The general design approach to the research draws on the work of Mary Buchenau, Bill Buxton, Jane Fulton Suri, Bill Moggridge, Jennifer Preece, Yvonne Rodgers and Helen Sharpe.
Bill Buxton’s approach to interaction design is through the process of “sketching”. This is, in part, sketching with a pencil but also any form of experimentation that explores ideas including the use of computers (Buxton 2007, p.135). In all cases the process should be: “Quick, timely, inexpensive, disposable, plentiful, [have a] clear vocabulary, distinct gesture, minimal detail, appropriate degree of refinement, suggest and explore rather than confirm, [have] ambiguity” (Buxton 2007, p.136). This approach is particularly relevant because Buxton’s focus is on “interaction design” whereby such design can reference “…transitions, dynamics, feel [and] phrasing” (2007, p.136) as well as the static attributes of objects. In each case the move from sketching to prototypes to finished products is seen as one of opening out, experimentation, elaboration, and then closing in on a solution, reduction, see Figure 5 below.
Figure 5: The funnels of design elaboration and reduction (Buxton 2007, p.144, after Laseau 1980)
It is the case that this research project has moved through phases of elaboration and reduction, through general examinations of the area of study through to the
use of responsive environments to provide a focus but also a means of expanding the area of study then focusing in on specific implementations through the three practical projects to a further expansion through the use of Pask’s “cybernetic mutualism” as principles for further research.
This process of elaboration/reduction has also been used “locally” in the practice research. In the first practice project elaboration was used as a variety of instances were sketched of the output for the installation including live tests of the equipment to be used for the installation (see Appendix B). This led to a “reduction” towards a specific implementation. In the development of the second practice project a number of ideas were sketched out of the concept of “captive audience”. These were all used which caused some issues in terms of overload but, more positively, resulted in a finding to focus down on a clear and simple instantiation for the third practice project. In the latter case, some simple sketches were made for the project. Two forms were proposed i.e. #TheDiamondIsle and #LoveWight with the latter being used after consultation with Visit Isle of Wight. The design skills employed in defining the final version of the three practice projects drew on Moggridge’s list (2006, p.659) : 33
1. To synthesise a solution from all of the relevant constraints, understanding everything that will make a difference for a result
2. To frame, or reframe, the problem and objective 3. To create and envision alternatives
4. To select from those alternatives, knowing intuitively how to choose the best approach
5. To visualise and prototype the intended solution
Rogers, Sharpe and Preece in their Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction, provide an interaction design lifecycle that operationalises Moggridge’s list, see Figure 6.
Moggridge usesSchön’s concept of reframing but does not reference him.
Figure 6: A simple interaction design lifecycle model (Rogers, Sharpe and Preece 2011, p.332)
The three practical projects have variously employed these skills to respond to constraints/requirements (the technical limitations of the first practice project and the technical failures of the second practice project), frame/reframe
(cf.Schön) the objectives (the shift in the siting from the first practice project in a gallery to the second practice project in a music festival site), explore alternatives (the second practice project formats), select from those alternatives and move to a last outcome (the third practice project), as part of the practice (digital social layer) and in response to that practice (the discovery and use of Pask’s cybernetics). 34
The specific approach to prototype construction and implementation was the procedure of “experience prototyping”, after Marion Buchenau and Jane Fulton Suri (2000), re-orientating prototype implementation from the laboratory into direct relationships with users. This approach acknowledges Buxton’s aspects of interaction design of “transitions, dynamics, feel and phrasing” requiring a live
These challenges are part of the practice of an academic practitioner. It is not that all
34
problems can be avoided but that they can be dealt with in ways that do not undermine the impetus of the project. It is, in fact, a benefit of the academic practitioner approach that it is the combination of practice with extended theoretical assessments that makes for the research output.
activity to assess their enactment and value. Buchenau and Fulton Suri propose three forms of experience prototyping:
1. Understanding and evaluating existing user experiences and context: learning how users are presently engaged with a product or service.
2. Exploring and evaluating design ideas: testing products and services in situ with the target audience (as opposed to a lab).
3. Communicating ideas to an audience: live testing ideas to either prove or disprove their worth. The audience may be the client or the user base.
For the first and second practice projects approaches 2 and 3 have been utilised as approach 1 relates to products and services already in place. Approach 2, places the practical projects in relation to a user/visitor in conventional situations. Thus, it is possible to assess the value of the prototype approach in situ. This approach was used for both the first and second practice projects with experiences gained from them that could not have been obtained in a laboratory situation e.g. the need to embed the first practice project in the existing exhibition to evoke the ethos of the exhibition, and the technical problems of the second practice project. Approach 3, places a product/service in situ to determine whether its design is viable or not e.g. the findings from second practice project were that that format was not viable and, more positively, there was value in pursuing the “digital social layer” concept. These investigations, assessing how people respond to various initiatives in practice, were very important as they provided practical and theoretical context applied in the third practice project.
2.5 The Specific Methods applied in the Research
The PhD process began with deep research into secondary sources relating to interactive audio-visuals. This resulted in the discovery of the concept of responsive environments but with a noted “siloing” of investigations. The literature review drew out the different forms of RE both in terms of technologies and also any stated principles applied in RE. The cross-comparison
in terms of technologies and any principles applied with other significant contemporaneous approaches to interactive audio-visuals i.e. augmented reality, locative media and mixed reality initiatives. The development of six conceptual themes relating to the position and role of people in RE, the forms of engagement used, the opportunities for learning to occur and the values expressed in RE used to test in practice-based projects.
The move into the first practical project seeking to observe instances of protagonist behaviour in a standard RE setting of digital technologies applied in a gallery space, in this case the “The Wonderland of Alice” exhibition at Dimbola Lodge Museum and Gallery. Responses were captured by photographs, video, questionnaires and recorded comments. Detailed terms and conditions, model release forms and information sheets, subject to the requirements of the Southampton Solent University Ethics Panel, were supplied to inform and gather content from the respondents (See Appendix B). The data was gathered by convenience sampling i.e. by asking those who entered the gallery to contribute (Emmel 2013). Image analysis following Theo Van Leeuwen (Van Leeuwen 2014) was adopted. It will be noted that this approach accords with Schön’s reflection- in-action (1991) and a grounded theory approach (Glaser and Strauss 1965; 1999) in the sense of extracting themes from the data rather than applying an over- arching question to be confirmed by research. In the case of the first practical project whether protagonist behaviour could be reproduced (further to Lozano- Hemmer’s Body Movies) and what if any such behaviour would consist of could not be predicted. This was a matter for exploration rather than confirmation. The questionnaires and recorded comments were assessed using the “analytical memo” approach (following Jonny Saldana’s The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers 2014). In this way the limited amount of data could provide speculation for further research, a means of aiding reflection and the possible reframing of the hypothesis (cf. Schön 1991).
It should be noted that, due to the short run of the installation there was limited data to examine. Furthermore, the data gathered was contested with reference to the Hawthorne Effect (Gillespie 1991) as the camera was in plain sight and may have influenced any photographed/videoed activity. See Chapter Three and Appendix B for detail regarding the content gathered and findings. Reflection on the experiences of first practical project focused on the value of the reproducibility (cf. Lozan-Hemmer’s Body Movies) of the phenomenon of protagonist behaviour but was, apart from the limited content gained, constrained due to the stand-alone format of the exhibition. This approach offered very limited opportunities for the protagonist behaviour in the gallery to be “productive” in the sense of being able to be carried forward other than in the minds and future actions of those small numbers offering that behaviour (Moore and Anderson 1969). Furthermore the need to address the lack of archiving of people’s content with regard to interactive-audio visuals and the stimulus of the contemporaneous activities researched encouraged a reframing of the concept of RE to include an online archiving of that content. This led on to the devising of the second practical project around a mix of on-line and off-line components. This was a qualitative extension of the concept of RE drawing on Floridi’s notion of “global values” in the sense of offering sustained communication beyond the immediate influence of the RE and an individual apprehension of the same.
The “Wild Things in Captivity” project at the Bestival music festival sought to offer opportunities for people to capture data under a number of headings and upload that content into a number of social media archives. It should be noted that, at this juncture, the use of social media archive was to provide a “digital layer” so that content created in the RE could be shared/commented upon . 35
This may be compared to, for example, Peterson’s example of a CD-ROM in a gallery adding an
35
extra digital layer to the gallery (Peterson 1991). In the present case the presentation of the content relies upon respondents to supply it/comment upon it rather than simply access it.
This method also enabled this content to be available to contributors and researchers alike and thus there was a direct representation of the content gathered in a system that both collected and portrayed that content publicly. Detailed activity sheets, terms and conditions, consent forms and information sheets, subject to the requirements of the Southampton Solent University Ethics Panel, were supplied to inform and stimulate content from the respondents (See Appendix C). The data gathered at the music festival used convenience sampling i.e. by asking those who entered the Science Tent to contribute (Emmel 2013). Image analysis following Theo Van Leeuwen (Van Leeuwen 2014) was adopted. See Chapter Three and Appendix C for detailed analysis. This qualitative analysis assessed the degree to which the respondents produced content that simply worked to the stated brief of the activity sheets and those that reinterpreted the brief. The sign up to the activities was very positive. However, the method of content archiving relied upon technical and motivational levels that were found wanting in actuality. The very asynchronousness of the format, the built in latency, before the delivery of content hindered the arrival of that content. The limited amount of content created in the second practice project resulted in considerable reflection in terms of the methods to be used to explore the possibilities of protagonist behaviour in a third practice project. At this point Seth Giddens’ experience of microethnography is useful in that his method was to assess the content produced and also the qualities of engagement with that content (Giddens 2014 pp.55-56). The latter could be encouraged if the form of content created was reliant on the involvement of respondents as opposed to the simple capturing of content as in the second practice project. Therefore, rather than the content being other than the respondents the content could be the respondents themselves. This would shift the gathering of content to the researcher, in part i.e. the responsibility of the capture and archiving of the content could be a partnership between the parties. The #LoveWight project used hand signs to represent the Isle of Wight meaning that respondents could show their connection to the island wherever they were and the use of the
#LoveWight hashtag and the request of associated hashtags could be collected and archived without technical or motivational stumbling blocks. This method of capture and archiving resulted in over 300 people contributing to the project either independently and through capture by researcher. The latter content was captured at the Isle of Wight festival and the Bestival music festival. These sites were chosen as they offered a high concentration of people, both Islanders and tourists with the positive atmosphere of the events provide a context for the reception of the idea. This assumption was borne out by the high take-up rates at both events (see Appendix D). The data gathered at the music festivals used convenience sampling i.e. by asking people who were present at the Kashmir Tent and those who entered the Science Tent to contribute (Emmel 2013). Detailed activity sheets, terms and conditions, consent forms and information sheets, subject to the requirements of the Southampton Solent University Ethics Panel, were supplied to inform and stimulate the respondents (See Appendix D). Content was also posted directly into the Love Wight social media. In these cases respondents were directed to activity sheets, terms and conditions and information sheets. The terms and conditions were adjusted to state that anyone submitting content to the site did so under the T&Cs removing the need for signed consent.
The qualitatively different form of the visual content created through the #LoveWight project required a qualitatively different approach to the content analysis of extracted data from the photographs. In this regard van Leeuwan’s approach to iconography and specifically his analysis of iconological symbolism was apt in extracting data from the resultant photographs (van Leeuwan 2001). In this instance iconological symbolism relates to the use of icons to display some form of biographical representation. A basic format regarding the hand signs was shown to the respondents and a majority reproduced the “love” and “Wight” signs as stated. However, there was a considerable degree of reinterpretation both by those captured during the research process and those who independently submitted content (see Chapter Four for analysis of the data). The two forms of
#LoveWight produced different forms of biographical connection. For those who were pictured making the hand signs the variations included linking of arms of respondents and forming masks with the signs. For those submissions with a picture taken through the #LoveWight sign there was a means to show a connection with a particular part of the island or to connect back to the island where ever they might be. The use of hashtags to show “love” towards an aspect of the island offered further opportunities for connection. These hashtags were coded around their focus of either aspect of places, interests or concepts (following Jonny Saldana’s The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers 2014). This content when uploaded to the Love Wight Instagram received a range of imminent responses in terms of likes, shares, referrals and, in some cases, repurposing in terms of promotion of other companies e.g. Wightlink ferries (See Chapter Four for analysis of the data). The forms of content gathered at the festivals were contested with reference to the Hawthorne Effect (Gillespie 1991) as the camera was in plain sight and may have influenced any activity. Furthermore, there was at least one instance where respondents may have copied a previous set of respondents form of the hand signs as the data gathering was in a public space with free movement of people. In addition, there was an instance in the content that was supplied online whereby a respondent submitted an almost identical picture to one offered as an example at the start of the project. In the first instance the alternative methodology of lab conditions could have prevented this cross-contamination of ideas from one set of contributors to the next but as it seems that there was only one incidence of this it did not undermine the purpose of the research. In the second instance the positive gains of placing content in public archive could in fact undermine protagonist behaviour if those submitting simply copy what came before. However, there was only one instance of copying and, indeed, some of the online submissions reinterpreted the brief in sophisticated ways not only in terms of playing with the hand signs. Therefore, the use of an online archive for the content was justified for the present research.
The completion of the third practice project had originally been deemed the end of the research process. However, the discovery of the Pangaro archive led to the further discovery of Pask’s introduction to Negroponte’s Soft Architecture in which Pask laid out a series of thought experiments in terms of how a machine could be deemed to be intelligent. Most importantly for the present research this proposal connected people (the designer) with computers and an environment informing and being informed by the system. This shift from primary practical research to secondary theoretical analysis reveal significant similarities between the models of Pask, Floridi’s notion of Information targets and, furthermore, Neuhofer, Buhalis and Ladkin’s “Technology Enhanced Destination Experiences” (cf. Schön 1991). The outcome of this interdisciplinary analysis is important not just because it points to the currency of this mapping relating people, computers and environments but because of the form of the outputs from these systems i.e. that they are concept-producing, they place people at the centre of the system and they are co-creation systems between people, computers and environments.
Thus the mixture of theoretical and practical methods have elicited a range of outcomes that would have not have been possible without both forms being utilised.