1. Introduction
Imagine you and your friends come to the Louvre. You desperately want to see the Mona Lisa ; members of your group agree, but want to see the Hammurabi Codes on the way. How do you navigate through the museum? If you reach a certain point where there are two possible routes, how can members of the group decide which way to go? What if they want to split for a moment and then meet again later? What if one member of the group is in a wheelchair: would you know what routes to take? How can a group take a mutual decision in such a case? Would having a mobile projector be beneficial in this scenario?
The cultural heritage environment is linked to vast amounts of knowledge concerning history, sociology, aesthetics, etc… People come to these environments for varied purposes (Falk, 2009): they may come as individuals, or as part of various sizes of groups (families, friends, guided tours, etc.) Museums are a particular subset of the cultural heritage environment. They are usually indoors and consist of a series of exhibits. They can vary in size from modest (the Hecht museum in Haifa is 2500 sq meters) to huge (the Louvre is 52000 sq meters, the Hermitage, 47767 sq meters). Even the small museums have a large enough number of exhibits that it is impossible to view all the exhibits in one visit (an average visit to a museum is usually 30 minutes of focused attention with an additional 30 minutes of cruising time: Davey, 2005). The exhibits are usually organized on the basis of themes and are placed in rooms of varying sizes. These factors necessitate a tour guide. Tour guides have their roots in the Grand Tour of the 17thand 18thcentury (Cohen, 1985). They had two purposes: pathfinder and mentor (Cohen, 1985). In modern times, the use of electronic mobile guides in museums in order to enhance the user experience is widespread (Krüger, Baus, Heckmann, Kruppa, & Wasinger, 2007; Petrie & Tallon, 2010).
As illustrated above, navigating within a museum is one of the challenges visitors face – finding the way to interesting exhibits is not easy. Some museums have built-in routes for visiting the museum, forcing visitors to follow a specific route and allowing only minimal choices (Choi, 1999; The Diaspora Museum in Tel-Aviv (www.bh.org.il), The Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C (www.ushmm.org), parts of the Vatican (mv.vatican.va)). Other museums allow visitors to roam freely among all the rooms and exhibits (Smithsonian (www.mnh.si.edu), Louvre (www.louvre.fr), Hecht Museum in Haifa (mushecht.haifa.ac.il/Default_eng.aspx), and the Museum of Natural History in NY (www.amnh.org). Many museums have signs, displays, and maps placed in the museum to guide visitors, while others use brochures and printed guides.
The use of mobile devices to provide location-based (context) services has been explored since the 80s (Weiser, Gold, & Brown, 1999); (Carmeli, Cohen, & Wecker, 2000). This led to mobile guides such as CyberGuide (Abowd et al., 1997) and ILEX (Oberlander, O'Donnell, Mellish, & Knott, 1998) in the 90's. Today, there are museums that provide a mobile guide to help the user navigate either along a specific tour route or along a route customized for that particular user (Aroyo, Stash, Wang, Gorgels, & Rutledge, 2008; Krüger et al., 2007). Another possibility is to use the visitor's own mobile phone as a guide (Al Takrouri et al., 2008).
2. Background – people, tasks and technological support
People
Falk (2009) theorizes that museums are places of free-choice learning; and that this is a fundamental difference between museums and other leisure time places; i.e. "they are not confusing museums with theme parks". He further sees that this learning experience is not to gain further knowledge on the subject matter, but to build personal identity. On the basis of the visit’s purpose, he postulates that visitors come with certain purposes to a museum and thus play certain roles in the museum environment. The typologies of such roles are: Explorer, Facilitator, Experience Seeker, Professional/Hobbyist, Recharger (Falk, 2009). Each of these types of visitors has different needs for navigation in the museum environment. An explorer may want more choice; an experience seeker may look for interaction; the professional or hobbyist may require more time per exhibit; and the recharger may require a serendipitous approach.
Visitors don’t just come alone to museums, but they primarily come in small groups (Petrelli & Not, 2005). Providing an enhanced experience for groups of museum visitors is one of the important frontiers in museum guide research (Stock et al. 2005). This field is still in its infancy, though there a growing number of applications that address this issue from a number of different angles, such as group learning (Luyten et al., 2006; Schroyen et al., 2007), group communication (Aoki et al., 2002; Grinter et al., 2002; Kuflik et al., 2007; Szymanski et al., 2008) and awareness of location of other members of my group (Chou, Hsieh, Gandon, & Sadeh, 2005).
Tasks – navigation and navigational strategies
Navigation is a major challenge in large museums (Davies, 2001). It includes finding an exhibit within a certain location and finding one’s way around in a museum. How the navigation information is presented to the user has a multitude of consequences. General strategies for navigation include maps, 3D vistas (panoramas), and directions in either text or voice. These in turn are influenced by the issue of location modality (position, landmark); that is, how one describes the points of interest in the navigational strategy. Navigating can be aided by describing exact position or by describing proximity to a landmark, Humans, similarly to honeybees, tend to use a simple strategy of landmark navigation as opposed to metric survey knowledge of the environment (Aslan et al, 2006; Foo et al, 2005). We are also beginning to understand the neurophysiologic aspects of landmarks navigation and can better understand which artifacts are useful as landmarks (Janzen & Van Turennout, 2004).
Maps
Maps can be considered as positional navigation artifacts and are probably the most common form of navigation aid. Some museums even use landmark-type symbols to help the user to navigate (Gubi, 2010). Still, maps may not be the most efficient strategy to navigate by. They have the advantage of giving the user greater freedom and a view of other items in the area. Disadvantages are that map-reading is a skill which has different levels of expertise in different populations, and different levels of understanding of map symbols (Sarjakoski & Nivala, 2005). In addition, there is the issue of orientation in connection with maps – they may be confusing to some people (Schmidt-Belz, Laamanen, Poslad, & Zipf, 2003).
Directions
Directions can then be in the form of readable text or audible instructions. Unlike maps, directions have the advantage of being more exact and less error-prone. Directions can be given all at once or a step at a time. They can use landmarks, or consist of positional instructions (e.g. go 20 meters and turn left). Words used play an important part (see Kray, Baus, Zimmer, Speiser, & Krüger (2001) on the use of the prepositions along and past ). The disadvantages of directions are that they give less freedom to explore and they are more verbose (as the old cliché goes, a picture is worth a thousand words).
In addition to finding an exhibit and finding the way around the museum, there can be additional navigational questions; such as, Where am I? What exhibits are nearby? What does the target area look like? (Malaka & Zipf, 2000; Von Hunolstein & Zipf, 2003). In terms of finding a particular exhibit, a novel method (which consists of both collecting panoramic views and showing them on a handheld to a client) was explored: it makes use of panoramic views and user orientation via a compass (Chan, Hsu, Hung, & Hsu, 2005). This methodology could be appropriate for mobile projectors as they offer the option for having larger “group size” display everywhere, enabling better presentation of detailed panoramic images
Technology – mobile guides, positioning, location, and projectors
Mobile guides for navigation
The use of mobile devices in museums for supporting visitors’ physical orientation is in its nascent stages (Filippini-Fantoni & Bowen, 2008), though the use of mobile handheld devices for navigation in other situations (e.g. GPS, outdoor tour guides) has become more prevalent (Petrie & Tallon, 2010). Support for navigation by groups is at an even earlier stage, as is group support for museum visitors in general. (Stock & Zancanaro, 2007).
Baus, Cheverst, & Kray, (2005), surveyed Map-based mobile guides and evaluated them based on their positioning hardware, situational factors, adaptation capabilities, type of map used, interfaces and interaction, and architecture. They also report that users preferred low fidelity maps as opposed to high quality maps similar to paper models (this may be due to the resolution of the device). They also discuss the need to allow customization that has both a push model (proactively generating output) and a pull model (having the user select icons on a 2D map). In terms of directional system guides, Google Maps India and RouteGuru have experimental systems that give directions based on landmarks as opposed to directions based on positions (Justin, 2009). In terms of use: whether maps or directions are better – a mixed and redundant strategy will probably best serve different users and different types of locations (Hirtle, 2000).
Table 1 summarizes the navigation support of recent museum visitors’ guide systems. The table is built up of three categories: Project properties, including name and reference to a project paper(s); Location based system properties, including whether it uses landmark proximity or absolute positioning and what sort of user interfaces it provides for navigational functionality; Group technology properties that refer to what sort of support is provided for groups (decision support, games, messaging, sharing (maps, sites seen) and meetings), and if there is messaging support, what types of messages are supported (audio, text, contextual).
| Project properties | Location properties | Groups | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Name | Reference | Navigation User Interface | Support for groups | Messaging | |
| Pathlight | M,A,D | L (RFID) | D,M | T,C | |
| AIST/Science museum | (Okuma, Kourogi, Sakata, & Kurata, 2007) | M(3D) P | P (WiFi++) | — | — |
| Archie | (Luyten et al., 2006) | A | P (WiFi) | G,M | A,T |
| Chip | (Aroyo et al., 2008) | M | - | — | — |
| HyperAudio | (Petrelli & Not, 2001) | A | L(IR) | — | — |
| LDML | (Miyashita et al., 2008) | M,D,R | L(IR) | — | — |
| Museum of Rennes | (Damala, Marchal, & Houlier, 2007; Damala, Cubaud, Bationo, Houlier, & Marchal, 2008) | R | L (Image Processing) | — | — |
| PIL | (Kuflik et al., 2010) | — | L (RFID) | M | T,C |
| Sotto Voce | (Aoki et al., 2002; Szymanski et al., 2008) | A | P | S | — |
| Taiwan e-wallet | (Chou et al., 2005) | D | P | M,T | T |
| UbiCicero | (Ghiani, Patern, Santoro, & Spano, 2009) | M,A | L (RFID) | G | — |
| Name | Values |
|---|---|
| User Interface | Maps (M) Audio (A), Augmented Reality (R) Panoramic Views (P), Directions (D) |
| Support for groups | Decision Support (D), Games(G), Messaging (M) Sharing (S), Meeting (T) |
| Messaging | Audio (A), Text (T), Contextual (C) |
Table 1: Partial list of Museum Systems with navigation
Indoor positioning in museums
Over the years, a variety of technologies have been experimented with for indoor positioning in museums. Besides the need for high accuracy due to the density of objects, museums in general have additional challenging constraints regarding the installation of equipment (e.g. it should be invisible, require zero infrastructure and maintenance…). So far, no technology exists that answers all these requirements. The system is not invisible, or it needs some infrastructure, or it is not accurate enough, or it requires some user-actions (which may harm the cultural experience by requiring the visitor to focus on the technology rather than on the museum content). Two types of technology were widely tried – Infra Red (IR)-based positioning and Radio Frequency (RF)-based positioning. In addition, visual-based positioning was tested. Infra Red technology was among the first to be exploited in many projects (Oppermann & Specht, 2000; Stock & Zancanaro, 2007). However, it requires visible IR emitters and a line of sight between the emitter and the receiver. RF technology had many variants, some trying to use whatever may be available like WiFi-based positioning, relying on a sort of triangulation; while others, based on Ultra Wide Band (UWB), RFID, Bluetooth, ZigBee and more, applied specific technologies for that purpose. For a detailed review of RF-based indoor positioning technologies, see Khoury & Kamat (2009).
The “connection” location model
Kray et al. (2008) discuss steps towards the construction of a location model to be used in constructing navigational directions. The location model consists of modeling the different types of relationships between different locations. These writers discuss three types of general relationship categories that are key to the understanding of navigation in indoor space: directional, connectional and mereological. They describe six types of directional relations: north, south, east, west, above, below. Connectional relations consist of the following values: direct, door, stairs, elevator, escalator, and visible-from. The mereological relation consists of only the contain relation and is used to build hierarchies. Exhibits are described in terms of these three relations (e.g. Exhibit 1 is: North of Landmark 1D, visible from Exhibit 3, in room 6 which is hall 4 on floor 2). Directions can be built from the information in the model.
Projectors
The advent of small low-cost projectors has opened up many possibilities in the museum environment. Augmented Reality has been used in museums, not so much for navigation, but to provide new ways to interact with museum exhibits (Miyashita et al., 2008). Another interesting user interface is a novel project in the Avesta Steelworks Factory. It involves the use of navigation by augmented flashlights. The flashlights when shined on strategically placed lamps cause the lamps to blink and then proceed to provide multimedia content about the particular area. The flashlights are appropriate for exploring the dark, grey environment of the Steel factory (Simon, 2009). Gottleib (2008) posits that this technique, using a flashlight metaphor, can have a parallel in other museum environments.
3. System Description
The APIL (Ajax – PIL pronounced "apple") system is a follow-up to the PIL project (Lanir et al., 2010), a location-aware museum visitors’ guide (Figure 1) that allows visitors to move freely around the exhibitions while the system identifies their locations and accordingly provides them with relevant content. One of the major changes to the system was to port the system from a Windows/Mobile C# client to a Google Web Toolkit (GWT)/Web based client. The system is now deployed and available to visitors of the Hecht museum, an archaeological museum located at the University of Haifa campus.
Fig 1: Pil system
Given the fact that there is no commonly acceptable indoor solution, we designed our own solution that minimizes installation complexity while providing acceptable accuracy within 1.5 to 2 meters from the object of interest (illustrated by Fig. 2). The Hecht museum is equipped with a Radio Frequency (RF)- based positioning system relying on a wireless sensor network (WSN) composed of RF devices designed and produced by Tretec (http://www.3trec.it ), an Italian SME. The WSN operates on the 2.4GHz ISM band and is based on 802.15.4 protocol, the underlying layer of the ZigBee protocol. The WSN is formed by three different kinds of objects: fixed RF tags called Beacons, (small (matchbox size) mobile wearable RF tags called Blinds (Fig. 2), and RF to TCP Gateways,
Fig 2: Positioning device
The Gateways transfer the data reported by the Blinds and Beacons’ status, over a local area network to the PIL's server. Beacons are statically located at entrances and exits, as well as near relevant locations of interest in the museum, while Blinds are carried by visitors (Fig. 2). When a Blind is in proximity to a Beacon or another Blind, that Blind reports this information to the PIL server through the nearest Gateway. The positioning system has several other important features: (i) measuring proximity among Blinds, allowing assessment of proximity among visitors; (ii) detecting voice levels and activity, a feature that can be used to assess the level of conversation among visitors as well as their proximity (people may have a face-to-face conversation only if they are close to each other), (iii) detecting orientation of visitors, using embedded magnetometers, enabling the assessment of whether visitors are facing each other, facing the exhibits, or standing back to back, and (iv) detecting motion using embedded accelerometers.
4. Navigation Support in APIL
We are in the process of implementing an artifact called Pathlight for the museum context to allow users to navigate to an agreed destination using handheld projection technology. The system uses both maps and directions. The directional navigation is computed via a location model and presented to the visitors on the mobile device; it can also be projected on the floor (or on the wall). The display takes into account the orientation of the user and shows arrow symbols that point where to go next: the arrows are overlaid on a picture of the target. The basic model is of landmark navigation augmented with the option of using maps. Pathlight takes into consideration the fact that directional navigation in this environment may not be continuous, but can include stops for points of interest (i.e., that the path of getting there may be a factor as well as arriving at the destination), and that time constraints play a more ameliorated role. The arrow symbols are accompanied by images of the next landmark (which will usually be the next notable exhibit) to show the visitors what is next on their way. If there are two possible paths to the destination, Pathlight splits the screen to show both directions (Figure3 – left). The primary direction is given more screen space as opposed to the alternative. In addition, using the mobile device’s interface, it is possible to see the next landmarks on the way via a list of cells displaying the directions (places seen are marked differently from places not yet traversed, and the current position is the one with the arrow symbols). Alternatively there is the map view (Figure 3 – right) with the current location and the destination’s location, plus other points of interest such as exhibits seen and exhibits not yet visited. Thus, the user interface technique we are using is closer to "Personal Projection" as opposed to the Magic Lens technique as described in Kawsar, Rukzio, & Kortuem, (2010).
Fig 3: Directional navigation (left) and navigation with map (right) using Pathlight
In addition to the elements of the “connection” model discussed above, consisting of directional, connectional and mereological axes, our model contains an estimation of time to navigate a connection. As noted above, in a museum, the shortest path is not necessarily the one chosen. Time, or lack of it, however, can play a critical factor towards the end of a tour. Another element we added to our model is to mark which paths are accessible to the physically challenged, thus allowing us to compute paths that are appropriate. In addition, the model contains the idea of capacity, which we hope to use in the future to show congestion of certain exhibit areas on the users' maps, so that they can avoid those areas.
Tours
In order to give ourselves a basis on which visitors can navigate, we proposed a number of different tours that users can choose. These were built upon the typologies proposed by Falk (discussed above). Thus, the tours presented for the Professional/Hobbyist consist of a set of thematic tours around archeological perspectives; e.g.: Religion and Cult, Culture, Historical Periods, Maritime Archeology, Scribes and Scripts. The Explorer is presented with a tour of museum highlights that include a number of choices along the route. The Recharger is taken to a limited set of points in the museum where he can sit and contemplate. For the Experience Seeker, we are planning in the future to use a set of tours based on drama (Stock & Callaway, 2009). Facilitators can choose one of the tour types based on what they believe their groups want/need.
5. Research Directions
Some of the research questions we want to study using the deployed system in the Museum via a series of visitor studies are the following: How does projection help group decision-making process (e.g. determining which path to take at a decision point)? How does projection technology enhance a group visit (both attitudes and behavior)? What is the relationship between the use of individual landmark-based navigation and group decisions? What is the role of the facilitators of groups: do they make the decisions about where to go? This can be examined by looking at who needs/uses the projectors: facilitators? everyone?
We also want to evaluate the use of maps vs. directions (again, both in attitude, by using questionnaires, and in behavior, by using the system’s log files); the efficacy of landmarks ("go to the next exhibit which looks like this" as opposed to "go 50 meters, then turn left"); and user satisfaction with the system. Other issues that arose in the design of the system included which pictures to show the users when giving directions, and what the preferred size of a guide screen is.
While peripheral to the issue of navigation, in terms of the Falk-type tours we may wish to evaluate the following questions. Do users enjoy a tour based on their purported Falk type (attitude)? Do they visit longer or see more presentations (behavior)? Do the Falk types relate to visitor movement patterns (ant, butterfly, etc…) (Zancaro 2007)? And if so, can a navigation guide make use of that fact? In general, what implications do Falk types have for a group as opposed to an individual?
6. Conclusion and Summary
The APIL system and deployment environment provides opportunities to explore small-group navigation in the museum environment. Techniques such as maps and directions, and the use of projectors for navigation, can be evaluated and experimented with. In addition, tours based on Falk's paradigm of identity provide a flexible starting point for individual and group tours: the paradigm provides a rich and fertile research area for further experimentation.
7. Acknowledgements
The work was supported by the collaboration project between the Caesarea-Rothschild Institute at the University of Haifa and FBK/irst in Trento and by FIRB project RBIN045PXH.
8. References
Abowd, G. D., C.G. Atkeson, J. Hong, S. Long, R. Kooper & M. Pinkerton (1997). "Cyberguide: A mobile context‐aware tour guide". Wireless Networks, 3 (5), 421-433.
Al Takrouri, B., K. Detken, C. Martinez, M.K. Oja, S. Stein, L. Zhu & A. Schrader (2008). "Mobile HolstenTour: contextualized multimedia museum guide". Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Advances in Mobile Computing and Multimedia, 460-463.
Aoki, P. M., R.E.Grinter, A. Hurst, M.H. Szymanski, J.D. Thornton, & A. Woodruff (2002). "Sotto voce: exploring the interplay of conversation and mobile audio spaces". Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: Changing our World, Changing Ourselves, 438.
Aroyo, L., N.Stash, Y. Wang, P. Gorgels, & L. Rutledge (2008). "Chip demonstrator: Semantics-driven recommendations and museum tour generation". The Semantic Web, 879-886.
Aslan, I., M. Schwalm, J. Baus, A. Krüge, & T. Schwartz (2006). "Acquisition of spatial knowledge in location aware mobile pedestrian navigation systems". Proceedings of the 8th Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services, 108.
Baus, J., K. Cheverst & C. Kray (2005). "A survey of map-based mobile guides". Map-Based Mobile Services, 193-209.
Carmeli, B., B. Cohen & A.J. Wecker (2000). "Personal information everywhere (PIE)". Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM on Hypertext and Hypermedia, 253.
Chan, L. W., Y.Y. Hsu, Y. P. Hung & J.Y. Hsu (2005). "Orientation-Aware Handhelds for Panorama-Based Museum Guiding System". UbiComp 2005 Workshop: Smart Environments and their Applications to Cultural Heritage.
Choi, Y. K. (1999). "The morphology of exploration and encounter in museum layouts". Environment and Planning B, 26, 241-250.
Chou, S. C., W.T.Hsieh, F. Gandon & N. Sadeh (2005). "Semantic web technologies for context-aware museum tour guide applications". Advanced Information Networking and Applications, 2005. AINA 2005. 19th International Conference on, 2
Cohen, E. (1985). "The tourist guide:: The origins, structure and dynamics of a role". Annals of Tourism Research, 12 (1), 5-29.
Damala, A., P. Cubaud, A. Bationo, P. Houlier & I. Marchal (2008). "Bridging the gap between the digital and the physical: design and evaluation of a mobile augmented reality guide for the museum visit". Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Digital Interactive Media in Entertainment and Arts, 120-127.
Damala, A., I. Marchal & P. Houlier (2007). "Merging augmented reality based features in mobile multimedia museum guides". CIPA 2007, Anticipating the Future of the Cultural Past, 259-264.
Davey, G. (2005). "What is museum fatigue?" Visitor Stud.Today, 8 (3), 17-21.
Davies, R. (2001). "Overcoming Barriers to Visiting: Raising awareness of, and providing orientation and navigation to, A museum and its collections through new technologies". Museum Management and Curatorship, 19 (3), 283-295.
Falk, J. H. (2009). Identity and the museum visitor experience. Left Coast Press Walnut Creek, CA.
Filippini-Fantoni, S., & J.P. Bowen (2008). "Mobile Multimedia: Reflections from Ten Years of Practice". Digital technologies and the museum experience: handheld guides and other media (pp. 79) Altamira Press.
Foo, P., W.H. Warren, A. Ducho, & M.J. Tarr (2005). "Do Humans Integrate Routes Into a Cognitive Map? Map-Versus Landmark-Based Navigation of Novel Shortcuts". Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31 (2), 195-215.
Ghiani, G., F. Paternņ, C. Santoro & L.D.Spano (2009). "UbiCicero: A location-aware, multi-device museum guide". Interacting with Computers,
Gottlieb, H. (2008). "Interactive Adventures". In Digital Technologies and the Museum Experience: Handheld Guides and Other Media, Lanham: Altimira Press, 167-177.
Grinter, R. E., P.M. Aoki, M.H. Szymanski, J.D. Thornton, A. Woodruff & A. Hurst (2002). "Revisiting the visi:: understanding how technology can shape the museum visit". Proceedings of the 2002 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 155.
Gubi, K., R. Wasinger, M. Fry, J. Kay, T. Kuflik & B. Kummerfeld (2010). "Towards a Generic Platform for Indoor Localisation Using Existing Infrastructure and Symbolic Maps". CEUR-WS.org/Vol-609, Proceedings of UMAP Workshop, Architectures and Building Blocks of Web-Based User-Adaptive Systems, 11-16.
Hirtle, S. (2000). "The use of maps, images and “gestures” for navigation". Spatial Cognition II, LNAI 1849, 31-40.
Janzen, G., & M. Van Turennout (2004). "Selective neural representation of objects relevant for navigation". Nature Neuroscience, 7 (6), 673-677.
Justin. (2009). Google Maps tries physical landmarks for navigation, 2010, from http://gpsobsessed.com/google-maps-physical-landmarks-navigation/
Kawsar, F., E. Rukzio & G. Kortuem (2010). "An explorative comparison of magic lens and personal projection for interacting with smart objects". Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services, 157-160.
Khoury, H. M., & V.R. Kamat (2009). "Evaluation of position tracking technologies for user localization in indoor construction environments". Automation in Construction, 18 (4), 444-457.
Kray, C., J. Baus, H. Zimmer, H. Speiser & A. Krüger (2001). "Two Path Preposition: Along and Past". Spatial Information Theory (pp. 263-277) Springer.
Kray, C., K. Cheverst, M. Harrison,F. Hamhoum & J. Muller (2008). "Towards a location model for indoor navigation support through public displays and mobile devices". MIRW 2008,
Krüger, A., J. Baus, D. Heckmann, M. Kruppa & R. Wasinger (2007). "Adaptive mobile guides". In P. Brusilovsky, A. Kobsa & W. Nejdl (Eds.), The Adaptive Web (pp. 521-549) Springer-Verlag.
Kuflik, T., J. Sheidin, S. Jbara, D. Goren-Bar, P. Soffer, O. Stock & M. Zancanaro (2007). "Supporting small groups in the museum by context-aware communication services". Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, 308.
Kuflik, T., O. Stock, M. Zancanaro, A. Gorfinkel, S. Jbara, S. Kats, N. Kashtan (2010). A Visitor’s Guide in an “Active Museum”: Presentations, Communications, and Reflection.
Lanir, J., A.J. Wecker, T. Kuflik, E. Dim, I. Beja, I. Belinky, M. Zancanaro (2010). "From a Research Prototype to a Deployed System: The Case of the Hecht Museum Visitor's Guide". MCIS 2010 Proceedings, 53.
Luyten, K., H. Van Loon, D. Teunkens, K. Gabriëls, K. Coninx & E. Manshoven (2006). "ARCHIE: Disclosing a Museum by a Socially-aware Mobile Guide". The E-Volution of IC Technology in Cultural Heritage, Papers from the Joint Event CIPA/VAST/EG/EuroMed Event, 221-226.
Malaka, R., & A. Zipf (2000). "DEEP MAP-Challenging IT research in the framework of a tourist information system". Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism, 7, 15-27.
Miyashita, T., P. Meier, T. Tachikawa, S. Orlic, T. Eble, V. Scholz, S. Lieberknecht (2008). "An augmented reality museum guide". Proceedings of the 2008 7th IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality-Volume 00, 103-106.
Oberlander, J., M. O'Donnell, C. Mellish & A. Knott (1998). "Conversation in the museum: experiments in dynamic hypermedia with the intelligent labelling explorer:. New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia, 4 (1), 11-32.
Okuma, T., M. Kourogi, N. Sakata & T. Kurata (2007). "A pilot user study on 3-d museum guide with route recommendation using a sustainable positioning system". Proc. of the International Conference on Control, Automation and Systems.
Oppermann, R., & M. Specht (2000). "A context-sensitive nomadic exhibition guide". Handheld and Ubiquitous Computing, 31-54.
Petrelli, D., E. Not, M. Zancanaro, C. Strapparava & O. Stock (2001). "Modelling and Adapting to Context". The International Journal of Personal Technology, Special Issue on Situated Interaction and Context-Aware Computing, 5(2001)1.
Petrie, M., & L. Tallon (2010). "The IPhone Effect! Comparing visitors' and museum professionals' evolving expectatitons of mobile interpretation tools". In D. Bearman and J. Trant (eds.) Museum and Web 2010: Proceedings. Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics, 2009, last updated March 31,2010, consulted January 30,2011. http://www.archimuse.com/mw2010/papers/petrie/petrie.html
Sarjakoski, L., & A.M. Nivala (2005). "Adaptation to Context – A Way to Improve the Usability of Mobile Maps". Map based Mobile Services (pp. 107-123). Springer.
Schmidt-Belz, B., H. Laamanen, S. Poslad & A. Zipf (2003). "Location-based mobile tourist services-first user experiences". Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism, 115-123.
Schroyen, J., K. Gabriëls, D. Teunkens, K. Robert, K. Luyten, K. Coninx & E. Manshoven (2007). "Beyond merely information provisioning: a museum handheld guide based on social activities and playful learning".
Simon, N. (2009). Museum 2.0: Querying the Environment: A Smart Model for Pull Content. Retrieved 7/4/2010, 2010, from http://museumtwo.blogspot.com/2009/03/querying-environment-smart-model-for.html
Stock, O., & C. Callaway (2009). "Multiple Coordinated Mobile Narratives as a Catalyst for Face-to-Face Group Conversation". Proceedings of ICIDS 2009, International Conference on Interactive Digital Storytelling, Guimarares, 209-220.
Stock, O., C. Rocchi, M. Zancanaro & T. Kuflik (2005). " Discussing Groups in a Mobile Technology Environment ". Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Multi-User and Ubiquitous User Interfaces, IUI-2005, San Diego, 2005.
Stock, O., & M. Zancanaro (2007). PEACH: Intelligent Interfaces for Museum Visits. Springer-Verlag, New York, Inc.
Szymanski, M. H., P.M. Aoki, R.E. Grinter, A. Hurst, J.D. Thornton & A. Woodruff (2008). "Sotto Voce: Facilitating Social Learning in a Historic House". Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 17 (1), 5-34.
Von Hunolstein, S., & A. Zipf (2003). "Towards task oriented map-based mobile guides". Proceedings International Workshop “HCI in Mobile Guides”, 5th International Symposium on Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services,
Weiser, M., R. Gold & J.S. Brown (1999). "The origins of ubiquitous computing research at PARC in the late 1980s". IBM Systems Journal, 38 (4), 693-696.
Zancanaro, M., T. Kuflik, Z. Boger, D. Goren-Bar & D. Goldwasser (2007). "Analyzing museum visitors’ behavior patterns". User Modeling 2007, 238-246.
