Kaapo Seppälä
email: kaapo.seppala@utu.fi

Olli I Heimo
email: olli.heimo@utu.fi

Timo Korkalainen
email: timo.korkalainen@utu.fi

Juho Pääkylä
email: juho.paakyla@utu.fi

Jussi Latvala
email: jussi.latvala@utu.fi

Seppo Helle
email: seppo.helle@utu.fi

Lauri Härkänen
email: lauri.harkanen@utu.fi

Sami Jokela
email: sami.jokela@utu.fi

Lauri Järvenpää
email: lauri.jarvenpaa@utu.fi

Frans Saukko
email: frans.l.saukko@utu.fi

Lauri Viinikkala
email: lauri.viinikkala@utu.fi

Tuomas Mäkilä
email: tuomas.makila@utu.fi

Teijo Lehtonen
email: teijo.lehtonen@utu.fi

Examining User Experience in an Augmented Reality Adventure Game: Case Luostarinmäki Handicrafts Museum

Keywords: Augmented Reality, Mixed Reality, Gaming, User Experience, Museum

des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

Introduction

Augmented Reality (AR) is the art and technology in which traditional field of real world view is augmented with additional information. This can be computergenerated 2D and 3D images or information superimposed on the real-world view captured from the camera of smartphone, computer or other device [START_REF] Bujak | A psychological perspective on augmented reality in the mathematics classroom[END_REF]. Augmented image appears to its users like virtual and real objects coexisted in the same space. In other words, AR immerses its users in virtually enhanced real world [START_REF] Serio | Impact of an augmented reality system on students' motivation for a visual art course[END_REF].

Augmentation of reality has been used in in different medias and systems for decades, e.g. head-up displays in fighter planes, scoreboards in sportscasts. Due to the computerisation and rapid emergence and development of mobile technology, AR is now available for common users in their mobile devices and possibly soonish with AR-glass technology.

The interest towards the emerging AR technology has been rapidly growing among the museums and cultural heritage sites around the world. However, the acceptance of AR applications can vary in different populations. Lee & al. made a cultural comparison between South Korea and Ireland, both having high smartphone penetration rates but different cultural profiles, and noticed that aesthetics of AR have the strongest influence on perceived enjoyment. Also, as expected, South Korea, having high collectivism and high uncertainty avoidance culture, displayed stronger dependence on social influence and hedonic characteristics of AR. [START_REF] Hyunae | Examining the cultural differences in acceptance of mobile augmented reality: Comparison of South Korea and Ireland[END_REF] Smartphone or tablet device meets the main requirements posed by AR since it has a camera and capability of rendering and displaying the augmented graphics. [START_REF] Henrysson | UMAR: Ubiquitous Mobile Augmented Reality[END_REF] Hence, with explosive growth of penetration rates of smartphone, application-based AR has been more accessible to users. Especially, cultural heritage tourism is one of the most important areas served by mobile AR app [START_REF] Portalés | Photogrammetry and augmented reality for cultural heritage applications[END_REF][START_REF] Viinikkala | The Luostarinmäki Adventure -An Augmented Reality Game in an Open Air Museum[END_REF] which provides digitally restored artifacts, thereby preventing degradation of cultural heritage sites aggravated by frequent access by tourists and let them perceive fun and usefulness [START_REF] Haugstvedt | Mobile augmented reality for cultural heritage: A technology acceptance study[END_REF]. A number of cultural heritage institutions around the world, such as the Louvre Museum in Paris and British Museum in London, have developed and provided with their mobile AR apps 1 .

As this study is -as far as we know -the among the first studies about AR-games which involves end-users, the research questions reflect the overall requirement for these kinds of solutions and thus our research questions are as follows: 1) Is there a demand potential for AR adventures in cultural travel? 2) Does AR adventure generate added value to the museum experience? 3) Is an AR adventure suitable for museum and cultural travel atmosphere? 4) Are the customers willing to pay for it?

In this paper an Augmented Reality Adventure User Experience (UX) research results done in Finnish cultural heritage site Luostarinmäki Handicrafts Museum in Turku are introduced and discussed. The research team has been developing AR and Mixed Reality (MR) mobile applications (apps) for Finnish cultural and especially museum field to research this emerging technology's possibilities in presenting historically accurate and entertaining experiences to audiences. The paper is organized as first introducing the AR technology and our prototype, then our research design and results, followed by discussion and conclusions.

Reality… augmented?

What is AR?

Whereas the more known virtual reality experiences attempt to recreate all of these signals, augmented reality only attempts to complement the natural ones with some artificial flavor. It thus sits somewhere in between the physical reality and completely simulated virtual reality, as seen in the famous Virtual Reality Continuum in Figure 1 [START_REF] Milgram | Augmented Reality: A class of displays on the reality-virtuality continuum[END_REF].

Fig. 1, Levels of mixed reality

Whereas virtual reality (VR) can deviate greatly from the real world, augmented reality productions however must fit into the physical context in order to achieve an immersive and believable experience. At the minimum a good AR application should 1) seamlessly combine the physical and virtual pieces of content, 2) be highly interactive in real-time and 3) allow users to experience the content with free movement in the real world 3D space. [START_REF] Azuma | A Survey of Augmented Reality[END_REF] The first condition is not to set limitations to artistic freedom in any sense, but to highlight the fact that at least the virtual content should in fact react to as many changes and parts of the real world as possible. The second condition separates for example pre-rendered movie productions from augmented reality, as even if the contemporary film productions feature highly believable computer generated imagery, they do not represent a real-time simulation of reality from the end-users point of view. The third condition then emphasizes how important it is to the end users not be limited in the ways they can "live" in the augmented space: they must be able to move freely and explore the content from any angle and location they like. The virtual content must always be fixed tightly in its place in the real world while the user moves about.

Augmented reality can be experienced via various types of devices. Currently the most used device platform is the mobile devices segment most consumers carry with them in their everyday life: mobile phones and tablets. The image from the rear camera of the device is displayed on the screen and the virtual content is drawn on top of it to create the seamless viewing experience. While traditional mobile devices allow widespread adoption of AR experiences, they can at most provide a window-type of experience into the augmented world. The next phase, currently taking its initial steps will be in form of wearable eyewear: with see-through displays both the real world and the virtual elements can in the future be overlaid on top of the whole field of vision (FOV). Such devices, but with limited FOV are being prepared for consumer grade release by several international corporations, such as Google, Microsoft and Sony and many others have announced intentions of going into the market [START_REF] Google | We're graduating from Google[x] labs[END_REF][START_REF]Microsoft HoloLens | Official Site[END_REF][START_REF] Sony | SmartEyeglass Developer Edition SED-E1[END_REF].

The first wave of augmented reality applications for mobile devices used purely geolocation based solutions for aligning, registering, the content with the real world. With the user's geolocation and the device's orientation read from magnetometer and other sensors it is possible to do only very rough registering: the content might be meters away from the actual desired location and it usually also reacts to user's movements sluggishly and with imperfect results. Mostly the first applications were thus about displaying information about distant enough points of interest around the user, such as showing the restaurants in radius of 5 kilometers as seen in Here City Lens application in Figure 2. Fig. 2, Here City Lens [START_REF] Nokia | HERE City Lens -Viewfinder | Nokia[END_REF] To acquire more accurate results the modern augmented reality technologies employ visual tracking as part of the process. The image from the device's camera is algorithmically analyzed to find stable points that can be used as a reference to measure how the device is moved around. The reference points, or feature points, can then also be matched to pre-created set of reference points. If they match with high enough accuracy, the reference point can be deduced as the camera is pointed to predefined content area which has accurately placed virtual content. The currently more traditional approach with predefined content is to use basic printed imagery as recognizable 2D markers. Complex images with high contrast and thus high amount of stable feature points work more reliably, but in some cases even photographs can be used as markers.

The more developing way of tracking is to use 3D objects as markers. They can produce both more accurate and stable registration, but also allow more viewing directions than the 2D surfaces. 3D markers are however more time consuming to create and require more data and thus bandwidth to transfer and also require much more complex and computationally heavy algorithms to be used. Since in the last few years both mobile networks have gained higher transfer speeds and devices have become more powerful, it is now possible to employ large datasets of 3D markers as the basis for mobile augmented reality applications. The next step for accurate registration lies in actual environments being used as markers, instead of just small objects. This however requires even more complex solutions, as for example changing lighting in outdoor environments creates new challenges for the current algorithms.

Solutions come in the form of both new sensors such as depth cameras [START_REF] Taskinen | Depth Sensors in Augmented reality Solutions[END_REF] and also as new solutions to registration, as perhaps more than the actual feature points the registration could be based on the geometry of the real scenery. Even without directly depth sensing devices some steps to this direction can be taken by employing Simultaneous localization and mapping technology, SLAM, where the end-user's device's camera image is used to recreate the viewed scene as 3D geometry [START_REF] Durrant-Whyte | Simultaneous localization and mapping: part I[END_REF]. This way just different types of objects and surfaces could be recognized -not just the very objects used as reference material. With this approach it will be possible to create AR experiences that are not limited to be used in a single real world environment, but could instead automatically adapt to new surroundings.

As augmented reality technologies become more and more complex, the importance of professionally developed and maintained dedicated software libraries has become vital part of the industry. The wide range of end-user devices available and different tracking techniques required for varying situations makes even maintaining such libraries a daunting task, let alone developing and researching new complex algorithms for better results. Thus, the currently wide adopted solutions are sparse and only a few competitors exist. The most used easily available AR software library is the Vuforia SDK, currently owned by PTC Inc. after acquiring it recently from Qualcomm [START_REF] Ptc | PTC Acquires Vuforia | PTC[END_REF]. One of the many, but likely the most feature rich and most used open source library is the ARToolkit, which also was recently acquired by DAQRI [START_REF] Daqri | Press release: DAQRI acquires augmented reality software pioneer artoolworks, makers of open source augmented reality platform[END_REF]. For more simple use cases and targeted for non-technical users exist for example the Aurasma and Layar platforms, which both are mostly built around augmenting printed or other fiducial material [START_REF] Aurasma | Aurasma Home page[END_REF][START_REF] Layar | Augmented Reality | Interactive Print | Layar[END_REF] 2In addition to just displaying information and small gadget type of application, there are some examples of more complex augmented reality products. Likely one most known one currently is the AR conversion of the famous sandbox game Mine-Craft, that Microsoft has used as part of its HoloLens demonstrations and advertising [START_REF] Gizmodo | I Played Minecraft With Microsoft's HoloLens, And It Was Pretty Awesome[END_REF]. Even if VR is likely the more suited medium of the two for gaming, AR will probably also gain much traction from the sector.

Our prototype

One of the first augmented reality adventure games for mobile devices was developed during 2014-2015 as part of the Futuristic History project at Technology Research Center3 of the University of Turku for use in an outdoor museum environment which is illustrated in Figure 3. The game was to provide visitors with a more lively experience in the museum, as currently the once busy streets of the 1800's town are now mostly empty. By bringing virtual characters into the court yards it was possible to demonstrate in a very concrete manner how people lived in the area and what they were like.

Much care was placed on clothing, speech and especially building backstories for the characters. In a very classical point-and-click adventure game approach, the players were given small tasks to complete in order advance in the story that in end turned out to be about finding a missing wedding ring. Mostly the tasks were completed by visiting different areas and getting the right virtual characters to give the player the right information to proceed. The gaming experience was targeted to be as seamless as possible, even though the advanced ALVAR 3D tracking technology provided by VTT [START_REF] Rainio | Presenting Historical Photos using Augmented Reality[END_REF] was still experimental and not completely production level reliable. [START_REF] Viinikkala | The Luostarinmäki Adventure -An Augmented Reality Game in an Open Air Museum[END_REF]. Fig. 3, Luostarinmäki Adventure [START_REF] Viinikkala | The Luostarinmäki Adventure -An Augmented Reality Game in an Open Air Museum[END_REF] Most frequent individual problems while testing the application was related to finding the AR content with 3D tracking. While the technology allowed us to not print 2D markers in the museum area thus preserving the original look of the cultural heritage site and structures which was a requirement from the museum. This unfortunately caused some problems with technical functionalities because some of the users had to spend some time before finding the augmented spaces thus weakening the experience.

Research Method

Even though several related mobile Augmented Reality applications have recently emerged also in Cultural Heritage sites, most of them are developed to enhance the visitor experience. AR applications which focus on gaming are limited as well as the AR User experience studies with actual end-users. [START_REF] Pendit | Augmented Reality in Visual Communication: Innovation in Conservation of Historical Buildings[END_REF] As the UX is in connection with the user environment and varying content, it creates challenges in setting research assumptions for Museum AR-Game User Experience. There is no existing supporting or contradicting theories with similar combina-tion of interactive content and actual museum audience as a target group. Also, according to Yin, the results of this kind of case studies are not generalizeable to populations [START_REF] Pendit | Augmented Reality in Visual Communication: Innovation in Conservation of Historical Buildings[END_REF][START_REF] Yin | Case study research: Design and methods[END_REF] Our research assumptions are based on use case-and concept evaluations of AR applications for Cultural Heritage sites [START_REF] Pendit | Augmented Reality in Visual Communication: Innovation in Conservation of Historical Buildings[END_REF]. They include that 1) regardless of the technological limitations that can poverish the AR-User Experience and the users see augmented reality as suitable for museum and cultural travel environment, and 2) it generates added value to the visit [START_REF] Pendit | Augmented Reality in Visual Communication: Innovation in Conservation of Historical Buildings[END_REF], [START_REF] Marimon | MobiAR: Tourist Experience through Mobile Augmented Reality[END_REF]. We also assume that there are 3) market potential for future AR solutions in museum and cultural travel sector.

The user experience study was conducted June 1st to June 18th 2015 and it included themes from various different technical features to the content and marketing. The data was gathered in a structured questionnaire, build in the application. The basic user data was gathered before the testing and the usability data after the testing was done. Target sample size was 150 visitors. Accidental sampling was used. Existing study subjects were encouraged to recruit more subjects into the sample. Full data set is gathered from 129 visitors.

The main objectives of the testing were to collect feedback for the AR/MRapplication and its content from various user groups, to discover its possible usability problems and to validate consumer demand for related AR/MR applications and interactive content.

The practical arrangements included a research base outside the museum gate where the test persons receive the equipment and a free museum ticket as a reward, four iPads and a selection of headphones for the audio content. Research personnel included 1-2 researchers on site during opening hours. The testing event was advertised throughout media.

Themes of the research were: a) Sample structure (Age, gender, gaming experience, etc.) b) Reception (How the idea of AR was received) c) Usability (Technical functionality, UI, easiness of use, learning, interactivity, use of audio) d) Content (How the app guides the user/tutorials etc., storyline, gamified content) e) Consumer business related (Demand, Willingness to pay for contents/apps, How the AR-experience is connected to the museum experience) Sample structure (n=129) is shown by age and sex in Table 1 and level of education in Table 2

Total

This sample consists of museum visitors that were available to test the system in the outdoor museum during the test period. It represents the typical Finnish customers of Luostarinmäki Museum during the beginning of the summer season. This mostly consists of the customer base of the museum except those that could not participate for personal reasons or because of traffic (e.g. visitors within tourist groups with dedicated guides and thus unable to participate at all). Moreover the customer base for the museum varies by the time of the year and therefore e.g. school groups or those people having holidays later in the summer were not represented. [START_REF]Personal interviews with museum guides[END_REF] The prototype app had content ready in Finnish thus restricting the participation of non-Finnish speaking people.

Results

First questions after the background were about attitudes. Most of our test subjects were found to be quite enthusiastic about the app and thus almost all of them agreed with the questions "Museum visit can be entertainment" (99%) and "Museum visit can be learning" (97%) as illustrated in Figure 4. 78% of the people were interested in technology, 89% in culture and 88% in museums. Exactly 90 people out of the 129 (70%) were interested in gaming as is presented in Figure 5. (To note, the eldest were not that enthusiastic about it). Therefore, an indication towards a group of enthusiastic testers was found. Most of the test users were regular users of desktop computers and smartphones but only 60% of them used regularly tablets. Answers towards activities in digital gaming gave more heterogenic answers. As shown in Figure 6, in our study the share of active gamers (gaming every week) was found to be about 49% and the share of those who play digital games every month as 68%. This -even though the definition differs a bit -follows study [START_REF] Mäyrä | Pelaajabarometri 2013: Mobiilipelaamisen nousu[END_REF] of playing in population, where 69% were considered players and 48% as active players. It must be noticed that even tough 91% thought the first impression of the app was interesting, as shown in Figure 9 but yet only 81% stated that they understood the idea of the app. Moreover, it must be remembered that the actual percentage might be even lower. Those still in primary school and those who have at least master's degree got the best impression about the app. 7, the AR app and the pleasantness of the AR experience was seen quite differently: the experience can be pleasant even though the app is still seen less so. While 84% saw the experience as a pleasant one, only 59% of users confirmed that the app was pleasant to use thus indicating clear problems in the usage of the app. The pleasantness of the app's use was one of the lowest scores gathered and can be combined with the problems and feedback in functionality (see below). Males were more demanding for the experience than females. Whether the app is seen as a pleasant one depends hugely on the age group. People from 25 to 34 years of age are most critical towards the app and demanded better experience while children of 7 to 12 years of age were quite pleased with the application which is illustrated in Figure 8. Even though the app got a lot of positive feedback, the functionality got even less praises than the pleasantness (22% bad or very bad, see Figure 9). As mentioned in chapter 2, this and the pleasantness-problem can partly be explained with several issues with tracking. In Figure 10 is illustrated the results for questions about movement with device. The using of the device and moving with it was found easy enough even though the museum grounds are in unpaved hillside with lots of obstacles.

Moving with the device was easy

was not that visible. Moreover the hardship of separating fact from fiction caused 24% of users some issues, as illustrated in Figure 11. The adventure length -as seen in Figure 12 -was seen as a proper length but yet people wished both more and less scenes to the app. Most of the users were quite gratified on the amount of content presented. More historical background information was still requested by most of the users, as shown in Figure 15. Thus, it seems that the most of the testees required more historically in-depth content within the same time amount while the requirement for the amount of scenes (and thus the length of one scene) was more heterogeneous in variance. Most of the testees would be enthusiastic to continue their adventure later on outside the museum area, as illustrated in Figure 13. The age group 35-44 was the most eager in this. Yet again the question did not specify the means in continuing the adventure and thus more specific research on the subject is recommended to further develop the possibilities in connecting the on-site experience with off-site experiences. In Figure 14 it is shown that while it seems that the users were quite pleased towards the app and 78% of them saw that the "application brought added value to the museum visit", many of them saw the idea of paying for the application in a different light.

However, only one third (32,5 %) of them would have wanted to pay for the test application. The museum experience as a whole was seen more valuable when combined with the AR experience but more evidence is needed to validate and increase the demand ratio and the total amount of possible customers for the sole application.

When considering commercializing alternatives of Augmented Reality content for Cultural Heritage sites, the results show that user groups vary also regarding their favourite business model. In other words the testees were relatively evenly distributed in terms of how the AR content could be offered for a museum visitor.

I would pay for the application

Fig. 8, the value of the app and willingness to pay.

Thus, there seems to be a requirement for extended adventure after the experience, our study shows no clear guidelines to what kind of extended adventure it should be. There are several possibilities -all taken from the gaming industry -by making payable content, by tying the use of extra content in social media or selling additional content or features afterwards [START_REF] Kimppa | First dose is always freemium[END_REF].

There does not seem to be clear evidence that there would be a single one-fits-forall commercialization method as the prizing and delivery preferences varied amongst the testees. Augmented reality technology is yet emerging and thus unknown but still quite fascinating media to most museum visitors. I could pay for the additional content (for a free app)

Discussion

It must be kept in mind that the app tested was a prototype -and the testees were aware of that. Still, the understanding and vision of a prototype by a developer or IT professional varies from the understanding of a standard test person. Therefore the test data does not provide definite answers but a guideline for development and some understanding of the possibilities and market share.

The feedback the app received was generally very good: most of the feedback came back as either positive or very positive and thus, the general line must be derived from the fact that people were testing the product with positive mindset. The product got obviously a lot of credit and thus positive feedback on being free and in prototype state: similar functionality issues on a e.g. 8€ product would have gotten a lot of negative feedback. In our understanding based on the testing the robustness of the tracking functionality would be the primary key in promoting the whole usability and thus develop the user experience but to point out that correctly more research is required.

The AR-experience in the Luostarinmäki was found to be very pleasing and, combined with the perceived value added, it clearly indicates that there is a demand in enchanting the museum experience with augmented reality content. This indicates positive results for research assumption 1.

The testees were quite pleased with the idea of using a tablet for an augmented reality adventure in a museum-style heritage site even though the site itself was not as easy terrain and thus not as accessible for everyone as one could hope for, and there were challenges in some technical functionalities. Some elements from the other medias (e.g. products from gaming industry), especially for the males in age group 25 to 34, could be promoted to further develop the experience for this most demanding testee group. If the target audience is younger [START_REF] Haugstvedt | Mobile augmented reality for cultural heritage: A technology acceptance study[END_REF][START_REF] Imdb | The Matrix (1999) -Quotes -IMDb[END_REF][START_REF] Milgram | Augmented Reality: A class of displays on the reality-virtuality continuum[END_REF][START_REF] Azuma | A Survey of Augmented Reality[END_REF][START_REF] Google | We're graduating from Google[x] labs[END_REF][START_REF]Microsoft HoloLens | Official Site[END_REF] or older than the aforementioned 25 to 34, there is not that great of demand for game-like appearance and functionality. The storyline was found good and the length of the adventure (45 min) was found proper. The amount of historical elements to the story were found a tad wanting and thus more information both to promote the historical information and specially so that the users can separate of fact from fiction require more work, but overall for a product that is first of its kind the reception was excellent. We argue that this answers to research assumption 1 & 2 showing that the AR experience adds value to the museum experience and that AR is indeed -when generated promoting the historical valuessuitable for museum and culture travel atmosphere.

There seems to be no good basis for comparison since there are no similar products in the market, so the market analysis is rather hard. Although the application was known to be a prototype with limited features, the willingness to pay was low in comparison to the value added perceived. Still we argue that the rate of one third (32,5 %) in willingness to pay is rather adequate for a decent marketing potential. Yet it is harder to analyse the true market potential of AR in museums and cultural travel, but we argue that with the positive attitude received from the testees in this study, the amount of possible customers should rise when this technology comes more commonplace. Although we must admit that the results to back up the research assump-tion 3 are not enough and the question remains still unanswered. Thus researching this shall remain as one of our research focuses in the research yet undone.

Conclusions

Augmented reality adventures for museum and cultural travel seem to have demand potential and it seems to add value to the museum and cultural travel experience to be a meaningful addition worthy to create. It also seems to be -when created promoting the historical values -suitable for cultural heritage atmosphere.

As discussed before, there is no single one-fits-for-all commercialization method as the prizing and delivery preferences varied amongst the testees. As the technology is yet emerging and unknown to most museum visitors we suggest low-threshold approach in engaging the possible future customers with easy access to the content provided while promoting the possibilities for new and exciting experiences.

The potentiality for selling new additional content should increase when the audiences become familiar with the AR technology. Overall it seems these kind of apps have their place in the markets and there are several people who are willing to pay for them. The question remains is there enough and if, when? The inclusion of the app prize to the museum visit or charging a separate payment -or any other funding method -is yet another thing that should be researched more upon.

To further understand the negative feedback gotten in this project, we need to distinguish the frustration over functionality, usability issues and overall lack of interest from each other. Our next goal in future studies is to promote the separation of fact and fiction in the storytelling. We are doing more research in the field of cultural heritage AR applications and thus will continue studying also the UX aspects further. Moreover we aim to create guidelines on how the future apps for cultural and museum sites should be constructed.

Fig. 4 ,Fig. 5 ,

 45 Fig. 4, Attitudes towards museums

Fig. 6 ,

 6 Fig. 6, Gaming activity.

Fig. 7 ,

 7 Fig. 7, AR experience overall and by gender.

Fig. 4 ,

 4 Fig. 4, "The app was pleasant to use" by age.

Fig. 9 ,

 9 Fig. 9, App functionality.

Fig. 5 ,

 5 Fig. 5, Easiness of use in navigation and movement.The storyline and gaming time (c.a. 45min) was found to be fine, but problems arose within the museum pedagogic level of the app which according to the testees

Fig. 11 ,

 11 Fig. 11, Opinions about content.

Fig. 6 ,

 6 Fig. 6, requests by the testees

Fig. 7 ,

 7 Fig. 7, Eagerness to continue the adventure after the museum visit.

  "What is real? How do you define 'real'? If you're talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then 'real' is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain." -Morpheus , The Matrix [8]

Table 1 ,

 1 : Age and Gender structure in study

			Oth-	Fe-
	Age	Male	er	male	t
	07-12	14	0	10
	13-18	6	0	3
	19-24	2	0	10
	25-34	15	0	9
	35-44	10	2	15
	45-54	3	0	12
	55-65	4	0	5
	65+	3	0	4
	Other	2	0	0
	Total	59	2	68

Table 2 ,

 2 Education structure in study

	Education 4
	1 st level degree or less
	2 nd level degree in vocational school
	2 nd level degree in high school
	Bachelor's degree
	Master's degree

Table 3 ,

 3 "First impression of the app was interesting" and number of museum visits

	"First impression was interesting"/Museum vis-
	its	Total	% of n
	Never visited the museum before	46
	Strongly agree	33	71.7
	Agree	10	21.7
	Neither agree or disagree	1	2.2
	Disagree	2	4.3
	Visited 1-2 times	49
	Strongly agree	25	51.0
	Agree	18	36.7
	Neither agree or disagree	4	8.2
	No opinion	2	4.1
	Visited 3-6 times	24
	Strongly agree	18	75.0
	Agree	5	20.8
	No opinion	1	4.2
	Frequent visitors (6+ times)	10
	Strongly agree	9	90.0
	Disagree	1	10.0
	Total	129
	Strongly agree	85	65.9
	Agree	33	25.6
	Neither agree or disagree	5	3.9
	Disagree	3	2.3
	No opinion	3	2.3
	As shown in Figure

See c.f. ar.utu.fi/mrdb for list of SDKs.

Http://ar.utu.fi

Finnish Education system is 3-levelled: primary school (7 to 15 years of age), two different secondary schools (16 to 19): high school and vocational school and two different higher level school types: bachelor level (universities of applied sciences) and master level (science universities).

Acknowledgements

The project is funded by Tekes, the Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation. We appreciate also the partnership of public and private parties involved: Amos Anderson Art Museum, KOy Casagrandentalo, The Chemical Industry Federation of Finland, EnkeliGroup Oy, Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland, Finnish Aviation Museum, Kilt Oy, Maritime Centre Vellamo / Museum of Kymenlaakso, Automobile and road museum Mobilia, Nimble Devices Oy, The Museum Centre of Turku, Museum of Technology, Muuritutkimus Ky, National Board of Antiquities, Silencio Oy, Turku and Kaarina Parish Union, Museum Centre Vapriikki, Vucom, Bryggman Foundation, Regional Council of Southwest Finland / Lounaispaikka.


Arthur Tatnall
email: arthur.tatnall@vu.edu.au

The Beginnings of Government Support for Computers in Schools -The State Computer Education Centre of Victoria in the 1980s

Keywords:

ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

Introduction

The 1980s saw a huge increase in the number of microcomputers on the market at a cost that made them affordable to schools. This, however, was not long after the period when to many people the computer was seen as a remote and incomprehensible 'electronic brain'. Why would you want to introduce them to school children? Some educators quickly saw the possibility of making good educational use of the new microcomputers, but at the time most teachers had little knowledge or understanding of this potentially enabling technology.

A study of the history of Computers in Education is a socio-technical one that requires an understanding of both computers of the time, and of the teachers and students who were to use them. As in the introduction of computers in business, support was needed and the research reported in this paper is about the historical purpose, formation and development of the State Computer Education Centre of Victoria.

Computers in Australian Schools in the 1980s

The Commonwealth of Australia is a federation of six states and two territories each operating largely independently. School education is constitutionally a matter for State Governments, and State Government Education Ministries determine school curriculum and how it is supported and delivered. However, in matters considered to be of national importance the Commonwealth Government sponsored and provided funding for specific school education projects [START_REF] Tatnall | Reflections on the History of Computer Education in Schools in Victoria[END_REF]. In the 1980s, one of these was the Commonwealth Computer Education Program through which the State Computer Education Centres were funded. While each Australian state had its own Computer Education Centre this paper will examine the State Computer Education Centre of Victoria (SCEC).

In 1983 the Australian Government set up the Commonwealth Schools Commission National Advisory Committee on Computers in Schools (NACCS), whose purpose was to provide leadership and funding for Computer Education across all Australian states and territories [START_REF] Tatnall | Computer Education Support Structures in Victorian Schools in the 1980s[END_REF]. In the 1984-6 triennium $18.7 million was allocated to the Commonwealth Schools' Commission Computer Education Program [START_REF] Tatnall | Purpose-Built Educational Computers in the 1980s: the Australian Experience[END_REF], one goal of which was co-ordination of Computer Education facilities and offerings in each of the States. NACCS published its first blueprint for Computer Education in Schools in 1983 [START_REF]Report of the National Advisory Committee on Computers in Schools[END_REF] in a report: Teaching, Learning and Computers which listed a number of possible uses for computers in schools:

•

Computer Awareness / Computer Literacy courses at the upper primary and lower secondary levels aimed at teaching students a little about computers, how they are used, and the social effects of this use.

•

Computer Science / Computer Studies / Information Processing.

•

Using computers across the curriculum in many areas such as: word processing, problem solving, information handling, simulation and modelling, educational games, spreadsheets, graphics, drill and practice, tutorial and electronic blackboards.

•

Curriculum Support including information retrieval, preparation of teaching materials and the maintenance of student records.

•

Communications with other teachers and students and for the interrogation of remote databases.

•

Administrative applications performed by school ancillary staff and teachers for the normal business applications of database management, financial management and word processing.

The Beginnings of the State Computer Education Centre of Victoria

In Victoria, early developments in School Computer Education were 'bottom-up', beginning with the efforts of a small number of mathematics/science and commerce teachers and it was some time before the Education Department itself became sufficiently interested to set up any form of central involvement [START_REF] Tatnall | The Role of the State Computer Education Centre of Victoria, in Education[END_REF]. When the Computer Education 'explosion' began in 1983 the Department saw the need for some form of top-down planning, central focus and control for some for computer education in the state. The Commonwealth Schools Commission proposed the need for computer education centres in those Australian states that did not already have them, noting that [START_REF] Tatnall | The Formation and Role of State Centres of Computer Education in Australia in the 1980s[END_REF]:

Education Departments in some states introduced computing into their schools before microcomputers became plentiful and inexpensive, by installing a minicomputer in a central place and using it to provide a service to schools. Having made this decision it was essential that a Centre be established with staff to operate the computer and provide support to teachers who were using it. 1Formation of the State Computer Education Centre of Victoria in 1984 was the eventual result [START_REF] Tatnall | Computer Education Support Structures in Victorian Schools in the 1980s[END_REF], [START_REF] Tatnall | The Role of the State Computer Education Centre of Victoria, in Education[END_REF].

Computer Education Support Centres in other States

As noted by the Commonwealth Schools Commission, both South Australia and Tasmania, each of which commenced programs of Computer Education earlier than the other states, had by this time already set up some form of Computer Education Centre [START_REF] Tatnall | The Formation and Role of State Centres of Computer Education in Australia in the 1980s[END_REF], Angle Park in South Australia and the Elizabeth Computer Centre in Tasmania.

Angle Park Computing Centre, South Australia

South Australia first became involved in Computer Education with the setting up of the Angle Park Computing Centre (APCC), which comprised professional staff, support staff and regional advisers, in the early 1970s [START_REF] Tatnall | The Role of the State Computer Education Centre of Victoria, in Education[END_REF]. The Centre initially provided schools with a batch-card input system for teaching computer programming, and with access to two extensive microcomputer networks. It also loaned computer equipment to schools. Peter Sandery, the APCC Principal Education Officer at the time, describes the function of the Centre as support for school activities including:

Teaching at the APCC, teaching in schools, development of software -the APCC currently sells software at cost price to schools through the Education Department bookshop, software and hardware review, consultant assistance to schools, LAN installation and operation assistance, teacher professional development activities, curriculum support activities, development of teaching techniques, forward planning 2 .

The APCC also had an important role in the recommendation, ordering and installation of computer hardware in South Australian Schools.

South Australia has a support service for schools in relation to the purchase of equipment. The Angle Park Computing Centre will discuss school plans, demonstrate the recommended hardware and a range of software, and assist the school in preparing its submission seeking approval to purchase. Following approval, the Centre will place the equipment order on behalf of the school and check the installation prior to the school making payment. ... New equipment is evaluated by the Centre as it becomes available3 .

4.2

The Elizabeth Computer Centre, Tasmania

Tasmania also had an early involvement with educational computing beginning with the introduction of a year 12 Computer Studies course in 1972 [START_REF] Tatnall | The Formation and Role of State Centres of Computer Education in Australia in the 1980s[END_REF]. It developed a state-wide timesharing network (TASNET) for educational purposes and, in the mid-1970s, created the Elizabeth Computer Centre whose role involved:

... development of educational and administrative software for the network and for microcomputers; the provision of expert advice on computing to the Department, to schools and to colleges; the provision of advice and training to Tasmanian teachers and the production of the regular newsletters ... 4Thus the notion of a State Centre for the support of Computers in Education as a curriculum arm of central educational administration became generally accepted across Australia.

Research Methodology

This study is about the historical purpose, formation, development and ultimate end of the State Computer Education Centre of Victoria and so the research technique primarily used is that of case study. According to Orlikowski and Baroudi [START_REF] Orlikowski | Studying Information Technology in Organizations: Research Approaches and Assumptions[END_REF], as IS research topics commonly involve the study of organisational systems, a case study approach is often quite appropriate. Case study evidence can come from documents, archival records, interviews, direct observation, participant-observation or physical artefacts. In this quasi-historical case, evidence comes from several of these sources and in particular from participant-observation as I was a professional member of SCEC from 1985-1988.

One problem in researching the formation of SCEC was that primary sources of information are, in many cases completely lacking, apart from anecdotal information. Researching its operation, on the other hand, was much more straightforward as I had access to documents and was able to interview professional staff and teachers.

6

The State Computer Education Centre of Victoria (SCEC) and Policy Analyst as well as the twelve Regional Computer Resource Centre Managers.

Head of the Centre

In an interview in 1985 the Head of SCEC (formally a secondary maths teacher) noted that there were several reasons for the existence of the Centre [5]:

1. A place for administration of the computer education program that was needed to provide financial and program accountability and 'supervision' of the program. 2. To provide a major input to policy development as this needed to be done on a broad spectrum and to involve other people. An example is the computer systems policy that really had to be done as a central initiative for efficiency and because of Government and Education Department constraints. 3. To be a (non-exclusive) focal point for a variety of computer education services of the Education Department and to provide co-ordination of elements like state-wide professional development. 4. To be a focal point for the provision of advice and to act for the provision of services and/or resources associated with computer education.

He went on to add that SCEC should give and take advice from: Regional Computer Education Centres, consultants and schools and that it needed to be a centre of expertise where people were invited and encouraged to discuss possibilities, not so much to make decisions about policy. It also needed to act as a sounding board for various ideas and to work with other Education Department agencies. "Now that the money has begun to flow, all states also need to determine how Commonwealth and State grant money in computer education will be spent and/or be allocated to schools. Giving advice in this area is also a function made easier by the existence of some form of State Centre or central committee." 5 He pointed out that in this computer education is not unique and a similar situation would apply to any curriculum area having a large number of dollars to dispense.

Software

One of the problems faced by schools early in the microcomputer era was a lack of suitable software. The State Computer Education Centre was set up to support computer systems not just hardware, and software development thus constituted an important role. Programming was now not considered as the only possible use of a computer and educational software began to become more important. In the early stages software from organisations like the Minnesota Educational Computing Consortium was utilised, but there was a cultural issue as what software there was often had an American outlook. One example of this was the Apple II simulation game 'Lemonade', based on making and selling lemonade from a street stall. While this had some merit in terms of teaching students about mathematics and one aspect of doing business, lemonade stands are almost unknown in Australia. Education authorities saw a need to develop Australian educational software [START_REF] Tatnall | The Australian Educational Computer That Never Was[END_REF], but at SCEC a first step was seen as software evaluation [START_REF] Salvas | The Evaluation of Educational Software Material[END_REF].

In an interview in 1985 the SCEC Software Coordinator (whose original teaching background was in chemistry and maths in secondary schools) reported that in 1981 he was seconded full-time as a consultant to produce and run a 'software library'. This later became a part of SCEC. (Actually the name 'software library' was a misleading one as its function was not to loan software but to sell it. 'Software Clearing house' would have been a more accurate name.) The initial aim of the Software Library was to sift through the available public domain software for Apple II and CP/M and to distribute to schools that which was found to be suitable. As it was not possible for the Software Library to actually produce educational software the Victorian government took a 50% interest in Prologic -a company which aimed to produce educational software [START_REF] Tatnall | The Growth of Educational Computing in Australia. In: History, Context, and Qualitative Methods in the Study of Education[END_REF], and sponsored the secondment of a number of teachers to work with professional programmers to produce educational software.

Curriculum

The task of this area was production of curriculum materials. The Assistant Curriculum Coordinator (teaching background in English, maths and history who had recently been teaching in a small country high school) said in a 1985 interview: "The role of the SCEC is to create magic, to be all things to all people. Because of this it will inevitably disappoint people. People want heaps of stuff and this is not possible." 6 He argued that the Centre needed to provide basic support and be a forum for discussion in all computer education areas as well as getting involved in publishing, but sometimes 'red tape' was a problem as to publish curriculum materials SCEC had to work with subject committees which could be a help or a hindrance depending on their personnel [START_REF] Tatnall | The Role of the State Computer Education Centre of Victoria, in Education[END_REF]. He indicated that there had been an over influence on production of materials for general secondary school subjects but not for computer science. He found the primary school area particularly exciting as so many things were possible. "I expect that the greatest things may be possible with the youngest kids."7 8 In the early days of a new curriculum like this, professional development was especially important as few teachers knew much about using a computer or about any of its educational possibilities. Consequently, many of these early PD activities were still typically of an 'awareness' nature. Much of the PD was done from the regions by the Regional Computer Centre Managers with SCEC acting to co-ordinate these activities. One type of activity involved speaking to all the teachers at a school during a Curriculum Day. This really was an awareness activity. Other activities involved smaller groups of teachers from a variety of schools, often looking at a software package such as a word processor, spreadsheet or educational simulation or game. The Professional Development Co-ordination also spent a lot of time working on publishing curriculum materials for use in the PD activities. This was particularly useful and of value to schools.

Educational Computer Systems Evaluation

The late 1970s and early 1980s saw a huge increase in the number of low-cost microcomputers on the market that were available to schools. These included: Apple II, Tandy TRS-80, Commodore VIC-20, Commodore-64, Acorn BBC, Microbee (an Australian designed and built CP/M machine), Atari 400/800, Cromenco, Osborne, Sinclair ZX80, XZ81 and Spectrum, Sorcerer, Altos, Franklin ACE, DEC Rainbow, Hitachi Peach, SEGA, Amstrad, Spectravideo, Apricot, Micromation, Pulsar and Olivetti. (The IBM PC and Apple Macintosh did not appear in Australian schools until later.) This made the need for computer systems evaluation most important.

As the incumbent of the position of Educational Computer Systems Analyst I can speak from personal experience and observation as well as making use of documents and interviews. In Victoria in the 1980s there was no central mechanism for purchase or maintenance of school computing equipment and so schools made their own arrangements [START_REF] Tatnall | How State Education Authorities Recommend Computer Systems for Use in Australian Schools[END_REF]. SCEC assisted through a process of evaluating computer systems for educational use and producing a 'Recommended List'. Government Schools were obliged to purchase only recommended systems with Education Department funds as this was necessary in order to comply with Government tender, offset and preferred supplier requirements. Government 'offset policy' was designed to encourage local manufacture of computing equipment by requiring that 'foreign' companies re-invest in the state 30% of the profits they made as the result of being nominated as a 'preferred supplier'. An important thing here is that it was systems and not just hardware that was evaluated for student use in schools.

The evaluation and recommendation process involved staff at SCEC, in consultation with practicing teachers and other curriculum personnel, determining the system needs of schools in educational computing and drawing up a detailed Educational User Requirement statement. This was then further developed into specifications for educational computing systems which were then put out to public tender and, as a result of the responses received, the systems of a number of suppliers were tested for their suitability in schools by staff at the SCEC, and recommendations made. This was an annual process due to rapid developments in computer hardware and software. As there was little software compatibility between the early types of PC used in schools and it made a big difference to a school's computer education curriculum whether it used Apple II, BBC, Microbee, CP/M, IBM or Macintosh computers, another reason for the recommendation process was to control the proliferation of these brands In order to facilitate support services [START_REF] Tatnall | Streams in the History of Computer Education in Australia[END_REF].

Like several other countries Australia even commenced a project to design an Australian Educational Computer [START_REF] Tatnall | Designing the Australian Educational Computer[END_REF] as the Commonwealth Schools Commission in its 1983 report recommended the development of a set of Educational Technical Requirements based on Educational User Requirements for an Australian Educational Computer. The reason for this was partially to provide computer systems that did not have a bias towards US or UK culture and partially to stimulate the Australian computer industry [START_REF] Tatnall | The Australian Educational Computer That Never Was[END_REF]. I was a member of the team involved with this process. After the Educational Technical Requirements had been developed the next step would have been the design and development of appropriate systems. Fortunately (in retrospect) this did not proceed past the design stage as later developments saw the rise to dominance in schools of the IBM-compatible PC (Windows) and the Apple Macintosh.

Regional Computer Centres

One of the Regional Computer Centre Managers (originally a secondary maths teacher) said in an interview in 1984: "In the region I've got a fair degree of autonomy. I think I work hard, particularly with in-services, and have a good relationship with teachers and schools. For instance I know all the computer coordinators in secondary schools in the region and have done a lot of primary school curriculum days." 9 He went on to describe how the Computer Centre Managers met quite regularly as a group (as well as socially) and were a pretty cohesive group as they all had similar problems and got a lot out of sharing them [START_REF] Tatnall | The Role of the State Computer Education Centre of Victoria, in Education[END_REF].

He was not particularly complementary about SCEC, noting that: "I do wonder though at times what Moorabbin 10 is on about as many of the staff there don't seem to have the same interests as us. Most of them, with a couple of notable exceptions, don't have any idea of what goes on in the regions either. It would have been better if more of them had been involved in a region at some time in their career!" 11 He suggested that some members of the Moorabbin staff were out of touch with reality as it had been too long since they had actually taught in a school or even had any real involvement with real school problems like students, timetables and extras. "I don't want to sound too negative but we don't see much of what goes on at Moorabbin, perhaps you do great things." 12

Some Views of SCEC Professional Staff

It was interesting to see that the SCEC professional staff had diverse views of both their roles and of the value of the Centre. The comments of some of the staff are given below. (The names I have used are fictitious to preserve privacy.)

Mary

"Our role is to point out a direction for computer education in this state, based on our inside knowledge of Commonwealth programs and on discussions of current educational issues plus interstate and overseas information. We should be an 'Information Bureau' on computer education in schools and should assist with cross fertilisation of ideas between schools and other groups." 13

Oliver

"My main concern for the SCEC is that it is, and is seen to be, valuable in assisting schools to further computer education in this state. An inward looking SCEC is of no use to anyone. We must always remain aware of what schools are doing and what their needs are. It is very easy in such an organisation to forget these things and get totally immersed in what you are doing yourself for your own ends. If this happens to us then we will be useless." 14 10 Moorabbin was the location of SCEC. 11 One of the Regional Computer Centre Managers. 12 One of the Regional Computer Centre Managers. 13 Mary was a member of the SCEC professional staff. 14 Oliver was a member of the SCEC professional staff.

7.3

Janice "It's hard to answer questions like: 'You people at the SCEC are costing thousands of dollars a year. What are you doing with it?' Our role is not to produce heaps of software, we can't do it. Even software evaluation is of doubtful value, what's useful to someone may not be useful to someone else -they may teach in a completely different way. You need to know where people are at now before you start doing anything. For instance there is a place for drill and practice and we shouldn't rule it out for everyone." 15

Matthew

"We've been going now for some time but still have no formal strategy to determine which way we are heading -particularly in curriculum. This is partly due to the centre's personnel. I'm not at all certain about the curriculum use of telecommunications and I don't know that the trials we're conducting at the moment will give us the answer. It's also strange that we're doing so little for the use of computers in maths. This is where it started and largely because we all tried to compensate for our maths backgrounds, it has not developed much." 16

Betty

"I have a difficulty in talking with some of the 'technical' people and I don't know what we have in common. We need to meet more often to talk over issues or we are in danger of knowing less than schools. If this happened, our credibility will be nil! We need to further define our role at the SCEC. Is it our role to produce curriculum materials, to conduct ISE or what? It's becoming increasingly important to re-assess this so we can be of use to schools."17

Allan

"I think that were doing a pretty good job and that things are all working quite smoothly. People at times expect too much of us; we can't be expected to produce much in the way of curriculum materials here. Our job is to co-ordinate curriculum committees and curriculum programs people to produce them. This all takes a lot of time and people have to realise that. The Government Printer is not over speedy either but we need to send out any materials with a high quality of production so we have to be prepared to wait. People shouldn't be so impatient. It's also a bit of a problem to have to work through regions as we must."18

7.7

Mark "My job is fairly clear cut and doesn't really involve a lot of contact with schools. I don't think we're doing enough to help schools develop curriculum, although perhaps we can never do enough. We should be doing more for the disadvantaged kids; computers can be of tremendous value to them. Answering the phone to reply to 'silly' questions gets irritating but I suppose this is all part of our job. People don't realise though that we could get a lot more done, and product a lot more goodies if we didn't have to waste so much time on trivialities." 19

Conclusion

Today in Victoria, central Education Department support for the use of computers in schools comes mainly in the form of on-line information regarding ICT support and services [START_REF]ICT Support, Services and Advice[END_REF] and curriculum [START_REF]Teaching with Digital Technologies[END_REF]. As there is now no scarcity of people with expertise in this area there is no longer any perceived need for a Computer Education Centre. In most developed countries the situation is much the same with any form of support of this type coming from the private sector. Many other technological innovations have impacted school education since the 1980s including the Internet, Google, mobile smart phones and Facebook. A discussion of these technologies is, however, beyond the scope of this paper. What is clear though is that school principals, teacher professional associations, national computer societies and interested university academics need to assist with school ICT infrastructure choices and offer suggestions for the future use of computers in schools.

It is instructive to consider why a central operation was undertaken to support computer education in Victoria in the 1980s and to compare this with the introduction of new enabling technologies in other curriculum areas. There were several key aspects of the computer education support situation in Australia that distinguished it from other curriculum areas and from support for the use of computers in business. These pointed towards a perceived need for a central operation and included both the scarcity of people with expertise in the area and the need for oversight of funds received as part of the Commonwealth Computer Education program [START_REF] Tatnall | The Formation and Role of State Centres of Computer Education in Australia in the 1980s[END_REF].

It can be seen that the State Computer Education Centre of Victoria played an important part in the history of computing in schools by providing advice and guidance to teachers in a time when this was most needed. Children quickly picked up and made good use of this innovative technology, but convincing teachers of the value of computers in education presented more of a challenge. SCEC certainly assisted in this.

  In January 1984, the State Computer Education Centre was set up in temporary premises at the old Moorabbin High School in Melbourne, with 10 seconded education staff. At the same time, in each of the twelve Education Department regions, Regional Computer Education Resource Centres were set up with a teacher seconded full-time

to act as 'Computer Resource Centre Manager'. Late in 1984, all positions at the SCEC were declared vacant and advertised as three year appointments with a total of 27 professional positions. In early 1985 I was appointed as Educational Computer Systems Analyst (Principal) with the task of evaluating microcomputer systems for school use and producing the 'Recommended List' of school computers. Other positions included: Senior Computer Education Officer (Centre OIC), Software Coordinator, Professional Development Coordinator, Curriculum Coordinator and Equal Opportunity Officer, Senior Software Officer, Senior Curriculum Development Officer, Professional Development Officer, Information Officer, Schools Commission Program Officer, Software Officer, Professional Development Officer (Non-Government Schools)

[4 p5]

[7 p109]

[8 p48]

[8 p49]

Head of Centre.

Assistant Curriculum Co-ordinator.

Assistant Curriculum Co-ordinator.

Professional Development Co-ordinator.

One of the Regional Computer Centre Managers.

Janice was a member of the SCEC professional staff.

Matthew was a member of the SCEC professional staff.

Betty was a member of the SCEC professional staff.

Allan was a member of the SCEC professional staff.


Jan Grbac
email: jan.grbac@student.upr.si

Matjaž Kljun

Čopič Klen

Leo Pucihar

Gombač

Collaborative Annotation Sharing in Physical and Digital Worlds

Keywords: document annotation, change detection, computer vision, physical-digital interaction

de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

Introduction

Digital revolution has changed a large part our lives, including the way in which we read annotate and interact with documents. During the early ascent of personal computers many have predicted the end of the paper. Quite contrary, we use more paper than ever before [START_REF] Sellen | The Myth of the Paperless Office[END_REF]. Moreover, we create more information than any other generation before us -be it video, audio or textual. It is the vast abundance of content that is so easily created in the digital form that has contributed to more printing. Nevertheless, many still prefer reading on paper for various reasons: reading on paper eases the learning process [START_REF] Mangen | Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen: Effects on reading comprehension[END_REF], using a pen is a ubiquitous process compared to all annotating software [START_REF] Marshall | Turning the page on navigation[END_REF][START_REF] Mueller | The Pen Is Mightier Than the Keyboard: Advantages of Longhand Over Laptop Note Taking[END_REF] and the sheer physicality of the paper provides a sense of possession, control and manipulation. Reading and creating annotations is thus a process that the physical world supports very well and affordances of the physical world are hard to surpass [START_REF] Marshall | Turning the page on navigation[END_REF][START_REF] Mueller | The Pen Is Mightier Than the Keyboard: Advantages of Longhand Over Laptop Note Taking[END_REF]. Dog-ears, immediately visible bookmarks, high density of information available at the same time, ease of visual scanning, persistence of infor-mation are just a few from the list. However, digital world brings other advantages to the table such as the ease of editing, sharing, duplicating, versioning, archiving, collaborating and searching especially when a large number of documents is in question.

The gap between digital and physical worlds has not diminished. We still struggle to keep both worlds in sync, which is notable also in the domain of learning and acquiring new knowledge, and which happens through annotations as one of the basic practices in these processes. Despite various attempts to bring physical and digital annotation together as described in next section, we still do not have a viable solution for merging them. In this paper we propose a system that would perform real-time capture of physically created annotations and mirror them to digital documents using a laptop and a smartphone camera. The proposed system aims at expanding physically created annotations with digital world capabilities such as real-time translations, broadening content with URL links, digital archiving (preserve annotations even when paper gets discarded) and most importantly sharing annotations with others. By filtering, ranking, moving and modifying the system strives to support users in integrating annotations of others into their mental model map that fits their personal learning style. In addition to solution design, we presented an early prototype of such a system to users in focus groups who provided an insight into how such a system would be accepted (e.g. acceptance of camera use in a public space such as library) and how sharing would fit into their learning process (e.g. how is intimacy, privacy and sense of ownership of one's annotations perceived).

Previous Work

There have been many attempts to bring physical world closer to the digital. The earlier attempts were to synchronise the files between an electronic and digital file cabinets. For example, the Self-organising file cabinet enhanced physical file cabinet and allowed users to import physical documents in a digital form and then annotate, organize, update and find information in the digital and consequently in the physical world [START_REF] Lawrie | A self-organized file cabinet[END_REF]. Another such example is Protofoil that let users find paper documents in an electronic file cabinet [START_REF] Rao | Protofoil: storing and finding the information worker's paper documents in an electronic file cabinet[END_REF]. Several attempts were made to track physical documents in the working environment with the help of digital technology. DigitalDesk used a camera and a projector mounted on the top of an office desk and captured user's interaction with physical documents and projected related digital information providing tangible manipulation of digital content [START_REF] Newman | A desk supporting computer-based interaction with paper documents[END_REF]. Kimura used also other sensors that tracked user's movements and interactions in the physical and digital domains and showed these as activity montages on a wall-sized display [START_REF] Voida | Integrating virtual and physical context to support knowledge workers[END_REF]. Similarly, Magic Touch tracked user's movements on the desk with wearable computing [START_REF] Pederson | Magic Touch: A Simple Object Location Tracking System Enabling the Development of Physical-Virtual Artefacts in Office Environments[END_REF]. Tracking of physical documents has been done also by printing special codes on the margins of the papers such in PaperSpace [START_REF] Smith | PaperSpace: a system for managing digital and paper documents[END_REF]. This computer vision based system allowed users to locate paper copies of printed digital documents and retrieve their digital versions based on these codes. In addition, a set of instructions (annotate, open, link, email, information) were printed in the margins of a physical document as well, which could be activated by systemrecognised gestures on them (e.g. by selecting an email icon on the margin of a physi-cal document resulted in attached digital counterpart to an email). Systems designed and tested by Wendy et. al looked at ways of digitizing handwritten annotations using graphics tablet placed below the physical document and a PDA as an interaction lens for attaching digital annotations such as electronic documents [START_REF] Mackay | The missing link: integrating paper and electronic documents[END_REF]. Other systems went even further and tried to bring the physicality of paper documents in the digital domain through augmented reality (AR) such in BubbleFish [START_REF] Fallman | The BubbleFish: Digital Documents Available On Hand[END_REF] that projected digital documents in the physical environment or Pacer [START_REF] Liao | Pacer: fine-grained interactive paper via cameratouch hybrid gestures on a cell phone[END_REF] that allowed highlighting in physical documents through phone's screen. Similar "direct manipulation" AR approach was implemented in several recent prototypes such as in [START_REF] Mueller | The Pen Is Mightier Than the Keyboard: Advantages of Longhand Over Laptop Note Taking[END_REF], [START_REF] Hardy | Experiences: a year in the life of an interactive desk[END_REF][START_REF] Hincapié-Ramos | tPad: designing transparent-display mobile interactions[END_REF][START_REF] Hincapié-Ramos | cAR: Contact Augmented Reality with Transparent-Display Mobile Devices[END_REF][START_REF] Kunze | Annotate me -Supporting active reading using real-time document image retrieval on mobile devices[END_REF]. Using different approaches and different levels of immersion, the above presented research successfully blended the two worlds together -however, it lacked particular focus on study processes and requires system setup that are not easily accessible or easily transferable, or create annotations in digital domain, which are visible in physical space only through phone's screen.

It has been noted in the academic literature that reading occurs most often in conjunction to writing than not [START_REF] Mueller | The Pen Is Mightier Than the Keyboard: Advantages of Longhand Over Laptop Note Taking[END_REF], [START_REF] Adler | A diary study of work-related reading: design implications for digital reading devices[END_REF]. Reading accompanied with writing (drawing, underlining, highlighting) as a support process helps users to form a conceptual understanding of the text while these secondary tasks are requiring no or very little cognitive attention. In such contexts the benefits of paper outweigh that of digital documents. A few systems have been proposed in this line of research that tried to bring physical annotations back to digital documents.

, Paper Augmented Digital Documents (PADD) [START_REF] Guimbretière | Paper augmented digital documents[END_REF], and S-notebook [START_REF] Pietrzak | S-Notebook[END_REF]. However, these systems require specially developed input devices (so called digital pens with a high precision micro camera integrated), and micro patterned paper that supports transference of physical annotations (writing and drawing) to digital documents. In some cases, they are restricted to only a set of recognisable patterns and only on predefined areas on forms. There have even been attempts to bring the physical affordances to the digital world such as in [START_REF] Pearson | The reading desk: applying physical interactions to digital documents[END_REF], OneNote and similar annotation software. However, we are not discussing these since they try to eliminate paper, which, as explained above provides tangibility, persistence and other affordances that can better support studying processes.

The limitation of the a above presented studies is that they require either specially equipped paper and input devices. In addition to this, none of them fulfils all of requirements we highlight in the design requirement section, particularly the collaboration aspect of visualising other users' annotations that allows grouping and grading these based on one's personal style of learning. As the designed system focuses on collaborative learning this paper presents also an exploratory study into (i) annotation sharing and possible intimacy/privacy implications users might perceive in doing it, and (ii) intimacy/privacy concerns of using camera phone when studying in public spaces such as libraries or other people's dwellings.

System Design

For our initial prototype design, we set up several requirements gathered from the literature. Studying commonly shifts from public/shared (library) to private/intimate environments (room) and requires a portable system with lowest possible amount of energy needed to move and set it up at a new location [START_REF] Applegate | The Library Is for Studying[END_REF][START_REF] Harrop | A Study Exploring Learners' Informal Learning Space Behaviors, Attitudes, and Preferences[END_REF]. Beside portability, social acceptance of the designed system need to be taken into account [START_REF] Roesner | Security and privacy for augmented reality systems[END_REF]. For example, one of the reasons why Google Glass has not been successful is the fact that its benefits failed to overshadow its social acceptance. Adding the camera and seethrough display to traditional eyeglasses was too intrusive and obvious, and attracted unwanted attention to people wearing them (imagine someone with such glasses coming into our intimate space such as home and filming it). It is also very important for such a system to be effective and require limited to no additional effort when adding new annotations -introducing any additional burden to the study process is likely to discourage users, particularly as studying happens over longer periods of time [START_REF] Venkatesh | User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view[END_REF].

Annotations also need to be digitalized individually and linked to a particular digital content being annotated in order to enable indirect search of created annotations, its underlying text, and annotation interactivity (e.g. gaining explanations of words being highlighted or pointed at). Besides, such a system also needs a possibility to (i) expand annotation with additional digital content (e.g. images, video, translations/definitions<) [START_REF] Sakar | Effectiveness of hypermedia annotations for foreign language reading[END_REF], and (ii) retrieve this content when needed. The final requirement relates to supporting collaborative learning introducing the need to: (i) view and select annotations curated by others, (ii) rate annotations, and (iii) organize them according to one's personal style of learning [START_REF] Marshall | Exploring the relationship between personal and public annotations[END_REF][START_REF] Marshall | From personal to shared annotations[END_REF].

Solution Design and Prototype Implementation

We present a solution using a laptop computer and mobile device on a stand as such devices are readily available within student population. Laptop is the processing and rendering unit, whilst the mobile phone is used for video capture of a printed document being annotated (see Figure 1). Such setup has sufficient processing power (particularly important during annotation synchronization and rendering phase), battery capacity (the system is required to run for an extended amount of study time), screen estate (important for annotation sharing, grouping and organization) and video capturing capabilities (an important aspect of annotation digitalization).

We provide the user with two views: the virtual view (Figure 1 left) and the augmented view (Figure 1 right). In the virtual view, the laptop screen shows the page of the document the user is currently reading. The document is overlaid with personal and shared annotations. The second view is called augmented view and provides a virtual mirror view of the book. In this case laptop screen renders a live video feed of a webcam captured through the prism glass. Depending on the configuration of the optics being used we alter the video in such a way that it shows the captured scene in correct orientation and provides users with virtual reflection (similar to one used by the Osmo1 system) of their hands and the document segment. As long as the position of the camera in relation to the paper is known, one can augment the document with shared annotations. In addition to this, as long as it is possible to track the pen, it is possible to make the captured surface fully interactive.

Annotation synchronization:

The solution utilizes video stream captured by the phone's camera in order to retrieve the e-version of the printed page. After a page is identified, the system looks for differences between the digital and physical version of the document and transcribes user's annotations to the digital version utilizing colour based tracking. This is done in a 3 stage approach. In first stage a colour filter is applied for blob detection, which is then used in second stage for detecting location and size of these blobs. The final stage is transformation of annotation locations to the document coordinate system. In order to do this, we need to know the position and orientation of the camera phone in relation to the page, which can be done using various camera pose tracking techniques [START_REF] Koller | Real-time visionbased camera tracking for augmented reality applications[END_REF][START_REF] Bradski | Learning OpenCV: Computer Vision with the OpenCV Library[END_REF]. The prototype (see Figure 2) is implemented using openCV library and is able to digitize annotations coloured in red, green or pink. Using the position and size of the blob, the prototype appends annotation to the text segment being overlaid.

Annotations actions in digital domain:

There are two basic annotation actions that the system supports: digital search actions based on the text below the annotation (e.g. word translations, wiki search, ...) and augmentation of knowledge with content from the web (e.g. appending URL links to curated annotations). Saved digital links can be revisited by mouse clicks on the digital document or through pointing gestures on a physical document. The prototype supports this feature and allows users to trigger 4 different actions (Dictionary, Wiki, Define, Image Search) using a URL driven API's. By clicking the right button or shortcut on the keyboard, a web search query URL is generated and opened in a web browser. If users find a valuable web resource, they can save its URL to the annotation, which becomes augmented with additional digital information.

Fig. 3: Design concept for sharing and organizing annotations. Different layers belong to different users. By ticking annotations at various layers of other users, the user adds them to their personal layer. Once on a personal layer, these digital annotations can be moved and modified in order to fit the learning style of the user. The expanded digital content is also transferred to the personal layer.

Annotation sharing, grouping and organization:

Besides viewing one's personal annotations such as highlights, notes and sketches, the page can also be overlaid by annotations curated by other users. The system allows users to choose which annotations they want to keep, where they want to place them the document and rate their importance. This is important in order to customize the learning environment according to one's personal learning style as demonstrated on Figure 3. This segment of the prototype has not yet been implemented, hence we provide here a concept sketch of the system (see Figure 3).

Method

For acquiring the insight into how users would perceive intimacy and privacy of (i) sharing their personal annotations, (ii) people around when using a system and (iii) social acceptance of setting up such a system (in both a public space such as a library or private space such as schoolmate's bedroom) we conducted a preliminary study before fully developing the prototype. The method chosen was a focus group with students as studying a variety of subjects occupies a large part of their lives. The focus group allowed us and participants to develop a rich group discussion around different opinions. To assure the diversity of studying practices we posted the announcement of the study at all departments at our university. 15 participants answered the announcement (4 females, 11 males) with an average age of 21 from 5 different departments: bioinformatics, applied mathematics, applied economics and finance, computer science, and biology. To further diversify the groups, we held two focus groups with mixed students from different departments as well as of different gender.

The focus group questions have been concentrated around four topics: (i) participants' usual studying settings (e.g. room, kitchen, library) and surroundings (people, studying material, devices), (ii) studying resources used (digital, physical), (iii) annotation sharing, intimacy and privacy concerns, and (iv) participants' opinion about the prototype. For the latest, participants have been shown the system as seen on Figure 1. The purpose of the demonstration was to support participants in visualising the style of studying with such a system and further the discussion of the focus group sessions. Both sessions have been filmed, videos transcribed and coded by two researchers. The main findings are presented in following section.

Discussion

Discussion section is presented around four topics of the focus group session. The empirical findings provide implications and uncover possible limitations of the proposed prototype.

Studying environment

Except for one participant who studies whenever opportunity arises (e.g. while commuting, between lectures on a bench, etc.), the majority mainly use their room desks and library study rooms as studying environments. In both settings users have access to all technology needed for the prototype to work: laptop, mobile phone, power plug and internet connection. While room desk provides an intimate and private studying environment where "things can be left as they are" (p10), library environment requires users to prepare and clean their studying setup. For the later, the prototype needs to be portable and easy to setup.

Studying resources

As our system supports annotations synchronisation between physical and digital document we wanted to find out what materials students use when studying. In line with other studies, participants expressed a preference for studying and annotating on paper [START_REF] Sellen | The Myth of the Paperless Office[END_REF][START_REF] Mueller | The Pen Is Mightier Than the Keyboard: Advantages of Longhand Over Laptop Note Taking[END_REF]. However, the kind of studying material available depended on a course subject -hence it was not always possible or rational to print out the materials prepared for a lecture. The mentioned reasons were: printing large quantities of material is expensive, lecture slides have little or no text to be worth printing, lecturers deliver content on a blackboard, and some subjects (e.g. mathematics) do not require learning by reading. In such cases, taking notes in exercise books is a preferred way of creating the material that participants later study from. This is a limitation for our prototype since exercise books of each participant in the course are unique, therefore, even though our system could capture created annotations (for the user to extend them with digital content) such annotations could not be searched and shared with others in a meaningful way. To achieve such annotation sharing, both, the annotations and the exercise book need to be shared. Regardless of study material format (printed documents or exercise books) participants also use other resources (books, web) to supplement existing material and to clarify the created content. Interestingly, participants never store links to supplementary resources, but transcribe the relevant content to the main study material. If they need to revisit this resource, they browse for it again (in a book or on the web). Such practice does not externalise these mental links, which cannot be shared with other users and fade with passing time [33 p159].

During the discussion, participants identified the loss of links as problematic, but also highlighted that an even bigger problem is the fact that paper material (either exercise books or annotated printed material) is either archived and never looked at again (it is difficult to access and search through such material) or discarded due to lack of space and required effort. They also mentioned that on several occasions, having such content would come in handy, but it was not possible to use it. On the other hand, the majority of participants kept their digital content as it does not take up physical space and was easily retrieved by searching. If used, our prototype mitigates the loss of physical study material with digitalised annotations and enhances such annotations with indirect digital search capacity through such material.

Annotation sharing, intimacy privacy concerns

When asked about sharing their annotations, focus group members did not highlight any intimacy and privacy concerns. Some questioned if such annotations would be meaningful to other participants, but not all agreed and highlighted that they regularly share annotations with classmates who photocopy them. However, the later group stressed out that shared annotations are not used in current format, but recycled and integrated into one's own annotations. This is not surprising as annotations represent personal mental model maps, hence are most useful for the person who created them [START_REF] Payne | Users' Mental Models: The Very Ideas[END_REF]. The implication for the prototype is that the system needs to focus on enabling user's highest possible flexibility when integrating shared annotations into one's personal layer.

The prototype

Participants generally liked the prototype and found its use socially acceptable in private and public domain. No concerns were raised when participants were asked about acceptability of the system if used by their neighbours in the library or colleagues studying in their rooms (as long as the system did not make additional noise).

The use of camera does not seem to cause any concern amongst participants. This was expected as the camera is pointed towards the table and only captures tabletop surface in-front of the user, which is very unlikely to raise privacy issues. If used in silent mode, mobile phone and laptop use in public and others' people private environments, is nowadays acceptable and even supported through the provision of internet, power access and laptop renting.

Participants found the system as too cumbersome to move for daily use at lectures. However, most agreed that during exam periods, they do not see mobility as problematic because they stay in the same place for extended period of time or study in private setting where clearing one's desk after use is not required. When asked about the extended set of features they would like to see, participants highlighted that they would like to be able to create links to a particular segment of the webpage. This idea was expended to videos where participants expressed the need to create link to a particular segment of a video.

Conclusion

Real-time digitalisation of physical annotations in order to archive, share, search, and expand them can bring added value to the process of acquiring new knowledge while digitally preserving it for the future. The implemented prototype demonstrates that such a system is viable on hardware that is readily available within the student population. In addition to this, the presented focus group sessions also highlighted that such hardware configuration is acceptable in private and public domains. The sessions also revealed that finding supplementary digital information resulted in a failure to link it to study material on paper and losing it in the long run (e.g. writing down URLs as annotations is not always a suitable solution), and that even paper material is often discarded, lost or archived in a way which makes it difficult to use again. In addition, the focus group also highlighted that the prototype proposed fits in their studying habits and does not introduce any privacy concerns be it ones related to the prototype's camera (used in public or others' people private setting) or ones related to annotations sharing. At last, sharing annotations as supported by our prototype was seen a valuable feature complementing and expanding sharing that is already happening in physical world (students are photocopying notes from one another) where users recycle their colleagues' annotations and make them fit their own studying process and mental models. We are currently building a full prototype, which will be studied both in the lab and in the wild. The former will measure usefulness, usability, and scalability (e.g. how many users can use it together) of the prototype in a predefined task that will include reading a selected text, free annotating the text and viewing (selecting, rating) annotations of other users (researchers). After this study, we plan to use the prototype in a long-term study run as part of university course which is based on reading research papers.

Fig. 1 :

 1 Fig. 1: Left: virtual view in which highlighted text on the paper results in highlighted text on the screen. Right: Augmented view shows a real-time video of user annotating with augmented content on a screen From software implementation perspective the solution is divided into 3 parts: (1) annotation synchronization; (2) annotations actions in digital domain; (3) annotation sharing, grouping and organization that suits one's personal learning style. Each segment is discussed individually within the following subsections.

Fig. 2 :

 2 Fig. 2: Prototype showing four options (Dictionary, Wiki, Define, Image Search) that can be executed on digitalized highlight "Moving Projector Platform"

Osmo: https://www.playosmo.com