Designing the spectator experience

human factors in computing systems, 2005, Pages 741-750.

Cited by: 451|Bibtex|Views27|Links
EI
Keywords:
new design challengeexhibition designpublic interfacespectator experiencebroad design strategyMore(2+)
Weibo:
That this basic distinction between public and private is not sufficiently rich to capture some of the essential features of existing public interfaces

Abstract:

Interaction is increasingly a public affair, taking place in our theatres, galleries, museums, exhibitions and on the city streets. This raises a new design challenge for HCI - how should spectators experience a performer's interaction with a computer? We classify public interfaces (including examples from art, performance and exhibition ...More

Code:

Data:

0
Introduction
  • The growing interest in cultural, artistic and entertainment applications of interactive technologies in settings such as museums, galleries, theatres and even clubs, combined with the spread of mobile devices into the streets, means that interaction with computers is increasingly a public affair.
  • DESIGNING THE SPECTATOR’S VIEW BY REVEALING OR HIDING MANIPULATIONS AND EFFECTS The authors are ready to revisit and expand on basic ideas of public and private, further developing them in terms of the varied ways in which a spectator can experience a performer’s interaction.
Highlights
  • The growing interest in cultural, artistic and entertainment applications of interactive technologies in settings such as museums, galleries, theatres and even clubs, combined with the spread of mobile devices into the streets, means that interaction with computers is increasingly a public affair
  • We shall show that crafting interaction for public settings raises a host of new challenges for HCI, shifting the focus of design away from the individual’s dialogue with their interface to consider the ways in which interaction affects and is affected by spectators
  • We deliberately take a broad view of performance that encompasses explicitly staged interaction by musicians, actors and artists in front of an audience, as well as more implicit performance, where users almost unconsciously perform their interactions for others to see in a public setting
  • Even a brief review of existing public interfaces in areas such as mobile personal displays, interactive installations and performances reveals that there are very many valid approaches to this question, and we have developed a taxonomy that expresses the essential differences between current examples and draws out their underlying approaches to design
  • We have described a performer’s use of an interface in terms of manipulations which lead to effects, concepts that deliberately encompass their physical actions – movements, gestures, expressions and utterances – around an interface as well as their direct input to and output from it
  • We have shown that the spectator’s view of events can be described in terms of the extent to which they experience a performer’s manipulations versus their effects, whether each is hidden, partially hidden, transformed, revealed or even amplified
Results
  • At the bottom-left the authors see what is traditionally considered to be private interaction in which both manipulations and their effects are hidden from the spectator such that they are exclusively available only to the performer, an example being any interface located in a private booth such as the photo kiosk mentioned previously.
  • Towards the top-left the authors see examples of interfaces in which effects are revealed but manipulations, including the performer themselves in extreme cases, are hidden.
  • Having explored the four extreme corners of the taxonomy the authors shall consider, amongst further exploration of these extremes, other examples of public interfaces that lie more towards the centre of Figure 1 and involve more subtle trade-offs between hiding and revealing manipulations and effects.
  • Artists who interact with technologies in front of audiences are not always content with revealing manipulations, but may actively seek to amplify them in order to make their performances more expressive.
  • Spectators may be attracted by seeing the interaction and may be able to learn something of what to do by observing, but in this case will not experience the effects until it is their turn.
  • OTHER FACETS OF THE SPECTATOR EXPERIENCE Like all such taxonomies, ours necessarily simplifies the true picture in order to reveal broader underlying principles, in this case the idea that designers can trade off whether and how to reveal manipulations and effects in order to create spectator experiences that, in broad terms, can be thought of as secretive, expressive, magical or suspenseful.
  • Even a brief review of existing public interfaces in areas such as mobile personal displays, interactive installations and performances reveals that there are very many valid approaches to this question, and the authors have developed a taxonomy that expresses the essential differences between current examples and draws out their underlying approaches to design.
Conclusion
  • The authors have described a performer’s use of an interface in terms of manipulations which lead to effects, concepts that deliberately encompass their physical actions – movements, gestures, expressions and utterances – around an interface as well as their direct input to and output from it.
  • For the heightening of suspense, it may be important not to give away too much of the experience beforehand, since it would reduce impact
Summary
  • The growing interest in cultural, artistic and entertainment applications of interactive technologies in settings such as museums, galleries, theatres and even clubs, combined with the spread of mobile devices into the streets, means that interaction with computers is increasingly a public affair.
  • DESIGNING THE SPECTATOR’S VIEW BY REVEALING OR HIDING MANIPULATIONS AND EFFECTS The authors are ready to revisit and expand on basic ideas of public and private, further developing them in terms of the varied ways in which a spectator can experience a performer’s interaction.
  • At the bottom-left the authors see what is traditionally considered to be private interaction in which both manipulations and their effects are hidden from the spectator such that they are exclusively available only to the performer, an example being any interface located in a private booth such as the photo kiosk mentioned previously.
  • Towards the top-left the authors see examples of interfaces in which effects are revealed but manipulations, including the performer themselves in extreme cases, are hidden.
  • Having explored the four extreme corners of the taxonomy the authors shall consider, amongst further exploration of these extremes, other examples of public interfaces that lie more towards the centre of Figure 1 and involve more subtle trade-offs between hiding and revealing manipulations and effects.
  • Artists who interact with technologies in front of audiences are not always content with revealing manipulations, but may actively seek to amplify them in order to make their performances more expressive.
  • Spectators may be attracted by seeing the interaction and may be able to learn something of what to do by observing, but in this case will not experience the effects until it is their turn.
  • OTHER FACETS OF THE SPECTATOR EXPERIENCE Like all such taxonomies, ours necessarily simplifies the true picture in order to reveal broader underlying principles, in this case the idea that designers can trade off whether and how to reveal manipulations and effects in order to create spectator experiences that, in broad terms, can be thought of as secretive, expressive, magical or suspenseful.
  • Even a brief review of existing public interfaces in areas such as mobile personal displays, interactive installations and performances reveals that there are very many valid approaches to this question, and the authors have developed a taxonomy that expresses the essential differences between current examples and draws out their underlying approaches to design.
  • The authors have described a performer’s use of an interface in terms of manipulations which lead to effects, concepts that deliberately encompass their physical actions – movements, gestures, expressions and utterances – around an interface as well as their direct input to and output from it.
  • For the heightening of suspense, it may be important not to give away too much of the experience beforehand, since it would reduce impact
Funding
  • We gratefully acknowledge the support of the UK’s Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) through the Equator Interdisciplinary Research Collaboration (www.equator.ac.uk)
Reference
  • Agre, P. E., Changing Places, Contexts of Awareness in Computing. In Human Computer Interaction, 16 (2-4), pp. 177-192, 2001.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Aoki, P.M., Grinter, R.E., Hurst, A., Szymanski, M.H., Thornton, J.D. and Woodruff, A. Sotto Voce: exploring the interplay of conversation and mobile audio spaces. In Proc. CHI 2002, pp. 431-438, ACM Press.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Bellotti, V., Back, M., Edwards, W.K., Grinter, R.E., Henderson, A. and Lopes, C. Making sense of sensing systems: Five questions for designers and researchers. In Proc. CHI 2002, pp. 415-422, ACM Press.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Benford, S., Flintham, M., Drozd, A., Anastasi, R., Rowland, D., Tandavanitj, N., Adams, M., Row-Farr, J., Oldroyd, A. and Sutton, J. Uncle Roy All Around You: Implicating the City in a Location-Based Performance. In Proc. Advances in Computer Entertainment (ACE 2004), ACM Press.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Borchers, J. A Pattern Approach to Interaction Design. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2001.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Bowers, J., TONETABLE: A Multi-User, Mixed Media, Interactive Installation. In Proc. COST G-6 Conference on Digital Audio Effects (DAFX-01), 2001.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Bowers, J. and Hellström, S.O., Simple interfaces to complex sound in improvised music. In Proc. CHI 2000 Extended Abstracts, pp. 125-126, ACM Press.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Davies, C. and Harrison, J. “Osmose: Towards Broadening the Aesthetics of Virtual Reality,” ACM Computer Graphics: Virtual Reality, Vol. 30 (4) (1996).
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Drozd, A., Bowers, J., Benford, S., Greenhalgh, C. and Fraser, M. Collaboratively Improvising Magic: An Approach to Managing Participation in an OnLine Drama. In Proc. European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (ECSCW), pp. 159-178, Kluwer, 2001.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Fraser, M., Stanton, D., Ng, K. H., Benford, S., O’Malley, S., Bowers, J., Taxén, G., Ferris, K. and Hindmarsh, J. Assembling history: Achieving coherent experiences with diverse technologies. In Proc. of European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (ECSCW), pp. 179-198. Oulu University Press, 2003.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Gaver, W. W., Beaver, J. and Benford, S, Ambiguity as a Resource for Design. In Proc. CHI 2003, pp. 233-240, ACM Press.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Geser, H., Towards a Sociological Theory of the Mobile Phone, University of Zürich, 2001.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Heath, C. and Luff, P. K. Collaboration and Control: Crisis management and multimedia technology in London Underground Line Control Rooms. In Journal of Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 1 (1-2), pp. 69-94, Kluwer, 1992.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Heath, C., Luff, P. K., vom Lehn, D., Hindmarsh, J., and Cleverly, J. Crafting participation: Designing ecologies, configuring experience. In Visual Communication, 1(1), 2002, pp. 9-34.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Koleva, B., Schnädelbach, H., Benford, S., Greenhalgh, C. Traversable interfaces between real and virtual worlds. In Proc. CHI 2000, pp. 233-240, ACM Press.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Koleva, B., Taylor, I., Benford, S., Fraser, M., Greenhalgh, C., Schnädelbach, H., Lehn, D.v., Heath, C., Row-Farr J., and Adams, M. Orchestrating a mixed reality performance. In Proc. CHI 2001, pp. 38-45, ACM Press.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Lamont, P. and Wiseman, R. Magic in Theory: An introduction to the theoretical and psychological elements of conjouring. University of Hertfordshire Press, 1999.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Laurel, B., Computers as Theatre, Addison-Wesley, 1993.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • 20. Maynes-Aminzade, D., Pausch, R. and Seitz, S. Techniques for Interactive Audience Participation. In Proc. IEEE International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces (ICMI), 2002.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • 21. Reeves, S., Fraser. M. and Benford, S., Engaging Augmented Reality, Presentation at alt.chi2005, in Adjunct Proceedings of CHI 2005, Portland, Oregon, 2005, ACM.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • 22. Rosen, C. Piano Notes: The Hidden World of the Pianist. Penguin Press, 2002.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • 23. Sanneblad, J. and Holmquist, L. E. "Why is everyone inside me?!'' Using Shared Displays in Mobile Computer Games. In Proc. of International Conference on Entertainment Computing (ICEC), 2004.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • 24. Schnädelbach, H., Koleva, B., Flintham, M., Fraser, M., Izadi, S., Chandler, P., Foster, M., Benford, S., Greenhalgh, C. and Rodden, T. The Augurscope: A mixed reality interface for outdoors. In Proc. CHI 2002, pp. 9-16, ACM Press.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • 25. Sheridan, J., Dix, A., Lock, S. and Bayliss, A. Understanding Interaction in Ubiquitous Guerrilla Performances in Playful Arenas. In Proc. British HCI Conference, 2004.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • 26. Stewart, J., Bederson, B. and Druin, A., Single Display Groupware: a Model for Co-present Collaboration. In Proc. CHI 1999, pp. 286-293, ACM Press.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • 27. Sudnow, D., Ways of the Hand: The Organization of Improvised Conduct, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1978.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • 28. Wilson, S., Information Arts: Intersections of art, science and technology, The MIT Press, 2002.
    Google ScholarFindings
Your rating :
0

 

Best Paper
Best Paper of CHI, 2005
Tags
Comments