there was a light at the end of the tunnel

I’m assuming this is confirming that the username I’ve chosen has not been taken yet but I like the way they put it. We do indeed think about how our username represents us / becomes us in online communities and strive to come up with unique, witty, descriptive and play-on-words for our aliases.

COLOURlovers confirms that I’m making a good choice by saying “Nice Username, suits you well.” and I smile a little inside.

Interactive Art Jury Statement

“In general, our criteria evolved daily over the three days as we became more familiar with each other’s terms of reference. In the end, we settled on three criteria, perhaps best described as contributions to a “broader definition of interactivity”. These were
(1) Mediation by computer is not a requirement, which makes explicit the approach to technology expressed by the 1999 jury;
(2) Constraints of “real-time” and directness of interaction should be relaxed; and
(3) We were prepared to allow passive interaction.
Both of these last two open up the possibility that reception and contemplation of an “interactive work” may not require the “active participation” that was so crucial to the earlier stages of the development of the genre.”

Review of HCI and New Media Arts workshop at CHI 2007

Workshop focused on 3 areas in HCI/New Media collaboration:

Contributions to Evaluation and Methodology

hci evaluation: clean separation of qualitative and quantitative, nuances left out, subjective or ephemeral suggestions for improvement

art criticism: nuances important, highlight points of complexity, techniques address specific issues

Informing Reflective Practice

examine modes of collaboration between hci/new media: what is brought to the table, what techniques are appropriate, what findings/innovations are promoted in collaboration

artists may feel constrained with formalized HCI approach

best cases -> “hybrid formal processes also ensured a more intentional and invested final product.”

ensuring “buy-in” to new method, inclusion and importance of documentation

Identifying Critical Issues in Collaboration

what are needs and expectations of collaborators

is collaboration imbalanced? informing new artistic expression versus creativity in HCI

discusses institutional differences in arts and HCI, particularly regarding ethics

References 

HCI exploring “artful interaction”

Crabtree, A., Benford, S., Greenhalgh, C., Tennent, P., Chalmers, M. and Brown, B., Supporting Ethnographic Studies of Ubiquitous Computing in the Wild. in DIS, (2006), 60-69.

Edmonds, E., Candy, L., Fell, M., Pauletto, S., Weakley, A. The studio as laboratory: Combining creative practice and digital technology research. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 63 (4-5). 452-481.

tools to support creative engagement

Jennings P. and Giaccardi, E. Creativity support tools for and by the new media art community. Schneiderman, B. ed. NSF Workshop Report on Creativity Support Tools, Washington, DC, 12-14 June, 2005, 37-52.

user experiences for creative responses

Buchenau, M. and Suri, J.F., Experience Prototyping. in Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS), (2000), 424-433.

Gaver, B., Dunne, T. and Pacenti, E. Cultural Probes. interactions, 6 (1). 21-29.

Paulos, E. and Jenkins, T., Urban Probes: Encountering Our Emerging Urban Atmospheres. in Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI), (2005), 341-350.
Others

Dix, A., Ormerod, T., Twidale, M.B., Sas, C., Gomes da Silva, P.A. and McKnight, L., Why bad ideas are a good idea. in Proceedings of the First Joint BCS/IFIP WG13.1/ICS/EU CONVIVIO HCI Educators’ Workshop “HCIEd.2006-1 inventivity: Teaching theory, design and innovation in HCI”, (2006).

Edmonds, E. (2006). “On creative engagement with interactive art“

attractors

things that encourage the audience to take note of the system in the first place

sustainers

attributes that keep the audience engaged during an initial encounter, have holding power

relaters

aspects that help a continuing relationship to grow so that the audience returns to the work on future occasions

summary points from Bell’s characteristics of participatory artwork using computer technologies related to the role of the art object

the art object is designed with particular interaction timing:
- synchronous, asynchronous
- response delays

the art object can support simultaneous interaction for some number x participants

the art object can support symmetrical or asymmetrical participant interaction

art object uses input and output devices to interact with humans (its physical interface)

art object uses some program to interpret changes in the physical input output devices (interface)

art object can be designed with conventional or unconventional physical input/output devices and program

art object can transmit information, at a meta level, and explicitly *at the expense of other information)

the art object has a characteristic of how ordered it can be perceived as and whether or not this order is conventional

the art object can use computing technology to represent imaginary world or real world

the art object can have some degree of real intelligence and real passage of time, and ambiguous to real location

the art object’s programmed world can create a sense of place

the art object’s program can initiate communication with humans

the program can have some world model, or a model of its participants

the program’s world model can have a degree of similarity to that of a human’s

the art object can support communication between artist and participant, between itself and participant, and reflective activity for artist and/or participant

the art object may use feedback in communication to modify and check signals

the art object may appear to be a participant (through program)

the art object can have some degree of supporting the participant in imagining its functionings

the art object may be reprogrammed by the participant during interaction; reprogramming or changes can be persistent or the art object can be “restarted” with each new participant

the art object may appear to “learn” from interactions to some degree

the art object may have ability to “recognize” participant and modify behaviour accordingly

the art object can mimic aspects of participants’ personalities

the art object can appear to have individual character or personality

thesis by Stephen Bell, “Participatory Art and Computers”

notes on chapter 2, characteristics of works using computer technologies:
time, # participants

• consider possible temporal relationship between two events, take events as actions of two participating agents in artwork
• human, observing or participating in asynchronous interaction will apply cause-effect reasoning to interpret events * importance of time-delay of actions
• in synchronous interaction, less cause and effect and more interpretation that there is relationship
• synchronous interaction can be considered more reactive
•  as number of participants increases it cam be difficult for people to differentiate who cause a particular response
• action can be evenly distributed among participants or be available through different roles
• reviews different ways in which participant can observe and intervene in interaction (different degrees of involvement -> types of interaction)
• participants can also be observed, affects their interaction

physical interface

• classifying by input/output devices, by human-computer communication links using human channels for input and output and related computing devices
  devices
• used in environment shared between human and program, both make decisions and both have some “view” or model of the other
• consider the human having five senses for input / output
• considers the total number of possible combinations of input/output configurations

programmed interface

• changes in input/output devices must be interpreted by human and program
• conventions used in interpretation are important to consider (used for understanding -> understanding with interfaces that use familiar convention
• programmed interface transmits information, information can be filtered
• participant seeks order in an interface (krueger argument -> participant should understand how elicit responses)
• icons versus command / novice versus expert
• information represented symbolically
• information becomes explicit at expense of other information that is filtered out (Marr)
• cornock and edmonds -> artwork assisting conscious information filtering; seeking of order
• man seeks order
• characteristic: degree to which work may be perceived as having order
• characteristic: conventionality of order

programmed worlds

• “common approach”
• use technology to represent imaginary world or place that can be interacted with
• characteristic: degree of similarity to real world
• realism of work – participant’s familiarity with representations -> related to conventions and information filtering
• realism -> apparent intelligence of system
• realism -> relies on believability and accurate simulation
• characteristic: participant placement in programmed world
• “sense of place”
• extension of participants’ senses

communication

• between human and program, passing information, one-way or interactive
• krueger: for work to respond intelligently, must understand as much as possible about about participant behaviour
• (hence interest in artificial intelligence techniques)
• also for symmetrical interaction -> “human’s grasp of computer’s behaviour should be as complete as necessary” (also from ascott)
• also includes arguments against this “perfect understanding communication”, discussing humans empathizing, communication with non-human things, imperfections in language use and FEEDBACK
• characteristic: degree in which communication initiated by participant or program
• characteristic: program’s world or user model
• who communication is between, who initiates and what are the means (communication between participant and artist, participant and program, through programs, sub-programs)
• “if the work is successful as a work of art a communication will occur at a meta level, in the sense that any work of art communicates the artist’s vision or concept, the work being the medium for that communication.”

who, what participates, where it happens

• experience depends on expectations
• difference between belief of how a program works and how it actually works
• * importance of prejudice depends on degree to which participant attention should be directed to particular aspects of interaction
• -> artists use titles and pre-publicity to prejudice the participants interpretation
• participant told in advance that work is interactive -> lead them to believe more interactive than actually is
• participant interacts with program through interface perceived in some way (imaginary interface), interface mediates interaction
• characteristic: degree to which interface is imagined (instead of actual being perceived)
• * talks about “imagined interface” but I don’t know if it the interface imagined or the program…
• more interface relies on imaginary contribution, more likely to be interpreted differently
• information can be changed from one participant to next (persistent)
• a work may appear to remember interaction or learn from it
• characteristic: degree to which work has personality, degree to which work can respond to personality characteristics

feedback

• systems able to modify world models to communication with each other, send and receive feedback, correct or confirm assumptions (negative, positive feedback)
• feedback can have noise that mislead recipient
• misinterpretation not always bad but it can be negative
• speed of response important
• * “…artist should spend a considerable portion of time participating with a work in a similar way to that in which participants will. Only then can the interface be tuned to present feedback that will lead participants to attend to those aspects of the interaction the artist intends them to. This is an essential practice if the artist intends to communicate with the participants via the interface, …”
• feedback between artist and work – artists redesigning work, tools, medium; keep up with developments (notes problem of artists getting too involved in technically matters that they fail to develop as artists)
• types of feedback: for humans related to 5 senses, computers – electronic signals
• characteristic: how much participant attend to feedback, route of feedback, how long to learn automatic response
• importance of sensing physical feedback, ability to measure ones performance

** note of artist “acting as participant” to learn how participant will experience work (see p. 102 and section 2.7.4)

a “trigger” (Ascott) rather than “container of information”

art object as “mirror”, control

art object as “entity” that participant is interacting or conversing with

content is interaction -> object interface for content

object shapes the way that we perceive the   content

spectrum of interactive capabilities designed into art object, to the extent of an interactive art object being able to learn or evolve

studying because success of artwork not perceivable solely through art object, success becomes apparent as participant interaction is observed

success a question?

results put into redesign? study for interest? framework for understanding interaction?

point that participants knows that they have become a subject

data collection beforehand, during, retrospectively

focus on reaction, impression to interaction, not on interaction steps or process itself (except for maybe some exception when there is interest in strategies taken

value of words, discussion, story

Costello, B., Muller, L. Amitani, S., and Edmonds, E. (2005). Understanding the Experience of Interactive Art: Iamascope in Beta_space. In Proceedings of the second Australasian conference on Interactive entertainment, (pp: 49-56).

empirical resaerch on audience experience

study of experience – not necessarily evaluation

bridging in-depth verbal data-gathering in laboratory conditions and observational research in real world

aim of research: “find useful methodology for recording and analyzing the situated experience of interactive art…”

aim of study: “..find out whether our methods would gather data that could enrich these observations by showing how such categories are produced and operate in audience experience.” (referring to sid’s prior observations on Iamascope)

study methodology:

• video cued-recall method: collecting verbal data, solution to cognitive load of think-aloud method, risk that details will be forgotten in retrospective reporting
• adapt vcrm so video camera captures full-body movement and art object
• three case studies: 24-F, 29-F, 48-M, subjects not related to interactive art
• orientation: told about general procedure and consent, able to walk around museum as they please (nature museum experience), when entered space with iamascope would be recorded on video
• for video/privacy reasons space blocked off from other people during time of study
• taken to room nearby and shown video footage of their interaction, asked to talk about what they had been thinking while interacting, recorded this on video to match comments with interactions, participants given control of video, researcher out of sight during this process, participants talking to the computer screen
• interview afterwards: on exhibit and on retrospective reporting method
• interaction with iamascope – between 4 and 10 minutes, data collection – about 45 min/participant
• data analysis: verbal data transcribed, movement charts for interaction video, code events, developed own coding system using terminology used by participants, grouped codes into movements and cognitive states, latter further broken into assessing system, refer to self, response, and described behaviour, then grouped coded data based on sid’s framework and looked for ways that data confirmed or contradicted sid’s framework

reliability of method: changes in participant behaviour -> stayed longer, did more, careful to explore all aspects of artwork, some felt presence of video camera, testing alone – participants unable to learn through observation of others, positive reaction to video-cued recall but must reminder reports still an interpretation

results: identified classes of movement, vocabulary, and behaviour that could be associated with each stage of sid’s framework, also noted moments of transition between stages, discusses detailed examples for all four stages

conclude with a “trajectory of interaction” – common patterns of states

a study is conducted

it’s purpose possibly being to evaluate, to measure the success or effectiveness of what is being studied

but studies are also to gain further understand. they may result in indicators of effectiveness and may serve to make future systems more effective

but they explore

and they are not necessarily structured to distinguish good and bad