Screenshot of Pokemon GO (Niantic, Inc.) by author. Historic markers and other points of interest are also marked in the game, and visiting them is incentivized. Viewing this public park in Pokemon GO, I see a wild Evee inviting me to catch it and gain experience in the game. Both VR and AR have different technological and pedagogical qualities.įigure 1. In AR, human sensory experiences are changed or added to, not replaced. Google Glass and Pokemon GO ( Figure 1) are both popular examples of augmented reality, where information (e.g., a picture of a video game character) is projected on top of your regular scope of vision. In contrast, AR refers to situations in which a digital device is employed to modify your normal surroundings. (Although it is beyond the scope of this review, deeper critiques of the immersiveness, interactivity, and sensoriality of VR use in archaeology have been produced at length ). If you put on a headset with a video game or other virtual world rendered within it but cannot see your body's physical surroundings, you are experiencing virtual reality. VR is the term used to describe replacing human consciousness with constructed surroundings.
Reference Milgram, Takemura, Utsumi and Kishino1995). Virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) are commonly understood as technologies of display (of images, environments, etc.) that sit along a spectrum of constructed realities (Milgram et al. In this review, I discuss several forms of virtual or augmented reality and assess them as tools for public archaeology practice. New and scholarly produced forms of virtual reality show particular promise for getting and keeping the attention of our publics. Inspiring focus and empathy in the short interactions we have can be difficult, especially when the subjects are very distant in time. Two of the biggest challenges in public archaeology teaching are getting interlocutors' attention and getting them to feel connection to past people.
0 kommentar(er)
