Collaborative analysis framework for evaluating interactive art experience

Published in: Bilda, Z., Costello, B., Amitani, S (2006) “Collaborative Analysis Framework for Evaluating Interactive Art Experience”, Journal of Codesign vol.2 no.4, Taylor and Francis: UK, pp.225-238.

Collaborative Analysis Framework for Evaluating Interactive Art Experience

ZAFER BILDA†*, BRIGID COSTELLO‡ AND SHIGEKI AMITANI†.

†Creativity & Cognition Studios, University of Technology Sydney, PO Box 123, Broadway NSW 2007 Australia ‡ School of Media, Film & Theatre, University of New South Wales, Sydney NSW 2052, Australia.

*Corresponding Author. Email: [email protected]

Abstract

This paper describes a collaboration that resulted in the development of a coding scheme for the analysis of interactive art experience. The collaboration involved a multidisciplinary team of analysts who went through an iterative process of coding development in order to reach agreement on what to code, how to code and what to expect from the outcomes. The paper discusses the influence that this collaborative process had on the final scheme and provides a general description of the coding scheme. The paper concludes with a discussion of the potential value of the scheme for the analysis of interactive art experience.

Keywords: interactive art, cognitive model, collaboration, exhibition context, protocol analysis

1 Introduction

Beta_space is an exhibition space for interactive art situated within a large science and technology museum in Australia. The space is curated by members of the Creativity and Cognition Studios (CCS), a multi-disciplinary practice-led research group in digital media and the arts. Beta_space provides a public context for artists and researchers to conduct research into artworks that may be at various stages of completion, from early draft to fully functioning work. There are several collaborations involved in this research, for example, collaborations between university and museum, between artist and public, between researcher and artist and between researcher and researcher. This paper is concerned with a collaboration that took place between the members of what became known as the Beta_space coding team. This coding team was formed after case studies had been conducted on four different interactive artworks at Beta_space. The team’s main aim was to develop a generic scheme of codes that would enable present and future CCS researchers to conduct comparative analyses between the artworks that might be researched in the space. This paper details the collaborative process that the team went through in developing their scheme and describes the final scheme that they arrived at. The paper concludes with a discussion of the potential uses of the scheme as a tool for analysis. The process of developing a coding scheme is not one that is often described in detail in published papers. It is a process that involves much debate, deliberation and questioning of assumptions before the team arrives at the shared understandings that the final codes represent. This process and any iterative changes that are made to codes can be extremely revealing of the conceptual frameworks that underpin a final scheme. We present

Collaborative Analysis Framework

this account of our process then, not only as an example of an interesting collaboration but also so that others may develop a more complex understanding of the scheme itself.

2 The Case Studies

The four case studies that were used to develop and test the coding scheme were conducted at Beta_space between November 2004 and February 2006. Each study was conducted on a single interactive artwork with each of the works being produced by a different artist (or artists in some cases). Although the studies each recruited different types of participants and had a diverse range of research goals they all used the same method of data collection. It was this similarity in data collection method, exhibition context and area of research that lead us to consider approaches to conducting a comparative analysis across the four cases. This section describes each of the case studies that were conducted at Beta_space on the four artworks, Iamascope, Absolute 4.5, Cardiomorphologies and Sonic Tai Chi. The section finishes with an outline of the common data collection method used for all of the artworks.

2.1 Iamascope

Iamascope was created by Canadian artist Sidney Fels. It was the first work to be exhibited in Beta_space and, unlike the other cases, is a completed artwork that has been internationally exhibited. Interacting with Iamascope creates kaleidoscopic images that are triggered by movement in front of a video camera. The kaleidoscope reflects back an abstracted portrait of the participant and the speed and frequency of the participant’s movement produces a varying range of musical notes to accompany this changing image. Fels has been exploring intimacy and embodiment between people and objects for the last 10 years. His model of the aesthetics of interaction is divided into the four categories of response, control, contemplation and belonging, a categorisation that was based on his observations of Iamascope in various exhibition contexts (Fels 2000). Our case study of Iamascope sought to more deeply analyse this work in light of these four categories and to reveal some detail about the interrelationships between them (Costello et al. 2005). This first case study also acted as a pilot for the development and testing of data collection methods within a public art exhibition context. Video-cued recall augmented by an informal interview was chosen as the method that best suited our research context. The participants used in the Iamascope study were non-expert users recruited prior to their visit to the museum.

2.2 Absolute_4.5

Created by long-time collaborators Ernest Edmonds and Mark Fell Absolute 4.5 is an art system that reacts to people but that also generates its own behaviour with or without an audience. The work is comprised of a large screen with a changing grid of colours accompanied by a complex sound track and controlled by a generative set of rules carried out by a computer. As the audience approaches the screen Absolute 4.5 detects their presence through sensors in the floor. Aspects of the system's behaviour, such as its rate of change, are influenced by audience behaviour in the space. Absolute 4.5 was a draft version of the artwork Absolute_5 that the artists went on to exhibit at a major Australian art gallery in August 2005. The artists used the exhibition opportunity at Beta_space to test and refine the work based on their own observations of audience responses and on the detailed data that was

Z. Bilda, B. Costello and S. Amitani

collected during the case study (Edmonds & Muller 2006). This case study recruited a group of expert participants prior to their visit to the museum.

2.3 Cardiomorphologies

This work, by artist George Khut, is an interactive installation that uses heart and breath sensors in conjunction with multimedia technologies to create real-time visual and sonic representations of an audience member’s breath and heart rate. During their interaction with Cardiomorphologies participants are encouraged to use the work as a feedback system to observe and experiment with their own breath and heart-rate patterning. By the time Cardiomorphologies was exhibited at Beta-space it had already undergone several draft testing phases in other less public contexts and was close to completion. Beta-space allowed the artist to observe a diverse general public interacting with his work (Muller et al. 2006). The case study that was conducted on Cardiomorphologies used participants recruited from the public who were visiting the museum and these included both expert and non-expert users.

2.4 Sonic Tai Chi

The creators of Sonic Tai Chi, Joanne Jakovich and Kirsty Beilharz, were motivated by a desire to understand how digitally generated spatial elements, such as sound and image, could be controlled by users of a space to create novel environments. The artwork is a responsive space, with movement leaving traces of colour and sound. The speed and direction of a participant’s movement within Sonic Tai Chi creates different aural and visual effects and allows them to create or destroy colonies of artificial creatures. This was an early version of this artwork and its exhibition at Beta_space was used to test audience responses and to refine the artists’ understandings of the environmental experience that their work created. The case study on this work recruited expert and non-expert participants from visitors who were already inside the museum.

2.5 Data Collection

For each of the case studies the data collection process began with the video-recording of a participant’s interaction with the artwork. For privacy reasons we did not allow the general public to enter while the camera was recording. This meant that, apart from the person operating the camera, participants were alone in the space while data was being collected. The participants each spent roughly between 4-10 minutes interacting with the exhibit and left when they decided they had had enough. For the next stage of data collection participants were taken into a private room nearby. The video footage of their interaction was replayed to them on a computer screen and they were asked to report retrospectively on what they had been thinking whilst they were interacting. Participants were asked to try to recall only what they were thinking at the time and to refrain from making evaluations. There was approximately an 8-12 minute gap between the participants experiencing the exhibit and then giving their verbal reports. After each participant had completed his or her retrospective report we conducted a brief informal interview. Participants were asked if they had any opinions they wished to express about the exhibit and, depending on their answers, some further questions were asked. Finally, in cases where participants were recruited from


existing museum visitors, they were asked several questions designed to ascertain their level of expertise. The whole data collection process took around 45 minutes per participant.

3 Developing an Analysis Framework

The Beta_space coding group was formed after the first three of these case studies had been completed. Its members included the three CCS researchers who had been in charge of the first three studies, a researcher who was heavily involved in the coding of other CCS research data and a new member of CCS who had extensive experience in the coding of design protocols. Each of the five researchers came from a different disciplinary background and, therefore, as a group they had a variable range of experience with the interactive art context, the data collection methods and the process of coding. The group aimed to develop a common coding scheme that could be applied across the different artworks exhibited at Beta_space. This was in order to enable comparative analyses to be made between artworks. The scheme was not intended to control or override any individual research agendas for a particular artwork but rather to be a generic base level of codes that could be augmented with other more specific codes as needed. This section describes the process the group went through to develop the generic coding scheme. It begins by describing the three key factors that heavily influenced the first design of the scheme; namely, the multidisciplinary backgrounds of the group members, the scheme’s framing concepts and resources and the choice of an analysis software tool. The section finishes with a description of the cyclic process of coding development.

3.1 Multidisciplinary Approach

There were two main disciplinary groupings within the collaborators of the Beta-space coding group. Those members who had a background in the production of interactive art and who came from a humanities research tradition and those members who had a background in the analysis of creative process and who came from a science research tradition. This difference in research backgrounds was an immediate cause of debate and questioning of assumptions amongst the collaborators. Those from the humanities tradition mistrusted quantitative analysis, highly valued qualitative analysis and were wary of the loss of contextual detail and meaning that could occur when data is coded. Those from the science tradition highly valued the coding method, wanted to see results that were supported by quantitative strength and were wary of researcher’s interpretations obscuring the primary data. Several discussions arose about areas that may have passed without comment in a less multidisciplinary group. These areas of debate included; the distinction between observation and interpretation, the value of a large data set and even debates about the purpose and value of coding. These debates helped the collaborators to develop a shared language with some of the compromises that were reached being visible in the current coding scheme. The individual research goals of each of the collaborators were an additional influence on the coding scheme. One member, for example, is a curator interested in interactive artworks that reflect the participant in some way. For this member it was important that the scheme allowed us to code evidence of the participant’s understanding about the relationship between themselves and the artwork. Another member is an interactive artist with an interest in the relationship between play and exploration. This member was keen for the scheme to try to categorize these areas. Two other members were researchers driven by an interest in the development


of generic coding schemes from a cognitive science perspective. Their influence on the shape of the scheme is discussed further in the section below.

3.2 Analysis framework

The first version of our generic coding scheme developed out of three key framing concepts and resources. Firstly, the scheme was influenced by a cognitive model derived from studies of the creative design process. Secondly, the scheme was shaped by the context that each artwork is unique, we refer to this notion as artwork context. And thirdly, the scheme was in part inspired by a coding scheme that was devised during the pilot study, evaluation of Iamascope (Costello et al. 2005).

3.2.1 The cognitive model: Two members of the group already had extensive experience with the coding of protocols from design contexts (Amitani & Hori 2002, Bilda & Gero 2004). In this previous work they had each applied a cognitive model based on an information processing perspective in design cognition (Suwa, Purcell & Gero 1998). This model classified the cognitive activity into four categories which refer to modes of interaction at physical, perceptual, functional, and conceptual levels. Bilda and Gero (2004) applied this coding scheme to the analysis of mental representations of architects, and added a fifth category that they termed Recall. After discussion of this model within the coding group we chose to base part of our generic coding scheme for interactive art experience on four of these categories; physical, perceptual, conceptual and recall. The functional category was not included because it was seen as only applicable within a design context.

3.2.2 Exhibition Context The theories of situated action (Suchman 1987), situated cognition (Clancey 1997) and activity theory (Nardi 1998) emphasize the important role that situation plays in human consciousness. These theories were a key driving force behind the creation of Beta_space where researchers and artists are provided not with a sterile laboratory but with a context that includes the public environment of an art gallery (Muller & Edmonds 2006). The observed audience experiences are therefore complicated by the social situations of a real-world exhibition environment. Artworks, for example, compete for attention with other exhibits, audience responses can be influenced by exhibits they have already seen and the presence of other people may inhibit or impact the range of interactions that an individual carries out. In keeping with the situated activity approach, we tried to ensure that we addressed these complexities of the Beta-space, within our analysis framework. Four components were identified as key elements of our exhibition context: 1. Artist’s aims: The artist’s philosophy, intentions and expectations of how audience will

experience the artwork. 2. Components of installation: Unique combination of the tools, equipment and objects used within

the specific artwork as installed. 3. Individuality of experience: An individual ’s background, expertise area, culture, age, gender etc.

have an impact on her/his artwork experience. 4. Social interaction: Other people present in the environment, who may exist as part of the context

but not interact, who may intervene or who may interact with the individual.


There were different levels of complexity within these four components in each study. For example, each artwork had a quite different artist’s aims and components of installation. These two elements remained same within a single case (the artwork under observation), however, in some cases (e.g. Absolute 4.5) the artist’s aims and the installation itself developed and transformed throughout the process of testing. Wide variations also existed in the background and expertise of the individuals who participated in the case studies (see section 2 above) and this had a significant impact on the type of information they revealed in their retrospective reports. The museum environment with its variable flow of visitors, changing exhibitions and widely variable soundscape also added a further layer of complexity to the analysis framework. The coding scheme is used to analyse artwork experience at the individual participant level. The scheme itself takes into consideration the temporality of the activities/ experiences that take place in the exhibition space. The information related to exhibition context for each case is collated in a spreadsheet before coding begins and has a framing influence on any consequent analysis.

3.2.3 Iamascope coding scheme The coding scheme that was developed for the Iamascope pilot study (Costello et al. 2005) (see section 2.1) influenced our coding scheme in two ways. Firstly, some of the codes themselves were incorporated into the first version of our generic scheme. These were codes that distinguished between different types of movement, that categorised references to the self and self-knowledge, that differentiated between goals and questions and that identified the final moment of disengagement from the artwork. These codes were developed and transformed in later versions of our scheme. For example, the movement codes were collapsed into one generic category and the disengagement code was broadened to cover any moment of disengagement that might occur within an experience. Secondly, the coding scheme was influenced by an object relation theory developed by Iamascope’s artist Sidney Fels (Fels 2000). His conception of the relationship between an object and the self is divided into a set of four relations. Although we did not explicitly use these four types of object/self relations, we have ensured that our codes classify the self and the objects around the self in detail. Our code category relating to states of the self, for example, contains six sub-categories and our category relating to objects around the self contains seven sub-categories. This detail gives researchers the potential to apply Fels’ object relation theory within their analysis.

3.3 Software support for video analysis

The video-cued recall method of data collection produced large amount of video data for analysis. Transcribing the retrospective reports also gave us textual data that needed to be analysed in tandem with this video. We needed a software tool for handling and analysing all this data and one that would make the analysis process rigorous, automated and more reliable. One of the group members had previously conducted a survey of video analysis software (Candy et al. 2004) and recommended INTERACT as an appropriate tool for this kind of study. INTERACT was particularly useful for our study because it allowed video data to be analysed together with transcribed documents. It also supported a collaborative analysis process by giving each analyst access to the segmented protocol, its associated video piece and any associated text within the one interface. In our research into interactive art experience, we were particularly interested in observing any behavioural patterns that occurred across the whole timeline of an experience. With INTERACT it was easy to either obtain a mapping


of the behavioural patterns along a timeline of the activity or to view the percentage of time spent in each code category. The use of INTERACT as a software tool, however, did have an effect on the shape of our coding scheme. INTERACT prefers a maximum of two tiers only in any code hierarchy. This constraint discouraged us from creating a third tier for any code structure and as a result possibly lead to the creation of more first level codes.

3.4 The Coding Cycle

Our process of developing the coding scheme started with understanding the protocols and inspecting the commonalities between them. The second stage was building up our research focus, that is what questions we are interested in. The rest of the process is cyclic and it is composed of: (1) drafting a coding scheme; (2) applying the scheme to a real data; and (3) discussing the coding results and (4) Updating/revising the coding scheme . This process was repeated until the analysts reached a consensus. Figure 1 shows this cyclic process.

Figure 1 The flow of coding development Coding scheme development was a spiral-up process (Figure 2). The more the process is repeated, the more the coding scheme was improved. We began by brainstorming on our particular research objectives, then we discussed and categorized them. A conceptual map was drawn up that detailed what each researcher was interested in finding in the data. Then these free-floating conceptual nodes were fitted into the cognitive model under the different modes of interaction: physical, perceptual, conceptual and recall. Finally each category was refined and revised, to include the codes necessary to represent and reveal the important aspects of the interactive experience.


Codes from our previous coding scheme for Iamascope were also collaboratively selected and classified into the current coding scheme categories. As the aim was to develop a generic coding scheme for investigating audience experiences in interactive art systems, some codes too specific to Iamascope were modified. In keeping with considerations on artwork context, we then brainstormed a comprehensive set of codes that could detail the contextual environment around the participant. These codes were divided between two categories relating to the self and the object of attention. This brainstorming process lead to the development of the first version of the coding scheme (Figure 2).

Figure 2 The process of refining the codes The codes were then developed further through a two stage iterative process. This involved the application of the codes to the protocol data by two different coders, followed by the discussions on the robustness of the codes (whether we build up a common understanding for each code) and then by adjustments being made to the coding scheme. In the first stage of development the scheme was applied to excerpts of the interactive art experience protocols. This first stage revealed some initial problems with the scheme. Codes that were meant to be exclusive were found to both apply to the same protocol segment and so were revised with a view to improving their exclusivity. Other codes stimulated debates about the amount of interpretation required to apply them and were simplified so as to reduce interpretive influence. Some codes were thought to be too specific to a particular artwork and were deleted. The codes relating to physical movements of the body, for example, were reduced to two; movement and stillness. This collaborative process resulted in the second version of the coding scheme. In the second stage, this second coding scheme was applied to one complete protocol of each of the four case studies. Each protocol was coded by two analysts. Then these two sets of codes were arbitrated, wherein the


two coders compare and discuss their results before arriving at a final agreement. This arbitration process resulted in a final round of adjustments being made to the coding scheme. It was agreed at this stage to make a distinction between observed data and reported data. Observed data refers only to physically observable actions without interpretation. For example, if a participant runs across Beta_space, it is possible for an analyst to "interpret" that this participant is trying to find out the speed sensitivity of the sensor. However, if the participant’s verbal report does not explicitly indicate this explanation, the analyst would code only the physical action. Another change that occurred at this stage was the decision to provide more detail in the perceptual category by developing separate codes for the visual and aural aspects of the work. This perceptual category already contained a code that could be applied to any data that referred to the relationship between objects in the artwork. However, there was no code that could be applied when participants referred to the relationship between themselves and the work. An additional code was therefore added to the self category to cover any data relating to self-artwork interactive relations. A final meeting of the whole group confirmed these new changes and resulted in the production of the third and current scheme. This scheme is outlined in total in Table 1 below. It should be noted that the development of this scheme is still continuing. Members of the group are now applying the scheme within full-scale analyses and we envisage that these may result in further refinement.

4 The Coding Scheme

This section briefly describes the codes within our third and current scheme (Table 1). The scheme is divided into the seven categories of physical, purpose, state, object, perceptual, conceptual, and recall. The physical category is for the coding of any observed behaviors of participants in the space. For example, walking back and forth, waving hands, breathing and any other actions related to the body. This category also codes passive actions such as staring, holding the body still or holding the breath. These observed actions are generally coded directly from the video data and are only coded when the participant is engaged with the artwork (i.e. not when they are reading any signage). In some artworks the type of physical interaction may not be easily observable from the video, for example the breathing interaction in Cardiomorphologies. In these cases, physical actions are coded from information gained from the participant’s report. For every physical action there is an associated purpose or intention of that action. This information is revealed only in participants’ retrospective reports and is coded in the purpose category. In keeping with our generic intentions, this category contains only two codes, trying to discover and trying to control. Trying to discover refers to an exploratory state, where the participant is learning the capabilities of the artwork. Trying to control refers to a participant’s intention to cause or maintain a desired effect on the artwork and occurs when he or she is more familiar with the system. These two categories relate to the distinction behavioural theory makes between investigative exploration (what can the object do?) and diverse exploration (what can I do with the object?) (Hutt 1985).


Table 1: The Coding Scheme

Participants frequently described how they felt and what state they were in during their experience of an artwork. The states category divides these descriptions into six codes. There is a code for emotion (e.g. I felt scared), a code for any descriptions of a sensation (e.g. I could hear my heartbeat) and a code for any general participant state descriptions (e.g. I was cold). The participant’s movement into and out of engagement with the work is also coded, as is their being in the state of reading or listening to external information about the


artwork. The final code in this category relates to participants describing themselves as realising or noticing something about the artwork. In the pilot study it was noted that this state is often associated with participants shifting from performing actions related to trying to discover to performing actions aimed at trying to control. The object category codes any objects or people that are mentioned by the participant during their retrospective report. There are seven codes in this category. Image refers to any visual aspect of the artwork and sound refers to any aural aspect. In several of our case studies the visual and aural aspects of the artwork were so intertwined that participants frequently referred to them simultaneously. We added an image/sound code to cover this situation. Although the participants were generally alone in the space while they interacted with the artwork we wanted to allow for research that might be done on group interactions. The people code, therefore, applies to any references that are made about other people within the space. The signage code refers to any exhibition signage that might be present in the space and equipment is used to code any references to technical parts or tools in the room. The final code, work, is used to code any references to the whole target artwork or any non-specific artwork references (e.g. it was overwhelming). In the perception category, visual and aural perceptions are coded individually and are both separated into codes for static features and codes for dynamic features. As mentioned above, it is common for participants’ comments to relate to the relationship between sound and image. The fifth code, spatial relations, is used to code any such comments and also to code any perceptions about the relationship between specific features (e.g. two shapes on the screen). This whole category can only be coded from information given by the participants in their retrospective reports. As such, it is coding the participants’ perceptual memory rather than their primary perceptual experience. Recording what the participants do remember is, however, especially valuable in terms of understanding the quality of the interaction between the audience and the artwork. The conceptual category has five codes relating to participants’ thought processes. The category distinguishes between the setting of goals (linked to trying to control) and the questioning of ideas (linked to trying to discover). This category also includes codes for any evaluations the participant may make and for any explanatory comments. The final conceptual code relates to any thoughts the participant may have about the relationship between themselves and the artwork. It is quite common for participants to reference their past knowledge or experience in their reports. For example, a participant may talk about his or her occupation to explain why he or she is particularly interested in a certain feature. The recall category is used to code this kind of retrieval of knowledge from participants’ long-term memory. This category has two codes, a code for the recall of past experience and a code for the retrieval of past knowledge. This coding scheme is designed so that it can be applied generically to any artwork that might be exhibited in Beta_space. While we have tried to allow for artworks that might be quite different from the four in our case studies, the scheme does not code every possible aspect of a work. It is anticipated that researchers who are studying a particular artwork will need to devise additional codes for any important aspects of the experience that are not covered by the generic codes. For example, the types of physical movement in each work are quite varied and could be coded in more detail. Other works try to engender a specific emotional response and researchers could create a code for this emotion. As the next section will show, however, the scheme does successfully capture the generic aspects of the experience of each artwork. It is these aspects that can usefully be compared across cases.


5 Potential for Analysis

After coding a single full participant experience from each artwork case study, we conducted a trial comparative analysis of the results in INTERACT. Any conclusions drawn here are extremely tentative as they are based on only a small sample of the available data. The trial analysis, however, did demonstrate the type of outcomes that might be obtained from applying the generic coding scheme in a complete study. This trial analysis also established that the coding scheme is valuable for comparative analyses of participant experiences within Beta_space. Timeline views of each code category were found to be useful for comparing the trajectory of participants’ experience of each artwork. For example, the timeline of a participant’s object of attention codes from the Absolute_4.5 study (Figure 3) reveals the order in which the participant attended to the various elements of the work. In this case, the participant spent a long time initially reading signage and then returned briefly to read again after a short time interacting. They then did not read the signage again. In other artworks the participant will begin by interacting and only read the signage towards the middle of their experience. They then might return again to read just before they leave the exhibit. Analysing these patterns could reveal useful information about the intuitiveness of a particular artwork and/or the ability of a work to inspire people to find out more about its themes.

Figure 3 Timeline of Object category codes for participant 2 from Absolute_4.5 study We also found it beneficial to compare the frequency of code categories across all four cases. For example, a comparison of the occurrence of perceptual codes (Table 2) was extremely revealing of what was unique about each artwork’s experience. The results suggest that Absolute_4.5 is an artwork that causes participants to perceive primarily its dynamic and relational aspects. They also suggest that, more that any of the other artworks, Cardiomorphologies causes participants to focus intensely on static and dynamic visual features.

Table 2 Perceptual category codes occurrence frequencies

A first-level comparison of all codes (Table 3) was also quite revealing of the specific character of each artwork’s experience. Sonic Tai Chi, for example, provoked no recall of past experiences but stimulated a lot of physical movement. Cardiomorphologies, which had its participants seated and connected to breath sensors, understandably had little physical movement. It did, however, cause participants to report extensively on what they were thinking, feeling and seeing.


Table 3 Occurrence frequencies and percentages of all coding categories ArtWork Physical Purpose State Perceptual Conceptual Recall Object Total Iamascope 17 14 15 10 16 9 25 106 Sonic T-C 22 8 17 2 16 0 14 79 Cardio 10 8 24 23 25 3 24 117 Absolute 18 12 15 11 28 5 23 112 ArtWork Physical Purpose State Perceptual Conceptual Recall Object Total Iamascope 16.0% 13.2% 14.2% 9.4% 15.1% 8.5% 23.6% 100% Sonic T-C 27.8% 10.1% 21.5% 2.5% 20.3% 0.0% 17.7% 100% Cardio 8.5% 6.8% 20.5% 19.7% 21.4% 2.6% 20.5% 100% Absolute 16.1% 10.7% 13.4% 9.8% 25.0% 4.5% 20.5% 100%

These types of comparative results can potentially uncover quite different experiential aspects to a study done on a case-by-case basis. In particular, they emphasise the aspects of each artwork that are unique to its specific experiential design. These characteristics are able to be revealed both at a broad conceptual level and also in more detail when comparisons are made between timeline visualisations. The coding group is cautiously optimistic that this type of analysis will lead us to a deeper understanding of the nature of interactive art experience.

6 Conclusion

As a research environment Beta_space has been designed to fulfil the needs of interactive artists, art curators and creativity researchers. The Beta_space coding team included members from each of these groups and, as this paper has described, the multidisciplinary nature of this collaboration had an immense influence on the type of coding scheme that the group produced. The team member’s differing perspectives and the rigorous debates that these provoked have resulted in a coding scheme that is not only robust but also extremely valuable as a tool for the analysis of the experience of interactive art. The team members are currently conducting full-scale analyses using the scheme and are continually testing its generic nature by applying it to new and different artworks. These will result in further refinements to the scheme and lead us closer to our goal of developing a deep understanding of the experience of interactive art.

References

Amitani, S. & Hori, K. 2002, ‘Supporting Musical Composition by Externalizing the Composer's Mental Space’, Creativity & Cognition 4, Loughborough University, pp. 165-172. Bilda, Z. & Gero, J. 2004, ‘Analysis of a Blindfolded Architect's Design Session’, Visual and Spatial Reasoning in Design Conference, MIT, Cambridge. Candy, L., Bilda, Z., Maher, M. & Gero, J. 2004, ‘Evaluating Software Support for Video Data Capture and Analysis’, QualIT04 (Qualitative Research in IT and IT in Qualitative Research) Conference, Brisbane, Australia. Clancey, W. J. 1997, Situated Cognition : On Human Knowledge and Computer Representations, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. ; New York, USA.


Costello, B., Muller, L., Amitani, S. & Edmonds, E. 2005, ‘Understanding the Experience of Interactive Art: Iamascope in Beta_Space’, Interactive Entertainment 2005, Creativity & Cognition Studios Press, University of Technology Sydney, Australia, pp. 49-56. Edmonds, E. & Muller, L., 2006, 'On Creative Engagement', Visual Communication, to appear. Fels, S. 2000, ‘Intimacy and Embodiment: Implications for Art and Technology’, ACM Multimedia Workshops, ACM, Los Angeles, CA, USA, pp. 13-16. Hutt, C. 1985, ‘Exploration and Play in Children’, in Child's Play, eds B. Sutton Smith & R. E. Herron, Robert E. Krieger Pub Co, Florida, pp. 231-250. Muller, L. & Edmonds, E. 2006, ‘Living Laboratories: Making and Curating Interactive Art’, SIGGRAPH, vol. Electronic Art and Animation Catalog, ACM Press, New York, Boston, USA, pp. 147-150. Muller, L., Turner, G., Khut, G. P. & Edmonds, E. 2006, ‘Creating Affective Visualisations for a Physiologically Interactive Artwork’, IV06, London, UK. Nardi, B. A., 1998, 'Concepts of Cognition and Consciousness', Journal of Computer Documentation, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 31-48. Suchman, L. A. 1987, Plans and Situated Actions--the Problem of Human Machine Communication, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA. Suwa, M., Purcell, T. & Gero, J., 1998, 'Macroscopic Analysis of Design Processes Based on a Scheme for Coding Designers' Cognitive Actions', Design Studies, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 455-483.

Documents

Collaborative analysis framework for evaluating interactive art experience