This paper elaborates the empirical evidence of a usability evaluation of a VR and non-VR virtual tour application for a living museum. The System Usability Scale (SUS) was used in between participants experiments (Group 1: non-VR version and Group 2: VR version) with 40 participants. The results show that the mean scores of all components for the VR version are higher compared to the non-VR version, overall SUS score (72.10 vs 68.10), usability score (75.50 vs 71.70), and learnability (58.40 vs 57.00). Further analysis using a two-tailed independent t test showed no difference between the non-VR and VR versions. Additionally, no significant difference was observed between the groups in the context of gender, nationality, and prior experience (other VR tour applications) for overall SUS score, usability score, and learnability score. Α two-tailed independent t test indicated no significant difference in the usability score between participants with VR experience and no VR experience. However, a significant difference was found between participants with VR experience and no VR experience for both SUS score (t(38) = 2.17, p = 0.037) and learnability score (t(38) = 2.40, p = 0.021). The independent t test results indicated a significant difference between participant with and without previous visits to SCV for the usability score (t(38) = −2.31, p = 0.027), while there was no significant differences observed in other components. It can be concluded that both versions passed based on the SUS score. However, the sub-scale usability and learnability scores indicated some usability issue.

本文详细阐述了针对生活博物馆的VR和非VR虚拟旅游应用程序的可用性评估的经验证据。在有40名参与者的参与者实验之间（组1：非VR版本和组2：VR版本）使用了系统可用性量表（SUS）。结果显示，与非VR版本相比，VR版本的所有组件的平均得分更高，总体SUS得分（72.10 vs 68.10），可用性得分（75.50 vs 71.70）和可学习性（58.40 vs 57.00）更高。使用两尾独立t进行进一步分析测试显示非VR版本和VR版本之间没有差异。此外，就总体SUS分数，可用性分数和学习性分数而言，在性别，国籍和先前经验（其他VR旅游应用程序）的背景下，两组之间没有观察到显着差异。两尾独立t检验表明，有VR经验的参与者和没有VR经验的参与者之间的可用性得分没有显着差异。但是，在有VR经验和没有VR经验的参与者之间，SUS分数（t（38）= 2.17，p  = 0.037）和学习性分数（t（38）= 2.40，p  = 0.021）均存在显着差异。独立t测试结果表明，在使用和未使用SCV之前，参与者的可用性得分之间存在显着差异（t（38）= -2.31，p  = 0.027），而在其他组件中没有观察到显着差异。可以得出结论，两个版本均基于SUS评分通过。但是，子量表的可用性和可学习性得分表明了一些可用性问题。