# A Metaverse Platform for Preserving and Promoting Intangible Cultural Heritage
## 3 Results and Discussion

Table 2: User testing questions for the UES assessment. The aggregate questionnaire findings are presented in terms of median, minimum, and maximum values. The sign “_“_\" in the “Item” column is used to highlight items with a reversed scale. a stronger sense of presence in users [38]. This increased sense of presence can improve total immersion and the emotional connection to the cultural content of the exhibition, thus leading to a more meaningful experience for visitors. SUS items can be subdivided into four categories: learnability, efficiency, ease-of-use, and satisfaction. The obtained answers suggest that the smartphone-related learning curve is faster than the HMD one, with a superior ease-of-use due to higher familiarity with the device; on the other hand, HMDs provide a more engaging experience. These considerations are qualitative insights that can complement the quantitative analysis reported above; in fact, the SUS is designed to provide a single overall score representing the system's usability, and breaking it down into subdivisions may reduce the reliability and interpretability of the results. On the other hand, UES items can be classified into focused attention (items 1-3), perceived usability (items 4-6), aesthetic appeal (items 7-9), and reward factor (items 10-12). In this sense, according to the median results, HMDs foster users' attention and are more aesthetically appealing; the perceived smartphone usability is slightly better than that for HMDs, in line with the SUS questionnaire answers, while the reward factor can be considered the same for both technologies. The unique strengths of smartphones and VR headsets in terms of usability and engagement have significant consequences for the cultural heritage sector's growth. While smartphones may provide an easy entry point for people to connect with cultural heritage information, VR headsets give a more in-depth and immersive experience that may lead to a greater understanding and knowledge of heritage. Cultural venues may exploit the broad usability and familiarity of users with smartphones to provide a simple and accessible way for visitors to engage with cultural information, without the logistical challenges and expenses involved with the distribution and maintenance of more advanced equipment such as VR headsets. This convenience also applies to guests, who may access the site content using their own devices, increasing their experience without the need for extra supplies or support. On the other hand, VR headsets offer a level of immersion and presence that is unmatched by smartphones. This immersive experience allows users to feel as if they are actually present at the heritage site or historical environment being explored. Furthermore, VR headsets can make users experience places that may be inaccessible or no longer exist in the physical world, such as ancient ruins or historical monuments destroyed over time, providing new opportunities for preserving cultural heritage, particularly for individuals who are unable to visit these locations in person. Although the initial setup and cost of VR equipment are significantly higher than those of smartphones, technological advancements are gradually making VR more accessible and affordable. As VR devices become more widely available, cultural venues and organizations may include more VR experiences in their offerings to supplement traditional exhibitions. By using both technologies' distinct capabilities, the cultural heritage sector may successfully reach and engage a wide range of people, promoting better respect for and knowledge of historical legacies.