Interdisciplinary Criticism:d

Analysing the experience of riot!a location-sensitive digital narrative

Kangeun LeeUX Prototyping

Table of ContentsO About Riot!O Core Research IdeasO Research QuestionsO Key Theories of ExperienceO MethodO Results and FindingsO Critical AnalysisO ConclusionO Critique

About Riot!O “Interactive play for voices” based

on location-sensitive technologyO Users receive PDA, GPS receiver &

headphonesO Explore Queen’s Square and hear

certain sound files based on locationO Content based on historical back-

ground of Bristol riots in 1831 Eng-land

Queen’s Square (Bris-tol)

Map of square(on handout)

Regions in square(layout)

Core Research IdeasO HCI and user experience

O Usability important but so is enjoyment and engagementO Analyze sensations and emotions in addition to behavior

and perceptionO Value of interdisciplinary approach to exploring user

experienceO Literature, performance, education, etc.

O Relationship of content, technology, place & user background

O Commonality (group) vs. particularity (individual)O Experience can be designed but not standardized

O Artistic pole (controlled by designer) vs. Aesthetic pole (user reaction, uncontrollable)

Research PurposeO To investigate value of interdiscipli-

nary approach for exploring the commonality and particularity of in-teractive user experience with loca-tion-sensitive digital narrative.

O Reach beyond usability to evaluate user enjoyment and engagement (experience-centered approach)

Theories of ExperienceO Performance theory

O Burke: Dramatism (act, agent, scene, agency, purpose)

O Turner: Categories of social drama (Breech, crisis, redressive action, rein-tegration)

O Elements of drama help understand social conflict and performance in daily life

Theories of ExperienceO Museum studies

O Trend of location-sensitive media tour & sharing experience (Tate Modern & iView)

O Theories of educationO Piaget’s active learningO Bruner’s discovery learning

O Theories of play (ibid)O Csikszentmihalyi’s study of ‘flow’

O Falk and Dierking, Interactive Experience Model (personal/social/physical context)

Theories of ExperienceO Literary and critical theory

O Aristotle’s poetics (analysis of dra-matic forms)

O Diverse, eclectic fieldO Close reading, theoretical accounts of

narrative (more later)

MethodO Questionnaire Survey

O 563 people, ages 18-55O Broad impression, quantitative data

O Semi-structured interviewsO 30 people (individuals and groups)O Ask how in control they felt, how being in place affected expe-

rience and social interactionO Ethnographic case studies

O Before: interviewed about city, art, technologyO During: ‘think aloud’ during experienceO After: 1) critical reflection immediately after, 2) write email

account of experience 5 months laterO Critical Analysis

O Apply literature theories (characterization, authority and reso-lution, narrative expectation)

Results and FindingsO From survey

O Enjoyed by most people (avg 74.5/100)

O More by younger and older rather than middle group (20’s and 30’s)

O Those who found out from word of mouth & TV enjoyed most O Importance of expecta-

tion and anticipation

Results and FindingsO From interview

O Enjoyment vs. Frustration

Results and FindingsO Understanding of system and narra-

tiveO Not aware of multiple clips (3) per

area O Didn’t notice logic of ordering filesO No temporal sequence, confusingO Loose relation of scene with locationO Users made up own challenges for

experience (understanding history, completing course, listening to all the files, etc.)

Results and FindingsO Place and Content

O Location important, adds authenticityO Content matching place importantO GPS errors -> use this ambiguity in-

stead?O 3 random clips per region -> not all

related to specific location -> incon-sistency

Results and FindingsO From ethnographic studiesO Habitus: set of acquired dispositions

(social, occupational, educational backgrounds)O Sally (50’s, middle class, married with

children, social service worker )O Eva (27, environmentalist, activist,

recent graduate)O Joe (35, working-class background)O Tony (35, teacher, ‘artsy’)

Results and FindingsO Sally

O Likes classical novel adaptations, high theater (Macbeth), classical music concerts

O Enjoyed narration which sound like BBC radio dramas (appeal to edu-cated middle classes)

O Rated experience as highly enjoyable like most in her age group

Results and FindingsO Eva

O Thought theatrics of content sounded too rehearsed and characters too stereotypical

O Resistance to technology (environ-mentalist)

O Content too mainstream for herO But subject matter appealed to her

(has been in riots as an activist)

Results and FindingsO Joe

O Working-class origin, does not like high-class culture and ‘artsiness’

O Negative experience with educationO Did not like Riot! experienceO Did not like randomness, lack of

structure

Results and FindingsO Tony

O Likes ‘artsiness’, likes being chal-lenged

O Likes ‘risky’ and ‘radical’ thingsO Experience too mainstream for him,

not thought-provoking enough

Critical AnalysisO Characterization

O Clips short, characters 2D and stereo-typical

O No main character to grab interestO Authority and Resolution

O No historical context/political analysisO Resolution (summary of rioter deaths)

in 21st century form

Critical AnalysisO Narrative expectation

O Linear narrativeO Most people expect beginning, middle, and endO Not necessarily chronological

Critical AnalysisO Problems

O Stages not recognized (intro, explanation of state, ini-tiating acts, emotional reaction, complicating action, etc.)

O Important scenes conveyed immediately instead of towards end where climax usually is

O Though linear structure is there, medium is non-linear O Can select which scenes they want to hear next but

have no information on themO Some successes (overlapping of meaningful related

scenes, background noise of crowd, etc.)O Maybe non-linear content was needed instead (users

move in and out of scenes freely)

ConclusionO Analysis of Riot! needed interdisciplinary approach

rather than just one theory -> more enriching UXO Experience = technology + content + place +

users’ characteristics as group/individuals (demo-graphic & personal background)

O Location important (especially to Bristol natives)O Different impression of Queen’s Square after expe-

rience (“psychogeography of public space as medium for art”)

O Trend: professionals in social sciences (art, the-ater, music, literature, etc.) increasingly getting involved in designing technology

CritiqueO Interesting to read about applying literary

theories to understanding user experience and identifying related problems (Ex: usabil-ity)

O Feel like they are being used to prove things that are already known

O Purpose of Riot! not really that clearO Some theories mentioned briefly, not really

applied to case studyO Drawbacks of location-sensitive technology

(faulty GPS signal, etc.)