The aforementioned characteristics have been combined in our proposed model “phygital heritage”, shown in the figure below. The model captures the most relevant technologies that are relevant to the integration of digital technology into physical objects in the context of cultural heritage. Such forms of integration range from separated entities that are added ‘on top of’ physical reality (e.g. augmented reality), to its seamless and invisible embedment (e.g. shape-changing interfaces). The horizontal axis represents the level of physical affordance, such as how the features of an interface physically support or facilitate taking an action. The vertical axis conveys the level of situatedness, or how the technology depends on the physical context to communicate information. The model considers that almost every communication technology is phygital in some way or form, but some are more phygital than others. Accordingly, the model proposes three distinct categories of phygital heritage; augmented (P1), integrated (P2), and actuated (P3).

Phygital heritage model, mapped along two characteristics; the physical affordance of information and the level of situatedness of how this information is communicated (Nofal et al, 2017)

• Augmented (P1) requires some form of continuous interaction between heritage objects or assets (physical) and electronic devices (digital). For instance, mobile augmented reality (AR) immerses visitors in a story by providing different information through texts, images and advanced 3D models via their portable devices [Marshall et al, 2016]. This category also includes the use of ‘beacons’ (small devices that transmit Bluetooth signal to visitors’ smartphones), which allow for the mapping and recording of points of interest inside heritage buildings to provide contextual information [Mantova, 2016].
• Integrated (P2) requires users to interact with heritage objects via TUIs, which are capable of communicating information through the use of haptic rendering methods. TUIs provide users with more familiar physical objects and actions to explore, even to make sense of more abstract or less familiar digital representations. Most projection mappings also fall within this category, as its content communicates relevant contextual information, like the characteristics and cultural values of heritage (e.g. [Kim, 2015]).
• Actuated (P3) includes immersive and screen-less forms of interaction. Here, heritage artefacts become the output medium as the interface becomes embodied by the physical shape, behavior or materiality of the artefact itself. The emerging field of shape-changing technology forms a prime example [Rasmussen et al, 2016], capable to physically adapt the shape of objects based on users input, as users are actually able to interpret forms, and potentially the dynamic animations that cause these shape changes. Accordingly, material characteristics of heritage objects might convey meanings by appreciating physical manifestations of these objects.

Exercise: Use what you have learned in the pervious pages to answer the following questions:

References:

• Kim, D. (2015). Projection mapping contents development of architectural heritage. Advanced Science and Technology Letters, 113, pp. 90-95.
• Mantova. (2016). Capitale Italiana della Cultura: Mantova Phygital City project, retrieved online on January 20^th 2017 from: http://www.mantova2016.it/it-ww/mantova-phygital-city.aspx 
• Marshall, M.T.; Dulake, N.; Ciolfi, L.; Duranti, D.; Kockelkorn, H.; Petrelli, D. (2016). Using tangible smart replicas as controls for an interactive museum exhibition. In Proceedings of the 10^th International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (TEI ’16), Eindhoven, The Netherlands, 14-17 February 2016, pp. 159-167, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2839462.2839493
• Nofal, E.; Reffat, R.M.; Vande Moere, A. (2017). Phygital heritage: An approach for heritage communication. In Proceedings of the 3^rd Immersive Learning Research Network Conference (iLRN2017), Coimbra, Portugal, 26-29 June 2017, pp. 220-229, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3217/978-3-85125-530-0-36
• Rasmussen, M.K.; Merritt, T.; Alonso, M.B.; Petersen, M. G. (2016). Balancing user and system control in shape-changing interfaces: A designerly exploration. In Proceedings of the 10^th International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (TEI ’16), Eindhoven, The Netherlands, 14-17 February 2016, pp. 202-210, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2839462.2839499