View
212
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
When noise becomes voice: designing interactive technologyfor crowd experiences through imitation and invention
Rune Veerasawmy • John McCarthy
Received: 18 May 2013 / Accepted: 29 October 2013
� Springer-Verlag London 2014
Abstract In this paper, we present crowd experience as a
novel concept when designing interactive technology for
spectator crowds in public settings. Technology-mediated
experiences in groups have already been given serious
attention in the field of interaction design. However, crowd
experiences are distinctive because of the spontaneous,
uninhibited behavior exhibited. In crowds, extreme soci-
ality and the experience of performing identity in public
emerge spontaneously. By bridging crowd theory and
pragmatics of experience, we establish an understanding of
crowd experience as a distinct sociality within interaction
design that unfolds through imitation and invention. We
deploy that understanding in an exploration of spectator
experiences at three football matches in which an experi-
mental prototype, BannerBattle, was deployed. Banner-
Battle is an interactive banner on which spectators can grab
space in competition with their rivals. The more noise and
movement they make, the more screen real estate they
gain. BannerBattle therefore enabled us to explore the
emergence of imitative and at times inventive behavior in
enriched crowd experience, by augmenting and supporting
spectator performance in this way. We discuss the value of
a conceptual understanding of crowd experience for tech-
nology as an unexplored potential for designing new
interactive technology at spectator venues.
Keywords Crowd experience � Technology-supported
spectator experiences � User experience design �Sporting events
1 Introduction
Social interaction and social experience have received
significant attention during the last couple of decades
within the field of HCI. A great deal of this attention has
been given to supporting collaboration in fairly settled
group and organizational settings [e.g., 1–3], engagements
between people in established communities [e.g., 4], and in
facilitating relationships between people who already know
each other very well [e.g., 5, 6]. More recently, as part of a
general shift toward exploring novel interactional settings
[7], attention has turned to the use of technology to support
public performances and spectacles, often involving
members of the public who do not know each other well,
in situations that are not very familiar to them. For
example, HCI has explored interaction in pervasive gaming
in city streets [8], in museums and galleries [9], clubs [10],
and among familiar strangers waiting for trains on public
platforms [11]. Even more recently, crowds have become a
new focus for studies of social interaction and experience
with technology in projects ranging from crowd sourcing
and crowd funding [e.g., 12–14] to the design of technol-
ogies to support convivial crowds [7]. As Reeves et al. [7]
have suggested, crowds are interesting because participa-
tion is not necessarily mediated by a particular spectacle
and because of the variety of relationships that are enacted
between participants.
Our aim in this paper is to open up another aspect of
participation in crowds—the carnivalistic spontaneity
of some crowd experiences—and to explore implications
R. Veerasawmy (&)
Department of Aesthetics and Communication, PIT and CAVI,
Aarhus University, Arhus, Denmark
e-mail: runevn@cavi.au.dk
J. McCarthy
Department of Applied Psychology, University College Cork,
Cork, Ireland
e-mail: john.mccarthy@ucc.ie
123
Pers Ubiquit Comput
DOI 10.1007/s00779-014-0761-8
of designing for those aspects of crowd experience. We
hope to show by appeal to social scientific literature and to
a design experiment that this is a distinct focus from ana-
lytic and design perspectives. The source of the distinc-
tiveness is in taking participant experience in crowds as a
starting point, an approach that HCI has been prepared for
by the emergence of an experience-centered approach to
design in the last decade [15, 16].
During the last decade, the potential of designing for
experience, and supporting the meaningful experiences
people have with technology, has been realized in inter-
action design and HCI (see e.g., [15, 17–20]). In this
context, experience has been addressed as a holistic,
pragmatic, cultural and critical process of sense making
and meaning creation [15, 16] that occurs in the open
relationship between a socio-cultural context, individuals
bodily and intellectual engagement, and interaction with
the technological object [17].
When talking about experience, there is a danger of
imagining a subjective response that is somehow detached
from the social worlds in which we live. Building on
Dewey’s [21] philosophy, experience-centered design has
largely adopted a pragmatist perspective in which experi-
ence is embedded in the activities that people engage in
and the social world in which we live. Dewey’s pragmatist
philosophy argues against the idea that thoughts, ideas, and
emotions could exist separate from our bodies and the
activities we engage in, and separate from each other. The
pragmatist perspective cannot imagine a person experi-
encing separate from the object of the experience, or from
the context and history that situates it. Dewey’s pragmatist
perspective on experience has influenced a number of areas
of interaction design including the focus on the quality of
experience of design [15, 16, 22] and the emergence of
experience-oriented interaction models [19].
Continuing in the spirit of this appropriation of prag-
matist perspectives on experience in interaction design, our
emphasis in the current project sees experience as ineluc-
tably social, whether we stand alone or in a crowd [16].
The complex performative interplay between what may be
considered subjective and social in experience is clear for
all to see in people’s use of social media to express and
share their feelings at a concert as they text, tweet, and
send images to friends during the concert. Through the use
of social media, and more generally through the iterative
interpenetration of felt experience and processes of sharing
and reflecting on experience, the subjective and the social
become inseparable. In this regard, others have commented
on the potential that sharing technology-mediated experi-
ences may lift-up experience as meaningful [19, 23–26].
We propose to add, and explore through a design case, the
possibility of meaning and meaningfulness in the very
performance of being part of a crowd.
The particular crowds that we explore in this research
are football crowds performing their identities as fans and
members of their crowd in the heat of a football match [27,
28]. It has been suggested that participating at a sporting
event is about being a part of a united whole larger than
yourself, spontaneously staging an emergent and capricious
performance as a way of kindling an awareness of crowd
unity and distinctiveness with respect to the opposing
spectators [29]. This focus introduces the carnivalistic
elements of crowd experience that have often been missed
in designing for crowds. While enhancing spectator expe-
riences at sporting events by supporting spectators’ active
communication [30–32] or presenting information about
the sports to the spectators on large display or mobile
phones [33] can undoubtedly be fruitful, it underplays the
more spontaneous, and emergent qualities of spectator,
crowd experiences at sporting events, which are therefore
still novel in HCI.
In this paper, our aim is to develop a complementary
perspective on crowds that is focused on the uninhibited,
spontaneous, emergent aspects of crowd experience. As we
will show below, these aspects are strongly related to
communication and information sharing in the crowd. Our
work is situated in the setting of sporting events in which
fans’ identities are performed in their activity as members
of crowds of spectators, as the noise made by many dif-
ferent fans becomes the identifiable voice of their crowd.
To make our approach clear, we will first position our work
with respect to a sanitized view of spectator experiences in
crowds.
2 Sanitized spectator experiences in crowds
Anecdotally, and in some academic analyses [e.g., 34], the
experience of being part of a football crowd is the expe-
rience of carnival, free and unrestricted celebration, full of
fun and passion, and uninhibited familiar contact between
participants, often littered with profanity. In both the
ancient Greek and Roman worlds, the stadium created a
confined world inside which spectators were able to
momentarily forget their everyday life and problems [35].
Sporting events have been discussed as the working class
opportunity for temporary liberation from social status and
problems, a place separated from their everyday life where
the collective effort of the supporting fans and the team
could provide them with success on the pitch [36].
According to Bakhtin [37], carnival is an escape from the
official, hierarchical, reverent life of work or school, in
which, free from the formalities of the official life, people
work out new ways of being together, and new social
forms. Bakhtin was keen to point out that many modern
carnivals, in which performance has become spectacle, are
Pers Ubiquit Comput
123
different to the medieval carnivals he wrote about. Medi-
eval carnivals would have not understood separation of
participation and spectacle. For Bakhtin, the medieval
carnival was a participative, creative event, not a spectacle.
Carnivalesque experience is the creative theatrical
expression of the potential for familiarity and free inter-
action, eccentricity, the unity of the apparently separate,
and the profane in sensual ritualistic performances. Foot-
ball fans crowded together in the stand, moving as one,
chanting profanely together, viscerally enjoying each oth-
er’s company, sometimes creatively mocking and baiting
the other side’s players and fans, and creatively performing
a single voice. One of the issues motivating our study is
concern about the possible sanitization of the crowd
experience and performance at matches, making spectators
of the football fans, and making the football crowd another
element of the official and the hierarchical in life.
2.1 Professionalized sporting events
In the 1950s, as the middle class grew and got wealthier,
middle-class consumers were presented with a variety of
new leisure and entertainment opportunities. Large shop-
ping centers, cinemas, steak houses, and bowling centers
were built to accommodate the middle class. In general,
people were able to be quite selective in their choice of
leisure activities, which obliged football clubs to profes-
sionalize their sporting events by increasing the focus on
entertainment, leisure, and convenience to court the
wealthier and growing middle class. The clubs and the
sporting events were professionalized and became a part of
the entertainment industry [36]. Cross-national ‘‘super
tournaments’’ were established to gather Europe’s best
clubs in order to provide spectators with high-quality and
entertaining sports. Along with these new cross-national
tournaments, televised broadcasts of the football matches
were introduced. All these entertainment enhancements
promoted the players to provide higher quality, entertain-
ing, and spectacular play and required the players to
become more organized in the way they played [36]. In this
way, the development of the sport itself made the matches
more dramatic, entertaining, and spectacular to watch.
Professionalization also brought about changes in
physical facilities. The facilities were improved by build-
ing new stands, extra seats, toilets, bars, restaurants,
museums, merchandise shops, and social clubs—in general
a more comfortable and convenient multi-functional setting
[38]. The settings around the pitch and match itself were
also subject to enhancements. Modern stadiums directed
spotlights onto the pitch to provide a more dramatic and
theatrical quality of the event, by focusing on the sport and
reducing the surroundings of the stands [39]. Furthermore,
the football clubs developed new forms of pre-match
entertainment in order to make the sporting event more
spectacular and entertaining while the spectators waited for
the match to begin, for example by introducing cheer-
leaders [36]. Sporting events during this period were made
more like an entertainment and leisure event, rather than
the participative, carnivalesque experiences that they had
been.
2.2 Spectator technologies
The technology introduced into football stadiums over the
last decade reflects the shift from participative perfor-
mance to spectatorship in the football fans’ and crowds’
experience. There are often large displays used to provide
additional information about the sport and to present
spectators with replays and close-up shots of the match
[40]. There seems to be two primary motives for imple-
menting large displays. The first is to bridge the gap in
large stadiums between the spectators and the play—
modern stadiums are getting larger and this creates a
greater distance between the pitch and the spectators [41].
Second, the large displays have the purpose of providing
the spectators with the same additional information and
statistics about the match that they otherwise would have
got by watching the match on television [42]. The large
displays blur the boundaries between watching the match
at home on the television and watching it ‘‘live’’ at the
stadium [40]. The displays ensure that the spectators
attending the sporting event will not be deprived from the
extra information about the sport that they have access to
in the televised match [43]. These large displays, aligned
with the professionalization of the sporting event,
emphasize the spectacular aspects of the play by repeat-
edly showing replays and close-up sequences of extraor-
dinary play [42]. The televised content on the large
displays provides a convenient package for the spectators
to watch the replays and details of the match if they
missed it in real time. The large displays enhance the
spectacular in a convenient and comfortable way.
Large displays at sporting events are no longer a novel
technology—they are rather standard technology for all
premier league sporting events. However, mobile tech-
nologies have attracted academic attention in recent years.
Primarily, engineers and computer scientists have
explored the potential of developing technology for
spectators at stadiums. Ault et al. [44] explore the
potential of using spectators’ mobile phones as an infor-
mation platform for sports content. In their concept, they
broadcast live television, statistics, and additional infor-
mation about the match to the spectators, to provide them
with more in-depth information about the sport itself. In a
similar experiment, Bentley and Groble [33] explore a
mobile application that also serves the spectators with
Pers Ubiquit Comput
123
multimedia content and live multi-angle video streaming
of the sport. Even though these are novel experiments
with interactive technology at sporting events, they are
still grounded in a perspective on augmenting the sport.
Like large displays, these experimental systems provide
the individual spectator with additional information about
the match in a rather easy, convenient and passive way,
neglecting the active and collaborative aspects of being
part of the actual event. At distributed sporting events,
such as rallies, novel examples of technological systems
aiming at supporting spectators’ social and co-construc-
tive experiences have been explored [see e.g., 31, 32].
Nevertheless, the general perspective on technology at
sporting events, especially at soccer stadiums, is that they
should support the spectators’ engagement in the sport
itself. They aim at bringing the sport closer to the spec-
tators in a convenient manner is achieved either through
large displays or mobile phones.
2.3 The paradox of sanitized spectator experiences
at sporting events
The professionalization of the sporting event has during the
last couple of decades attracted an increased number of
spectators [45]. Nevertheless, some academics have stated
their concern that the professionalized sporting event
oppresses spectators’ activeness, engagement, expression,
and ecstatic celebration at the expense of increased focus
on convenience, safety, and crowd management [38].
Arguments have been made that the modern stadiums
have been ‘‘sanitized’’ by being subject to an ideologi-
cally rationalist perspective on sporting events and
spectatorship [see e.g., 39, 43, 46, 47]. The sporting
event has been rationalized to make the event safe,
convenient, comfortable, and well organized for the
spectators to enjoy the sport. This was in part an
understandable response to tragedies in European foot-
ball during the 1980s and 1990s [see e.g., 48]. Bale [39]
emphasizes that rationalization in itself is not a bad
thing, but the rationalization of sporting events has been
pushed to its limits and become restricting rather than
enlightening for the spectator. In his view, the ratio-
nalization has restricted and pacified the spectators’
active engagement rather than supporting it. The focus
on making everything safe, convenient, and efficient, in
order to serve human needs, has oppressed everything
that is expressing human feelings and emotions, because
nothing can happen spontaneously, autonomously, or
accidentally [49]. Bale [39] argues that replacing the
terraces at the old stadiums with all-seating areas has
the risk of compartmentalization, and limiting the
spectators’ possibilities to express themselves through
dialogue, movements, and interactions. In line with
Bale, King [46] argues that the modern all-seater sta-
diums limit the spectators’ opportunity for ecstatic cel-
ebration and bodily movement and expression. Seating
hinders group dynamics and crowd activities [50].
Clarke [36] argues that the general perspective on the
spectator has become that of a person who enjoys
watching the match as long as the physical and social
settings are comfortable and convenient—the spectator
is sitting in the seat and just waits to be entertained. The
sporting event is something that goes on ‘‘out there’’ on
the pitch, rather than something that the spectator is
taking active part of [36].
Some of these concerns are at risk of appearing to
romanticize the old sporting event. The professionaliza-
tion has changed the old ‘‘un-sanitized’’ working class
sporting event into a modern event that is safe, orga-
nized, and convenient, and which has managed to attract
a significantly more diverse group of spectators, includ-
ing women, children, and families, who attend and have
a good time enjoying the event. However, these critiques
contribute to an interesting discussion about what con-
stitutes and supports engaging crowd experiences, and
how they might go beyond the fascination of the sport
itself. These concerns outline a paradox of the profes-
sionalized sporting event. The football clubs know the
importance of ecstatic and emotionally engaged, active,
visible, and loud fans. It is the crowds that create the
atmosphere at the stadium, and who in the best-case
scenario will motivate the players to perform better.
They want their spectators to appear dedicated and
engaged on the TV transmissions of the match, and hope
by doing so to attract even more spectators. However, at
the same time, the clubs want the sporting event to be
safe, organized, convenient, and entertaining to attend.
Our purpose of highlighting this discussion is not rooted
in a romantic desire for the old unsanitized sporting
events, and we do acknowledge the concerns regarding
safety and organization at sporting events. Our aim is to
present an account of how the professionalization of
sporting events has affected the crowd experience, as a
way of bringing alternatives into focus for interaction
design in this context. Our design interest is in concep-
tualizing and realizing technology for crowd experiences
at sporting events that engages participants in the per-
formance of their identity as fans. So inevitably our bias,
such as it is, is toward the participative and carniva-
lesque in crowd experience. Of course, we understand
the arguments for a more safe, comfortable, and con-
trolled experience too but that is not the focus of this
particular project. That said, our preferred perspective
can complement the professionalized sporting event
while also addressing the paradox of the modern sporting
event.
Pers Ubiquit Comput
123
3 Toward an understanding of crowd experience
In this section, we develop a conceptualization of crowd
experiences in order to further explore and discuss how
interactive technology might support those rather unique
collective crowd experiences. In doing so, Bakhtin’s
account of carnivalesque experience is to the fore in our
thinking in order to marry sociological crowd theory
with pragmatics experience. Our aim is a conceptuali-
zation of crowd experience as creative performance of an
alternative way of being that can be supported by tech-
nology. That is to say that our perspective on the crowd
experience at a football match, at its richest experien-
tially, is as a sensual theatrical performance of active
fandom, a collective escape from the official life and
normal rules of most other days and identification with a
passionate way of being other. It can most clearly be
seen in the ways in which fans dress in the colors of
their team and perform creatively in a single coherent
voice as members of their crowd. It can be felt in the
uninhibited passion and sense of belonging to a ‘‘body’’
of fellow fans that is not generally felt in official per-
formance. While this will be an inspiration in our
approach to designing for rich crowd experience at
football matches, something a little more practical is
needed to help us understand the dynamics of crowd
performance as the pragmatic basis of design. The work
of Gabriel de Tarde has proved extremely useful in this
regard.
In the European tradition of crowd theory [e.g.,
51–54] and crowd performance is understood as an
ongoing, dynamic sociality, which is quite different from
the performance of a collection of individuals. The
dynamics and behavioral aspects of the crowd are often
described as a contagion, where people in the crowd are
lured into the crowd through contagious imitation [54]
and behavioral suggestion [51]. This perspective is based
on the assumption that crowd dynamics are by nature
distinct from other social formations and that people
participating do not behave with rational forethought, but
to a high degree impulsively and spontaneously [54].
This is clearly resonant of Bakhtin’s notion of the cre-
ative performance of the carnival crowd.
According to Tarde, the performance of the crowd
spreads contagiously by imitation and invention, and the
spread is all the more contagious in contexts in which there
is a high density of people together, such as in cities and
one would imagine in football crowds.
Imitation is a cornerstone in the dynamics of crowd
experiences. According to Tarde, imitation is social and
sociality is imitation [51]. He argues that the high social
density of crowds makes them extreme in their sociality
in which imitations travels almost unmediated in the
crowd [51]. Imitation is central to the notion of crowd
experiences as it has a promotional function where
emotions, arousal, and excitement spread among people
in the crowd. The crowd has a magnetizing potential to
draw people into the crowd through the imitative
dynamic [55]. The dynamic of the crowd is that it is a
sociality with the goal of continuing growth by attracting
more people through the imitative and suggestive
behavior, seen as contagious invitations for people to
join. At football matches, the two crowds of rival fans
are usually the ones initiating and kindling the atmo-
sphere through collective songs, chants, and movements
at the stands during the event. But in situations in which
there is a strong sense of collective identity, the fans’
behavior spreads contagiously to other spectators, who
get carried away and become participants of the crowd
by imitating the behavior of the fans.
One essential dynamic that is central to imitation is
the crowd’s rhythmic performance often seen in physical
movements or in an acoustic performance [56, 57]. The
rhythm of the crowd consists of imitations that have the
potential to become hypnotic [55]. This rhythmic per-
formance, whether it is in the way in which fans chant
or stamp their feet or shout, cheer, or boo together, can
never be completely synchronous. The minor variations
in movement and voice of the crowd reinforce the par-
ticipants’ feeling of being a part of a united whole larger
than themselves [55, 57]. The noise of the crowd can be
characterized as a ‘‘sonospheric melding’’ where partic-
ipants in the crowds feel equal and create what Slot-
erdijk characterizes as a we-phenomenon [58]. For Tarde,
the acoustics of the crowd ‘‘is a strange phenomenon. It
is a gathering of heterogeneous elements, unknown to
one another; but as soon as a spark of passion, having
flashed out from one of these elements, electrifies this
confused mass, there takes place a sort of sudden orga-
nization, a spontaneous generation. This incoherence
becomes cohesion, this noise becomes a voice…’’ ([53]
italics added). The acoustics of the crowd becomes what
shapes the coherence in the crowd through the conta-
gious imitations.
The football crowd is in many ways a rather auton-
omous crowd with no formal leader that dictates the
activities. Many of the activities are initiated by indi-
vidual people in the crowd as suggestions for activities
to imitate. Songs and chants are suggested in the crowd
and rather spontaneously imitated by others, which might
suddenly shape cohesion and a united voice of the
crowd. However, the acoustic performance of the crowd
is not the only way in which the we-phenomenon is
shaped. The spectator crowds at sporting events have a
high level of visual coherence in the way they use the
same team colors using merchandise, football jerseys,
Pers Ubiquit Comput
123
flags, scarfs, and in their use of tifos1 all in the same
colors, which makes the crowd homogeneous in their
visual appearance.
At sporting events, crowds are rather unique in their
characteristics due to the spatiality of the stadium,
forming a closed and contained ring in which the per-
formativity of the crowd is displayed to themselves and
for others to see [55]. In this arena, the rival spectator
crowd is located in the stands, not only facing the sport
itself, but also facing the rival spectator crowd. This
reinforces the crowd’s awareness of the power battle
against the opposing. The performance of the crowd is
not only a matter of intrinsic constitution of the crowd
through imitation and invention, but also a matter of an
external performance directed toward rival crowds. The
battle of power in the stadium is in many respects an
element that constitutes and shapes the collective
coherence among the spectator crowds.
There is an intrinsic relation between imitation and
invention. In Tarde’s sociology, imitations have the
potential to create new inventions. Inventions emerge
when two imitations collide and emerge into a new
invention [52]. Due to the high social density, crowds are
especially disposed to emergent and inventive behavior.
Inventions are almost capricious and accidental [59];
however, through a process of elimination due to peo-
ple’s desires and dispositions, some emergent behavior
will become harmonious and coherent and then be subject
to imitation in the crowd. This capricious emergence
happens through the extreme social facilitation of the
dense crowd.
Even though the people in the crowd are disposed
toward unconscious imitations, they are not just passively
consuming the crowd performance. The crowd has a
creative potential in inventing new emergent behaviors.
At football matches, spectator crowds not only imitate
each other by chanting, but also by singing, and dancing.
New songs, dances, chants, new rituals, and ways of
behaving emerge from imitation due to the high degree of
invention in the crowd.
As mentioned before, the relevance and value for HCI
and interaction design of bringing together crowd theory
and Bakhtin’s perspective on canivalesque experience is in
its potential to contribute to understandings of crowd
experience at sporting events. This is especially clear in the
conjunction of Bakhtin’s performative approach to expe-
rience with a Tardean approach to the potential of the
crowd through imitation and invention. In the next section,
we describe a design case study in which that conjunction
is explored, in which imitation and invention, as key
dynamics in crowd experience, are used to provoke the
unexplored potential for technology-mediated crowd
experiences.
4 Design case
The BannerBattle prototype2 was developed as a part of
the iSport research project at Center for Interactive
Spaces.3 The focus of the project was to understand how
interactive technology in three different projects could
support elite athletes, recreational athletes, and spectator
experiences at sporting events. As part of the final topic,
the current project was intended to explore and establish
an understanding of how to design interactive technology
for active spectators experiences by crowd experiences at
sporting events.
This project was informed by ethnographically inspired
field studies in which we followed groups of soccer sup-
porters before, during, and after sporting events. We also
went on a fan-bus ride (see Fig. 1), traveling 5 h to an
away football match, in order to gain greater insights into
fan and spectator experiences and culture, through partic-
ipant observations and semi-structured interviews [61, 62].
Furthermore, constructive workshops with football sup-
porters were also carried out, which will be described
below.
The participant observer field study on the 5-h fan-bus
ride was conducted at a Sunday match. There were about
135 fans in three busses, and the trip was arranged by the
official fan club. It was the first match after the winter
break; therefore, many of the fans were looking forward to
Fig. 1 Traveling with fans on a 5-h bus ride to an away match
1 Tifos are collectively choreographed mosaics often made of several
100s of colored flags carried by the spectator crowd.
2 See Veerasawmy and Iversen [60] for more discussions on
BannerBattle and an introduction of crowd theory into interaction
design.3 http://www.interactivespaces.net.
Pers Ubiquit Comput
123
the Danish Premier League starting up again. The fans we
traveled with were supporting a team normally located in
the middle of the league, and team they were to play was
the previous year’s league champions. This made it a high
profile match for the traveling fans, which was seen in the
relatively large numbers of fans traveling to the match. We
conducted semi-structured interviews and participant
observations both in the busses and at the match. We used
video recordings and photos to capture the interviews and
our observations.
Before matches, spectators typically built up expecta-
tions based on rituals, collective memories, and ‘‘war sto-
ries’’ from previous matches and experiences. The fans
who travelled all the away to the matches had informally
assigned seating in the bus, and were very aware of not
taking someone else seat and who to sit next to. They also
had recognizable banter and stories that they always would
tell. One fan always asked on entering the bus, ‘‘Is there
anyone here who does not know about Laura [his grand-
child].’’ Then, most people shout ‘‘Yes! We know that
story’’ but there is always one who says ‘‘no.’’ So he can
tell the story of his grandchild again. Everyone expects this
ritual to happen when that fan enters. Another example of a
ritualized act is when the bus guide announces the prices
for beer and bottles of water that can be bought on the bus.
The same group of people always yell to the tour guide
‘‘how much does a box of water cost?’’ During the bus trip,
the fans also spend time telling a lot of stories about pre-
vious trips and matches. These stories and memories are
shared with the other fans, and songs are sung as a ‘‘warm
up’’ before the event, and to build up tension and antici-
pation of what is to happen. These activities focus mainly
on expressions of loyalty to the football team and to fellow
fans. These activities are continued at the stand with hun-
dreds of other fans in their colored football jerseys. After
the match, opinions of the result, match, and players are
discussed. If the team had won they would often sing
songs, cheer, and share their joy and excitement with the
crowd. If they lost, they would be disappointed and less
excited. However, many expressed in the interviews that
they can still have had a good time. As one guy explained
on the bus trip home from a very disappointing match
where their team lost significantly ‘‘… even though we lost
0–5 today it has still been a very good day, supporting the
team and traveling together with the other fans.’’ The
results of the matches mean a great deal for the fans, but
being together with fellow fans in a crowd supporting the
team is a significant aspect of their experience.
The knowledge gained through participant observation
and the interviews described above formed the basis for a
co-design workshop. At the workshop, eight football,
handball, and basketball fans from local clubs participated
in exploring their ideas of how technology could support
crowd experiences at stadiums. The overall theme for the
workshop was ‘‘design your future stadium.’’ The work-
shop was divided in two parts. First, the spectators were to
thematise what constituted a good stadium experience by
writing keywords on post-it notes and then organize them
into themes. Second, using these themes as a point of
departure, the fans engaged in sketching scenarios [63] and
collaborative prototyping [64], in order to generate
knowledge about how technology could support engaging
crowd experiences (see Fig. 2).
At the workshop, the fans quickly initiated discussions on
how they could improve the atmosphere at the stadium,
which created a direction for the rest of the workshop
activities. Themes such as creativity, the social aspect, bat-
tling the rival crowd, and supporting the team dominated the
discussions. The fans thought of themselves and of their
activities in the stands as creative. They particularly enjoyed
the creativity in their use of merchandise, home designed
flags, banners, and tifos, which they saw as visual artworks.
They also enjoyed the creativity of making up chants and
songs about the event, rival team, or other more or less rel-
evant life events. At one match, the visiting team’s goal-
keeper recently fell in his bathtub and therefore the home
spectator crowd brought lots of inflatable bathing pools to the
event as a reference to the incident and as a way of mocking
the goalkeeper. The social aspect of attending the events was
manifested in various activities. Before the match, the fans
often met at a bar or outside the stadium to ‘‘warm up’’ and to
build up anticipation. Inside the stadium, they often had the
same seats and sit next to the same fellow fans in order to
discuss the match and to chant and sing the same songs. After
the match, depending on the result, the fans often went to an
after-match bar drinking, discussing the match, and social-
izing with fellow fans.
Fig. 2 Football, handball, and basketball fans mocking-up their
visions and desires for interactive technology that supports crowd
experiences at the stadium
Pers Ubiquit Comput
123
Another quite interesting theme presented by the fans at
the workshop was the battle between the rival spectator
crowds. This battle is a performative non-violent battle
between the two rival sets of fans at the stadium. The
workshop participants explained how this is a very sig-
nificant and motivating aspect of the experience of
attending the event. The performative battle between the
two crowds is often constituted by chants, songs, dances, or
stampings in the stand. It is a battle to be the dominating
and loudest crowd in the stadium. At times, the two crowds
create a performative dialogical battle where one crowd
sings directly to the rival crowd and then the rival crowd
answer back or respond to the song. We observed this
phenomenon in our field studies where the visiting spec-
tator crowd sang ‘‘why is it so quiet in Copenhagen [the
city of the home team]?’’ drawing attention to the fairly
passive home crowd. Then, the home crowd answered back
by chanting, ‘‘we hate, we hate, we hate AGF [the visiting
team]!’’ The workshop participants also discussed the
importance of attending the event to be the ‘‘twelfth
player’’ to support their team.
With these themes as points of departure, the partici-
pants started to mock up the ‘‘their future stadium’’ by
using different props (see Fig. 2). They discussed how
technology could support and stage their fan activities,
performances, and the battle with the rival spectator
crowd. The participants decided to explore how technol-
ogy could support their battle with the rival crowd. The
workshop participants created a mockup of a stadium that
had a long ring of lights around the pitch and microphones
that would monitor the noise of the spectator crowds. The
light would change color according to the loudest crowd in
the stadium. As one participant explained ‘‘you compete
among the crowds on who is best [most dominating and
loud crowd].’’ There were some discussions among the
participants on where the ring of lights would be placed,
whether it should be around the pitch or on the edge of the
roof above grand stands so it was more visible. Among
other suggestions, an idea was presented that the stands
should have vibration sensors that would register when the
spectators stamped and large bass speakers that would
amplify the collective stamping to support the collective
feeling of the crowd.
Based on the themes from the field studies, workshop
activities and mockups, and crowd theory, we developed
the concept of supporting the crowds’ performative battle,
as it was a significant motivating aspect of the crowd
experience. The experimental prototype we created was to
a great extent a refinement and further development of the
workshop mockup. We will describe the concept in more
detail in the next section. We took the experimental pro-
totype out of our design lab and tested it in the crowd at the
local football stadium. Aarhus Elite, the local sporting
club, agreed to let us carry out experiments at a series of
football matches in the Danish Premier League for men.
The aim of these experiments was to deploy the experi-
mental prototype called BannerBattle as a research proto-
type exploring technology-supported crowd experiences in
the context of sporting events. In other words, it was an
experiment aimed at exploring technology-supported
crowd experiences in context, rather than testing and
evaluating it as a finalized prototype. The prototype was
explored at three football events at the same stadium, with
an average of 9,000 spectators attending. Our research aim
was to conduct research-through-design inquiries [65] with
the 9,000 spectators, by presenting them with BannerBat-
tle. Observation and semi-structured interviews were sup-
ported by video recordings and field notes. We observed
the spectator crowds by standing next to the pitch and also
from the top of the stand, where we simultaneously could
observe the crowd and the prototype. In this way, we got
observations of the front of the crowd and of the crowd
interacting with the prototype. During the semi-structured
interviews, we asked the spectators to reflect on their
understanding of the good spectator experience, technol-
ogy-supported crowd experiences, and how they experi-
enced the experiment. Most of the interviews were carried
out during halftime and immediately after the three mat-
ches at the stadium. We conducted interviews with both
home and visiting spectators, so both winning and losing
spectators.
4.1 Bannerbattle: the prototype
BannerBattle consists of two eight-meter-long digital
advertising-banner displays, two video cameras and
directional microphones, and three computers to analyze
the data and generate the graphics (see Figs. 3, 4). One
banner faced the home crowd, and the other faced the
visiting crowd. Both banners display identical interfaces
and content. Each crowd of fans was video and audio
recorded.
The video feeds from each of the two cameras were
overlaid with team colors. The audio output from each of
the two directional microphones was analyzed and visual-
ized as an equalizer, placed to separating the two video
feeds on the displays (the black area on the banner, see
Fig. 3).
At the beginning of the match, each spectator crowd has
their video feed displayed on half of the banners. As the
match and cheering progress, each crowd can win more
screen real estate by being louder and more physically
active than the rival crowd. This battle is monitored, ana-
lyzed, and measured in real-time by using motion tracking
in the video feed, and audio analysis.
Pers Ubiquit Comput
123
The intention of the design of BannerBattle was to focus
on crowd experience, rather than on the sport on the pitch to
further the concepts, ideas, and results from the co-design
workshop. We aimed to support crowd experience by staging
and displaying the collective performance of the two crowds
on the banners in a battle against each other on becoming the
most dominating crowd at the stadium. The purpose of dis-
playing both crowds on the banners was twofold: to
emphasize the crowd members’ awareness of being a visu-
ally united entity and to make it possible for both crowds to
be displayed to the rival crowd (see Figs. 3, 5). Both video
feeds were augmented with the team colors, in order to make
the apposing areas clearly identifiable. To support and aug-
ment the collective rhythm of the crowd when singing,
chanting, shouting, or stamping in the stands, we visualized
their sounds and rhythms with an equalizer effect, separating
the two video feeds on the banner.
The input from the video cameras and the microphones
was not a precise way of measuring the activity of the
crowd, but it provided a link to crowd behavior in the
stands during the match. We also aimed to design Ban-
nerBattle to be open to instrumental appropriation [17]
that would invite the spectators to adapt and appropriate
the interaction with the banner in ways they would find
meaningful. During our field studies and our co-design
workshop, we found that the spectators were quite crea-
tive in the new ways of appropriating and bringing dif-
ferent props and materials to the event to support their
chants, songs, and battles with the rival crowd, as in the
episode described above where the spectator crowd
brought inflatable bathing pools at the event to mock the
competitors’ goalkeeper. Therefore, we aimed to design
the instrumentality of BannerBattle to be open to appro-
priation and alternative use by the spectators. We dis-
played the video feed of the two spectator crowds on the
banner. What would be shown, performed, or staged on
the banner through the video feeds, and how, would be
for the crowd to decide.
In the first of the three experiments, there was no
announcement of the banner. Only the participants at the
co-design workshop were informed about the experiment.
This did create some challenges in understanding the
functionality of the banner among some of the spectators
we interviewed after the match. However, before the two
other experiments, in collaboration with the club, we made
an announcement on their website [66] explaining the core
functionality of BannerBattle.
Fig. 3 One of two banners
displaying the two crowds
augmented with team colors
(blue and white, and red and
white), and an equalizer in
between, visualizing their sound
(color figure online)
Fig. 4 One of the video cameras and directional microphones
recording the home crowds at the stand
Pers Ubiquit Comput
123
4.2 Findings from BannerBattle
In the following section, we will draw out points from the
prototype test sessions that were carried out at the three
matches. The data presented here are selected to stage the
discussion to come on how this relates to crowd experi-
ences. The analysis is based on the semi-structured inter-
views at three the football matches and on the observations
of spectators interacting with BannerBattle. We will pres-
ent findings relating to how the shift of the crowds’
attention continuously changed from interacting with the
banner and engaging in the match, the fairness of the battle
between the two crowds, how the crowds appropriated and
made sense of the banner in new and emergent ways, and
some general findings on the experiments.
We experienced how the attention of the crowd shifted
between BannerBattle and the sport itself. The intensity and
excitement of the matches varied a great deal according to
the importance of the match, the relational history of the
two teams, and how entertaining and well played the match
was. We observed comparable episodes during the three
experiments where when the match lost its intensity the
spectator crowd started to interact with BannerBattle. But,
whenever the match regained its intensity or when a par-
ticularly interesting episode occurred in the match, the
spectators immediately stopped the interaction with the
banner. Thus, the spectators only interacted with the banner
when the match was less intense, for example, when the
players were passing the ball around slowly in the middle of
the pitch without direction toward the goal. We observed
how one spectator started to chant while clapping his hands
above his head, which made the spectators next to him
follow and then suddenly everybody in the crowd was
chanting and clapping their hands, which resulted in more
screen area on the banner. But, then, one of the teams ini-
tiated a direct attack toward the goal, which made the crowd
immediately stop interacting with the banner and inten-
sively observe the match. This shift in behavior was com-
mon. With just ‘‘a spark’’ of passion, an act initiated as a
suggestive behavior from one spectator in the crowd seems
to gather others to imitate the same behavior. Nevertheless,
when the ball got closer to a goal, or the referee whistled for
a free, penalty, or corner kick, the spectators immediately
focused on supporting the team with chants, cheers, or
taunts. This shift between supporting the team and inter-
acting with the banner happened multiple times during the
match. However, in the beginning and in the end of each
half of the match, the spectator crowds seemed especially
devoted to support their teams thus most of the interaction
with the banner happened in between these periods.
Several visiting fans that were interviewed found it a bit
unfair that it was quite hard for the visiting crowd to capture
most of the banner because the home crowd would always
be in the majority in the stadium. One visiting spectator
expressed his discontent by stating ‘‘I think we were quite
loud and it [the majority of the screen real estate] did not
come on our side of the banner… you should be sure that the
battle is even to make it fair.’’ The larger home crowd could
chant louder and since the banner did not have a timed reset
function the visiting crowd had difficulties getting back on
the top of the match (see e.g., Fig. 5). This was a potential
risk we discussed during the co-design workshop. However,
the participants explained that the best crowd experiences
are not necessarily about being a superior crowd at the
Fig. 5 Visiting spectators
crowd, displayed in red and
white colors is being pushed
back on the banner by the home
crowd, displayed in blue and
white colors. Separating the two
crowds on the banner is an
equalizer located in the black
area, visualizing the two crowds
audio expanding horizontally
from the center of the black
arena (color figure online)
Pers Ubiquit Comput
123
stadium. The fans explained that they found it highly
engaging to be the minor crowd at an away match. Being an
underdog enhanced their collectiveness and forced them to
stick together in the crowd, singing and chanting the same
things. However, we also experienced at our first experi-
ment that even though it can be engaging to be the minor
visiting crowd, the most engaging moments are when an
even battle is unfolding. In an interview with a home
spectator, he stated ‘‘maybe Esbjerg’s fans [the rival team’s
fans] could get some help or be given a preferential treat-
ment on the banner to make the battle more even.’’ In this
interview, the spectator also expresses a great anticipation
of the next match, as rumors have been that there would be
several thousands visiting spectators. From an experiential
point of view, the event is about the two crowds and their
battle performed with one another.
Even though it can be difficult for the visiting crowd to
gain majority of the banner, we also observed how the
visiting crowd appropriated the banner in a way we had not
expected. In the first experiment, the visiting crowd quite
early realized that it had no chance of beating the larger
home crowd over time. We noticed that the visiting crowd
made a ‘‘surprise attack’’ on the home crowd to gain more
screen real estate. This episode is illustrated in Fig. 6.
Here, the visiting crowd is rather passive and therefore
suppressed on the banner, but they are waiting and saving
their energy to attack the home crowd. Then, suddenly one
guy in the crowd shouts, ‘‘Come on guys!’’ which initiates
the chanting, singing, and dancing in the crowd within a
few seconds. As it is seen in Fig. 6, this collective per-
formance shows its effect at the banner where they gain
more screen real estate from the home crowd. However,
this surprise attack only last a couple of minutes until the
home crowd gather and strike back at the visiting crowd, as
it is seen in the last photo in Fig. 6 where the visiting
crowd have lost what they gained in the battle.
After the match, we interviewed a young visiting
spectator about the episode. He explained that they
waited until the home crowd paused in their chants,
songs, and dances, and then, they collectively started to
battle the home crowd to conquer the majority of the
banner for just a few minutes until the home crowd
struck back at them. He said: ‘‘When they [the home
crowd] are 20 times more than us, it is hard to compete
(…) but we waited until they got quieter, and then we
started.’’ This confirmed what we observed that by col-
lectively gathering singing, chanting, and dancing in the
periods when the home crowd was slacking, the visiting
crowd gained the majority of the banner for a few
minutes. The visiting crowd mostly interacted directly
with BannerBattle in moments where the home crowd
was relaxing and less intense in their chanting perfor-
mance. In those moments, the visiting crowd gathered
together coordinating their chants to catch the home
crowd off guard in order to gain screen real estate on the
banner.
We did not anticipate this pattern of behavior in the
design of the banner, but it illustrates how new ways of
performing and appropriating new technology in the stands
emerged in the crowd. Whether this type of emergent
behavior is solely a result of our employment of Banner-
Battle is open to debate. It is worth noting that this episode
has some similarities to some behaviors we also noticed in
our earlier field studies, where the two crowds were rather
silent and then one crowd initiated their chants and dances
to start the battle. There was an episode where the visiting
crowd was teasing a silent home crowd by chanting ‘‘why
is it so quiet in Aarhus [the home team’s city].’’ Thus, it is
Fig. 6 Photo series of the visiting crowd waiting for the right moment to battle the larger home crowd when they become less intense in their
chants
Pers Ubiquit Comput
123
not that this episode of emergent behavior not could have
happened without BannerBattle. Moreover, it is not nec-
essarily likely to be a recurring pattern of use either. For
example, in the second experiment, when interviewed
about this issue, two visiting fans commented, ‘‘that is just
to bully us… we did not make any collective surprise
attacks nor did we at any time conquer the majority of the
banner.’’ This illustrates how appropriating and making
sense of the banner was done in different ways.
There was a general excitement about BannerBattle
among the crowds that tried it. The visiting spectator
crowd spoke about the positive affect it had on their
engagement because they were a minority and therefore
had to collectively gather in order to beat the home
crowd once in a while. However, one fan that we
interviewed stated a concern with the equalizer visual-
izing the two crowds auditory rhythmic performance, ‘‘I
would have liked a better equalizer that visualized our
audio better… it is not fast enough to catch the changes
[in their rhythms], that would have been great.’’ Fur-
thermore, some spectators found the banner a bit hard to
understand because of two issues. First, some spectators
had a hard time seeing the banner from the back of the
top stand. The banner was too small with too much
graphical detail on it for them to fully understand its
functionality. Second, we aimed at designing the banner
and the interaction style rather open-ended. Open-ended
in regard to how the crowds would interact with the
banner, appropriate, and make sense of it. It had no
procedural interactional structure with a beginning and
end. BannerBattle augmented the immediate state of the
crowds by displaying the video feed of each crowd, and
it was up to the spectators themselves to decide and
experiment with how and what they would show to the
video camera. One spectator said in an interview, ‘‘It is
cool, but you have to get to know the concept a bit…But it is new and it could have a positive effect [on the
atmosphere].’’ The open-ended interaction style also had
benefits as illustrated in the example above, with the
visiting crowd’s tactic for momentarily winning. The
spectators we interviewed generally expressed a great
excitement for the concept and its further potential and
its support for improving the atmosphere. One of the
participants from the workshop said in an interview after
the first experiment at the stadium, ‘‘It is greater than I
expected it to be, even though it can be quite hard to see
yourself on the banner from the back of the stand…, but
I think that having the blue and white colors is quite
cool [the club colors that augmented the video feed (see
e.g., Fig. 5)].’’ Even though we observed only a modest
number of episodes of crowds appropriating and exper-
imenting with the banner in new emergent ways in the
three sporting events, there were definite signs of the
potential of such an open, performative system to attract
and influence the crowd’s emergent behavior.
5 Discussion
BannerBattle was our first attempt to design an experi-
mental prototype that aimed to explore crowd experiences
with interactive technology. Our deployment of Banner-
Battle was the materialization of our explorations of crowd
experience. BannerBattle addressed imitation and emer-
gence as the key experiential qualities of crowd experience
that we have been exploring. We saw in our observations
how the spectator crowd was collectively engaged with
interacting with the banner. Collectively singing, chanting,
and dancing, BannerBattle functioned as a display for the
crowd where their performance was displayed for them-
selves and for the opposing crowd. This fostered the
emergence of imitative behaviors in the crowd to win more
screen area on the banner.
The color filtered live video feed of the two crowds
supported coherence in the crowd emphasizing the col-
lective performance of the crowd rather than individual
spectator. Each crowd got a coherent visual identity, a
united whole. BannerBattle aimed to support spectators
to become active fans, part of the performative crowd
identity rather than just a collection of individuals. We
acknowledge that in some sense, the crowd consists of
individuals. As Reeves et al. [7] have argued, even
though a football supporter takes part in a crowd, he or
she is still an individual, as can be seen for example when
they customize their jerseys to stand out in the crowd.
However, our aim with BannerBattle was to explore the
experiential qualities of being an individual taking part of
a crowd that overwhelms any sense of individuality. The
spectators’ experiences recounted in interviews suggests
some value in seeing this experience in terms of Bakh-
tin’s [37] carnivalesque experience, where people dress-
ing up and wearing masks are seen as performing
creatively by trying on different identities to escape from
their everyday identity for a while. The visiting crowds
inventive use of lulls in the home fans performance to
express their identity as other is a case in point. In the
crowd, spectators feel a sense of liberating freedom from
their everyday life, not because it necessarily is an
undesired life, but being a part of the united whole of the
crowd provides the spectators with an opportunity to
explore and actively perform the collective identity of the
crowd, for a moment, and then to return to their everyday
life [55]. Sport fans do live their fan identity in their
everyday life with their social networks, friendship, and
workplace [67, 68]. We recognize that fandom can be an
inherent part of some spectators everyday lives; however,
Pers Ubiquit Comput
123
we point to the spatial qualities of being collocated in a
crowd as a significant feeling for the crowd. During an
interview with a fan he said ‘‘when you are a part of the
crowd, supporting your team, everybody is equal no
matter gender, education, or economy, which is a unique
feeling.’’ The feeling of being a part of a crowd as a
united whole provides potential for a liberating crowd
experience of equality and unity among its participants.
BannerBattle is in many ways an interesting experi-
mental design prototype in the sense that it addresses a
novel perspective on technology-supported spectator
experiences at sporting events. As argued here, current
interactive technologies have a strong focus on augmenting
the sport itself with information about the sport on large
displays for people to consume or on mobile phones [e.g.,
33, 44]. We find that the novelty of BannerBattle is in the
perspective on spectator and crowd experience manifest in
the design. First of all, we have in this paper and during the
BannerBattle project explored spectators at sporting events
as active participants in meaningful unsanitized crowds.
When we talk about spectators as participating in crowds,
we emphasize that part of participation that involves being
part of the performative crowd that constitutes for many the
sporting event [55]. The spectators want to be ‘‘players of
the event’’ [28] and want their performance to contribute to
the sporting event [69]. Second, we have explored spec-
tator experiences from a conceptual understanding based
on crowd theory and a pragmatist perspective on experi-
ences as a phenomenon that are actively created rather than
simply passively consumed. Thus, with BannerBattle, we
aimed at designing interactive technology that supported
the spectator crowds with the opportunities to actively
engage in the crowd experience as an alternative to most
technological systems at sporting events today.
As we have stated earlier, the novelty of BannerBattle is
not in the technological system or implementation. Ban-
nerBattle was an experimental prototype designed to gen-
erate knowledge about crowd experiences at sporting
events. This has resulted in three novel experiments at
sporting events and a perspective on technology-supported
spectator experiences where the collective experience of
the fan at the stadium has been explored. As designing
interactive technology for the distinctiveness of crowd
experiences is in its early stages, we see BannerBattle as a
first attempt to address and establish an understanding of
crowds as distinct in their extremely imitative and emer-
gent sociality. Therefore, the understanding of crowd
experience established here should be seen as a step to
establish an awareness of crowd experiences. We see
crowd experiences as a generative concept that interaction
designers can benefit from exploring when designing for
contexts such as concerts, festival, and urban spaces where
people actively participate in creating a crowds. With
BannerBattle, we have illustrated how interactive tech-
nology for crowd experiences at professionalized sporting
events can stage crowd performances through the key
dynamics—imitation and invention—without compromis-
ing safety or commercial interests in the sporting event.
BannerBattle succeeded momentarily in supporting the
performative crowd by turning noise into a coherent voice
of the crowd.
Acknowledgments This research has been supported by Aarhus
University’s interdisciplinary research center Participatory IT, PIT.
BannerBattle was developed in the iSport project, under ISIS2. We
would like to thank our colleagues, who have helped with the project
at the Centre for Interactive Spaces. We thank Aarhus Elite for their
willingness to participate in our experiment, and interviewees and
workshop participants for contributing knowledge to the project.
References
1. Rogers Y, Lindley S (2004) Collaborating around vertical and
horizontal large interactive displays: which way is best? Interact
Comput 16:1133–1152. doi:10.1016/j.intcom.2004.07.008
2. Grudin J (1994) Groupware and social dynamics: eight chal-
lenges for developers. Commun ACM 10(1145/175222):175230
3. Stewart J, Bederson BB, Druin A (1999) Single display group-
ware: a model for co-present collaboration. In: Proceedings of the
CHI ‘99. ACM Press, New York, pp 286–293
4. Carroll JM (2012) The neighborhood in the internet: design
research projects in community informatics, 1st edn. Routledge,
New York
5. Kaye J’ (2006) I just clicked to say I love you. In: Proceedings of
the CHI EA ‘06. ACM Press, New York, pp 363–368
6. Go K, Carroll J, Imamiya A (2000) Familyware. In: IFIP ‘00.
Springer, Boston, pp 125–140
7. Reeves S, Sherwood S, Brown B (2010) Designing for crowds.
In: Proceedings of the NordiCHI ‘10. ACM Press, New York,
pp 393–402
8. Benford S, Crabtree A, Reeves S et al (2006) The frame of the
game: blurring the boundary between fiction and reality in mobile
experiences. In: Proceedings of the CHI ‘06. ACM Press, New
York, pp 427–436
9. Dalsgaard P, Dindler C, Eriksson E (2008) Designing for par-
ticipation in public knowledge institutions. In: Proceedings of the
NordiCHI ‘08. ACM Press, New York
10. Sheridan JG, Dix A, Lock S, Bayliss A (2005) Understanding
interaction in ubiquitous guerrilla performances in playful arenas.
In: Fincher S, Markpolulos P, Moore D, Ruddle R (eds) People
and computers XVIII—design for Life. Springer, London,
pp 3–17
11. Paulos E, Goodman E (2004) The familiar stranger. In: Pro-
ceedings of the CHI (EA) ‘04. ACM Press, New York,
pp 223–230
12. Fisher K, Counts S, Kittur A (2012) Distributed sensemaking:
improving sense making by leveraging the efforts of previous
users. In: Proceedings of the CHI ‘12. ACM Press, New York,
pp 247–256
13. Massung E, Coyle D, Cater KF, et al (2013) Using crowdsourcing
to support pro-environmental community activism. In: Proceed-
ings of the CHI ‘13. ACM Press, New York, pp 371–380
14. Greenberg MD, Hui J, Gerber E (2013) Crowdfunding. In: Pro-
ceedings of the CHI EA ‘13. ACM Press, New York, pp 883–888
Pers Ubiquit Comput
123
15. McCarthy J, Wright P (2004) Technology as experience. MIT
Press, Cambridge
16. Wright P, McCarthy J (2010) Experience-centered design:
designers, users, and communities in dialogue. Morgan &
Claypool
17. Petersen MG, Iversen OS, Krogh PG, Ludvigsen M (2004)
Aesthetic interaction: a pragmatist’s aesthetics of interactive
systems. In: Proceedings of the DIS ‘04. ACM Press, New York,
pp 269–276
18. Forlizzi J, Ford S (2000) The building blocks of experience: an
early framework for interaction designers. In: Proceedings of the
DIS ‘00. ACM Press, New York, pp 419–423
19. Forlizzi J, Battarbee K (2004) Understanding experience in
interactive systems. In: Proceedings of the DIS ‘04. ACM Press,
New York, pp 261–268
20. Bødker S (2006) When second wave HCI meets third wave
challenges. In: Proceedings of the NordiCHI ‘06. ACM Press,
New York, pp 1–8
21. Dewey J (1997) Experience and education. Touchstone, New
York
22. Shedroff N (2001) Experience design. New Riders pub.,
Indianapolis
23. Battarbee K (2003) Co-Experience: the social user experience. In:
Proceedings of the CHI (EA) ‘03. ACM Press, New York,
pp 730–731
24. Battarbee K, Koskinen I (2005) Co-experience: user experience
as interaction. CoDesign 1:5–18
25. Battarbee K (2003) Defining co-experience. In: Proceedings of
the DPPI ‘03. ACM Press, New York, pp 109–113
26. Battarbee K (2007) Co-experience: product experience as social
interaction. In: Schifferstein HNJ, Hekker P (eds) Product expe-
rience. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 461–477
27. Guttmann A (2006) Sports crowds. In: Schnapp JT, Tiews M
(eds) Crowds. Stanford University Press, Stanford, pp 111–132
28. Rinehart RE (1998) Players all: performance in contemporary
sport. Indiana University Press, Bloomington
29. Ludvigsen M, Veerasawmy R (2010) Designing technology for
active spectator experiences at sporting events. In: Proceedings of
the OZCHI ‘10. ACM Press, New York, pp 96–103
30. Esbjornsson M, Brown B, Juhlin O et al (2006) Watching the cars
go round and round: designing for active spectating. In: Pro-
ceedings of the CHI ‘06. ACM Press, New York, pp 1221–1224
31. Jacucci G, Oulasvirta A, Salovaara A (2006) Active construction
of experience through mobile media: a field study with implica-
tions for recording and sharing. Pers Ubiquit Comput
11:215–234. doi:10.1007/s00779-006-0084-5
32. Jacucci G, Oulasvirta A, Ilmonen T, et al (2007) Comedia:
mobile group media for active spectatorship. In: Proceedings of
the CHI ‘07. ACM Press, New York, pp 1273–1282
33. Bentley F, Groble M (2009) TuVista: meeting the multimedia
needs of mobile sports fans. In: Proceedings of the MM ‘09.
ACM Press, New York, pp 471–480
34. Giulianotti R (1999) Football: a sociology of the global game.
Polity Press, Cambridge
35. Kratzmuller B (2010) Show yourself to the people! In: Frank S,
Steets S (eds) Stadium worlds. Routledge, New York, pp 36–55
36. Clarke J (1978) Football and working class fans: tradition and
change. In: Ingham R, Hall S, Clarke J et al (eds) Football
hooliganism: the wider context. Inter-Action Inprint, London,
pp 37–60
37. Bakhtin M (1984) Rabelais and his world. Indiana University
Press, Bloomington
38. Crabbe T, Brown A (2004) ‘You‘re not welcome anymore’: the
football crowd, class and social exclusion. In: Wagg S (ed)
British football and social exclusion. Routledge, Abingdon,
pp 26–46
39. Bale J (1993) Sport, space and the city. Blackburn Press, NJ
40. Crawford G (2004) Consuming sport: fans, sport and culture.
Routledge, New York
41. Raitz KB (1995) The theater of sport. John Hopkins University
Press, London
42. Oriard M (1981) Professional football as cultural myth. J Am
Cult 4:27–41. doi:10.1111/j.1542-734X.1981.0403_27.x
43. Bale J (2000) The changing face of football: stadiums and com-
munities. Soccer Soc 1:91–101. doi:10.1080/14660970008721251
44. Ault A, Krogmeier JV, Dunlop SR, Coyle EDJ (2008) eStadium:
the mobile wireless football experience. In: Proceedings of the
ICIW ‘08. IEEE, pp 644–649
45. Storm RK, Brandt HH (2008) Idræt og Sport I Den Danske
Oplevelsesøkonomi—Mellem Forening og Forretning. Imagine..
og Samfundslitteratur, Gylling, Denmark
46. King A (1998) The end of the terraces: the transformation of
English football in the 1990s. Leicester University Press, London
47. Brown A (1998) United we stand—some problems with fan
democracy. In: Brown A (ed) Fanatics! Power, identity, and
fandom in football. Routledge, New York, pp 50–67
48. Taylor J (1989) Hillsborough stadium disaster inquiry—interim
report. Secretary of State for the Home Department, London
49. Relph E (1981) Rational landscapes and humanistic geography.
Croom Helm, London
50. King A (2010) The new European stadium. In: Frank S, Steets S
(eds) Stadium worlds. Routledge, New York, pp 19–35
51. de Tarde G (1962) The laws of imitation, 2nd edn. Henry Holt,
New York
52. de Tarde G (1899) Social laws—an outline of sociology. Mac-
millan, New York
53. de Tarde G (1968) Penal philosophy. William Heinemann,
London
54. Le Bon G (2001) The crowd—a study of the poplar mind. Bat-
oche Books, Kitchener
55. Canetti E (1984) Crowds and power, 1st edn. Farrar, Straus and
Giroux, New York
56. Borch C (2009) Out of sight, out of mind: on the power/knowl-
edge of crowds and atmospheres. In: Strategic unknowns: the
usefulness of ambiguity and ignorance in organizational life
2009. Oxford, pp 1–22
57. Borch C (2005) Urban imitations: Tarde’s sociology revisited.
Theory Cult Soc 22:81–100. doi:10.1177/0263276405053722
58. Sloterdijk P (2008) Foam city. Distinkt Scand J Social Theory
9:47–59. doi:10.1080/1600910X.2008.9672955
59. Sampson TD (2012) Virality: contagion theory in the age of
networks. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis
60. Veerasawmy R, Iversen OS (2012) BannerBattle—introducing
crowd experience to interaction design. In: Proceedings of the
NordiCHI ‘12. ACM Press, New York, pp 228–237
61. Flick U (2005) An introduction to qualitiative research, 2nd edn.
Sage, London
62. Blomberg J, Giacomi J, Mocher A, Swenton-Wall P (1993) Et-
nographic field methods and their relation to design. In: Schuler
D, Namioka A (eds) Participatory design: principles and prac-
tices. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 123–155
63. Bødker S, Christiansen E (1997) Scenarios as springboards in
CSCW design. In: Bowker GC, Star SL, Turner W, Gasser L (eds)
Social science, technical systems, and cooperative work: beyond
the great divide. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp 217–233
64. Ehn P, Kyng M (1991) Cardboard computers: mocking-it-up or
hands-on the future. In: Greenbaum J, Kyng M (eds) Design at
work: cooperative design of computer systems. Lawrence Erl-
baum, Hillsdale, pp 169–195
65. Zimmerman J, Forlizzi J, Evenson S (2007) Research through
design as a method for interaction design research in HCI. In:
Proceedings of the CHI ‘07. ACM Press, New York, pp 483–502
Pers Ubiquit Comput
123
66. Jensen B (2009) BannerBattle til AGF-BIF. http://www.agffod
bold.dk/agf-fodbold/nyhedsarkiv/2009/2-kvartal/bannerbattle-til-
agf-bif/?page=0. Accessed 30 Aug 2013
67. Giulianotti R (2002) Supporters, followers, fans, and flaneurs: a
taxonomy of spectator identities in football. J Sport Soc Issues
26:25–46. doi:10.1177/0193723502261003
68. Stone C (2007) The role of football in everyday life. Soccer Soc
8:169–184. doi:10.1080/14660970701224319
69. Fiske J (1992) The cultural economy of fandom. In: Lewis LA
(ed) The adoring audience: fan culture and popular media.
Routledge, London, pp 30–49
Pers Ubiquit Comput
123
Recommended