Augmented Reality and Wearable Technology for Cultural Heritage Preservation

Editor Comments to Author

Author’s Response to Comments

I recommend clearly and precisely defining the goals of the article at the beginning.

Between the lines 9-12, the aims of the article are clearly and precisely defined.

Promotion as the purpose of the article is a secondary consequence, not the main purpose on which the article is based.

The main purpose of the article is stated in lines 11-12 "It is aimed to evaluate the usability of the developed AR application with SUS and WARUS analyses." It is expressed as.

Question "How can AR technology be used for the preservation and promotion of cultural heritage?" is nowadays, I dare say, irrelevant (or answered a long time ago). I draw your attention to the UNESCO Charter on the Preservation of Digital Heritage from 2003.

Thank you very much for your interest in this topic. We examined the 2003 UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Digital Heritage and revised the research question of our article in lines 70-71 "How can the AR application developed for wearable device contribute to the preservation of cultural heritage and transmission to future generations?"

In the article, I was most interested in the ARCON application and its use, its positives, negatives, possibilities and opportunities...

The positive and negative aspects, possibilities and opportunities of the ARKON application are discussed in the Discussion section of the article, lines 565-573. We also touched upon the subject in lines 593-595 in the conclusion section.

Does the application connect to the server where the 3D model of the street is stored?

Augmented reality applications often use 3D models stored on the user's device (for example, a smartphone or wearable device). Usually such applications can run without connecting to the server. In some cases, applications may connect to servers to download online content or updates. However, there is generally no need to connect to the server for 3D model storage, and applications can store this data on local devices. In this way, the application can provide faster access and better performance to the user. In our application, it provides data to the user via local disk.

Emphasize in the final parts so that it is clear to the readers how the objectives of the research were fulfilled.

In the conclusion section of the article, lines 587-591 have been edited regarding how the purpose of the research was achieved.

Editor Comments to Author

Author’s Response to Comments

Abstract- The abstract started in an interesting way but lacks brief description of the methodology, findings and conclusion.

In the summary section of the research, lines 12-21 include a brief summary of the method, findings, discussion and conclusion sections.

I understand that the author’s grasp of the issue relating to adoption of digital technology and innovation in preservation of cultural heritage, but the introduction is better developed to provide basic description of the key terms of the paper. The key terms may include augmented reality, wearable technology etc. I will advise the author to include the description of the key terms and relevant terms in the introduction.

In the introduction part of the research, basic definitions of the key terms of the article are made in lines 40-44.

No relevant literature was cited in the introduction. This is quite strange and will advice the author to integrate relevant literature and cite them to support the facts in the introduction.

Quotations from the missing relevant literature have been added to the introduction of the article.

Refer to the highlighted texts and comments.

The highlighted texts you marked have been reviewed and edited.

The ‘key study’ section can be moved under ‘methodology’ section as study area.

In line with your suggestion above, we moved the 'Key study' section under the 'methodology' heading and continued it starting from line 240.

What about other environmental and technical factors that may affect usability of the ARKON app?

Other environmental and technical factors that may affect the usability of the ARKON application are described in lines 520-534 of the Results section.

Table 7 needs to be presented in a better way to support the explanation that the author wants to provide. It’s advisable to explain the meaning of the descriptive parameters (e.g. mean, median, range, skewness etc). Readers are more interested in the meanings of the descriptive analyses rather to their values.

Table 7 needs to be presented in a better way to support the explanation that the author wants to provide. It’s advisable to explain the meaning of the descriptive parameters (e.g. mean, median, range, skewness etc). Readers are more interested in the meanings of the descriptive analyses rather to their values.

Necessary arrangements were made regarding Table 7 and it was added to the study starting from line 448.

The tables are not cited in the texts of the sections. I highlighted ‘Tables’ in the texts where I think the tables are better referenced.

The numbers of the tables and figures have been rearranged to be included in the text.

The discussion section needs to be redeveloped to improve the quality of the manuscript.

The discussion section has been rearranged.

The conclusion as prepared by the author is more of repetition of the discussion. The author needs to conclude by with implications of the study to practice, policy and research relevant to preservation of cultural heritage in Turkey.

The conclusion section of the research was revised by examining the criteria that should be included in the conclusion section of the research article. Implications for practice, policy and research regarding the preservation of cultural heritage in Turkey are added.

Editor Comments to Author

Author’s Response to Comments

The paper highlights the need to preserve cultural heritage, using mobile immersive technologies (mobile AR). The case study is Kapanca Street in Kocaeli (Turkey). The goal is to provide visitors with new immersive cultural experiences, thanks to AR and wearable technologies.

Indeed, Virtual Heritage using AR is a great way to promote the preservation of heritage and communicate to encourage the public to visit the real one and appreciate it more thanks to relevant technologies.

The paper describes first all the project life cycle first steps: literature survey, historical analysis of the buildings, 3D scans for 3D models’ reconstruction, application development. Then the study is presented, concerning AR application evaluation by about ninety people, their results presentation, analysis and comments. 

The paper is well illustrated with lots of details. The review and the study are well presented. The results description is a little dry but comments are clearer. The conclusion is aligned with results.

We thank you very much for your time and feedback on our work, and we would like you to know that we carefully examine and evaluate your suggestions in order to further improve our work.

Taking your feedback into consideration, some arrangements and emphasis have been made in the conclusion section to further improve the flow of the study. The result and discussion section has been made more understandable and the understandability of the study has been increased by highlighting the main findings..

Tables formatting:

Format of text content in frames leads to text cuting (missing) in Table 1 “Studies in the literature that contributed to our research” (columns 3 and 4) and Table 3 “Methodology graphic and table display” (only upper left case).

Problem of 3rd column alignment in Table 7 “Descriptive(s) Analysis”.

The numbering of the tables was reviewed and the texts were rearranged to fit between the lines.

Paragraphs ordering:

Paragraph called Methodology is set with the number 3 (already used for Key Study) but the following subchapters are correctly set with 4.x.

Discussion paragraph is number 6, not 5 (this is Results), then the conclusion must be 7, not 4.

Paragraph order rearranged and numbered.

Editor Comments to Author

Author’s Response to Comments

The aim of the paper is clear, and the title is both informative and pertinent. Nonetheless, I had hoped for greater clarity in the abstract regarding the principal findings of the study and their alignment with the hypotheses.

Information about the research method, findings, discussion and conclusion were added to the summary section, and clearer explanations were added in line with the research hypotheses.

The Introduction provides a good the exploration of the article's subject matter. For the paragraph spanning lines 39-49, I recommend that the authors include at least one reference, even from a non-academic source, for readers seeking further information about the history of the city of Kocaeli. While the information presented in this paragraph may be familiar to the authors, providing a reference would enhance the accessibility of the content for readers.

The introduction of the article was reviewed and references were added where necessary. References are given between lines 50-68.

The clear articulation of the research questions is highly appreciated.

Thank you for your evaluation.

Table 1 requires reformatting as certain sections of the text, notably in column 4, are not visible.

Tables throughout the article have been reviewed, and missing or illegible texts have been rearranged to fit between the lines.

The Key Study section provides comprehensive detail and effectively elucidates the AR app developed for Kapanca Street.

Taking the opinions of other referees into consideration, no changes were made in the Key Study section, but it was moved to line 239-413 because it was desired to be a subsection of the Methodology section.

The inclusion of the study's flow chart (Fig. 17) is highly appreciated; however, I recommend that the authors reference Fig. 17 in the text before its presentation.

The article has been rearranged by adding figure and table numbers to the text.

Given the relatively small number of participants surveyed, I recommend that the authors elaborate further on the statistical significance of the results in the discussion section.

The Discussion section of the article has been rearranged taking into account the opinions of the referees.

There is a typo error in the title of 5.2 sub-chapter (line 427). Additionally, there appears to be another typographical or formulation error in Q8 of Table 6; perhaps "its attractions" would be more appropriate than "attracting."

Tables throughout the article have been reviewed, and missing or illegible texts have been rearranged to fit between the lines.

It is not clear if the questions presented in Table 5 and Table 6 were formulated entirely by the authors or derived from previously validated scales.

In the System Usability Scale (SUS) survey and analysis, the resources shown on the "https://sus.mixality.de/" site were taken into consideration. The explanations on the survey in Table 5 were developed from Brooke's 1996 study "SUS: A 'quick and dirty' usability scale".

In Table 6, the Wearable Augmented Reality Usability Scale (WARUS) research and analysis was specifically developed by examining the HARUS survey. Reference added to line 441.

Given the significance of "user experience" as a crucial dimension in any application, I recommend incorporating more references from the literature that discuss this concept in greater detail. Additionally, in the Discussion section, it would be beneficial to address the results based on age, not solely on gender. While the small sample size may offer some explanation, it's worth noting that there is academic literature discussing how AR can enhance communication services with young audiences and attract new ones. Integrating these aspects would enrich the discussion.

Necessary sources have been added to the literature review section. Additionally, the Discussion section has been rearranged by giving references from the literature in lines 547-564. According to the research results, while usability analyzes showed that user satisfaction was high, no significant difference was observed according to gender in the similar age group.

Given that this article is submitted to the Sustainability journal, I consider that the article does not adequately address the correlation between augmented reality (AR) and economic, social, and cultural sustainability.

We appreciate your feedback and would like to address your concerns by highlighting the content we added to the discussion section of our article at lines 581-583. In response to your feedback, we have included a comprehensive analysis of the opportunities and limitations that AR technology and wearables present in terms of usability and sustainability, specifically through the lens of the ARKON app.

We also highlighted the potential of this technology to contribute to the sustainability of cultural heritage and the expansion of access to wider audiences. We need to underline the importance of AR applications such as ARKON in terms of preserving and promoting cultural heritage, thus ensuring cultural sustainability.

We hope that these additions cover the relationship between AR technology and economic, social and cultural sustainability more comprehensively, in line with the focus of Sustainability magazine, and we will be open to any other suggestions and feedback you may have.

Thank you once again for your valuable contributions.

While the mention of ARKON's limitations is noted, it is crucial for the authors to thoroughly discuss the limitations of the study, particularly concerning the methodology and the statistical significance of the results. 

The discussion section of the article has been rearranged and discussed by adding lines 565-573.