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
