Figure 1
Situates the Lofotr Viking Museum in Norway and shows the museum grounds and the area (in red) covered by the AR simulation (Map: Ole-Andreas Sagmo).
Figure 2
Screenshot from Unity Technologies showing the smaller Viking house (left) and the 11th-century chieftain’s house (right) (version 1) (Unity Technologies 2023).
Figure 3
Screenshot from Unity of the 12th-century medieval house, used in the first test drive (version 1).
Figure 4
The medieval house used in the second test run, adjusted for season and time of day to create a smoother transition between the Viking Age and the early Middle Ages (version 2).
Figure 5
The iterative media design cycle is commonly illustrated as a circular model. Here, it is presented as a four-stage process consisting of creation, testing, error filtering, and modification. In practice, however, the process is often more chaotic, with stages that overlap or occur simultaneously.
Table 1
Participant demographics across test rounds.
| AGE RANGE | TEST ROUND 1 (JAN 2025, n = 12) | TEST ROUND 2 (SEP 2025, n = 19) |
|---|---|---|
| Below 14 | 0 | 0 |
| 14–19 | 0 | 0 |
| 20–29 | 2 | 6 |
| 30–39/30–44 | 2 | 10 |
| 40–49 | 3 | 0 |
| 45–59 | 0 | 2 |
| 50–59 | 1 | 0 |
| 60–69 | 3 | 1 |
| 70–79 | 0 | 0 |
| 80+ | 1 | 0 |
Table 2
Selected survey items used in the two test rounds (five-point Likert scale).
| TEST ROUNDS | SURVEY ITEMS |
|---|---|
| Test round 1 (January 2025) |
|
| |
| |
| Test round 2 (September 2025) |
|
| |
|
Figure 6
Participants in the January test braving deep snow to use the prototype app. The poles mark the roof-bearing posts of the original Viking chieftain’s house, with the reconstructed house in the background (Photo: Elin Tinuviel Torbergsen).
Figure 7
The second test run in September, carried out in bright, intense sunlight (Photo: Kjersti Robertsen).
Table 3
Responses to survey items assessing object–place understanding across test rounds.
| RESPONSE CATEGORY | TEST ROUND 1 (n = 12) | TEST ROUND 2 (n = 19) |
|---|---|---|
| Strongly/Completely agree | 4 | 11 |
| Agree | 6 | 5 |
| Neutral | 1 | 2 |
| Disagree | 1 | 1 |
| Strongly/Completely disagree | 0 | 0 |
Table 4
Main obstacles observed during the test runs.
| OBSTACLES | TEST RUN 1: OBSERVATION | TEST RUN 2: OBSERVATION |
|---|---|---|
| The physical vs. the digital Viking chieftain’s house | “Participants paused and appeared confused when encountering the physical Viking chieftain’s house alongside its digital counterpart, looking to me for guidance.” | “The audio instructed users to ignore the physical structure, but feedback recommended adding a ghost-like, clearly marked version as an orientation aid.” |
| Roof-bearing posts in the digital interior (Viking chieftain’s house) | “Participants did not recognise the differences in post placement when using the filter function, causing them to pause.” | “The filter improved, but the transition between roof-bearing posts remained unclear. Strong sunlight reduced screen visibility, making the dark interior nearly indiscernible.” |
Figure 8
Relationship between the AR on the iPad and the real environment. The screen shows the short side of the Viking chieftain’s house and, to the left, part of the smaller Viking house. The simulation is offset by about one metre due to GPS limitations (Photo: Fink R. Juhl).
Table 5
Summary of written user feedback. Row 1 presents key themes, row 2 feedback from the first test run, and row 3 improvements noted in the second.
| THEME | TEST RUN 1: KEY FEEDBACK | TEST RUN 2: IMPROVEMENTS |
|---|---|---|
| Improved Imaging | “Use photogrammetry for objects like the oval brooch.”“Synchronise images and narration.” | “Photogrammetry improved object quality, except the gold foil figure reflecting light.”“History, objects, and images were well integrated.” |
| Richer Object Representation | “Add more objects inside the Viking chieftain’s house.”“Place outdoor objects at their original find spots.”“Improve low resolution.” | “The house was furnished with digital and photogrammetric objects.”“Outdoor elements and avatars were added (e.g. stockfish hanging).”“Mobile hardware limits visual variation.” |
| Visual Contextualization | “Include photos of the actual finds.”“Show where objects were discovered.” | “Photogrammetry ensured higher quality.”“Audio, sketches, and GPS indicated find locations.” |
| Narrative and Context | “Place greater emphasis on the original find locations.”“Use stories or scenarios to explain deposition.” | “Focus remains on location, appearance, use, and value.” “No deposition narrative due to limited evidence.” |
| Clarity and Communication | “Make clearer that these are real objects from the site.”“Strong potential, but the message must be clearer.” | “Media clearly link objects, history, and context.” |
| Engagement and Interpretation | “Instructions are helpful.”“Animations would improve engagement.” | “Avatars and animations now illustrate object use.” |
Figure 9
Preliminary example showing how the physical reconstruction of the Viking chieftain’s house can be integrated into the mobile AR application at the Lofotr Viking Museum (created after both test runs/final version).
Figure 10
Rotating the gold foil figure in 3D within the app. Screen reflections, visible here, were a common issue during the September test (Photo: Fink R. Juhl).