GYRO3DSCOPE: A Bring Your Own Device Interactive Kiosk for Enhancing 3D Geoheritage Engagement
Abstract
1. Introduction
- To design and showcase a multi-tenant software architecture that eliminates local hardware maintenance and ensures strict data isolation;
- To demonstrate the platform’s real-world viability through an empirical deployment during the high-traffic “Long Night of Museums” event held on 23 May 2026 at the “Grigore Cobălcescu” Museum of Geology, “Alexandru Ioan Cuza” University of Iași, Romania;
- To quantitatively evaluate the platform’s operational performance, public learnability, and capacity to sustain behavioral engagement using non-intrusive administrative metrics.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. System Architecture and Hardware
- Primary display Kiosk, represented by any standard commercial PC/Laptop connected to a large display, projector system, standalone 3-in-1 device with a monitor panel, or a secondary mobile smartphone/tablet simulating the desktop view. Because the front-end interface executes entirely within standard web browsers, a handheld device can initialize the primary desktop layout, enabling ultra-portable, infrastructure-free deployments.
- Visitor smartphone controller with any standard consumer-grade handheld mobile device running an iOS or Android operating system. The phone must be equipped with a standard built-in camera module for initial QR-code recognition and an internal Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) featuring an uncalibrated accelerometer and gyroscope sensor array.
- Network infrastructure as a baseline Wi-Fi or cellular data connection capable of maintaining stateless WebSocket streams (i.e., pairing routine). Because data payloads are localized strictly to coordinate telemetry arrays rather than continuous streaming meshes, the system avoids bandwidth congestion issues in the public museum galleries.
2.2. Digital Assets and Availability
2.3. Empirical Testing and Validation Setting
3. Results
3.1. GYRO3DSCOPE Implementation and Functionality
- First, the primary display kiosk initializes the front-end code, maps a randomized session Universally Unique Identifier (UUID), and registers itself as an active listening node on the backend server.
- Next, the screen draws a dynamic QR code containing the matching session URL parameter. Scanning this code with a smartphone camera opens the mobile web browser, connecting the visitor to the matching communication room instantly without collecting logins or personal files.
- Finally, the server locks a strict one-to-one pairing rule between that desktop/TV screen and the mobile controller. Once connected, the smartphone interface reads raw orientation inputs from the built-in sensor array. The system bundles these angles into compact JSON payloads, routing them through the socket server back to the desktop WebGL framework at 50-millisecond intervals to provide lag-free spatial rotation.
3.2. Case Study: “Long Night of Museums” Event
3.2.1. User Engagement

3.2.2. Discoverability and Ease of Use
3.2.3. Technical Performance and System Stability
4. Discussion
4.1. Interpretation of Key Findings
4.2. Contribution and Context
4.3. Benefits and Limitations
- The platform requires a stable, continuous web connection to maintain synchronous state pairing over WebSockets. In subterranean galleries, deep basement vaults, or older historical museum masonry exhibits that lack robust cellular penetration or public Wi-Fi access points, telemetry packets can experience jitter and dropped frames, leading to noticeable latency or rendering breaks in the 3D asset pipeline.
- The platform relies heavily on modern mobile browser compatibility with the device orientation API. Certain mobile operating systems, particularly stricter versions of Apple iOS, enforce rigid security restrictions that require explicit, manual user confirmation before granting web applications access to internal IMU sensor data streams, introducing a layer of onboarding friction.
4.4. Broader Implications and Future Work
5. Conclusions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
| 3D | Three-Dimensional |
| 3DGS | 3D Gaussian Splatting |
| AI | Artificial Intelligence |
| API | Application Programming Interface |
| AP | Attraction Power |
| BYOD | Bring Your Own Device |
| DOM | Document Object Model |
| GPU | Graphics Processing Unit |
| HMD | Head-Mounted Display |
| HP | Holding Power |
| HTTP | Hypertext Transfer Protocol |
| IMU | Inertial Measurement Unit |
| IoT | Internet of Things |
| SaaS | Software-as-a-Service |
| SDG/SDGs | Sustainable Development Goal(s) |
| SUS | System Usability Scale |
| TAM | Technology Acceptance Model |
| UEQ | User Experience Questionnaire |
| UI | User Interface |
| UUID | Universally Unique Identifier |
| VEF | Visitor Engagement Framework |
| VR | Virtual Reality |
| WebGL | Web Graphics Library |
| WebXR | Web Extended Reality |
References
- Pescatore, E.; Bentivenga, M.; Giano, S.I. Geoheritage and Geoconservation: Some Remarks and Considerations. Sustainability 2023, 15, 5823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cocal-Smith, V.; Hinchliffe, G.; Petterson, M.G. Digital Tools for the Promotion of Geological and Mining Heritage: Case Study from the Thames Goldfield, Aotearoa, New Zealand. Geosciences 2023, 13, 253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Williams, M.A.; Tronti, G.; Peruzzo, R.S.; García-Rodríguez, M.; Fazio, E.; Zucali, M.; Bollati, I.M. Geoscience popularisation in Geoparks: A common workflow for digital outcrop modelling. Comput. Geosci. 2025, 201, 105945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Apopei, A.I. 3D Gaussian Splatting in Geosciences: A Novel High-Fidelity Approach for Digitizing Geoheritage from Minerals to Immersive Virtual Tours. Geosciences 2025, 15, 373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Apopei, A.I.; Buzgar, N.; Buzatu, A.; Maftei, A.E.; Apostoae, L. Digital 3d Models of Minerals and Rocks in a Nutshell: Enhancing Scientific, Learning, and Cultural Heritage Environments in Geosciences by Using Cross-Polarized Light Photogrammetry. Carpath. J. Earth Env. 2021, 16, 237–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sang, X.J.; Leng, X.P.; Ran, X.J.; Li, X.S.; Xue, L.F. A Virtual 3D Geological Library Based on UAV and SFM: Application for Promoting Teaching and Research on Geological Specimen and Heritage Online. Geoheritage 2022, 14, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andrews, G.; Labishak, G.; Brown, S.; Isom, S.; Pettus, H.; Byers, T. Teaching with Digital 3D Models of Minerals and Rocks. GSA Today 2020, 30, 42–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Apopei, A.I. Towards Mineralogy 4.0? Atlas of 3D Rocks and Minerals: Digitally Archiving Interactive and Immersive 3D Data of Rocks and Minerals. Minerals 2024, 14, 1196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Apopei, A.I. Accessible Interface for Museum Geological Exhibitions: PETRA-A Gesture-Controlled Experience of Three-Dimensional Rocks and Minerals. Minerals 2025, 15, 775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moon, H.; Saade, M.; Enriquez, D.; Duer, Z.; Moon, H.S.; Lee, S.W.; Jeon, M. Mixed-reality art as shared experience for cross-device users: Materialize, understand, and explore. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 2024, 190, 103291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muñoz, A.; Climent-Ferrer, J.J.; Martí-Testón, A.; Solanes, J.E.; Gracia, L. Enhancing Cultural Heritage Engagement with Novel Interactive Extended-Reality Multisensory System. Electronics 2025, 14, 2039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petrelli, D. Making virtual reconstructions part of the visit: An exploratory study. Digit. Appl. Archaeol. Cult. Herit. 2019, 15, e00123, Erratum in Digit. Appl. Archaeol. Cult. Herit. 2022, 24, e00210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.daach.2021.e00210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Webster, E. Digital Storytelling, Gamification and the Heritage Sector: An Investigation into Current and Emerging Trends to Improve Inclusivity in a Post-COVID-19 Landscape. Ph.D. Thesis, Loughborough University, Leicestershire, UK, 2024. [Google Scholar]
- Hu, C.Y.; Lin, H.Y.; Chen, L.C. The effects of screen size on rotating 3D contents using compound gestures on a mobile device. Displays 2016, 41, 25–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bentivenga, M.; Cavalcante, F.; Mastronuzzi, G.; Palladino, G.; Prosser, G. Geoheritage: The Foundation for Sustainable Geotourism. Geoheritage 2019, 11, 1367–1369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bentivenga, M.; Pescatore, E.; Cerone, D.; Olita, F.; Giano, S.I. Geotourism: Itineraries Between Nature, History, and Culture. The Muro Lucano Experience (Basilicata, Southern Italy). Geoheritage 2026, 18, 140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pescatore, E.; Bentivenga, M.; Giano, S.I.; Siervo, V. Geomorphosites: Versatile Tools in Geoheritage Cultural Dissemination. Geoheritage 2019, 11, 1583–1601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guerra, V.; Lazzari, M. Geoheritage Assessment and Potential Geotouristic Enhancement in Mountain Environments: A Test-Site in the Northern Apennines (Italy). Geoheritage 2022, 14, 97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guidetti, G.; Bentivenga, M.; Cantarelli, V.; Prosser, G.; Rizzo, G.; Soldo, G.; Baggi, I.G.; Lucente, S. Disseminating Geosciences Through Geosites: The Example of “Geoscuola” Project In Basilicata. Rend. Online Della Soc. Geol. Ital. 2023, 61, 116–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barbieri, L.; Bruno, F.; Muzzupappa, M. Virtual museum system evaluation through user studies. J. Cult. Herit. 2017, 26, 101–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bekele, M.K. Clouds-Based Collaborative and Multi-Modal Mixed Reality for Virtual Heritage. Heritage 2021, 4, 1447–1459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Apollonio, F.I.; Zannoni, M.; Fantini, F.; Garagnani, S.; Barbieri, L. Accurate Visualization and Interaction of 3D Models Belonging to Museums’ Collection: From the Acquisition to the Digital Kiosk. ACM J. Comput. Cult. Herit. 2025, 18, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barbosa, M.G.; de Saboya, L.A.; Bevilaqua, D.V. A survey and evaluation of mobile apps in science centers and museums. JCom—J. Sci. Commun. 2021, 20, A01. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baggesen, R.H. Mobile media, mobility and mobilisation in the current museum field. In The Routledge Handbook of Museums, Media and Communication; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2018; pp. 115–127. [Google Scholar]
- Gracel, M.; Swacha, J. Modern Mobile Apps for Visitor Guidance: The Perspective of World’s Leading Art Museums. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2025, 270, 5007–5016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luigini, A.; Fanini, B.; Basso, A.; Basso, D. Heritage education through serious games. A web-based proposal for primary schools to cope with distance learning. Vitruvio 2020, 5, 73–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moussouri, T.; Roussos, G. Mobile sensing, BYOD and big data analytics: New technologies for audience research in museums. Particip. J. Audience Recept. Stud. 2014, 11, 270–285. [Google Scholar]
- Kasomoulis, A.; Vayanou, M.; Katifori, A.; Ioannidis, Y. MagicHOLO—A Collaborative 3D experience in the museum. In Proceedings of the 20th Pan-Hellenic Conference on Informatics (Pci 2016), Patra, Greece, 10–12 November 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spallazzo, D. Exploring the role of boundary objects in mobile experiences for the cultural heritage field. In Per-Forming Spaces. On Designing Phygital Narratives Within the Cultural Heritage Ecosystem; Biblion Edizioni: Milan, Italy, 2025; pp. 106–120. [Google Scholar]
- Bergé, L.-P.; Raynal, M.; Sanza, C.; Houry-Panchetti, M.; Serrano, M.; Cabanac, R.; Dubois, E. Smartphone-based 3D navigation technique for use in a museum exhibit. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Advances in Computer-Human Interactions (ACHI 2014), Barcelona, Spain, 23–27 March 2014; pp. 252–257. [Google Scholar]
- Graf, H.; Jung, K. The smartphone as a 3D input device. In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE Second International Conference on Consumer Electronics-Berlin (ICCE-Berlin); IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2012; pp. 254–257. [Google Scholar]
- Bergé, L.-P.; Perelman, G.; Hamelin, A.; Raynal, M.; Sanza, C.; Houry-Panchetti, M.; Cabanac, R.; Dubois, E. Smartphone based 3D navigation techniques in an astronomical observatory context: Implementation and evaluation in a software platform. Int. J. Adv. Softw. 2014, 7, 551–566. [Google Scholar]
- Del Vecchio, V.; Lazoi, M.; Marche, C.; Mettouris, C.; Montagud, M.; Specchia, G.; Ali, M.Z. Designing Innovative Digital Solutions in the Cultural Heritage and Tourism Industry: Best Practices for an Immersive User Experience. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 4935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fanini, B.; Ferdani, D.; Demetrescu, E.; Berto, S.; d’Annibale, E. ATON: An Open-Source Framework for Creating Immersive, Collaborative and Liquid Web-Apps for Cultural Heritage. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 11062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Potenziani, M.; Callieri, M.; Dellepiane, M.; Corsini, M.; Ponchio, F.; Scopigno, R. 3DHOP: 3D Heritage Online Presenter. Comput. Graph. 2015, 52, 129–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smithsonian. Voyager Overview. Available online: https://smithsonian.github.io/dpo-voyager/explorer/overview/ (accessed on 1 May 2026).
- Schütz, M.; Ohrhallinger, S.; Wimmer, M. Fast Out-of-Core Octree Generation for Massive Point Clouds. Comput. Graph. Forum 2020, 39, 155–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Romphf, J.; Neuman-Donihue, E.; Heyworth, G.; Zhu, Y. Resurrect3D: An open and customizable platform for visualizing and analyzing cultural heritage artifacts. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on 3D Web Technology, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 4–5 August 2021; pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar]
- Ubik, S.; Kubišta, J.; Dvořák, T. Interactive 3D models: Documenting and presenting restoration and use of heritage objects. Digit. Appl. Archaeol. Cult. Herit. 2022, 27, e00246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Potenziani, M.; Callieri, M.; Cignoni, P. Designing and Developing Interactive Kiosks for Cultural Heritage: Best Practices and Common Issues. In Interactive Media for Cultural Heritage; Springer Series on Cultural Computing; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2025; pp. 473–497. [Google Scholar]
- Piccialli, F.; Benedusi, P.; Carratore, L.; Colecchia, G. An IoT data analytics approach for cultural heritage. Pers. Ubiquit Comput. 2020, 24, 429–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, W.; Chen, Y.J. Virtual Museum Experience Design and User Behavior Analysis. IEEE Access 2025, 13, 156504–156521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ivanov, R. ExhibitXplorer: Enabling Personalized Content Delivery in Museums Using Contextual Geofencing and Artificial Intelligence. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2023, 12, 434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Philippopoulos, P.I.; Drivas, I.C.; Tselikas, N.D.; Koutrakis, K.N.; Melidi, E.; Kouis, D. A Holistic Approach for Enhancing Museum Performance and Visitor Experience. Sensors 2024, 24, 966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Capece, S.; Chivaran, C.; Giugliano, G.; Laudante, E.; Nappi, M.L.; Buono, M. Advanced systems and technologies for the enhancement of user experience in cultural spaces: An overview. Herit. Sci. 2024, 12, 71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ivanov, R.; Velkova, V. Analyzing Visitor Behavior to Enhance Personalized Experiences in Smart Museums: A Systematic Literature Review. Computers 2025, 14, 191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Umezu, N.; Koizumi, S.; Nakagawa, K.; Nishida, S. Potential of Low-Cost Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) Sensors: Case Studies for Enhancing Visitor Experience at a Science Museum. Electronics 2023, 12, 3351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bitgood, S. Attention and Value: Keys to Understanding Museum Visitors; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Serrell, B. Paying attention: The duration and allocation of visitors’ time in museum exhibitions. Curator Mus. J. 1997, 40, 108–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Serrell, B. The Aggregation of Tracking-and-Timing Visitor-Use Data of Museum Exhibitions for Benchmarks of “Thorough Use”. Visit. Stud. 2020, 23, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barriault, C.; Pearson, D. Assessing Exhibits for Learning in Science Centers: A Practical Tool. Visit. Stud. 2010, 13, 90–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lukes, L.A.; Sultana, N.; Solen, M.; Munzner, T. Visitor engagement with a digital science museum exhibit about Earth’s history and the geologic time scale: Implications for research methods and exhibit design. J. Geosci. Educ. 2025, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boucher, M.; Blumenstein, K.; Oliveira, V.A.D.; Seidl, M. BYOD—Bringing Your Own Device into Single-Surface Interaction Models. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction, Tei 2021i, Salzburg, Austria, 14–17 February 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mazzanti, P.; Ferracani, A.; Bertini, M.; Principi, F. Reshaping Museum Experiences with AI: The ReInHerit Toolkit. Heritage 2025, 8, 277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aziz, M.N.A.; Harun, S.N.; Baharom, M.K.; Kamaruddin, N.; Zamin, N. The relationship between interactive kiosk design towards usage intention in the National Music Museum of Malaysia. Mus. Manag. Curator. 2024, 39, 518–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Müller, M.; Otero, N.; Milrad, M. Guiding the design and implementation of interactive public displays in educational settings. J. Comput. Educ. 2024, 11, 823–854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ai, L.; Phaholthep, C. Evaluating Museum Environment Composition Containing Digital Media Interaction to Improve Communication Efficiency. Buildings 2025, 15, 1186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clini, P.; Nespeca, R.; Ferretti, U.; Galazzi, F.; Bernacchia, M. Inclusive Museum Engagement: Multisensory Storytelling of Cagli Warriors’ Journey and the Via Flamina Landscape Through Interactive Tactile Experiences and Digital Replicas. Heritage 2025, 8, 61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nikolakopoulou, V.; Vosinakis, S.; Nikopoulos, G.; Stavrakis, M.; Politopoulos, N.; Fragkedis, L.; Koutsabasis, P. Design and User Experience of a Hybrid Mixed Reality Installation that Promotes Tinian Marble Crafts Heritage. ACM J. Comput. Cult. Herit. 2022, 15, 60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Othman, M.K.; Nogoibaeva, A.; Leong, L.S.; Barawi, M.H. Usability evaluation of a virtual reality smartphone app for a living museum. Univers. Access Inf. 2022, 21, 995–1012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Behr, J.; Eschler, P.; Jung, Y.; Zöllner, M. X3DOM: A DOM-based HTML5/X3D integration model. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on 3D Web Technology, Darmstadt, Germany, 16–17 June 2009; pp. 127–135. [Google Scholar]
- Gaia, G.; Boiano, S.; Borda, A. Engaging museum visitors with AI: The case of chatbots. In Museums and Digital Culture: New Perspectives and Research; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 309–329. [Google Scholar]
- Münster, S.; Apollonio, F.I. Digital Visualization Infrastructures of 3D Models in a Scientific Contest. Heritage 2026, 9, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bollati, I.M.; Masseroli, A.; Al Kindi, M.; Cezar, L.; Chrobak-Žuffová, A.; Dongre, A.; Fassoulas, C.; Fazio, E.; Garcia-Rodríguez, M.; Knight, J.; et al. The IGCP 714 Project “3GEO—Geoclimbing & Geotrekking in Geoparks”—Selection of Geodiversity Sites Equipped for Climbing for Combining Outdoor and Multimedia Activities. Geoheritage 2024, 16, 79, Correction in Geoheritage 2025, 17, 50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-025-01100-w. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fassoulas, C.; Nikolakakis, E.; Staridas, S. Digital Tools to Serve Geotourism and Sustainable Development at Psiloritis UNESCO Global Geopark in COVID Times and Beyond. Geosciences 2022, 12, 78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pasquaré Mariotto, F.; Bonali, F.L.; Tibaldi, A.; De Beni, E.; Corti, N.; Russo, E.; Fallati, L.; Cantarero, M.; Neri, M. A New Way to Explore Volcanic Areas: QR-Code-Based Virtual Geotrail at Mt. Etna Volcano, Italy. Land 2022, 11, 377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, H.S.; Lim, C. Developing a geologic 3D panoramic virtual geological field trip for Mudeung UNESCO global geopark, South Korea. Episodes 2019, 42, 235–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qiu, J.T.; Zhang, T.Y.; Tian, L.X.; Rui, X.M.; Mu, H.X.; Qiu, L.; Xu, L.X. Using Interactive Multi-Media Panorama Virtual Reality to Balance Heritage Science, Education and Conservation At Zhoukoudian, Fangshan UNESCO Global Geopark. Geoheritage 2025, 17, 96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pasquaré Mariotto, F.; Antoniou, V.; Drymoni, K.; Bonali, F.L.; Nomikou, P.; Fallati, L.; Karatzaferis, O.; Vlasopoulos, O. Virtual Geosite Communication through a WebGIS Platform: A Case Study from Santorini Island (Greece). Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]





| Metric Category | Evaluation Parameter & Formula | Value |
|---|---|---|
| macro traffic | institutional door count (total event attendance) | 2016 visitors |
| total tracked interactive sessions (N) | 276 sessions | |
| Attraction Power (AP) | Global Attraction Power: | 13.69% |
| Active Attraction Power: | 11.11% | |
| Holding Power (HP) | cumulative public holding time: | 25,201 s (~7 h) |
| average session lifecycle (mean holding power) | 91.31 s | |
| 50th percentile separation node (median holding power) | 54.5 s | |
| maximum interactive session length | 703 s | |
| kiosk volumetric bounce rate: | 4% (11 sessions) | |
| qualitative score | mean user satisfaction rating (post-session terminal survey) | 4.9/5 |
| behavioral modality | gyroscope selection rate | 80.80% (223 sessions) |
| granular data | touchpad selection rate | 49.28% (136 sessions) |
| multimodal engagement rate (sessions combining both interfaces fluidly) | 47.46% (131 sessions) | |
| average dwell window by class | passive/non-interacting bounces: 35.58 | |
| standalone gyroscope tracking: 103.27 s | ||
| multimodal (gyroscope + touchpad) tracking: 144.88 s |
| Interaction Paradigm | Operational Vulnerabilities | Institutional Sustainability | Works |
|---|---|---|---|
| Virtual isolated environments (HMDs/VR Headsets) | Sanitary limits, social isolation, and high friction | Low sustainability (high hardware costs, high staff supervision requirements) | [9,10,11,12,26] |
| Static monolithic terminals (traditional touch kiosks) | Mechanical wear, smudge accumulation, and fixed nodes | Moderate sustainability (prone to hardware obsolescence, fixed location) | [13,22,23,24,25] |
| Decoupled SaaS BYOD (GYRO3DSCOPE) | Network-dependent, web browser permission reliance | High sustainability (zero local hardware footprint, infinitely scalable clusters) | This study |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2026 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license.
Share and Cite
Apopei, A.I. GYRO3DSCOPE: A Bring Your Own Device Interactive Kiosk for Enhancing 3D Geoheritage Engagement. Heritage 2026, 9, 283. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage9070283
Apopei AI. GYRO3DSCOPE: A Bring Your Own Device Interactive Kiosk for Enhancing 3D Geoheritage Engagement. Heritage. 2026; 9(7):283. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage9070283
Chicago/Turabian StyleApopei, Andrei Ionuț. 2026. "GYRO3DSCOPE: A Bring Your Own Device Interactive Kiosk for Enhancing 3D Geoheritage Engagement" Heritage 9, no. 7: 283. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage9070283
APA StyleApopei, A. I. (2026). GYRO3DSCOPE: A Bring Your Own Device Interactive Kiosk for Enhancing 3D Geoheritage Engagement. Heritage, 9(7), 283. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage9070283

