## 5 Evaluation  
The mobile app and the experts' tool have been assessed in collaboration with the venues involved in the \"_Water and health in ancient times_\" experience, through experiments conducted between October 2017 and March 2018. On the one hand, the assessment of the mobile app looked at the feedback gathered through the emojis interface of Figure 7, the textual comments provided in the last screen (Figure 8) and the replies to a paper-based questionnaire, that would take up to 15 min to fill in. A total of 58 participants were recruited from among students of the Universities of Vigo, Padova and the Peloponnese, their ages ranging from 20 to 60, but with a predominance of young and middle-aged profiles, with frequent use of mobile apps. The 58 users tried the app in one only session each, lasting for an average of 35 min. Then, they proceeded to fill in the paper-based questionnaire, which contained 31 statements to rate on a Likert scale, plus 8 questions requiring textual answers (about the user experience, the features they liked the most and the least, suggested improvements, etc.). The participants were asked to rate the 31 statements, and accordingly we got 98% of the expected ratings (a rating of \"Neutral\" was assumed for the gaps). In contrast, the textual answers were left as optional, and we gathered only 23% of the maximum number of replies. The anonymized dataset yields the following main results and observations:  
Figure 10: Edition of informational snippets and multiple-choice questions. * While the users were faced with an average of 11.7 highlights in the app, they would rate only 5.3 with one of the emojis--either because they did not read the rest of the highlights or they did not find any of the emojis to be representative enough. From among the replies, 67.6% of the users would choose interested (\"_that's good to know_\"), reflecting (\"_that makes me think_\") or surprised (\"_that's surprising_\") emojis; 27% of the users would click on the smirking (\"_I knew that already_\") face, while only 5.4% would express indifference or lack of interest (\"_who cares!_\"). * 91.4% of the users who reached the end of the experience (i.e., who went through all the reflective topics) would provide textual comments at the screen of Figure 8, and the average number of comments provided by those was 3.1. * According to the data of Table 1, nearly \(\frac{1}{4}\) of the users had negative opinions about the app, and more than \(\frac{1}{3}\) did not perceive much added value in the graph visualizations of concepts and associations. This datum correlates with the indication that it would be better to use the app on a larger screen than offered by a smartphone, and that things would be much easier to understand with a teacher or guide browsing/explaining the contents. In contrast, the features related to the stories, the multiple-choice questions and the reflection points were appealing to an average of 90% of the users. * 35.5% of the users indicated that they ended up with a richer understanding of life in the Roman period, while 61% had a neutral opinion. The little textual feedback gathered in this regard suggested that the statement was probably too ambitious for the relatively short time spent with the app. Besides, there is the fact that more than 78% of the users who completed the profiling questionnaire in the app were rated as knowledgeable ones, which suggests that our sample of University students already had a decent historical background. * Finally, owing to the data gathered from the paper-based questionnaire, nearly 70% of the users agreed that the app can enrich the visit of one of its cultural venues (preferably, if used before the visit), while 40% said that it can also instigate curiosity about the distant ones. Disagreement with these statements was null or very low (14.6%). The feedback gathered during these experiments is being used to update the implementation of the mobile app and to complete its contents.