become reality[i]. The opportunity to enjoy direct access to information, even if not supported by official sources, become a kind of collective memory pushing kids to say: “Why do I need to memorize names and dates studying history when I can simply “google” them?”. These side effects will produce relevant impact on young generations, but this topic deserves a full paper.
Current technological developments bring us closer to living in ubiquitous computing environments where digital services are offered continuously to users [33]. The behaviour of citizens should be subdivided in different groups, on one side young generations (Y generation) they consider “on-line” as an extension of their brain and memory, communities as novel families. Many times, they lack critical thinking following influencers and opinion leaders, on the other side they are naturally trained to act multi-tasking and have direct access to the information they require. Preceding generations faced the digital world step by step as a more or less “alien” but useful environment, so they use to massively take advantage from it e.g., social media. Seniors sometimes joined the “alien creature” other times resigned and rely on relatives and friends when necessary.
Citizens use to buy and sell goods online, book their travels and vacations, as well as enjoy a number of services unthinkable before the Internet from extremely vertical services to crowd services or funding. Platforms are the real “silver bullet” that created major opportunities and real impact on society and economy. A relevant part of digital transformation relies on platforms and standards, these aspects are directly linked with the “owners” of such platforms and standards, this can be considered a kind of monopoly not yet regulated, a kind of grey zone, so in the digital transition there is a potential risk to fall under control of few key players.
The diffusion of platforms if on one side creates new opportunities on the other side “kills” several existent businesses. The access to global service platforms creates a shortcut between offer and demand cutting out major part of the traditional added value chain, as it was long time ago because of malls it is now because of platforms. The big difference is that you don’t need to invest relevant capitals to feed your business, the key investment is the creation of the digital platform, the asset you own is the number of users both on the offer and demand side, this to do not consider the fiscal benefits they usually enjoy compared with the traditional retail system. This new model led to positively evaluate and size on the market companies having a relevant number of “customers” paying zero money to the company, this is mainly valid for services not based on a triangular market model service/user/advertisement as in the past was and still is cultural heritage.
Another relevant innovative trend in DT is the use of “crowds” to provide data and services not foreseeable before the Internet [30]; simply think about APPs like TripAdvisor[ii] or the one providing the local gas price daily or real-time traffic bottlenecks. It seems to be a completely new paradigm of software development beyond user groups and open software, the only way to face huge projects and compete with key software enterprises. The average “size” of “social” products and services is now affordable mainly by crowdsourcing. Several services that do not find a proper economic dimension or even do not have the required appeal to be provided by companies may only rely on crowds, crowds and platforms. This approach enabled innovative solutions like project funding[iii] or collaborative film production[iv]. In the global society crowds are playing the role of “public services” [23].
To conclude, we cannot forget that the computer scientist concept of “Clouds” captured the users, so we moved from local storage and processing to cloud computing in its various declinations (SaaS, PaaS, IaaS, Haas); several hardware devices, such as tablets, smart phones and even security cameras, offer cloud services to their users apparently for free even if apart from user profiling we don’t know additional use or misuse of such data. So, clouds are now populated by business data as well as by back-ups, health info, photo albums, video clips and songs. Apart the rest of useful services, the introduction of clouds solved a typical nightmare of e-Citizens, the need to change their personal device, phone, tablet, or computer because it doesn’t work anymore, it was stolen, or they bought a new model. The diffuse use of “clouds” contributed to adding another degree of freedom to e-Citizens; many times, this was a seamless transition, so the idea to show their “selfies” or share a document wherever they are and whenever they want from a notebook, a tablet or a smartphone is a consolidated habit and a powerful driver of “innovation”.
Impact on the Society
Digital transformation impacts the whole society. It's a cultural change that requires organizations and even citizens to continually challenge the status quo, experiment, and get comfortable with failure. Furthermore, on the citizens’ side, even and more significantly, it is required the willingness to “go digital” even if sometimes this choice become a “must” to do not be “cut off”. It is evident that digital transformation it is not a process “one size fits all”, each specific sector and even activity requires a particular approach and custom solution; this starting from the three main branches: citizens, companies, public administrations.
Because digital transformation will look different for every subject/service, it can be hard to pinpoint a definition that applies to all. Sometimes this means walking away from long-standing business processes that companies were built upon in favour of relatively new practices that are still being defined. In such a situation the “trial and error[v]” finding by continues improvements the optimal solution is the practical approach.
Furthermore, everyone experienced in “ICT based innovation” knows that “It is not only a matter of technology”. Human factors are an essential tile of the whole process as well as a re-thinking of the whole organisation and process. We must keep humans in the loop and carefully consider the social and economic impact due to digital transition.
One of the potential benefits considered in the early phase of digital transformation was the unique opportunity to pour in the software procedures some knowledge about methodologies and procedures. Methodologies, or better, know-how accumulated in years and years of diligent activity trying to bridge the generational gap, this in addition to traditional coaching.
A different approach was generally used dealing with procedures, procedures must be reconsidered from scratch making “tabula rasa”. This mainly because procedures are, very often, the result of a “stratification” of layers of “reference points” included in the pipeline; this reshaping many times causes some friction due to the loss of some “power-nodes” within the organisation. The design phase must carefully reconsider one by one the “steps” checking the function of each of them within a well-defined rationale framework. The benefits using a platform is to guarantee the optimised workflow and offer to the citizens the opportunity check the progress of the process and related timing.
Cultural heritage and ICTs
After a general overview it is now time to get closer to the focus of this document. Cultural heritage concept is continually evolving through time and referring to diverse elements ranging from archaeological sites, historical buildings, monuments, museums and their collections, libraries, archives, known as tangible CH, to oral traditions, local knowledge, and rituals known as intangible CH nowadays including contemporary artefacts[vi] and, why not, future heritage. This document will mainly focus on museums and exhibits.
Often the cultural heritage is perceived by most as something obsolete, cryptic, with no appeal to the audience, unable to provide real added value to citizens and ultimately a pure “cost” in terms of conservation, maintenance, custody, etc. On the contrary cultural heritage represents one of the key attractors for tourists; the promotion of heritage addresses two issues: cultural enrichment and economic sustainability of the sites. The exploitation of such assets and related values will not, necessarily, jeopardise our heritage; cultural assets are not rivalling, and a wise exploitation will not “consume” them. “Wise” means not damaging the artefacts or sites, avoiding overcrowding and unappropriated use or behaviours. As one of the direct consequences, a limited number of visitors may be admitted at a specific time, online booking of visits managed by optimisation algorithms will harmonise the flow of visitors.
The “power” of Culture, even if sometimes not appropriately considered by politicians and businessmen, is one of the key components of our daily life. “Culture is not one of life’s luxuries, it is life itself. Culture is the soil that provides society’s nourishment and the basis on which it defines its value system, traditions, and behaviour. It contains morals and ethics of the community, governs society’s conception of its own future and selects the means of getting there.”[vii]
At the end of the 1990s the need to embrace a cultural agenda by ICT was evident and supported by governments and institutions. “Information and communication technology (ICT) is an engine of growth and change for the world economy. If this technology is to be harnessed to enhance democratic principles, it must contribute to the creation and enrichment of an educated, informed citizenry; it must incorporate the accumulated knowledge and creativity of the past; and it must anticipate and enhance creativity for the future. In this context, it is essential that ICT embrace a cultural agenda. Development effectiveness depends to a great extent on “solutions” that resonate with a community’s sense of identity and culture creates that sense of identity. Culture encompasses human knowledge, values, beliefs, behaviour, customs, language, ideas, codes, institutions, heritage, rituals, and creative expression all of which constitute essential signposts for understanding who we are and what we do. If advances in health, commerce, education, and economic growth are to be implemented and sustained, understanding culture is critical.”[viii]
The use of ICTs in the field of culture, cultural heritage, and museums dates back some decades from early data bases to technologies devoted to researchers, archaeologists, to the use of 3D and multifrequency scanners, computer graphics and virtual and enhanced reality and moreover. Museums and even more libraries took relevant advantages from the use of ICTs. Nowadays digital transition and more recently the pandemic reshuffled the cards and at the same time museums changed their mission from the classic term Mouseion (Greek μουσείον) and its original meaning “Temple of the Muses” or ”Institution of the Muses”, home of the custodians of arts but even philosophical school and library to the evolving definition of “Museum” as outlined by ICOM:
- “A museum is a permanent institution (...) in the service of society and of its development...” the narrative order in which museological developments had occurred historically. Acquisition and conservation still preceded all other functions. Exhibitions, communicating and educating came only later in the conceptual order of things – a reminder of old hierarchies and priorities
- According to the ICOM Statutes, adopted by the 22nd General Assembly in Vienna, Austria on August 24th, 2007: “A museum is a non-profit, permanent institution in the service of society and its development, open to the public, which acquires, conserves, researchers, communicates and exhibits the tangible and intangible heritage of humanity and its environment for the purposes of education, study and enjoyment.”
- “A museum is a non-profit making, permanent institution in the service of society and of its development, and open to the public, which acquires, conserves, researchers, communicates and exhibits, for purposes of study, education and enjoyment, material evidence of people and their environment.” (ICOM Statutes, article 2, para. 1)
These evolving definitions underline the active role of museums in contributing to shape the society, trying to better fit with citizens issues and expectations. In the light of the digital transition and recent citizen’s habits let’s consider the problem from a different standpoint.
Of course, independently from the weight that each one of us assigns to “culture” DT impacted the cultural sector mainly through the Internet, if we focus on fruition and communication. Albeit relevant contributions to research and preservation have been provided as well. Let’s now consider valorisation of cultural heritage from another standpoint the “industrial” one to understand if something better can be done. Let’s consider the key aspects in the field of good and services.
Goods and Services
Long time ago an expert in cultural heritage[ix] developed a socio-economic theory on cultural heritage. “Every time cultural heritage contributes to artistic, educational, or social development, it is a source of value: esthetical value, experience value, existence value for which the production implies economic movement, and not to take this into consideration would lead to a lack of fundamental understanding[x].”
When looking to set the value of cultural heritage objects we must make use of socio-economic theory. Cultural heritage must be treated as a (consumable) good. Further, according to socio-economic theory, cultural heritage objects are “Common Goods”. Common goods are characterised[xi] by being:
Non-exclusive: A good is non-exclusive when a user cannot technically be stopped from enjoying / consuming that good.
Non-rivalling: The enjoyment / consumption of the good for one user is not reduced by more persons enjoying it simultaneously.
The private (and profit driven) market cannot produce or supply sufficient non-exclusive common goods. The reason is simple: if you cannot force someone to pay to consume a specific good you cannot generate any profit! If profit may not be achieved for a ’good’ the mechanisms of the private market, ensure that such goods are not offered on the (same) market. So, if the mechanisms of the private market alone decided, only those (immovable) cultural heritage (ch) objects with a high market value would be protected. The logic is similar for all common goods.
Now if this is the position of cultural heritage in a market, how do we find out what value that these goods have? From the perspective of value creation / definition there is no defined and unified methodology to specify the socio-economic value of cultural heritage objects. But standard economic calculation methods may be used to define the value of a cultural heritage object – or better an aggregated group of cultural heritage objects.
”The value a consumer gets by consuming a market good is equal to the highest sum of money the consumer is willing to pay to secure that good for his own consumption.”[xii] Consequentially the value of a cultural heritage good is the highest sum of money a ’consumer’ is willing to pay to ensure the possibility to enjoy (consume) the good. This is the “use value” of the good. But, as other common goods, cultural heritage is a ’nonmarketable good’ and also a ‘non-renewable’ good. The final estimation of value must also consider what we can call a “non-use value”.
In conclusion, the value of such goods must be defined by analysing to types of values: Use value and Non-use value. In this paragraph we will concentrate on trying to analyse the use value of cultural heritage from a social economic perspective. The non-use value is a value that must be added to the use value to achieve a correct picture of the total value of cultural heritage to society. The outcome of that study was that the overall size of the CH market at European level is comparable with the automotive market[xiii].
Let’s proceed with the assumption that CH can be considered as a good. The concept of “design” is usually directly related to physical goods, it become a relevant attribute of product since the end of the nineteen centuries when “artists” started to assign a significant value to the study of the shape and functionality of objects[xiv].
The extension of economy from physical goods to services led to a similar approach, like any good, services require to be designed to better perform and guarantee a positive user experience. This is probably the most recent evolution from services to experience economy. Service design encompasses different phases including interaction design, the in-depth analysis of the concept of service design is tightly related to user experience (UX).
In early stages the interaction with computer was reserved to computer scientists (electronic engineers), data processing and service provision was patrimony of super calculus centres, later a restricted number of citizens were trained to “speak” computer language to interact with computers, it was the time of big paper volumes full of codices associated to physical items. That time getting to the mall to buy something the cashier use to kook for the exact code of the item to set the bill, bar codes come later. In the eighties a new professional profile come on stage: the software engineer and the information scientist. They had specific expertise in software design, to extremise the differences let’s consider typing machine designers versus writers.
The early phase of the service industry probably dates to early nineties, object design was very popular as well as fashion design, universities started to multiply the branches of design: furniture, jewellery, car, web … and more; service design was ignited by web services. Software developers and experts in interaction design invested time and resources to identify and define the guidelines for on-line services. Of course, this approach to service provision wasn’t limited to online services, for instance, even food delivery service was “designed”. To “officialise” this new branch, the International Council of Societies of Industrial Design (ICSID) added services in the description of the design (2005), other organisations and universities included service design as a new branch[xv]. The European Union provides the following definition of service design: “Service design is the activity of organising and planning people, infrastructure, communication and material components of a service in order to improve its quality and the interaction between service providers and customers.” And more over “It is a creative, viable, and user-centred design process that is used by organisations to create value for their customers or users and serves as a competitive advantage for the service provider.” The European Union observes that “service design has only started to be adopted by the private market in the last few years.[xvi]”
Moreover, to stress the role of service design at social and economic level the European Union observes that “The socio-economic relevance of service design as a means to advance business models is directly related to the role of the service sector in the European Union. This sector has been a key engine of economic and job growth. Over two- thirds of those employed in Europe now work in the service sector and between 60 and 70% of the annual gross value-added figure achieved by the majority of European states can be attributed to services.” Several fruitful examples illustrated the impact that service design can have on the way a company conducts its business, as well as to explore the drivers and obstacles related to the use of service design by companies (and particularly SMEs), its scalability potential, and the role of policy makers.
The concept itself of service recalls the idea of a process that can be subdivided in different phases, referring to our specific environment, the cultural heritage, we can subdivide the process into:
1) Pre-visit Service: activities before users/visitors access the service such as advertising, website, promotion. This phase is closely connected with marketing;
2) On-site Service: Each service provided on the occasion of the visit, such as the services provided by the cultural institution (e.g., QR codes, digital guide, merchandise, bookshop, restaurant, bar, etc);
3) Post-visit Service: keeps the visitor in contact with the institution after leaving the facility, such providing customised information, alerting about forthcoming events, after-sales customer service, customer loyalty management. Moreover, service design allows users to experience aesthetics, escape from the substance, enjoy entertainment, or even be trained. Public places such as museums and airports will increasingly be transformed into complexes of services closely related to the visitors’ lifestyle.
Human-Computer Interaction (HCI)[xvii]
If our service will take advantage from the use of computers a specific section of service design is devoted to Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), this is usually, more in general, termed as “interaction design” involving all the different aspects that characterise this interaction both physical and not. An interesting aim of interaction design is to develop interactive systems that elicit positive responses from users, such as feeling at ease, being comfortable, and enjoying the experience of using them. More recently, in accordance with the trend towards emotional experiences, designers have become interested in how to design interactive products that elicit specific kinds of emotional responses in users, motivating them to learn, play, be creative, and be social. This trend is usually directly connected with the so called “user experience” (UX).
Throughout the process of interaction design, designers must be aware of key aspects in their designs that influence emotional responses in target users. The need for products to convey positive emotions and avoid negative ones is critical to product success. These aspects include positive, negative, motivational, learning, creative, social, and persuasive influences to simply name a few. One method that can help convey such aspects is the use of expressive interfaces. In software, for example, the use of dynamic icons, animations and sound can help communicate a state of operation, creating a sense of interactivity and feedback. Interface aspects such as fonts, colour palette, and graphical layouts can also influence an interface’s perceived effectiveness. Studies have shown that emotional aspects can affect a user’s perception of usability.
Emotional and pleasure theories exist to explain people’s responses to the use of interactive products. These include Don Norman’s emotional design model[xviii], Patrick Jordan’s pleasure model[xix] [2], and McCarthy and Wright’s Technology as Experience framework[xx] [3].
In addition, in a similar way to how architecture and design traditionally relate to the business sector[xxi], there is currently much interest in how to design websites that people can trust, that make them feel comfortable about divulging personal information or making a purchase. This area of interaction design is based on the concept of affective aspects. When following such principles, the designer will attempt to ensure not only that the experience of the product will be remembered by the user, but also that the experience is extended as much as possible in time and space, with the ultimate aim being continuous feed.
We will now look at how and why the designs of computer systems (e.g., MacBooks, different Pads) can cause certain kinds of emotional responses in users. We begin by looking in general at expressive interfaces, examining the effect of an interface’s appearance on users and how it influences the usability (e.g., for the iPad).
With regards to positive and negative emotional responses, I remember when Caleb Chung[xxii], on the occasion of SIGGRAPH ’99, delivered a presentation as a member of a panel on user interfaces. He started his presentation by showing some high-tech devices with dull interfaces, and then asking whether the designers of these dull interfaces considered the actual, everyday use of such devices. Why is it that many designers do not seem to take their target users and the way in which their devices interact with our everyday life into account?
Based on this, we can distinguish between two main approaches to technological innovation. The first is termed tyrannical technology and corresponds to the view that technology imposes its own vision of the world on the target user. This is the approach that forces humans to operate according to the needs of the machine or product: to browse long lists of items in tables, to remember complex and meaningless sequences of codes, to adapt themselves to use complicated interfaces[xxiii]. The second and opposite approach is termed user-centred; in this case the product design is based upon user needs and requirements. As much as we proceed with “smartness”, that much as must foresee any possible situation due to both the user and the environment. This to avoid unpredictable behaviour in case of unforeseen situations[xxiv].
User-centred design is a design philosophy that proposes that users should be consulted throughout the development cycle. It is the seed of the process later defined as co-creation; you bring together a company producing goods and a group of customers/users and let them work together to shape a product that provides mutual satisfaction. But who are the users? And even if we know who they are, will they know what they want or need? For an innovative product, users are unlikely to be able to envision what is possible, so where do these ideas come from? At the corporate level, this means that sales and marketing experts must be involved in the decision-making process as well as designers. In addition, the specific case of computer-based product development will require psychologists skilled in human/computer interactions and test laboratories, usually termed living labs, that can check whether the product fulfils the requirements of the end-user when used in the “real world”. When we say test, we mean really “test”; very often users interpret the functionality of the product in a very personal way, resulting in unexpected actions. Dealing with cultural heritage and related sectors like tourism we need to refer to different user requirements: families, people found of heritage looking for in depth information or very specific artefact, people mainly looking for leisure and more.
There are different examples of interaction design; in addition to the public phone accepting credit cards forced to leave part of the card accessible to the user[xxv], time ago when the first generation of automatic tellers started their activity it took some time to establish a trust relation with citizens often concerned about the risk of losing the control of the specific transaction or losing their banknotes or credit cards inside the machine in case of a malfunction. To solve the “human” lack of trust in the machinery designers decided to reshape the design of both hardware and introduce much more interaction, thus providing the feeling of “trust”. The same happened more than 30 years ago with the early experiences of unmanned metro trains, the windscreen and windows of the conductor cabin were shielded with dark films to avoid passengers, waiting in the station, can understand that there was no subway conductor.
A co-creation process may aim to replace or update an established system, or it may aim to develop a totally new product with no obvious precedent. There may be an initial set of requirements, or the project may involve producing a set of requirements from scratch. Whatever the initial situation, and whatever the aim of the project, the users’ needs, requirements, aspirations, and expectations must be discussed, refined, clarified, and probably reassessed. This requires, among other things, an understanding of the users and their capabilities, their current tasks and goals, the conditions under which the product will be used, and constraints on the product’s performance.
The approach described above, although apparently more time- and resource- consuming than the other approach, will yield products that will integrate easily and quickly into the user’s everyday life. They will be used appropriately due to their own good design. Such products do not force us to learn additional information; they offer a clear vision of how they work. These may be doors and handles that shows clearly how they operate correctly, taps that mix to give the required water warmth, and panels of switches that clearly indicate which switches activate which appliances (avoiding the need for guesswork). They also include well-designed software applications that execute their own added-value tasks without involving the user in technological problems, allowing him/her to focus their attention on the application itself. This corresponds to the “information at your fingertips” approach to software design proposed in 1990 by Bill Gates: “the opportunity to focus on our own task assisted by a friendly and transparent (to the user) technology.”
This paragraph outlined the different approaches and methodologies used to develop services and applications, these notes are valid even in the field of cultural heritage when we plan to develop applications to assist in planning a visit and visiting a museum or an archaeological site.
User Experience (UX)
This term was and still is very popular in the field of interaction design, UX measures the quality of the application or service design. A poor user experience negatively impacts the product or service. While many authors believe that there is no universal agreement on what UX means precisely, many scholars highly recommend the definition proposed by Nielsen, a well-known UX designer and researcher. The definition is: " 'User Experience' encompasses all aspects of the end-user’s interaction with the company, its service, and its products." (Donald Norman and Jakob Nielsen[xxvi]). It should be borne in mind that UX definition is a complex concept and should not simply be used equally with usability or user interface (UI). According to Hellweger & Wang (2015) [8], UX takes a more holistic approach, aiming to balance pragmatic aspects and other non-task related aspects (hedonic) of product possession and use, such as beauty, challenge, stimulation, or self-expression. Based on other opinions, UX is a feeling of intense excitement. In a word, feelings beyond expectations can be called user experience. Liu & Idris (2018) state that consumers or visitors should obtain three different levels as follows: Functionality, Usability, and Pleasure [12]. (1) Functionality refers to this concept that without function, there would be no use. In other words, what a product is used for together with the context of use must be realized. (2) Usability, which refers to the ease of using a product, and finally (3) Pleasure. According to the theory 'hierarchy of human needs' or 'Maslow pyramid' [xxvii], higher-level needs always follow the prior satisfaction has been achieved, that is why after the usability is satisfied, the user is inevitable to pursue more, such as emotional experience [12]. This process was initiated when the overall performance of computer systems (hardware and software) was considered satisfactory and the interaction design was properly developed at that point the driver for choice become beauty, design, appeal, senso of belonging to a “community”.
Usability is described in the ISO standard of the human-centred report as "the extent to which a product, system, or service can be used by specified users to achieve specified goals with effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction in a specified context of use" (ISO 9241-210, 2010). Usability has been identified in the literature as a critical determinant of interactive systems and products. Amongst the usability benefits for the users and vendors, the following have been recognized: enhanced user productivity, diminished user errors, diminished user training effort, diminished service and support, enhanced approval, and enhanced reputation [19]. Over the years, the notion of usability was extended to consolidate the concept of user experience (UX), which indicates the personal feeling and assessment of the individual towards the goods, system, or service in use. User experience concentrates on the inclinations, insights, emotions, and dynamic and psychological replies of the users throughout the use of an interactive good, as well as before-use phase and the after-use phase, and it is typically associated with the satisfaction dimension of usability [19].
Making Cultural Heritage Alive: The Role of Cultural Mediators
One of the main ways of evaluating the effectiveness of a visit to a museum or exhibit is to ask for feedback about it. Do users exiting the museum believe that they know or understand more about the exhibits than they did before the visit? How do they “score” the experience? And what about feelings and emotions? Of course, the whole paragraph does not refer to experts and researchers.
Referring to the classic taxonomy proposed by researchers[xxviii], “objects” may be mainly subdivided between “tools” and “communication objects”. Through the centuries significant “tools” lose their practical utility and may turn into “communication objects” as it happened for Roman masonry tools or Galileo’s telescopes.
Artefacts and archaeological remains are mainly “communication objects”, so they must “communicate” something to visitors. The communication process associated with cultural heritage involves a reasonable degree of complexity. We can present a work of art and propose an interpretation of it or try to offer to the visitors the whole set of elements required to evaluate the work of art autonomously. Each visitor may receive a different “message” from the artefact according to his/her own cultural background, interests, mood, etc.
Some of the main intrinsic difficulties with the cultural heritage communication process arise from the fact that the artefact usually pertains to a different historical and cultural context; from its integrity and conservation; and many times, from its unknown function due to its being out of its context; indeed, many of them are no more located in their original place and their original location may be not accessible anymore. Objects removed from their usual context or function, and artefacts on display without a “code” that can help us to understand their function or meaning, represent a “defeat” for cultural institutions.
Of course, the case of archaeological relics is one of the most significant ones because, very often, glass boxes inside museums are located far from the original archaeological sites host similar relicts. In such a situation we face a cryptic object pertaining to a completely different age and cultural context, deprived of its original function and location; hard enough? Anyway, the situation does not differ too much if we consider frescos, sculptures or any other work of art including mechanical and scientific marvels.
A proper, let’s say sometimes ad hoc, reconstruction of the context on the different sides, technical, technological, political, scientific, religious, and more will provide the “tools” to better enjoy the artefact. Long time ago in the field of visual arts the clou was to “learn to see” providing the basics to visually analyse a painting or a fresco. Looking to the structure of a painting and posing the focus on the details and the way they are arranged on the scene, the use of light and shadows …. Sometimes the opportunity to compare the same or a similar subject due to another artist may help in bettering our experience and comprehension. The “experience” in visiting the Sistine Chapel may be enriched if we consider that there was a conflict between Florence and the Vatican State at the time of the Last Judgment fresco or the statue named Pietà Bandini was shaped in order to appear in right proportions once placed on a marble basement, or, more simply, make evident the dynamic effect frozen in a “futuristic” drawing.
It may seem an outrageous reference but even in theme parks where we face minimum complexity in “experience” provision, there is significant care taken in briefing the spectator at different levels, the overall context, the specific action, and the best way to experience the performance. Forty years of experience in this sector have certified customer satisfaction. The typical approach well-tuned in theme parks is based on three different phases: an introduction about the general background, a briefing about the specific topic, practical information about the way to behave, finally the key experience. This pipeline is addressed to maximise the added value of the experience, ensuring a positive feedback, we can consider it a positive UX, from any typology of users, both informed and newcomers.
In recent times some pilot projects tested a similar approach, merging the need to control the flux of visitors, mainly for preservation issues, and the attempt to improve the experience of citizens thanks to one or more “stops” in briefing rooms before the “live” experience[xxix]. This approach of course requires some more equipment and, more difficult, more square meters devoted to the exhibit.
Since a long time, we have felt the need to improve the approach to cultural heritage, to find an up-to-date