Deliverable 1.2: User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype

Deliverable 1.2: User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 1 1 Document Information Document Identification Status Final Due Date 30 April 2025 Version 8.0 Submission Date 30 April 2025 Related WP WP1 Document Reference D1.2 Related Task(s) 1.1.3 Document Type R Related Deliverable(s) D1.2 Dissemination Level Public Lead Participant JU Lead Author Monika Krakowska (JU) Contributors JU; KUL; NKUA Reviewers Zoë Vandenhende (KUL) Reviewers Caterina Antonopoulou (NKUA) Author(s) First Name Last Name Partner Monika Krakowska JU Magdalena Zych JU D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 2 Document History Version Date Modified by Modification reason 1.0 31.03.2025 14.04.2025 Monika Krakowska (JU) First draft (uploaded on Ms Teams) Sent to reviewers 2.0 14.04.2025 - 23.04.2025 Zoë Vandenhende (KUL) & Caterina Antonopoulou (NKUA) Internal review 3.0 24.04.2025 Monika Krakowska & Magdalena Zych (JU) Internal reviewer’s comments implementation 4.0 24.04.2025 Zoë Vandenhende (KUL) & Caterina Antonopoulou (NKUA) Second internal review 5.0 25.04.2025 Monika Krakowska Łukasz Pieczonka Karolina Wawok Evaluation by the QA Team and assigned experts 6.0 28.04.2024 Monika Krakowska Evaluation team’s comments implementation 7.0 29.04.2025 Łukasz Pieczonka Żaneta Kubic Second evaluation by the QA Team and assigned experts 8.0 29.04.2025 Żaneta Kubic Document approval and final version D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 3 Quality Control Role Who (Partner short name) Approval Date Deliverable leader Monika Krakowska, JU 25.,04.2025 Quality manager Łukasz Pieczonka, JU 26.04.2025 Project Coordinator Żaneta Żegleń, JU 29.04.2025 D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 4 2 Executive summary This deliverable, D1.2 – Report on qualitative and quantitative UX research, presents the results of a multi-method user study conducted within Work Package 1 (WP1) – Extended Storytelling Towards Vivid User Experiences - of the IMPULSE project (GAP-101132704). The research was carried out in Task 1.1.3, coordinated by the Jagiellonian University, and aimed at identifying how diverse user groups perceive, interpret, and interact with immersive cultural heritage content. The study employed a triangulated methodology, integrating participatory UX workshops, structured surveys, and semi-structured interviews. These methods were applied across three key user groups defined in Deliverable D1.1 (Krakowska, Zych, Deja, 2024, p. 13-18): • G1: students and academic teachers and researchers • G2: artists and art school educators, • G3: professionals from the Cultural and Creative Industries (CCI). Group 1 (G1): Students, University Educators, and Researchers. This group includes undergraduate and graduate students, as well as university educators and researchers, primarily from the partner institutions involved in the project (e.g., Jagiellonian University). The focus of this group is on the educational and didactic potential of immersive environments and digital cultural heritage, particularly the application of immersive prototypes in educational settings. The primary exploration will be around how immersive environments can be integrated into curricula, facilitating deeper engagement with digital cultural assets and enhancing learning experiences in academic contexts. Group 2 (G2): Artists and Creative Practitioners. This group consists of artists and creative practitioners, such as art school educators and professional artists, who engage with cultural content through creative and interpretive practices. The investigation will focus on the potential of the prototype in an artistic context, with an emphasis on creative exploration, artistic re-imagining, and speculative methodologies. Members of G2 will use the prototype for artistic research and will explore its potential to stimulate creative re-interpretation and re-engagement with cultural heritage in immersive digital formats, encouraging new forms of expression and narrative. Group 3 (G3): Cultural and Creative Industries (CCI) Professionals. This group includes professionals from the cultural and creative industries (CCI), such as curators, designers, multimedia developers, and cultural heritage professionals, who work with digital heritage tools and immersive technologies. The research within this D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 5 group will explore the professional use of the prototype, focusing on aspects like technical stability, scalability, and integration into professional workflows. G3 participants will assess the potential of the prototype for professional curation, exhibition development, and the creation of digital assets for the cultural heritage sector, focusing on practical applications in real-world contexts. A two-day co-creative workshop held in Leuven enabled in-situ testing of early-stage VR prototypes and collaborative narrative design. Remote surveys allowed for broader validation of user preferences, while interviews deepened understanding of affective and interpretative experiences. Findings reveal that each user group demonstrates distinct expectations regarding usability, content structure, emotional engagement, and technical functionality. These insights informed the construction of provisional user personas and form the basis for the design recommendations presented in Section 7. D1.2 contributes empirical evidence to support the user-centred and inclusive development of the IMPULSE platform in WP2 and provides strategic guidance for interaction and narrative design in WP3. It also builds upon the conceptual foundations set in D1.1 and prepares the ground for further persona refinement and behavioural diagnostics in D1.3. Key words: user experience, immersive environments, cultural heritage, extended reality, UX research, participatory design, co-creation, user groups, XR, virtual reality, prototype evaluation, interaction design, persona construction, narrative strategies, education and the arts. D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 6 3 Table of Contents 1 Document Information................................................................................................................1 2 Executive summary ......................................................................................................................4 Key words: ......................................................................................................................................5 3 Table of Contents .........................................................................................................................6 4 Abbreviations and Acronyms .....................................................................................................9 5 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 10 5.1 IMPULSE Project................................................................................................................................. 10 5.2 Objectives of the Work Package 1 ................................................................................................... 11 5.3 Objectives of the Task 1.1 ................................................................................................................. 11 5.4 Background and Objectives ............................................................................................................. 12 5.5 Scope and purpose of this Deliverable ........................................................................................... 14 6 User Groups and Personas ....................................................................................................... 15 6.1 Definition and Justification of User Groups ................................................................................... 15 6.2 Key Characteristics ............................................................................................................................ 16 6.2.1 Information and Digital Literacy ................................................................................. 16 6.2.2 Expectations for Digital Heritage ................................................................................ 16 6.2.3 Narrative, Affective, Aesthetic Preferences................................................................ 17 6.3 Provisional Personas......................................................................................................................... 17 6.3.1 Comparative Overview of Provisional Personas (G1–G3) ................................... 19 7 Methodology............................................................................................................................... 21 7.1 Methodological Framework ............................................................................................................. 21 7.1.1 User-centred and Iterative Approach ......................................................................... 22 7.1.2 Triangulation of Methods............................................................................................ 22 7.2 Tools and Instruments ...................................................................................................................... 23 7.2.1 UX test scenarios ......................................................................................................... 23 7.2.1.1 Scenario Architecture and Purpose........................................................................ 24 7.2.1.2 Roles in Scenario Facilitation .................................................................................. 24 7.2.1.3 Scenario Objectives and Observational Strategy .................................................. 25 7.2.2 Survey Questionnaires ................................................................................................ 25 7.3 Ethical and Logistical Considerations ............................................................................................. 27 8 UX Research Activities and Results ........................................................................................ 28 8.1 Participatory UX Workshop (Leuven) .............................................................................................. 28 8.1.1 Objectives and Structure ............................................................................................. 28 D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 7 8.1.2 Preliminary Design Recommendations ...................................................................... 29 8.1.3 Description of the Prototype and Testing Scenarios................................................. 29 8.1.4 Functional Overview .................................................................................................... 30 8.1.5 Intended Testing Scenarios and Constraints ............................................................. 31 8.1.6 Observations, Interactions, and Participant Statements .......................................... 31 8.1.7 User Group-Specific Results: G1, G2, G3 .................................................................... 33 Methodological Approach ........................................................................................................... 33 G1 – Educators, Researchers and Students ........................................................................... 33 G2 – Artists, Art Teachers and Creative Practitioners ........................................................ 33 G3 – Cultural Sector Professionals and Creative & Cultural Industries ........................... 34 8.1.8 Storytelling Scenarios and Narrative Prototyping (Leuven Workshop) ................... 35 Method and Structure ................................................................................................................. 35 8.1.9 Leuven Workshop UX Survey: Analysis and Findings ................................................ 46 A. User-Described Problems (Problem Description) ............................................................. 66 B. Suggested features (desired functionality) ........................................................................ 66 C. Meta-level Reflections (Additional Comments) ................................................................. 67 Cross-cutting Insights and Recommendations .......................................................................... 67 Next Steps .................................................................................................................................... 68 8.2 Surveys (G1 & G2) .............................................................................................................................. 68 8.3 Interviews ........................................................................................................................................... 87 8.3.1 Indicated barriers ........................................................................................................ 89 8.4 Synthesis and Cross-case Analysis .................................................................................................. 98 8.4.1 Synthesis and Cross-case Analysis ............................................................................. 98 8.4.1.1 Comparison of Results from Three Methods ........................................................ 98 8.4.1.2 Mapping Insights and Behavioural Patterns.......................................................... 99 8.4.1.3 Differences Between User Groups ....................................................................... 100 8.4.1.4 Impact of Previous Digital and Cultural Competences ....................................... 101 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 101 8.5 Recommendations .......................................................................................................................... 101 8.5.1 General Design Recommendations .......................................................................... 102 8.5.2 Narrative and Interaction Design ............................................................................. 103 8.5.3 Strategic Recommendations for Next WP................................................................ 104 8.5.4 Strategic Recommendations for WP1: User Research and Persona Development 104 8.5.4.1 Refinement of User Personas ............................................................................... 104 8.5.4.2 Expansion of User Research Methodologies ....................................................... 106 8.5.4.3 Integration of Cross-Group Data .......................................................................... 106 8.5.4.4 Focus on Barriers and Functional Gaps ............................................................... 107 8.5.4.5 Further Testing and User Feedback ..................................................................... 107 8.5.4.6 Collaboration with Other Work Packages ............................................................ 108 8.5.5 Conclusion: Strengthening WP1’s Role in the IMPULSE Project ............................. 108 8.5.6 Strategic Recommendations for Future Tasks within WP2 and WP3:.................... 108 8.5.7 WP2: Development of Immersive Technologies for Digital Cultural Heritage ...... 109 8.5.7.1 General Technical Recommendations ................................................................. 109 8.5.7.2 Multi-User Functionality ........................................................................................ 110 8.5.8 WP1: User-Centred Narrative Integration and Pedagogical Scenarios .................. 110 8.5.8.1 Narrative and Interaction Design (WP1) .............................................................. 110 D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 8 8.5.8.2 Pedagogical Integration (WP1) .............................................................................. 111 8.5.9 3. Recommendations for Cross-Work Package Collaboration: .............................. 111 8.5.10 Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 112 8.5.11 Inclusivity and Cultural Sensitivity Guidelines ......................................................... 113 8.5.12 Strategic Recommendations for WP5: Dissemination, Communication and Stakeholder Engagement .......................................................................................................... 114 8.5.12.1 Specific Recommendations for WP5: ............................................................... 114 8.5.13 Conclusion for WP5 Integration ................................................................................ 115 9 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 115 9.1 Summary of Key Findings ............................................................................................................... 115 9.2 Identifying Gaps and Directions for Further Research ............................................................... 116 10 References ............................................................................................................................ 118 11 Annexes ................................................................................................................................. 119 11.1 Questionnaire IMPULSE VR Platform Testing prepared for Leuven workshop ....................... 119 11.2 Questionnaire IMPULSE - Needs and expectations of VR users ................................................ 122 11.3 Interview Guide ................................................................................................................................ 127 11.4 Demographic Data .......................................................................................................................... 128 11.5 Interview Questions ......................................................................................................................... 128 D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 15 • Section 7 – Recommendations: actionable guidance for design, narrative adaptation, strategic development and inclusivity; • Section 8 – Conclusions: main takeaways and implications for further development; • Section 9 – References and Section 10 – Annexes: supporting materials and documentation. This structure follows a logic of progression from user characterisation through research execution to results, synthesis and application. It ensures transparency, traceability, and usability of findings for both internal project development and external evaluation. 6 User Groups and Personas 6.1 Definition and Justification of User Groups The user research conducted within Task 1.1.3 of the IMPULSE project builds on a structured segmentation of user groups established in WP1 and elaborated in Deliverable D1.1. The rationale for this segmentation is to ensure that the development of immersive digital heritage prototypes is informed by the diverse experiences, needs, and expectations of real users, representing a wide range of educational, artistic, and professional contexts (D1.1, pp. 9–11). Three main user groups were defined and selected for focused empirical investigation: • Group 1 (G1): Students, Academic Teachers, and Researchers. This group includes university students, academic teachers, and researchers, representing a range of digital literacy levels and familiarity with immersive technologies. They were selected to test educational use cases and explore user needs in both formal and informal learning environments. • Group 2 (G2): Artists and Art School Teachers. This group comprises practitioners and educators engaged in the arts, with particular attention to those who work with visual, performative, and interpretive approaches. Their perspective is crucial for validating the artistic relevance and expressive affordances of immersive cultural narratives. • Group 3 (G3): Cultural and Creative Industries (CCI) Professionals. This group includes curators, digital designers, developers, and other professionals operating at the intersection of heritage, technology, and innovation. Their feedback D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 16 is key for ensuring that the prototype can be adapted to real-world production environments and creative workflows (D1.1, pp. 9–12). This tripartite segmentation reflects the project's commitment to inclusivity, sectoral relevance, and co-creation, and enables comparative analysis across user types. 6.2 Key Characteristics The three user groups identified for the UX research in WP1 differ substantially in terms of their digital competences, usage contexts, and experiential expectations. These differences were initially hypothesised during the preparatory work in WP1 and elaborated in Deliverable D1.1, which provided both the theoretical rationale and the methodological structure for their exploration (Krakowska et al., 2024, pp. 9–12). They guided the development of research instruments and the interpretation of findings across tasks in WP1. 6.2.1 Information and Digital Literacy. • G1 (Students and Educators) shows a heterogeneous profile with respect to digital fluency. While some students—especially those in creative disciplines—are digitally competent and curious about immersive technologies, others require clear structure and conceptual scaffolding. Academic teachers tend to emphasise usability and educational transparency in immersive content design (Krakowska et al., 2024, pp. 13, 17). • G2 (Artists and Art School Teachers) generally exhibits high visual and aesthetic literacy, yet their familiarity with immersive and interactive digital systems varies. Many are open to exploratory and speculative approaches, favouring experimentation with content and format. However, for some members of this group, immersive systems represent novel and potentially challenging environments (Krakowska et al., 2024, pp. 13–14, 19). • G3 (CCI Professionals) is typically characterised by high functional digital literacy. Members of this group—including curators, designers, and developers—are often well-versed in XR, 3D environments, or digital platforms used in heritage and creative sectors. Their expectations are strongly shaped by professional standards, productivity demands, and integration with existing workflows (Krakowska et al., 2024, pp. 19–21). 6.2.2 Expectations for Digital Heritage. • G1 values immersive content that is clearly structured, contextualised, and educationally meaningful. Navigation ease and access to supporting information D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 17 are seen as essential for effective learning engagement (Krakowska et al., 2024, pp. 17, 20). • G2 expects openness to interpretation, symbolic richness, and opportunities for reappropriation and aesthetic expression. Multimodality and creative affordances are key to maintaining engagement (Krakowska et al., 2024, pp. 14, 21). • G3 prioritises technical robustness, modularity, and adaptability. Systems must enable efficient content manipulation, exportability, and usability in applied creative contexts (Krakowska et al., 2024, pp. 21–22). 6.2.3 Narrative, Affective, Aesthetic Preferences. • G1 favours immersive experiences that combine clear narrative trajectories with affective resonance, especially where the content addresses social, historical, or ethical dimensions in culturally situated ways (Krakowska et al., 2024, p. 28). • G2 engages more easily with open-ended, ambiguous, and affectively rich storytelling formats. Artistic users prefer interfaces and content structures that stimulate the senses, allow freedom of interpretation, and support embodied interaction (Krakowska et al., 2024, pp. 28–29). • G3 is generally drawn to task-oriented, customisable, and scalable narratives. The emphasis is placed on clarity, control, and alignment with user goals such as exhibition development, audience outreach, or commercial production (Krakowska et al., 2024, p. 29). These insights formed the conceptual backdrop for the design of surveys, interview guides, and co-creation workshop scenarios. They also support the synthesis of results across user groups, discussed in Section 6. 6.3 Provisional Personas As part of the interpretative synthesis of user characteristics and early empirical insights, a series of provisional user personas was constructed to represent salient behavioural patterns, motivational profiles, and experiential expectations within each of the three main user groups identified in WP1. These personas are integral to supporting the iterative design process, enhancing the understanding of user needs, and guiding the adaptation of immersive narratives and interaction models throughout the project. By embedding user personas into the design workflow, the project can better align with user preferences and requirements, ultimately leading to a more user-centred approach to immersive technology development. These personas are crucial not only for visualising user characteristics but also for facilitating the targeted development of the immersive environment. They allow designers to make informed decisions about the customisation and personalisation features, as well as to optimise user engagement and interaction quality within the immersive platform. This process enables the creation of a more tailored immersive environment that directly addresses the needs and preferences of D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 18 different user groups. For instance, G1 may require more structured, pedagogical features; G2 may seek more freedom for expressive interaction and narrative development; and G3 may prioritise tools for curation, metadata integration, and interpretive frameworks. The iterative refinement of personas based on ongoing data collection allows the platform to evolve and be better prepared for future testing phases, ensuring that the system remains flexible and responsive to users' changing needs. Therefore, the continuous development of personas, combined with empirical data, ensures that the immersive environment is dynamic and adaptable, and that the platform can meet both current and future user demands. While the personas presented here are based on a combination of desk research, literature analysis, and early-stage empirical data (as described in Sections 5 and 6.2), they remain provisional and will undergo further refinement as more qualitative interviews and behavioural diagnostics are integrated during Task 1.1.5. This refinement ensures that the personas evolve in alignment with actual user feedback and performance metrics. Each persona reflects core attributes observed across user profiles: digital and information literacy, experiential orientation, content and interaction preferences, and attitudinal dispositions toward immersive technologies and digital cultural heritage. This multi-dimensional approach ensures that the personas are holistic and contextually grounded, serving as a practical tool for guiding the development of meaningful and inclusive user experiences in the immersive environment. Persona 1: "Curious Synthesiser" (G1 – Student, Academic Teacher, or Researcher). • Background: undergraduate student in humanities with some prior exposure to digital museums and AR/VR in education. Can also represent academic teachers or researchers in the same field. • Digital competence: moderate. Comfortable using digital platforms but lacks experience with immersive systems. • Motivations: Seeking engaging, accessible, and personally meaningful content that bridges academic learning with contemporary cultural concerns. • Behavioural traits: needs structured navigation and clear guidance; responds positively to emotionally resonant content and contextual explanation. • Pain points: overwhelmed by unstructured interfaces; unsure how to "read" immersive spaces. Persona 2: "Structured Facilitator" (G1 – Educator) • Background: senior lecturer with strong interest in integrating cultural heritage into course material. • Digital competence: high in instructional platforms, low in immersive media. • Motivations: needs content to be pedagogically grounded, adaptable to learning objectives, and accessible to students with varied backgrounds. • Behavioural traits: analytical, outcome-oriented, values interpretative clarity and credibility. D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 19 • Pain points: distrusts over-stylised interfaces; concerned about student disorientation or cognitive overload. Persona 3: "Reflective Performer" (G2 – Artist or Educator, Art Teacher). • Background: independent performance artist and part-time art school instructor. While this persona combines both artists and educators, it is based on the premise that many art school educators also actively engage in creative practices, merging both roles within the same professional identity. • Digital competence: variable; high aesthetic literacy but limited experience with XR tools. • Motivations: seeks inspiration, emotional depth, and symbolic openness in immersive environments; views heritage as a medium for artistic transformation. • Behavioural traits: embraces ambiguity; prefers poetic and non-linear experiences. • Pain points: frustrated by didactic content; prefers exploration to instruction. Persona 4: "Strategic Integrator" (G3 – CCI Professional). • Background: digital curator at a mid-sized design studio developing museum installations and AR applications. • Digital competence: very high; works daily with interactive platforms and immersive media. • Motivations: looking for tools that allow creative re-use of content, technical stability, and integration into production pipelines. • Behavioural traits: pragmatic, efficiency-driven, interested in functionality and scalability. • Pain points: limited tolerance for experimentation if not aligned with project goals; seeks granular control and reliability. These personas serve as conceptual bridges between raw user data and actionable design requirements. They offer a humanised synthesis of the user landscape explored in WP1 and will be further refined during the upcoming work in Task 1.1.5 and usability validation in WP2 and WP3. 6.3.1 Comparative Overview of Provisional Personas (G1–G3). The following table presents a structured comparison of four provisional personas, corresponding to their respective user group as defined in WP1. It synthesises key behavioural traits, digital competencies, narrative preferences, and interaction expectations observed during the early research phase. This overview may serve as a practical design tool to support iterative development processes, prioritisation of functional features, and inclusive narrative strategies in the subsequent stages of the project (notably WP2 and WP3). D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 20 Table 1. Comparative overview of provisional user personas representing G1–G3. Perso na Gro up Digital compete nce Motivations Narrative preferences Functional requirements Sensitivities / Challenges Curio us Synth esiser G1 Moderate Engagement, understandin g, personal relevance Emotional, contextual, partially guided storytelling Clear navigation, logical structure, contextual framing Prone to disorientation; difficulty interpreting immersive spaces Struc tured Facili tator G1 Medium (low in immersiv e tech) Pedagogical value, clarity, adaptability for learning Coherent, structured, didactic narrative Intuitive interface, educational alignment, interpretative control Concern about cognitive overload; aversion to ambiguity Refle ctive Perfo rmer G2 Varied (aesthetic literacy high) Inspiration, emotional depth, interpretative openness Non-linear, symbolic, performative, emotionally layered Freedom to explore, aesthetic richness, minimal constraints Dislikes overly prescriptive formats; prefers expressive openness Strat egic Integ rator G3 Very high Functionality, reusability, technical integration Modular, goal-driven, customisable content Technical reliability, flexible control, exportability Low tolerance for inconsistency; demands productionreadiness This Table 1 summarises the defining characteristics of four provisional personas developed during Task 1.1.3. Each persona reflects typical behavioural patterns, digital competences, motivational profiles, narrative preferences, and functional expectations observed among users belonging to the three primary groups defined in WP1: G1 (students and educators), G2 (artists and art school teachers), and G3 (professionals from the Cultural and Creative Industries). The matrix offers a condensed visual reference to support user-centred design decisions and alignment with diverse experiential contexts. This comparative matrix builds upon the user segmentation and characterisation framework developed in Deliverable D1.1 – Methodological Framework and User Groups Definition (Krakowska et al., 2024). The construction of provisional personas is explicitly foreseen in Task 1.1.5, where personas are defined as synthesised user archetypes reflecting observed needs, practices, and expectations across user groups (Krakowska et D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 21 al., 2024, pp. 22–23). According to the methodology outlined in WP1, provisional personas are derived from: • the initial desk-based profiling and segmentation of user groups (G1–G3) presented in D1.1; • thematic insights obtained from interviews, surveys, and participatory observation conducted in Task 1.1.3; • established UX research practices based on the ISO 9241-210 framework for human-centred design, in which personas are recognised as design tools bridging empirical user data and system development decisions. The personas presented here serve as intermediate conceptual models, guiding the ongoing development of narrative strategies, user journeys, and interface structures. They will be subject to further validation and refinement in subsequent empirical activities within Task 1.1.5, and in co-design sessions planned under WP2 and WP3. 7 Methodology The empirical UX research presented in this deliverable was grounded in a user-centred and iterative design approach, as defined in Deliverable D1.1 (Krakowska et al., 2024) and aligned with the ISO 9241-210 standard for human-centred interactive systems. The overarching goal was to generate actionable insights into how diverse user groups engage with immersive digital heritage experiences. A triangulation of methods was employed to ensure both depth and breadth of insight: • Participatory workshops enabled live observation and co-creation in controlled immersive settings; • Structured surveys captured attitudinal and experiential data across larger respondent samples; • Semi-structured interviews elicited detailed individual perspectives, interpretative frames, and usage contexts. This multi-method strategy was designed to accommodate the complexity of immersive experience design, balancing exploratory openness with comparative consistency across user groups and cultural content types. 7.1 Methodological Framework The UX research conducted within Task 1.1.3 of the IMPULSE project was grounded in a user-centred, iterative and exploratory methodology, designed to capture diverse user perspectives on immersive digital cultural heritage experiences. This approach builds D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 22 directly on the framework laid out in Deliverable D1.1 – Methodological Framework and User Groups Definition (Krakowska et al., 2024), and is aligned with the principles of the ISO 9241-210 standard for human-centred design of interactive systems (ISO, 2019). 7.1.1 User-centred and Iterative Approach. In accordance with the overall vision of WP1, the study placed real users—students, educators, researchers, artists and CCI professionals—at the centre of the design and evaluation process. Rather than testing predefined assumptions or fixed functionalities, the aim was to engage users in dynamic, creative and reflexive interactions with the prototype and with each other. The research was iterative, allowing feedback to inform not only interpretation but also the redesign of survey instruments and the evolution of prototype components. The study recognised that immersive user experience is shaped not only by usability, but also by emotional resonance, cognitive framing, social background, and contextual expectations. Therefore, the methodology sought to account for these multidimensional aspects of user engagement through a careful combination of qualitative and quantitative tools. User participation occurred at several levels: • as co-creators of spatial narratives during the Leuven workshop; • as evaluators of interface and content coherence via structured questionnaires; • as informants and interpreters through individual and expert interviews. This layered engagement was crucial for understanding not just what users do within immersive environments, but how they make sense of them, what values they assign, and what barriers they encounter. 7.1.2 Triangulation of Methods. To ensure the robustness, depth and credibility of the findings, the research adopted a triangulation strategy combining three complementary methods: 1. Participatory UX Workshop (Leuven). Designed as a co-creative and exploratory environment, the workshop enabled real-time observation of user interaction with the prototype, spontaneous feedback, and collaborative scenario development. It produced data in the form of group observations, design sketches, materials shared via Miro and Discord, field notes, and post-task survey responses. D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 23 2. Quantitative Surveys (G1 & G2). Online surveys provided a structured means to collect data from broader samples of target users, enabling statistical comparison of perceived usability, immersion, clarity, and narrative relevance. The survey design was informed by pilot observations and refined between iterations. 3. Semi-structured Interviews (G1–G3 + Experts). Interviews captured individual reflections, interpretative logics, affective responses, and broader professional or educational expectations. They provided insight into long-term familiarity with XR systems, narrative interpretation, and context-specific needs. This triangulated framework allowed for: • cross-verification of insights across data types; • contextual anchoring of quantitative results in user narratives; • synthesis of shared themes and identification of group-specific variations. The integrated methodological design also reflects the ambition of WP1 to combine theoretical innovation (in narrative and interaction design) with empirical grounding in the lived experiences of cultural heritage users. 7.2 Tools and Instruments The empirical study conducted within Task 1.1.3 required the development and application of research tools capable of capturing nuanced, multidimensional aspects of user experience across different contexts of interaction. Instruments were designed to reflect both the diversity of user profiles (G1–G3) and the multimodal nature of immersive cultural heritage engagement. Each tool addressed a different dimension of the UX landscape: experiential immersion, usability, affective response, cognitive interpretation, and narrative preference. Their complementary application allowed for cross-validation of findings and the integration of both quantitative and qualitative user perspectives. The key instruments included: (1) scenario-based UX testing protocols, (2) structured questionnaires for on-site and remote data collection, and (3) tailored semi-structured interview guides. 7.2.1 UX test scenarios. To structure user interaction with the early-stage IMPULSE prototype and to probe how users interpret, navigate, and emotionally engage with cultural heritage content in immersive environments, a set of UX test scenarios was developed and implemented by the KU Leuven team specifically for the two-day participatory workshop in Leuven (February 2025). These scenarios, which reflect the preparatory work and creative D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 24 ideation carried out by KU Leuven in advance, guided participants through narrative ideation, spatial storytelling design, and live testing in the VR platform, enabling structured observations and post-task evaluations. 7.2.1.1 Scenario Architecture and Purpose. The test scenarios were not abstract tasks but were rooted in curated historical themes and artefact sets, assigned to each team. Each group worked with different content types (e.g. Palmyra, Vesalius, mythological reliefs) to develop immersive story experiences. The scenario process unfolded in three interdependent phases: 1. Ideation and Narrative Development (Day 1): a. Participants explored a curated collection of digital heritage artefacts and assigned themes. b. Through guided exercises using story prompt cards, they brainstormed possible narrative angles, emotional framings, and learning outcomes. c. Teams discussed key storytelling questions: What message should the visitor take away? What affective response do we want to trigger? 2. Spatial Storyboarding and Scenario Structuring (Day 1–2): a. Using sketching tools, Miro boards, and the principles of Juxtaposition, Sequence, and Perspective, teams developed spatial layouts and interaction flows. b. They mapped story arcs through object arrangement, spatial pacing, and user movement expectations, simulating museum-like or exploratory narrative journeys. 3. Immersive Scenario Testing (Day 2): a. Participants reconstructed their story layouts in the actual VR environment and walked through the scenarios as both creators and test users. b. Teams tested: Does the artefact placement support the story? Are transitions between themes legible? Is the visitor’s attention guided meaningfully? c. After internal walkthroughs, cross-team feedback sessions allowed fresh perspectives and evaluative insights. Each test scenario thus functioned as a full-stack experiential unit, from ideation to prototype instantiation, simulating future visitor experiences and surfacing design constraints. 7.2.1.2 Roles in Scenario Facilitation. The scenarios were facilitated through a dual role structure, as defined in the facilitation script: D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 31 6. Metadata and Annotation Features. • User-applied labels were not supported; the system did not offer functionality for persistent or system-visible labels for other users. 8.1.5 Intended Testing Scenarios and Constraints. The prototype was intended to support exploratory use cases involving: • Importing, positioning, and narratively combining digitised cultural materials; • Navigating through constructed scenes via avatars; • Experimenting with storytelling configurations and interpretive structures. Due to network and connectivity issues with the server, most participants were unable to access the platform as intended. While the basic functionality of the prototype was developed and operational, many participants did not have the opportunity to test it. Consequently, the workshop was restructured to focus on: • Static observation of available prototype functions; • Externalised narrative design using collaborative tools (see 8.1.1); • Survey-based reflection on expectations and encountered barriers. Although not fully operational, the prototype served as an early-stage conceptual framework that participants critically engaged with and reimagined. This stage is crucial for identifying and addressing technical issues while exploring design possibilities. The Leuven workshop thus functioned both as an empirical usability probe and a speculative design intervention. The insights generated during this hybrid session directly informed the qualitative UX analysis (see Section 8.1.6) and contributed to refining the functional roadmap for the next iteration, developed by WP2. 8.1.6 Observations, Interactions, and Participant Statements. Despite the technical issues experienced with the prototype during the Leuven workshop, the data collected from participant interactions, including outputs from Miro boards and discussions on Discord, provided valuable insights into user expectations, challenges, and creative thinking. The workshop was structured in a way that encouraged speculative design and scenario development, which allowed participants to engage creatively with the platform despite its technical limitations Forms of Interaction Observed. Forms of interaction were recorded through a combination of facilitator logs, participant feedback, and group reflections. Key interactions observed included: D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 32 • VR-based gestures: Due to the lack of headsets or cameras for gesture recognition during the Leuven workshop, users were unable to test gesture-based controls. However, participants did engage with the platform’s avatar interactions, such as basic hand movements (e.g., waving) via the available input devices. Technical issues, including movement registration failures and platform instability, limited the effectiveness of these avatar gestures, highlighting the need for more precise feedback on interaction status and improvements in gesture-based avatar control systems. • Desktop-based interactions: Participants using desktop systems, primarily with keyboard and mouse, made efforts to scale, rotate, and position 2D objects onto 3D primitives. These interactions were often difficult to perform accurately, with many users expressing frustration over precision errors in object placement and manipulation. • Collaborative storytelling: Participants engaged in collaborative discussions and visual storytelling, often referencing the cultural artefacts provided, such as Pages from Vesalius’ annotated Fabrica and Glass slides depicting archaeological sites. Even with limited interaction, usersbuilt narratives based on the objects available. • Metaphorical expressions: When facing technical challenges or limitations in interaction, participants expressed their conceptual intentions through metaphors like “time-travel gallery” and “curator’s dream space”, which pointed to a desire for creative flexibility and interactive depth that was missing from the current system. • Workarounds: Users employed various manual workarounds, including sketching narratives on paper or verbally simulating the desired user interactions (such as avatar actions or movement). These adaptive behaviours emphasized the need for more natural interaction paths. Table 2. UX Themes Observed in Practice. UX Dimension Observed Behaviours and Comments Navigation Trial-and-error movement; confusion over directional control Object Interaction Frequent misplacement, unstable object behaviour, lack of feedback Avatar Presence Emotional distance; avatars seen as symbolic rather than embodied Expressivity Users mimicked expressions through gestures; desire for affective tools Co-presence Absence of voice/chat noted; participants “performed” interactions manually D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 33 8.1.7 User Group-Specific Results: G1, G2, G3. This section provides a comparative analysis of user responses across the three user groups, as defined in D1.1 (G1: students, academic teachers and researchers, G2: artists and art school educators, and G3: cultural and creative industries professionals). Methodological Approach. Although the survey data did not explicitly label participants by group, we used a triangulation approach to assign users to these groups based on: 1. Workshop group assignment and participant role (facilitator records), 2. Content of qualitative responses (coded in Annex B), 3. Observed behavioural patterns and narrative engagement during the session. G1 – Educators, Researchers and Students. Perceptual Orientation. G1 participants approached the prototype with a strong need for clarity, onboarding guidance, and reliable pedagogical tools. They expected intuitive controls and an educationally coherent framework. Key Difficulties: • Difficulty understanding how to import and manipulate content, • Lack of scaffolding tools or step-by-step tutorials, • Frustration with platform instability, especially for users unfamiliar with VR. Notable Engagement: G1 participants proposed concrete educational use cases, such as: • Anatomy-based learning using Vesalius drawings, • Object-based learning with artefacts, • Speculative interdisciplinary modules where historical materials were placed in a futuristic narrative. G2 – Artists, Art Teachers and Creative Practitioners. Perceptual Orientation. G2 users saw the platform as an opportunity for creative expression, narrative construction, and emotional immersion. They were most excited by the aesthetic potential of the platform, even though the system was unstable. Key Difficulties: D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 34 • Lack of avatar customisation and expressive presence, • No tactile feedback when interacting with objects, • Difficulty simulating time-based narratives, especially in performance scenarios. Notable Engagement: Despite the technical limitations, G2 participants imagined: • “Ritual reactivation environments” to engage in immersive cultural practices, • “Embodied memory walls” to allow interaction with 3D representations of fragmented memories, • Dramaturgies of fragmented heritage that allow users to perform narratives. G3 – Cultural Sector Professionals and Creative & Cultural Industries. Perceptual Orientation. G3 participants focused on interpretive fidelity and responsible representation of cultural heritage. They emphasised the importance of contextualised, multi-layered narratives that engage both the user and the artefacts. Key Difficulties: • Inability to anchor metadata to objects in the scene, • Lack of multi-user functionality for collaborative curatorial tasks, • Concerns about the authenticity and provenance of virtual artefacts. Notable Engagement: G3 participants conceptualised use cases, including: • Personalised digital exhibitions, allowing users to curate collections, • Fragment-based storytelling, where users add their own interpretation to incomplete historical narratives, • Visitor-generated narratives, integrating user contributions as part of the interpretive process. Table 3. Cross-Group Comparative Summary. Dimension G1 G2 G3 Primary Expectation Clarity, educational logic Expressivity, embodiment Curation, context, reliability Reaction to Prototype Cautious; usability concerns Imaginative; high tolerance Analytical; emphasis on structure Main Barrier Lack of guidance, instability Limited expression, missing tools Incomplete context, insufficient control Commitment Level Moderate, conditional High High (conditional on functionality) D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 35 8.1.8 Storytelling Scenarios and Narrative Prototyping (Leuven Workshop). As an integral part of the Leuven participatory design process, four interdisciplinary teams engaged in speculative storytelling exercises using selected heritage assets from KU Leuven Libraries’ collections. The goal was to explore how diverse user groups (educators, creatives, curators, researchers) conceptualise immersive cultural narratives under conditions of limited technical operability but high conceptual potential. The storytelling exercises were intentionally conducted in a low-fidelity, speculative mode due to the technical constraints of the prototype (see Section 8.1.2). However, participants engaged deeply with the narrative affordances of 2D and 3D cultural objects, emphasising the potential of immersive experiences for creative exploration and crosstemporal encounters. Method and Structure. Each team worked with a dedicated set of curated digital materials. Their tasks included: • Selecting a central narrative or interpretive path, • Designing a user journey, interaction flow, or activity scenario, • Mapping user roles and emotional/aesthetic dynamics, • Identifying missing functionalities or barriers, • Reflecting on ethical considerations related to the use of heritage objects. The data were collected through the use of concept sketches, written vignettes, collaborative flowcharts, and critical reflection documents. The prototype utilised during the workshop in Leuven exhibited the following characteristics and constraints: Team 1: Ancient Places, Living Heritage. Planned Materials: digitised glass slides of archaeological sites, including Palmyra, Baalbek, Jerash, and Dendera; floor plans, architectural fragments, excavation images; 3D reconstructions (KU Leuven Workshop – Storytelling, available at https://ujchmura.sharepoint.com/:w:/r/teams/impulsewp1exstory_group/Shared%20Documents/General/Task%201.1_UserResearch/1.1.3UserStudy (M7-15)/Report%26Research/Workshop_materials/KU%20Leuven%20Workshop%20- %20Storytelling_preparationForLeuven.docx?d=w146c9cd7f4274efdbf3e7a75b0738d26 &csf=1&web=1&e=npzGDg). D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 36 Original Narrative Concept (based on KU Leuven Workshop – Storytelling): This team was invited to reimagine iconic archaeological sites as living, evolving environments. The core prompt encouraged participants to explore how these ancient places – from the grandeur of Palmyra to the intricacies of Dendera – could be transformed into immersive, educational experiences. Using glass slides depicting temple layouts and excavation scenes, the team was guided to construct stories about the rituals, social life, and technological achievements that once animated these spaces. A speculative angle – "What if Palmyra had never fallen?" – invited participants to envision alternate historical trajectories and cultural continuities, using immersive storytelling to bridge the past and the present. Workshop Execution and Adaptation: During the session, participants engaged in scenario-building based on these archival materials but also adapted the original brief to foreground the multiplicity of perspectives embedded in archaeological interpretation. Instead of constructing a linear reconstruction of ancient life, the team gravitated towards exploring the fragmented nature of historical knowledge. This led to the creation of a multi-perspective framework, where users could "step into the shoes" of various roles – an archaeologist, a local inhabitant, a 19th-century photographer – each offering partial, situated insights into the same space. Key Features: • A role-swapping mechanism, enabling users to explore the same heritage space from distinct socio-historical viewpoints. • Layered data visualisation: overlapping historical narratives based on different artefactual interpretations. • A temporal navigation tool, allowing users to trace changes across time – including speculative futures. Identified Gaps: • Absence of guided, dynamic perspective-switching functionality (currently requiring manual reinterpretation). • Need for tools to support layered annotations and multimodal storytelling, especially when navigating conflicting heritage narratives. • Limited interaction with certain archival materials (e.g., some slides or 3D models remained unused due to time or technical constraints). User Roles (narrative-based): In the file entitled "KU Leuven Workshop - Storytelling", the section dedicated to Band 1 contains concrete examples of the narrative application of social or professional roles to represent different perspectives on cultural heritage. The text under consideration comprises the following: “How can glass slides of temple floor plans, architectural details, or excavation images inspire stories about the rituals, innovations, and people that shaped D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 37 these places?”, “An excavation image leads to a story about the rediscovery of forgotten artifacts, or the archaeologists' struggles to preserve them.”, “A floor plan of an ancient temple inspires a story about a festival held there.”, “What if Palmyra never fell?... How would they have evolved into the present day?” It is evident that these recommendations call upon participants to adopt perspectives, such as those of an archaeologist, a local resident, or a historian. Furthermore, the role of the photographer was proposed as a means of narrating the glass slides, which constituted a primary source material. Although not formally designated as "user roles," these individuals served as narrative test roles, i.e., roles that users were expected to "act out" as part of immersive scenario design. Roles were assigned as part of the scenario-facilitation strategy and not reflective of participants' real-world identities. These included: • The Archaeologist: interpreting excavation layers and artefacts. • The Photographer: capturing and framing heritage through early visual media. • The Local Resident: offering vernacular, embodied memory of place. • The Historian: contextualising fragments within broader cultural narratives. These roles were created to enable multivocal engagement with the content, prompting participants to question how heritage is curated, visualised, and made meaningful across time. The following excerpt is taken from a plan, as well as actual material developed during a two-day workshop in Leuven. The workshop materials are available at the following address: https://ujchmura.sharepoint.com/:f:/r/teams/impulsewp1exstory_group/Shared%20Documents/General/Task%201.1_UserResearch/1.1.3UserStudy (M7-15)/Report%26Research/Workshop_materials?csf=1&web=1&e=yB1SG4 Team 2: Anatomy of Discovery. Planned Materials: Vesalius manuscript (Vesalius' annotated De humani corporis fabrica) pages; digitised slides of anatomical drawings and mummified bodies; historical anatomical illustrations; references to early medical practices and dissection techniques (KU Leuven Workshop – Storytelling). Original Narrative Concept (based on KU Leuven Workshop – Storytelling): Team 2 was invited to explore the evolution of anatomical knowledge and medical visualisation through immersive storytelling. The core narrative prompt centred on the intersection between historical medical representations – from Vesalius' anatomical drawings to glass slides of preserved specimens – and contemporary understandings of the human body. Participants were encouraged to reflect on how these static, twodimensional materials could be reimagined in a tactile, spatial, and affectively engaging D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 38 manner within a virtual environment. A critical speculative scenario – “What if Vesalius had been a woman?” – prompted reflection on gender, authority, and representation in the history of medical knowledge. Workshop Execution and Adaptation: During the Leuven workshop, participants interacted with digitised historical materials including Vesalius’s illustrations and interpretive texts describing early dissection practices. The original narrative was expanded beyond anatomical linearity to include culturally and temporally layered understandings of the body. Participants created spatial scenarios juxtaposing precision-driven scientific visualisation with affective and embodied interpretations. Rather than presenting dissection as a solely clinical act, the team staged epistemic encounters between historical anatomists and contemporary users, interrogating the pedagogical and ethical dimensions of visualising the human body. A modular narrative structure emerged, reflecting episodic transitions between past, present, and speculative futures – including Egyptian embalming rituals and futuristic anatomy labs, as described in the storyboard (Storyboarding_Leuven_Workshop.docx available at https://ujchmura.sharepoint.com/:w:/r/teams/impulsewp1exstory_group/Shared%20Documents/General/Task%201.1_UserResearch/1.1.3UserStudy (M715)/Report%26Research/Workshop_materials/Storyboarding_Leuven_Workshop.docx?d =wf1a50d6c2297479e8955813bcce8f32e&csf=1&web=1&e=TWzOh5). Key Features: • Layer-based interaction system to simulate the uncovering of anatomical structures in a controlled pedagogical sequence. • Hotspot-driven annotations linking specific body parts with historical uses or cultural-symbolic meanings. • Timeline interface contextualising Vesalius’ work in a longue durée trajectory of anatomical inquiry. Identified Gaps: • Limited collaborative functionalities, constraining simultaneous user annotation or discussion during anatomical exploration. • Incomplete 3D anatomical modelling, including surface detail and depth limitations which reduced embodied realism. • Lack of gender perspective integration, particularly tools supporting speculative re-narration of scientific authorship and representation. User Roles (narrative-based): Drawing on the participatory strategy outlined in the KU Leuven Workshop – Storytelling document and implemented analogously to Team 1, the roles in Team 2 were designed D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 39 as narrative testing roles. They enabled participants to assume epistemic and interpretive positions vis-à-vis the anatomical materials. These roles were not reflective of the participants' actual professions but were assigned to stimulate diverse perspectives within the immersive scenario. Cited inspirations include narrative questions such as: “What stories do these slides tell about early scientific inquiry?” and “How can educators use these virtual spaces to create interactive and engaging lessons?” (Team2_AnatomyOfDiscovery file available at https://ujchmura.sharepoint.com/:b:/r/teams/impulsewp1exstory_group/Shared%20Documents/General/Task%201.1_UserResearch/1.1.3UserStudy (M715)/Report%26Research/Workshop_materials/Team2_AnatomyOfDiscovery.pdf?csf=1& web=1&e=QfFfMY). The following excerpt is taken from a plan, as well as actual material developed during a two-day workshop in Leuven. The workshop material is available at the following address https://ujchmura.sharepoint.com/:f:/r/teams/impulsewp1exstory_group/Shared%20Documents/General/Task%201.1_UserResearch/1.1.3UserStudy (M7-15)/Report%26Research/Workshop_materials?csf=1&web=1&e=yB1SG4). Assigned roles included: • The Anatomist: Interprets the dissection and visualisation of the human body; engages with Vesalius’s materials to trace early scientific practices. • The Medical Student: Learns through exploratory interaction with anatomical environments; serves as a proxy for contemporary educational uses. • The Historian of Medicine: Contextualises materials within broader trajectories of medical epistemology, highlighting shifts in knowledge paradigms. • The Speculative Scientist: Questions canonical narratives and explores alternative scenarios (e.g., gendered authorship in early anatomy). These roles provided a multivocal narrative framework, enabling layered engagement with the material. The team used them to articulate differentiated user experiences and to test the pedagogical capacity of the VR space for diverse epistemic identities. The following excerpt is taken from a plan, as well as actual material developed during a twoday workshop in Leuven. The workshop material is available at the following address mentioned above. Team 3: Reimagining Ancient Storytelling. Planned Materials: D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 40 A curated selection of digitised glass slides depicting murals, reliefs, and mythological scenes from various ancient cultures, including Roman, Egyptian, and other Mediterranean civilisations. Artefacts include visual narratives such as Biblical stories in Roman murals and funerary imagery in Egyptian tombs. The objects are designed to reveal how ancient peoples encoded myths, religious ideas, and historical events into universal visual languages (KU Leuven Workshop – Storytelling; IMPULSE Team 3.docx available at https://ujchmura.sharepoint.com/:f:/r/teams/impulsewp1exstory_group/Shared%20Documents/General/Task%201.1_UserResearch/1.1.3UserStudy (M7-15)/Report%26Research/Workshop_materials?csf=1&web=1&e=RXdmGX). Original Narrative Concept (based on KU Leuven Workshop – Storytelling): This scenario invited participants to explore the role of visual storytelling across ancient civilisations and to reimagine how narratives were crafted, interpreted, and transmitted across different audiences and cultures. Central questions included: How did murals and reliefs function as universal narratives? What if artists from different cultures collaborated on a shared visual story? Participants were encouraged to craft immersive, layered stories inspired by fragments of ancient art, using speculative reconstructions and cross-cultural dialogues. The idea was not to reproduce history literally but to creatively re-envision how ancient storytelling might have transcended linguistic and cultural barriers. A speculative scenario proposed imagining a collaborative mural between a Roman and an Egyptian artist, merging symbolic systems to create a hybrid narrative world. Workshop Execution and Adaptation: Team 3 approached the materials not as static records but as dynamic storytelling opportunities. Participants explored how juxtaposition, sequence, and perspective could reshape the viewer’s journey through ancient narratives (Exploring Key Spatial Storytelling Techniques.docx available at https://ujchmura.sharepoint.com/:w:/r/teams/impulsewp1exstory_group/Shared%20Documents/General/Task%201.1_UserResearch/1.1.3UserStudy (M715)/Report%26Research/Workshop_materials/Exploring%20key%20spatial%20storytelli ng%20techniques.docx?d=w8e3a64f05a5e4da28df4b0ba66f2688f&csf=1&web=1&e=gsx ovT). Techniques such as layering, scaling, and shadow projection were employed to build fragmented, non-linear experiences where the audience could assemble meaning through movement, interaction, and emotional resonance. Special emphasis was placed on the use of light, transparency, and shifting perspectives: users could zoom into fragments, reveal hidden layers, or navigate between overlapping temporalities and cultural viewpoints. Narrative openness — where stories unfold differently depending on the path taken — became a central feature of the immersive design. Key Features: D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 47 The survey included both closed-ended and open-ended questions: 1. Quantitative Section: a. Likert scale questions to assess the platform’s usability, intuitiveness, and engagement. b. These questions focused on areas like ease of navigation, satisfaction with the interface, system responsiveness, and overall user engagement. 2. Qualitative Section: a. Open-ended questions allowed participants to provide detailed feedback on specific issues encountered, including: i. Problem description: Where users could describe any problems they faced during interaction. ii. Wanted functionalities: A section where participants suggested desired features or improvements. iii. Additional comments: A final section for users to offer further insights or reflections on their experience with the platform. The primary aim of the UX survey conducted during the Leuven workshop was to gather user feedback on the IMPULSE VR prototype. The survey targeted key usability aspects and user experience elements, specifically focusing on usability issues, user expectations, and desired functionalities. The survey also explored meta-level reflections regarding the system's design and overall user experience. Objective of the Questionnaire: The questionnaire was designed to achieve two primary objectives: first, to ascertain users' expectations, challenges, and experiences with immersive cultural heritage environments, and second, to explore how these environments can be adapted to meet diverse user needs. It consisted of both closed and open-ended questions, aimed at gathering insights into usability, content engagement, emotional response, and potential barriers to interaction. The overarching goal of the questionnaire was two-fold: to provide a comprehensive understanding of users' perceptions and to gather valuable data for the refinement of the prototype. Aligning these objectives ensured a unified research agenda, facilitating a more holistic analysis. This approach enables the findings to directly contribute to improving the user experience and guiding the platform’s development. This survey complements the quantitative data and thematic coding from the structured questions, offering additional insights into user experience through open-ended responses. The data for thematic analysis was derived from three open-ended questions embedded in the user testing form: D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 48 1. Problem description – An open-text field where participants could describe any issues encountered during testing. 2. Wanted functionalities – A question asking for suggestions on desired features or improvements. 3. Additional comments – An optional space for further reflections or unsolicited feedback. Out of 20 total participants, 17 provided substantive responses across these three fields, resulting in 23 unique open-ended statements that were carefully analysed. According to responses to question Q17 (Fig.1), none of the participants experienced the platform using VR goggles. All respondents declared using the desktop VR version. However, this result should be interpreted with caution. The questionnaire did not offer alternative response options, despite the fact that unexpected and significant technical issues limited access to the platform. As a result, some participants were only able to experience the platform through a projector-based presentation, while others—those who managed to log in—interacted with the platform via their personal computers. Fig. 1. Mode of use of the platform (prototype). Responses to question Q18, which asked participants about their prior experience with virtual reality, indicate that the majority had limited or occasional exposure to VR: − 9 respondents reported limited experience with VR (Beginner), − 7 respondents selected I use VR occasionally (Intermediate), − 3 respondents indicated no prior experience with VR (Non-user), − Only 1 respondent identified as an experienced VR user (Expert). D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 49 These results suggest that most participants had little to moderate familiarity with VR technology prior to the test session. This limited background may have shaped how users approached the prototype and perceived its usability, especially in light of the technical difficulties encountered during testing. Fig. 2. Users’ prior VR experience. Methodological approach for quantitative analysing closed-ended responses. The analysis followed a multi-step procedure, outlined below to ensure clarity, transparency, and reproducibility of the quantitative processing of closed-ended survey data. 1. Data preparation and transformation: − Survey responses were exported from Microsoft Forms into an Excel file. − The Excel file was loaded into a dataframe using the pandas library in a Google Colab environment. − Column headers, originally derived from full survey questions, were shortened for clarity and analytical consistency while maintaining semantic accuracy. − Column headers were also translated from Polish (the default language of the university's Microsoft Forms account) into English to facilitate presentation to an international audience. − Empty columns such as Email address and Name, automatically generated by Forms but unused in the survey, were removed. D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 50 − Multiple-choice responses (e.g., to questions such as Difficulties importing 2D content, Changing size difficulties, Movement difficulties, Difficulties aspects, and Wanted functionalities) were split into separate entries while retaining record IDs. These were stored in separate sheets within the same Excel file. 2. Preparing for visualization: − The number of responses for each answer option was counted. − All possible response options for each question were re-imported to ensure that even unselected answers (with zero responses) would be included in visualizations. − For questions using a 7-point scale to evaluate selected attributes, both the distribution of responses and the average deviation from the neutral midpoint (value 4) were calculated and visualized. 3. Visualization: − Visualizations were created using the matplotlib library. − Each graph included clearly labelled axes, informative titles, data labels, and a layout designed for ease of interpretation. − All charts were generated in Google Colab and exported in PNG format. The responses are presented below, grouped by individual survey questions. Answers that respondents entered themselves after selecting the "Other" option are marked in blue. D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 51 Fig. 3. The most common difficulties with the import of 3D models. The analysis of responses to question Q8 indicates that the most frequently reported issues when importing 2D content were slow content loading (reported by 17 out of 20 respondents) and technical problems with the platform (reported by 15 out of 20 respondents). Fig. 4. Most frequent difficulties in moving content with platform landscape. D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 52 Issues related to the platform’s slow performance were also noted by respondents answering question Q9, which addressed difficulties with moving content within the environment. Three participants chose to highlight this problem by entering it manually in the text field provided under the “Other” option. The most frequently reported difficulties in this category (Q9) concerned the precision of content movement (reported by 9 out of 20 respondents) and the lack of guidance on the direction in which content should be moved (8 out of 20). Additional challenges included problems with controlling content using the keyboard (4 out of 20), and a suggestion that moving objects with a computer mouse or arrow keys would be more intuitive (1 out of 20). Unpredictable behaviour of objects was also mentioned (4 out of 20). Moreover, individual responses pointed to technical issues such as unstable internet connection and difficulties with proportionally resizing objects. One participant reported no difficulties related to the aspects addressed in Q9. Fig. 5. The most common problems with platform movement. In response to question Q11, the majority of participants reported no difficulties with navigating the platform. However, this result should be interpreted with caution due to technical issues that significantly limited free access to the platform. Similar caution is advised when interpreting the lack of responses indicating difficulties with controls. The absence of reports related to VR sickness should also be considered in context, as none of the participants had the opportunity to experience the platform using VR headsets. The most frequently reported issues related to Q11 included problems with navigation in relation to objects (5 out of 20), poor fluidity of movement (3 out of 20), and overly slow movement speed (1 out of 20), as well as a limited field of view or difficulty orienting in space (2 out of 20), and once again, issues with movement precision (1 out of 20). D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 53 Fig. 6. Most common difficulties in resizing content. Regarding difficulties related to resizing content (Q10), the most frequently reported issues were technical problems with the platform (12 out of 20 respondents), limited options for adjusting content size (8 out of 20), and unclear instructions on how to use specific functionalities (8 out of 20). Among the open-text responses, participants suggested two improvements: first, a resizing slider to make it easier to adjust the size of the object; and second, a way to indicate the original size of the object in comparison to the average size of a human, represented by the avatar. However, this latter option was not feasible during testing in Leuven due to the content upload procedure adopted there: participants selected a block from a set of basic 3D shapes, which could then be textured with 2D content. As a result, it was not possible to upload 2D content in its original dimensions relative to the avatar's size. The suggestion regarding the original size of the object highlights a piece of information that was considered important by the participants. Therefore, this feature should be considered in future development work or recommendations for cultural institutions creating their own platforms and engaging in digitisation efforts. D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 54 Fig. 7. Areas where users have struggled with immersive VR. Question Q14 allowed respondents to provide a summary indication of the aspects of interaction with the prototype in which they experienced difficulties. The most frequently reported issues included technical problems (11 out of 20, plus 1 additional response under the “Other” option), difficulties in locating specific functions (e.g., knowing what to click on) (10 out of 20), unclear instructions and uncertainty about what actions to take to achieve a given outcome (6 out of 20 each), as well as difficulties establishing communication with other users (6 out of 20). No emotional or social difficulties were reported. However, it should be noted that the version of the prototype tested in Leuven lacked extensive functionalities in this area — participants could see other avatars (when the platform was functioning properly) and potentially greet them by waving their avatar’s hand, but no more advanced interaction features were available. D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 55 Fig. 8. Expectations for additional functionalities in the final version of the VR platform. In response to the question about expected functionalities that, according to participants, should be included in the final version of the platform (Q15), as many as 6 respondents chose to provide their own suggestions. These open-text answers form the basis for the thematic analysis presented below. Among the closed-ended options, the most frequently requested features included the ability to edit the VR environment (16 out of 20), the option to change the mode of movement (10 out of 20), avatar personalization (8 out of 20), and enhanced means of interacting with other users (7 out of 20). D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 56 Fig. 9. Average user ratings of selected features related to prototype interaction experience. In relation to the evaluation of selected attributes, the average ratings presented in the figure reveal how participants positioned their impressions along various bipolar scales (1–7, where 4 represents a neutral midpoint). Overall, the ratings are relatively close to the neutral midpoint (4.0), indicating a generally balanced or ambivalent perception of the prototype. The most positively evaluated attribute was simplicity (simple – complicated, M = 3.40), showing the greatest deviation from neutrality in a favourable direction. Conversely, the lowest-rated aspect was visual aesthetics (ugly – attractive, M = 3.70), suggesting a slightly negative impression in terms of appearance. Interestingly, both the dimension motivating – discouraging and brings me closer to people – separates me from people show a deviation of 0.2 points from the neutral value, but in opposite directions — reflecting subtle yet opposite tendencies in how participants perceived engagement and social connection. The six charts illustrate how participants rated the prototype across bipolar adjective pairs using a 7-point Likert scale (where 4 = neutral). The results reveal relatively symmetric distributions centred around the neutral point, though some dimensions stand out with slight shifts in positive or negative directions. − Simplicity vs. complexity: The dimension simple – complicated was rated most favourably, with a noticeable concentration of responses toward the “simple” end of the scale (mean = 3.40), indicating that users generally perceived the interface as easy to use. − Visual attractiveness: In the ugly – attractive dimension, the distribution was more varied, though skewed slightly toward the negative side (mean = 3.70). Ten participants chose the neutral midpoint, while several leaned toward the "ugly" end, suggesting mixed impressions regarding the platform's aesthetics. − Social connectedness: Ratings for brings me closer to people – separates me from people were highly concentrated at the neutral point (14 out of 20 selected 4), with D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 63 Fig. 15. Results of participants' rating of the sense of prototype creativity in pairs of bipolar adjectives using a 7-point Likert scale (where 4 = neutral). The average user rating of the ease of interface use, as shown in answers for Q12, was 3.90 on a 7-point scale (where 1 = very difficult and 7 = very easy). This result is very close to the neutral midpoint (4.0), suggesting that participants overall perceived the interface as neither particularly easy nor particularly difficult to use. The nearly neutral average may reflect the mixed experiences reported in other parts of the survey, including technical issues or unclear instructions. While the interface was not rated as especially challenging, the score does not indicate a strong sense of usability either. D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 64 Fig. 16. Mean user reaction: Ease of use of the interface. The horizontal bar chart illustrates the distribution of individual responses to question Q12, which asked participants how easy it was to use the interface (e.g., keyboard + mouse) to interact with the platform. Responses were given on a 7-point scale, where 1 indicated very difficult and 7 indicated very easy. It is important to note that both the prototype and the questionnaire were developed under the initial vision of WP2, with the intention to incorporate VR goggles and controllers for interaction. However, these devices were not available for use during the Leuven workshop, meaning participants interacted only with the alternative input methods (keyboard + mouse). The responses thus reflect this limitation, while future iterations of the platform are expected to fully integrate VR-based interactions as originally intended. The results show a diverse range of experiences, with responses spread across the entire scale: − 3 respondents selected the lowest score (1 – very difficult), indicating significant difficulty with interface use. − 2 respondents chose each of the scores 2 and 3, reflecting moderate challenges. − The neutral midpoint (4) was selected most frequently — by 5 respondents, suggesting an ambivalent or balanced perception of usability. − On the positive side, 4 participants chose 5, 3 chose 6, and 1 chose the maximum score of 7. This distribution suggests no clear consensus regarding ease of use. While some participants found the interface easy or very easy to operate, others experienced it as difficult or very difficult. The responses indicate a bimodal tendency, with a cluster of ratings around both lower and higher values, as well as a strong presence at the neutral midpoint — reflecting a high degree of variation in user experiences, potentially influenced by technical barriers or varying familiarity with interaction methods. D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 65 Fig. 17. The ease of use of the user interface for interaction with the platform. Methodological approach for thematic analysis. The analysis followed a qualitative content analysis approach, employing Braun & Clarke’s thematic analysis (2006), adapted for human-computer interaction (HCI) and user experience (UX) studies. The methodological process involved the following steps: 1. Data Preparation and Extraction All responses from the three open-ended questions were extracted from the dataset. The responses were cleaned for duplicates and irrelevant blanks, then organised in a structured table. Each entry was linked to a respondent ID and the corresponding source question. 2. Segmentation into Meaning Units Each response was segmented into discrete meaning units, such as identifiable ideas, problems, or suggestions. For example, a compound response like “platform crashed, and I couldn’t test the collection” was split into two distinct meaning units: (1) platform instability, (2) test process interruption. 3. Open Coding. The meaning units were coded using open coding techniques, where provisional labels were assigned to describe the core idea (e.g., "crash at startup", "lack of avatar editing", "hard to resize objects"). These codes were inductively generated from the data, without imposing predefined categories. 4. Thematic Categorisation. Related codes were grouped into thematic categories that formed higher-level clusters. For example, "lack of precise placement", "hard to scale objects", and D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 66 "missing object alignment grid" were grouped under the theme Spatial Manipulation Issues. 5. Interpretation and Synthesis. Themes were synthesised and interpreted based on their frequency, qualitative richness, and implications for design. Representative quotes were selected to illustrate each theme. The final synthesis includes both functional (usabilityrelated) and affective (experiential and reflective) dimensions of feedback. The following themes were identified based on the three open-ended questions: A. User-Described Problems (Problem Description). Key Themes (n = 7 responses): • Critical system instability – Platform crashes preventing interaction (2 mentions). • Failure in 2D/3D mapping – Distorted rendering of images on primitives (1 mention). • Lack of precise manipulation tools – Difficulty setting or adjusting objects (1 mention). • Experience-dependence of usability – Interface usability conditional on prior 3D knowledge (1 mention). • Unavailable functions or navigation stages – Inability to access certain stages or actions (1 mention). Example Quote: “Mapping a 2D image onto a primitive wraps it in a weird way.” Implication: Participants need more predictable, stable, and user-friendly affordances for basic tasks like importing, scaling, and arranging digital assets. These findings suggest a need for improving system stability and object interaction tools. B. Suggested features (desired functionality) Key Themes (n = 10 responses): • Environment editing and spatial control – Background modification, object addition/removal, spatial sound, lighting (4 mentions). • Avatar personalisation – Editing visual features and gestures (2 mentions). • Alternative movement styles – Walking, flying, teleportation (2 mentions). • Enhanced communication tools – Chat, video, emotional cues (1 mention). • Cultural object interactivity – Transforming 2D to 3D, recombining heritage elements (1 mention). Example Quote: “Ability to edit the VR environment (e.g., change backgrounds, add/remove elements of the environment).” D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 67 Implication: A modular system architecture is required to support multi-layered editing capabilities, avatar expression, and differentiated user pathways (e.g., exploration vs. curation). The integration of these features will enhance user control and flexibility. C. Meta-level Reflections (Additional Comments). Key Themes (n = 6 responses): • Difficulty with object placement and scaling – Floor and tile components hard to arrange (2 mentions). • Avatars require deeper personalisation – Current models insufficient (1 mention). • Desire for platform transparency – Users want to know system requirements and limitations beforehand (1 mention). • Short test session length – Limited exploration possibilities (1 mention). Example Quote: “Placement of tiles/floor pieces is hard to make good.” Implication: Beyond functionality, users expect stability, transparency, and expressive flexibility in the platform. Participants also indicated that perceived constraints on agency reduced their sense of usability. Cross-cutting Insights and Recommendations. From the triangulation of open-ended responses, the following cross-cutting design implications are proposed: • Interactivity-first design: Empower users to modify and narrate within the environment, rather than just explore. • Dual interface modes: Provide basic and advanced interface versions to accommodate different levels of prior experience. • Integrated onboarding: Introduce walkthroughs that explain core interactions and provide access to real-time guidance for new users. • Stability over complexity: Prioritise a robust core experience before layering more advanced editing and interaction features. This thematic content analysis highlights several key areas for improvement in the IMPULSE VR prototype. Technical issues related to system stability and manipulation tools were the primary concerns raised by users. Additionally, there was significant interest in enhancing user expression through avatar personalisation, environment editing, and advanced movement styles. Finally, users emphasised the importance of platform transparency and user guidance in future iterations. The feedback from the survey directly informs the ongoing UX design process and provides critical insights into the user needs and expectations that will guide the next steps in the IMPULSE project. D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 68 The Leuven UX survey provided crucial insights into the usability and engagement of the IMPULSE VR prototype. The feedback revealed a strong interest in the creative and educational potential of the platform, despite the significant technical barriers. The key challenges identified were related to system stability, avatar customisation, metadata integration, and collaborative features. Moving forward, the next steps for WP2 and WP4 should focus on addressing these technical issues while enhancing the system’s creative capabilities and user-centred design features. Next Steps: • WP2 should focus on improving platform stability and providing clearer onboarding instructions to guide new users. • WP2 should prioritise the development of customisable avatars, enhanced movement styles, and modular environment editing tools. • WP3 should work on ensuring metadata integration, responsible curation, and the ability for users to collaborate and co-curate within the platform. 8.2 Surveys (G1 & G2) The general survey was designed for both current users and non-users (potential users) of the platform, with participants recruited from two target groups: G1 and G2. The questionnaire was developed based on the structure of the general survey outlined in Deliverable D1.1, but it was adapted in response to the conditions and insights gained during the Leuven test phase. In particular, the following factors influenced the final shape of the survey: − the absence of access to the VR platform prototype for respondents, − the need for remote distribution, which required significant shortening of the questionnaire compared to the original version in D1.1, − and the practical experience from the Leuven study, including observations about user needs and barriers. Before launch, the survey underwent a pilot run during a UX research methodology class with students of the Electronic Information Processing program. We would like to extend our sincere thanks to the students for their valuable feedback, which helped refine and improve the final survey instrument. The questionnaire was implemented using Microsoft Forms and prepared in two language versions: Polish and English. Each IMPULSE partner involved in distributing the survey within their institution or country was given the choice to either share the English version or develop a version in their preferred language. D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 69 The study was anonymous and voluntary, with participants informed that they could withdraw at any time without providing a reason. At the beginning of the form, participants were presented with a brief description of the study and the IMPULSE project, including a link to the project’s official website for further details. The final questionnaire consisted of 18 questions, structured into two separate response paths: one for VR users and one for non-users. − The first question served to collect active, informed consent to participate in the survey. − The second question asked whether the respondent had ever used VR, thereby directing them to the appropriate set of questions. After this branching point: − Non-users answered questions regarding barriers to VR use and factors that might encourage them to consider using VR in the future. − VR users, on the other hand, responded to questions about: o frequency of use, o self-assessed proficiency, o devices and platforms used, o reasons for engaging with VR, o difficulties encountered, o types of experiences, o social interactions in VR, o expected functionalities, o interactions with virtual objects, o and their past experiences with digital cultural heritage in VR. Both groups completed a shared demographic section, which included two brief items on academic status and field of study or specialization. The questionnaire included multiple-choice items and three open-ended questions to allow for more detailed, qualitative input from participants. The data analysis process followed a similar approach to the one used for the Leuven survey, combining both quantitative and qualitative methods. To prepare the dataset— including the creation of headers, splitting of multiple-choice responses, translation into English, and merging responses from different language versions into a single file— Python and Google Colab were used. A dedicated pipeline was developed in Google Colab to enable continuous updating of the dataset as new responses were submitted. Python was also used to analyse and visualise the responses to closed-ended questions. In the case of open-ended questions, a thematic analysis was conducted using MAXQDA. D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 70 As of April 11, 2025 (10:00 PM), a total of 109 responses had been collected — 51 in the Polish version of the survey and 58 in the English version. Out of these, 104 participants provided informed consent to take part in the study. Fig. 18. The question of whether the users have ever used VR. Among the respondents, 25 individuals identified as non-users of VR—this includes those who selected "No, but I would like to" (20 responses) and "No and I am not interested" (5 responses). These responses are represented on the chart in a dark teal color, indicating participants with no prior hands-on experience with VR. The remaining respondents— those who selected any of the "Yes" options—can be considered VR users, although with varying levels of experience. Their answers are shown in burgundy on the chart, representing different levels of engagement with the technology, from a one-time use to regular usage. A total of 43 respondents indicated that they had used VR occasionally, making this the most common experience level among participants. Additionally, 29 respondents stated they had used VR only once, for example during a class or an exhibition. These figures suggest that while a majority (79 participants) have had some interaction with VR, for most it remains an infrequent or experimental experience. Meanwhile, the 7 respondents who use VR on a regular basis form a small but significant group of more advanced users. Taken together, the results reflect a general openness to VR, though its regular use is still relatively rare. D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 71 Fig. 19. Frequency of VR use. Among respondents who identified as VR users, the vast majority reported using the technology infrequently. Specifically, 39 participants stated that they use VR “Rarely (once a year or less often)”, while 23 participants reported using it “Occasionally (several times a year)”. These two categories together account for over 80% of all VR users in the sample, indicating that for most participants, VR remains a sporadic activity rather than a routine part of their digital practices. Only a small number of respondents use VR more regularly: 9 individuals reported using VR often (several times a month), and just 2 respondents stated they use it very often, defined here as weekly or more frequently. Additionally, 6 participants chose the option "Never", confirming they had no experience with VR—this group overlaps with the nonusers identified in the previous question. Overall, the data suggest that while exposure to VR is relatively widespread, its adoption as a frequent or habitual tool is still limited. D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 72 Fig. 20. Question on the assessment of the level of expertise in the VR field. The vast majority of respondents consider themselves beginners when it comes to VR technology. Specifically, 55 participants rated their level of expertise as Beginner, which clearly indicates that most users have limited experience and are likely in the early stages of exploring VR environments and tools. A smaller group of 12 participants identified themselves as having an Intermediate level of experience, followed by 9 respondents who rated their expertise as Advanced. Only 3 individuals considered themselves Experts in the use of VR. D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 79 Other responses, such as "Access to contexts not otherwise accessible", "I don't know / Hard to say", and "I do not like VR", appeared only once each and had no significant impact on the overall picture. Fig. 24. Question about user difficulties with the use of VR. The most commonly reported difficulty among respondents (VR users) was “physical discomfort”, such as dizziness or nausea, mentioned by 33 users. In the context of VR users, this highlights the relevance of challenges related to VR sickness—a factor that did not emerge during the Leuven testing phase. It is important to note, however, that during those tests, interaction with the platform was not conducted using VR headsets, which may explain the absence of such feedback at the time. This result reinforces the need to consider the physiological side effects of immersive VR experiences when designing content or platforms. Close behind was the “high cost of equipment”, selected by 30 participants, indicating that financial accessibility remains a significant barrier to broader adoption of VR technology. “Technical issues” were reported by 27 users, suggesting that hardware or software reliability continues to impact the user experience. Additionally, 18 respondents noted a “lack of knowledge about VR”, which may reflect limited access to training or onboarding, especially among less experienced users. “Limited social interaction” was mentioned by 9 participants, showing that some users find VR isolating or not sufficiently engaging on a social level. D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 80 Interestingly, 8 users stated that they have not encountered any difficulties, which may reflect either greater familiarity with VR or more positive experiences overall. A few unique responses were also noted, such as “blurriness due to needing glasses” and challenges in achieving objectives for a specific audience—each of which was mentioned once, suggesting individual or context-specific concerns. Fig. 25. The most commonly used VR platforms. The most frequently selected answer to the question about VR platforms was “I do not know” (31 respondents), followed by “I do not use” and “I am using Unity products”, both with 13 responses. This suggests that many VR users—especially those at an early stage of engagement—either interact with standalone content, development tools, or are unaware of the specific platform they are using. This aligns with the earlier observation that the majority of VR users in the sample self-identified as beginners, which may explain the limited awareness of platform names. Among named platforms, Meta Horizon (11 responses), VR Chat (10), and Spatial (9) stood out as the most frequently used. These platforms emphasize social presence, creative collaboration, or immersive environments, indicating that even less experienced users are accessing virtual spaces designed for interaction. It’s worth noting that Meta Horizon is the default environment for many Oculus devices, particularly the Quest line, which may also explain its relatively high usage. D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 81 Less common platforms such as OpenSimulator (8), WebGL products (6), Roblox (4), and others like Mozilla, Unreal Engine, and various educational tools were mentioned by only a few respondents each, revealing a fragmented landscape shaped by individual exposure, institutional tools, or developer interest. Fig. 26. VR devices mostly used. A similar trend was observed in the responses about hardware: 31 respondents selected “I do not know”, again reflecting a general unfamiliarity with device specifications or use in non-personal, institutional contexts. However, among those who did indicate a specific device, Oculus Quest / Quest 2 stood out with 29 mentions, followed by Oculus Rift / S (22), HTC Vive (10), and PlayStation VR (9). These results confirm that Oculus/Meta headsets dominate the user experience, and given their integration with Meta Horizon, it is likely that some users accessed this platform by default, possibly without realizing it. Additional mentions included Valve Index (5), Pico (3), and a few individual responses referencing newer or less common devices such as Oculus Quest 3, Apple Vision Pro, or simply "Oculus" without further specification. This again points to a mix of personal and shared usage contexts, where device identification may not be clear or relevant for the user. D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 82 Fig. 27. Perceptions of social experience and interaction in VR environments. Responses from VR users regarding social experience and interaction show relatively low levels of agreement with statements related to communication, collaboration, and group dynamics in virtual environments. Ratings were given on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree, with 4 = hard to say as the neutral midpoint). • The highest agreement was with the statement: “During interactions in VR, I pay attention to other users.” (average 3.52), indicating moderate social attentiveness during virtual interactions. • Other statements scored below the neutral point: o “Collaboration in VR is more engaging than in traditional applications.” – 3.46 o “I feel like a part of the group in the virtual world.” – 3.23 o “Communication in VR feels as natural to me as in the real world.” – 2.96 o “In VR, I can easily understand other users’ intentions and emotions.” – 2.95 These responses suggest that VR users do not yet experience virtual communication as natural or socially fulfilling. There is a notable gap between current virtual interaction capabilities and users' expectations for meaningful, emotionally resonant exchanges. D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 83 Fig. 28. Perceptions of object interaction and realism in VR environments. Responses from VR users regarding interaction with objects and realism reflect generally higher levels of agreement. Here, users expressed more positive perceptions of how virtual environments support immersion and usability. • The strongest agreement was with the statement: “Virtual objects help me feel more immersed in the VR world.” (average 4.71), indicating that objects play an important role in enhancing the immersive experience. • “Objects in VR should be more realistic.” received a score of 4.34, pointing to a moderate desire for improved visual fidelity and authenticity. • “Interaction with virtual elements is intuitive for me.” was rated at 4.18, suggesting that many users find virtual interactions reasonably intuitive, though there is still room for improvement. To sum up the average agreement of VR users with the sentences: • VR users rate object-based and environmental aspects of the experience more positively than social and interpersonal dimensions. • The data on social interaction reveals clear limitations in current VR platforms’ ability to support natural conversation, emotional understanding, and group presence. • Meanwhile, the emphasis on realism, intuitiveness, and immersion in responses about virtual elements confirms the importance of these features for user satisfaction, in line with earlier results on preferred VR functionalities. Moving on to the responses provided by non-users of VR. The following charts summarize the answers given by participants who stated that they have not used VR, either due to lack of access, interest, or opportunity. These insights D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 84 help to identify the key barriers preventing VR engagement, as well as the conditions under which non-users might consider trying it. Among non-users, the most commonly cited reason for not using VR was “I don’t have the necessary equipment”, mentioned by 17 respondents. This was followed by “VR is too expensive” (9 responses) and “I'm not interested in VR” (8 responses). These answers clearly indicate that cost and access remain the most significant obstacles for potential users, especially when combined with a lack of personal interest or perceived relevance. Other reasons included “I haven’t had the opportunity to try it” (7 responses) and “I don't see the value in it” (5 responses), which reflect limited exposure and unclear benefits. A smaller number of respondents admitted to not knowing how to get started (4) or simply lacking a reason to engage with VR (1). These findings suggest that both practical limitations and conceptual barriers (e.g., understanding, motivation) shape nonengagement with VR technology. Fig. 29. Declared Reasons for not using Virtual Reality Technology. When asked what might motivate them to use VR, non-users pointed most strongly to “Cheaper and easier access” (20 responses) as a key factor. This mirrors the previously identified barriers and reinforces the importance of affordability and availability in driving adoption. Other motivating factors included “More educational or professional content” (7 responses) and “Improved graphics and immersion quality” (3 responses), indicating that while access is the primary issue, content quality and relevance also matter. Individual responses pointed to needs such as clearer information about tools, simplified usability, or a free trial to test VR without the upfront investment. D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 85 Fig. 30. Perceived drivers of willingness to try Virtual Reality. Taken together, the responses from non-users suggest that lowering the entry threshold—both in terms of cost and complexity—could significantly broaden interest in VR. Additionally, offering meaningful, professionally or educationally valuable content, and creating opportunities for first-hand experience, may help convert hesitant or curious individuals into active users. Addressing these barriers is essential for inclusive and sustainable expansion of VR technologies. Within the IMPULSE project, we do not have control over the cost of VR headsets or hardware. However, what we can do is focus on developing valuable, meaningful experiences, and on raising awareness of the benefits of using VR—particularly in the context of engaging with cultural heritage objects, whether through educational activities or artistic practice. By emphasizing content relevance and communicating potential uses, we can help make VR more approachable and attractive, especially for those encountering it for the first time. Returning to the topic of cultural heritage, among respondents who identified as VR users, the question "Have you previously interacted with digital cultural heritage objects?" revealed a relatively balanced split, with a slight majority answering "Yes" (44 responses) and 35 respondents answering "No". D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 86 Fig. 31. User Experience with digital representations of cultural heritage. This indicates that a significant portion of VR users already have experience engaging with digital representations of cultural heritage, suggesting familiarity with digitized artifacts, museum content, or heritage-based virtual experiences. At the same time, the fact that over a third of users reported no prior interaction highlights the continued need for outreach, accessibility, and awareness-raising in this area—especially considering the potential of VR for education, interpretation, and creative practice within the cultural heritage domain. When describing their experiences with digital cultural heritage, respondents referred to a wide range of examples—including general digital objects and 3D models, as well as books, paintings, museum collections, and resources from Europeana. They also mentioned augmented reality experiences and cultural content encountered in video games. Places played an important role in these associations as well—both in general references to historical sites and digital twins, and in specific mentions of scanned environments such as the Valletta underground and the Terezín ghetto. Some participants also revealed their involvement in the active creation of digital cultural heritage. This included producing scans using LIDAR or photogrammetry, digitizing materials—particularly books and paintings—as well as providing consultation on digitization processes. Some participants pointed to the opportunities offered by digital cultural heritage objects, particularly in terms of enabling new forms of user interaction with such materials. They also emphasized the value of making these resources accessible to people regardless of their geographic location or physical ability to visit museums—an issue that became especially apparent during the pandemic. D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 87 In the context of the IMPULSE project, particular attention should be given to the challenges related to developing appropriate ways of engaging with digital cultural heritage objects. Participants pointed out issues such as low graphic quality, lack of detail, the absence of multisensory experiences—especially touch—and the isolation of objects from their original context, which can lead to them being perceived as artificial or unreal, e.g.: "Artificial, floating in the air, unreal." (PL_19, item 2). The perceived artificiality of such objects can evoke highly negative reactions and a sense of being deceived, as expressed in the following comment: “Distance, untrust, when virtual things trying to make me believe they are real, I just reject the all stuff cause I feel fooled” (EN_48, item 2). Participants saw potential for addressing these challenges through the use of storytelling and by placing digital objects within a meaningful context—an approach that was often linked to the importance of site-specific references. For example: − “2D and 3D digitization of heritage objects, the more it acts as a digital twin, the better. When these results can be used in VR applications, that is good. It gives context to otherwise isolated objects. An example from my own work is an isolated fragmented Assyrian palace relief, contextualized in a 3D model of a reconstructed palace room.” (EN_35, item 2). 8.3 Interviews The interviews conducted as part of the IMPULSE project serve as a crucial source of qualitative insights into the user experience with immersive VR environments. These interviews were undertaken with a range of participants from various professional and academic backgrounds, providing valuable data on user expectations, challenges, and perceptions of immersive VR technologies. By analysing their reflections on the platform, the interviews offer a deeper understanding of how users engage with immersive systems, the functionalities they prioritize, and the barriers they encounter while using the technology. Between March 25 and April 11, 2025, researchers from the IMPULSE project conducted and prepared nine interviews for further analysis, including transcription, description, and initial coding. Four interviews were conducted remotely, while five took place in person. Most of the interviews in this first phase of the study were conducted with representatives of Group 1. Three interviews were held with representatives of Group 2, and one interview involved a representative from Group 3. The findings from these interviews complement the quantitative data gathered from surveys and other structured activities in the project. They provide nuanced, in-depth D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 88 insights into personal experiences that contribute to the iterative design process of the IMPULSE VR prototype. These interviews serve as an important source for understanding how users conceptualize and navigate the virtual environment, as well as their emotional responses and reflections on the platform's potential. Given the composition of participants, the current dataset and findings are primarily oriented toward the educational dimension of VR use. This focus aligns with the themes explored during the workshops held in Leuven, where the potential of VR in pedagogical contexts was a central topic of discussion. The involvement of G1 participants in this phase reflects their strong connection to the educational applications of the technology. As future research continues, greater emphasis will be placed on exploring the experiences, needs, and expectations of participants from G2 and G3. This will ensure that the platform is refined to meet the needs of a diverse range of user groups and will support future iterations of the IMPULSE VR platform that cater to both creative and curatorial use cases. The insights gathered from these interviews will be synthesized to inform the iterative development of the IMPULSE VR prototype, guiding the refinement of its functionalities and the design of an inclusive, user-centred immersive environment. These interviews, therefore, represent a critical foundation for understanding user engagement, emotional responses, and perceptions of immersive technologies, shaping the strategic direction for the platform's future iterations. In the case of participants from G2 and G3, recruiting additional interviewees will benefit from collaboration with WP5 and the growing IMCo (IMPULSE Community of Practice) network. This process will naturally require time, as well as adjustments in scheduling and interview formats to accommodate participants from these groups, who tend to be less readily available than those in G1. Postponing the in-depth interviews with G2 and G3 representatives may also prove advantageous, as conducting these conversations after gaining access to a stable version of the platform prototype is likely to yield more concrete feedback and actionable recommendations. The interviews were conducted by: MA, GG, AH, PK, ST, KT and ZV. The transcription files include the initials of the researcher who conducted each interview. The following sections present the results of a preliminary thematic analysis conducted using MAXQDA. The aim of this analysis was to identify key barriers to VR use, users’ expectations regarding VR, and functional features perceived as useful or desirable. These initial findings offer a foundation for further, more detailed analyses, which will be carried out in the next phases of the research. At this stage of the IMPULSE project, in line with the planned timeline, it is particularly important to deliver practical insights for WP2, especially in relation to the design of the D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 95 − multi-user functionality in real time, allowing multiple users to interact within the same virtual environment simultaneously, e.g.: o “virtual spaces and 3D assets can become not only spaces for acquiring knowledge but also spaces for design, for example, by prototyping solutions, concepts, and projects in real-time among different connected users.” (MA01_transcription, item 51); − functionalities related to the specific nature of virtual environments, including the use of spatial sound to enhance immersion and support spatial orientation; the ability to break free from physical laws such as gravity; and the possibility to manipulate space and time within the environment, e.g: o “spatial sounds, which also draws attention to where the sound comes from” (ST01_transctription-eng, item 43); o “In VR, you don't need to stick to the rules of reality, so sometimes it helps to try and find something that lends itself more naturally to the medium rather than replicate what we're familiar with from reality.” (AH01_transcription, item 8689); o “its ability to manipulate space or manipulate time to surprise and engage the audience in an unexpected way, giving them a novel experience.” (AH01_transcription, item 85-86); − the ability to create virtual galleries, for example, to exhibit student work or other curated collections, e.g: o “import three-dimensional materials created by students to make virtual galleries, which if you want also looks a lot at the dimension of the metaverse, therefore of shared spaces.” (GG01_transcription, item 55); − the ability to draw in 3D within the VR headset, enabling users to create spatial sketches and visual annotations directly in the virtual environment, e.g: o “a piece of software - I can't think of the name right now - where you can draw in three-dimensional space, under the VR glasses, you have the VR glasses on and draw with them.” (ST01_transctription-eng, item 25); − functionalities related to the creation and experience of films, including support for 360-degree video content and the use of visual effects (VFX) within the VR environment, e.g: o “Blending of different locations and different storylines in 360-degree space” (ST01_transctription-eng, item 35); o “You're freer to choose your camera angle and you can use a studio set by working cinematically and you can work with VFX who can add a ceiling or you can use a complete 360-degree world.” (ST01_transctription-eng, item 58). In addition to the desired functionalities, interview participants also shared a wide range of expectations related to the use of VR. These included: 1. Increased accessibility – enabling broader access to places, experiences, and experts that might otherwise be out of reach, e.g: D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 96 a. “being able to visit, to see, to interact with a lot of experiences that otherwise might not be available to you. To be able to do those virtually is a huge bonus from an education perspective.” (AH01_transcription, item 218); b. “A virtual classroom can, for example, facilitate the presence of experts who might not otherwise be physically present. A video call could also do it, but the experience is completely different. In a collective immersive space, you are aware that you are sharing that virtual place, and you can perceive the presence of other people (because it simulates reality). It is something that could change the course of certain paths and, above all, it could lead students to have a better predisposition towards group work (gain experience during the training years of what the world of work will be like)” (GG01_transcription, item 78); c. “VR could improve the learning of subjects such as science and history (e.g. virtual tours in ancient Rome), to give pupils a more tactile experience, compared to a classic visit to the museum.” (GG01_transcription, item 53). 2. Support for specific activities, such as skill development in simulated environments; historical event reconstructions; documentation of crime scenes; simulation-based analysis of complex phenomena; collaborative prototyping; 3D modelling; running simulations; artistic creation; preserving experiences; supporting traditional teaching activities; and enriching content with annotations, e.g: a. “Again, safety and training or use of equipment which you would not have access to. So again, we've seen the examples with medical training. But obviously we could have simpler things. I don't know VR experiences where kids learn how to cook, you know, which is safe, because you don't have any real fire, but they could still be learning how to, you know, prepare and handle knives and things of the sort in a manner that doesn't put them at risk. So there's a lot of, I think, a lot of applications in in every possible field for learning using. VR.” (AH01_transcription, Poz. 221-224); b. “Regarding my field, communication, VR opens up fascinating possibilities. For example, one could analyse how people behave in different simulated social situations, how interactions change depending on context, space, distance.” (KT01_transcription, item 22); c. “Virtual spaces and 3D assets can become not only spaces for acquiring knowledge but also spaces for design, for example, by prototyping solutions, concepts, and projects in real-time among different connected users.” (MA01_transcription, item 51). 3. Further development of VR technology, especially in relation to more comfortable hardware solutions and advances in spatial sound, e.g: a. “Another example is that of devices that become lighter and integrated into people's daily clothing, ensuring a more massive adoption.” (GG01_transcription, item 74); b. “But I also like spatial sound, for example. So, VR could develop even more in that area. Yes, there would be more.” (ST01_transctription-eng, item 58). D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 97 4. The ability to convey content in a new and original way, offering novel forms of engagement and expression, e.g: a. “As far as school teaching is concerned, on the other hand, VR could improve the learning of subjects such as science and history (e.g. virtual tours in ancient Rome), to give pupils a more tactile experience, compared to a classic visit to the museum. Gamification has ramifications everywhere and could be a method to reinforce teaching.” (GG01_transcription, item 53); b. “In the educational field, it would be very interesting to work with VR tools to create scenarios and environments where users can move around and have design experiences.” (MA01_transcription, item 51); c. “I would use it like as a sort of engagement tool.” (ZV01_transcription, item 84). 5. The expectation of voluntary use, emphasizing that VR should remain an optional tool, not a compulsory requirement: “It is a technology that we should have a choice to use, whether we use it or not.” (PK01_transcription, item 50). 6. High-quality graphics, with users expecting visually appealing and detailed environments: “If you've got a high, you know, like a high detailed scan, 3D scan of a of an oil painting or something of the sort experiencing it and actually seeing the different levels of the paint build up.” (AH01_transcription, item 230-231). One aspect that, while obvious from a UX perspective, remains important to emphasize is the need to tailor content to the intended audience. For example: “Try to be more attractive, give exclusive content. This has already been proven and has not attained the desired effect, because those who join are already skilled experts. Yet, you have to work on being attractive. For example, this is a separate market from that of those who go to the cinema. The latter does not necessarily translate into the market of people who use VR apps. Therefore, it is necessary to diversify and intercept that target.” (GG01_transcription, item 74). Expectations were also expressed in relation to the inherent characteristics of VR. For example, one participant emphasized the importance of designing VR experiences with the physical space in mind—the actual space in which users will interact with the environment: “I wouldn't separate the two. The virtual, the physical, the studio space is still an integral element of a lot of virtual reality experiences, if nothing else, from a safety perspective, making sure that that people do have space to navigate, that the experience you're creating isn't encouraging the user to move in a way that might cause them or people around them, or objects around them, any harm or damage, so the space itself cannot be separated from the use. Then there's also on the experience itself. Some experiences might be designed for minimal movement.” (AH01_transcription, item 97-98). D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 98 This participant also highlighted the awareness that VR will not replace the physical world; however, it was acknowledged that it offers more possibilities than traditional means of visualizing content: “The moment you're going to be missing out on smells, on sounds and things of the sort, but it's still better than nothing for people that might not have a way of experiencing these things. And VR is a step up from just visualizing just seeing pictures on a website or a Youtube video, because you can actually have some agency and walk around in these sites and things of the sort.” (AH01_transcription, item 220-221). Finally, a suggestion was made regarding what could increase interest in VR among nonusers—namely, the opportunity to try out VR equipment for free: “Definitely the possibility of renting equipment or even creating a VR studio at the university that we could use during classes. This would be a huge improvement, as currently access to such equipment is very limited.” (KT01_transcription, item 38). 8.4 Synthesis and Cross-case Analysis 8.4.1 Synthesis and Cross-case Analysis The synthesis of results across the three research methods—participatory workshops, quantitative surveys, and semi-structured interviews—has provided a nuanced understanding of the diverse ways users from various professional backgrounds interact with the IMPULSE VR prototype. These methods were employed to triangulate data and uncover deeper insights into users' expectations, challenges, and functional needs. This synthesis not only identifies common barriers faced by users but also offers key recommendations for refining the prototype to better suit the needs of specific user groups. 8.4.1.1 Comparison of Results from Three Methods The three research methods employed in this study—participatory workshops, surveys, and interviews—complement each other, yielding a holistic view of user engagement with the VR system. 1. Participatory Workshops: These workshops provided real-time interaction with the prototype, fostering immediate feedback and collaborative scenario development. The interactive nature of the workshops allowed participants to engage deeply with the system, generating spontaneous insights into usability issues and emotional engagement. The workshops also revealed immediate technical problems such as system instability, slow performance, and difficulties in navigating and manipulating content. These observations, made during active D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 99 interaction with the system, highlighted the users' reactions to the prototype in practical conditions, with a particular emphasis on the technical difficulties they encountered. 2. Quantitative Surveys: The surveys were designed to provide a broader and more structured view of users’ perceptions of the system. Through a standardized set of questions, the surveys captured data related to usability, immersiveness, narrative engagement, and interaction patterns. They provided statistical evidence of the trends observed in the workshops, notably confirming concerns about system instability, slow content loading, and difficulty with spatial movement. In addition, the surveys highlighted specific user expectations around accessibility and personalization features, such as avatar customization and more intuitive movement options. 3. Semi-structured Interviews: The interviews provided a more in-depth, qualitative understanding of user experiences. Through detailed personal reflections, the interviews offered nuanced insights into how participants with varied backgrounds perceived immersive technologies. The interviews captured complex emotional and cognitive responses to VR, including fear among novice users regarding visual isolation and disorientation, and concerns about physical discomfort and technology-related anxiety. Unlike the surveys and workshops, interviews offered a deeper exploration of users’ expectations for future VR applications, including the potential for creative expression and narrative flexibility. 8.4.1.2 Mapping Insights and Behavioural Patterns. By triangulating these methods, the study revealed several consistent themes and patterns that inform both the design and anticipated user interaction with the IMPULSE VR prototype. 1. Usability Issues: The most prominent usability issues across all methods were system instability and slow performance, with significant technical barriers related to crashes, navigation difficulties, and difficulty manipulating content. Participants in the workshops and interviews described unpredictable object behaviours and unclear navigation controls, which detracted from the user experience. These recurring issues across different methods underline the critical need for technical optimization. Addressing these concerns will improve the platform's stability, thereby making it more reliable for real-world use and user testing. 2. User Expectations: One key finding across all research methods was users’ desire for greater control over the immersive environment. Participants expressed a strong interest in customizing various elements, such as backgrounds, objects, and avatars, to better align the environment with their specific goals. This was especially pronounced among G2, who emphasized the importance of creative expression. Both the workshops and interviews highlighted a need for more dynamic control over the virtual space. Features such as avatar personalization, D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 100 spatial control, and alternative movement options (e.g., teleportation or flying) were repeatedly mentioned as essential for increasing user agency and enhancing the immersive experience. 3. Affective and Experiential Insights: The emotional engagement and narrative aspects of the VR system were identified as key drivers of user engagement, particularly for G1 and G2. For G1 participants, particularly those with limited VR experience, structured educational content and guided navigation were paramount. They expressed a preference for clear, easily navigable systems that could support their educational goals without overwhelming them with complexity. Conversely, G2 participants, with a stronger emphasis on creativity, prioritized artistic freedom and emotional resonance in narrative construction. For G3, the focus shifted to the technical robustness of the platform, with specific emphasis on metadata integration, multi-user collaboration, and curation tools. 8.4.1.3 Differences Between User Groups. The comparative analysis of G1, G2, and G3 revealed distinct differences in how each group engages with the IMPULSE VR prototype, shaped by their professional backgrounds and digital competences. 1. Group 1: a. Key Needs: Clear and structured content, intuitive interface, stability; b. Challenges: Technical instability, lack of pedagogical scaffolding tools, beginner user struggles; c. Expectations: The expectation for predictable, stable VR environments that could be seamlessly integrated into educational settings. 2. Group 2: a. Key Needs: Creative freedom, artistic expression, avatar customization; b. Challenges: Limited customization options, absence of tactile feedback, frustration with platform limitations; c. Expectations: Flexible storytelling, narrative engagement, and the ability to express creativity through the platform. 3. Group 3: a. Key Needs: Metadata support, multi-user functionality, robust content manipulation; b. Challenges: Insufficient multi-user options, inability to fully integrate with professional workflows; c. Expectations: Reliability, professional-grade tools for curation, exhibition development, and collaboration. D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 101 8.4.1.4 Impact of Previous Digital and Cultural Competences. A key influence on user engagement with the IMPULSE VR system was participants' prior digital and immersive technology experience. The level of exposure to digital tools shaped users' engagement and comfort with the platform, as follows: • G1 participants, many of whom had limited VR experience, required more instructional guidance and sought educational content that could help them navigate the immersive environment. • G2 participants, who had more exposure to visual arts and creative practices, engaged more freely with the system, seeking tools that would allow for non-linear interaction and artistic control. • G3 participants, with strong professional backgrounds in cultural heritage, were more focused on the functional aspects of the system, especially its ability to handle metadata, track provenance, and support multi-user interaction for professional curatorial tasks. Conclusion This synthesis and cross-case analysis has provided a detailed understanding of how users from different professional and academic backgrounds interact with the IMPULSE VR prototype. The triangulation of insights from workshops, surveys, and interviews revealed both shared challenges and group-specific expectations that will guide the next steps in the iterative design process. The study highlights the critical need for system stability, customization tools, and improved technical features such as multi-user functionality and interactive narrative options. These insights provide clear recommendations for improving the IMPULSE VR prototype in line with user expectations, ensuring that the platform is more inclusive, user-centred, and able to meet the diverse needs of its intended users in the cultural and educational sectors. 8.5 Recommendations The findings from the IMPULSE project research activities—participatory workshops, quantitative surveys, and semi-structured interviews—reveal essential insights that will guide the refinement of the VR prototype. This section synthesizes the results into actionable recommendations across multiple domains: general design, narrative and interaction design, and strategic recommendations for future work packages (WP). Additionally, recommendations related to inclusivity and cultural sensitivity will ensure that the prototype remains accessible and culturally relevant to diverse user groups. D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 102 8.5.1 General Design Recommendations The overall design of the IMPULSE VR platform should address the key usability and technical challenges identified across all research methods. The following general design recommendations are proposed to enhance the user experience and ensure the platform's success: The following set of inclusivity and cultural sensitivity recommendations has been developed based on user research and workshop insights. While some of these recommendations are being directly addressed within the scope of the IMPULSE VR platform, others extend beyond the current technical and organisational remit of the project. They are therefore intended as strategic guidelines for future initiatives operating at the intersection of immersive technologies (e.g., VR, multi-user virtual environments) and cultural heritage. By distinguishing between implementable and aspirational elements, this section aims to contribute to broader discussions on accessibility, ethical cultural representation, and inclusive design in digital heritage environments. Of the recommendations, the following are of particular note: 1. System Stability and Performance: the most consistent concern across all methods was system instability. Participants highlighted platform crashes, slow performance, and difficulty with object manipulation. To address these issues, it is crucial to prioritize technical optimization. This includes: a. Enhancing the processing power of the system to handle complex 3D objects and multiple users simultaneously; b. Reducing latency in user interactions and ensuring smooth transitions between virtual environments. 2. User Interface (UI) and Accessibility: based on the feedback from G1, G2, and G3, the UI should be intuitive, customizable, and easy to navigate: a. Clear guidance and onboarding tutorials should be provided, particularly for novice users in G1; b. Simplified controls should be available for beginners, with the option to move to more advanced features for experienced users; c. Accessibility features, such as customizable font sizes, colour contrast options, and keyboard navigation, should be considered and recommended for future initiatives to ensure the platform can be used by a wide range of users, including those with disabilities. 3. Personalization and Adaptability: to address the needs of users from G2 and G3 the platform should include greater personalization: D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 103 a. Avatar customization and interactive environmental elements that allow users to adjust the virtual space according to their personal or professional needs; b. Multi-user functionality must be enhanced to facilitate collaborative work across users, especially in the context of cultural and educational tasks. 8.5.2 Narrative and Interaction Design. The narrative and interaction design of the IMPULSE VR platform plays a pivotal role in shaping the user experience, particularly for G2 and G3 users, who are more inclined toward storytelling and curation in immersive environments. Recommendations include: 1. Narrative Flexibility and Artistic Expression: as highlighted by G2 participants, the platform should allow for non-linear storytelling and artistic freedom. This could be achieved through: a. Tools that enable users to rearrange and customize objects, backgrounds, and narratives dynamically; b. Enhanced interaction models that support multivocal storytelling, understood as the coexistence of diverse voices, perspectives, and narratives within a single environment, allowing users to combine various cultural narratives or artistic expressions in a shared storytelling space; c. The platform should support immersive environments for emotional and sensory engagement, enhancing user connection with the virtual content. 2. Spatial Interactions and Movement: both G1 and G2 participants expressed a desire for more immersive movement and spatial interactivity. This could include: a. Intuitive movement controls like teleportation or free-range walking, ensuring smooth navigation; b. The ability to interact with objects within the environment, such as scaling, rotating, or duplicating objects; c. Enhanced tactile feedback, allowing users to feel interactions with objects, either through haptic feedback or simulated tactile sensations. Enhanced tactile feedback, allowing users to feel interactions with objects through haptic feedback or simulated sensations, such as collision detection or visual/auditory cues that mimic tactile responses. 3. Narrative Tools for G3: for G3, who require metadata support and curation tools, the platform should allow users to: a. Anchor narratives to specific objects or events; b. Integrate external datasets for objects, such as historical context, cultural significance, and provenance, which are crucial for the cultural heritage sector; c. Include tools for collaborative storytelling, allowing curators and educators to create shared, immersive cultural experiences in real-time. D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 104 8.5.3 Strategic Recommendations for Next WP. The insights gained from the analysis of user interactions, feedback, and expectations across the participatory workshops, surveys, and interviews provide a crucial foundation for the ongoing development of the IMPULSE VR prototype. Based on the synthesis of these findings, strategic recommendations have been formulated to guide the next steps in the project, specifically within the context of WP2, WP3, and WP5. These recommendations aim to address the identified usability challenges, align the platform with user needs, and optimize its educational, creative, and cultural engagement capabilities. By incorporating both the technical and experiential insights derived from the research, the recommendations offer targeted guidance to enhance the overall user experience, support effective immersion, and ensure that the platform is adaptable and inclusive across diverse user groups. These strategies will inform not only the immediate development priorities for the next work packages but also the long-term goals of fostering a more accessible, engaging, and robust immersive environment for all users. This paragraph sets the stage for the detailed recommendations to follow, emphasising the integration of user feedback into the strategic decisions for the next phases of the project. 8.5.4 Strategic Recommendations for WP1: User Research and Persona Development. WP1 plays a pivotal role in the IMPULSE project, providing foundational user insights that shape the design, functionality, and user engagement strategies of the immersive VR platform. The work package focuses on gathering user requirements, defining user personas, and establishing user profiles that guide the development of an environment tailored to meet the diverse needs of G1, G2, and G3 user groups. Based on the insights from the current research phase, the following recommendations have been formulated to strengthen WP1's contributions to the project’s evolution. 8.5.4.1 Refinement of User Personas. One of the key outcomes of WP1 has been the development of provisional user personas, which encapsulate the behavioural patterns, needs, and expectations of the primary user groups (G1, G2, G3). These personas are based on a combination of desk research, literature analysis, and early-stage empirical data. Recommendation: • WP1 should continue refining these personas based on further qualitative data from interviews and workshops, ensuring that they evolve alongside the project’s D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 111 controlled plot developments, and modular arrangements of heritage content. Such affordances are essential for enabling artistic experimentation and enhancing narrative engagement across multiple use cases. Personalisation and Agency: insights gathered from G1, G2, and G3 consistently highlight the need for greater user agency and content personalisation. Participants expressed interest in adapting their virtual environments — including avatar customisation, spatial reorganisation, and content selection — to better reflect their learning goals, professional roles, or creative intentions. WP1 should ensure that narrative and interaction designs offer sufficient flexibility to empower diverse user groups and support differentiated interaction scenarios. Inclusive Storytelling: to ensure broader accessibility and relevance, WP1 should promote the creation of inclusive and culturally sensitive narratives. Feedback from participants indicated that overly complex or narrowly framed content can limit engagement, particularly among less technically experienced users. Future narrative designs should incorporate multilingual options, visual scaffolding, and alternative modes of narration (e.g., audio descriptions or subtitles) to accommodate a wide spectrum of abilities and cultural backgrounds. 8.5.8.2 Pedagogical Integration (WP1). Educational Scaffolding: participants from G1 consistently emphasised the importance of clear instructional support within the immersive environment. Many expressed the need for structured guidance that would help users navigate and engage with the content effectively, especially those with limited experience in VR. WP1 should consider integrating features such as onboarding tutorials, guided tours, embedded prompts, and context-sensitive help functions. These components will provide pedagogical scaffolding that lowers the cognitive threshold and facilitates meaningful educational interaction. Collaboration and Social Learning: feedback from G1 participants also indicated strong interest in leveraging immersive environments for collaborative and peer-based learning. To support this, WP1 should explore the implementation of real-time collaboration tools, including shared virtual workspaces, co-narration modules, and feedback functionalities. These affordances are essential for fostering social presence, supporting group work, and enabling active knowledge construction in educational settings. 8.5.9 3. Recommendations for Cross-Work Package Collaboration. WP1, WP2 and WP3 Synergies: to ensure a cohesive development of the IMPULSE platform, it is essential to foster continuous collaboration between WP1 (User Research and UX Design), WP2 (Platform Development), and WP3 (Standards Simplification and Integration). WP1 should act as a bridge between the technical development and content D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 112 structuring processes by translating user needs, identified through interviews, surveys, and participatory workshops, into concrete design and functionality recommendations. WP2's technical iterations—including optimisation of interaction models and cross-device performance—should be systematically tested using the narrative use cases and pedagogical scenarios informed by WP1 activities. Similarly, WP3’s work on metadata standards, interoperability, and simplification protocols should feed back into the system architecture and inform how narrative and educational content is structured, described, and rendered across the platform. Cross-Work Package Workshops: interdisciplinary workshops involving teams from WP1, WP2, and WP3 should be organised regularly to facilitate knowledge exchange, mutual understanding, and collaborative prototyping. These sessions would allow technical developers to better understand the narrative and educational needs of different user groups (G1, G2, G3), while also informing content creators and user researchers of technical constraints and implementation possibilities. Moreover, these workshops could serve as iterative validation checkpoints, integrating user feedback into agile development cycles and refining the overall user experience in alignment with project goals. 8.5.10 Conclusion. The recommendations formulated in this deliverable are designed to support the ongoing coordination between WP1 (User Research and UX Design), WP2 (Platform Development), and WP3 (Standards Simplification and Integration), ensuring that the IMPULSE VR prototype evolves in alignment with user expectations, technical feasibility, and interoperability standards. To create an immersive environment that is both technically robust and meaningfully engaging, the next development phases should prioritise improved system performance, adaptability to different user needs, and support for both creative exploration and educational scaffolding. WP2’s focus on infrastructure development and platform functionality must be continually informed by WP1’s empirical insights into user behaviour, affective responses, and interaction preferences. Simultaneously, WP3’s contribution to metadata structures, interoperability, and integration standards will be essential for ensuring the long-term usability, scalability, and contextual integrity of cultural heritage content within the VR system. Collaboration across these work packages is crucial for delivering a user-centred platform that fosters inclusive participation, supports diverse narrative practices, and reflects the complex requirements of education, creativity, and cultural heritage mediation. The integration of design, development, and standardisation efforts will ensure that the IMPULSE platform not only meets immediate user needs but also lays a foundation for sustainable and extensible digital heritage practices. D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 113 8.5.11 Inclusivity and Cultural Sensitivity Guidelines. To support the development of inclusive and culturally sensitive immersive environments in the field of virtual heritage, the following guidelines are proposed as recommendations for current and future initiatives working at the intersection of virtual reality and cultural heritage (VR + CH). While not all elements may be implemented within the current scope of the IMPULSE project, they reflect critical areas for long-term consideration and strategic planning: 1. Linguistic Inclusivity: a. It is recommended that immersive VR platforms designed for cultural heritage applications consider supporting multiple languages to enhance accessibility for international and multilingual audiences, particularly in educational and museum-based contexts. This could include offering both audio and textual translations, thereby enabling users to engage fully with the content regardless of their linguistic background. While full implementation may extend beyond the scope of the current IMPULSE prototype, multilingual design should remain a key objective for future development stages and comparable initiatives in the VR + CH domain. 2. Cultural Sensitivity: a. Cultural representation in VR environments should be handled with care, ensuring that narratives and objects are accurately and respectfully presented, while also allowing for creative flexibility, particularly in artistic experimentation. The balance between accuracy and creative expression may vary depending on the context, with educational settings prioritizing accuracy, while artistic experimentation may offer more freedom for reinterpretation; b. The platform should be designed with the flexibility to allow users to create and curate culturally relevant content that aligns with specific local or regional contexts; c. Collaboration with cultural professionals should ensure that the platform's content reflects the richness of global cultural heritage without marginalizing minority or underrepresented groups. 3. Physical Accessibility: Future VR systems designed for cultural heritage applications should provide customisable accessibility settings to accommodate users with disabilities. These may include features for individuals with visual impairments—such as high-contrast modes and text-to-speech functionalities—as well as alternative input methods like eye-tracking or hand tracking for those with mobility limitations. Additionally, special consideration should be given to the accessibility of VR hardware, ensuring that it can be adjusted easily and used comfortably by people with sensory or D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 114 cognitive impairments. Such inclusive design principles are essential to broaden participation and ensure equitable engagement across diverse user groups. 8.5.12 Strategic Recommendations for WP5: Dissemination, Communication and Stakeholder Engagement. WP5, responsible for Dissemination, Communication and Stakeholder Engagement, plays a strategic role in amplifying the visibility of the IMPULSE project, supporting knowledge exchange across work packages, and ensuring engagement with diverse user communities. While WP5 does not lead the technical development or user research, its functions are critical for facilitating informed participation, recruitment, and stakeholder feedback, thereby indirectly supporting the evolution of the IMPULSE VR prototype. Given the iterative and user-centred nature of the project, WP5 should be closely aligned with the aims of WP1 (User Research), WP2 (Prototype Development), and WP3 (Standards Simplification) to help coordinate communication workflows, distribute surveys, promote recruitment for interviews and testing sessions, and assist in organising focus groups or co-creation events. WP5 can also serve as a conduit for sharing findings across institutional, academic, and professional networks, thus broadening the reach and relevance of the project's results. 8.5.12.1 Specific Recommendations for WP5. Facilitating Iterative Feedback Collection: WP5 should support ongoing cycles of user consultation by promoting participation in qualitative and quantitative studies (e.g., surveys, interviews, co-design workshops) and ensuring that insights gathered by WP1 are effectively communicated and contextualised for WP2 and WP3. While WP1 remains the lead for research, WP5 can enhance access to participants and help sustain participation over time. Expanding Outreach and Sampling Channels: recruitment for user research activities should leverage WP5’s outreach strategies across multiple platforms, including institutional mailing lists, academic partnerships, cultural sector networks, and multilingual calls via the project’s public channels. This will increase the diversity of the user base, especially among underrepresented or less digitally literate groups. Ensuring Inclusivity in Engagement: WP5 should facilitate accessible communication practices and support inclusive dissemination formats. This includes preparing accessible surveys, multilingual materials, screen-reader-friendly websites, and audio/video summaries of results. These materials should be tailored to the needs of different user groups (G1–G3), including non-users and people with disabilities. Coordinated Dissemination of Research Outputs: WP5 should develop and maintain public-facing formats for sharing research insights and progress, including infographics, D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 115 summary reports, blog posts, and social media updates. It should also support targeted communication with stakeholders and cultural institutions that may adopt or adapt the outcomes of the IMPULSE platform. Stakeholder Mobilisation and Advocacy: WP5 is in a strong position to build alliances with external partners and cultural institutions. It should capitalise on these relationships to create opportunities for user-centred validation, prototype demonstration, and potential future collaborations that extend beyond the current scope of the project. 8.5.13 Conclusion for WP5 Integration. WP5’s contributions to the dissemination of findings, the recruitment of participants for further research, and the sustained engagement of stakeholders will be critical to the success of the IMPULSE project. By facilitating continuous feedback loops and promoting inclusive and transparent user involvement, WP5 can help bridge the gap between theoretical development and real-world application. This will ensure that the VR platform evolves in alignment with the actual needs and expectations of diverse user communities across varying levels of digital competence and professional contexts. 9 Conclusions This section outlines the key findings of the study and identifies critical areas where future research is necessary to enhance the IMPULSE VR prototype and ensure it meets the diverse needs of users across different domains. 9.1 Summary of Key Findings The research conducted as part of the IMPULSE project has provided valuable insights into user interactions, experiences, and expectations regarding the use of immersive VR technology in the context of cultural heritage. The key findings from the participatory workshops, quantitative surveys, and semi-structured interviews reveal several important themes that have implications for the design and development of the VR platform. 1. Usability and Technical Issues: Across all user groups, the most prominent usability concerns were related to system instability, including platform crashes, slow performance, and technical malfunctions. These issues were especially evident during the participatory workshops and surveys, highlighting the need for further optimization and stabilization of the platform before moving forward with additional user testing. D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 116 2. User Expectations and Desire for Control: A consistent theme across the data was the desire for increased user agency. Participants expressed a strong preference for greater control over the immersive environment, including the ability to manipulate environmental elements, such as objects, backgrounds, and avatars. This was echoed in both the surveys and the interviews, where users called for features like avatar customization, enhanced spatial control, and alternative movement options (e.g., teleportation and flying). 3. Group-Specific Needs: The analysis of different user groups G1, G2 and G3 revealed distinct expectations. G1 preferred structured, educational content, while G2 sought more creative freedom and artistic expression. G3 focused on technical robustness, emphasized the need for professional tools, such as metadata integration, multi-user functionality, and the ability to curate content effectively. This divergence underscores the necessity of creating a flexible platform that accommodates the specific needs and priorities of each group. 4. Barriers to Immersion and Accessibility: Several barriers to effective VR use were identified, including physiological challenges (e.g., VR sickness, discomfort from headsets), affective concerns (e.g., fear of isolation or disorientation in VR), and cognitive barriers (e.g., the perceived complexity of using VR). Additionally, equipment-related issues, such as the high cost of VR hardware and lack of access to adequate infrastructure, were significant barriers for many participants. Addressing these issues will be critical for ensuring wider adoption and use of VR technologies, especially in educational and cultural contexts. 5. Desire for Enhanced Immersive Experiences: Many users expressed interest in more sensory engagement within the VR environment. Features such as spatial sound, multi-sensory feedback, and the ability to manipulate time and space within the virtual environment were frequently mentioned as key areas for enhancement. These features align with the goal of creating a more immersive and engaging experience, particularly for users involved in creative and educational fields. 9.2 Identifying Gaps and Directions for Further Research While the current research provides valuable insights into user needs and expectations, several gaps remain, and further research is needed to refine the VR platform and address identified challenges. These gaps suggest multiple avenues for continued investigation: 1. Long-Term User Experience: the current study primarily focused on initial impressions and short-term interactions with the VR prototype. Future research should investigate how users engage with the platform over extended periods, particularly in the context of ongoing educational activities, creative projects, and cultural heritage curation. Understanding how users adapt to and evolve their D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 117 interactions with the platform will provide insights into the long-term usability and sustainability of the system. 2. Diverse User Populations: while the current study covered a range of users, future research should expand to include a broader and more diverse population, particularly those who may have been excluded due to accessibility or physical limitations (e.g., users with disabilities or older adults). Investigating the inclusivity of the platform is recommended to ensure that it meets the needs of all users and can be accessed by a wider audience. While this may not be implemented within the scope of IMPULSE, it can serve as a set of recommendations for future initiatives 3. Impact of Immersion on Learning and Emotional Engagement: more research is needed to explore how the immersive nature of VR affects learning outcomes, emotional engagement, and storytelling across different disciplines. Specific focus should be placed on how VR can enhance educational experiences (particularly for G1) and foster emotional connections with cultural heritage (especially for G2 and G3). Longitudinal studies could help assess the effectiveness of VR as a tool for learning and its ability to evoke meaningful, emotional responses from users. 4. Exploring Multi-User and Collaborative Experiences: another critical gap lies in understanding the multi-user functionalities and collaborative aspects of VR. While some users expressed interest in multi-user interactions, this feature was not fully realized in the current prototype. Further research is needed to evaluate how real-time collaboration and social interactions within the virtual environment can enhance engagement and learning outcomes. 5. Technology Adoption and Accessibility: future research should investigate how to make VR more accessible to users with varying levels of technical expertise, as well as those with specific physical or cognitive impairments. Developing strategies to lower the barriers to entry, including improving affordability and availability of hardware, will be key to achieving wider adoption of immersive VR technologies. 6. Cultural Sensitivity and Ethical Considerations: as VR technology becomes more widely used for cultural heritage purposes, further research should address the ethical implications of representing and interacting with cultural artifacts. This includes ensuring that the content and interactions are culturally sensitive, accurate, and inclusive. Additionally, the use of AI in these environments should be ethically considered, particularly in relation to user data and privacy concerns. D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 118 10 References IMPULSE Project proposal (2023). IMPULSE, IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies. PROPOSAL_101132704-IMPULSE HORIZONCL2-2023-HERITAGE-01-PART_B_Section_1.pdf (Available: https://ujchmura.sharepoint.com/:b:/r/teams/impulsegeneral_group/Shared%20Docum ents/General/Proposal/Grant%20Agreement%20-%20GAP101132704.pdf?csf=1&web=1&e=34LXgI ). ISO = International Organization for Standardization. (2019). ISO 9241-210:2019 – Ergonomics of human-system interaction – Human-centred design for interactive systems. https://www.iso.org/standard/77520.html. Krakowska, M., Zych, M., Deja, M. (2024). D1.1 – Methodological framework and user groups definition (Version 6.0). Horizon Europe Project IMPULSE (GAP-101132704). Jagiellonian University. (Available:IMPULhttps://ujchmura.sharepoint.com/:b:/r/teams/impulsewp1exstory_group/Shared%20Documents/General/Task%201.1_UserResearch/1.1.2Methodol ogy%26ResearchTechniques%20creation%20(M36)/DELIVERABLE1/IMPULSE%20D1.1_version%206.0_30.07.2024.pdf?csf=1&web=1&e=p2 14cw). D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 119 11 Annexes 11.1 Questionnaire IMPULSE VR Platform Testing prepared for Leuven workshop. IMPULSE VR Platform testing The purpose of this survey is to identify the respondent's opinions regarding the scope and quality of functionalities available in the platform and to explore the respondents' opinions on the expected scope of functionalities in the final version of the platform. The survey is anonymous, and you can stop answering at any time. Please note that, because it is anonymous, we cannot delete or edit responses once the survey is complete. The survey should take approximately 10 minutes to complete. There are no right or wrong answers – we want to hear your honest feedback. Thank you for your time and for sharing your knowledge and experience. Please be aware that during the survey, there is a risk of experiencing VR sickness. Symptoms may include dizziness, nausea, headaches, vomiting, and general discomfort. The survey can be stopped at any moment upon the participant's request. However, if you are concerned about the potential for VR sickness, we encourage you to carefully consider your participation in the study.This survey is part of the IMPULSE project. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact us via https://euimpulse.eu/contact/ * Required 1. Do you agree to participate in the survey "VR Platform testing" carried out as part of the IMPULSE project? * Yes No 2. How would you assess the platform in relation to the following pair of attributes? * unpleasant pleasant 3. How would you assess the platform in relation to the following pair of attributes? * brings me closer to separates me from people people 4. How would you assess the platform in relation to the following pair of attributes? * simple complicated 5. How would you assess the platform in relation to the following pair of attributes? * unimaginativecreative 6. How would you assess the platform in relation to the following pair of attributes? * D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 120 motivatingdiscouraging 7. How would you assess the platform in relation to the following pair of attributes? * ugly attractive 8. Have you experienced any difficulties importing 2D content while using the platform? If so, which ones? (You may select more than one option.) * Problems with the supported file format (e.g. the platform does not recognise .svg, .png, etc. files) Slow loading of the content Failure to load the content due to too large file size Technical errors (e.g. platform crashed during import) Incorrectly imported content (e.g. missing elements, distortions) No, I have not experienced any difficulties Inne 9. Have you had any difficulties moving content within the platform environment? If so, which ones? (You may select more than one option.) * Problems with the precision of the content’s movement Content 'jumped' or changed position not according to my expectations Lack of clear guidance or visual cues (e.g. no grid display, on-screen cues showing the model's current position or possible directions of movement) Controller issues (e.g. difficulty using VR goggles or keyboard/mouse) No, I have not experienced any difficulties Inne 10. Have you had any difficulties changing the size of the content on the platform? If so, which ones? (You may select more than one option.) * Lack of precision when changing size (e.g. the content changed size in jumps instead of smoothly) Limited ways to change scale (e.g. no way to zoom in/out to the right size) Unclear instructions on how to use features (e.g. no explanation of which gestures or buttons to use to change size; no visual indication of the model's current size) Technical problems (e.g. platform freezes) D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 127 Inne 16. What could convince you to start using VR? (You may select more than one answer.) * Cheaper and easier access Improved graphics and immersion quality More educational or professional content Easier to use Inne Affiliation 17. Status at university * Student (undergraduate) Student (Master's degree) PhD student Academic teacher Not applicable Ta zawartość nie została stworzona ani zatwierdzona przez firmę Microsoft. Podane przez Ciebie informacje zostaną przesłane właścicielowi formularza. Microsoft Forms 11.3 Interview Guide. Thanks for your participation in this interview. Before I start asking questions, I wanted to inform you that the interview will be recorded and then transcribed. The transcriptions will be sent to you for confirmation. You can remove any information that you do not want to be part of the transcriptions. The transcriptions will be anonymized and will be published online in an open data archive. D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 128 Do you consent to the start of the recording? (YES/NO) 11.4 Demographic Data. Please provide the following information by marking the appropriate category: - Age: 20-30 [ ] 31-40 [ ] 41-50 [ ] 51-60 [ ] 61 and more [ ] I don’t want to say my age [ ] - Gender: Male [ ] Female [ ] Other [ ] - Education Level: [ ] High School [ ] Some College [ ] Associate Degree [ ] Bachelor's Degree [ ] Master's Degree [ ] Doctorate [ ] Prefer not to say - Field of studies/ [artists]Artistic specialisation: ______________________________________ 11.5 Interview Questions. Question ID Questions Notes for interviewers Q1: Exposure and Awareness How would you define virtual reality? Can you describe your general familiarity with Virtual Reality (VR)? Have you had any exposure to VR technologies, even if you haven't used them personally? Goal: Gauge basic awareness and indirect exposure to VR technologies. Possible follow-up questions: - What have you heard or seen about VR that influences your perception of it? D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 129 [artists] How do you incorporate VR/XR technologies into your artistic practice? - Where do you typically encounter information about VR? Notes to interviewer: - What sources of information are mentioned? - Are there any misconceptions or accurate understandings evident? Possible follow-up questions: - How do you integrate XR (VR, AR, or immersive experiences) in presenting your artworks? - How does the virtual environment influence your artistic choices compared to a physical studio? Q2: Perceived Relevance In your view, how could VR be relevant or beneficial to your studies or teaching methods? Goal: Understand perceived potential uses of VR in academic contexts without prior direct experience. Possible follow-up questions: - Can you imagine any scenarios where VR might enhance learning or collaboration? - Are there particular subjects or activities you think would benefit from VR? Notes to interviewer: - What are the theoretical benefits they can think of? - Are there any specific academic disciplines they mention? Q3: Barriers to Adoption What are the main reasons you have not tried using VR in any form? Goal: Identify barriers or lack of interest regarding VR use. D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 130 Possible follow-up questions: - Is it a matter of access, cost, lack of interest, or something else? - Have you encountered any negative reviews or opinions that influenced your stance? Notes for interviewer: - What specific barriers are mentioned most frequently? - Are these barriers logistical, financial, perceptual, or cultural? Q4: Perception of Technology How do you generally perceive new technologies (like VR, AR, AI) in terms of accessibility and usability? How do these gaps affect your work? [artists] How do VR and XR offer unique opportunities for artistic experimentation that other media do not? Goal: Explore attitudes towards adopting new technologies and specific thoughts on VR's userfriendliness. Possible follow-up questions: - Do you feel that new technologies are designed with users like you in mind? - What could make new technologies more appealing or easier for you to try? Notes to interviewer: - How do they view technological advancements? - Are there any specific features or support they believe would encourage usage? Goal: The aim is to indicate the potential, aptitude, competence and perspective of the application of new VR, XR technologies in art, as well as to highlight the potential for experimentation with and in the immersive environment of artists D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 131 Possible follow-up questions: - - Can you share an example of how using VR or XR has changed the outcome of an art project? - How does the use of XR (VR, AR or immersive experiences) impact on the perception of space and dimension in artworks? - Describe an artistic concept you could realise in VR that would be impossible in traditional or other digital formats. Notes to interviewer: How the artist creates immersive space, what the perception of an immersive environment means to him, how he feels this space, how it influences his work, whether it really supports experimentation and interaction with the audience? Q5: Collaborative Potential Considering your current methods of study or teaching, how do you think VR could impact collaboration or learning environments? How do you see its potential and challenges? Goal: Elicit thoughts on the transformative potential of VR in educational settings. Possible follow-up questions: - What changes to learning environments do you foresee if VR were introduced? - Could VR address any current limitations in your educational experience? Notes to interviewer: - Are there positive or negative impacts envisioned? - Do they see VR as a solution or a potential complication? D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 132 [artists] Does and how does interaction change in a VR environment when art is experienced by a group (of artists)? Do you think VR changes the way artists and audience perceive and interact with art? Compared to traditional viewing What unique group experiences do you believe VR and immersive installations can provide to artists that other art forms cannot? D1.2. User Research Report: UX Evaluation of IMPULSE VR Prototype. IMPULSE IMmersive digitisation: uPcycling cULtural heritage towards new reviving StratEgies| 133