Abstract
The evolution of the information and communication ecosystem has led to significant changes in the museum visitor’s behavior and expectations, as they now manifest a desire for participation, collaboration, and sharing – suggesting the corresponding need to readjust the institution’s discourse and communication approaches through digital integration.
Despite the inherent qualities of digital media, they can be presented in various platforms, interfaces, and devices, contributing to the lack of consensus and consistency in the terminology used in academia and among designers, technologists, programmers, and developers, resulting in numerous classification proposals. This condition tends to hinder a practical and, most importantly, insightful and critical appropriation of digital technology among museum professionals.
Therefore, a three-dimensional taxonomy is proposed. The first dimension – virtualization – is created based on the reality-virtuality continuum and allows assessing possible variations and compositions of real and virtual objects. The second dimension – observation distance – is focused on the formal design contours of video displays, such as the dimension and positioning related to the user. The third dimension – interactivity – classifies, based on types of interaction, the extent to which users actively modify the content in a mediated environment in real-time. Each interdependent dimension is divided into six discrete classes.
This tripartite classification system streamlines the main qualitative characteristics within different digital mediation systems, serving as a theoretical framework for digital integration centered on sustainability, accessibility, inclusivity, critical thinking, and individual subjectivity during the museum experience.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
de Kerckhove D (1998) Inteligência Conectiva: a emergência da cibersociedade (tradução de Ana Viseu), 1st edn. Fundação para a divulgação das Tecnologias de Informação, Lisboa
Hein H (1994) Institutional blessing: the museum as canon-maker. In: Gould CC, Cohen RS (eds) Artifacts, representations and social practice. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-0902-4_1
Brown K, Mairesse F (2018) The definition of the museum through its social role. Curator: The Museum J 61(4):525–539. https://doi.org/10.1111/cura.12276
Simon N (2010) The participatory museum, 1st edn. Museum 2.0, Santa Cruz, California
Falk JH, Dierking LD (2016) The museum experience. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315417899
Parry R, Dziekan V (2021) Critical digital: museums and their postdigital circumstance. In: Barranha H, Simões Henriques, J (eds) Art, Museums & digital cultures: rethinking change. Universidade NOVA de Lisboa, Lisboa, pp. 16–26
Sousa F, Providência F (2023) Critical digital: digital integration in the museum. In Martins N, Brandão D (eds) Advances in Design and Digital Communication III. Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, pp 495–506. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20364-0_43
Milgram P, Kishino F (1994) A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. IEICE Trans Inform Syst. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-87512-0_1
Bimber O, Raskar R (2005) Spatial augmented reality: merging real and virtual worlds. CRC Press, New York
Sharp H, Rogers Y, Preece J (2019) Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction, 5th edn. Wiley
Flavián C, Ibáñez-Sánchez S, Orús C (2019) The impact of virtual, augmented and mixed reality technologies on the customer experience. J Bus Res 100:547–560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.10.050
Jeon S, Choi S (2009) Haptic augmented reality: Taxonomy and an example of stiffness modulation. Presence: Teleoperators Virtual Env 18(5):387–408. https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.18.5.387
Mann S (2002) Mediated Reality with implementations for everyday life. Presence, Connect. http://wearcam.org/presence_connect/
Yung R, Khoo-Lattimore C (2017) New realities: a systematic literature review on virtual reality and augmented reality in tourism research. Curr Issue Tour 22:1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2017.1417359
Pan Z, Cheok AD, Yang H, Zhu J, Shi J (2006) Virtual reality and mixed reality for virtual learning environments. Comput Graph (Pergamon) 30(1):20–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cag.2005.10.004
Tamura H, Yamamoto H, Katayama A (2001) Mixed reality: Future dreams seen at the border between real and virtual worlds. IEEE Comput Graph Appl 21(6):64–70. https://doi.org/10.1109/38.963462
Azuma R, Baillot Y, Behringer R, Feiner S, Julier S, MacIntyre B (2001) Recent advances in augmented reality. IEEE Comput Graph Appl 21(6):34–47. https://doi.org/10.1109/38.963459
Schmalstieg D, Höllerer T (2016) Augmented Reality: Principles and Pratice, 1st edn. Addison-Wesley
Azuma RT (1997) A survey of augmented reality. Presence: Teleoperators Virtual Env 6(4):355–385. https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.1997.6.4.355
Microsoft (2023) Microsoft HoloLens 2. www.microsoft.com/hololens Accessed 04 Sep 2023
Inc. Magic Leap (2023) Magic Leap 2. www.magicleap.com. Accessed 04 Sep 2023
Hainich RR, Bimbe O (2017) Displays: fundamentals and applications, 2nd edn. CRC Press
Ihde D (1990) Technology and the lifeworld: from garden to earth, 1st edn. Indiana University Press, Bloomington
Ihde D (2001) Bodies in Technology, 1st edn. University of Minnesota Press
Biocca F (1997) The cyborg’s dilemma: progressive embodiment in virtual environments. J Comput-Mediat Commun 3(2):JCMC324. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997.tb00070.x
Lombard M, Jones MT (2015) Defining presence. In: Lombard M, Biocca F, Freeman J, Ijsselsteijn W, Schaevitz RJ (eds) Immersed in media. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 13–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10190-3_2
Hoffman DL, Novak TP (1996) Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated environments: conceptual foundations. J Mark 60(3):50–68. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251841
Steuer J (1992) Defining Virtual Reality: Dimensions Determining Telepresence. J Commun 42(4):73–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1460-2466.1992.TB00812.X
Shneiderman B (1983) Direct manipulation: a step beyond programming languages. Comput (Long Beach Calif) 16(8):57–69. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.1983.1654471
Grau O (2003) Virtual art: from illusion to immersion (revised and expanded edition). The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Sousa F (2022) Talasnal House VR. FSDesign. https://urlis.net/bg188j27. Accessed 28 Aug 2023
Bolter JD, Grusin R (1999) Remediation: understanding new media, 1st edn. The MIT Press
Falk JH (2016) Identity and the museum visitor experience. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315427058
Acknowledgments
ID+ Research Institute for Design, Media, and Culture supported the study reported in this publication.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Sousa, F., Providência, F. (2024). Critical Digital: A Taxonomy to Classify Digital Integration in the Museum Domain. In: Martins, N., Brandão, D. (eds) Advances in Design and Digital Communication IV. DIGICOM 2023. Springer Series in Design and Innovation , vol 35. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-47281-7_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-47281-7_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-47280-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-47281-7
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)