# A Gamified Augmented Reality Application for Digital Heritage and Tourism
## 3 Results  
This section provides a concise and precise description of the experimental results. Table 1 presents the heuristic criteria used for the evaluation of the e-Tracer AR application (including the AR quiz), the possible violations identified by the members of the expert team, and their comments on how violations--or their effects on usability--could have been mitigated. Apart from closed questions, a second part of the review was introduced a couple of weeks later to let experts express themselves regarding the advantages of AR technology when used in museums and the advances of the proposed application over conventional systems. Three out of four invited experts responded in this second part and provided valuable feedback. The questions were given to reviewers in the local language (Greek); however, English translations are provided below. In the question (RQ1), _\"In your opinion, what is the advantage of using Augmented Reality during a museum tour?\"_, one expert made a direct comparison to the standard audio tour, and two others mentioned the immersion and interaction effect. More specifically, it was explained that AR is far better than a pause-and-play audio experience, which is the dominant model so far. One member of the expert team explained that visitors frequently complain about audio interfaces because it can easily become \"_annoying to search for the artefact number, type it to the audio device, press the playback button, and then go back and forth all the time because the narration may go too fast_\". Such small difficulties and interruptions can ruin the overall visitor's experience. In contrast, AR apps can sense what the visitor is looking at and display the right information without inconvenience. In addition, it was said that AR can provide a more interactive and immersive journey in the museum and actually can help visitors develop a new kind of relationship with the artefacts. In other words, apart from creating a memorable journey, AR can develop the feeling of ownership and can maximize the time visitors spend on site. The next question (RQ2) was about the advantages of the e-Tracer AR app (\"_Based on the AR application you evaluated, what do you think is its biggest advantage over existing applications?_\"). The main advantages can be summed up as follows: the use of images instead of QR codes, the interactive learning model, the playful interaction with the artefacts, and the 3D model projection capabilities. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**A/A** & **Heuristic Criterion** & **Violations** & **Comments and Mitigation Actions** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{1} & Fit with user environment and task: visualizations and metaphors should match the user’s mental models & Expert 1: \(\Box\) & Although visual metaphors were self-explained, it was not clear if the explainer 3: \(\blacksquare\) & available time (gauge bar) refers to the quiz or only to the first question. \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{2} & Form communicates function: Virtual elements should rely on existing metaphors to communicate affordances and capabilities & Expert 1: \(\Box\) & Visual metaphors are well known to users. Flashing brackets are OK, but it was recommended to display a message to prompt the user explore the physical space in AR questions. \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{3} & Minimize distraction and overload: minimize accidental distraction as AR apps can easily become visually overwhelming & Expert 1: \(\Box\) & There is a well-stepped process in accessing the museum information (first short info and then full artifact screen). \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{4} & Adaptation to user position and motion: virtual elements are useful and usable from the variety of viewing angles, distances, and user’s movements & Expert 1: \(\blacksquare\) & The system is stable and reliable only in good lighting conditions. In poor lighting, the markers cannot be identified.