When I was reviewing my notes, I found sort of a list of things, concepts and ideas I've learned so far in my research journey (probably not complete : ) ). T: stands for theory and W: for workshops.
T> Material qualities are important, they shape perception/action and are usually ignored.
T> Abstractions that are context-free yet context-sensitive are the ones more valuable and relevant.
T> Seams might be useful to develop sensitivities in design (and possibly design process) by making the invisible visible.
T> Designing for design-in-use is a very useful approach.
W> In the first two workshops, I facilitated the creation of new situations and network of relations. They can be called temporary assemblages between man-machine-environment.
W> Does design need an existing situation or context or concern to be described as design?
TW> Motivation as replacement of purpose or goal.
W> This is an investigation of new human-machine-environment assemblages and the ways actants negotiate or tune their relations to construct and de-construct these assemblages.
TW> The advantage of working with performers is that not everything needs to be negotiated in such a novel body-technology-space setting.
W> Agency is different, so what? what does this mean? why is it important?
TW> The midpoint between top-down and bottom-up approaches. use of enabling constraints.
TW> Don't define any interaction or way of usage, support open interpretations, appropriation and design-in-use! let people negotiate. embodied negotiation of space and of relations by technology.
W> How can we let people to tune the relations between human and non-human actants.
W> ha-ta, ha-ta-ha is common type relations, ha-ta-ta is novel. however the link between ta-ta should be reasonable.
W> How to separate production and use phase. no clear boundaries. may be there is no need to do separate.
TW> production phase: awareness of different values, recognition of network relations and varieties of agency and its relationality and material agency.
use: transparency, explication of interaction, providing proper feedback
T> Recognizing agency through its effects.
T> Agency sensitiveness: being sensitive to different ways of being, perceiving, acting, knowing and viewing. giving options for negotiations.
W> all of these relations are always happening. you are making it explicit and dealing with them specifically.
TW> An approach for understanding/exploring designing for agency. in this respect it can be considered as a research methodology rather than a design method. A close up way to look at agents and their dynamic relations. In fact, this is a facilitation for design and design-in-use.
TW> This is how you go about designing for agency; you can look at it in different ways and come up with different design methods and highlighting different aspects/values that are important for agency and design in a practice-oriented way.
T> idea of co(a)gents. e.g. stuvidpi and visible actants.
W> idea of assemblage is useful and critical. it is not a solution but a way of understanding. you can strengthen some links in the assemblage while weakening the some others (i.e. designing).
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Meeting Summaries
18 March 2011 a response from Petra
My Questions to Petra:
Q1) What do you think about making my research process itself Agency-sensitive as well? (You know that main aim of the research is to understand how we may design for relational agency. In order to understand it, it might be good idea to have a research approach, which is agency-sensitive too. I very liked the idea. Basically, we try to sensitize our 'research process' in order to explore and understand agency sensitive 'design process'. For instance, by taking a relational constructivist research approach. You may see a summary of this approach here: http://bit.ly/foEczH This approach may require a dialogical understanding and hence relatively more active involvement of me to the design process, so participants and me will co-construct the understanding.)
Q2) What do you think about having different analysis methods for the different phases of the workshops? (In fact, this is parallel to first question. Rather than having one fixed methodology for understanding whole workshop processes, I might use different approaches to understand each workshop session. As you probably know, the workshop involves 6 sessions and in order to interpret workshop data, it might be good to be 'sensitive' to heterogeneity of sessions and different forms of knowing involved in each session.)
Her answers:
Re: Q1) Interesting thought. I only have one concern - the difficulty to separate the two in the analysis process; the two being: -
(a) testing and probing the participants' Agency-sensitive awareness and use of technology -(b) doing so by using Agency-sensitive process methods
(b) basically brings another big variable into the mix and how this may influence the possible outcomes is difficult to know beforehand. But the most interesting questions perhaps is how this may change the results!
The idea is a bit radical - which I like, but you have to deploy it carefully, I think. I would suggest that you approach the workshop in two stages: In the first part, your users focus on the design task (as planned so far), this is then documented in a questionnaire, short interviews, and your video of what happened. And in the second part, that is, when your participants are involved in the next set of experiments, the focus is more on negotiating the design task and, with it, co-constructing the understanding. I would imagine that you would have to document and later interpret this stage differently, due to the participants being more process and dialogue focused (rather than task and outcome).
Re analysis: The data gathering will be more collaborative and discussion based in this 2nd stage (I assume) and you won't be able to look at it from a third perspective in your analysis - if the participants co-construct the understanding, than, in some sense, your making sense of the process already has started - in the workshop. And, perhaps, your analysis could be more a systematic documentation of the co-construction process, that is how understanding and experimentation develops, rather than a retrospective analysis. A situated analysis, so to say :)
And it would of course be interesting to see, how these documented results and what the participants say in it (it wouldn't be so much an interview, where you ask the questions, but you recording their discussions and your discussions with them) compare to the documented results from the first part, where you (and the research objective) play a more external role. One of the reasons for my suggestion is that, for this 2nd agency sensitive approach, you'll have to involve participants in some of the research questions that you're investigating and this will most certainly influence how they will approach the task. So doing it from the start will give you different results than if you hadn't . On the other hand, it will be very interesting to see how the participants' understanding - and probably also yours- changes by focusing on the process and a collaborative, more (obviously) situated approach. So, in short, yes, I find this methodology very interesting but one needs to acknowledge that they will produce different results. How they differ and why could become a very interesting section of your paper.
You're getting more into research methodology development with this, which is interesting, but you need to be conscious of this different 'lens' that you're applying to your research question. Re Q2) - already discussed above.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
11 March 2011 Andy
Three main points to be considered:
i - thinking the experiment design something like 2x2 factorial design might be useful for guiding your thinking as a conceptual apparatus. you do not have to do exactly in the same way like 2x2 factorial design but use it to further structure your workshop and narrow down the scope. to identify some patterns that correlate with pre-configurations or pre-tunings.
ii - To provide a clearer mapping between workshop format elements and preconfigurations and "forms of knowing" on a table.
iii- you need a methodology of analysis, your overall research methodology is fine but for the analysis part you need a more specific ground or something like a theory or territory. you need to stand on something. weakness is in final analysis part.
- you do not need to ask too many questions to the participants. you task is already very hard. you will analyze relations across different media, posters video etc in a qualitative way.
- C&C:
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
3 March 2011 Rob
Three main points to be revised for workshop design:
- Design of technologies to be used in workshop3 should be re-thought. how they will be helping or working or supporting the activities or goals? availability and possibility of non-digital objects may prevent participants to use digital technology in perform phase after performing very bodily non-digital activities.
- The questions for the participants might be required and helpful.
- Task of group 2 should be better defined. or its rationale behind should be better explained.
C&C:
- The structure and argument might be based on two research domains: participatory design and distributed cognition. you need to relate or connect to some form of cognition.
- How might a relational view of agency might be useful or help fostering improvised and emergent actions, non-prescriptive ways of knowing and relating?
- How might we design for relational agency? how might we design for relational agency in order to facilitate creativity in design and use phase?
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
2 February 2011 Petra
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16 December 2010 Ina Wagner
15 December 2010 Rob
9 December 2010 Andy
25 November 2010 Rob
11 November 2010 Rob
- Not adding another layer but it is really focusing on different aspects
- There are two metaphors for applying ASD to other design methodologies: lens and (software) interface
- Methodology + problem should be considered together, when assessment is being made!
- How practical are ASD tools to use it?
- There are other design methods that have less explicit consideration of agency, so you might need to address the cases where ASD is applied to those other design methodologies.
- Read Gero’s FBS model. Might be useful for relating agency and function, for understanding how your model fits in that theory.
- Read 4 Lenses paper (education domain), pay attention to the way they use language and their use of not only questions but also activities. It can be helpful for you to answer these questions (questions for assessing agency sensitivity) for your framework.
- Follow the steps you've written on your plan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14 July 2010 Petra and Rob
The meeting notes pdf file.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wed 31 March, Rob
Wed 16 March Petra
...
Wed 24 Feb 2010, Rob
- Role of the environment is important and keeping it as one of the main elements in the research formulation increases the novelty and appeal of the research, and It would be good to include the synthesis of wearable computing and smart environments to the research at the next stage. Even if the research becomes more complex, and even you fail, it will probably be a more exciting and insightful research.
- Priming activity and its effects should be kept in mind during design and evaluation of all activities, and the idea of enabling constraint is very inspiring one that should also be considered and aware of at least at the reflective level.
- Agency, perception and action of environment/the elements in the environment can provide new possibilities for enabling the shared agency. (Here, it is really hard to define what is environment and what is not. If “I” is considered as a separate entity from the environment, why are the walls or any other elements in the environment not considered so? Is the defining key factor being a living organism? Thus, can we claim that any other non-living thing outside my body can be considered as environment?) What does it mean to attribute the agency to environmental things? (Problem of attribution of agency should really be addressed very carefully.)
- Wizard of Oz as the enactment of shared agency!
- Kablan’s work on curiosity to see the idea of having more agency..
- PhD does not cover the whole research and is not an end.
Wed 27 January 2010, Petra&Rob
- it would be good to relate it to s2s s2o and s2e relations, relation of body with space andother bodies, habitual agencies and manipulation of agency.
- intro, motivation, research questions, literature, methodology, device dev, case study(pilot) and the others, and future work.
- need to provide motivation that will lead to something core to the interests of NIME (performance, bodies in space)-> what is it trying to invent? this motivation should also explain the choice of initial study: why a partner based activity with rope and SSD???>>> ideally with reference to existing research/experiments/eg comparison or inspiration!!! situate the study/paper into a bigger research context. provide a research trajectory, path and this is a pilot study of it.
- be honest about the limits of this initial device and also the small scale of the study.
- understanding yourself(agent) as an external limit (obstacle) or as a "rope", guide is becoming a mobile enviromental "agent",
- emphasis could be on position of sensor&change of meaning and change in sense of agency.
>> fabrication of device(s), evolution of devices based on case studies/experiments, devices to be smarter, sophisticated and networked.. the concept of wearable environments and 4 configuration could be integrated!
- be reflective about priming effect of rope activity, it all affects teh sense of control, perception and strategies.did all the strategies reflect the experience of using the rope? if not, identify the deviations from the rope model of communication. the grounding experience affects the participants perception of the agency of the device! yes this is in fact another important dimension of the experiment! guiding agent might be exactly in the role of obstacle if grounding experience was different.
- enabling constraints might be good term for the set up of activities.
- provide the rationale behind the activities/set ups.
- how does agency change acc to placement of devices
- tell the story, capture the attention with the motivation, why is it(shared agency) important? augmented senses,enactive interaction, sensory suplementation devices, shared agency, why in this way? flow of paper is important.
- rapid prototyping, informiing the next cycle, so future work should be connected to the findings of this study.
- point of observer should be third person not me! my point of view is the point of view of author/researcher
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tue 15 December 09, Petra
- Read Erin Manning's paper on imagery spaces and changes on perception/imagination of space. Her paper might be useful for understanding the ways to approach the participants and discuss their experiences as a paper and to relate them to the research topic. Complexities, fine differences and tuning.
- Kate Stevens's works could be relevant to ability+perception->Agency/Action Poss.
- Rob's paper is a good example of giving the "humus" of the related field and also making connection with the learning. It would be better to find papers directly referencing to agency from supporting fields. Otherwise, we should find/take their relavant and key parts from the anchor or survey papers. Key words for the learning dimension of agency could include movement, physical, agency, perception and dance.
- For NIME paper, It would be better to make a study involving a small group of people (4-5) rather than doing self-experimentation. (If I could I am planning to do both!)
- Contact with Kristina (Petra to send me her contact info)
- For the pre-workshop study:
- Assignments:
Fri 04 December 09, Rob
- Built the performance devices asap - make them easy to attach into the environment ( glue, hooks etc), with a simple but good looking design. I might use some of the unused electronic parts from our curious places project.
- To generate sounds from the connection between the performance device and the surfaces in the environment rather than the device itself might be a more suitable choice in terms of research theme wearable environments.
- Beads by Ollie Bown might be useful for sound synthesis by Java,
- For the moment, it might be better to play with sound with only minim library and hence with processing
- Experiment the device and wiimote interfaces in unfamiliar context and spaces. (to intervene the established relations between the body and space, to experience different acoustics, to make the familiar strange, )
- A short paper to be submitted to NIME2010 is a good idea. Deadline is 29th of January and the outcomes of a self experimentation stage before the workshop can be used for the short paper. This experimentation stage can focus on changes in agency, and re-learning of the new relations / agencies and also expressive capacity. Expressive dimension is critical for NIME conference.
- Time plan: Built the devices and Wiimote interfaces in 2 weeks by 17th of December and then have a meeting with Petra and Rob and decide the next steps for the research and NIME paper.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fri 23 October 09, Rob
- to submit our research to a HCI comittee, we need to educate reviewers about our methodology
- result of submission and reviews do not point a need for a radical change in research formulation
- work with a very limited range palette of sensors and effectors
- it might be better not to force or impose design requirements or communication ways to performers/participants. they will do/discover/play by themselves. and we will relate them to those directions and otehr design concerns.
- there might be alternative ways to customize system response by performers, slider controls, switches etc..
- there migh be simple portable devices attachable to body or placed into the environment, these devices are to be configured by the performers for augmenting their expressive bodily movements.
- workshop prototyping with Wii controller and rangefinders
- Wii software controller- Oscilator
- Agency is still the major investigation area of the research
- effectors on body might be difficult to implement
- configuring and the concept of assemblages are good, keep them
- for the etchis application, remove mentions to case studies and use "will inform further research on designing interactive systems". bring the workshop to the front. shorten the technological descriptions of PhD research, separate the objectives of PhD and workshop. and briefly relate them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fri 25 Sep 09, Petra
Identify your assumptions and test&verify them through workshop scenarios
- About workshop
- Establish a connection between gesture <-> agency (not to capture gesture)
- Make readings on workshop, performance,
- Contact with (to-dos)
- Ethics applications for workshops and case study 1 (seperate applications, workshop app. -> 21 sept. and case study TBD before Dec., check first ethics panel in 2010 and the last one in 2009)
- Hardware (buy basic arduino kit, search for portable projector and wireless camera(battery powered?), send rob suggestions/options )
- Tentative work plan till February targeting two conferences DIS'10 and INTERACT'10,, also make sure to submit NIME'10 (at UTS)
- I will do a research log combining recent concepts.
- I will send you the links for two thesis works.
- You will send me the name of a book related to mapping and maps.
- I will think about research scope (feasibility of ideas, contributions conceptual, technological- sw or hw)
- Some specific scenarios for testing the concepts in a more confined manner
- Investigate the concept of mapping in various fields.
- think about touring -- navigation relation..
- interfaciality paper.
- I will describe the activities in my project plan.
- I will draw a network diagram. Action points and relations will be identified.
- You will consult our deadline for the proposal.
- I will further investigate the works of Thecla Schiphorst, (Actually, I found her PhD thesis, you may also check it-> http://www.sfu.ca/~tschipho/PhD/PhD_thesis.html)
- I will think about in terms of methodological, conceptual and technological contributions.. (an innovative way in one of them)
For our next meeting we will discuss:
- Material to interface paper from Media Art Histories book by Oliver Grau
- Two chapters of the Closer Book by Suzan Kozel
- Review of PhD thesis in hand and decide the parts to be investigated.
- New project plan.
Wed 2008-11-26
Summary - 9
2. Synthesize Norman and De Certeau's books, critically investigate connections. ask questions and make intellectual arguments on relevant parts or if they are not relevant i will explain in a logical way.
3. Formulate the start point, 3 examples of what I want to do and what I do not want to do!
During this time, I will also ask critical questions to my self! and find the answers..
I will check the works of Rafaela Lozano-Hemmer..
I will also do a little artwork related to my research, i should start think about it.
I need to define a scope, constraints with affordances for my research, free fall??
I need to start thinking differently, critically..
Fri 05-09-08
[Tue, Aug 26, 2008]
summary 1
- I have sent an email to R. Hyde for participating the ARCF9001
- I will write a request letter for laptop with justification ( I guess we have about 2 weeks for that when the prices decrease)
- I will manage 3 research files (meeting summaries/diaries, literature summaries/quotes<- ->ideas&thoughts)
- We will meet generally weekly on Wednesdays after 2pm
- I have 2 articles (performing geog.s and the one from the observer ) and
2 books (Material Thinking and Terra Infirma) to read/investigate..
- You will send me an invitation for wiki pages
My Questions to Petra:
Q1) What do you think about making my research process itself Agency-sensitive as well? (You know that main aim of the research is to understand how we may design for relational agency. In order to understand it, it might be good idea to have a research approach, which is agency-sensitive too. I very liked the idea. Basically, we try to sensitize our 'research process' in order to explore and understand agency sensitive 'design process'. For instance, by taking a relational constructivist research approach. You may see a summary of this approach here: http://bit.ly/foEczH This approach may require a dialogical understanding and hence relatively more active involvement of me to the design process, so participants and me will co-construct the understanding.)
Q2) What do you think about having different analysis methods for the different phases of the workshops? (In fact, this is parallel to first question. Rather than having one fixed methodology for understanding whole workshop processes, I might use different approaches to understand each workshop session. As you probably know, the workshop involves 6 sessions and in order to interpret workshop data, it might be good to be 'sensitive' to heterogeneity of sessions and different forms of knowing involved in each session.)
Her answers:
Re: Q1) Interesting thought. I only have one concern - the difficulty to separate the two in the analysis process; the two being: -
(a) testing and probing the participants' Agency-sensitive awareness and use of technology -(b) doing so by using Agency-sensitive process methods
(b) basically brings another big variable into the mix and how this may influence the possible outcomes is difficult to know beforehand. But the most interesting questions perhaps is how this may change the results!
The idea is a bit radical - which I like, but you have to deploy it carefully, I think. I would suggest that you approach the workshop in two stages: In the first part, your users focus on the design task (as planned so far), this is then documented in a questionnaire, short interviews, and your video of what happened. And in the second part, that is, when your participants are involved in the next set of experiments, the focus is more on negotiating the design task and, with it, co-constructing the understanding. I would imagine that you would have to document and later interpret this stage differently, due to the participants being more process and dialogue focused (rather than task and outcome).
Re analysis: The data gathering will be more collaborative and discussion based in this 2nd stage (I assume) and you won't be able to look at it from a third perspective in your analysis - if the participants co-construct the understanding, than, in some sense, your making sense of the process already has started - in the workshop. And, perhaps, your analysis could be more a systematic documentation of the co-construction process, that is how understanding and experimentation develops, rather than a retrospective analysis. A situated analysis, so to say :)
And it would of course be interesting to see, how these documented results and what the participants say in it (it wouldn't be so much an interview, where you ask the questions, but you recording their discussions and your discussions with them) compare to the documented results from the first part, where you (and the research objective) play a more external role. One of the reasons for my suggestion is that, for this 2nd agency sensitive approach, you'll have to involve participants in some of the research questions that you're investigating and this will most certainly influence how they will approach the task. So doing it from the start will give you different results than if you hadn't . On the other hand, it will be very interesting to see how the participants' understanding - and probably also yours- changes by focusing on the process and a collaborative, more (obviously) situated approach. So, in short, yes, I find this methodology very interesting but one needs to acknowledge that they will produce different results. How they differ and why could become a very interesting section of your paper.
You're getting more into research methodology development with this, which is interesting, but you need to be conscious of this different 'lens' that you're applying to your research question. Re Q2) - already discussed above.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
11 March 2011 Andy
Three main points to be considered:
i - thinking the experiment design something like 2x2 factorial design might be useful for guiding your thinking as a conceptual apparatus. you do not have to do exactly in the same way like 2x2 factorial design but use it to further structure your workshop and narrow down the scope. to identify some patterns that correlate with pre-configurations or pre-tunings.
ii - To provide a clearer mapping between workshop format elements and preconfigurations and "forms of knowing" on a table.
iii- you need a methodology of analysis, your overall research methodology is fine but for the analysis part you need a more specific ground or something like a theory or territory. you need to stand on something. weakness is in final analysis part.
- how are you gonna analyze the video?
- What are your observables? how does your analysis method work towards the research questions you have?
- you may use ANT's vocabulary.
- how do you characterize design process?
- How do you know there is a design process in front of you?
- How does one know there is a relation emerged or performed out? is it the frequency of the event? dominance? how would you know that?
- you need to explain to the reader your method of analysis!
- look at the question you have.
- you need to document the possible ways to answer
- ask How do I actually answer that? what are the data analysis?
- How am I actually gonna analyse it?
- what will you observe?
- you donot need to know what they are exactly, but you should have an idea of things and a predictive direction
- you may first need to convince your self that there will be observable differences.
- you are going after diversity of relations, are these sufficient enough to create that difference? may be this is an empirical question. but just have a general idea.
- it is kind of a grounded approach i.e. coding and set of questions.
- you do not need to ask too many questions to the participants. you task is already very hard. you will analyze relations across different media, posters video etc in a qualitative way.
- C&C:
- How do people think about their relations with technology and others in colloborative design situation. that's the cognition part.
- For the creativity, we have produced new relations that are unexpected by means of the configurational changes or modifications. people making somthing new might be enough for the notion of creativity.
- you might have a perspective that creative possibilities of interactions are modified or attenuated by the relational agency between people and technology. and I set up conditions in whihc I can demonstrate in w1 and w2 that pre-configurations of relations agency, fix task and fix configurations produce different set of relations and forms of relations. just keep it simple.
- give me theoretical reasons why you say that and explain clearly to me how you analyzed data.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
3 March 2011 Rob
Three main points to be revised for workshop design:
- Design of technologies to be used in workshop3 should be re-thought. how they will be helping or working or supporting the activities or goals? availability and possibility of non-digital objects may prevent participants to use digital technology in perform phase after performing very bodily non-digital activities.
- The questions for the participants might be required and helpful.
- Task of group 2 should be better defined. or its rationale behind should be better explained.
C&C:
- The structure and argument might be based on two research domains: participatory design and distributed cognition. you need to relate or connect to some form of cognition.
- How might a relational view of agency might be useful or help fostering improvised and emergent actions, non-prescriptive ways of knowing and relating?
- How might we design for relational agency? how might we design for relational agency in order to facilitate creativity in design and use phase?
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
2 February 2011 Petra
- idea of assemblage / network is really useful.
- it would be good to have at least a rudimentary sense of adaptability in technological agents. in the previous ones they were unaware of things or any parallel things happening. you may do a final workshop or performance with networked agents, sometime in September.
- you have a participatory design workshop in your next two workshops, but then in the technological workshop it will be much more about the use of the technology/agents.
- Participants may take two roles:
- (1) they can design the agents
- (2) they can use the agents ~deployment
- looking at these two things is important because we can see where and how agency arises
- agency is exhibited both in the design of agents and they way you use them and integrate them into the environment (asking participants to do both is too demanding and might lead to complicated and confusing results, they have to assemble and define the network and use. it will become quite complicated to evaluate the results)
- It might be interesting to involve participants in assembling and defining the capabilities of the agents.
- (a) task fixed and they have to assemble the network in order to negotiate the task
- (b) they have an assembled network or assemblage and they can negotiate the use
- or in other words
- (a) making design decisions on technological capability of agents
- (b) making design decision on how to use or repurpose or appropriate already given technological capabilities
- It would be still good to look at Erin Manning's workshop, enabling constraints, it may help you to see how you can constrain things in order people to become creative.
- if you provide too much freedom, the workshop may end up with endless discussions.
- if u tell people you can do anything in order this task to be done. It gets complicated due to lots of choices. People may not be aware why they made certain decision. For the evaluation you need to know why they made those decisions.
- opening up design process to PD activities is a good step but you should not open up everything.
- so the levels of openness or participation can be different in different workshop sessions.
- session 1: the most open and participatory: participants are involved in both design and production phase
- session 2: participants are involved in only production phase (design of capabilities of tech agents to fulfill a certain task) (defining role of non-human agents)
- sessions 3: participant are involved in only use phase (design in use by using a given configuration of agents and network) (what human agents can do with non-human agents)
- this can give much more clearresults in terms of understanding the importance of being involved in various stages
- you may have mixed groups novice and expert
- alternatively you may target any of your questions in your workshop
- >> is it important use expert users? (more familiar people to IXD)
- >> should we mix expert and novice users?
- >> is it better to have the smae people in all design phase and decisions? etc ...
- Think about the outcomes and design the workshops based on the outcomes you want to get. imagine you choose anly the novice people then what will design responses mean?what happens if experts are involved in? what happens if the groups is mixed?
- Think basically whatever kind of workshop set up or group mix can affect or influence your results? if outcomes will sufficiently work in to your study or they open up the questions..
- at least you may have group members with different expertise
- eval - > in situ notes and feedback from participants, interviews and video observations
- eval - > at each phase during the process.(sheets, or table, questions, may be add something by them, )
- you should not influence them! you are in there always, (I think I should be there by workshop design, and facilitation of activity structure and infra and tools)
- they should be aware of why they selected particular thing/config or decision but not the other , continue evaluation, whihc lead s to very aware process and understanding. if the ywant to use the existing network they should explain it.. creativity, your role should be organizational (or a designer! I think at least in one of the m I should be a co-designer too)
- you are there anyway. You really want to see the relationships and tunings little shifts comin out of design process but not their capacity to negotiate with you.
- investigate and explore qualities by observations, interviews and video
- --ask specific questions related to agency and sensitiveness; how they feel, what kind of agency they had etc
- You want to know how they deal with them not how you deal with them?????
- You need to be able to locate the agency, you have to ask when or at which stage they felt agency, how this notions of space, roles and technology shifted. their role and awareness, or role of any other things, how they change, that is ongoing eval process, they can make little notes. They have to be aware of these changing things to give feedback.
- human interacting with tech in a specific context. '
- how many tasks, what questions to ask? think what you want to understand about ASD in PD context. This is your target and you set the stage for this, where you can find answer to these questions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16 December 2010 Ina Wagner
- trying different types of interactions in the next workshops might be useful, experimenting some other parameters or modalities or dimensions.
- what is your inventory of ways of exerting agency.
- this study could be related to looking at/considering/exploring different dimensions or resources when designing for agency!
- to understand what ASD mean by designing the activities.
- multi-modal analysis can be useful as a guide to systematically analyse the workshops
- UCD+ASD would be a very different kind of research, it might be the next step after your thesis. Your previous workshops were not UCD and doing a UCD at this point might break the coherence of thesis. You may situate your research in the area of interaction design instead of UCD.
15 December 2010 Rob
- There are different design processes, and it may not be possible to find a generic process of design. instead we can concentrate on individual strategies employed in various UCD or PD cases. For instance, the strategies to involve users in design. job is to identify approaches to promote agency. lo-fi prototypes how well does that allow users to consider promote agency (of their own or of others)
- different design strategies he uses to assess usability. as an example.
- some of the strategies might be more suitable for agency sensitiveness.
- how do you get people to think about their agency (relationality and invite materials to participate, and explicate their presence/contribution)?
- how about tuning and awareness?
- modify and adapt the existing techniques, by using your lenses, by making people see through these lenses or making designers see through them.
- what would I do differently? guide question!
- TODOs
- make a taxonomy of strategies or techniques in different phases of design process, decide on what to choose, think about how you can conduct your workshops
- you may change your case for the next workshops, you do not need to keep the wearable environments goal or activities.
- you can find a familiar product/system/case for all
- you can find an already existing but may not be familiar. (but still try to find somewhat a relevant one)
9 December 2010 Andy
- Be clear about the ASD's contribution. Do you target design process or content (the case, object, people etc.)? (highlighting the fact that the process and content are intertwined). The design (product) vs design (process)
- rephrasing the overal aim:
- developing sensitivities in design process can promote agency and its diversity and allows us to recognize and acknowledge relational and emergent nature of agency (embodiment of humans and artifacts).
- you may need to connect the outcomes of design process with the qualities of the ASD embodied in design process. or more generally, it would be make your analysis and argument stronger if you can identify effects generated specifically by the ASD pratices or qualities.
- there can be four options (or more) for identifying the ASD's effects
- conduct two case studies with and without the ASD
- work on design of a well-known object
- re-design an already existing system/artifact
- critically evaluate a body of systems/objects like Friedman or Munster
- there can be four options (or more) for identifying the ASD's effects
- VSD related studies do not talk about design process but about the content. the qualities of designed artifact or system. However, you may find some reflections on the process in their longer publications/reports.
- look at the VSD, reflective design and their way of situating their approach, of proving their approach and of dealing with process matters. most of the VSD projects are redesigns.
- your approach is less related with meta-structure than the details. The details and micro-level sensitivities.
- you may find some sample cases from HCI text book and Harvard Business Schools reports.
- for instance, the degree of configurability can change according to the agency-sensitiveness.
- a chapter for your in-depth analysis of workshops 3 and 4 and another for the effects of the ASD.
25 November 2010 Rob
- Each item in the lenses should be directly connected with the agency sensitiveness
- For instance, the item related to visibility of aims, assumptions and decisions is too generic. It describes generally a good practice, it is not specific to agency sensitiveness. Among them assumptions could be the most specific one in terms of agency.
- You need to define the different actors’ point of view in the process. Each actor may see the design process from his/her Agency-Sensitive Lens. it may not be a good idea to develop a lens just for the actor who has the “traditional” designer role. Users might be also productive, creative and might have initiative for the agency sensitiveness (Kinect hacking!, Microsoft’s non-agency-sensitive design practice, design & corporate strategy. Although it was because of company’s profitability goals, they might have missed a bigger opportunity for creating a large ecosystem around kinect, which may indeed be much more profitable in the mid- or long-term as a bonus).
o Who might be the actors? What could be their relations and roles?
o It is only after you define those actors and relations that you can make claims about agency sensitiveness.
o We might have different lenses for different actors?
o We might facilitate seeing from the lenses from other actors, which very interestingly takes us to the beginning of our research journey where I photographed Yeliz in relation to landscape from different points of views. And looked for the ways of providing this third person point of view or experience literally. That’s really interesting.
- We should integrate the role of material performativity/agency into the model, it is one of the critical parts of the relational agency equation. We shouldn’t assume a fixed material performativity, it can be and is very dynamical and situated. We need to highlight its performative characteristics. There are many other research or practice domains dealing with the material agency such as game or medical domains. The results of this research may demonstrate them how differently and sensitively we can design for agency.
- What are the challenges and potentials about
- designing with technological agents/agency?
- designing for technological agents/agency
- May be a lens for the machine point of view.
- What are the challenges and potentials about
11 November 2010 Rob
- Not adding another layer but it is really focusing on different aspects
- There are two metaphors for applying ASD to other design methodologies: lens and (software) interface
- Methodology + problem should be considered together, when assessment is being made!
- How practical are ASD tools to use it?
- There are other design methods that have less explicit consideration of agency, so you might need to address the cases where ASD is applied to those other design methodologies.
- Read Gero’s FBS model. Might be useful for relating agency and function, for understanding how your model fits in that theory.
- Read 4 Lenses paper (education domain), pay attention to the way they use language and their use of not only questions but also activities. It can be helpful for you to answer these questions (questions for assessing agency sensitivity) for your framework.
- Follow the steps you've written on your plan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14 July 2010 Petra and Rob
The meeting notes pdf file.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wed 31 March, Rob
- The limited role of environment. We should take better advantage of the space, its role is not significant in the current configurations
- For the next workshop, we should integrate the environment in a more strong way. In this configuration, its role is too limited to providing a sound effect from a point in the space.
- We can use simulation strategy. Simulating the dumb boxes as if they are distributed into environment. Two possible and different scenarios:
- Boxes in the environment sensing acting and communicating with the central system in environment
- Or some other kind of technology embedded into environment
- We can use simulation strategy. Simulating the dumb boxes as if they are distributed into environment. Two possible and different scenarios:
- Comp vision to simulate the boxes, or wizard of oz. we do not want the boxes or environment to be “smart”, and their behavior can be dumb as long as the mapping between sensing and action is simple-rule based??? (This may not be true, the definition of smartness is very critical here, higher levels of perception might correspond higher levels of agency)
- We can either use small speakers, or boxes with only vibration motors, headphones might not be suitable in the case of effecting from environment,
- Is “being able to consider a device as a part on environment” related to control?
- If the device is controlled by the environment, can we consider this device as a part of the environment? or
- If the device can act independently from the environmental system, can we claim that it is not part of the environment? or
- Can we consider anything outside of self as environment? or any immobile non-living things as environment? or
- Can we simply take a room with its floors, walls and ceilings as an environment, (this is kind of related to “immobility” of things).
- If or not, the design of EC is the right one for the wearable environment concept, in terms of utilizing the features of both smart env. and wearable computing.
Wed 16 March Petra
...
Wed 24 Feb 2010, Rob
- Role of the environment is important and keeping it as one of the main elements in the research formulation increases the novelty and appeal of the research, and It would be good to include the synthesis of wearable computing and smart environments to the research at the next stage. Even if the research becomes more complex, and even you fail, it will probably be a more exciting and insightful research.
- Priming activity and its effects should be kept in mind during design and evaluation of all activities, and the idea of enabling constraint is very inspiring one that should also be considered and aware of at least at the reflective level.
- Agency, perception and action of environment/the elements in the environment can provide new possibilities for enabling the shared agency. (Here, it is really hard to define what is environment and what is not. If “I” is considered as a separate entity from the environment, why are the walls or any other elements in the environment not considered so? Is the defining key factor being a living organism? Thus, can we claim that any other non-living thing outside my body can be considered as environment?) What does it mean to attribute the agency to environmental things? (Problem of attribution of agency should really be addressed very carefully.)
- Wizard of Oz as the enactment of shared agency!
- Kablan’s work on curiosity to see the idea of having more agency..
- PhD does not cover the whole research and is not an end.
Wed 27 January 2010, Petra&Rob
- it would be good to relate it to s2s s2o and s2e relations, relation of body with space andother bodies, habitual agencies and manipulation of agency.
- intro, motivation, research questions, literature, methodology, device dev, case study(pilot) and the others, and future work.
- need to provide motivation that will lead to something core to the interests of NIME (performance, bodies in space)-> what is it trying to invent? this motivation should also explain the choice of initial study: why a partner based activity with rope and SSD???>>> ideally with reference to existing research/experiments/eg comparison or inspiration!!! situate the study/paper into a bigger research context. provide a research trajectory, path and this is a pilot study of it.
- be honest about the limits of this initial device and also the small scale of the study.
- understanding yourself(agent) as an external limit (obstacle) or as a "rope", guide is becoming a mobile enviromental "agent",
- emphasis could be on position of sensor&change of meaning and change in sense of agency.
>> fabrication of device(s), evolution of devices based on case studies/experiments, devices to be smarter, sophisticated and networked.. the concept of wearable environments and 4 configuration could be integrated!
- be reflective about priming effect of rope activity, it all affects teh sense of control, perception and strategies.did all the strategies reflect the experience of using the rope? if not, identify the deviations from the rope model of communication. the grounding experience affects the participants perception of the agency of the device! yes this is in fact another important dimension of the experiment! guiding agent might be exactly in the role of obstacle if grounding experience was different.
- enabling constraints might be good term for the set up of activities.
- provide the rationale behind the activities/set ups.
- how does agency change acc to placement of devices
- tell the story, capture the attention with the motivation, why is it(shared agency) important? augmented senses,enactive interaction, sensory suplementation devices, shared agency, why in this way? flow of paper is important.
- rapid prototyping, informiing the next cycle, so future work should be connected to the findings of this study.
- point of observer should be third person not me! my point of view is the point of view of author/researcher
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tue 15 December 09, Petra
- Read Erin Manning's paper on imagery spaces and changes on perception/imagination of space. Her paper might be useful for understanding the ways to approach the participants and discuss their experiences as a paper and to relate them to the research topic. Complexities, fine differences and tuning.
- Kate Stevens's works could be relevant to ability+perception->Agency/Action Poss.
- Rob's paper is a good example of giving the "humus" of the related field and also making connection with the learning. It would be better to find papers directly referencing to agency from supporting fields. Otherwise, we should find/take their relavant and key parts from the anchor or survey papers. Key words for the learning dimension of agency could include movement, physical, agency, perception and dance.
- For NIME paper, It would be better to make a study involving a small group of people (4-5) rather than doing self-experimentation. (If I could I am planning to do both!)
- Contact with Kristina (Petra to send me her contact info)
- For the pre-workshop study:
- use little instructions and constraints and at the end let them play freely/improvise
- think about what to learn, how does it relate to agency, where does it happen
- change/reverse the behavior of performance device
- prepare different sets of sound mapping with a variety of sounds (from the one using noise to the ones more melodical/beats) and observe how differently they behave/act and how memorizing/learning the relations or feedback rationale change.
- it would be useful to use a resonance body.
- mapping is always important for the investigation of the agency. It is a key determinant. In fact, mapping defines the agency of machine and affects the agency of humans.
- role of proximity in user interaction scenarios
- think about the path from feedback to guidance to source for expression
- Assignments:
- write a paragraph about what this research is about and what the case studies for? in lay language
- write 4-5 user scenarios for your devices related to specific research questions
- prepare more sound mappings to test during experiments
- make the devices and wiimotes easily applicable to body and space
Fri 04 December 09, Rob
- Built the performance devices asap - make them easy to attach into the environment ( glue, hooks etc), with a simple but good looking design. I might use some of the unused electronic parts from our curious places project.
- To generate sounds from the connection between the performance device and the surfaces in the environment rather than the device itself might be a more suitable choice in terms of research theme wearable environments.
- Beads by Ollie Bown might be useful for sound synthesis by Java,
- For the moment, it might be better to play with sound with only minim library and hence with processing
- Experiment the device and wiimote interfaces in unfamiliar context and spaces. (to intervene the established relations between the body and space, to experience different acoustics, to make the familiar strange, )
- A short paper to be submitted to NIME2010 is a good idea. Deadline is 29th of January and the outcomes of a self experimentation stage before the workshop can be used for the short paper. This experimentation stage can focus on changes in agency, and re-learning of the new relations / agencies and also expressive capacity. Expressive dimension is critical for NIME conference.
- Time plan: Built the devices and Wiimote interfaces in 2 weeks by 17th of December and then have a meeting with Petra and Rob and decide the next steps for the research and NIME paper.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fri 23 October 09, Rob
- to submit our research to a HCI comittee, we need to educate reviewers about our methodology
- result of submission and reviews do not point a need for a radical change in research formulation
- work with a very limited range palette of sensors and effectors
- it might be better not to force or impose design requirements or communication ways to performers/participants. they will do/discover/play by themselves. and we will relate them to those directions and otehr design concerns.
- there might be alternative ways to customize system response by performers, slider controls, switches etc..
- there migh be simple portable devices attachable to body or placed into the environment, these devices are to be configured by the performers for augmenting their expressive bodily movements.
- workshop prototyping with Wii controller and rangefinders
- Wii software controller- Oscilator
- Agency is still the major investigation area of the research
- effectors on body might be difficult to implement
- configuring and the concept of assemblages are good, keep them
- for the etchis application, remove mentions to case studies and use "will inform further research on designing interactive systems". bring the workshop to the front. shorten the technological descriptions of PhD research, separate the objectives of PhD and workshop. and briefly relate them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fri 25 Sep 09, Petra
Identify your assumptions and test&verify them through workshop scenarios
- About workshop
- stimulate interaction between performers in “desired” ways
- create situations, how will it change
- again what exactly do you want to learn
- simple questions!!! Simple instructions!!!
- A possibility is to design it with and without agent assemblages
- Proximity -<> directionality of expression
- Sensor<->effector coupling and relationships S2S, S2O, S2E
- FOCUS on questions on
- Change / amplification of agency/gesture/expression/engagement/intentionality?
- FOCUS on questions on
- About ethics
- What do you need to know for interface development (HW, SW, feedback)
- Specify instructions
- Give whole specifications (to ensure the safety of the sensors)
- Semi-structured questionnaires
- Establish a connection between gesture <-> agency (not to capture gesture)
- Make readings on workshop, performance,
- Contact with (to-dos)
- Ask for reimbursement for sensor procurement (departmental)
- Ask for departmental permission for conducting a workshop at Sentient
- Send Markus a list of sensors etc
- Contact Lian Loke, Astrid Larssen (from UTS)
- Contact with Cristina (to include different types of movements)
- Contact with Alex after making the first preparation
- Look for (and contact) PhD students from performance to collaborate
- Contact with Katie about NICTA email account
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fri 11-Sep-09, Rob- Ethics applications for workshops and case study 1 (seperate applications, workshop app. -> 21 sept. and case study TBD before Dec., check first ethics panel in 2010 and the last one in 2009)
Application deadlines for Ethics:
2009
21 Sep, 6 October, 19 October, 19 October, 2 November, 16 November
2010
~19 Jan (not declared, last year's)
- Workshops to be conducted at the beginning of November- Hardware (buy basic arduino kit, search for portable projector and wireless camera(battery powered?), send rob suggestions/options )
- Tentative work plan till February targeting two conferences DIS'10 and INTERACT'10,, also make sure to submit NIME'10 (at UTS)
Work plan Sep09-Feb10
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fri 15- May-09, Rob
- - HCI as a field to be contributed not a primary source of knowledge, there might be some technical design and evaluation processes to be utilized. The wisdom of HCI is partially embedded in Activity Theory..
- - Relation between wearable computing and smart/responsive environments in terms of facilitating new embodied relations between humans and enviroment, how could they be combined/coupled to create new (blended) relations, potentials for action and meanin-making, enrich the authentic human experience and increase the phenomenal field of humans and bodily knowing.
- How many of wearable projects assume a pasive environment?
- How do smart environments rely on them?
- How many of them use wearables as active components (to create new forms of relationships) but not merely for technical convenience?
- Role of performence as a "test-bed" for the adaptability of human-machine interface.
- why would someone adapt to the machine more than they have to do? (to experiment/challenge the potentials, and to discover new forms of relations and human-machine-environment associations..) by means of performance art which involves active physical involvement, curiosity and experimentative approach.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wed 06-May-09, Petra
- think about the memory of interfaces..
- define objectives for the research, "in order to do.." alligned with the research questions..
- definition of the key words (blending) in a narrative way in the intro chapter
- how do scientific and humanitarian approaches inform each other..
- how the roles/agencies of actors or elements in the research framework affect each other, how agencies change, how negotiation takes place?
- anaylze instructions during the preliminary experiments,
- make a research context diagram
- draft plan
o First week
• Framing the research
• Updating research questions
• Lit readings on
• Performance general and performance in HCI and Design
• Sections from the Closer book
• Merleau-Ponty
o Second week
• Making the skeleton of the proposal document
• Writing literature / background section
• Draft intro
o Third week
• Methodology and our approach (and presentation and explanation of preliminary performative experiments and
discussion of ~Preliminary results
• Introduction section
• Research context
• Research scope
• Research problem
• Significance
• Contribution- (conceptual, methodological, technological)
• Approach
• Draft Study Plan and resources
• Framing the research
• Updating research questions
• Lit readings on
• Performance general and performance in HCI and Design
• Sections from the Closer book
• Merleau-Ponty
o Second week
• Making the skeleton of the proposal document
• Writing literature / background section
• Draft intro
o Third week
• Methodology and our approach (and presentation and explanation of preliminary performative experiments and
discussion of ~Preliminary results
• Introduction section
• Research context
• Research scope
• Research problem
• Significance
• Contribution- (conceptual, methodological, technological)
• Approach
• Draft Study Plan and resources
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fri 20-March-09, Petra
- till the end of April, determining the research theme, research questions and potential outcomes
- ~~17-june proposal presentation
- proposing and focusing on formal outcomes is difficult and not preferable (like design guidelines).
- we need to find a balance between research methodologies
- subjective conviction vs scientific objectivity
- find a place between these poles. oscillation ..
- analyze and discuss the proposal of Thecla's study conceptually, theoretically, and methodologically,
extracts from her study in a file with annotation. (in two weeks)
summary of her aims. questions and outcomes and potential connections with our research..
- one of the focus of the research could be comparing exactly this oscillation and discussion of describing the experiential relations in the world with these different types of approaches, (practice based, performative or scientific ),
- self critical discussion about choices, methods, I can use my previous experience of scientific research with the current more performative and practice based one for a critical comparison.
- we can find our new terms for describing the embodied interaction cases.
- a little research about the process of getting know each other in phenomenology and cognitive science (concepts of strangeness and uncertainty )
- things that encourage interaction and the things that do not
- roles of participant, performer and observer, effect of observer on participants to determine the paths of interaction and roles of actors.
- plasticity of surface of environment which provides very well fitted affordances..
- feeling and need of being in security during a relation
- the things that makes the difference in interpreting the same representation (for this case it is photos) of the relation. situations that make it possible to establish a right empathy ..
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fri 13-March-09, Rob
- The best (whatever the standard) interactions may not necessarily involve AI methods and higher levels of system autonomy. Ping pong game, mirrors.. I will think about the relationship between AI-Interactions and what the properties of a desirable interaction are.. like play and flow state,
Parallel to this, the property of interaction that makes it attractive or engaging is probably related with both the outcome (whether it is 1-1 or 1-N relation) and the way that outcome is obtained/experienced.
- I will investigate the Role of Play in interactions and developmental psychology lit. (due in two weeks)
- Ignoring the game literature and game research studies might cause some gaps and missing points on the research path.
- Developing and promising design guidelines for embodied interfaces might be hard to realize, thus it might be more doable that introducing a framework on what the design issues are by
evaluating the existing frameworks with the proposed framework. The focus of framework involves the concepts that I recently dealt with.
- I will make some readings about Situated cognition by Clancey (due in two weeks).
- I need to rethink the usage of the term emergent affordances for describing the relations with environment and tools in a subjective manner. I think I will make a blog entry about customizable vs emergent affordances ( asap : ) )..
- Efforts to make software suitable for stylistic usage as for the cases of musical instruments.
- (Control related) trade off-> On the one hand making something so complex (like a piano) with which it is possible to create a multitude of different combinations is powerful and gives great scope for personal expression, but the learning curve is likely to become tedious with dedicated practice required. One the other hand, making something so simple (like the ‘play’ button on a CD-player) carries little interactive interest after the first one or two interactions.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fri 06-March-09, Petra
- Performative research approach focusing on relations and situations could be useful for the next phase of the research.
- Roles of nature/environment from passive to active (from the concept of photo project)
- the same relation could be examined by different perspectives (by the eyes or experience of interacts, by the environment and by the observer(camera?) )
- I will further elaborate the concept of the photo project by writing a statement:
i. first motivation behind the project
ii. second what the outcomes tell us
iii. third how can they relate to our research in terms of ubiquitous computing, new interface relations by considering different levels of interpretation, biological, cultural. material..
- I will make a selective and critical read and extraction of Thecla's PhD thesis.
- A blog (apart from the assembla and more informal ) to show my research study and relevant items might be useful.. (I will try..)
- Our whole research study could be comprised of a series of little experiments and at the end this whole set of experiments, questions, possible answers might be the outcome.
- I will think about the role of interfaces/systems as tool-media, and why I want to do a comparative study of them? Why is it important?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fri 19-12-08
- I will do a research log combining recent concepts.
- I will send you the links for two thesis works.
- You will send me the name of a book related to mapping and maps.
- I will think about research scope (feasibility of ideas, contributions conceptual, technological- sw or hw)
- Some specific scenarios for testing the concepts in a more confined manner
- Investigate the concept of mapping in various fields.
- think about touring -- navigation relation..
- interfaciality paper.
Wed 10-12-08
- I will go one step further and try to figure out some constructive points from the synthesis Norman and De Certeau related to my research- I will describe the activities in my project plan.
- I will draw a network diagram. Action points and relations will be identified.
- You will consult our deadline for the proposal.
- I will further investigate the works of Thecla Schiphorst, (Actually, I found her PhD thesis, you may also check it-> http://www.sfu.ca/~tschipho/PhD/PhD_thesis.html)
- I will think about in terms of methodological, conceptual and technological contributions.. (an innovative way in one of them)
For our next meeting we will discuss:
- Material to interface paper from Media Art Histories book by Oliver Grau
- Two chapters of the Closer Book by Suzan Kozel
- Review of PhD thesis in hand and decide the parts to be investigated.
- New project plan.
Wed 2008-11-26
Summary - 9
- importance of transferring the knowledge to specic domain
- importance of making a critical argument
- prepare a schedule and timeline for the period till probation presentation.
- put milestones (coming from proposal chapters)
- short term and long term time plan
- timeline
- two phases of research
- feeding/reading/digesting
- applying this info to a a work product or prototype(iterative/evolutionary development)
- regular update of web research diary
- asking critical questions about the reading materials (intellectual thinking) 1-3 questions
- providing verification or justifications for the potentials (what has been done so far), strengths , weaknesses, opportunuties and threads.
Wed 2008-11-19
Summary - 8
There are 3 things to do in next three weeks.
1. Finish De Certeau's book and review it2. Synthesize Norman and De Certeau's books, critically investigate connections. ask questions and make intellectual arguments on relevant parts or if they are not relevant i will explain in a logical way.
3. Formulate the start point, 3 examples of what I want to do and what I do not want to do!
During this time, I will also ask critical questions to my self! and find the answers..
I will check the works of Rafaela Lozano-Hemmer..
I will also do a little artwork related to my research, i should start think about it.
I need to define a scope, constraints with affordances for my research, free fall??
I need to start thinking differently, critically..
Wed 2008-11-05
Summary - 7
- could SIMs game logic be considered as affordance? or is it intelligent recommendations?
- are there any uses of "affordance" in new media domain(possibly yes)? are there any considerations of affordance in design phases of interfaces in responsive environments( or mixed reality environments)?
- how can afforfance concept fit recent interface paradigms (invisibility, multimodality, natural interaction)?and new forms of interaction?
- can one thing afford multiple actions for the same person? if so, is it a desirable thing or not?
- check moseumsquarties? >>> i could not figure out particularly which activity of them may relate our research study?
- investigate the use of affordances - good examples of affordance uses
- exs on the familiar and new artifacts.
- definitions of affordances in different domains and in new media.
- read ''Design of everyday things" by Norman and "Practice of everyday life" by Certeau in 2-3 weeks and make a summary and figure out possible connections among the two books and our potential research.
- how can afforfance concept fit recent interface paradigms (invisibility, multimodality, natural interaction)?and new forms of interaction?
- can one thing afford multiple actions for the same person? if so, is it a desirable thing or not?
- check moseumsquarties? >>> i could not figure out particularly which activity of them may relate our research study?
- investigate the use of affordances - good examples of affordance uses
- exs on the familiar and new artifacts.
- definitions of affordances in different domains and in new media.
- read ''Design of everyday things" by Norman and "Practice of everyday life" by Certeau in 2-3 weeks and make a summary and figure out possible connections among the two books and our potential research.
Wed 2008-10-15
Summary - 6
- subscribe related rss feeds
- read "Practice of Everyday Life" by Certeau
- think concept of unfamiliarity, when the things become unfamiliar with respect to breakdowns
- methods to increase the efficience of collobarative practices, importance of feedback in communication
- levels of interpretation, between human-to-human comm
- how many layers? more layers better?
- how many lenses to interpret,
- how and in what ways mediums and layers of communication affect communication?
- check autopoiesis by Varela, interference and compensation
- where is the orchestra?
- power relations, hierarchy, who controls?
- ask for "why"
- investigate Damasio and Ishii
- think about the concepts uncanny valley, interestingness and novelty
Wed 2008-10-08
Summary - 5
- check the game called spore
- authorship ?? control of scenarios, supervision, preprogrammed world?? god game??
- check the artworks dealing with the concepts drift, breakdown, disturbances, intervention, faulty behaviour, on the web -turbulence.org and networkedperformance
- check the taxonomy and categorization of interfaces in HCI domain
- read the paper by Eduardo Kac - negotiating meaning
- read the paper by David Rokeby - transforming mirros
- read Paul Dourish to become familiar with the ways of making scientific connections( as anchor)
Wed 24-09-08
Summary - 4
- read book "reflexive methodology: new vistas for qualitative research" by alvesson mats
- obtain a digital copy of processing book from Petra
- write 500-750 words per week about the ideas & thoughts
- before the meetings prepare an overview of subjects to be disscussed
- finalize fridge bussiness
- investigate conscious drift concept
- go on current research study..
Wed 10-09-08
Summary - 3
- talk with Rob about curious spaces project - partially done
- read Marleu Ponty - will be read not now but not so far future
- set milestones+schedule for the research -from now to the jury time!
- practice based research formulation informally
- research funding -ARC- look Petra's sample proposals
- bumblebee 3D camera- will be available
- read urban probes by Eric Paulos
- read cultural probes by Bill Gaver
- put link for liquid Diesel Hologram Show and find company
- investigate
- Echo Tate united visual artists
- we make money not art website
- first referencebook skoldberg- i couldnot remember what is for this note???
Fri 05-09-08
Meeting Summary - 2
- look processing book
- names
- Anthony Gormley
- Ken Rinaldo
- organize the research study as a combination of reading and practice!
- read urban screens - ref???
- investigate
- situationism
- familiar stranger
- learn deadline for the prob. jury
[Tue, Aug 26, 2008]
summary 1
- I have sent an email to R. Hyde for participating the ARCF9001
- I will write a request letter for laptop with justification ( I guess we have about 2 weeks for that when the prices decrease)
- I will manage 3 research files (meeting summaries/diaries, literature summaries/quotes<- ->ideas&thoughts)
- We will meet generally weekly on Wednesdays after 2pm
- I have 2 articles (performing geog.s and the one from the observer ) and
2 books (Material Thinking and Terra Infirma) to read/investigate..
- You will send me an invitation for wiki pages
Sunday, December 12, 2010
December 2010 Update
Participatory Design Conference Feedback
- I, as a designer, would like to know what I'd do differently according to Agency Sensitive Design.
- I'd try to apply it.
- At this stage, only one lens for the designer seem to be sufficient.
- In future, you may work on the ways in which every actor can create their own lenses of ASD.
- You might imagine it like a toolkit for designers for taking into consideration different forms of agency.
- Claudia Ciborra's work, how can we invite technology as guests, how can we host it as a guest?
- inviting the artefacts to the dance.
- Now, this is a different definition of participation, artefacts and humans together.
- participating artefacts with material agency
- Jonas Lowgren's work and Don Svanaes's works.
- What skills do I, as a designer, need to do ASD?
- Every innovation builds on existing practices by Suchman
- Agency's role in shaping design and design's role in shaping agency
- We can not do everything bottom up!
- Doing or comparing both user centered and activity centered design might not be doable in the current time frame.
- Role of grounding activities in shaping design and agency?
- Can the forms of agency be defined as the type of actions humans engaged in?
- agency-> capacity to act
- form of agency -> capacity to understand
- form of agency -> capacity to move
- form of agency -> capacity to perceive/sense
- ...
- different forms of agency -> capacity to
????
- Two main sensitivities can be related to relationality and participating/influencing non-humans/artefacts
- Concept of temporary assemblies is a good one!
- Assemblies and matters of concerns are/can be emergent!!
- mutual isolated spaces and matters of concern >> read paper by Latour and Asa
- >>> Some general Participatory Design Concernsd and Inspirations
- who to involve?
- how to involve?
- involving users as not passive service demanders or info containers but active co-creators of service
- seeing anything as a resource for design,
- challenging the taken-for-granted conceptions of agency/norms/values and seeing them as generative tools/activities
- for instance, previous habits and experiences and generally motives of differences as not something to avoid or overcome but things to support and embrace again more genrally as resources!
- enjoyment or relaxation might not be necessarily the targets for my participatory activities
- painful participation can be a gain for the participants as well??
- and then can inform the design
- looking at or approaching the results of workshops from different points of views/ values is very useful!h
PDC2010 Doctoral Consortium Presentation
INTERACT PAPER - Agency Sensitive Design
Due date: Jan 24
Long paper: 14 pages
First draft- outline: pdf file
DESIGN and AGENCY RELATIONS
1. Agency’s role in design:
-
- How do different agencies involved in technology production phase shape design problem and process?
- In technology production phase, there may be designers, potential users and any other human actors and material artefacts participating in this process. An assemblage of humans and artefacts and their various connections or couplings may result in agencies in different forms and degrees. These different forms of agencies may shape the design process and design problem itself.
- How much are we aware of the fact that the different configurations of human and artefact assemblages may bring about different forms of agencies?
- How much are we aware of the impact of different agencies on definition and transformation of the design problem?
- How do different conceptions of agency shape design?
- Humans involved in production phase might have different conceptions and perceptions of agency. These different conceptions of agency may affect the design decision implicitly or may cause misattribution of agency and hence unintended outcomes.
- We design according to whose conception of agency?
- How much are we aware of our and others’ conceptions of agencies during design?
- How does the extent of consideration of agency shape design?
- Some designers may include agency-related qualities in design problem at a great extent, whereas some others may not consider any of them. While lack of consideration may result in problems related to accountability, responsibility, and ethics, an excess amount of consideration may lead to problems related to over-amplification of differences, unceasing value conflicts, privacy and surveillance. Moreover, a careful consideration of agency-related qualities may result in responsible and ethical design practices, new more harmonious integrations and couplings between humans and artefacts and may expand our potential for action.
- How much are we aware of benefits and costs of addressing or not addressing agency-related qualities in design problem?
- How do different agencies involved in technology production phase shape design problem and process?
2. Design’s role in agency:
-
- How do different design approaches shape agencies involved in production and use of technologies?
- Design process can be organized in such a way that it can facilitate formation of some particular configurations (assemblages) of humans and artefacts, while preventing some other ones to be formed. Design process can invite particular kinds of actions, while inhibiting some others. The artefacts can be designed in such a way that they can privilege values of some actors while ignoring the values of some other ones.
- How much are we aware of the impact of design process we follow on formation of agencies involved in technology production and formation of agencies involved in technology use?
- How do different design approaches shape agencies involved in production and use of technologies?
Planned Research Process and expected Outcomes
Work Plan Diagram
ASD lenses for the designer
Friday, November 19, 2010
Monday, October 11, 2010
October 2010 Update
The research plan till the end of Jan:
- first 4 weeks on workshop 3 design specifications
- the rest on primarily (subject to advances in workshop design) 14page long paper to be submitted to Interact conference.
- Workshop 3 design specificatations will be done as to following tentative decisions:
-
- The aims of the workshop
- to experiment the remaining 5 configurations
- to develop and test strategies of sensitivities for agency sensitive design
- Workshop 3 will deal with sensitivities in production and use of technologies/interfaces
- in production phase, researcher will be involved only (the previous decision on this item changed, because of limited benefits in terms of research contributions)
- in use phase, participants will also be involved (they will have more freedom and authority on how to interact)
- workshop 1, workshop 2, workshop 3 and workshop 4 are all considered as a big production phase for the final wearable environment system, which will host a use phase involving a performance. However, there are sub production and use phases in each workshop, where production was done by researcher and use was done by participants. The participants' contribution and in a sense production are realized through negotiations, ongoing reconfigurations and design-in-use activities.
- Decision of focusing of only one aspect of sensitivity, which is awareness.
- General assumption of the research at his stage is that: (this is also the result of focusing )
- An increase in awareness of participants towards themselves, other participants, other artefacts and finally processes between them is useful to accomodate different forms of agency (to be exemplified) and can facilitate the emergence of new capacities to act.
- Increasing Awareness -> Accomodate (different forms of agency) + Facilitate (new forms of agency)
- Need to consider the counter examples where higher levels of agency and awareness are not desirable or useful.
- Some critical questions to be answered soon!
- How do we understand if awareness is increased or not? (may be only by asking as we did previously)
- How do we know or observe whether the agency exhibited is different or new?
- Do we need to define prior(existing) agencies and then seperate them from after(emerging) agencies?
- How can we develop sensitivities for agency without knowing/defining what those agencies are? (through awareness?)
- Research to be done on
- social network analysis
- quantifying agency, (ways to decompose it contextually and then assess..)
- awareness models
- infrastructure awareness
- context-awareness
- The aims of the workshop
- the long paper might cover
- brutalism (in art, architecture and design)
- making the invisible visible
- awareness models
- relational agency and design (answer to why we need an explicit consideration of agency in design)
- agency sensitivity and its resonances in other critical design approaches
- when do we need lesser and higher agency, (high performance systems vs creativity & complexity involved systems, ) increased agency -> lost of control..
- when don't we need higher levels of awarenes? and also awareness vs privacy
- Brutalism and Design working sheet..
- Annotated bibliography of Agency
- List of Conferences
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Mixed notes
Notes from early stages of the research
Andy’s Comments on Research Proposal Version 2
The thesis proposal shows a high level of improvement in the areas of:
1. Scoping the research toward a manageable level for a PhD (though it could
use further refinement)
2. Relating the research method to the research questions on agency
3. Producing an evaluation framework that integrates the main concepts
introduced in the thesis
4. Arguing the outcome(s) of the research in a more convincing and logical
manner
I recommend that Baki has satisfied this part of his probation for the PhD.
I have a few suggestions as Baki continues with his research.
1. He discussed the concept of ³distributed agency² in his research aim.
Yet, agency is shared only between three ³agents², the user, the wearable
computing device, and possibly a smart environment. The level of
distribution is rather limited, and it seems a bit of a stretch to call this
³distributed².
2. The third research objective ³Development of negotiation protocols² seems
to me to be the most interesting aspect of the research, and could
constitute the research aim. That is, the research aim could read, ³to
investigate the potential for creative engagement between human and
non-human technologies through negotiation protocols that change their
combined and shared agency². Understanding what forms these negotiation
protocols could be and their effect on combined and shared agency seems to
me to be key to this research, and perhaps the significant question.
3. It was not clear (on p. 47) in the ³Execution of the case studies² if the
retrospective coding would be done in accordance with the design and
evaluation dimensions described on pp. 44-46. Will the interviews also be
similarly coded? What methods will Baki use to verify the reliability of his
coding (e.g., Cronbach¹s alpha)?
4. It is not clear on p. 40 why if ³self to other² is largely different then
this condition is not worth experimenting with. It seems counter-intuitive
to me, and should be explained further.
5. I am still somewhat concerned that, at places, the thesis does not seem
Œcontrolled¹ and Œtight¹. The wording suggests too much generality. You
write on p. 29 that the research might ³evoke new relations and reconfigure
existing materialities of human machine assemblages.² What new insight is
possible given the experimental conditions? What outcomes are likely to be
different from others who have explored this question? What new critique do
you think the research will evoke if you are taking a critical research
approach?
Research Proposal Version 2
———————————————————————————————————————————
Andy’s Comments on Research Proposal Version 1
I would like to review in a revised version of your written thesis proposal the following changes:
1. A further clarification and distillation of your research question(s). The sub-question (i) is pretty much already answered by Mann, in my opinion. Question ii is too broad because it takes you into the territory of meaning-making and I’m not sure if there is anything significant/controversial/distinctive that you could do there (my opinion). Question iii looks interesting but could be clarified and in my opinion could even form the basis of your entire PhD work as it now starts to distill the primary research question into a set of “variables” or dimensions that you can “control” and investigate to a sufficient degree of depth. Question iv is a sub-question. As I have stated in your presentation, your research work should probably focus on the concept of agency, which is in and of itself a significant area of research
2. If your thesis aim remains the same, and is to deal with the notion of agency, then I would like for you to (at least for the proposal):
a. Review the models of agency proposed by Steve Mann as described in:
Wearable computing: toward humanistic intelligence
Mann, S.
b. Clarify in your evaluation methodology how you might interrogate the dynamic negotiation of agency
c. Discuss how you plan to ‘control’ levels and models of agency in your evaluation case studies and in the designed wearable computing and smart environments
———————————————————————————————————————————-
08.Jul.09
Research proposal final version 1
Research proposal presentation
———————————————————————————————————————————
Research Questions and Objectives v1 06.May.09
* Objectives’ structure from Petra
o A series of experimental performative case studies (to examine (1)…, (2)…)
o DEveloping a machine mediated interface supporting these case studies and explores the research questions (such as..)
o examines and evaluates assumptions from the designer, performer, onlooker etc..
* Consideration of performance
o different definitions of performance and which definitions might be the most fertile one for exploring.. collaboration with other performers might be desired and required if we take that definition of performace done by professionals..
* Questions by Me
o In which performative ways can space/environment and bodies be related/rendered/activated/coupled in ways which enables emergent/alien/new relations and awareness among people and environment by means of machine mediated physical interfaces?
o What are the ways to integrate/blend/couple/associate views/sensation/experience of third person with the first person during the performance based machine mediated interactions with the environment?
* Contribution
o Contributing to the newly emerged field of performance based interaction design (by demonstrating the methods, challenges, opportunities and critical reflection on the research components)
o Discovery of new relations/experiences and opportunities of associations among people and environment by means of challenging and blending the roles and agencies of participants relating with each other and environment.
o Ways to show research-through-art and research-through-design (not research for design) in interaction design research
o Discussion on scientific (rational objective) and humanitarian (subjective/qualitative/experiential) approaches to research and
o Application of CTP- critical technical practice for designing and evaluating performance based mixed reality interactions.
——————————————————————————————————————————————–
26.04.2009
Rendered Relations – Relational Compositions
>> Document
——————————————————————————————————————————————–
02.04.2009
Emergent Relations with the Environment and the Self
Concept Relations Diagram for the Research
[conceptual diagram]
Questions and Situations (print friendly)
- How does ambiguity emerge from the technologically mediated embodied interactions among the actors? How many different interpretations does this design allow?
- How performers/observers appropriate an application designed for open interpretations, uncertainty and emergent opportunities for meaning making activities?
- How do they explore and experiment by means of touching, what are the personal manipulations to escape from or cope with the unpleasant relations/designs?
- How do they feel about the inverted (non-utilitarian) values of design and systems? How do they appropriate them? CTP?
- Willingness of performer to play and explore the surrounding environment.
o Why is performer willing or not to play/explore?
o What are the effects of environment and self?
- Curiosity of performer to play and explore the surrounding environment.
o What are the sources and motives for the curiosity?
o How long does this curiosity last? Why?
- Role of imitation when a performer is getting know or relate to environment while he/she is anonymous,
while there are mid-layers between performer and the environment,
while the existence of other performers or observers is in place.
- Role of physical proximity ….
- Role of stillness…
- Fear/pleasure/discomfort of performer during interacting with the environment.
- How does the meaning of a relation change by the time? By the different degrees of perceptibility, by having an anonymous identity, by having mid layers of interaction?
- In what ways these relations could be integrated into everyday experiences?
…
———————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
12.March.09
Recent themes and questions
- Ways to utilize higher amount of senses in favour of high bandwidth interaction
- Customizable or multiple affordances (chaplin’s cane usage, ways to provide multiple creative affordances generated by interaction)
- The role of interface (as a tool, as media, as an agent) together with system models (cybernetics, paskian etc..)
- Within reach and out of reach controls (design parameters like coverage)
- PhD Thesis by Thecla and Bongers (key points!)
o Thecla
• Experiential and somatic perspective to HCI. It is more artistic approach but it successfully and rigorously documents its methodology and whole process of design and development and this becomes the contribution. Validity and evaluation of their methods are not available but since their research is one of the pioneers of this area it might be understandable. What I like is to in depth consideration of user experience and its alignment with their artistic experiments.
o Bongers
• A comprehensive look to HCI, he investigates music, video art and architecture and inspired from them to make contribution to field of HCI.
• Outcomes
• Categorisation of technologies
• Framework for interaction styles
• A taxonomy of interfaces
• A classification of media
• Experiments
• Video-organ
• Video walks
• Meta-orchestra
• What I like is the comprehensive look, multimodal and phenomenological perspective, categorization and typology efforts, connections with art practices and architecture and experiments. Only one thing that might be critical Evaluation is based on subjective observation but I think this is a usual case for exploratory research.
Some concepts and themes that are investigated so far:
- affordances (customizable, multiple, creative affordances, Chaplin’s use of his stick)
- ways of knowing (procedural vs declarative knowledge and map vs path) + a very similar and surprising perspective by Bill Verplank!!!
- phenomenology
- embodied interaction/cognition
- kinaesthetic interaction
- image schemata
- somatics
- drift and breakdowns (as positive properties of interaction)
What I am going to do???
… My vision of interfaces is ultimately as extensions of humans – but a hybrid of media and tool. Since computing technologies are replacing all other tools and media existing in our everyday life, we need computers as both. However, they are designed for either tools or media. I think that it is possible for the same interface to act as a tool and media. Here, my assumption is that if you have a guitar as a performance instrument you need it to behave as you expected (as a tuned tool). Otherwise your performance would negatively affected and outcome probably would not be pleasant. If you do X it should definitely do Y. This rule-based system should be preserved when we use it in performance mode. However, if we want to explore new sounds and harmonies, we might be more open to break these rules and get unexpected outcomes and this could be the creative mode of the interface. In this mode, more AI based, emergent and generative properties become dominant. These two modes could be switchable modes of the same interface. The performance mode should be discrete (i.e. on/off) but creative mode might consist of a continuum of determinacy (i.e. from partially reactive to totally interactive).
This continuum reflects the user’s influence on both the way of interaction takes place and the outcome obtained.
>> Combinations between the possible ways/paths of interaction and possible destinations (impossible ones) shaped by degrees of the user supervision levels and system intelligence for the purpose..
…. Apart from this, I also started a performative experiment with photo-media. The idea is a kind of “initial discomfort (and a probable comfort) of not knowing each other”, not knowing how to approach, how to touch, how to relate… and experiment various physical relations in an unconventional sense.. and experiment a variety of emergent forms of relations with the environment.. And possibly there might be stages of evolutionary relations which might change both sides environment and human and parallel to this the interface.
Research Context
———————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
25.Feb.09
[Role of Interfaces]
—————————————————————————————————————-
2008-11-18
Retrospection ..
The concepts, ideas, themes, relations that have been brought forward so far..
(mixed order)
*
Art as sensorial form
*
compositional basics, fundamentals of new media design
*
affordances in multimodal / perceptional interaction, –combined affordance
*
sensorial affordanceproperties of elements of sensorial(perceptual, ambient) interface/form
o coverage
o intensity
o dominance
o resolution
o responsivity
*
Interaction as a potential for action!
*
Basic perceptual elements of Interaction
*
resolution of interface and bandwith of interaction
*
phenomenal field, bodily skills
*
paradigm shifts, drift, breakdown
*
mediation, media/interface->extension of ourselves
*
meaning as interaction
*
perceptual interfaces, sensorium
*
paths of interaction
*
morphology of interfaces
*
sensation->perception->recognition->interpretation..
*
somatics, body, space, phenomenolgy
*
expressivity
*
choreography of sensations
*
multimodal orchestra, choreography – virtual orchestra.. who controls? it depends..
*
how many layers/interfaces of mediation? as much as needed!
*
levels of interactivity, flexible levels needed..
from Petra >> [1] can’t find your project “idea” (due on last Friday, 6pm)
[2] just stumbled over a blog on “pervasive media” (http://www.pmstudio.co.uk/) … however there must be many … and wondering: is this the area in which you are heading to? “pervasive environments”? Please check the proceedings from the PERVASIVE Conference to see if themes are relevant, interesting for you!
2008-10-15
sensorium model -> http://www.assembla.com/spaces/bakisresearchspace/documents/bxLFfcMMur3Aldab7jnrAJ/download/sensorium
discussion topics ->
http://www.assembla.com/spaces/bakisresearchspace/documents/b90DmCMMur3Aldab7jnrAJ/download/discussion%20topics%2015%20Oct
2008-10-09
Some thoughts on potential of interaction, Golan Levin and level of Interactivity
The consideration of interaction as a potential for action could let us to escape limited understanding of interaction. Haque also stated this in a different way but pointing to the somewhat the same direction. He said that our interaction with the computers does not need to be based on circular barren ‘mutual reaction’ but can be dynamic, and constructed collaboratively. it is like a conversation which has a potential to go anywhere.
How can we force the limits of our usual casual relation with the machine to break the deterministic chain of interaction in favor of reaching higher levels of expressivity? Computers are new media that we have a relationship with which becomes more natural by the time. More natural the relation more productive is our relation. Like a canvas or a musical instrument, we can better use this medium for self creativity and expressivity. However, use of computer as medium usually corresponds to the developing software as a product of our expression. Differently, what Golan Levin does is different from this approach in a sense that he creates new instruments with software for further creation of other people. Although at the beginning they are not intended to be the final art-works of their author, Levin, they are considered like that even by the author. These can be considered sub-mediums as expression tools. They can be used by simple human bodily gestures to create audio visual performances. His focus on when creating these tools are that they should be instantly knowable and infinitely masterable. He gives the pencil and piano as examples of this kind of tools. When we examine the tools he created we can notice the successful execution of the instantly knowable feature. However, it is not clear how much these tools allow for further mastering. Again parallel to this how long the users of these tools will engage with these tools after the first curiosity and meeting phase. The problems related to interfaces/tools he developed are:
*
low level of mastering capacity
*
usual casual interaction model- mono-logical relation – fixed behaviour
*
no concern of user/participant preferences – unflexible to individual differencess
People may need and prefer different levels of interactivity with their interfaces ranging from fully automatic to fully controllable from unsupervised systems to full-supervised interfaces. Higher levels of interactivity might not be suitable and preferable for all cases. When you use an airplane you do not want or prefer to supervise all the controls of the airplane during the flight. Automation is needed. Automatic parts of the operations work on probably `rational` basis or preferences or settings that are previously set by the user or system designer. We need different levels of interactivity/control for different applications. we sometimes need to have dialog and sometimes want only to finish the job in hand without dealing with the “details”. Wizard type interfaces for installation of software programs are good examples of this. how can we apply this principle to embodied interfaces?
2008-10-08
Discussion Topics -
file link
1. Experience
– improved, augmented and richer..
– Utilization of all of our senses and richer and more fully articulated human being!!
>>>>It might not be the case always, in some cases it might be preferable to use only one or a couple of senses to experience the thing.
>>>>at what times and which senses to utilize? For an optimal experience
– “From the Somatics perspective, knowledge is constructed through experience-bodily, requires that experience be directed or focused through awareness.” Experience is obtained by the interaction with perceptual interfaces which possibly uses all kind of perceptual modes of interaction.
– new forms –
§ Can we create or describe a new form – perceptual form-
§ What are the basic elements to construct a perceptual composition?
§ Like the way Kandinsky followed for 2D visual language…
§ Search for a language of new expression ways and properties of this new medium by subjective experimentation of inherent properties of perceptual elements as materials.
§ Basic abstract perceptual forms
2. drift –breakdown- intervention- faulty behavior- disturbances-
– from usual paths of interaction to unknown parts of the self..
– Drift practices? How can we realize drift as a means of discovery in interactive media? What could be the ways to drift in interactive media?
as a means of widening the phenomenal field- horizon of humans
as a means of making paradigm shifts. Memory as a background and horizon to be widened.
>>>Susan Kozel has experienced the drift by means of technical insufficiencies she encountered- bandwidth.
Unintentional drift.. Our aim is in a way to provide conscious drift..
what makes a drift a conscious one? does it loose its power when it is performed consciously?
– participant/observer to augment his/her experience and to support creative production
Question by (Capurro, 1992),
“How do we become aware of the world in terms of the open dimensions of our existence in which we are normally immersed?”
Answered by Heidegger
By means of disturbances/breakdowns
>>Is drift a momentary thing or more of a process? Both??
– How can figure out the usual ways of interaction for the various interfaces?
>>> we (may) need to identify those ways to make the ways shifted and deviated.. or since this is such a new medium (bodily perceptual interfaces) there are no usual ways that are constructed yet. Thus every experience might lead in a drift. Or it might not be possible to talk about drifts for them.
>>> Transitions of movements from abstract to concrete and vice versa.
A movement changes nature from concrete to abstract when it is done consciously.
When an action fails to give the anticipated result, a breakdown situation occurs. The operations that the action is built up from then get conceptualized and might become actions in the next try. In the same manner, an action that is done many times gets operationalised (automated) and becomes an operation.
3. Critic of the Approach of Suzan Kozel
it is in the literature file..
4. Research methodology – reflexivity – hermeneutic
a. Not based on usefulness ?? in traditional scientific manner..
b. term reflexivity for the practice of making explicit the researcher’s unavoidable bias (Smith, 1996 and King, 1996).
This rests on the assumption that research will always be colored by the bias of the researcher. It is consequently better to make this bias explicit and allow for the reader to make judgments.
Need for new understanding of FORM-INTERFACE -not confined with vision!
this form can be abstractly represented in a multi-dimensional vector space where each axes correspond to a particular perceptual mode. Thus, our new formmight be a point in this space.
> visible to invisible
> hearable to unhearable
> touchable to untouchable
> tastable to untastable
> sensible to sensible
>> always “sensible” and “perceptual” and “intuitive” but not “intervening”(sometimes could be)
characteristics
*
permits and supports all perceptual modes of interaction
o
+
which modes to use when?
*
acts, re-acts and pro-acts in different levels of interactivity
*
dynamic and re-formable
*
able to behave proactively in favor of drift
o
+
discovery, random encounter, creative process
o
+
semantic interaction/communication like a conversation
* What is the difference between design and composition? 2008-09-19
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)