Usability of Lampung Heritage Virtual Reality Tour


  • Sony Ferbangkara Unila
  • Mardiana Mardiana University of Lampung
  • F.X. Arinto University of Lampung
  • Sri Ratna Sulistiyanti University of Lampung
  • Khairudin Khairudin University of Lampung
  • Wahyu Eko Sulistiono University of Lampung
  • Meizano Ardhi Muhammad University of Lampung



virtual reality tour, Lampung historical heritage, usability, SUS, UAT


Lampung Heritage Virtual Reality Tour was developed as a tool to educate the importance of Lampung’s historical heritage. It represents eight Lampung historical heritage sites in the virtual reality world, namely the Lampung Museum, Thay Hin Bio Vihara, Al-Anwar Mosque, Lampung Siger Tower, Krakatau Monument, Kerti Bhuana Temple, Nuwo Sesat Traditional House, and the Japanese Caves. Functional features of the Lampung Heritage Virtual Reality Tour are visiting virtual tourist spots and viewing information on virtual tourist attractions. Digital tourists can select a virtual tourist spot with the location panel. The user perception and satisfaction require a qualitative measurement to understand its impact on educating Lampung's historical heritage. Using usability, we should understand the quality of the Lampung Heritage Virtual Reality Tour. The tools to measure the usability level of the application are the User Acceptance Test and the System Usability Scale. There were 15 questions User Acceptance Test (UAT) with a composition of five questions affordance, four questions signifier, and six questions feedback. According to the SUS standard, we asked ten questions on the System Usability Scale (SUS). The result for UAT was an average of 95.75%, which consist of 95.00% affordance, 94.79% signifier, and 97.45% feedback. The result of SUS was Good, based on a score of 83.39. The Lampung Heritage Virtual Reality Tour meets good usability standards, making the application suitable.


Download data is not yet available.


K. Yin, Z. He, J. Xiong, J. Zou, K. Li, and S.-T. Wu, “Virtual reality and augmented reality displays: advances and future perspectives,” J. Phys. Photonics, vol. 3, no. 2, p. 022010, Apr. 2021, doi: 10.1088/2515-7647/abf02e.

R. Skarbez, M. Smith, and M. C. Whitton, “Revisiting Milgram and Kishino’s Reality-Virtuality Continuum,” Front. Virtual Real., vol. 2, p. 647997, Mar. 2021, doi: 10.3389/frvir.2021.647997.

T. Mazuryk and M. Gervautz, “Virtual Reality History, Applications, Technology and Future,” VIRTUAL REALITY, p. 72.

U. Hartati, “Museum Lampung sebagai Media Pembelajaran Sejarah,” HISTORIA, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 1–10, 2016.

W. E. Sulistiono et al., “Virtual Reality as Learning Media for Lampung Historical Heritage,” in 2021 International Conference on Converging Technology in Electrical and Information Engineering (ICCTEIE), Bandar Lampung, Indonesia, Oct. 2021, pp. 14–18. doi: 10.1109/ICCTEIE54047.2021.9650626.

J.-H. Lo, S.-D. Wu, and M.-J. You, “Interactive Virtual Reality Touring System: A Case Study of Shulin Ji’an Temple in Taiwan,” Mobile Information Systems, vol. 2021, pp. 1–15, Aug. 2021, doi: 10.1155/2021/6651916.

C. Koo, J. Park, and J.-N. Lee, “Smart tourism: Traveler, business, and organizational perspectives,” Information & Management, vol. 54, no. 6, pp. 683–686, Sep. 2017, doi: 10.1016/

J. Motejlek and E. Alpay, “A Taxonomy for Virtual and Augmented Reality in Education,” Copenhagen, Sep. 2018, p. 12. [Online]. Available:

H. T. Chong, C. K. Lim, M. F. Ahmed, K. L. Tan, and M. B. Mokhtar, “Virtual Reality Usability and Accessibility for Cultural Heritage Practices: Challenges Mapping and Recommendations,” Electronics, vol. 10, no. 12, p. 1430, Jun. 2021, doi: 10.3390/electronics10121430.

John Brooke, “SUS: A Retrospective,” JUS, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 29–40, Feb. 2013.

M. De Paiva Guimaraes and V. F. Martins, “A Checklist to Evaluate Augmented Reality Applications,” in 2014 XVI Symposium on Virtual and Augmented Reality, Piata Salvador, May 2014, pp. 45–52. doi: 10.1109/SVR.2014.17.

D. Norman, The Design of Everyday Things. Vahlen, 2016. doi: 10.15358/9783800648108.

V. Thomas, C. Remy, and O. Bates, “The Limits of HCD: Reimagining the Anthropocentricity of ISO 9241-210,” in Proceedings of the 2017 Workshop on Computing Within Limits, Santa Barbara California USA, Jun. 2017, pp. 85–92. doi: 10.1145/3080556.3080561.

M. Speicher, “What is Usability? A Characterization based on ISO 9241-11 and ISO/IEC 25010,” arXiv:1502.06792 [cs], Feb. 2015, Accessed: Apr. 01, 2022. [Online]. Available:

S. C. Peres, T. Pham, and R. Phillips, “Validation of the System Usability Scale (SUS): SUS in the Wild,” Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 192–196, Sep. 2013, doi: 10.1177/1541931213571043.

A. Bangor, “Determining What Individual SUS Scores Mean: Adding an Adjective Rating Scale,” vol. 4, no. 3, p. 10, 2009.

Y. M. Kim, I. Rhiu, and M. H. Yun, “A Systematic Review of a Virtual Reality System from the Perspective of User Experience,” International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, vol. 36, no. 10, pp. 893–910, Jun. 2020, doi: 10.1080/10447318.2019.1699746.




How to Cite

S. Ferbangkara, “Usability of Lampung Heritage Virtual Reality Tour”, JESR, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 61–66, Dec. 2022.