Conor Britain's Interactive Theory and Audience Analysis Portfolio

Page 1

Conor Britain Theory and Audience Analysis Work Portfolio

Table of Contents Page 2 5 Steps for Surviving in a Digital World Page 3 Adapting to the World of Everyware, Augmented Realities and Ubiquitous Computing Page 27 Design is Personal: Understanding Audiences and Applying Theory to Interactive Design Page 52 Analyzing the Interactive Audience:Understanding Your Consumers to Create Meaningful User Experiences Page 86 Top Tens in Interactive Media Page 104 Raising Reality to the Mythic ont he Web: The Future of Interactive Documentary Page 1367 Sample Blog Posts

Have a Plan

Be Relateable

Use Smart Design

Listen

Adapt

With so much change occurring every day, it’s easy to get caught up in the fray without fully understanding it first. Proper planning will prevent wasted time and resources. Understand your users through User Personas, decide how can you fulfill their needs , and isolate the tools and strategies which will best serve your goals.

Make the people within your organization visible – there can no longer be a faceless corporation. Give people a reason to like you by being helpful and by giving out free information and services. And forget about controlling your brand’s image – worry about getting tagged with the right one.

Design is possibly one of the most important aspects of interactive communications. Without an approach that appeals to people, your efforts may be wasted. Make sure the user is given choice and control, and make sure your design is intuitive – nothing turns away a user faster than confusion.

People are going to be talking about you, and on the Internet, word spreads fast. Do your best to make that word a positive one by embracing honesty and criticism. By giving people channels to talk about your brand, you can learn what people are saying and leverage that free advice to improve your organization.

Keeping up with the curve is imperative, and putting yourself one step ahead of it will give your organization a major advantage. Keep up to date with technology and trends, and if you encounter a better way to do something, remain open-minded. Learn from others and experience to alter the plan when it becomes necessary.

1 2 3 4 5 2

1 Have a Plan IDENTIFY

BECOME

FULFILL

GIVE

KNOW

PROVIDE

with user personas

personable and likeable

the needs of your users

in the gifting tradition of the web

why you’re doing it

5

Be Relateable

incentives for users to return

3

Adapt

STAY CURRENT

on the latest trends and technologies

4

Use Smart Design

make your design

Listen

INTUITIVE

with choice and control

BE OPEN

GUIDED

BE FLEXIBLE

EFFICIENT

to change, innovation, and criticism

if a better option comes along

by the needs of your user persona

INVITE

in writing and function

feedback

DON’T HIDE

anything - be open and honest

ENGAGE

the groundswell

5 Steps for Surviving in a Digital World

Adapting
to
the
World
of
Everyware,
 Augmented
Realities
and
Ubiquitous
Computing
 
 
 
 A
Synthesis
Paper
by
Conor
Britain
 
 
 
 
 Table
of
Contents:

Synthesis
Paper
 Pages
2‐4
 
 “Studying
Past,
Present
to
Project
the
Future”
Notes
and
Synthesis
 Pages
5‐7
 
 “From
Imagining
the
Internet”
Notes
and
Synthesis
 Pages
8‐11
 
 “Interactive
Design
is
a
New
Field”
Notes
and
Synthesis
 Pages
11‐17
 
 “Looking
Ahead
150
Years”
Notes
and
Synthesis
 Pages
17‐18
 
 “Futures
Thinking”
Notes
and
Synthesis
 Pages
19‐24

Why,
as
communicators,
do
we
invent?
Is
it
to
communicate?
To
share?
To
 entertain?
Looking
at
the
progression
of
human
communications,
from
the
printing
 press
all
the
way
to
the
internet,
there
is
a
clear
underlying
trend
towards
“making
 the
world
smaller,”
with
each
successive
device
bringing
change
and
new
 opportunities
to
our
world.
In
fact,
our
reactions
to
seeing
new
communications
 tools,
whether
it
be
the
radio,
the
telephone,
or
the
internet,
have
reflected
this,
as
 we
look
to
new
devices
to
connect
the
world,
bring
about
peace,
change
politics
and
 economies
and
give
our
democracy,
intelligence
and
lives
more
meaning.

 
 However,
our
collective
achievements
in
technology
hasn’t
always
been
fully
 embraced;
refer
to
any
of
the
great
inventions
of
our
time
and
you’ll
surely
find
 many
examples
of
naysayers
and
nonbelievers
(even
the
Radio
pioneer
Lee
De
 Forest
condemned
the
pursuit
of
television.)
But
getting
past
doubters
and
keeping
 excitement
up
while
pursuing
new
trends
is
an
essential
part
of
progress.
According
 to
“futures
thinking,”
properly
analyzing
new
trends
and
possibilities
requires
 critical
thinking,
intuition,
research,
and
collaboration
with
stakeholders,
which
 includes
convincing
the
20%
of
innovators
who
will
follow
you
and
letting
their
 support
mobilize
others
to
get
excited
about
it
as
well.
Progress
is
as
much
a
social
 hurdle
as
it
is
a
technological
one.
 
 So,
with
all
of
the
progress
in
the
past
century
and
a
half,
the
inevitable
 question
becomes
“where
is
it
all
going?”
Well,
in
a
complex
adaptive
system
such
as
 our
world,
one
can
never
be
sure,
but
one
of
our
more
probably
futures
will
include
 “ubiquitous
computing”
–
the
notion
that
technology
and
the
internet
will
soon
be
 integrated
with
our
world,
always
on,
always
connected,
and
always
there.
Where
 each
new
milestone
in
communications
brings
the
world
closer,
the
culmination
of
 such
a
chain
is
to
be
constantly
connected
with
everything
at
the
same
time,
 reducing
geographical
distance
to
a
non‐issue.
With
ubiquitous
computing,
this
is
a
 reality
–
always
being
connected
means
always
having
access
to
the
world’s
wealth
 of
information
and
people
without
have
to
leave
your
living
room.
 
 However,
the
promise
of
invasive,
ever
present
technology
means
a
new
 world
to
which
we’ll
have
to
adapt.
Learning
to
navigate
this
world
will
be
a
major
 issue
facing
humans,
and
to
accomplish
proper
integration
with
an
ever‐connected
 world
we’ll
have
to
have
both
an
understanding
of
the
network
in
which
we
live
and
 intuitive
design
and
interfaces
through
which
we
use
the
technology.
A
utensil
 without
proper
design
is
often
useless;
as
are
the
interfaces
we
use
to
connect.
By
 weaving
good
design
with
technology,
we
can
maximize
our
ability
to
use
these
 tools.
Such
design
will
include
augmented
realities
that
blur
the
lines
between
 virtual
and
real
to
the
point
where
they’re
indistinguishable;
haptics
and
human‐ computer
brain
connections
that
will
deepen
the
relationship
between
human
and
 machine;
mirror
worlds
that
make
us
question
where
we’d
rather
spend
our
time
–
 in
the
virtual
or
the
real?
Design
will
be
a
crucial
component
to
making
these
new
 technologies
a
mainstay.

 
 But
What
does
this
all
mean
for
us?
How
will
Everyware,
ubiquitous
 computing,
alternate
realities
and
advanced
artificial
intelligence
change
the
inner

aspects
of
our
lives?
One
major
issue
will
be
with
privacy
vs.
convenience:
how
can
 we
retain
our
privacy
when
an
ambient
internet
can
(and
does)
know
nearly
 everything
about
us?
Will
we
trade
privacy
for
the
convenient
lifestyle
Web
3.0
will
 bring
us?
Furthermore,
how
will
Everyware
change
our
social
dynamics?
In
a
world
 where
everything
is
broken
down
into
numbers
and
patterns,
including
 relationships,
how
will
we
value
human
to
human
contact?
Will
a
computer’s
 definition
of
friendship
satisfy
us?
Social
norms
will
change,
and
augmented
realities
 will
be
a
driving
force
behind
this
change.

 
 However,
there
are
other
demands
that
will
be
placed
on
us
besides
figuring
 out
our
social
identities
and
values.
With
artificial
intelligence
getting
smarter
all
the
 time,
we
will
either
have
to
let
it
surpass
us
or
augment
our
own
intelligence
to
keep
 up.
Being
“hyperconnected”
is
something
that
everyone
will
have
to
deal
with
(not
 just
those
of
us
who
are
addicted
to
our
Blackberries),
and
information
overload
is
 something
everyone
will
have
to
manage.
(Could
it
be
possible
that
there
will
be
a
 demand
for
therapists
who
help
us
streamline
our
lives,
like
an
advanced
form
of
 lifehack.com?)
As
if
the
universe’s
wealth
of
information
wasn’t
enough
to
 overwhelm
us,
augmented
realities
will
ask
us
to
give
attention
(an
ever
scarce
 commodity
in
the
future,
according
to
the
idea
of
an
Economy
of
Attention)
to
new
 places,
ideas
and
concerns.

 
 One
aspect
that
I
am
particularly
interested
in
is
how
we
will
define
“lived”
 experiences
in
augmented
realities.
If
we
see
or
attend
a
representation
of
an
event
 in
a
mirror
world
(which,
thanks
to
technology,
will
be
a
perfectly
accurate
 portrayal
to
the
real
event)
will
we
categorize
it
as
real?
If
this
is
accepted,
will
the
 documentary
still
be
necessary?
Or
will
the
documentary
be
redefined
as
guiding
 someone
through
an
experience
in
an
AR?
After
all,
if
the
documentary
is
about
 showing,
observing
and
teaching,
couldn’t
experiences
in
ARs
be
a
more
intimate,
 true
form
of
documentary,
even
if
they
aren’t
based
in
the
“real
world?”
 
 On
the
brink
of
such
a
radical
new
future,
one
of
the
best
tools
we
can
 incorporate
into
our
jobs
and
daily
lives
is
“futures
thinking.”
By
constantly
 scanning
the
horizon
for
emerging
trends
and
issues,
categorizing
them,
discussing
 them
with
other
stakeholders,
and
creating
action
plans
defining
how
we’ll
prepare
 for
or
embrace
the
trends,
we
can
give
ourselves
a
competitive
advantage
and
stay
 ahead
of
the
curve.
Finding
trends
and
emerging
issues
requires
collaboration
 (remember,
change
is
a
social
hurdle
as
well),
diligence,
critical
thinking,
and
 perseverance.
It
is
a
constant
process
that
will
tax
the
mind,
but
the
rewards
for
 doing
so
are
many.
To
be
a
proper
scanner
of
the
horizon,
one
must
not
only
 subscribe
to
many
hubs
of
information,
but
read
and
contribute
to
discussion
and
 insight.
It
is
not
so
much
a
practice,
but
a
complete
change
in
how
we
think
and
view
 the
future.
 
 By
keeping
up
with
tomorrow,
we
can
ride
the
wave
of
progress
so
that
we’re
 always
adapting
to
change
instead
of
reacting
to
it.
We
may
not
all
be
the
Philo
 Farnsworths
of
the
new
millennium,
but
we
can
be
the
Matsushitas
–
the
people
 who
look
for,
analyze
and
react
to
trends
before
they
hit
critical
mass–
and
best

prepare
ourselves
to
thrive
in
the
world
of
the
future.
Like
change,
adaptation
is
 inevitable
in
a
world
that
promises
such
technological
advancement;
the
question
 we’re
faced
with
answering
is
how
prepared
we’ll
be
to
adapt.
For
the
individual
or
 firm
hoping
to
succeed
in
the
future,
that
answer
is
simple:
more
than
enough.

Past
and
Future:
And
Interactive
Media
Chronology
 Text
=
Synthesis

1.
Studying
Past,
Present
to
Project
the
Future
 ‐Nicholas
Negroponte:
when
everything
goes
digital,
everything
will
change

‐no
more
nation‐states?

‐compete
w/
imagination
rather
than
rank

‐“Internet
of
Things”
–
everything
will
have
an
IP
address
and
geoweb
info
 ‐Interfaces
are
designed
to
get
the
job
done,
from
tools
to
websites
 The
future
is
one
where
the
internet
isn’t
just
 something
we
connect
to
when
we
sit
down
to
our
 computers;
it’s
going
to
be
an
integrated
aspect
of
 our
lives,
to
the
point
where
it
will
be
inseparable,
 unable
to
be
turned
off.
It
will
change
our
values,
 relationships,
everything.
 Early
Computing

‐ENIAC
–
first
computer,
Electronic
Numerical
Integrator
and
Computer

‐George
Boole
–
developed
the
Boolean
system,
a
logical
and
symbolic
 reasoning
upon
which
computers
still
rely
today

‐Vannevar
Bush
–
differential
analyzer
(1925)
allowed
for
integration
and
 differentiation
in
electrical
computation

‐First
formalized
the
idea
of
the
internet,
a
common
pool
of
info

“Moore’s
Law”
–
Developed
in
1965,
saw
that
the
number
of
transistors
per
chip
and
 performance
was
increasing
at
a
particular
rate,
said
it
increased
by
35
 percent
every
18
months.
Holds
true
today.
 Progress
seems
to
start
with
ideas
and
ends
in
 action;
if
the
idea
to
future
thinking
is
to
finding
 patterns,
there’s
many
to
be
found
in
the
how
we
 progress
alone,
as
Moore’s
Law
illustrates
 Early
Internet

‐Eisenhower
initiates
“Advanced
Research
Projects
Agency”
(later
DARPA)
 for
nuclear
defense
reasons,
later
becomes
an
agency
devoted
to
 investigating
the
idea
of
networked
computers
when
J.C.R.
Licklider
arrives

1960’s:

‐Licklider,
Kleinrock,
Baran,
Roberts
begin
researching
a
connected
 world
through
computers

‐
develop
an
informal
e‐mail
 ‐Donald
Davies
–
propose
idea
of
packets
 ‐1969
–
Steve
Crocker
“Request
for
Comments”
(RFCs)
lays
tradition
 for
adopting
new
standards
and
democratic
nature
of
the
 internet
 ‐1969
ARPANET
launches
with
4
machines

1970‐75

‐ARPANET
reaches
12
machines

‐FTP
is
invented,
allows
machines
to
exchange
files

‐Ray
Tomlinson
estables
first
e‐mail
between
two
machines
and











 introduces
@
symbol

‐1974
Vinton
Cerf
of
UCLA
and
Robert
Kahn
–
Tranmission
Control
 Protocol
and
Internet
Protocol
(TCP/IP),
which
makes
Internet
faster
 and
more
efficient,
letting
more
people
participate
and
bringing
down
 price

1976‐79

‐Robert
Metcalf
develops
Ethernet
(1976)

‐Jimmy
Carter
–
computer
driven
candidate

1980‐89

‐NSFNET
allows
regional
networks
to
be
established
around
the
 country

‐More
networks
emerge:
BITNET,
USENET,
UUCP

‐Tim
Berners‐Lee
of
CERN
writes
memo
regarding
invention
of
a
 worldwide
network
for
sharing
information
 1990‐95
 ‐Berners‐Lee
creates
the
first
World‐Wide
web
by
creating
first
html
 source
code.

 ­ISPs
allow
people
to
dial
up
to
get
access
to
internet
 ‐1992
–
Internet
Society
was
founded
w/
Cerf
and
Kahn
at
the
helm
 ‐Mark
Andreesen
launches
Mosaic,
first
GUI
internet
browser

‐By
1995
Internet
has
16
million
users
 It
took
the
Internet
a
mere
four
years
to
reach
50
million
users,
and
only
a
few
more
 to
reach
1
billion.
 Interesting
to
note
how
the
internet
started
with
 government
involvement,
usually
the
last
of
the
 institutions
to
“catch
on”
according
to
section
5.
 However,
the
internet
still
progressed
with
the
few
 “radicals”
in
Licklider,
Cerf,
Kahn,
Berners­Lee
and
 etc.,
only
to
be
capitalized
upon
by
the
ISPs…but
then
 again,
they
certainly
were
incorporating
future
 thinking,
as
the
money
in
their
bank
accounts
signify.
 Top
50
Moments
in
Internet
History
Notes

‐1987
GIF
Image
introduced…still
the
standard
for
today
 ‐1994
SSL
(Secure
Socket
Layer)
encrypts
sensitive
data…still
the
standard
 for
today
 ‐1997
RSS
–
feeds
based
on
XML
language
that
allow
web
 subscriptions…podcasting
reliant
on
this
 ‐Usenet
–
essentially
the
first
messageboard…still
exists
today
 ‐The
Well
–
an
“intellectual
watering
hole,”
respected
for
the
conversations
 amongst
geeks,
futurists
and
philosophers
 ‐1996
–
ICQ
becomes
the
first
global
GUI
based
instant
messaging
client
and
 is
bought
up
by
AIM
 ‐1993
–
The
Tech,
an
online
newspaper
at
MIT,
becomes
the
first
of
its
kind
 ‐2000
–
AOL
acquires
Time
Warner
for
$160bn,
making
it
obvious
that
the
 Internet
was
no
longer
to
be
just
a
place
for
text
and
graphics
 ‐Javascript
invent
in
1995
 Noticing
a
trend
here…a
lot
of
things
that
are
still
 “standards”
today
have
been
around
a
long
time.
 While
clearly
SSL
and
GIF
are
industry
standards,
 surely
they
aren’t
without
flaws?
Will
they
survive
 to
the
New
Internet?
In
an
age
where
everything
is
 progressing
so
fast,
it’s
really
a
wonder
that
these
 things
are
still
around.

2.
From
Imagining
the
Internet
 The
Social,
Political
and
economic
impacts
of
networks:
predict
the
future
based
on
 things
that
do
not
change

Innovators
–
Marconi,
Farnsworth,
Andreessen,
Berners‐Lee

Entrepeneurs
–
well
connected,
allow
innovation
to
happen

Establishing
of
Rules
–
governing
bodies,
laws,
structures,
etc

Reaction
to
inventions
of
Telegraph,
Telephone,
Radio,
Television,
and
Internet
 all
express
similar
sentiments:

­Peace
making
functions
by
connecting
people

­Connecting
the
world,
making
it
smaller

­Make
previous
institutions
obsolete

­Change
politics
and
economics

­Further
democracy,
tool
for
grassroots,
movement
out
of
cities

­Lead
to
an
advanced
form
of
transmission
intelligence

It
might
be
more
pertinent
to
describe
these
things
as
REASONS
we
invent,
 progress,
and
accomplish
the
seemingly
impossible.
 
 World
Changes
Due
to:
 ‐Telegraph:
first
“instant
messaging”
via
Morse
Code,
geography
no
longer
 limiting
 ‐Radio:
Broadcasts
of
church
services,
programs,
newspaper
tie‐ins,
courses;
 80%
of
America
had
radio
by
1939
 ‐Telephone:
Brought
personal
communication
to
the
home;
the
issue
of
 privacy
comes
into
play
 ‐Television:
Television
programming
succeeds
due
to
competition,
laid‐back
 gov’t,
spirit
of
invention;

 Noticing
another
trend
here
in
the
development
of
 technology…world
getting
smaller
and
smaller
until

it’s
how
small?
Until
we’re
seamlessly
integrated
with
 the
rest
of
the
world:
ubiquitous
computing!
 
 Thoughts
on
reactions
to
inventions
 ­Always
a
biting
criticism
of
the
device,
proclaiming
it’s
not
worth
the
 money
–
20%
of
abstainers,
anyone?
 ­At
the
same
time,
always
a
profound
optimism,
goes
to
show
when
the
 idea
is
there
often
times
it
can
be
done
–
20%
of
the
innovators,
anyone?
 ­Idea
that
America
doesn’t
have
time
for
television:
very
funny.
Indicative
 of
how
shortsighted
we
actually
are
to
our
own
uses
for
technology
 
 Key
Thoughts
on
the
Internet:

‐Will
we
allow
computers
to
become
smarter
than
us?
Will
they
own
us?

‐Will
we
prefer
to
live
in
the
internet
universe?

 ‐Economy
will
be
based
on
relationship,
not
possession;
knowledge
is
 currency
 ‐Who’s
controlling
it?

Web
Gems:
Where
does
individual
liberty
fit
into
the
internet?
 ‐Alvin
Toffler
–
Magna
Carta
for
the
Information
Age:
Knowledge
will
 overthrow
power,
making
us
have
to
redefine
basic
concepts
such
as
 freedom,
self‐government,
property,
community,
etc.
 ‐Clinton
administration’s
Clipper
Chip:
big
brother
tries
entering
cyberspace
 ‐Some
believe
big
brother
isn’t
able
to
exist
with
the
freedom
of
the
internet
 The
framework
for
individual
liberty
was
laid
when
 the
founders
of
the
internet
used
open
discussions
to
 make
decisions,
yet
once
we
reach
ubiquitous
 computing
what
will
we
be
able
to
control
or
keep
 private?
Essential
that
we
always
can
“opt
out”
as
 Greenfield
states
and
know
where
information
is
 coming
from
and
going.

Future
of
Networks:

‐Internet
is
merely
an
early
collective
consciousness:
godmind
 ‐Internet
is
an
organism,
a
creature
that
is
ever
evolving,
communicating
 with
itself;
one
day
computers
will
speak
to
each
other

‐Computers
may
one
day
think
for
us

‐Be
able
to
build
upon
itself
with
nanotechnology

‐Computers
will
be
sensory,
active
in
our
very
environments
and
interacting
 with
us
 ‐Must
understand
the
ways
and
means
of
networks
to
survive
in
such
a
 world
 Once
computers
can
communicate
and
adapt
to
each
 other,
user­interface
issues
with
internet
should
 essentially
come
to
an
end,
as
they
will
be
able
to
 self­correct,
be
intuitive,
and
be
flexible.
These
 implications
alone
are
enormous.
 
 The
Web’s
Awake:
An
Intro
to
the
Field
of
Science
and
Concept
of
Web
Life”

‐The
web
should
be
considered
a
living
organism
–
a
single
member/unit
 ‐The
Semantic
Web:
a
Web
that
can
read
its
own
data,
which
exists
in
data
 upon
data
upon
data,,
so
that
it
can
read
its
own
weaknesses
and
automate
 itself,
becoming
independent
 ‐Society’s
collective
consciousness
on
the
web
is
what
kickstarts
the
new
 Web,
but
where
does
it
go
from
there?
 We’re
building
the
web
right
now
with
out
own
 knowledge
and
intellect
until
we
reach
a
point
where
 the
internet
can
take
over
for
itself,
like
a
parent
 teaching
a
kid
to
ride
a
bike.
Once
that
kid
is
off
and
 running,
though,
will
we
be
able
to
control
what
 roads
it
goes
down?
The
crazy
thing
is,
it
won’t
even
 be
following
the
roads
we’ve
created;
it
will
make
its
 own
paths,
if
it
follows
paths
at
all.
We
just
can’t
 know
for
sure.

What
is
Web
3.0?

‐Functions
like
a
human
being,
understands
humans
and
interaction,
can
be
 intuitive
and
resourceful
 ‐Operate
like
a
personal
servant
 Can’t
help
but
wonder
why
a
self­conscious
internet
 would
be
interested
in
serving
man­kind.

3.
Interactive
Design
is
a
new
field

1990
–
Mitch
Kapor’s
Software
Design
Manifesto”
 ‐Says
designers
need
to
be
on
the
same
level
as
programmers

in
 order
to
create
a
proper
interactive
experience
 ‐Believed
achieving
this
was
done
by
creating
a
professional
discipline
 and
a
community

Interaction
Design:
(Mark
Rettig)
 ‐Does
the
product
connect
with
goals

‐Repeated
interaction
and
activities
are
in
context

‐The
interface
is
used
over
time
by
different
people

‐The
presentation
of
information
and
controls

‐Information
is
organized
and
functional

Interaction
Design
Association
(IxDA)
manifesto:
 “We
believe
that
the
human
condition
is
increasingly
challenged
by
 poor
condition
by
advancing
the
discipline
of
interaction
design.
To
do
 this,
we
foster
a
community
of
people
who
choose
to
come
together
to
 support
this
intention.
IxDA
relies
on
individual
initiative,
 contribution,
sharing
and
self‐organization
as
the
primary
means
for
 us
to
achieve
our
goals.”
 A
utensil
without
proper
design
is
often
useless;
as
 are
the
interfaces
we
use
to
connect.
By
weaving
good
 design
with
the
technology,
we
can
maximize
our
 ability
to
use
these
tools.

The
Future
of
the
Internet
III:
Selection
1
 The
Future
of
Augmented
and
Virtual
Reality

‐MMORPGs:
The
following
aspects
of
these
provide
insight
on
the
future
of
 leadership,
because
these
games
are
successful
due
to:

‐Engaging
people
in
practice
of
useful
pursuits

‐Working
in
ad
hoc
teams

‐Distributed
decision
making

‐Leadership
through
collaboration

‐Internet
has
always
been
a
place
of
augmented
reality
 ‐Interface
is
important
 ‐Online
networking:
self‐actualization,
helping
people
satisfy
needs
to
be
 effective,
contributing,
creative,
mature
and
capable
 ‐Mirror
Worlds
(google
earth,
virtual
earths,
secondlife):
our
immersion
in
 them
will
change
our
social
norms
 
‐More
internet
means
more
crossover
between
reality
and
augmented
 reality
 ‐Cell
Phones
and
GPSs
give
us
augmented
realities,
making
us
more
 synchronous
with
our
geography
 ‐ARs
are
being
utilized
to
make
social
difference
(global‐awareness
overlays
 on
Google
Earth)
 ‐As
people
begin
to
leverage
virtual
info
to
augment
real­world
needs,
 the
line
between
virtual
reality
and
the
real
will
blur
 ‐Mobile
devices
will
be
able
to
mirror
the
real‐world,
giving
us
useful
data
at
 what’s
around
us
 ‐VRs
and
ARs
aren’t
without
their
problems:
create
issues
of
national
 security,
health
and
dangerous
social
trends
 Augmented
realities
sound
like
the
visors
characters
 don
in
sci­fi
movies
where
they
tell
them
statistics
of
 the
environment
around
them;
essentially,
though,
 that’s
what
they
are!
 Augmented
realities
–
what
potential
do
 documentaries
have
in
the
augmented
reality?
Don’t
 these
global­awareness
overlays
provide
a
sort
of
 documentary
experience?

Future
of
the
Internet
Part
II:
Future
of
Human­Computer
Interfaces

‐WIMP:
Windows,
Icons,
Menus,
and
Pointing;
only
the
beginning

‐Two
Trends
in
computing

1.
Mobile
Internet

2.
Embedded
networks/computing
–
ubiquitous
computing

Ubiquitous
Computing

‐Context‐aware,
personalized,
anticipatory

‐Will
change
everything
from
human
organization
to
brushing
teeth

‐Real
and
Virtual
will
become
indistinguishable

‐Always
on
…
transparency

‐Computers
will
listen,
talk,
read

Display
Screens
becoming
flexible
and
dynamic
 Display
screens
becoming
flexible
seems
to
be
a
huge
 step
in
technology.
Could
this
save
the
newspaper?

Input
Devices:

‐WiiMote
–
utilizes
gyroscopes
and
accelerometers
 ‐LtWv
Wrist
Vmote
Lightglove
–
allows
one
to
remotely
use
devices
by
 reading
hand
movements

Input
Methods:

­Text
based
input
is
not
going
away;
humans
can
read
faster
than listen
 ‐Speech
recognition:
uses
statistical
info
about
word
patterns,
but
 difficult
to
perfect
because
of
the
imperfections
in
speech,
dialects,
 and
body
movements
used
to
communicate
 ‐Subvocalization:
the
electrical
impulses
made
right
before
speaking,
 perhaps
the
key
to
perfecting
voice
recognition
 ‐E‐pen
and
E‐paper:
handwriting
recognition
is
more
likely
due
to
 flexibility;
LiveScribe
analyzes
handwriting
while
matching
audio
 input
to
pen
strokes;
EPDs
(e‐paper
displays)
can
be
read
in
daylight
 and
draws
less
power
than
LCDs

I
wonder
if
speech
recognition
will
eventually
just
 become
thought
recognition…if
Emotiv’s
headset
can
 sense
electric
activity
in
the
brain,
why
shouldn’t
we
 think
there
will
be
a
time
where
we
can
have
our
 thoughts
alone
transferred
to
e­paper?
 ‐
Thin‐Film‐Transistor
Technology:
Allows
for
folding
screens
for
cell
phones
 and
e‐readers
 
 Haptics

‐touch
output
or
delivery
of
a
tactile
sensation
from
a
device
to
user
 ‐coordinate
sensors,
actuators,
magnets,
motors,
etc
to
simulate
 pressures
and
textures
 ‐gives
physical
feedback
to
user,
ground
breaking
for
medical
 equipment
and
gaming
interfaces
 I
had
actually
thought
of
haptics
when
I
was
younger
 in
the
context
of
video
games
(of
course):
what
if
 there
was
a
game
where
you
could
where
an
outfit
 where
you
could
feel
the
environment
within
the
 game?
Feel
textures,
temperatures,
even
where
you
 were
being
“shot.”
While
it
seemed
cool
at
the
time,
 now
I
realize
how
important
this
technology
could
be;
 it’s
a
powerful
ability
to
be
able
to
feel,
and
the
ability
 to
feel
things
that
aren’t
really
there
would
be
an
 even
more
powerful
tool
indeed.

Human­Computer
Brain
Connection
Interfaces
 ‐Emotiv
Systems’
headset
transmit
signals
from
player’s
facial
 movements
and
electrical
brain
activity
to
effect
avatar’s
appearance
 in
game
 ‐can
detect
emotion,
expressions,
and
actions
to
manipulate
the
VR
 world
 ‐mentally
tagging
objects
 ‐A
new
energy­efficient
chip
could
use
human
body
heat
as
an
energy
 source

Future
of
the
Internet
Part
III:
Hyperconnectivity

Being
hyperconnected
means
always­on
state
of
engagement

‐brought
about
by
PDAs,
social
networks,
wikis,
VoIP,
etc.

‐lifestreaming
 ­16%
of
people
already
fit
hyperconnected
criteria:
being
reasonabliy
 happy
and
willing
to
communicate
w/
work
on
vacation,
from
bed,
 places
of
worship,
etc.

1
trillion
connected
devices
in
next
13­18
years
(David
D.
Clark)
 People
see
no
boundary
between
using
Internet
connections
for
personal
and
 professional
communications
 Hyperconnected
Stats:

‐Checking
e‐mail
from
mobile
device
100%
of
the
time
 ‐Keeping
portable
device
nearby
at
night
for
incoming
messages
 (43%)

‐Checking
e‐mail
everyday
on
vacation
(83%)

‐Checking
e‐mail
in
bathroom
(37%)

‐Checking
Blackberry
85
times
a
day
or
more

Issues
in
hyperconnectivity

‐Should
employees
be
paid
for
doing
work
overtime
on
devices?

‐Does
multitasking
help
or
hurt
productivity?

‐Is
hyperconnectivity
a
form
of
addiction?

‐Is
hyperconnectivity/multitasking
effecting
family
life?

Flood
of
information
is
creating
an
Attention
Economy
 ‐Information
Overload:
we’re
trying
to
multitask
so
many
things,
but
 this
is
inherently
impossible;
instead,
we’re
just
switching
from
task
 to
task

 ‐Others
say
that
info
overload
is
like
saying
there’s
too
much
food
at
a
 buffet;
we
simply
need
to
do
a
better
job
at
choosing
what
we
take
in

Cures
for
Info
Overload:
 ‐BETTER
DESIGN
is
the
key
to
helping
us
navigate
info
overload

‐“Lifehacker.com”
 Sounds
like
the
future
will
have
need
for
therapists
 that
help
people
cope
with
their
ever­connected
 lives.
 ‐Leveraging
ubiquitous
mobile
connections
through
collective
 intelligence

‐There
are
even
therapeutic
effects
in
sharing
info.

‐Clay
Shirky:
“This
isn’t
the
sort
of
thing
society
grows
out
of,
it
is
 something
that
society
grows
into.”

 
 While
time
will
tell
how
well
we
become
at
managing
 information
and
divide
our
attention,
I
think
it
 interesting
that
technology
is
flooding
our
lives
at
a
 rate
where
we
don’t
adapt
technology
into
our
 lifestyle;
we
adapt
our
lifestyles
to
technology.
 
 Everyware:
The
Dawning
Age
of
Ubiquitous
Computing
 ‐Everyware
is
the
idea
that
ambient,
intelligent,
pervasive
computing
will
 become
integrated
into
our
world
 ‐All
info
processing
we
rely
on
our
phones
and
the
WWW
for
becomes
 accessible
from
anywhere,
anytime
in
context‐based
deliveries
 ‐Trading
access
to
our
privacy
for
increased
convenience
–
and
we’ll
accept
 ‐RFID
and
GPS
are
accelerating
this
concept
 ‐Ubiquitous
computing
will
allow
for
the
constant
input
of
data
and
 metadata,
pushed
to
you
when
you
want
and
depending
on
what
you’re
 doing;
sharing
of
data
will
lead
to
near
limitless
efficiency
 ‐Clothing
can
adjust
to
atmospheric
inputs,
rooms
to
your
moods,
quantify
 your
relationships
in
numbers
and
levels
of
“warmness,”
etc.
etc.
 What
will
social
relationships
be
like
in
the
future
if
 everything
is
going
to
be
quantifiable?
Don’t
 relationships
work
because
there’s
something
 intangible
to
them?
Wouldn’t
some
great
 relationships
not
exist
if
we
were
told
that,
 mathematically,
a
relationship
didn’t
make
sense?
 This
is
going
to
be
a
very
interesting
human­interest
 issue
as
Everyware
develops.

‐Identification
abilities
will
make
a
mockery
of
the
phrase
“Your
papers,
 please.”
 ‐Adam
Greenfield:
“Information
never
does
leave
the
world.
It
just
keeps
 accumulating,
simultaneously
more
explicit,
more
available,
and
more
 persistent
than
anything
we
our
societies
have
yet
reckoned
with.”

 The
ultimate
strength
of
computers
and
robotics
 is/will
be
that
they
can
review
and
make
conclusions
 about
data
far
faster
than
humans
could,
allowing
us
 to
reach
places
or
implement
ideas
far
faster
than
 otherwise.
But
what
will
humans
be
able
to
 contribute
at
this
point?
Emotions?
Contexts?
If
 computers
can
analyze
human
emotions
and
actions,
 though,
they
could
essentially
predict
and
mimic
 human
behavior…does
this
mean
the
only
thing
that
 keeps
us
human
is
having
the
ability
to
be
 unpredictable?

 “The
Technologist’s
Responsibilities
and
Social
Change”
two
key
principles
 for
inventors:
 1. Build
it
as
safe
as
you
can
 2. Tell
the
world
at
large
that
you
are
doing
something
dangerous
 Greenfield:
Users
must
be
able
to
opt
out
at
any
point.

4.
Looking
Ahead
150
Years

2010­2014
 ‐2010:
New
and
improved
internet
 ‐2010:
FRID/GPS
can
track
anything
 ‐2010:
Super
Supercomputers
(Petaflops
baby)
 ‐2012:
Food
as
designer
medicine
 ‐2012:
Intelligent
fabrics,
respond
to
weather,
monitor
vital
signs,
etc.

2015

‐Teleportation
is
deemed
possible
and
is
in
development
 ‐Genetic
profiling
used
to
modify
more
plants,
insects,
and
animals
in
 the
food
chain
for
therapeutic
drugs
and
optimize
pollution‐fighting
 properties

‐Human
cloning
takes
place
 ‐Autopilot
vehicles
common
 ‐Smart,
Adaptable
Materials
evolve
–
materials
can
change
shape,
self‐ repair,
change
color

2016­2025

‐2020:
Immersive
virtual‐reality
worlds
 ‐2020:
Ubiquitous
robots
–
will
humans
increase
their
intelligence
 or
be
surpassed
by
AI?
 ­2025:
Paint‐On
Power
Generation
 ­2025:
Holographic
TV

2026­2045
 ‐2035:
Biostasis
in
Space:
metabolisms
will
be
slowed
so
aging
in
 space
doesn’t
occur
 ‐2045:
Singularity
–
the
point
at
which
the
simultaneous
acceleration
 of
nanotechnology,
robotics
and
genetics
due
to
self‐improving
 intelligence
causes
a
jump
incomprehensible
by
humans.

 ‐2045:
Space
Elevator/Moon
Base

2046­2150

‐2050:
Mars
Colony
 ‐2050
and
Beyond:
Time
Travel
–
Amos
Ori
says
mathematically
time
 travel
is
possible,
requires
“closed,
time‐like
curve,”
possibly
 cataclysmic
 ‐2050
and
Beyond:
Brain
Downloading
–
virtual
immortality
 While
interesting,
these
predictions
are
based
on
 what
we
know
in
the
here
and
now.
Like
futures
 thinking
explains,
there
is
always
the
possibility
of
 wild
cards,
and
in
a
complex
system
there
will
always
 be
unseen
variables.
To
keep
these
on
our
radar
is
 important,
but
will
we
really
be
displaced
by
 computers
by
2045?
Like
the
text
says,
we
thought
 we’d
be
at
places
far
different
from
where
we
are
 back
in
the
early
1900s…what’s
to
say
our
thoughts
 on
the
future
should
be
any
more
accurate?

Chapter
5:
Futures
Thinking
 Preparing
for
the
Future

‐Goal
is
to
realize
possible
futures,
steer
towards
the
desirable
one

‐How
will
change
effect
our
lives?
Hobbies?
Families?
Economies?

‐Four
Tools
to
Prepare:

1.
Intelligent
Horizon
Scanning

2.
Continuous
Strategic
Thinking

3.
Dynamic
Action
Planning

4.
Engaging
in
Collaborative
Thought

Starting
Futuring:
Ask
“what
if”
questions

‐Strategic
Foresight:
reveal
possibilities,
explore
what
they
could
mean

‐Tactical
Foresight:
create
strategies
in
the
short
term

‐To
develop
good
strategies,
must
encourage
challenge:

‐Inspire

­Engage

­Enable

‐Replace
“gut
feelings”
with
sought
out
research
of
the
future,
using
 information
to
analyze
trends
and
patterns
 ‐STEP:
political,
economic,
social
and
technological
changes
where
 trends
occur
(Also
environmental
and
legal)
 Overcoming
Roadblocks:
not
fully
utilizing
team
or
resources
due
to
lack
of
 resources,
concentration
or
belief
in
the
research
 Futures
Thinking
seems
to
require
a
combination
of
 creativity,
intuition,
diligence,
and
teamwork;
in
fact,
 what
major
pursuits
in
life
don’t
require
these
things?
 
 Spotting
new
trends
and
exploiting
them
leads
to
competitive
advantage

‐Be
original,
fresh;
don’t
rely
on
the
mainstream
media
alone

‐Be
agile,
not
reactive;
always
ask:

‐How
are
values
and
opportunities
changing?

‐How
will
business
as
usual
have
to
change?

‐When?

Key
Cognitive
Skills:

‐Trend
assessment
(most
qualitative)

‐Pattern
recognition

‐Systems
perspective
(seeing
system
as
a
whole)

‐Anticipation

‐Analysis
and
logic
(Most
quantitative)

‐The
impossible
is
usually
not
impossible,
and
we
can
shape
the
future
 Future
Outcomes
Outputs:
(some
key
components)

‐Assessment
of
the
issue

‐Definition
of
key
questions

‐Horizon
scan
for
upcoming
changes/trends

‐Exercises
in
breakout
thinking

‐Scenario
plans
of
potential
futures

‐Competitor
analyses

‐Stakeholder
surveys
of
their
desires,
attitudes
and
behaviors

‐Plausible
responses

‐Action
plans
and
roadmaps

‐New
higher
order
understanding
and
better
questions

‐key
is
getting
early
engagement
and
support
to
drive
project

Organization
and
clear
communication
seems
to
be
 recurring
themes
here;
whenever
you’re
tackling
 something
as
unpredictable
as
the
future,
it’s
clearly
 important
to
always
visualize
different
scenarios,
 take
a
look
at
what’s
on
the
horizon,
how
other
 people
are
interpreting
information,
and
keeping
 engagement
and
support
for
the
project
up.

Strategic
Thinking

‐point
of
view
on
the
long‐term
position
of
an
organization
in
the
future
 ‐systematically
think
about
and
develop
alternative
futures
in
order
to
make
 better
decisions
today
 ‐detecting
emerging
signals
 ‐Looking
at:
business,
economics,
environment,
lifestyles,
politics,
society,
 etc…
 ‐where
we
are…how
we
might
get
there…where
might
we
be?

Assessing
and
Selecting
Trends:
 Key
points:

‐Trends
don’t
exist
in
isolation

‐Trends
are
predictions
based
on
present
facts

‐Trends
have
uncertain
paths

Selecting
Trends:

‐Four
tiers
of
trends

‐Quantitative
Assessment
looks
at:
potential,
likelihood,
urgency,
complexity,
 change
type,
and
opportunity,
motivation,
risk,
cost,
etc.
 ‐Qualitative
Assessment
looks
at
history,
current
conditions,
data
points,
 assumption,
supporting
data,
drivers
&
inhibitors,
counter
trends,
trigger
 events,
next
steps,
etc.
 ‐Create
scenarios
to
find
the
middle
ground
which
is
most
likely
to
happen,
 adapting
a
vision
where
strategy
is
flexible
as
the
future
unfolds.
 Futures
Networking
–
maximizing
the
breadth
and
depth
of
all
inputs
to
a
project
 and
communicating
the
outcomes
successfully
to
stakeholders

 ‐Collaboration
is
essential
for
strategic
thinking,
action
planning,
horizon
 scanning
and
networking
 ‐Ask
every
stakeholder
“How
will
future
be
different”
and
“What
should
we
 do
about
it?”
–
will
reveal
different
signals
of
change
 Starting
large
and
going
small
–
makes
sense,
but
 this
system
is
also
nice
in
that
it
doesn’t
discard
the

less
important
trends,
it
just
keeps
them
on
the
 backburner,
ready
to
roll
in
case
that
trend
picks
up.
 It’s
flexible
and
adaptive
–
just
like
the
future.
 
 Action
Planning:
 ‐defines
strategy
based
off
of
horizon
scanning
and
strategic
thinking
and
 making
decisions
in
order
to
pursue
it
 D.E.C.I.D.E.

‐Define
program

‐Explore
choices

‐Chose
strategy

‐I.D.
consequences
of
choice

‐Do

‐Evaluate

‐Comprises
of
future
briefing,
breakout
thinking,
scenario
planning,
agreed
 strategy,
and
action
plan
 ‐Future
Briefings
–
summarize
research
undertaken
so
far
to
reveal
trends,
 uncertainties,
wildcards,
and
drivers
of
change

‐Important
to
eliminate
undue
bias

‐Editorial
Review
–
copy
editing,
peer
review,
crowd
review
 ‐Recognizing
disfunctionality
–
being
able
to
recognize
interpersonal
 problems
and
being
able
to
prevent/stop
them
 ‐Overcoming
resistant
–
turning
negative
energy
into
excited
optimism
 ‐20%
adventurers,
60%
adopters,
20%
abstainers;
encourage
 adventurers
and
let
them
inspire
the
others,
while
listening
to
 abstainers
critiques
 Every
invention
leading
up
to
the
internet
was
met
 with
criticism
by
powerful
voices,
even
those
from
 inventors
of
previous
technologies;
to
be
able
to
get
 past
the
doubts
of
others
is
clearly
a
valuable

Horizon
Scanning

The
art
of
systematically
exploring
the
external
environment
in
order
to

 1. Better
understand
nature
and
pace
of
change
 2. Identify
potential
opportunities,
challenges
and
developments
 Detect
trends,
situations
and
events
 Identify
potential
opportunities
or
threats
 Determine
organization’s
strengths
and
limitations
 Provide
a
basis
for
future
analysis
 ‐Requires
formal
searching
for
info
across
mediums
and
qualitative
and
 quantitative
sources
 ‐Perceived
environment
(one
we
notice
and
talk
about)
and
Pertinent
 environment
(below
the
radar,
requiring
analysis
and
critical
thinking)
 Pertinent
looks
at
what
causes
changes,
and
whether
 those
causes
will
affect
other
areas,
disappear
in
 time,
etc.
 ‐Use
a
structured
approach
to
scanning
to
increase
chance
of
finding
 something
useful

‐Think
outside
of
the
box

‐Getting
out
of
comfort
zone

‐Exposure
to
many
sources

Scanning
methods
include
surveys,
collaborative
foresight,
search,
and
 scouting
networks
 Don’t
just
see,
see
ahead,
behind,
above,
beside,
beyond,
through,
etc.
 ‐Bookmark,
read
newsletters,
move
beyond
comfort
zones,
scan
the
 scanners,
vary
routine,
search
patents,
books
and
etc.
 ‐Explore
all
sides
to
get
a
complete
picture,
use
multiple
lenses,
 explore
beyond
just
what
you
need,
use
multiple
techniques
 ‐Scanning
takes
time
and
practice,
use
STEEP
as
a
starting
point
and
 use
many
people
to
deepen
results
and
perspective
 Discovering
Trends

‐Trends
are
first
noticed
by
small
groups
(scientists,
artists,
radicals)
and
are
 most
prevalent
when
the
government
is
beginning
to
take
notice
 ‐Identify
emerging
issues,
because
by
the
time
a
trend
hits
it
is
already
 affecting
you
 ‐Explore
its
impact
on
your
organization
and
what
people
are
 currently
saying
about
it
 ‐Can’t
always
account
for
wildcards
or
black
swans,
but
can
always
utilize
 “what
if”
scenarios
 Scanning
challenges:

‐Looking
for
credible
sources

‐Stretch
your
thinking

‐Share
info
to
others
and
let
them
share
back

‐Our
world
is
a
complex
adaptive
system:
impossible
to
predict
 ‐Answer
lies
in
conducting
horizon
scanning
continuously
to
help
us
 best
keep
up
with
the
changes
within
it

 ‐Can’t
ever
underestimate
the
system,
because
it
is
complex
and
 adaptive;
must
always
see
many
events
and
synthesize
them
into
 trends
 ‐"The
internal
information
and
control
mechanisms
of
a
living
or
 social
system
must
be
as
varied
as
the
environment
in
which
it
is
 trying
to
survive.
A
System
with
the
requisite
control
variety
can
deal
 with
the
complexity
and
challenges
of
its
environment.”
–
Law
of
 Requisite
Variety
(Ashby
1956)

Again,
finding
trends
and
emerging
issues
requires
 collaboration,
diligence,
critical
thinking,
and
 perseverance.
It
is
a
constant
process
that
will
tax
the
 mind,
but
the
rewards
of
doing
so
are
many.
To
be
a
 proper
scanner
of
the
horizon,
you
must
not
only
 subscribe
to
many
hubs
of
information,
but
read
and
 contribute
to
discussion
and
insight.
It
is
not
so
much
 a
practice,
but
a
way
of
thinking.

Design
is
Personal:

 Understanding
Audiences
and
Applying
Theory
to
Interactive
Design
 
 
 
 
 
 A
Synthesis
Paper
by
Conor
Britain

Table
of
Contents:

Synthesis
Paper
 Pages
2‐3
 
 “Defining
Interactivity”
Notes
and
Synthesis
 Pages
4‐8
 
 “Theories
and
Interactivity”
Notes
and
Synthesis
 Pages
8‐11
 
 “Other
Theories
in
Communications”
Notes
and
Synthesis
 Pages
13‐22
 
 “New
Media
Timeline”
Notes
and
Synthesis
 Pages
22‐25

As
interactive
designers,
we
should
be
constantly
asking
ourselves
questions
 about
our
audience.
One
of
the
most
essential
questions
we
need
to
answer
has
to
 do
with
the
medium
itself:
What
does
interactivity
says
about
us
as
consumers
of
 media?
If
nothing
else,
interactive
media
has
shown
us
that
people
like
having
 control,
and
they
like
having
customization.
People
like
having
input
in
what
they’re
 consuming
and
the
sense
of
empowerment
that
accompanies
that
voice.
 
 Yet
just
knowing
what
draws
people
to
interactive
media
is
not
enough:
we
 have
to
ask
ourselves
why.
What
these
traits
point
to
is
something
more
important
 and
fundamental
to
interactive
design
–
that
interactive
media
is
personal.
As
such,
 we
must
be
(among
the
myriad
of
traits
an
interactive
designer
should
possess)
 people,
cognizant
of
what
we’re
looking
for
as
human
beings
and
how
interactive
 media
can
provide
that.
We
need
to
understand
how
our
audience
thinks
and
feels
 by
relating
to
them
on
a
humanistic
level.
We
must
empathize
with
them
and
learn
 what
makes
them
happy
so
we
may
know
what
services
we
can
best
provide
 through
our
practice.
This
is
what
interactive
theory
attempts
to
uncover.
 
 However,
the
number
of
theories
in
communications
is
many,
and
their
 application
to
interactive
media
often
still
remains
to
be
seen.
Our
best
weapon
as
 interactive
designers
is
to
listen:
consumers
are
constantly
giving
feedback
with
 their
online
choices,
giving
us
endless
sets
of
data
from
which
we
can
find
patterns
 and
predict
where
our
audience
wants
to
go.
Our
job
is
to
make
sure
progress
is
 allowed
to
happen
in
an
efficient,
functional
and
pleasing
way,
and
since
we’re
 driven
by
technology
we
have
to
be
as
fast
as
the
next
development
in
the
IT
lab.
If
 we
can
provide
our
audience
with
what
it
wants
and
needs
at
the
point
right
before
 they
need
it,
we’ll
have
succeeded
as
interactive
designers.
A
combination
of
 research
and
knowledge
of
communications
theory
will
best
aid
us
in
accomplishing
 this
goal.
 Uses
and
Gratifications
theory
tells
us
that
people
look
to
the
media
to
 provide
them
with
opportunities
to
reach
a
sense
of
self‐actualization,
and
perhaps
 that’s
made
even
more
so
with
interactive
media.
At
the
same
time,
however,
we
 must
keep
in
mind
that
we
need
our
audience
just
as
much
as
they
need
us,
if
not
 more.
Understanding
our
audience
means
knowing
what
they’re
looking
for
us
to
 provide,
and
audiences
are
looking
to
be
provided
with
content
more
than
ever.
Just
 acknowledging
how
fast
the
World
Wide
Web
has
expanded
should
tell
us
that
 people
want
to
have
interactive
experiences
and
are
willing
to
have
us
provide
 them;
we
just
need
to
make
sure
we
create
the
experience
that
satisfies
them.
(Refer
 to
the
list
of
milestones
in
interactive
media
to
get
a
sense
of
the
growth
the
medium
 has
undergone
across
a
span
of
a
mere
40
years.)
 Good
design
is
personal.
Interactive
media
gives
the
individual
a
power
to
 choose,
and
we
must
respond
to
this
intimate
level
of
communications
by
 connecting
with
our
audience
on
an
intellectual,
emotional,
and/or
social
level.
 We’re
no
longer
dealing
with
“lowest
common
denominator”
stuff;
our
designs
have
 to
suit
those
who
we’re
trying
to
reach,
or
else
they’re
going
to
go
elsewhere.
As
the
 Cluetrain
Manifesto
(an
industry
standard
for
business
in
the
age
of
interactive

communications)
states,
our
audiences
want
to
be
treated
like
people,
and
if
we
take
 anything
for
granted
they
can
and
will
turn
themselves
off
to
us,
making
our
 message
meaningless.

 
 However,
in
the
world
of
interactive
media,
if
we
can
get
our
message
to
hit
 home
with
our
audience
we
have
an
opportunity
to
get
our
message
out
to
a
lot
of
 people.
Social
Network
theory
says
that
the
Internet
is
making
the
world
smaller,
 and
the
number
of
steps
needed
to
connect
any
one
person
to
another
is
shrinking.
 At
the
same
time,
the
Diffusion
of
Innovations
theory
looks
at
how
ideas
get
spread
 in
a
system,
starting
with
innovators
and
early
adopters
and
ending
with
the
 laggards.
With
the
shrinking
of
the
gap
between
any
two
people
and
the,
this
 diffusion
will
ultimately
become
a
faster
process.
The
Internet
is
creating
virtual
 communities
and
online
circles
that
mirror
social
groups
in
the
real
world,
and
one
 thing
that
these
users
have
shown
is
that
they
like
to
share
things
(just
look
at
 YouTube).
If
we
can
get
our
message
to
strike
a
chord
with
opinion
leaders
in
the
 online
community,
our
message
will
get
spread,
and
it
can
get
spread
fast.
 
 Ultimately,
our
job
is
to
take
the
function
of
technology
and
give
it
form.
 We’re
guides
in
the
world
of
interactive
media,
bridges
between
the
intense
world
 of
coding
and
development
and
the
public
at
large.
Our
skills
lay
in
translating
the
 mechanical
into
the
personal,
taking
what
interactivity
has
to
offer
and
designing
it
 in
the
most
compelling
way.
For
our
design
to
be
compelling,
though,
we
must
know
 what
our
audience
needs,
wants,
thinks
and
feels.
Good
interactive
design
is
 personal,
so
in
a
world
where
machines
and
technology
are
becoming
increasingly
 ubiquitous,
we
must
remain
just
that:
people.

An
Introduction
to
Interactive
Theory
 Text
=
Synthesis
 
 Chapter
1:
Defining
“Interactivity”
 What
is
interactivity,
anyway?

 1. Downes
and
McMillan:
Only
real
time
communication?
 2. Steur:
Users
can
modify
form
and
content
in
real
time
 3. Rheingold:
Wait,
listservs
and
e‐mail
are
interactive,
too!
 
 Downes
and
McMillan:
Two
categories
to
assess
interactivity:
Message
 Dimensions
and
Participant
Dimensions
 
 Message
Dimensions:
 
 
 Participant
Dimensions:
 Time
 
 
 
 
 Control
 Place
 
 
 
 
 Responsiveness
 Direction
 
 
 
 
 Perceived
Goals
 
 High
Value
Interactivity:
More
user
control,
more
two‐way
direction,
 more
time‐sensitive
 
 Koolstra
and
Bos:
“Interactivity
is
the
degree
to
which
two
or
more
 communication
parties
(human
or
computer)
act
on
each
other
in
an
 interrelated
manner.

 
 ‐Created
checklist
for
interactivity
 
 The
 main
 theme
 here
 is
 that
 people
 what
 CONTROL.
 When
 they’re
 given
 more
 control
 over
 what
 they’re
 using
 and
 taking
 in,
 they
 inherently
 become
 more
 invested
 in
 it.
 By
 making
 things
 more
 immediate
 and
 responsive,
 the
 message
 can
 be
 delivered
 to
 the
 participant
 in
 a
 form
 they’ve
had
some
say
over,
thus
giving
it
a
higher
value.
 
 What
are
people
saying?
 Interactivity
is
proven
to
increase
engagement
(info‐seeking).
Well
designed
 interactivity
generally
increases
participation
and
audience
loyalty.
 Nathan
Shedroff:

 Producers
give
data
and
information,
consumers
take
information
 and
their
knowledge
to
create
wisdom

If
experience
isn’t
a
compelling
one,
you’ll
never
have
a
large
 audience.
 This
 is
 an
 important
 point,
 that
 you
 can
 have
 all
 the
 best
 design
 elements
 in
 the
 world
 but
 it
 doesn’t
 mean
 much
 if
 there
 isn’t
 anything
 inherently
 compelling
 in
 your
 message.
 This
 goes
 back
 to
 the
 idea
 that
 form
 (design)
 exists
 to
 serve
 the
function.
As
designers,
our
job
is
to
guide
the
user
to
the
 intended
 message
 or
 goal
 in
 a
 way
 that
 maximizes
 the
 user
 experience.
 We
 have
 total
 control
 over
 the
 method,
 but
 we
 have
to
make
sure
the
content
is
compelling
too.
 Also,
 with
 interactive
 media,
 its
 no
 longer
 the
 producers
 giving
 data
 and
 information.
 Consumer
 are
 giving
 feedback
 and
 information
 through
 their
 choices
 with
 interactive
 media,
 data
 that
 is
 actually
 essential
 for
 producers
 in
 order
 to
adapt
to
consumer
trends.
 Enhance
interactivity
with:
Feedback,
control,
creativity,
 productivity,
communications,
adaptivity

Lev
Manovich:
Five
Principles
of
New
Media

Numerical
Representation:
new
media
objects
are
all
digital
code
 Modularity:
Independent
elements
(i.e.
pixels)
combine
to
form
an
 object

Automation:
Elements
are
sequenced
by
author

 Variability:
New
media
object,
being
not
static,
can
exist
in
infinite
 versions
 Transcoding:
Computerization
of
culture

Let’s
define
interaction
design
 Bill
Verplank
and
Bill
Moggridge:
Interaction
designers
work
w/
Internet,
 interfaces
and
systems
and
incorporate
graphic
design,
programming,
 psychology,
and
product
design
 Wikipedia:
IxDers
find
solutions
to
interface
problems,
then
build
them
to
 test
theories.
 Six
Steps
in
IxD:
 1. Design
research
–
learn
about
audience
for
best
design

2. Research
Analysis
and
concept
generation
–
creating
concepts,
 high‐level
summaries,
and
vision
statements
 3. Alternative
design
and
evaluation
–
combining
various
 alternatives
to
accommodate
as
many
user
requirements
as
 possible
 4. Prototyping
and
usability
–
testing
aspects
of
idea
 5. Implementation
–
overseeing
development
and
making
 necessary
changes
 6. System
Testing
–
Testing
and
bug
catching
 Interactive
 designers
 need
 to
 fill
 many
 different
 shoes.
 The
 most
 important
 skills
 one
 can
 have,
 I
 believe,
especially
in
an
ever
changing
field
such
as
 interactive
design,
is
to
be
flexible
and
open
minded.
 It’s
 also
 important
 to
 remember
 that
 interactive
 design
 is
 a
 personal
 thing
 –
 individuals
 will
 be
 connecting
 to
 your
 interactive
 media
 personally,
 so
 it’s
 essential
 that
 we
 understand
 each
 other
 as
 humans.
 Remember,
 our
 job
 is
 to
 find
 solutions
 to
 problems
in
using
interactive
media,
so
keep
in
mind
 that
 the
 people
 we’re
 problem
 solving
 for
 are
 just
 that
 –
 people.
 We
 have
 to
 be
 aware
 of
 social
 and
 cognitive
 sciences
 just
 as
 much
 as
 we
 are
 of
 our
 craft.
 
 Social
IxD:
Pulls
more
from
social
sciences
than
cognitive
science

Make
people
feel
happy
when
experiencing
your
design
 Don
Norman
–
Emotional
Design
Model:
Good
design
=
good
 quality;
good
design
addresses
the
visceral,
behavioral
and
 reflective
 Patrick
Jordon
–
Human
Factors
–
good
design
reflects
 people’s
values,
aspirations,
hopes,
fears
and
dreams
 John
McCarthy
and
Peter
Wright
–
We
must
look
at
the
 sensual,
emotional
and
intellectual
properties
of
our
designs
 to
understand
their
impact
 Again,
design
is
personal.
For
people
to
have
positive
 interactive
 experiences
 that
 keep
 them
 engaged
 and
 our
 message
 clear,
 we
 have
 to
 approach
 IxD
 on
 a
 humanistic
 level…make
 people
 happy.
 What
 does
 it
 mean
 to
 reflect
 people’s
 values,
 hopes
 and
 dreams?
 We
 must
 find
 out
 how
 our
 audience
 feels
 and
 thinks

and
 incorporate
 that
 into
 our
 design,
 going
 beyond
 usability.
Good
design
is
personal.
 


 The
Interactive
Designer
(IxDer)
 A
good
IxDer
can:
 a. b. c. d. e. f.

Observe
target
audience
need’s
and
culture
 lead
 communicate
 prioritize
 translate
needs
into
functional
aspects
of
design
 understand
code
languages
 
 and
displays
the
following
skills
 
 g. Writing/speaking
skills
 h. Time
management/project
management
 i. Design
skills
–
using
programs
and
knowing
elements
of
design
 j. Using
technology
and
software
 k. Identify
with
people
as
a
person
yourself

Reimann:
IxDers
MUST:
 i.

Be
creative
and
analytical
in
problem
solving,
while
 always
learning
 ii. Visualize
and
simplify
 iii. Empathize
 iv. Understand
limitations…both
human
and
technological
 v. Have
a
passion
for
learning
and
improving
our
world
 through
design
 
 If
design
is
personal,
that
means
we
also
have
to
be
people.
We
 have
to
empathize
and
know
when
it’s
time
to
say
“enough.”
 
 Another
thing
about
Interactive
Design
(and
design
in
general)
 is
that
there
always
seems
to
be
a
separation
between
the
 technical
and
the
creative
side
of
things:
you
have
your
art
 directors,
and
then
your
programmers,
and
they
rarely
mix.
 However,
with
Interactive
Design,
it’s
essential
that
we
 understand
the
technology
and
the
process
behind
creating
 interactive
media
so
that
we
can
know
what
the
limitations
are
 and
articulate
our
needs
more
thoroughly
–
that’s
why
having
 both
creative
and
analytical
skills
is
so
clutch,
so
we
can
not

only
conceptualize
our
designs,
but
communicate
them
to
 others
and
modify
them
based
on
our
current
constraints.
 
 Chapter
2:
Theories
and
Interactivity
 Why
Theories?
 Theories
allow
us
to
have
an
educated
approach
to
our
audience;
sometimes
 research
validates
or
debunks
our
thoughts
on
how
our
audience
behaves,
 but
regardless,
having
an
understanding
of
the
theories
at
large
allows
us
to
 have
a
degree
of
knowledge
and
expertise
that
can
aid
us
in
approaching
our
 goals
as
interactive
designers
 Quantitative
Research
–
based
in
mathematical
models,
empirical
results,
 measurable
theories
 Qualitative
Research
–
investigative;
ethnographic;
content
analysis;
based
 in
observation
and
personal
experience,
but
often
offers
intimate
details
 Some
of
the
Main
Theories
 Harold
Lasswell
(1948)
–
Communications
theory
is
the
study
of
“Who
says
 what?
To
whom?
In
what
channel?
With
what
effect?
 Robert
Craig
(1999)
–
We
communicate
for
the
following
purposes:
 rhetorical
(art
of
talking),
semiotic
(give
signals),
phenomenological
(have
 new
experience),
cybernetic
(informational
systems),
sociopsychological
 (interaction),
sociocultural
(reflect
social
ranking).

 Crilly,
Maier,
Clarkson:
created
meta
theory
by
studying
all
 communications
theories
up
until
2008.
Some
of
the
categories
of
theories
 fall
into:
 a. Basic
structure
(design
mediates
designer
and
consumer)
 b. reflective
representations
(designers
reflect
ideas,
receive
 feedback
from
representation
 c. Context
and
characteristics
(designer
and
consumer
operate
in
 labels)
 d. Interactive
interpretation
(consumer
reacts
to
design
based
on
 environment
within
which
it’s
seen)
 e. Mutual
awareness
(Designer
and
consumers
are
aware
of
each
 other
and
visualizing
each
other)
 Information
Theory
‐
fundamental
issue
in
communications
is
replicating
 the
same
message
on
the
other
end
of
the
line;
gives
a
mathematical
tint
to
 comm.
Theory

When
sending
a
message,
there
is
noise
which
represents
anything
 that
gets
in
the
way
of
the
proper
decoding
of
the
message.
Noise
is
 offset
by
redundancy,
which
is
technically
unnecessary
and
can
 reduce
the
entropy
of
a
message,
which
is
a
measure
of
the
degree
of
 clarity
of
a
message.
Both
noise
and
redundancy
can
dilute
the
 message’s
entropy,
but
good
communicators
can
balance
entropy
 and
redundancy
to
deliver
a
message
that
reduces
the
chance
of
a
 misinterpreted
message.
 Communications
networks
(corresponding
communications
systems,
 such
as
the
air,
wire,
or
even
the
human
optic
nerve)
 Information
Theory
brings
up
some
interesting
points.
Noise
 is
 everywhere,
 and
 in
 an
 area
 such
 as
 interactive
 design,
 something
 as
 simple
 as
 a
 misunderstanding
 of
 the
 user
 interface
 can
 lead
 to
 the
 user
 opting
 out
 of
 the
 experience
 altogether,
 completely
 negating
 how
 well
 crafted
 your
 message
 was.
 At
 the
 same
 time,
 nobody
 likes
 being
 hit
 over
 the
 head
 with
 the
 same
 message
 over
 and
 over
 again,
 but
 with
interactive
design,
maybe
you
don’t
have
to.
Instead,
we
 can
 creative
 interfaces
 that
 have
 a
 degree
 of
 familiarity
 across
the
board
–
such
as
a
little
“x”
usually
always
refers
to
 a
closing
function
–
so
that
we
can
minimize
noise
in
relation
 to
user
interface
problems.
 Activity
Theory
–
based
in
philosophy,
says
that
people
actively
change
the
 social
and
material
world
in
order
to
achieve
their
goals.
Argues
that
people
 from
target
community
should
be
involved
when
designing
computer‐ mediated
artifacts.
When
you
design
something,
you
must
ask
questions
 related
to
needs
of
the
community,
its
rules,
its
division
of
labor,
its
motives,
 and
the
patrons
themselves
 Symbolic
Interactionism
–
Blumer,
Mead:
people
interact
w/
each
other,
 constantly
defining
and
interpreting
the
other’s
actions,
and
it’s
the
 interpreted
meaning
of
these
actions
that
people
base
their
interactions
on.
 ‐People
act
as
they
do
because
of
how
they
define
situations;
the
 construction
of
self
is
something
that
is
much
studied
and
applicable
 to
identities
created
in
chat,
e‐mail,
and
games.
 Social
Network
Theory
–
Looks
at
how
ties
in
social
networks
effects
the
 norms
of
our
relationships
 ‐Mark
Granovetter
–
intimate
networks
with
strong
ties
not
as
useful
 as
larger
networks
w/
weak
ties,
like
on
facebook
–
many
weak
ties
 opens
up
many
more
opportunities
for
new
ideas

‐Small
World
Hypothesis
–
people
can
be
linked
to
each
within
six
 degrees
of
separation;
every
website
is
within
19
clicks
of
every
other
 website
 ‐Watts:
by
understanding
how
connected
we
are
and
the
behavior
 within
our
networks,
how
things
spread
through
them,
we
can
 understand
our
world
better.
 ‐Everett
Rogers
–
Diffusion
of
Innovations
is
a
social
network
theory,
 looking
at
how
fast
or
slow
trends
are
diffused
through
a
system
 ‐Memes
–
a
unit
of
self‐perpetuating
cultural
evolution;
an
evolving
 cultural
trait
that
gets
passed
on
in
a
similar
fashion
to
genes;
in
the
 internet
world,
this
can
mean
internet
phenomenon’s
 ‐Barry
Wellman
–
A
network
consists
of
nodes
(group
of
 communicators)
connected
by
ties
(reason
for
working
together)
that
 form
patterns
where
structural
properties
are
more
than
the
sum
of
 its
parts.
 These
are
all
interesting
points.
In
“The
Tipping
Point,”
Malcolm
 Gladwell
talks
about
“connectors,”
people
who
seem
to
know
 everybody.
He
poses
the
idea
that
if
you
were
to
examine
your
 group
of
friends
and
construct
a
diagram
as
to
how
you’re
 connected
to
each
of
them,
you’ll
realize
that
most
of
your
friends
 can
be
traced
to
one
particular
person.
This
person
is
called
a
 connector,
and
they
function
as
the
people
who
tie
everyone
else
in
 society
together.
It’s
through
these
people
that
fads
helped
get
 started,
because
they
spread
ideas
to
so
many
different
social
 circles.
I’m
sure
the
same
applies
to
online
trends
as
well,
and
as
 designers
it’d
be
wise
to
try
and
reach
out
to
these
well­connected
 people
to
help
get
our
ideas
off
the
ground.
 
 Online
Communities
Theory
–
Looks
at
motivations
for
virtual
 communities.
 Peter
Kollock
–
explains
three
non‐altruistic
behaviors
that
explain
 online
community
involvement
 1. Anticipated
reciprocity
–
a
hope
to
receive
information
in
 the
future
 2. Increased
Recognition
–
Desire
for
prestige
 3. Sense
of
Efficacy
–
Ability
to
influence
environment
in
 which
they
operate,
to
shape
your
virtual
world.
 4. Sense
of
Community
–
Receiving
feedback
encourages
more
 feedback

Computer
hackers
reluctant
to
change
pseudonyms
because
of
the
 status
associated
with
it
 Pareto’s
Law
–
20%
of
people
do
80%
of
posting
online
 ‐Lurkers
are
also
getting
something
from
online
communities,
 such
as
getting
what
they
need
without
posting,
observing
a
 community
silently,
or
willful
exclusion
due
to
not
liking
their
 observations.
 The
idea
that
interactive
design
fulfills
an
individual’s
needs
to
be
 recognized
and
feel
a
sense
of
worth
is
appealing
indeed,
but
I
 think
it’s
important
to
realize
that
they
don’t
need
us
as
much
as
 we
need
them…we’re
simply
providing
a
service
that
other
people
 will
fulfill
if
we
don’t
succeed.
Instead,
we
should
look
at
 interactive
media’s
ability
to
fulfill
certain
psychological
needs
 and
make
sure
we
apply
those
principals
where
we
can.

 What
it
comes
down
to
is
people
seem
to
want
a
sense
of
 accomplishment,
and
the
ability
of
iMedia
to
give
them
control,
 input
and
say
over
the
final
product
is
a
huge
change
in
how
 people
relate
to
the
media.
This
is
a
key
opportunity
for
the
media
 to
play
an
integral
role
in
the
individual’s
very
being
 
 Chapter
3:
Other
Major
Theories
from
Communications
Scholars
 Most
communications
theories
address
push
communications
of
the
20th
century,
 but
what
about
theories
for
the
new
media?
How
will
we
adapt
old
theories
to
fit
the
 age
of
interactivity?
And
what
are
the
new
ones?
 Uses
and
Gratifications
 Main
Idea:
Says
that
individuals
approach
communications
to
serve
their
 own
needs
as
humans;
in
order
to
achieve
self‐actualization,
they
adapt
their
 media
usage
to
fit
their
needs.
Theory
makes
the
individual
an
active
part
of
 the
process
instead
of
passive,
which
many
theories
do
not
do.
 Supporting
Theories:


 l.

Maslow’s
Hierarchy
of
Needs:
Physiological,
Saftey
and
Security,
 Love
and
Belonging,
Self‐Esteem,
Self‐Actualization
–
we
use
 media
to
fill
in
these
categories
 
 2. Lasswell
(1948)–
media
functions
as
“surveillance,
correlation,
 entertainment
and
cultural
transmission”

3. Mendelsohn
(1964)
–
use
radio
to
counteract
 boredom/loneliness,
provide
news

 
 4. Katz,
Gurevitch,
Haas
–
use
media
for

 
 a. Cognitive
needs
–
related
to
needing
info
and
 understanding
world
 b. Affective
Needs
–
strengthening
emotional
and
aesthetic
 experiences
 c. Personal
Integrative
Needs
–
fortify
credibility
and
 confidence
 d. Social
Integrative
Needs
–
fortify
relationships
 e. Escapist
Needs
–
needing
to
“get
away”
from
the
world
at
 large
 
 5. Bryant
and
Zillman
(1984)
–
usage
of
medium
is
a
response
to
 our
mood,
i.e.
we’ll
watch
exciting
programming
when
we’re
 bored,
and
our
mood
(or
needs)
is
influenced
by
personality,
 background
and
social
roles.
 
 6. McQuail
(1987):
Four
uses
–
Information,
Identity,
Social
 Interaction,
and
Entertainment
 No
matter
how
you
slice
it,
uses
and
gratifications
has
an
 explanation
for
pretty
much
any
motivation
for
using
the
media.
I
 think
Katz,
Furevitch
and
Haas
have
some
of
the
more
logical
 reasons
for
media
consumption,
and
with
interactive
media
I
think
 the
social
integrative
needs
really
come
into
play
more
heavily.

 


 Theory
related
to
Interactive
Media:
 What
is
the
potential
participant
looking
for?
What
answer
do
 they
need
to
make
sense
of
the
world?
 With
interactivity,
individuals
are
presented
with
more
choices,
 freedom
to
choose
the
time
when
they
use
the
media,
and
have
more
 control.

 1.
Ha
and
James
–
Five
dimensions
of
interactivity
 i. ii. iii. iv.

Playfulness
–
“self‐indulgers,”
lower
interactivity
 Choice
‐
“self‐indulgers,”
lower
interactivity
 Connectedness
–
“task‐oriented”
(today,
high
 interactivity)
 Information
Collection
–
“expressives”,
higher
 interactivity

v.

Reciprocal
Communications
–
“expressives,”
higher
 interactivity

2.
U&G
typically
categorizes
media
in
terms
of
it’s
uses
as
for
 diversion,
social
utility,
personal
identity,
and
surveillance.
 3.
Key
to
media
planners
is
to
constantly
look
at
how
technology
is
 changing
people’s
motivations
for
using
the
media.
Creating
and
 updating
new
models
for
how
people
are
using
media
is
a
good
way
to
 stay
up
with
current
trends.
 ‐Hoorigan’s
study
of
people’s
attitudes
towards
internet
and
 cell
phone
–
reveals
how
people
use
internet,
how
often,
and
 their
attitudes
towards
it.
 One
 of
 the
 most
 important
 things
 we
 can
 know
 as
 media
 professionals
 is
 what
 exactly
 it
 is
 that
 people
 look
 to
 the
 media
 to
 accomplish
 for
 them.
 If
 we
 know
 what
 that
 is,
 we
 can
 provide
 it
 for
 them,
 but
 again,
 unless
 we
 know
 what
 function
we’re
serving,
even
our
greatest
designs
will
falter
 (and,
 on
 that
 note,
 IxD
 would
 say
 we
 can’t
 create
 a
 proper
 design
 without
 knowing
 what
 the
 user
 is
 looking
 to
 accomplish
in
the
first
place.)

 Ha
 and
 James
 five
 dimensions
 of
 interactivity
 categorizes
 playfulness
 and
 choice
 as
 low­interactivity,
 but
 does
 that
 still
 hold
 true
 today?
 There
 seems
 to
 be
 some
 high
 level
 interactivity
between
people
in
games
like
second
life
these
 days…perhaps
 all
 methods
 of
 interactivity
 are
 moving
 towards
“high
interactivity.”
 
 Knowledge
Gap
Theory
 Main
Idea:
New
technology
and
media,
while
adding
knowledge
to
both
high
 status
and
low
status
populations,
actually
increases
the
gap
of
knowledge
 between
the
two
groups
as
high
status
groups
can
use
technology
to
increase
 knowledge
at
a
higher
rate.
 Related
to
iMedia
Theory:
Media
should
use
different
platforms
to
reach
 different
audience
sectors
and
present
info
so
that
it
touches
upon
a
common
 social
concern
so
it’ll
get
spread
from
people
to
people
more
easily.

 The
digital
divide
is
the
term
for
the
gap
between
people
who
have
access
to
 internet
and
those
who
do
not.
 The
 digital
 divide
 may
 be
 one
 of
 the
 most
 pressing
 issues
 we’ll
have
to
face
in
interactive
media.
If
we
are
to
live
in
a

truly
 connected
 world,
 we
 have
 to
 get
 to
 a
 point
 where
 nobody
 is
 excluded.
 Comparing
 our
 world
 of
 super­fast
 technology
 to
 a
 country
 that
 doesn’t
 even
 have
 unilateral
 access
 to
 the
 internet
 really
 illustrates
 how
 far
 behind
 we
 can
 leave
 each
 other
 if
 we’re
 not
 cognizant
 of
 the
 importance
 of
 keeping
 everyone
 evolving
 together.
 Hopefully
technology
will
make
it
easier
for
other
countries
 to
set
up
an
infrastructure,
but
until
then,
the
digital
divide
 threatens
a
dangerous
reality
for
many
countries.

 
 Social
Construction
vs.
Technological
Construction
 Social
Construction
–
Adoni
and
Mane
(1984):
Our
world
view
is
made
up
of
 three
parts:
 1. Objective
Reality
–
based
in
fact
 2. Symbolic
Reality
–
symbolic
expression
of
objective
reality
 3. Subjective
Reality
–
constructed
by
individual
on
basis
of
objective
 and
subjective
 Idea
is
to
construct
a
subjective
reality
based
on
info
from
 objective
and
symbolic
realities.
If
perceived
reality
of
subjective
 reality
is
great
enough,
it
will
be
incorporated
into
world
view
 Inherently,
 this
 is
 the
 goal
 of
 the
 documentary.
 The
 documentarian
 observes
 an
 objective
 reality
 and,
 through
 editing
 the
 film,
 constructs
 a
 subjective
 reality
 that
 mimics
 the
 objective
 and
 symbolic
 realities
 of
 the
 subject.
 If
 the
 documentary
 leaves
 the
 viewer
 with
 a
 lasting
 impression,
 we
 can
 say
 the
 film
 has
 successfully
 made
an
impact
on
that
individual’s
world
view.
 In
 terms
 of
 interactive
 documentary,
 the
 same
 can
 hold
 true.
A
documentary
that
takes
place
in
a
virtual
world,
 for
 example,
 would
 be
 a
 subjective
 reconstruction
 of
 reality,
 but
 the
 message
 would
 strive
 to
 capture
 the
 objective
reality
it
represents.
The
interactive
experience
 might
 even
 enhance
 the
 perceived
 reality
 of
 the
 individual.

 Cultivation
Theory
–
we
construct
our
social
reality
based
on
what
 we
are
exposed
to
in
the
media

Technological
Determinism
–
technological
advances
cause
social
change

Marshall
Mcluhan
–
“Medium
is
the
Message”
–
a
technology’s
 structure
determines
how
it
will
be
used.
 i.e.
democracy,
capitalism,
nationalism
were
a
result
of
print
media
 In
 terms
 of
 the
 interactivity,
 this
 could
 mean
 that
 the
 internet
 allows
 for
 interactivity,
 therefore
 we
 use
 it
 for
 interactivity.
 If
we
are
to
subscribe
to
this
theory,
we
must
be
mindful
of
 designing
our
interfaces
and
interactive
devices
so
that
they
 reflect
how
we
intend
our
audience
to
use
them.

 
 Diffusion
of
Innovations
 Main
Idea:

Study
of
the
social
processes
that
determine
how
an
idea
or
 technology
is
spread
throughout
a
system
 Supporting
Ideas:
 
 Rogers
–
four
characteristics
of
an
innovation
that
affect
rate
of
 adoption:
 1. Relative
advantage
–
what
makes
this
better
than
what
we
 have
 2. Compatibility
–
Is
this
consistent
with
our
current
values
 and
needs
 3. Complexity
–
how
difficult
is
this
innovation
to
use
 4. Observability
–
are
the
results
visible
to
others?
Can
we
see
 others
using
it?
 Rogers
–
Five
adopter
categories
 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Innovators
–
eager
to
try
new
things
 Early
Adopters
 Early
Majority
 Late
Majority
 Laggards
–
point
of
reference
is
in
the
past,
need
the
most
 convincing

Opinion
Leaders
are
instrumental
in
influencing
adoption;
ignite
 enthusiasm
among
this
group
to
help
your
idea
or
product
spread
 Opinion
 leaders
 are
 like
 a
 catalyst
 to
 the
 diffusion
 of
 innovations.
 The
 sooner
 we
 can
 get
 our
 ideas
 to
 them,
 the
 sooner
our
innovators
and
early
adopters
will
get
a
hold
of
 them
and
start
the
process.

Roger’s
 four
 characteristics
 of
 innovation
 fits
 it
 with
 uses
 and
gratifications,
to
a
degree.
It
suggests
that
in
order
for
 adoption
 to
 occur
 the
 innovation
 needs
 to
 be
 better
 than
 what
we
have,
consistent
with
our
values,
and
easy
enough
 to
use.
One
might
argue
effectively
that
when
we
a
product
 doesn’t
 get
 adopted,
 the
 cost
 of
 adopting
 it
 simply
 is
 more
 than
the
potential
use
we
might
have
for
it.
 
 Spiral
of
Silence
 Main
Idea:
Willingness
to
weigh
in
depends
on
the
opinions
one’s
peers
 would
have
on
the
contribution;
mass
media,
by
being
so
widespread,
creates
 effect
of
silencing
individuals
out
of
fear
of
social
consequence.
 Interactive
 Media,
 with
 its
 social
 aspects
 and
 personal
 level
of
conversation,
may
actually
break
this.
The
theory
 of
 selective
 exposure
 might
 argue
 that
 people
 are
 able
 to
 seek
 out
 message
 boards
 (for
 example)
 that
 echo
 their
 ideals
and
feel
free
to
speak
out,
while
dissenters
can
go
to
 their
 own
 boards.
 Even
 still,
 there
 are
 plenty
 of
 boards
 where
 debate
 and
 discourse
 are
 encouraged,
 which
 also
 suggests
 a
 breaking
 of
 the
 spiral
 of
 silence.
 At
 the
 same
 time,
flaming
may
function
to
silence
certain
people
who’d
 rather
 not
 be
 the
 subject
 of
 insult.
 However,
 where
 the
 Internet
 provides
 people
 with
 an
 anonymous
 voice,
 their
 ability
to
break
their
silence
is
greatly
enhanced.
 
 Powerful
Effects
 Main
Idea:
The
media
has
large‐scale
effects
of
people’s
opinions
(like
the
 Spiral
of
Silence)
 Supporting
Ideas:

 
inconsistencies
in
them.
 ‐Viewers
who
watch
“The
Great
American
Values
Test”
for
 uninterrupted
periods
of
time
gave
more
money
to
charitable
 organizations
 Related
to
Interactive
Media
 Findings
show
that
the
more
levels
of
interactivity
used
to
reach
 participants
will
be
more
effective
in
teaching,
reinforcing,
and
 maintaining
key
points

Interactive
media
gives
more
control
while
also
more
effectively
 reinforcing
key
points.
If
people
want
more
control
and
are
willing
 to
subject
themselves
to
this
increased
degree
of
influence,
does
 this
suggest
that
people
are
willing
to
be
subjected
to
new
ideas
 and
thoughts
as
long
as
the
experience
is
engaging
and
malleable?
 Or
does
the
ability
to
control
the
environment
give
a
sense
of
 control
that
makes
it
seem
like
the
individual
is
less
subject
to
 influence
(while
actually
being
more
subject
to
it)?
 
 Power
Law
effect
–
idea
that
things
at
the
top
are
kept
there
because
people
click
on
 the
“most
viewed”
or
“most
clicked”
items;
while
they
might
normally
have
fallen
by
 the
wayside,
by
keeping
them
at
the
top
because
they’re
the
“most
clicked,”
they
 stay
there,
even
if
they’re
not
the
best
resource.
 
 Agenda­Setting
and
Media
Framing
 Main
Idea:
Media
doesn’t
tell
us
what
to
think,
but
what
we
think
about
and
 how
we
think
about
it.

Supporting
Ideas:

 Frames
–
media
frames
the
stories,
such
as
understanding
Iran
and
 Iraq
in
terms
of
terrorist
threats;
help
organize
information
and
can
 play
off
of
schemas
and
associations
people
hold;
another
good
 example
is
the
media
framing
events
within
presidential
terms,
 associated
fault
and
fixes
to
certain
people
rather
than
society
as
a
 whole

Relation
to
Interactive
Media
 Not
sure
of
how
agenda
setting
works
online,
as
public
has
influence
 over
content
 Before,
mainstream
media
affected
what
we
talk
about
online,
but
 now
Mainstream
media
now
sometimes
reacts
to
Twitter
and
blog
 posts
 Mainstream
media’s
agenda‐setting
effect
is
now
diluted,
but
we
still
 must
identify
the
key
issues
to
try
and
set
the
proper
agenda
 Interactive
 media
 has
 diluted
 the
 mainstream
 media’s
 ability
 to
 set
 the
 agenda,
 but
 is
 that
 necessarily
a
good
thing?
If
left
to
themselves,
would
 people
still
seek
out
or
demand
information
on
social
 problems
and
global
issues,
or
would
they
rather
find

the
 latest
 flash
 games
 to
 play?
 Cynicism
 aside,
 the
 media
 has
 always
 had
 the
 responsibility
 of
 narrowing
 down
 what
 is
 important
 to
 know,
 but
 where
 more
 celebrity
 news
 takes
 the
 place
 of
 other
 discourse,
can
you
blame
people
for
wanting
to
hear
 directly
 from
 the
 Iranian
 people
 through
 Twitter
 than
CNN?

 I
 believe
 people
 are
 smart
 and
 intelligent
 enough
 to
 seek
 out
 the
 important
 issues,
 but
 the
 professional
 media
 will
 always
 have
 an
 advantage
 in
 the
 news
 gathering
 department.
 The
 future
 may
 have
 these
 organizations
 playing
 more
 of
 an
 information
 role
 with
less
analysis,
where
people
are
able
to
get
more
 from
 discussion
 on
 message
 boards
 than
 they
 are
 from
 pundits
 on
 the
 news.
 Or,
 pundits
 may
 get
 their
 topics
of
conversation
from
the
world
of
social
media
 itself
rather
than
vice
versa.
 
 Perception
Theory
 Main
Idea:
The
process
for
interpreting
messages
is
complex;
people
select,
 analyze
and
interpret
sensory
stimulation
to
make
sense
of
the
world
 ‐Getting
people
to
take
the
right
conclusion
from
our
message,
 therefore,
is
difficult

Supporting
Ideas
 Two
factors
that
determine
our
perception:
physical
nature
of
the
 stimuli
and
the
psychological
factors
that
decide
how
we
interpret
 them
 Four
Rings
of
Defense
 Selective
Perception
–
we
decode
messages
based
on
our
 wants,
needs
and
psychological
factors
so
that
the
same
 message
can
yield
entirely
different
conclusions
based
on
the
 individual

 Selective
Exposure
–
We
decide
what
we
expose
ourselves
to
 Selective
Attention

‐
We
only
pay
attention
to
parts
of
the
 message
that
are
consistent
with
our
beliefs
 Selective
Retention
–
Only
can
recall
information
influenced
 by
ours
needs
and
psychological
factors

This
can
happen
with
interactive
media
as
well
without
 much
effort
by
only
finding
blogs
that
reinforce
our
world
 view,
for
example.
 
 Schema
Theory
 Main
Idea:
People
formulate
filters
based
on
past
situations
and
individuals
 that
help
process
new
information
(such
as
labeling
new
candidates
based
on
 past
candidates)
 Supporting
Ideas
 Fiske
and
Kinder
–
cognitive
misers
–
to
deal
with
the
wealth
of
 information
of
everyday
life,
people
make
simplified
mental
 models
for
the
sake
of
cognitive
economy
 Graber
–
schemas
are
based
off
of
conclusions
drawn
from
evidence
 rather
than
the
evidence
themselves
 How
can
we
use
schemas
to
our
advantage?
If
people
 have
 developed
 schemas
 that
 have
 certain
 connotations
 associated
 with
 them,
 perhaps
 we
 can
 tap
 into
 those
 so
 as
 to
 help
 us
 achieve
 a
 positive
 emotion
 with
 the
 interactive
 experience
 we’re
 providing,
like
we
mentioned
at
the
beginning
of
the
 synthesis.
 
 Image
Perception
Theory
 Main
Idea:
Images
are
used
to
illustrate
ideas
or
issues
in
a
unique
way
to
 break
through
the
clutter;
visual
rhetoric
suggests
we
can
use
images
to
 construct
arguments
subtly
 Supporting
Ideas
 Linda
Scott
(1994):
Images
used
as
representations
of
reality,
 conveying
emotional
appeals,
and
a
combination
of
symbols
to
form
a
 rhetorical
argument
 I
 think
 this
 is
 one
 of
 the
 strengths
 of
 documentary
 and
 film,
 combining
 images
 with
 arguments
 to
 achieve
 an
 emotional
 appeal
 to
 the
 audience.
 Interactive
 documentary
 will
 make
 even
 further
 use
 of
this
theory,
breaking
through
the
clutter
both
with
 image
and
interactivty.

Propaganda
Theory
 Main
Idea:
Once
thought
to
have
great
power,
but
now
considered
only
 effective
on
some
people.
Works
on
certain
people
some
of
the
time,
rather
 than
invariably
 Supporting
Ideas:

Alfred
Lee
and
Elizabeth
Lee
(1939):
Seven
devices
 1. Name
calling
–
giving
a
negative
label
 2. Glittering
Generality
–
Associating
with
a
generic,
positive
 statement
 3. Transfer
–
associating
authority
and
prestiged
object
with
 issue
at
hand
 4. Testimonial
–
using
a
powerful
figure
to
endorse
message
 5. Plain
Folks
–
arguing
ideas
are
good
because
it’s
the
way
of
 the
people
 6. Card
Stacking
–
representing
data
or
content
in
a
way
to
 your
favor
(works
best
on
lower
educated
and
people
 who
already
agree
with
you)
 7. Band
Wagon
–
“everybody’s
doing
it”
(strongest
when
 there
is
a
unanimous
majority
against
one
person)

Persuasion
Theories
 Main
Idea:
You
can
change/alter
attitudes
based
on
exposure
to
information
 from
others.
(Propaganda
being
just
one
example.)
 Supporting
Ideas:
 Hovland
–
Learning
Theory:
attitudes
are
learned;
they
only
change
 by
the
individual
undergoing
the
same
processes
that
occurred
when
 learning
originally
took
place

Fear
Appeal
–
Using
threat
to
arouse
fear,
and
thus
action
 Janis
and
Feshbach
found
that
low
and
high
levels
of
fear
 produce
little
change,
but
moderate
amounts
of
fear
 produces
most
change

 Katz
–
Attitudes
serve
different
functions
for
different
people,
so
the
 conditions
for
attitude
change
will
differ;
people
are
rational
and
 irration;
There
are
four
functions
attitudes
generally
serve:

1. Instrumental,
adjustive,
utilitarian:
people
hold
attitudes
 to
maximize
rewards
and
minimize
penalties
(taxes
take
 money
from
me,
so
I’m
going
to
be
against
taxes)
 2. Ego­defensive:
people
hold
attitudes
to
protect
ego

 3. Value­expressive:
gives
positive
expressions
to
core
 values
that
the
individual
think
makes
them
who
they
are
 (I’m
a
nice
person,
so
I
think
niceness
is
important)
 4. Knowledge:
attitudes
satisfy
a
desire
for
knowledge
and
 provide
structure
 
 If
we
don’t
know
the
function
an
attitude
is
 serving,
our
attempts
at
changing
it
will
backfire

Techniques
of
Persuasion
 1. Visuals
–
attract
attention,
positive
emotional
responses
to
 image
reflect
on
message
 2. Humor
–
create
positive
mood,
more
effective
in
attracting
 attention
than
producing
attitude
change
 3. Sexual
Appeals
–
Increase
attention,
increase
arousal
and
 pleasantness
which
transfers
to
message,
“sexual
charge”
 makes
message
more
acceptable.
 4. Repetition
–
advertising
is
quickly
forgotten
if
not
 continuously
exposed
 McGuire’s
Information­Processing
Theory:
eight
step
process
 (exposure,
perception,
comprehension,
agreement,
retention,
 retrieval,
decision
making,
and
action),
in
order
to
persuade
we
have
 to
accomplish
the
desired
effect
of
each
step.
Step
of
agreement
is
the
 most
focused
on
since
this
is
a
complicated
process.

Media
Richness
Theory
 Main
Idea:
More
personal
means
of
communication
are
generally
more
 effective
in
getting
feedback
and
emotional
response
because
face
to
face
 interaction
gives
off
more
cues
(such
as
bodily
cues
and
facial
expressions)
 Related
to
Interactive
Media:
 Rich
Media
refers
to
media
that
is
more
personal,
interactive,
and
 includes
audio,
video
and
hi‐res
graphics
 Interactive
media
is
truly
changing
how
we
define
rich
media.
 Cisco’s
Telepresence
is
extremely
rich
media,
displaying
people
in
 high
definition
from
anywhere
in
the
world,
allowing
for
the
 personal
level
of
interaction
without
physically
being
in
the
same

place.
In
fact,
media
will
become
so
rich,
that
we
will
not
be
able
to
 tell
real
from
fake.
This
is
the
future
of
interactive
media.
 
 Human
Action
Cycle
 Main
Idea:
A
set
of
tasks
humans
undergo
when
trying
to
accomplish
a
goal
 through
the
use
of
computing
 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Forming
a
Goal
 Translating
goal
into
a
task
 Planning
an
action
 Executing
action
sequence
 Perceiving
what
happened
 Interpreting
the
outcome
according
to
expectations
 Evaluating
what
happens
against
what
was
intended

When
evaluating
user
interfaces,
ask
if
the
UI
allows
the
user
to
 accomplish
each
step.
 
 Media
Ecology
 Main
Idea:
Neil
Postman
‐
Media
Ecology
studies
how
people’s
interaction
 with
media
“facilitates
or
impedes
our
changes
of
survival;”
treating
 communications
systems
as
environment
and
arranging
different
media
so
 that
they
don’t
cancel
each
other
out
due
to
how
people
use
them.
 
 All
in
all,
theories
are
only
just
that:
theories,
not
laws.
In
order
to
 stay
 engaged
 as
 media
 professionals,
 we
 have
 to
 keep
 up
 to
 date
 on
 the
 latest
 audience
 trends,
 but
 this
 also
 means
 the
 latest
 audience
 theories.
 Especially
 in
 an
 age
 where
 technology
 and
 audience
 are
 changing
 so
 rapidly,
 adapting
 our
 theories
 to
 the
 latest
trends
will
be
an
extremely
important
tool.

 
 Chapter
4:
New
Media
Timeline
 Here
is
a
list
of
some
of
the
more
important
events
and
milestones
 that
have
led
to
the
interactive
world
we
live
in
today.
Highlighted
 are
 firsts
 in
 personal
 computing,
 public
 internet
 use,
 and
 the
 development
of
industry
standards.
By
no
means
a
comprehensive
 list
 of
 the
 important
 events
 in
 the
 history
 of
 the
 Internet,
 it
 does

give
a
sense
of
the
extreme
growth
interactivity
has
undergone
in
 less
than
half
a
decade.
 
 Important
Events
in
the
History
of
Interactive
Media:
 1970:
First
wireless
computer
networking
system,
Alohanet,
using
a
packet
 radio
network
system
 1971:
Ray
Tomlinson
sends
first
ARPANET
e‐mail
 1972:
Computers
begin
replacing
typewriters
in
the
newsroom
 1974:
Telenet,
a
commercial
version
of
ARPANET,
is
offered

 1974:
Vinton
Cerf
and
Robert
Kahn
write
a
paper
which
leads
to
the
internet
 protocol
TCP/IP
 1975:
MITS
releases
first
personal
computer,
the
Altair
8080
 1976:
Apple
I
is
introduced

1978:
Serf
and
Khan’s
IP/TCP
becomes
a
reality

1979:
First
Japanese
cellular
network
is
started

1979:
Interactive
videotex
system,
Prestel,
introduced
 1980‐1:
IBM
develops
first
successful
personal
computer
with
Microsoft
 hired
to
create
the
OS.
MS‐DOS
is
created.
 1980:
On
Oct.
27
a
virus
spreads
throughout
ARPANET,
highlight
the
need
for
 network
security
 1980:
First
online
newspaper,
the
Columbus
Dispatch
 1982:
5.5
Million
PCs
in
offices
and
homes
 1983:
Tandy
introduces
first
laptop
computer
 1984:
Mac
first
popular
computer
to
introduced
3
½”
drive,
a
mouse,
and
a
 GUI
 1985:
50
newspapers
are
offering
full
text
services
 1986:
Knight
Ridder
ends
its
Viewtron
project
(Viewtron
was
an
interactive
 videotex
system
for
home
use,
some
consider
a
precursor
to
the
Web)
 1989:
Tim
Berners‐Lee
writes
proposal
for
the
World
Wide
Web
 1989:
ARPANET
replaced
by
NSFNET
(which
is
faster)

1990:
WWW
prototype
created
at
CERN,
takes
Berners‐Lee
idea
of
merging
 networked
information
and
hypertext
 1991:
Gopher
Internet
navigation
system
released,
first
internet
navigator
to
 simply
the
process
for
the
public
 1991:
WWW
program
is
released
 1991:
Videotex
is
being
left
behind
in
place
of
dial‐up
services
 1992:
Delphi
dial‐up,
one
of
the
first
to
provide
easy
to
use,
text‐only
access
 to
the
internet,
is
now
providing
full
access
to
the
internet
 1992:
AOL
has
200,000
subscribers
 1993:
Mosaic,
the
first
graphical
web
browser,
is
released.
Credited
for
 allowed
the
WWW
to
take
off
 1994:
Netscape
releases
first
version
of
their
browser
 1994:
Whitehouse
creates
official
website
 1994:
AOL
reaches
1,000,000
 Late
1990s:
Adobe
and
Macromedia
begin
releasing
programs
that
allow
for
 the
creation
of
content‐rich
media.
 1997:
TiVo
is
founded
 1997:
First
weblogs
are
started
 1998:
Charlotte
observer
uses
a
weblog
to
report
Hurricane
Bonnie
 1998:
World
Wide
Web
Consortium
suggests
XML
become
a
general‐ purposer
markup
language
 1998:
Google
opens
its
doors
 1999:
Berners‐Lee
declares
the
WWW
a
mass
medium
for
the
21st
centurty
 2004:
Facebook
started
at
Harvard
by
Mark
Zuckerberg.
Social
networking
 sites
highlight
the
WWW’s
ability
to
provide
social
interaction.

 2006:
PBS
runs
story
on
how
laptops
may
offer
hope
to
developing
countries

Visualization:
Number
of
AOL
Subscribers
Since
First
Services
Offered
(In
 Thousands)

Analyzing
the
Interactive
Audience:
 Understanding
Your
Consumers
to
Create
Meaningful
User
Experiences
 
 
 
 
 
 A
Synthesis
Paper
by
Conor
Britain
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Table
of
Contents:
 
 
 
 Synthesis
Paper
 Pages
2‐4
 
 “Approaches
for
Reaching
Audience
through
Interactive
Media”
Notes
and
 Synthesis
 Pages
5‐22
 
 “Knowing
Your
Interactive
Audience
and
What
Makes
Effective
User
 Experience
Design”
Notes
and
Synthesis
 Pages
22‐35

The
user
experience
designer
has
a
myriad
of
responsibilities:
data
 collection,
ethnographic
research,
interpreting
web
analytics,
prototyping,
and
 designing
interactive
interfaces
are
just
a
few
of
them.
Yet
for
all
of
these
 responsibilities,
a
user
experience
designer
has
but
one
job:
creating
dynamic
and
 emotional
interactive
experiences.
 Of
course,
there
are
many
factors
that
go
into
great
user
design
–
usability,
 for
one,
is
essential
–
but
if
your
project
doesn’t
move
the
user,
if
it
doesn’t
make
 them
feel
good
while
they
use
it,
it’s
function
won’t
have
any
lasting
impact.
For
this
 reason,
it’s
of
the
utmost
importance
that
user
experience
(UX)
designers
know
 their
audience
–
what
their
needs
are,
what
their
values
are,
and
what
they
want
to
 accomplish.
If
we
can
understand
what
our
audience
wants
of
us,
we
can
know
what
 it
is
exactly
we
should
be
providing.
 Yet,
it’s
not
enough
to
just
know
what
to
provide.
The
key
to
creating
a
great
 UX
is
to
get
feedback
on
your
designs
and
prototypes.
Thus,
user‐center
design
is
an
 important
method
to
practice,
defining
your
target
audience,
identifying
user’s
goals
 and
needs,
testing
prototypes
with
real
users,
and
incorporating
their
feedback
into
 your
revisions.
Keeping
the
user
in
the
development
process
will
allow
the
designer
 to
know
what’s
working
and
what’s
not
–
a
huge
advantage
in
creating
a
product
 that
will
work
for
the
Internet
masses.
 But
how
exactly
do
we
create
a
product
that
will
work
for
the
masses?
You
 first
have
to
define
who
your
masses
are.
A
helpful
tool
for
doing
that
is
creating
 personas:
representations
of
the
different
groups
in
your
target
audiences
through
 fictional
character
profiles.
This
allows
you
to
focus
on
the
details
of
an
individual
 that
represents
the
motives
and
goals
of
a
particular
group
so
that
you
can
more
 accurately
create
a
UX
that
will
work
for
them.
A
design
that
works
for
everyone
is
 rare,
so
building
personas
and
catering
to
them
will
help
maximize
the
effectiveness
 of
one’s
design
in
reaching
the
right
people.
 Therein
lies
another
important
point,
though
–
while
you
can’t
design
 something
that
will
speak
to
everyone,
you
can
design
something
that
can
be
 viewed,
shared
and
altered
so
that
it
adopts
a
new
set
of
meanings
depending
on
 who’s
sharing
it.
This
is
the
idea
of
spreadable
media,
and
the
first
half
of
this
 synthesis
paper
is
on
this
topic
alone.
It’s
the
idea
that
by
giving
up
some
control,
 functionality
and
explicit
meaning
of
your
message,
users
are
able
to
take
their
own
 meaning
from
them
that
suits
their
needs
and
values.
When
this
happens,
people
 spread
the
message
around
their
respective
online
communities,
and
this
is
how
 Internet
fads
are
started.
They
don’t
happen
because
producers
are
able
to
create
a
 message
that
infects
the
user
with
a
compelling
urge
to
share
it
–
rather,
people
 decide
for
themselves
if
a
message
is
useful
or
not
and,
if
it
is,
they
pass
it
on
to
 others,
operating
under
the
gift
economy
that
is
so
prevalent
on
the
Internet
 (another
important
thing
to
understand).
While
we
can’t
create
messages
that
 deliver
the
same
meaning
to
everyone,
spreadable
media
allows
us
to
have
our
core

message
reach
many
different
places
in
ways
that
actually
are
more
meaningful
than
 anything
we
could
provide
since
they’re
the
ones
who
are
deciding
the
meaning.
 Knowing
why
people
share
certain
messages
and
not
others
is
the
key
to
 creating
spreadable
media,
and
by
tailoring
our
messages
so
that
they
are
more
apt
 to
provide
varying
meanings
and
uses
to
varying
users
of
the
Internet,
our
message
 is
given
the
chance
to
not
only
grow
and
expand,
but
find
its
way
to
small
niche
 communities
that
we
wouldn’t
otherwise
be
able
to
reach.
Spreadable
media
has
the
 power
to
increase
customer
awareness,
transform
perceptions
towards
our
brand,
 expand
potential
markets,
intensify
customer
loyalty,
and
expand
the
shelf
life
of
 existing
media
content
by
giving
it
a
chance
to
have
a
second
life
on
the
internet
–
all
 for
millions
of
dollars
less
than
creating
a
television
campaign.

 The
second
half
of
this
synthesis
paper
addresses
methods
used
to
 understand
our
audience
and
create
strategies
to
best
suit
their
needs.
As
user
 experience
designers,
we
have
many
tools
at
our
disposal,
such
as
web
metrics,
 surveys,
ethnographic
studies,
prototyping,
focus
groups,
and
a
number
of
other
 data‐gathering
options.
While
each
have
their
own
set
of
pros
and
cons,
it’s
 important
to
remember
that
the
main
idea
is
gaining
an
intimate
level
of
knowledge
 of
the
people
who
fit
within
our
personas.
After
all,
our
job
is
to
create
emotional
 experiences
and
make
our
designs
aesthetically
pleasing,
and
knowing
what
makes
 for
an
enjoyable
experience
for
our
audience
and
what
they
regard
as
visually
 appealing
is
something
we
can
only
gather
through
asking
questions
and
 observation.
 The
job
of
the
user
experience
is
a
balancing
act
–
we’re
told
to
give
users
 choice,
but
still
have
established
boundaries
to
make
the
experience
manageable;
 we’re
to
apply
consistency
within
our
designs,
yet
know
when
to
be
inconsistent
in
 order
to
signify
a
change
for
our
users
–
but
by
knowing
how
our
audience
actually
 uses
our
designs
helps
us
to
find
that
middle
ground.
Techniques
such
as
 considering
the
efficiency
of
the
user
when
engaging
with
our
designs
reveal
 surprising
yet
important
facts
about
our
user
experiences.
When
considering
the
 usage
of
a
microwave,
for
example,
it
turns
out
that
it
is
faster
for
a
user
to
heat
 something
for
1:11
than
1:10.
Why?
Because
punching
in
the
latter
time
requires
the
 finding
and
pressing
of
a
second
button:
zero.
The
time
it
takes
to
do
this,
it
turns
 out,
takes
more
than
a
second,
thus
making
1:11
a
more
time‐efficient
way
of
 heating
something
in
the
microwave.
These
are
the
discoveries
we
can
make
–
and
 must
make
–
when
developing
our
UX
designs.
 User
experience
designers
wield
a
great
power.
The
ability
to
create
designs
 that
make
people
feel,
think,
and
do
puts
an
enormous
responsibility
on
us.
As
Jesse
 James
Garrett
argues,
our
job
of
synthesizing
and
organizing
the
myriad
of
elements
 that
go
into
making
a
great
user
experience
makes
our
work
go
beyond
just
creating
 value
to
businesses
–
when
our
work
gets
spread
around
the
Internet,
affecting
 people’s
emotions
and
thoughts,
our
work
begins
to
make
its
way
beyond
the
 individuals
and
shapes
our
culture
itself.
Such
is
the
power
of
great
user
experience
 design,
but
it
requires
research,
re‐dos
and,
perhaps
most
importantly,

personability,
for
despite
the
user
experience
designer’s
many
roles,
creating
 meaningful
emotional
experiences
requires
that
they
be
one
thing
above
all
else:
 people.

Approaches
for
Reaching
Audience
 Through
Interactive
Media
 As
Explained
by
“Spreadable
Media
in
a
Digital
Age”
by
Jenkins,
Li
and
 Krauskopf
 
 Text
=
Synthesis

A.
Spreadable
Media
–
What
is
it?

Jenkins,
Li,
and
Krauskopf:
Spreadable
media
means
allowing
your
media
 content
to
be
shaped
and
circulated
by
consumers,
expanding
potential
 meanings
found
in
said
content
and
opening
up
new
markets
to
it.


 What
Spreadable
Media
is
not:
Spreadable
Media
is
not
the
same
thing
as
memes
 and
does
not
mean
viral
 ‐The
terms
viral
and
meme
suggest
the
distributor’s
content
gets
 recycled
and
it’s
contained
messages
replicated
as
it
gets
passed
 around
a
system;
this
ignores
the
fact
that
ideas
get
changed
and
 repurposed
as
they
move
from
one
person
to
the
next
 ­The
term
viral
invokes
a
“biological”
model
to
the
passing
of
content
 through
a
system.
It
gives
the
producer
power
that
it
doesn’t
actually
 have.
Rushkoff’s
Model:

Protein
Shell:
Event,
 invention,
 technology,
style,
 video,
any
attention
 catching
device

Virus:
the
hidden
 agenda
behind
the
 shell

Host:
The
individual
 interested
in
the
 attention
catching
 device
(shell)
but
 unaware
of
the
virus

The
danger
in
this
metaphor
is
that
it
is
too
“fuzzy,”
it
doesn't
have
a
 clear
enough
set
of
practices
to
go
with
the
metaphor,
so
we
can’t
 understand
why
it
works
if
it’s
not
clear
enough
to
begin
with.
 ‐Memes
is
a
term
used
in
explaining
cultural
evolution,
a
unit
 equivalent
to
the
gene.
The
meme
(Brodie)
is
a
piece
of
information
in
 a
mind
whose
existence
influences
other
events,
creating
more
copies
 of
itself
in
other
minds
and
is
used
to
describe
how
trends
happen.
 They
have
the
following
characteristics:

1.
Fidelity
–
they
retain
their
information
as
they
spread

2.
Fecundity
–
have
the
power
to
make
copies
of
themselves

3.
Longevity
–
the
longer
a
meme
survives,
the
better
chance
it
 has
of
being
copied.

‐Wired
Magazine:
“web
trends
are
nothing
more
than
media
 snacks,”
devoid
of
value
and
substance.

The
problem
with
these
models
is
that
they
make
people
 an
inactive
part
of
the
process
of
the
spreading
of
media;
 in
truth,
they
play
a
very
active
role
in
it.
People
actively
 choose
what
to
pass
on
based
on
the
meanings
people
 find
in
them.
To
dismiss
these
trends
as
“snacks”
is
 missing
the
point.

Some
advertisers
would
like
to
think
that
having
the
 power
to
make
people
spread
their
message
for
them
is
 free
of
consequence
and
everyone
will
take
the
same
 message
away
from
the
content.
This
is
not
the
case.
 Rather
than
just
“injecting”
the
message
into
anyone
who
 is
exposed
to
your
“virus,”
the
user
is
actively
responding
 with
the
“virus”
and
taking
their
own
meanings
out
of
the
 message.
Only
if
the
individual
finds
value
in
that
message
 will
they
pass
it
on,
and,
in
doing
so,
they
change
the
 message
itself.
You
can’t
expect
a
message
to
stay
the
 same
when
it
moves
around
a
system,
just
like
in
the
 game
of
telephone.

“People
don’t
acquire
ideas,
ideas
acquire
people”
 ‐Culture
stems
from
the
world
cultivation;
people
play
active
roles
in
the
 creation
of
culture
 ‐People
sort
through
the
myriad
of
phrases,
concepts,
images
and
stories
 every
day,
selecting
which
ones
they
give
value
to,
will
reference
in
the
 future,
and
share
with
others,
all
based
on
a
personal
agenda
that
extends
 beyond
the
idea
itself
 ‐Ideas
circulate
differently
through
different
media:
some
allow
more
 direct
transmission
of
an
original
message,
while
others
are
more
susceptible
 to
their
messages
undergoing
rapid
change
as
it
gets
passed
along
(like
the
 game
“telephone”);
therefore,
memes
can’t
be
thought
of
as
an
all­ purpose
unit
of
thought
without
regards
to
the
medium
 ­Replicability:
Knobel
and
Lankshear
‐
adaptation
is
key
to
the
propagation
 of
memes;
concepts
must
be
able
to
be
remixed
and
modified
to
catch
on:

 EXAMPLE:
LOLcats

‐The
meme
isn’t
in
the
pictures,
it’s
in
the
humor,
LOLspeak,
and
 juxtaposition
–
these
are
replicable
and
meaningful,
more
than
 just
“snacks”
 We
all
come
from
different
backgrounds,
have
varying
 opinions,
and
unique
personality
traits.
Every
small
thing
 that
we
value
and
care
about
goes
into
making
us
who
we
 are
as
individuals,
and
as
such
we
bring
those
things
into
 whatever
we
interact
with.
Therefore,
we
are
naturally
 going
to
cling
to
those
things
that
speak
to
us,
have
 meaning
to
us.
This
is
what’s
going
on
when
memes
catch
 on
–
in
other
words,
there’s
a
reason
that
a
particular
 video
gets
circulated
beyond
just
“because
it
was
cool.”

B.
Sticky
vs.
Spreadable
 The
metaphors
of
viral
media
and
memes
emerged
at
a
time
of
transition,
when
the
 Internet
was
allowing
people
to
pull
content
instead
of
having
it
pushed
onto
them.

 Soon
after,
however,
social
networks
changed
the
dynamic
of
how
people
related
to
 the
Web,
and
these
terms
became
no
longer
helpful
in
the
vagueness.

 So
now
we
see
the
source
of
the
problem
in
describing
internet
 trends
as
“viral
media”
–
companies’
wanting
to
keep
control.
 These
terms
give
a
false
sense
of
security,
keeping
power
in
the
 hands
of
the
producer
based
off
of
a
nice
“scientific”
model
that
 explains
how
you
can
control
your
message
while
getting
it
to
 more
people.
Instead
of
recognizing
increased
power
of
the
 consumer,
companies
ignored
it,
and
in
the
process
limited
their
 own
ability
to
reach
out
to
them
through
the
confusing
terms
of
 memes
and
viruses.
 Instead
of
viral
media,
we
must
think
of
it
as
spreadable
media:
a
concept
 that
text,
audiences,
and
business
models
work
together
to
easily
spread
 meaningful
content
within
a
networked
culture.
This
raises
four
questions:
 1. What
aspects
of
the
contemporary
media
environment
support
the
 spread
of
media
across
different
communities?

 2. How
do
consumers
create
value
for
both
themselves
and
 companies
through
the
spreading
of
media?
 3. What
makes
content
more
likely
to
be
spread
 4. How
do
companies
benefit
from
spread
of
content
 You
can’t
stress
it
enough:
success
in
interactive
media
 means
being
personal.
Companies
have
to
pay
close

attention
to
consumer’s
motivations
and
interests;
keep
 people
motivated
to
spread
stuff.
 
 Grant
McCracken:
Consumer
as
a
multiplier
 ‐As
spreadable
media
gets
spread
around
communities,
its
content
gets
 changed,
altered
and
reframed.
This
allows
content
to
reach
new
places
 and
expand
its
potential
meanings
based
on
what
people
give
to
them.
 ‐Success
in
the
hands
of
consumer,
not
producer;
consumers
have
an
active
 role
in
shaping
meaning;
they
complete
the
work
 ‐what
is
that
role?
The
individual
decides
what
cuts
through
the
clutter
to
 spread
ideas
across
the
fragmented
marketplace
helps
facilitate
flow
across
 the
marketplace.
 Sticky:
refers
to
a
site’s
ability
to
keep
the
hold
of
an
individual
consumer’s
 attention;
pre­structured
interactivity
rather
than
open‐ended
 ‐Reflects
producer’s
anxiety
about
holding
consumer’s
attention,
results
in
 charging
for
access
to
information,
the
thought
charging
creates
value

 The
idea
of
“stickiness”
is
a
model
that,
again,
tries
to
keep
some
 power
in
the
producer’s
hands.
It
excludes
word­of­mouth,
the
 groundswell
at
large.
And
yet,
it’s
usefulness
is
still
unsure
–
 Amazon,
although
initially
operating
on
a
sticky
model,
used
 groundswell
techniques
in
allowing
people
to
recommend
their
 purchases
to
others…people
were
more
likely
to
buy
books
that
 had
been
recommended
to
them.
This
shows
that
user
exchange
 can
affect
the
bottom
line,
and
is
actually
more
powerful
than
 having
a
faceless
website
try
to
lure
you
into
it
with
it’s
 “stickiness.”

Stickiness

Spreadablity

•  Focuses
on
attracting
and
 holding
attention
of
visitor
 •  Concentrates
attention
of
all
 interested
parties
to
a
specigic
 site

 •  Depends
on
creating
a
unigied
 consumer
experience
in
 branded
spaces
 •  Prestructured
interactivity
to
 shape
and
control
viewer
 experiences
 •  Tracks
migrations
of
individual
 consumers
within
a
site
 •  Sales
force
markets
to
 consumers
 •  producers,
marketers,
and
 consumers
are
all
separate
in
 their
roles
 •  Depends
on
a

ginite
number
of
 channels
for
communicating
 w/
consumers

•  Motivates
and
facilitates
fans
 to
spread
the
word
 •  Expands
consumer
awareness
 by
dispersing
content
across
 many
points
of
contact
 •  Depends
on
creating
a
 diversigied
experience
as
 brands
enter
consumer
spaces
 •  Open‐ended
participation
that
 engaged
consumers
retrogit
to
 their
communities
 •  Maps
the
glow
of
ideas
through
 social
networks
 •  Grassroots
intermediearies
 become
advoctes
for
brands
 •  Depends
on
increased
 collaboration
and
the
blurring
 of
lines
across
roles
 •  takes
for
granted
the
inginite
 amount
of
localized
and
 temporary
networks
through
 which
media
circulates

Must
know
which
model
you’re
choosing
and
why.

C.
Gift
Economy
vs.
Commodity
Culture
 •

•

Review:
How
do
people
relate
to
your
message?
They
select,
 transform,
and
circulate
it
in
unpredicted
directions
 
 People
don’t
just
buy
cultural
goods,
but
buy
into
a
cultural
economy
 that
recognizes
contribution
and
participation.
Unless
your
good
 engages
and
serves
both
consumer’s
and
producer’s
interest,
it
 won’t
spread

 The
key
here
is
to
find
the
middle
ground
where
your
 product
is
spread
because
people
are
fulfilling
a
desire
to
 share
(the
gift
economy)
while
still
accomplishing
the
 goals
of
the
producer
(otherwise
its
circulation
will
get
 blocked
by
the
producer.
There
must
be
a
knowledge
of
 that
relationship
and
how
to
cultivate
it.

THE
WRONG
IDEA:
“We
have
to
create
communities
around
our
products
 and
services”
 THE
RIGHT
IDEA:
“We
have
to
create
products
that
coalesce
with
the
values
 and
aspirations
of
the
community
that
will
cause
them
to
show
loyalty
to
us.”
 Far
too
often
we
thinking
of
what
media
does
to
people
instead
of
what
 people
are
doing
with
it
 Another
important
example
of
shifting
the
focus
away
from
what
 the
producer
does
to
what
the
consumer
does.
The
producer
is
 still
trying
to
hit
on
key
values
and
emotions
with
their
product
 that
will
attract
people,
but
this
thinking
allows
you
to
 understand
that
you’re
not
creating
a
product
that
will
bring
a
 community
to
you,
you’re
just
creating
a
product
that
taps
into
 what
an
existing
community
already
wants;
you’re
just
inviting
 yourself
to
their
party.
 Uses
and
gratifications
tell
us
that
people
use
the
media
to
fulfill
 certain
needs,
but
the
groundswell
is
allowing
them
to
get
what
 they
want
from
each
other.

We
must
determine
our
user’s
needs
 and
figure
out
how
we
can
fit
into
them
and
solve
their
problems,
 creating
resources
for
them
beyond
just
our
products
 (beinggirl.com,
for
example).
You
can’t
make
them
talk
about
 your
product,
but
you
can
provide
opportunities
for
them
to
talk
 to
each
other
through
your
doing,
which
opens
up
an
opportunity
 for
them
to
care
about
not
just
your
product,
but
your
brand.
 
 Moral
Economy:
the
set
of
social
norms
and
understandings
that
make
two
 parties
do
business
 •

So
far,
new
technology
has
changed
the
moral
economy
between
 consumer
and
producer
(music
sharing,
for
example),
leading
to
a
 mutual
distrust
between
producers
and
consumers,
because
both
 have
a
different
set
of
values:
one,
the
gift
economy,
the
other,
the
 commodity
culture

Gift
Economy:
Operates
under
the
idea
of
reciprocity;
if
everyone
gives
a
 little
bit,
everyone
gets
a
little
something
extra
in
return;
this
is
how
social
 sphere
among
the
web
operate
 •

•

The
Internet
was
originally
built
off
the
idea
as
a
tool
for
sharing
 science
and
research;
companies
entered
the
game
MUCH
later
 
 Companies
must
build
up
goodwill
online
through
giving
away
 content
that
is
useful
to
the
communities
within
the
Web.

Acquisition

Commodity
Culture
 Goods
are
traded
as
 wages
for
labor
or
 purchases
directly

Circulation

Economically
 motivated

A
“successful
 trade:”

Leaves
people
 unconnected

Primary
 Drivers

Measured
by

 Associated
 with

Cash
renumeration

Value
‐
exchange
 Alientation
and
 freedom

Gift
Economy
 Gifts
are
bestowed
 upon
us;
we
cannot
 acquire
them
through
 an
act
of
will
 Socially
motivated;
 transactions
validate
 relationships
 Ties
people
together,
 requires
the
 connection
between
 two
people
 Status,
prestige,
 esteem;
profiting
 becomes
a
negative
 thing
 Worth
‐
sentimental
 Community
and
 obligation
to
others

Hyde:
“We
don’t
deal
with
commodities
when
we
wish
to
intiate
or
preserve
 ties
of
affection…emotional
connections
comes
before
quantitative
 evaluation…but
sometimes
what
has
been
earned
in
the
marketplace
can
be
 given
as
gifts…gift
wealth
can
be
rationalized
and
market
wealth
 eroticized
(gains
emotional
intensity)”
 Our
goal,
therefore,
must
be
to
bridge
the
worlds
of
commodity
 and
gift
economies.
Where
the
internet
is
driven
by
the
gift
 economy,
we
must
make
our
commodity’s
into
potential
gifts.
 How?
By
adding
value
beyond
the
product
itself,
whether
it’s
in
 capturing
an
emotion,
having
some
usefulness,
sparking
 conversation;
in
other
words,
MAKING
IT
SPREADABLE.

D.
Spreadable
media
is
content
that
navigates
the
road
 between
commodity
and
gift
economy
 People
spread
content
when:
content
hits
on
a
personal
or
social
level
 People
don’t
spread
content
when:
it
has
too
much
value
(because
 people
want
to
retain
it
for
themselves,
else
they’ll
diminish
it’s
value)
 or
too
little
worth
(because
there’s
nothing
that
would
communicate
 any
shared
values
or
ideas
in
the
content).

 McCracken:
Goods
are
an
opportunity
to
attach
symbolic
meaning
to
 physical
objects

Says
that
we
are
always
engaged
in
self‐creation,
trying
to
create
an
 image
for
ourselves,
especially
in
an
age
where
online
content
can
be
 duplicated
infinitely
…this
is
where
the
commodity
culture
fits
in
 with
its
emphasis
on
individuality
 Some
things
we
don’t
share,
like
trinkets
or
little
things
 that
say
something
unique
about
us.
We
are
both
 expressive
individuals
and
social
beings,
trying
to
 personalize
and
share
at
the
same
time.
As
communities,
 we
evaluate
and
rank
cultural
goods
in
determining
 whether
to
share
them,
but
as
individuals,
we
rank
things
 based
on
what
they
say
about
us.
Gift
economy
and
 commodity
culture,
therefore,
both
have
a
place
in
the
 market,
as
people
will
have
use
for
commodities
as
long
 as
they
express
something
about
their
individuality.
This
 is
the
value
of
commodities,
that
they
promise
a
freedom
 from
the
associated
traditions
and
meanings
behind
gifts.
 They
allow
us
to
say
something
about
ourselves
in
that
 they
only
belong
to
us.
 
 Beyond
“Audience”:
what
should
we
call
the
consumer
who
has
an
active
 role
in
the
process?
 Loyals,
media­actives,
prosumers,
inspirational
consumers,
 connectors,
influencers?
 Andrew
Lockhart
–
allow
the
user
to
define
the
relationship
he
or
 she
wants
to
have,
as
it
would
indicate
how
the
user
wants
to
engage
 with
them.
 Benkler:
Why
do
people
engage
in
networks?
 1. Improves
individual
capacity
to
do
for
and
by
themselves
 2. Enhances
capacity
to
do
more
with
loose
ties
to
others
 3. Improves
capacity
of
individuals
to
do
more
in
formal
 organizations
outside
of
the
market
sphere
 These
capabilities
and
the
desire
to
be
social
is
what
 allows
spreadable
media
to
exist.
 Networks
provide
individuals
more
say
in
defining
their
 individuality,
because
by
seeing
what
they
engage
in
they
 can
pit
it
up
against
everything
that
they
don’t.
Being
in
a
 community
of
punk
rockers,
for
example,
says
something
 about
that
individual
in
that
they
chose
to
be
a
part
of
 that
group
over
every
other
group.

Beyond
“Communities”:
Paul
Gee
suggests
we
call
these
affinity
spaces,
 where
we
go
to
fulfill
certain
common
goals
  

 

Relationships
are
often
non‐exclusive
 
 Our
interests
are
varied
and
therefore
we
go
to
a
variety
of
 them
throughout
the
day;
affinity
spaces
are
mobile
unlike
 something
of
an
exclusive
membership
 
 Allow
content
to
be
spread
quickly,
from
one
space
to
the
next
 
 Types
of
Affinity
spaces
(Lee):

Pools

• loose
associations,
strong
association
w/
 common
endeavor
or
w/
values
of
community
 • brand
communities,
political
organizations

Webs

• organized
through
individual
social
connections
 • ties
are
stronger
and
decentralized

Hubs

• loose
associations
formed
around
a
central
gigure
 • Example:
fan
clubs

Pools
attract
shared
activities,
while
webs
attract
activities
that
sustain
 social
connections
 
 Type
of
Entry
(Lee):
 
 1. Open:
no
registration
required;
members
feel
little
or
no
 emotional
ties
within
them
 2. Free
Registration:
common
model;
allows
sites
to
get
information
 from
users
in
order
to
customize
itself
to
fit
their
needs;
this
is
 where
spreadable
media
happens
most
successfully
 3. Purchase:
Operate
under
the
sticky
model:
if
you
pay
your
way
in,
 you
stay;
tend
to
be
hubs
with
very
little
interaction
between
 users;
skepticism
exists
due
to
their
lack
of
social
ties
 4. Outside
Selection:
Value
is
in
their
exclusivity;
don’t
encourage
 the
spread
of
media
but
can
generate
buzz
 Remember:
“Communities
aren’t
created,
they’re
courted.”
This
 means
you’re
catering
to
an
existing
group
that
has
a
certain
set

of
values
that
drive
their
interactions
and
choices,
not
creating
it
 with
your
product.
 
 How
do
you
reach
a
range
of
communities?
The
Scattershot
Approach
 (Weiler):
make
it
as
easy
and
as
enjoyable
as
possible
for
consumers
to
find
 and
communicate
with
you;
allow
people
to
be
able
to
take
your
content
and
 retrofit
it
to
fit
their
needs
and
interests
 Basically,
if
you
go
with
the
sticky
approach,
you’re
missing
 out.
You
must
seek
out
and
engage
communities
and
 convince
them
to
engage
with
your
content.
You
can’t
wait
 for
it
to
happen.

E.
What
makes
Spreadable
Content
Spreadable
 Key
Question:
What
is
the
relationship
between
the
community
and
the
 materials
it
circulates?
 The
Answer
will
allow
us
to
determine
what
characteristics
our
content
 must
have.
 Remember:
 • •

Not
all
content
is
good
for
sharing…gifts
we
share
say
something
 about
our
perceptions
of
the
person
we
are
passing
them
onto
 Community
members
circulate
stories
to
affirm
their
 commonality

What
motivates
people
to
share
information?
 1. Bolster
camaraderie
and
bolster
values
which
identify
the
 community
 
 2. Gather
information
and
explain
things
 
 3. Establish
boundaries
of
an
in‐group
 These
are
the
same
reasons
for
why
people
advocate
for
franchises
or
 brands:
it
expresses
something
about
them,
it
has
some
valued
 social
function,
and
responses
help
sort
out
who
does
or
doesn’t
 belong.
 When
advertising
spreads,
it’s
because
it
has
acquired
worth;
the
 community
has
embraced
it
as
a
resource,
for
reasons
that
vary
 from
community
to
community.

This
is
where
the
commodity
can
bleed
into
the
gift
 economy.
When
a
text
can
be
taken
and
broken
down
on
 many
different
levels
for
different
communities,
your
text
 is
being
used
to
communicate
something
between
those
 who
share
it.
One
text
can
be
used
to
express
different
 things
to
different
communities,
however.
For
example,
 the
leaked
VFW
car
bombing
ad
was
used
by
some
 communities
to
both
express
disgust,
while
in
others
show
 support
for
America’s
fight
against
terrorism.
In
both
 cases,
however,
the
text
was
used
to
reflect
and
reinforce
 some
set
of
values
within
that
community.
Allowing
your
 text
to
do
this
allows
your
text
to
become
spreadable.

 
 The
Company’s
Meaning
vs.
The
Consumer’s
 • 
 • 
 •

When
texts
get
spread,
their
meanings
are
in
the
hands
of
the
 community;
the
control
is
out
of
the
hands
of
the
producer
 The
message
morphs
as
it
travels
(like
the
game
telephone)
 Content
will
only
spread
if
it
can
serve
different
communities
in
a
 variety
of
ways,
but
only
community
members
can
determine
what
 those
ways
are
 o Therefore,
companies
must
situate
themselves
to
both
 motivate
consumers
to
talk
about
their
brand
and
talk
 through
their
brand
 
 o While
advertising
may
convince
us
that
their
products
might
 make
good
gifts
through
the
values
they
convey,
its
 spreadable
media
that
makes
them
good
gifts
to
pass
 around
 
 To
state
it
simply,
once
the
producer
unleashes
the
text
to
the
 masses,
the
producer
loses
all
control
over
what
the
message
of
that
 text
is.
People
determine
the
message
and
change
that
message
as
 they
pass
it
around
the
system,
adding
new
meaning
to
it
as
they
do
 so.
The
producer
can
merely
suggest
what
value
the
text
has,
as
the
 consumers
are
the
ones
who
decide
that.
In
fact,
by
trying
to
give
 your
text
a
particular
meaning,
you
limit
the
potential
meanings
 others
can
find
in
it.

To
Make
Content
Spreadable

•

•

Message
vs
Meaning:
a
message
is
something
we
encode
in
a
text,
but
 a
meaning
is
what’s
taken
out
of
it
by
the
consumer
 
 A
text
becomes
part
of
popular
culture
when
consumers
make
it
 their
own,
embrace
its
potential
to
say
something
about
 themselves.
This
is
where
a
commodity
becomes
a
gift.

Cultural
Commodities
(Fiske)
–
the
raw
materials
that
go
into
the
 production
of
pop
culture

 Producerly
Texts
–
when
the
cultural
commodity
becomes
a
cultural
 resource
used
to
express,
define,
or
understand
social
and
cultural
 relationship
 •

•

•

•

This
requires
a
bottom­up
approach
to
creating
popular
 culture,
where
the
consumers
define
the
creative
 interaction
with
the
commodities,
a
negotiation
between
 consumer
and
producer.
 
 This
requires
the
text
to
have
loose
ends
that
can
be
 grabbed
hold
of,
interpreted,
reproduced,
etc.
THIS
IS
 HOW
INDIVIDUALS
CONVEY
SOMETHING
OF
 THEMSELVES
AS
THEY
PASS
ALONG
THE
CONTENT
 
 The
more
clearly
defined
the
message’s
use
is,
the
more
it
 limits
its
potential
circulation
 
 A
producerly
video
is
one
that
can
be
accessed
on
 multiple
levels
 This
is
the
way
in
which
art
works.
Good
art
is
so
 because
it
effects
people
in
varying
degrees.
One
 person
may
be
able
to
find
an
emotional
 connection
with
a
piece
of
art
that
may
surpass
 another
person’s,
but
that
latter
person
may
still
 find
value
in
the
art,
just
differently.
In
a
world
 where
everyone
has
a
different
worldview
based
 on
their
lived
experiences
and
values,
any
one
 thing
can
be
interpreted
in
an
infinite
number
of
 ways.
Good
art
is
crafted
to
the
degree
that
there
 are
multiple
points
of
entry;
it’s
deep
enough
to
 allow
for
simultaneous
and
varying
degrees
of
 accessibility.
This
openness
should
be
something
 that
our
text
should
aim
for
in
order
to
become
 spreadable.

Remember:

 •

•

•

•

A
company
cannot
produce
cultural
resources,
only
cultural
 commodities
that
may
be
turned
into
cultural
resources
by
the
 consumer’s
choice
to
gift
it
 For
those
worried
about
loss
of
control
over
brand
message:
 it’s
already
lost.
The
more
you
fight
it,
the
less
potential
your
 text
has
for
having
“worth”
in
the
eye
of
the
consumer

 Therefore,
ads
must
sacrifice
some
degree
of
functional
 purpose
–
if
there’s
no
ambiguity,
there’s
less
room
for
 spreadability,
less
room
for
new
meanings
to
grow
 Lastly,
this
doesn’t
mean
the
brand’s
message
disappears.
It
 gets
reintroduced
to
each
person
that
sees
it,
but
it
also
gains
 new
meaning.
 
 A
great
example
of
this
is
the
Mac
Vs.
PC
ads.
They
 have
a
distinct
recognizable
style,
but
they’re
 presented
in
a
very
open
ended
way
–
it
leaves
 room
to
grow
and
expand.
People
have
been
able
 to
take
the
idea
of
Mac
Vs.
PC
and
spoof
it
by
using
 any
two
competing
entities;
in
this
way,
Apple
has
 lost
control
over
the
message,
but
the
brand’s
 message
is
still
there:
any
time
you
see
one
of
 those
spoofs,
it
only
reinforces
the
original
idea
of
 Mac
Vs.
PC.
The
original
Apple
ad
gains
new
 meaning
through
the
ways
people
interpret
and
 change
them,
but
it
always
leads
back
to
the
 original
message
and
leads
the
people
watching
 the
spoof
back
to
Apple

F.
Aesthetic
and
Structural
Strategies
 Key
Idea:
While
openness
in
a
texts
meanings
and
uses
increase
the
chances
 of
an
ad
to
become
spreadable
as
a
gift,
it
still
has
to
communicate
 something
socially
meaningful.
It
must
have
something
compelling
about
 it.
 1.
Humor:
when
we
spread
something
funny,
we
are
also
sharing
it
in
the
 vein
that
we
are
articulating
and
validating
our
cultural
limits
in
taste
 • •

Parody
 Absurdity
through
shock/surprise

Message
of
Humorous
Ads:
If
the
advertisers
don’t
take
 themselves
too
seriously,
it
creates
a
setting
where
users
are

encouraged
to
have
fun
too,
thus,
mashups,
remixes,
etc.
AKA
 spreadability
 Be
careful
with
parody,
however,
as
you
run
this
risk
of
exclusion
 and
alienation
of
audience…include
different
levels
of
 accessibility
 
 2.
Information
Seeking:
When
the
ambiguity
or
“oddness”
of
a
video
 encourages
people
to
talk
to
each
other
about
it
to
“figure
it
out”
 • •

•

The
act
of
bringing
communities
together
as
a
collective
 intelligence
 Jenkins:
successful
media
franchise
not
only
draws
like‐ minded
people
together
to
form
an
audience,
but
gives
them
 something
to
do
 When
people
search
for
authenticity,
origins,
or
purpose
in
 your
text,
they
are
actively
constructing
a
meaning,
another
 form
of
producerly
engagement

3.
Unfinished
Content:
While
the
prior
two
examples
have
the
users
fill
in
 the
gaps
in
meaning
of
the
content,
this
form
of
engagement
literally
 includes
the
consumer
in
the
creation
process,
having
an
open
ended
 system
that
the
user
interacts
with.
 • • •

Text
is
a
partial
work
with
incomplete
components
that
the
 user
takes
participation
in
putting
together
 Incites
users
to
debate
about
the
text’s
inner
mechanisms,
test
 the
limits
of
the
device,
reinterpret
its
meaning.
 Incites
teamwork
to
“figure
it
out”

4.
Nostalgia
and
Community:
The
fantasies
of
a
commodity
culture
are
 those
of
transformation
while
those
in
a
gift
economy
are
nostalgic
 • •

When
we
want
to
break
free
of
social
constraints
we
turn
to
 commodity
to
shift
our
status/idenity
 When
we
want
to
reaffirm
existing
values,
we
turn
to
the
gift
 economy

Jenkins
(1992):
Fan
media
production/circulation
(gift
economy)
 centers
around
nostalgic
themes,
such
as
romance,
friendship
 and
community.
 •

Baby
Boomers
love
watching
old
commercials,
collect
 old
toys,
etc.

• •

This
new
interest
has
re‐launched
old
brands
through
 retromarketing
 Solidarity
still
key;
brand
must
inspire
among
its
users
 a
sense
of
belonging

The
main
takeaway
from
these
four
methods
is
that
 spreadable
media
evokes
emotions,
conversation,
 collaboration,
critical
thinking,
and
further
action.
If
your
 text
can
accomplish
this,
then
it
opens
itself
up
for
people
 to
place
value
in
it,
which
makes
it
spreadable.

 Make
it
interesting,
different,
unique…give
them
 something
to
talk
about!
When
your
video
engages
the
 user,
it
makes
them
interested
in
you
beyond
your
 product
and
gives
you
valuable
attention.
Allows
them
to
 assert
control
over
the
information
of
ad
so
that
they’ll
 actively
construct
meaning
in
it.
If
they’re
the
one’s
 creating
the
meaning,
it
will
spread
and
create
worth.

G.
The
Value
of
Spreadable
Media

Spreadable
Media
vs.
Television
Advertising:

  

Television
is
good
for
“just
in
time”
information;
reach
MANY
 more
people
at
one
time
 
 Spreadable
media
is
good
for
slower
circulation
of
information,
 better
chance
for
deeper
saturation,
and
is
much
cheaper,
but
is
 more
of
a
risk
 Cadbury
Gorilla:
8
weeks,
5
million
views,
30%
above
the
 industry
average,
increased
sales
by
7%.

 However,
no
sure
thing
that
your
content
will
catch
on.

What
is
Spreadable
Media
good
for?
Longer
term
benefits
rather
than
 short
term.
     

Generate
active
commitment
from
audience
 Empower
audience,
include
them
in
the
success
of
the
product
 Online
word‐of‐mouth
 Reaching
niche,
highly
interconnected
consumers
 Reaching
out
to
audience,
going
to
where
they
are,
and
 reaching
out
in
a
way
they
value.

It’s
a
funny
paradox
that
the
Internet
is
the
fastest
way
to
 find
stuff,
yet
the
slowest
to
spread
a
product.
Of
course,
 that’s
because
it’s
getting
modified
and
changed,
which
 takes
time,
but
ends
up
reaching
a
lot
of
different
 audiences
in
the
end.
 
 If
you
can
make
people
be
a
part
of
the
success
of
your
 product,
it’s
going
to
establish
an
identity
with
that
 product.
Everyone
likes
being
associated
with
a
winner
–
 if
your
audience
feels
like
they’ve
played
an
active
role
in
 making
you
a
winner,
you’ve
just
accomplished
two
huge
 accomplishments
in
one
move.

What
can
Spreadable
Media
do?
 1. Expand
and
intensify
customer
awareness,
transform
 perceptions,
and
reaffirm
a
brand’s
place
in
consumer’s
lives
 
 2. Expand
range
of
potential
markets
by
hitting
niche
markets
 
 3. Intensify
customer
loyalty
by
increasing
emotional
attachment
 
 4. Expand
shelf
life
of
existing
media
content
(like
in
the
case
of
 retrobrands)
 
 Who
has
the
most
to
gain
from
Spreadable
Media?
Those
companies
who:
      

Have
low
promotional
budgets
 Want
to
reach
the
niche
audiences
 Want
to
hit
the
“Long
Tail”
with
their
message
 Want
to
build
strong
emotional
connections
 Don’t
have
well
established
brand
messages
 Aren’t
concerned
about
losing
control
over
their
intellectual
 property
 Basically,
what
it
looks
like
is
that
upstarts
have
the
most
 to
gain
from
spreadable
media
as
they
don’t
have
as
 much
to
lose.
It’s
dangerous
in
that
there’s
no
guarantee
 your
message
will
be
spread,
as
it’s
up
to
the
consumer
to
 deem
any
worth
there
is
in
it.
However,
if
you
can
do
it
 right,
you
can
reach
a
lot
of
people
in
a
meaningful
way
 for
a
fraction
of
the
cost
of
an
expensive
TV
campaign.
 Creativity
and
understanding
of
your
audience
is
key.

So
what’s
right?
Sticky
or
Spreadable
Media?
 

Ultimately,
some
of
the
most
success
stories
are
coming
from
a
 hybrid
of
these
two
worlds:
some
form
of
marketing
in
a
 distributed
network
 o MeYou
cellphone
media
sharing:
users
can
receive
 certain
content
from
MeYou
and
friends
for
free,
but
 other
content
requires
direct
payment
 o Sony
BMG
is
now
opting
for
a
system
that
embraces
 profit
sharing
and
building
stronger
collaborations
with
 fans…people
can
post
music
of
copyrighted
content,
but
 a
link
must
go
to
the
original
site
and
it
can’t
be
 “embeddable”

 o These
compromises
have
increased
traffic
to
Sony‐BMG
 sites
while
no
longer
treating
fans
as
criminals

Mark
Pesce:
British
and
American
TV
is
enjoying
international
 commercial
success
because
of
massive
online
circulation…it
ends
 up
promoting
content,
increasing
interest.
 

“We
have
to
deal
with
the
world
as
it
is,
not
as
we’d
like
it
to
 be”
…
where
any
program
or
media
content
can
be
infinitely
 and
immediately
available
anywhere
in
the
world,
the
only
 edge
companies
have
comes
in
entrepreneurship
and
 innovation

People
want
to
have
active
roles
and
are
having
them
with
or
 without
companies’
involvement
–
that’s
the
Groundswell
–
so
by
 giving
the
people
opportunities
to
use
and
shape
our
texts,
we
are
 inserting
ourselves
into
the
Groundswell.
 
 Final
Thought:
“Companies
are
losing
control
over
distribution,
but
 are
gaining
the
value
of
each
user’s
personal
ties”
 What
it
comes
down
to
is
that
spreadable
media
is
the
 acknowledgement
of
the
company
that
they
can’t
force
a
 message
into
an
audience,
and
they’d
be
better
off
 embracing
the
consumer’s
ability
to
determine
what’s
 worthwhile
by
priming
their
material
to
be
found
to
be
 worthwhile.
Be
creative,
give
your
content
reasons
to
be
 cared
about,
and
let
people
talk
about
and
spread
your
 product.
Your
brand
will
be
reach
more
people
and,
by
 allowing
people
to
interactive
with
it,
it
will
have
a
better
 chance
of
building
emotional
attachment
and
loyalty.

Knowing
Your
Interactive
Audience
and
What
 Makes
Effective
User
Experience
Design
 
 SECTION
1
 Sampling
audience
approaches
by
expert
 Take
away:
Looking
at
expert
analysis
is
a
great
way
to
learn
about
the
developing
 field.
Here
are
a
few
examples
of
what
those
experts
are
saying.
 
 Competitive
benchmarking
–
Studying
work
of
others
in
your
field;
select
people
 to
follow
and
read
what
they’re
saying.
The
key
is
to
always
adapt
to
the
 evolution
of
uses
and
gratifications
of
users
and
how
they
can
be
reached
 
 Power
Law
of
Participation
 Participation
 in
 communities
 plots
 along
 a
 power
 law
 that
 starts
 at
 low
 threshold
 participation
 (reading,
 tagging)
 and
 ends
 in
 high
 threshold
 participation
 (moderating,
 collab‐ orating);
 the
 higher
 the
 threshold,
 the
 more
 it
 engages
 with
 the
 community
 and
creates
a
collective
intelligence
.
 
 Ruder
Finn:
The
intent
index
–
lunderscores
that
people’s
online
behavior
is
better
 explained
 and
 understood
 by
 similatrities
 in
 intent
 rather
 than
 by
 demographic
differences
between
them.
This
means
looking
at
why
people
 use
the
internet
and
keeping
up
to
date
with
these
reasons.
If
we
know
 these
things,
then
we
can
know
what
to
provide
our
audience
with.
 
 Maki
(a
philosophy
student
from
a
blog
called
“Dosh
Dosh”):
 • •

In
 marketing
 and
 advertising,
 we
 must
 proactively
 define
 our
 target
 audience.
 Constructing
 a
 general
 profile
 of
 you
 audience
 allows
 you
 to
 better
 understand
what
the
scope
of
your
content
should
be,
the
site’s
usability,
 marketing
campaigns,
etc.

Two
methods:
 1. Stastical
Analysis
 • Visitor
loyalty,
bounce
rate,
receny,
time
on
site
–
give
a
 sense
of
a
visitor’s
level
of
engagement,
gauge
enthusiasm
 • Visitor
Location
–
allows
you
to
make
cultural
assumptions
of
 your
visitors
 • Visitor
search
terms/keyworks
–
shows
what
people
are
 looking
for,
what
is
bringing
them
to
your
site
 • Traffic
source
–
where
are
people
coming
from?
Shows
you
 what’s
working
in
terms
of
bringing
people
to
your
site.
 
 2. Data
Collection
 • Polls
 • Surveys
 • On‐site
User
Features
–
allow
users
to
create
profiles
or
 favorite/rate
blog
posts
 • Audience
Feedback
–
monitor
feedback
channels
such
as
 comments,
emails,
icoming
blog
links
 Remember:
segment
and
compare
your
findings
over
a
period
of
time.
 This
will
allow
you
to
construct
a
better
understanding
of
your
audience
 so
you
can
better
address
their
needs!
 
 Steve
Baty
–
Personas
 Personas
are
archetypal
representations
of
audience
segments
that
 describes
general
characteristics
that
lead
to
that
segment’s
needs
and
 behaviors.
They
are
usually
represented
by
a
detailed
profile
of
a
made
up
 person
from
that
group.
 Why
should
we
use
them?

 1. They
allow
us
to
determine
what
a
product
should
do
 2. Allow
us
to
communicate
with
stakeholders
and
designers
 3. They
allow
us
to
build
consensus
and
commitment
to
the
 design
 4. The
allow
us
to
measure
the
design’s
effectiveness
 5. They
allow
us
to
contribute
to
other
product­related
efforts
 (marketing,
sales
plans)
 How
do
we
determine
them?
 1. Surveys
–
quick,
cheap,
but
often
times
not
enough
to
give
an
 overall
accurate
assessment

2. Ethnographic
Research
–
aka
observational
research
techniques;
 time
intensive,
but
allows
for
real
insight
into
an
audience
for
a
 product
or
service
we’re
designing
 3. Interviews
–
allows
flexibility
to
explore
ideas
and
motivations
 that
aren’t
accessible
to
an
observer
 4. Contextual
Inquiries
–
participants
explain
their
actions
and
 thoughts
as
they
work
through
a
task
or
activity
 5. Web
Analytics
–
lets
us
look
at
what
happens
when
people
visit
 our
site;
tells
us
only
about
those
who
are
already
using
our
site,
 though.
 Tip:
Todd
Zaki
Warfel
‐
Allow
someone
you
know
personally
as
an
example
 for
each
persona,
someone
you
can
call
and
ask
questions;
makes
each
 persona
more
real
and
approachable
for
the
team
 So
what’s
the
point?
By
creating
personas,
we
can
address
the
needs
and
 behaviors
of
different
groups
of
users,
ultimately
creating
a
great
user
 experience
for
them
–
the
key
is
getting
a
proper
understanding
of
who
those
 users
are
based
on
the
above.
 
 The
rise
of
Information
visualization
 As
UX
designers,
we
must
know
more
than
just
design;
in
order
to
create
 proper
information
visualization,
we
must
know
statistics,
do
things
 programmatically,
and
be
able
to
find
meaning
in
data.
This
is
the
data
 scientist,
and
being
one
will
give
us
a
leg
up.
In
other
words:

Skill
1:
Statistics
 Skill
2:
Data
Munging
(parsing
through
one’s
data
before
it’s
suitable
 for
analysis)

Skill
3:
Visualization

Avinash
Kaushik:
The
Ultimate
Analytics
Data
Reconciliation
Checklist
 When
trying
to
gain
accurate
data
on
the
visitors
coming
to
your
site,
using
 one
web
analytics
tool
is
best,
because
multiple
tools
can
having
differing
 data
results
due
to
minute
differences
in
definitions.
However,
if
you
have
to
 have
two
or
more
tools,
Kaushik
has
a
list
of
trouble
shooting
methods
to
get
 the
different
readings
closer
and
thus
a
more
accurate
representation
of
data.

 http://www.kaushik.net/avinash/2008/11/ultimate-web-analytics-datareconciliationchecklist.html

Eric
Shoenfeld
–
hot
area
of
search
right
now
is
real­time
search
 
 • Real
time
search
“taps
into
consciousness”
while
regular
search
“taps
into
 memory”
–
Edo
Segal
 • Real
time
search
pulls
up
results
that
are
deemed
relevant
based
on
 timeliness;
idea
is
that
it
will
search
trends
and
what’s
important
in
the
 public’s
eye
at
that
time

SECTION
2

Collecting
Valuable
Data
 
 Web
Analytics
–
the
process
of
studying
data
to
understand
the
influence
and
 potential
impact
of
one’s
communications
using
software
tools
that
collect
and
 assess
Internet
data
 
 • On‐site
analytics
–
assessment
of
what
people
are
doing
on
your
website
 • Off‐site
analytics
–measurement
of
a
site’s
potential
audience
 
 While
there
are
many
different
companies
that
offer
analytics
software,
there
 are
some
common
terms
amongst
them
that
give
us
crucial
information.
Here
 are
just
a
few:
 
 • Hit
–
any
time
a
user
requests
to
download
a
file
from
your
site;
 NOT
the
equivalent
of
a
page
visit,
as
pages
consist
of
multiple
files
 that
get
loaded.
 • Page
view
–
request
for
a
file
whose
type
is
defined
as
a
page
in
 log
analysis
 • Visit/Session
–
Series
of
request
from
the
same
visitor
 • Visitor/Unique
Visitor/Unique
User
–
A
uniquely
identified
 client
that
requests
files
from
your
page
 • Impression
–
Each
time
an
advertisement
loads
on
a
user’s
screen
 • Bounce
Rate
–
Percentage
of
visits
where
the
visitor
enters
and
 exists
the
same
page
without
visiting
any
other
pages
on
the
site

 • %Exit
–
The
percentage
of
users
who
exit
from
a
particular
page.
 • Click
path

‐
the
sequence
of
movement
a
user
makes
through
 your
site
 
 To
keep
up
to
date
on
changing/emerging
trends
and
data,
keep
 watch
of
Join
Industry
Committee
for
Web
Standards
(Jicwebs)
 and
other
organizations
to
learn
of
them
as
they
are
developed.

SECTION
3

Conducting
Usability
Research
 
 Validation
or
Verification
Tests
–
conducted
late
in
development
cycles
to
 measure
how
early
problems
were
remedied,
how
usable
the
product
is
against
 established
parameters,
and
whether
there
are
new
problems.
 
 • Must
meet
standards
created
through
previous
usability
tests,
surveys,
 and
interviews
with
users
 
 A
matrix
test
design
lets
you
test
a
product
across
a
range
of
roles
 according
to
different
variables
 
  Test
at
least
four
or
five
people
per
type
or
matrix
cell,
eight
 is
probably
ideal
for
best
results
  Have
users
undergo
a
screening
questionnaire
so
you
can
 find
the
right
type
of
people
 
 When
conducting
observations:
 
 • When
conducting
observations,
never
do
anything
or
indicate
 anything
that
will
give
feedback
to
the
user.
To
get
accurate
results
 of
how
usable
your
product
is,
it’s
important
that
users
have
an
 unaltered
opportunity
to
figure
it
out
on
their
own.
 • Always
maintain
professional
conduct
so
that
users
take
the
test
 seriously
 • Have
nondisclosure
and
recording
consent
forms
ready
 
 After
observation,
compile
a
report
reflecting
on
the
results.
 
 • Group
similar
problems
or
successes
across
the
different
users,
noting
 which
user
the
comment
stems
from
 • Take
note
of
where
problems
occurred
and
where
they
didn’t
–
after
 all,
this
is
the
key
to
discovering
what
aspects
of
your
UX
are
working
 or
not

SECTION
4

On
audience,
participants,
and
creator­consumers
 
 Key
points
on
UX:
 
 • The
emotion
he
or
she
feels
during
the
experience
is
just
as
important
as
the
 product
or
service’s
usability.
 • If
a
product
is
aesthetically
unappealing,
people
will
be
less
likely
to
use
it,
 no
matter
how
user
friendly
it
is;
find
a
balance
between
aesthetics
and

•

usability
 If
you
elicit
an
emotional
response
from
the
user,
your
design
is
doing
its
 job.
Make
it
feel
good
and
people
will
likely
come
back.
 
 Introduction
to
User­Center
Design
Process
 This
process
places
end
users
in
the
middle
of
the
development
process,
with
 the
goal
being
to
discover
what
they
want
and
if
your
design
is
fulfilling
their
 needs.
Make
sure
your
subjects
fit
in
with
the
profiles
of
the
target
group
 you’ve
established.
 
 
 1. Define
your
target
audience
–
this
is
where
you
develop
your
 personas
 2. User
task
analysis
–
identify
and
understand
the
users’
goals
by
 establishing
the
current
tools
they
are
using,
limitations
 alternatives,
and
changes
that
may
enhance
the
experience.
Gather
 this
data
based
on
your
knowledge
of
target
audience
and
through
 feedback
from
real
users
and
observation
of
them.
 3. Create
a
prototype
–
an
early
working
model
that
defines
how
 the
system
will
work
and
can
be
tested
on
users;
abstract
ones
 may
be
cheap
but
confusing,
while
highly
developed
ones
may
be
 expensive
and
a
lot
of
work
for
just
a
test
phase
 4. Test
prototypes
with
real
users
–
five
users
are
usually
enough
 to
identify
about
80%
of
problems;
both
converse
AND
observe;
 let
the
user’s
experience
be
your
data,
NOT
what
you
expect
to
 happen
 • Saves
time
and
money
 • Users
are
more
forthright
in
criticism
 • Interaction
designers
more
creative
in
problem
solving
 when
changes
can
be
made
quickly
 • Once
designs
get
firmed
up,
the
graphic
design
can
be
 worked
on
 5. Beta
Release
–
a
pre‐release
restricted
to
a
number
of
users
to
 give
feedback
on
 6. Ongoing
evaluation
–
After
app
or
website
is
launched,
keep
 refining
it
based
on
customer
service
reports,
user
comments,
etc.
 Focus
groups:

 Strengths
–
great
for
getting
ideas
on
look
and
feel
of
website;
yields
 good
data
on
emotive
issues;
gathering
user
requirements
and
 expetations
 
 Weaknesses
–
people
often
say
things
that
don’t
match
what
they
 actually
do;
groupthink
can
lead
to
conclusions
that
are
not
quite
true
 for
the
whole
group
 Morae
eye
tracking
–
system
that
records
user’s
mouse
clicks
and
page

views
to
the
user’s
expressions
throughout
the
test;
also
features
PIP
so
that
 research
can
convey
the
results
along
with
the
actual
clip
of
the
user’s
 onscreen
activity.
 
 Alternative
User­Testing
Techniques:
broadens
the
base
of
the
inquiry,
 moves
beyond
the
performance
of
pre‐defined
common
tasks.
This
open
 ended
testing
asks
users
to
be
as
free
as
possible
throughout
the
test,
 navigating
to
whatever
they
want,
whenever
they
want.
This
allows
you
to
 see
real
world
user
behavior
in
relation
to
your
application
or
website

SECTION
5
 Application
usage
trends

 
 State
of
the
Apps
Report
–
a
report
issued
by
Wakoopa,
a
research
service
that
has
 an
application
installed
on
participants
computers
that
monitor
what
they’re
doing
 a
when
on
their
computer.

Some
interesting
trends:
 
 • Social
networking
usage
peaks
between
9
and
10
PM,
except
for
 Facebook,
which
is
constant
all
day
 • Google
Chrome
is
quickly
growing,
past
15%
usage
across
Wakoopa
 users
 • Wakoopa
users
are
likely
early
adopters
of
technology
and
could
be
 an
early
indicator
of
where
things
are
going

SECTION
6

Visual
Design
for
the
Modern
Web
 
 As
alluded
to
earlier,
one
of
the
most
important
factors
in
determining
credibility
of
 a
user
experience
is
the
visual
design.

The
four
things
that
promote
audience
 engagement:
 
 1. Self­evidence
–
easy
to
use,
intuitive
interface,
big
reward
for
 minimal
investment
 2. Speed
–
must
load
quickly,
concise
navigation
 3. Feedback
–
give
audience
operability
that
responds
to
their
use
 4. Accuracy
–
project
free
of
errors
 
 During
Analysis,
consider
the
following:
 • Clarify
goals
 • Identify
the
target
audience
 • Identify
goals
for
interactivity
 • Determine
constraints
 • Determine
content

•

Analyze
architecture

Address
the
following
characteristics:
 • Physical
demographics
 • Cultural
demographics
 • Computer
experience
(knowledge
of
tech,
favorite
sites,
surfing
 patterns)
 • Findability
(how
will
your
audience
find
you?)
 • Computer
equipment
profile
(what
are
the
user’s
capacities
for
 experiencing
your
site?)
 • Frequency
of
visits
(those
who
are
infrequent
must
be
 approached
differently)
 • Location
of
access
 • Competing
sites
(what
have
others
done
and
why?)
 • Long
term
relationship
–
find
ways
to
establish
one
and
 maintain
it
based
on
the
needs
of
your
audience
and
how
they
 want
them
fulfilled
 • Plan
for
alternative
navigations
through
your
websites
 More
Interaction
design
tips
 
 • Anticipation
 Don’t
expect
users
to
gather
all
of
the
information;
anticipate
what
the
 user
wants
to
do
and
give
them
the
information
and
tools
to
 accomplish
each
step
 
 • Give
users
autonomy
 Make
the
interface
open,
giving
users
control,
but
don’t
abandon
 boundaries
altogether;
people
like
have
an
idea
of
a
sense
of
rules
so
 that
we
can
be
more
comfortable
and
understand
the
scope
of
what
 we’re
engaging
with
 
 • Keep
users
aware
of
status
and
information
 Don’t
keep
users
in
the
dark
–
give
cues
to
indicate
what
the
user
 should
be
taking
away
from
their
action/the
environment
(trashcan
 example
–
if
one
item
in
trashcan
makes
it
looked
stuff,
people
will
 think
it
should
constantly
be
emptied)
 
 • Keep
your
design
consistent
 Keeping
a
consistent
flow
of
visuals
and
set
of
rules
allow
users
to
 more
easily
interact
with
your
interface
 
 • Know
when
to
be
inconsistent
 Be
visually
inconsistent
so
users
can
know
when
to
expect
things
to
 act
differently

•

•

•

•

•

•

Always
consider
the
efficiency
of
the
user
 The
user’s
time
is
the
most
important
thing
to
him/her.
Always
 consider
what
would
seem
to
take
more
time
and
energy
versus
what
 actually
does.
Microwave
example:
Heating
something
at
1:11
is
 quicker
than
heating
something
at
1:10,
as
1:10
require
the
 additional
time
it
takes
to
find
the
0
key
 
 Keep
the
users
occupied
 If
they
have
to
wait
too
long,
you’re
wasting
their
time
and
money
 
 Explorable
interfaces
 Offer
a
path
of
least
resistance,
but
allow
users
to
navigate
your
 landscape
in
whatever
way
they
want
to
explore
“what‐if”
scenarios
 
 Allows
users
to
go
back,
undo,
and
escape
 This
encourages
users
to
engage,
experiment,
and
explore
as
they
 know
they
don’t
have
to
be
so
careful
with
each
step
 
 Don’t
make
staying
in
a
chore,
either
 If
an
interface
is
too
confusing,
it’s
going
to
hinder
user
engagement
to
 begin
with
 
 Usability
and
learnability
are
different
things
 In
a
perfect
world,
there
would
be
no
learning
curves,
but
in
reality,
 there
are;
in
fact,
we
must
have
learning
curves
no
matter
how
usable
 our
site
is.
You
must
decide
what’s
most
important,
speed
of
adoption
 or
depth
of
usability,
but
strike
a
balance
between
the
two
regardless.
 
 Don
Norman:
Three
levels
of
processing
 Normal
claims
that
people
process
input
at
three
levels:
 o The
visceral
level
(preconsciousness,
where
appearance
 matters
and
first
impressions
are
made)
 o The
behavioral
level
(the
function,
performance
and
usability
 of
a
product)
 o The
reflective
level
(where
the
full
impact
of
thought
and
 emotions
are
experienced)
 
 The
ideal
UX
hits
on
all
three

SECTION
7
 Tagging
 
 Tagging
is
important
because
it
is
a
way
people
are
communicating
online.
Tags

help
guide
us
as
we
seek
out
information
and
then
share
it;
they
help
us
find
new
 topics
that
we’re
interested
in.
Everyone
from
bloggers
to
UX
designers
use
them,
so
 it’s
important
to
understand
their
function.
 
 
 Three
functions:
 1. Information
architecture
–
to
organize
information
so
others
can
 find
it
 2. Social
software
–
computer‐mediated
collaboration
and
sharing
 3. Personal
Information
management
–
organize
one’s
own
 information
to
get
things
done
 
 Gene
Smith:
Tagging
works
because
tags
are
simple,
flexible,
extensible;
 they
can
always
be
added
and
they
can
be
aggregated.

 
 Rashmi
Sinha:
Tagging
offers
an
alternative
to
folders
–
instead
of
just
 organizing
documents
by
a
folder
subject,
you
can
add
tags
to
describe
in
 more
detail
where
that
document
fits
in
with
the
rest
of
your
documents.
Re‐ organization
is
as
simple
as
changing
tags.
 
 
 Tagging
can
also…
 
 • Organize
people
–
people
interested
in
a
particular
subject
can
 tag
objects
with
a
particular
word
that
other
interested
people
 recognize
as
representing
that
subject
 • Bring
about
“social
proofs”
–
when
users
start
adopting
a
tag
 started
by
early
users
(such
as
on
Twitter
when
users
participate
 in
trend
topics
with
the
#
before
tag
words)
 • Make
political
statements
–
I.E.
the
Free
Software
Foundation
 advocating
the
tagging
of
Amazon.com
products
with
digital
rights
 management
software
with
“defectivebydesign”
 
 Types
of
tags:
 
 • Descriptive
–
what
the
tagged
object
is
related
to
 • Resource
–
i.e.
book,
video,
photo
 • Ownership/Source
–
where
the
resource
comes
from
 • Opinion
–
adjective
based
tags
 • Self­reference
–
i.e.
mine,
mystuff
 • Task
Organizing
–
i.e.
todo,
work,
forpresentation
 • Play
and
Performance
–
trends
and
fads
connected
via
the
tags
 that
describe
them
 
 Tags
create
folksonomies
–
user
generated
hierarchies
between
objects;
 those
who
tag
determine
what
is
important
about
the
object
rather
than
a
 third
party.

SECTION
8
 Search
engine
optimization
 
 Two
challenges
of
SEO:
 
 1. Attract
visitors
–
your
site
must
provide
high‐quality
regularly
updated
 content
to
keep
people
coming
back
and
to
encourage
people
to
 recommend
your
site
 
 2. Attract
links
from
other
sites
–
Sites
that
provide
extensive
resources
 attract
the
attention
of
others,
including
people
who
want
to
link
to
your
 site.
 
 Important
basics
to
SEO:
 
 • Page
Title
–
aka
what
does
in
the
title
tag,
make
it
unique
to
each
 page;
title
should
contain
business
name
and
explain
what
the
 page
is
about
 • Meta
Description
–
gives
search
engines
an
idea
of
what
the
page
 is
about;
use
this
tag
to
summarize
the
content
of
your
webpage
 within
160
characters.
 • URL
Structure
–
create
appropriate
filenames
and
categories
on
 your
site
so
that
it’s
easier
to
index
 • Navigation
–
Solid
and
error‐free
navigation
of
your
website
is
 both
helpful
for
users
and
search
engine
indexers.
Include
a
 sitemap
to
ensure
even
more
appropriate
indexing
of
your
pages.
 • Unique
Content
–
Keep
keyword
density
in
your
site
around
 2.75%
‐
3.21%
 • Anchor
Text
–
links
within
your
website;
help
spiders
understand
 what
the
page
is
about
by
what
it
links
to
 • Alt
Tag
Optimization
–
important
for
escribing
images
because
 images
can’t
be
read
by
spiders

SECTION
9

Important
thoughts
on
UX
from
Jesse
James
Garrett
 
 • We
are
not
information
architects
or
interaction
designers;
we
are
user
 experience
designers
 
 • It’s
not
the
information
that’s
important,
but
the
interaction.
The
 experience.
 
 • We
create
things
that
people
use,
which
means
something
people
engage

with.
Therefore,
engagement
is
what
we’re
striving
for.
If
nobody
 engages
with
it,
it
doesn’t
exist.

•

•

•

We
can
affect
people’s:
 o Perceptions
by
engaging
the
senses
 o Cognition
by
engaging
the
mind
 o Emotion
by
engaging
the
heart
 o Action
by
engaging
the
body
(anything
as
simple
as
making
 people
click)
 
 This
is
incredibly
powerful.
 
 Other
factors
affecting
UX:
 o Capabilities
–
the
individual’s
capacity
for
being
moved,
or
their
 sharpness
and
flexibility
 o Constraints
–
hindrances
that
limit
our
abilities,
such
as
a
 learning
disability
or
an
inability
focus
due
to
recent
emotional
 trauma
 o Context
–
the
environment
that
the
experience
is
being
engaged
 in;
contains
all
of
the
personal
variables
that
make
up
who
we
are:
 personal
history,
personality
traits,
etc.
 
 Our
role
is
to
synthesize
and
orchestrate
elements
in
these
various
 areas
to
create
a
holistic,
cohesive,
engaging
experience.

•

We
must
embrace
our
role
as
a
cultural
force:
our
job
is
relating
to
how
 our
designs
make
people
feel,
make
them
think;
it
goes
beyond
delivering
 value
to
a
business

•

As
shapers
we
shape
the
tools,
and
then
those
tools
create
experiences
 that
shape
humanity.
Puts
a
huge
degree
of
responsibility
on
the
UX
 designer.

SECTION
10

Excelling
as
an
interactive
professional
 
 • It’s
necessary
to
be
strong
with
technology
and
writing,
having
a
positive
 personality,
and
the
ability
to
be
creative.
 
 • What
will
make
you
stand
out:
 o Interviewing
and
Ethnography
skills
–
be
an
anthropologist
of
sorts
 to
understand
and
build
your
personas
 o Quantitative
Wisdom
–
applying
numbers
through
a
knowledge
of

•

statistics
and
other
analysis
techniques
 o Cognitive
biases
–
understanding
what
drives
people’s
choices
and
 their
world
view
 o Constantly
scanning
the
horizon
–
maintaining
up‐to‐date
 knowledge
and
evaluating
new
technologies
as
they
emerge
is
very
 important
 
 Maintain
your
brand;
put
your
knowledge
and
creative
talent
on
display.
 Make
yourself
stand
out
through
your
own
individuality
and
image.
Start
 building
it
now.

SECTION
11

A
few
random
thoughts
on
UX
design
 
 • Website
accessibility
is
a
requirement
 Your
audience
is
going
to
be
a
wide
ranging
group.
Producing
a
truly
 usable
site
that
supports
all
of
those
different
user
groups
to
achieve
a
 common
goal
requires
much
consideration
to
the
various
needs
and
 requirements
from
the
get‐go.
This
means
considering
those
with
visual,
 learning,
cognitive,
auditory
or
physical
disabilities.
 
 • John
Owen
on
Twitter
and
the
Rule
of
Effective
Reach
 
 “While
Twitter
is
trival
and
indulgent
for
many,
it’s
vital
and
 revolutionary
for
others.”
Twitter
is
a
perfect
reminder
of
the
rule
of
 Effective
Reach:
 
 The
content,
audience
and
the
ability
to
get
the
message
to
the
 audience
dictates
the
value
of
any
communication.

 
 Your
audience
must
receive
your
message
and
perceive
value
in
 it.
 
 
 You
must
deliver
your
message
 • Where
your
audience
wants
it
 • When
your
audience
wants
it
 • In
the
form
your
audience
wants
it
 
 In
a
way
that
allows
your
audience
to
participate
 or
respond

Top 10 Interactive Media Thinkers 
 1. Henry
Jenkins
 
 Jenkins
is
a
leader
in
the
convergence
of
media
and
culture
and
the
author
of
 Convergence
Culture
and
co‐author
of
the
white
paper
If
It
Doesn’t
Spread,
It’s
 Dead.
He
is
currently
Provost's
Professor
of
Communication,
Journalism
and
 Cinematic
Arts
at
USC.
 
 http://henryjenkins.org/
 
 
 2. Seth
Godin
 
 A
marketer,
blogger
and
author
who
coined
the
concept
of
“permission
 marketing,”
which
is
asking
a
user
for
permission
before
presenting
him
or
her
 with
an
ad
(as
opposed
to
interruption
marketing).

His
continuous
insights
 make
him
a
good
person
for
thoughts
on
the
marketing/business
world
in
a
 digital
age.
 
 http://www.sethgodin.com/
 
 
 3. Brian
Solis
 
 Solis
has
distinguished
himself
as
a
public
relations
expert
in
the
world
of
social
 media
and
was
one
of
the
original
thought
leaders
in
the
cross
over
between
 traditional
and
social
medias.
His
visualizations
of
the
world
of
social
media
has
 solidified
him
as
a
renowned
figure
in
the
community
of
Web
2.0
thinkers.
 
 http://www.briansolis.com/
 
 
 4. Steve
Rubel
 
 Rubel
is
an
expert
on
emerging
trends
and
technologies,
and
his
blog
is
an
 excellent
resource
for
gaining
incite
on
what’s
on
the
horizon.
He’s
a
great
 person
to
learn
how
to
stay
ahead
of
the
curve
from.
 
 http://www.steverubel.com/
 
 
 5. Jesse
James
Garret

Author
of
the
influential
Elements
of
User
Experience
which
conceptualized
the
 exceedingly
important
idea
of
user‐centered
design.
 
 http://blog.jjg.net/
 
 
 6. Mitch
Kapor
 
 Kapor,
the
founder
of
Lotus,
was
one
of
the
first
to
decree
that
software
(and
by
 extension
interactive
media)
must
cut
across
disciplines
of
programming,
 design,
and
user
experience.
 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitch_Kapor
 
 
 7. Clay
Shirky
 
 Shirky
is
a
leading
thinker
on
the
social
and
economic
effects
of
the
Internet
and
 Web
2.0
tools
and
trends.
He
is
often
writing
or
presenting
on
important
 developments
in
this
area.
 
 http://www.shirky.com/
 http://www.ted.com/speakers/clay_shirky.html
 
 
 8. Ben
Schneiderman
 A
human‐computer
interface
expert
well
know
for
his
book
Designing
the
User
 Interface:
Strategies
for
Effective
Human‐Computer
Interaction.
His
8
rules
of
 interactivity
are
a
great
resource
for
creating
user
experiences.
 
 http://www.cs.umd.edu/~ben/
 
 
 9. Cindy
Chastain
 
 Chastain’s
theories
on
user
experience
–
specifically,
that
a
design
has
tangible
 elements
(those
which
relate
to
the
use
of
the
design)
and
intangible
elements
 (those
which
relate
to
emotional
response
of
the
user
and
meaning
found
in
the
 experience)
–
are
essential
to
a
proper
framework
for
interactive
design.
 
 http://www.theuxworkshop.tv/cindy‐chastain‐experience‐themes/
 
 
 10. Josh
Bernoff
and
Charlene
Li

Bernoff
and
Li
are
executives
at
Forrester
Research
and
wrote
the
seminal
work
 Groundswell.
There
arguments
for
embracing
the
collective
power
of
Internet
 users
is
an
essential
concept
to
Web
2.0
marketing.
 
 http://blogs.forrester.com/groundswell/2009/10/winners‐of‐the‐2009‐ forrester‐groundswell‐awards.html

Top 10 Interactive Media Readings 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Groundswell
 
 A
seminal
work
in
the
field
of
social
media
marketing,
Groundswell
points
out
 the
collective
power
and
influence
of
web
users
and
how
companies
must
 change
their
approach
to
survive
in
the
new,
potentially
hostile
environment
of
 Web
2.0.
 
 http://www.forrester.com/Groundswell/index.html
 
 
 If
it
Doesn’t
Spread
It’s
Dead
 
 This
whitepaper
by
Henry
Jenkins
and
Xiaochang
Li,

Ana
Domb
Krauskopf

and
 Joshua
Green
addressed
the
problems
with
the
notion
of
viral
and
how
to
 harness
the
power
of
“spreadable
media.”
 
 http://www.onlinefandom.com/archives/if‐it‐doesnt‐spread‐its‐dead/
 
 
 The
Long
Tail:
Why
the
Future
of
Business
is
Selling
Less
of
More
 
 In
this
innovative
book,
author
and
Wired
magazine
editor
Chris
Anderson
 wrote
this
book
advocates
that
details
the
benefits
of
a
marketing
strategy
that
 aims
to
hit
a
niche
audience
instead
of
trying
to
market
to
a
larger
quantity
of
 people.
 
 http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/tail.html
 
 
 Here
Comes
Everybody
 
 Clay
Shirky’s
2008
book
on
group
dynamics
on
the
Internet
explores,
in
his
 words,
"what
happens
when
people
are
given
the
tools
to
do
things
together,
 without
needing
traditional
organizational
structures"
 
 http://www.shirky.com/herecomeseverybody/
 
 
 Socialnomics

This
book
by
Erik
Qualman
takes
a
research‐based
look
on
how
social
media
 has
impacted
the
world
of
business.
Qualman
is
considered
a
leading
thinker
in
 this
topic
and
his
blog
continues
to
add
insights
on
the
topic.

 
 http://socialnomics.net/
 
 
 6. Marketing
to
the
Social
Web
 
 Larry
Webber’s
book
is
a
great
introduction
to
communicating
with
Internet
 users
through
social
media
marketing,
engaging
users
and
building
 communities.
 
 http://www.marketingtothesocialweb.com/
 
 
 7. Information
Design
Handbook
 
 This
extremely
handy
guide
introduces
important
concepts
in
the
aesthetics
 and
principles
to
information
design.
The
handbook
includes
thorough
case
 studies
and
beautiful
designs,
all
which
are
great
for
inspiration.
 
 http://www.enspacedesign.com/
 
 
 8. The
Elements
of
User
Experience
 
 Jesse
James
Garrett’s
landmark
book
breaks
down
the
various
elements
that
go
 into
creating
a
user
experience
–
useability,
information
architecture,
 interaction
design,
etc.
–
and
offers
lucid
advice
on
how
to
tackle
them
all
 without
getting
lost
in
its
complexity.

 
 http://www.jjg.net/elements/
 
 
 9. ZeFrank’s
blog
 
 ZeFrank
(Hosea
Jan
Frank)
is
a
web
personality
and
humorist
who
provides
 interesting
observations
on
social
media
and
experiments
that
apply
the
ideas
 behind
it
in
clever
ways.
He’s
worth
knowing
just
as
much
for
the
quirky
goings‐ on
at
his
website
as
he
is
for
his
entertainment
value.
 
 http://www.zefrank.com/
 
 
 10. Seth
Godin’s
blog

Godin’s
insights
are
worth
enough
to
include
him
in
this
compilation
twice.
His
 thoughts
on
business
in
the
digital
age
are
always
interesting
and
noteworthy,
 and
he
blogs
nearly
every
day.
He’s
a
great
resource
for
anyone
interested
in
 business
and
marketing
in
today’s
Web
2.0
environment.
 
 http://sethgodin.typepad.com/

Top 10 Interactive Media Issues 
 User­centered
Issues
 1. User­control

 
 One
of
the
most
important
things
to
remember
is
to
always
give
the
user
control
 over
his
or
her
experience.
Without
this
factor,
the
user
experience
is
severely
 limited
and
hinders
the
transfer
of
any
lasting
value
from
one’s
product
or
 message
to
the
user.

 
 
 2. Spreadability/stickiness
 
 One
of
the
most
asked
questions
of
marketers
in
the
world
of
Web
2.0
is
how
to
 make
something
sticky
or
viral.

As
explained
in
“If
it
Doesn’t
Spread,
it’s
Dead,”
 the
question
people
should
be
asking
is
how
to
make
something
spread
from
 web
community
to
web
community,
as
this
is
how
true
lasting
value
can
be
 achieved
with
many
demographics
that
one’s
strategy
may
otherwise
never
 have
reached.

 
 
 3. User
generated
content
 
 Web
2.0
is
highly
dependent
of
user
generated
content:
blogs,
podcasts,
 reviews,
videos,
mashups;
all
of
these
can
add
value
and
leverage
the
unique
 voice
of
every
individual
on
the
web.

The
idea
is
that
nobody
knows
everything,
 but
everyone
knows
something.
If
everyone
shares
that
something,
the
world
 becomes
smarter.
 
 
 4. Ease
of
Use
 
 When
planning
user‐experiences,
ease
of
use
must
always
be
at
the
forefront
of
 the
designer’s
mind.
If
a
user
can’t
figure
out
how
to
use
a
product
or
website,
it
 has
no
value.
For
this
reason,
designs
should
be
intuitive
and
easy
to
use.
 
 
 5. User­centered
testing
 
 There’s
no
better
way
to
learn
about
how
one’s
interactive
design
works
than
 by
testing
it
on
one’s
target
audience
(a
group
called
a
user
persona).
The
user‐

experience
can
best
be
configuring
by
keeping
the
end‐user’s
needs
and
 abilities
front
and
center
throughhout
each
phase
of
design.
 
 Industry­centered
issues
 1. Openness
 
 In
the
digital
age
where
information
spreads
so
quickly,
how
open
should
 companies?
Many
claim
that
there’s
no
use
in
trying
to
hide
from
the
masses
 anymore,
as
most
likely
anything
attempting
to
be
hidden
will
be
uncovered
 and
magnified
by
the
groundswell.
At
the
same
time,
there
must
be
limits
to
 how
open
a
company
can
be
to
continue
operating.
This
balance
is
one
of
the
 big
issues
being
discussed
in
the
field,
but
many
can
agree
that
openness
to
 information
and
of
networks
is
essential
to
our
modern
way
of
life
–
and
now
 that
we
have
it,
there’s
no
going
back.

 
 
 2. The
Digital
Divide
 
 While
the
world
grows
technologically
more
advanced
every
day,
there
remains
 a
huge
portion
of
the
global
community
without
access
to
the
Internet.
These
 people
are
at
risk
of
being
entirely
left
behind,
and
it
goes
beyond
just
having
 access
to
the
Internet;
without
proper
computer
training
and
accessible
 interface
design,
the
developed
world
will
continue
to
move
forwards
while
 those
without
a
developed
infrastructure
will
become
increasingly
 disadvantaged.
 
 
 3. Accessibility
 
 Another
major
issue
in
interactive
media
is
that
of
accessibility.
Keeping
 channels
open
is
absolutely
imperative,
and
the
issue
of
net
neutrality
–
making
 user
access
free
of
restrictions
on
content,
sites
and
platforms
–
falls
within
this
 category.
 
 
 4. Being
always­on
 
 Hyperconnectivity
is
a
major
buzz
word
in
today’s
work
environment,
but
 rightfully
so.
We
already
are
having
to
adjust
our
lives
to
constant
e‐mail,
text
 and
phonecalls
–
what
will
we
do
when
we
have
so
many
gadgets
that
are
on
all
 of
the
time
that
our
attention
is
constantly
being
demanded
in
different
 directions?
Managing
hyperconnectivity
in
an
“always
on”
world
is
going
to
be
a
 challenge
and
major
issue
for
everyone
involved
in
the
web.

5. Ethical
use
of
interactive
media
 
 Interactive
and
social
media
are
providing
companies
with
a
lot
of
great
 opportunities
for
reaching
out
to
potential
customers
and
communities,
but
this
 also
opens
up
chances
for
unethical
behavior
in
this
interactive
sphere.
Posing
 as
users,
deleting
negative
comments,
unethical
advertising
methods;
there
are
 plenty
of
places
for
companies
to
go
wrong.
Being
a
responsible
user
of
the
Web
 2.0
space
should
be
one
of
the
top
goals
of
any
company
engaging
in
social
 media.

Top 10 Interactive Media Resources 
 1. Uxmag.com
 
 This
website
is
always
a
great
source
for
industry
related
articles
and
insights,
 and
their
website
is
pretty
good
case
study
in
user‐experience
as
well.
 
 http://www.uxmag.com/
 
 
 2. Lynda.com
 
 No
matter
how
much
theory
we
master
as
interactive
design
professionals,
 there
were
always
be
tools
that
we
need
to
learn
and
master
in
order
to
apply
it.
 Lynda
is
full
of
expertly
taught
tutorials
and
is
a
great
resource
for
anyone’s
 ongoing
technical
education.
 
 http://www.lynda.com
 
 
 3. TED
 
 There
aren’t
many
places
better
than
TED
for
finding
consistently
fascinating
 and
relevant
talks
on
technology,
entertainment,
science,
design,
and
world
 issues.
The
site
focuses
on
bringing
presentations
by
fascinating
speakers
to
the
 Internet
for
everyone
to
watch
and
learn
from.
 
 http://www.ted.com
 
 
 4. TechCrunch
 
 TechCrunch
is
a
great
blog
that
discusses
technology,
social/interactive
media,
 and
all
things
Internet.
It’s
a
great
blog
for
keeping
current
on
industry
news
 and
opinions.

 
 http://www.techcrunch.com
 
 
 5. Twitter
 
 The
popular
microblogging
site
also
happens
to
be
a
great
resource
for
 interactive
media
professionals,
making
it
easier
to
connect
to
fellow
industry
 figures,
discover
new
ideas
and
keep
up
with
trends.

http://www.twitter.com
 
 
 6. StumbleUpon
 
 Sometimes
inspiration
for
design
is
hard
to
come
by,
and
in
times
like
these
it
 helps
to
have
a
random
slew
of
visuals
to
job
one’s
right
brain.
StumbleUpon
is
 such
a
resource,
providing
the
user
with
a
random
website
(guided
with
user
 preferences,
of
course)
with
just
the
click
of
a
button.
 
 http://www.stumbleupon.com
 
 
 7. “101
Things
I
Learned
from
IxD
School”
Blog
 
 This
blog,
operated
by
an
ex‐interactive
design
student,
provides
quick,
easily
 digestible
tips
that
serve
as
nice
reminders
or
opportunities
for
discovery
for
 any
interactive
designer,
right
out
of
school
or
not.
 
 http://www.ixd101.com/
 
 
 8. Gizmodo.com
 
 Gizmodo
is
a
great
site
for
keeping
up
with
the
latest
gadgets
currently
on
the
 market
and
those
on
the
horizon
–
a
techno‐geeks
dream
blog.
 
 http://www.gizmodo.com/
 
 
 9. Wired.com
 
 Wired
magazine
hones
in
on
how
technology
affects
culture,
economics,
and
 society
at
large,
and
wired.com
offers
much
of
the
same.
While
their
articles
 range
from
the
entertaining
to
the
insightful,
Wired
always
promises
an
 interesting
look
at
technology
through
a
slightly
pop
culture
filter.

 
 http://www.wired.com
 
 
 10. 


Google
Analytics
 
 This
powerful
tool
from
Google
comes
highly
recommended
by
many
existing
 industry
professionals,
and
at
a
price
tag
of
free,
it’s
hard
to
ignore
Google
 Analytics
as
a
serious
option
for
one’s
web
metrics
solution.
They
even
have
a

comprehensive
tutorial
library
that
explains
how
to
use
their
particular
tool
as
 well
as
best
practices
for
using
analytics.

 http://www.google.com/analytics/

Top 10 Interactive Media Theories 
 1. Uses/gratifications
theory
 
 This
popular
media
theory
has
been
around
for
awhile,
but
it’s
been
given
a
 whole
new
context
through
interactive
media.
When
people
have
the
ability
to
 freely
choose,
we
can
gain
new
incite
into
what
people
are
trying
to
satisfy
 through
their
media
choices
and,
in
turn,
determine
how
to
better
fulfill
those
 needs.
 
 http://www.jiad.org/article22
 
 
 2. Spreadable
Media
 
 The
theory
behind
spreadable
media
is
that
the
social
practices
going
on
 throughout
web
communities
are
creating
new
distribution
modes
for
online
 content.
When
someone
likes
something,
they
tend
to
share
it
with
a
friend
if
 they
feel
that
that
something
communicates
a
shared
value
between
them.
 However,
if
one
can
provide
something
that
can
mean
many
different
things
to
 different
groups,
one
has
spreadable
media
and
can
reach
broad
and
niche
 audiences
for
a
fraction
of
the
cost
of
a
normal
ad
campaign.
 
 http://www.onlinefandom.com/archives/if‐it‐doesnt‐spread‐its‐dead/
 
 
 3. Don
Norman’s
Emotional
Design
Model
 
 Norman’s
theory
is
one
of
those
that
follows
the
mode
of
thinking
that
one
 should
strive
to
make
people
feel
happy
when
experiencing
your
design.
For
 Norman,
a
good
design
addresses
the
visceral
(where
appearance
matters),
 behavioral
(where
the
function
and
usability
is
processed),
and
reflective
 (where
the
full
impact
of
thought
and
emotions
are
experienced).
 
 http://www.uxmatters.com/mt/archives/2005/11/personas‐goals‐and‐ emotional‐design.php
 
 
 4. Online
Communities
Theory
 
 This
theory
tries
to
explain
the
motivation
behind
virtual
communities,
 including
Pareto’s
law
(that
saws
20%
of
people
to
80%
of
posting)
and
Peter
 Kollock’s
three
non‐altruistic
behaviors
–
the
idea
that
participation
is
just
as
 much
rewarding
for
the
individual
as
it
is
beneficial
for
the
group.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_participation
 
 
 Social
Network
Theory
 
 Social
Network
Theory
looks
at
how
ties
in
social
networks
affect
the
norms
of
 our
relationships.

 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_theory
 
 
 Information
Theory
 
 While
someone
complicated,
Information
Theory
is
concerned
with
who
a
 message
is
replicated
at
the
other
end
of
a
system.
It
tries
to
account
for
such
 concepts
as
noise,
redundancy
and
entropy
of
a
message.

 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory
 
 
 Knowledge
Gap
Theory
 
 Knowledge
Gap
Theory
states
that
new
technology
and
media
is
actually
 increasing
the
gap
of
knowledge
between
both
high
status
and
low
status
 populations,
as
high
status
groups
can
use
technology
to
increase
knowledge
at
 a
higher
rate.
The
issue
of
the
digital
divide
falls
within
this
theory.
 
 http://www.cw.utwente.nl/theorieenoverzicht/Theory%20clusters/Mass%20 Media/knowledge_gap.doc/
 
 
 Diffusion
of
Innovations
 
 The
diffusion
of
innovations
theory
states
that
in
a
system
there
are
different
 types
of
consumers
–
those
who
are
quick
to
adopt
new
things
and
those
who
 are
not.
The
idea
is
that
those
who
adopt
new
things
quickly
are
the
ones
who
 begin
the
spread
of
that
thing
throughout
the
system,
so
those
people
should
be
 targeted.
Another
target
group
should
be
opinion
leaders,
those
people
in
a
 system
that
have
particular
influence
over
what
gets
adopted
or
not.
 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_innovations
 
 
 Perception
Theory

Perception
Theory
believes
that
the
process
for
interpreting
messages
is
 complex
to
the
point
where
people
selectively
analyze
and
interpret
sensory
 stimulation
to
make
sense
of
the
world.
This
theory
includes
the
Four
Rings
of
 Defense,
which
states
that
there
four
ways
that
people
actively
alter
how
they
 interpret
information
(selective
perception,
selective
attention,
etc.).


 
 http://jjppnetto.blogspot.com/2009/06/communication‐theories‐ perception.html
 
 
 10. The
Fun
Theory
 
 The
Fun
Theory
is
pretty
simple.
It
states
that
by
making
mundane
tasks
more
 fun,
you
make
people
more
likely
to
undergo
them.
One
of
this
group
of
 theorists’
best
examples
of
this
is
where
they
turned
a
staircase
situated
next
to
 an
escalator
into
a
piano,
with
each
step
making
a
different
note
when
stepped
 upon.
Sure
enough,
more
people
took
the
stairs
than
the
escalators.

 
 http://www.thefuntheory.com/

Top 10 Interactive Media Visualizations 
 Visualizations
of
the
Field
 1. Web
Trends
Map
 
 This
creative
visualization
turns
the
leader
Internet
names
into
a
subway
map
 based
on
the
Tokyo
subway
system.
Each
stop
is
represented
by
a
company
or
 website,
and
the
lines
that
connect
the
various
stops
create
an
association
 between
them.
This
visualization
provides
a
new
look
on
the
world
of
Web
2.0.
 
 http://informationarchitects.jp/web‐trend‐map‐4‐final‐beta/
 
 
 2. The
Conversation
Prism
 
 The
Conversation
Prism
organizes
the
myriad
of
Web
2.0
utilities
and
services
 that
are
helping
drive
social
media
into
a
convenient,
colorful
chart.
The
 visualization
was
created
by
Brian
Solis,
a
pioneer
of
social
media.
 
 http://theconversationprism.com/
 
 
 3. The
Elements
of
User
Experience
 
 This
fantastic
visualization
breaks
down
the
various
design
elements
of
user
 experience,
providing
a
useful
analysis
of
how
these
elements
work
individually
 to
create
the
overall
user
experience.
 
 http://www.jjg.net/elements/pdf/elements.pdf
 
 
 4. Web
2.0
Application
World
Mosaic
 
 The
Web
2.0
World
Mosaic
takes
the
logos
of
1001
different
social
media
 websites
and
turns
them
into
an
impressive
visualization
of
the
globe.
 
 http://www.appappeal.com/web‐2‐0‐application‐world‐mosaic/
 
 
 5. The
Intent
Index

This
interactive
chart
presents
the
results
of
a
study
that
asked
audiences
why
 they
use
the
Internet.
The
graphic
suggests
that
online
behavior
is
better
 understood
in
user
intent
rather
than
user
demographics.
 
 http://www.ruderfinn.com/rfrelate/intent/intent‐index.html
 
 Great
Examples
of
Visualizations
 1. Newsmap
 
 A
continually
updated
visualization
of
the
day’s
news
that
makes
each
story’s
 box
within
the
overall
space
sized
according
to
its
popularity.

 
 http://newsmap.jp/
 
 
 2. GoogleEarth
 
 Just
as
much
a
virtual
world
as
it
is
a
visualization,
GoogleEarth
has
beautifully
 recreated
our
world
through
Satellite
imagery
to
give
us
new
methods
for
using
 maps,
finding
locations,
and
understanding
spatial
relationships
in
our
global
 community.
It’s
tagging
and
overlays
abilities
allow
user
customization
of
the
 virtual
space,
combining
social
media
and
visualization
to
provide
new
 opportunities
for
understanding
our
world.
 
 http://earth.google.com/
 
 
 3. NYT
Faces
of
the
Dead
 
 This
classic
New
York
Times
visualization
pays
tribute
to
those
who’ve
died
in
 the
Iraq
War
by
creating
a
digital
mosaic
of
each
soldier’s
face
out
of
tiles
–
each
 tile
representing
a
different
soldier.
The
result
is
a
somber,
tasteful
and
elegant
 visualization
that
is
great
example
of
how
form
and
function
can
beautifully
 come
together.
 
 http://www.nytimes.com/ref/us/20061228_3000FACES_TAB1.html
 
 
 4. Internet
Memes
Timeline
 
 This
fun,
sometimes
nostalgic
interactive
timeline
maps
every
major
Internet
 fad
dating
back
to
the
web’s
very
creation.
A
good
example
of
a
lot
of
data
being
 fit
within
a
small
space.

http://www.dipity.com/tatercakes/Internet_Memes
 
 
 5. “Left
vs.
Right”
Visualization
 
 Infographics
are
not
easy
to
create,
especially
when
the
goal
is
to
depict
the
 differences
between
left
and
right
wing
ideology,
which
makes
this
visualization
 all
the
more
impressive.
Beautifully
realized
and
expertly
crafted,
“Left
vs.
 Right”
gives
a
ton
of
information
in
a
manageable
space,
making
it
a
great
 example
of
a
successful
infographic.
 
 http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/left‐vs‐right/

1

Raising
Reality
to
the
Mythic
on
the
Web:
 The
Future
of
Interactive
Documentary
Film
 
 
 Conor
Britain
 
 Elon
University
 
 Professor
Janna
Anderson
 
 8/28/09

2

Introduction
 
 The
documentary
film
is
one
of
the
most
powerful
non‐fiction
story
telling
 techniques,
with
a
repertoire
for
teaching,
spreading
propaganda,
and
providing
 entertainment.
The
documentary’s
many
applications
have
helped
it
become
a
 mainstay
in
the
film
industry
ever
since
the
first
documentary
film,
“Nanook
of
the
 North”
(1922),
brought
us
into
the
exotic,
ice
covered
land
of
the
Canadian
Inuit
 Eskimos,
demonstrating
the
medium’s
penchant
for
powerfully
immersing
 audiences
in
the
lives
of
other
people
and
places.
To
this
day,
the
documentary
 continues
to
give
audiences
unique,
life‐like
experiences
through
film
while
making
 profound
observations
on
culture,
politics,
ideologies
and
people.

 
 However,
interactive
media,
virtual
worlds
and
video
games
have
begun
to
 redefine
documentary
experiences
outside
the
context
of
film.
Interactive,
non‐ fiction
narratives
such
as
those
found
on
New
York
Times
Interactive
let
users
 explore
stories
in
a
non‐linear
fashion,
allowing
the
user
to
move
laterally
 throughout
the
story
and
dig
deeper
when
he
or
she
wishes.
One
may
say
that
these
 experiences
are
documentary‐like
in
nature,
providing
information
on
real‐life
 issues
and
subjects,
yet,
unlike
traditional
documentaries,
they
allow
users
to
have
a
 unique
experience
by
giving
them
choice
and
control
over
the
documentary.
 
 This
concept
of
choice
and
control
is
often
in
contrast
with
the
goals
of
the
 documentary
filmmaker;
after
all,
as
filmmaker
Sandra
Dickson
of
Wake
Forest’s
 documentary
program
states,
a
documentary
filmmaker
is
concerned
with
the
 “telling”
aspect
of
storytelling,
constructing
a
powerful
narrative
through
the
careful
 treatment
of
his
or
her
subject
(Interview,
Sandra
Dickson,
Oct.
8,
2009).
When
that
 power
is
handed
over
to
the
user
–
as
is
the
case
with
interactive
media,
where
the
 user
is
directing
the
experience
–
the
author’s
role
of
storyteller
–
and,
 consequently,
the
author’s
view
of
the
story
–
is
diminished.
 
 This
creates
an
inherent
obstacle
in
translating
the
documentary
into
an
 interactive
narrative.
While
many
examples
of
interactive
documentary
can
be
cited,
 these
are
rarely
done
in
the
filmmaking
tradition,
instead
coming
from
places
such
 as
art
installations
or
museum
exhibits.
This
paper
intends
to
establish
an
 understanding
of
the
documentary
film
and
contrast
that
with
contemporary
 examples
of
interactive
documentary,
isolating
the
key
components
of
the
latter
and
 attempting
to
integrate
the
functions
of
the
filmmaker
as
an
auteur
into
this
working
 definition.
By
analyzing
the
two
different
approaches
to
documentary
(interactive
 and
cinematic)
I
will
attempt
to
establish
a
common
ground
between
them.

3

The
Documentary
Film
 Defining
the
documentary
film
is
no
simple
task;
the
most
basic
idea
of
 documentary,
capturing
reality,
is
so
broad
a
concept
that
it
can
be
tailored
to
fit
any
 definition
that
the
documentarian
prefers.
As
Galloway
et
al.
point
out,
every
film,
 both
documentary
and
fiction,
documents
some
aspect
of
our
society’s
existence,
 capturing
elements
of
style,
language,
or
perceptions
on
various
topics,
to
name
a
 few
(325).

 One
thing
that
contemporary
scholars
agree
upon,
however,
is
that
 documentary
film
does
not,
despite
its
historical
connotations,
claim
to
objectively
 represent
reality.
While
reality
and
the
depiction
thereof
may
be
a
common
element
 in
early
documentaries
especially,
filmmakers
have
come
to
understand
the
 documentary
as
what
Bruzzi
describes
as
a
negotiation
with
reality,
melding
the
 filmmaker’s
experienced
reality
with
his
or
her
attempts
at
understanding
it
(2000).
 Despite
this
acknowledgement,
non‐filmmakers
often
still
look
to
documentary
for
 truth,
ignoring
its
use
of
dramatic
and
emotive
filmmaking
techniques.
(Galloway,
 325‐6).
While
Choi
recognizes
that
a
dedication
to
reality
is
indeed
a
main
aspect
of
 the
documentary,
he
also
notes
that
its
job
is
to
serve
a
larger
context,
citing
 Vertov’s
notion
that
the
documentary
is
meant
to
capture
fragments
of
reality
and
 combine
them
meaningfully
(44).

 If
we
recognize
that
the
documentary
is
indeed
a
creative
construct
of
reality,
 we
recognize
that
the
documentary
also
has
a
purpose
and
inherent
goals.
But
what
 are
those?
Why
do
documentarians
feel
compelled
to
capture
reality
and
 reconstruct
it
for
others?
In
other
words,
what
is
the
motivation
for
the
 documentary?

 Renov
argues
that
a
documentary
has
four
functions:
to
record
reality,
 persuade
audiences,
analyze
information,
and
express
something,
whether
it
is
an
 opinion,
a
sentiment,
or
a
thought
(1993).
While
Renov’s
work
is
a
bit
dated,
his
four
 functions
of
documentary
film
hold
true
to
the
present
and
illustrate
that
the
 medium’s
penchant
for
capturing
reality
is
only
one
of
the
number
of
goals
of
the
 documentarian.
Aston,
Ruby
and
Lancioni
illustrate
this
concept
using
Ken
Burn’s
 film
“The
Civil
War”
as
an
example.
They
declare
that
watching
a
Burns
film
isn’t
just
 a
chance
to
be
educated,
but
to
be
moved;
indeed,
as
Burns
mentions
later
in
their
 article,
he
builds
his
documentaries
around
his
personal
emotional
response
to
the
 materials
used
within
it
(21).
In
this
sense,
the
documentarian
is
taking
a
reality
that
 s/he
experienced
–
in
this
case,
Burn’s
researching
of
the
Civil
War
–
and
retelling
 reality
through
the
lens
of
that
personal
experience.

 
 This
idea
supports
what
Aston,
Ruby
and
Lancioni
declare
a
rhetorical
model
 of
history,
which
states
that
history
is
negotiable
because
it
is
a
constructed
 discourse
subject
to
critique
and
revision
(22).
This
makes
the
documentarian
an
 author
of
sorts,
a
storyteller
who
is
determining
the
viewing
experience
through
a

4

careful
construction
of
video
clips.
Burns
says
himself,
“If
I
put
this
picture
up
 against
that
picture
and
it
collides,
something
is
produced
that
is
greater
than
the
 total
information
of
both
of
these
pictures.
That,
you
can
say,
is
the
theory
of
 montage.
But
that,
to
me,
is
the
possibility
of
art.”
(Aston,
Ruby,
Lancioni,
23)
 
 The
Interactive
Documentary

 But
what
happens
when
this
ability
is
given
to
the
viewer
of
the
 documentary?
Better
yet,
what
happens
when
the
viewer
is
no
longer
just
a
viewer,
 but
a
creator
of
his
or
her
documentary
experience?
If
history
–
and,
as
an
extension,
 reality
itself
–
is
truly
negotiable,
there
are
multiple
“realities”
that
can
come
from
a
 single
event,
depending
on
who
is
telling
the
story.
If
a
mass
of
people
were
all
given
 the
ability
to
mash
up
a
series
of
resources
like
Burns
describes
in
his
process
of
 making
a
film,
wouldn’t
they
all
produce
a
different
set
of
associations
through
their
 own
montage
choices?

 In
her
dissertation
“Interactive
Documentary:
Towards
an
Aesthetic
of
the
 Multiple,”
Sandra
Gaudenzi
advocates
the
idea
that
by
leveraging
interactive
media,
 a
documentary
can
capture
the
infinite
realities
that
constitute
our
world
by
giving
 everybody
the
power
to
document
it.
This
idea
of
an
“open
source
documentary”
lies
 somewhere
on
the
extreme
end
of
the
concept
of
interactive
documentary,
but
its
 stark
contrast
to
the
goals
of
documentary
film
highlights
the
differences
between
 the
two
approaches.
 These
differences,
according
to
Gaudenzi,
may
explain
the
lack
of
officially
 titled
“interactive
documentaries”
that
currently
make
up
(or
rather,
don’t
make
up)
 the
docu‐sphere:
its
not
that
they
aren’t
out
there,
but
rather
they’re
being
created
 by
non‐filmmakers
(such
as
artists,
exhibitionists,
etc.)
who
simply
aren’t
labeling
 their
work
as
interactive
documentaries
because
they
don’t
come
from
a
film
 background.
As
Gaudenzi
states,
when
filmmakers
approach
an
interactive
 documentary,
they
tend
to
just
create
online
journeys
through
their
film’s
subject
 instead
of
pushing
the
genre
in
radical
new
directions
(Interview,
Sandra
Gaudenzi,
 Oct.
12,
2009).

 The
goals
of
the
interactive
documentary
are
much
similar
to
the
goals
of
the
 documentary
film
itself,
but
instead
of
asking
just
the
mental
attention
of
the
viewer,
 the
interactive
documentary
demands
a
motor
input
from
him
or
her
as
well
 (Gaudenzi,
8).
By
allowing
physical
interaction,
the
interactive
documentary
has
the
 power
to
break
down
the
limited
linear
configuration
of
the
film,
giving
users
an
 open‐ended
pathway
through
which
to
roam
the
material
(Choi,
45).
 Meadows’
4
tenants
of
interaction
–
observation,
exploration,
modification
 and
reciprocation
–
provide
a
good
illustration
of
what
the
interactive
documentary
 could
become.
Documentaries
have
long
been
observed,
but
with
Meadow’s
four
 tenants
applied,
they
can
also
be
actively
explored,
altered
and
shared
by
audiences.
 The
30‐minute
to
2‐hour
time
block
would
become
a
thing
of
the
past,
with
the

5

documentary
kept
alive
indefinitely
through
constant
updates
of
the
project,
either
 by
the
documentarian
or
the
contributors
of
the
documentary
(this
concept
is
 referred
to
by
Gaudenzi
as
the
autopaietic
documentary,
and
will
be
discussed
 later),1
which
raises
a
whole
new
question:
where
are
the
boundaries
between
 filmmaker
and
audience
when
both
are
contributing
to
the
film?
 
 The
Conflicting
Natures
of
Film
and
Interactive
Media
 
 It
is
in
this
gray
area
that
we
find
the
major
difference
(and
conflict)
between
 the
goals
of
the
documentary
film
and
the
goals
of
the
interactive
documentary.
 Documentary
film
exists
for
the
filmmaker
to
tell
a
story;
in
other
words,
the
 filmmaker
is
the
author,
which
means,
according
to
Choi,
that
s/he
is
responsible
for
 contextualizing
perspectives
and
rationales
through
storytelling
(45).
Essentially,
 the
role
of
the
filmmaker
is
to
create
meaning
from
reality
(Gaudenzi,
5).

 
 However,
as
mentioned
earlier,
the
interactive
documentary,
by
allowing
 users
to
take
control
over
the
telling
of
the
story,
threatens
the
documentarian’s
role
 as
an
auteur
and
thus
his
or
her
ability
to
create
meaning
(Galloway
et
al.,
335).
For
 example,
instead
of
editing
a
linear
film,
a
documentarian
may
decide
to
create
a
 database
of
video
clips
and
interviews
through
which
a
user
is
able
to
navigate
with
 the
use
of
a
graphical
user
interface
(GUI),
allowing
the
user
to
pursue
topics
of
 interest
to
create
a
very
personal
documentary
experience.

While
highly
interactive,
 this
is
unsettling
to
some
documentarians
because
this
is
in
stark
contrast
to
their
 goal
as
a
filmmaker,
which
is
to
tell
a
story
based
on
their
lived
experience.
As
 Dickson
states,
it
may
even
be
irresponsible
for
the
filmmaker
to
relinquish
this
 control,
because
without
any
context
to
the
film
(which
the
documentarian
usually
 provides),
there’s
the
potential
for
a
complete
misinterpretation
of
the
material
 itself
(Interview,
Oct.
8,
2009).


 
 For
filmmakers
to
leverage
interactive
media,
they
essentially
have
to
shift
 their
approach
to
the
documentary
itself.
Gaudenzi
explains
this
concept
nicely:
 “(In
response
to
whether
the
filmmaker’s
fear
of
losing
control
through
interactive
 documentary
is
justified):
They’re
right.
They’re
right
because
this
is
the
whole
 point
of
interactivity.
This
is
why
documentary
makers
will
not
be
able
to
do
 interactive
stuff,
because
they
come
from
a
logic
that
makes
them
want
to
give
a
 message.
They
need
control.
If
you
want
to
give
a
message
and
you
want
to
give
a
 story,
then
the
only
way
to
do
that
is
through
a
linear
documentary.
If
your
aim
is
 not
to
give
your
point
of
view
but
to
create
an
experience…you
could
do
an
 interactive
documentary.
The
interactive
documentary
is
not
there
to
portray
one
 meaning.
It
only
works
if
there
is
a
certain
level
of
loss
of
control.”
(Interview,
 Sandra
Gaudenzi,
Oct.
12,
2009)

1
Of
course,
this
requires
reasserting
that
the
documentary
has
never
strived
to
exist
as
an
objective

medium,
and
therefore
such
subjective
things
as
modification
and
reciprocation
shouldn’t
be
denied
 from
the
documentary
world
on
the
basis
of
their
potential
inaccurate
representations
of
reality
 (Galloway
et
al.,
328)

6

The
documentary
is
used
to
tell
one
point
of
view
(the
documentarian’s),
whereas
 the
interactive
documentary
has
the
potential
to
tell
many.
To
add
interactivity
is
to
 lose
control
over
the
film’s
meaning,
and
for
many
filmmakers,
this
simply
isn’t
their
 goal.
Authorship
is
an
inherent
goal
of
documentary
film
that
documentarians
are
 having
trouble
reconsiling
with
interactive
media.
 While
the
issue
of
authorship
is
a
major
issue
that’s
preventing
the
Internet
 from
keeping
documentary
film
and
interactive
narrative
from
syncing
up,
this
 doesn’t
mean
that
filmmakers
aren’t
utilizing
the
Internet
at
all.

Documentaries
are
 finding
a
whole
new
method
for
distribution
on
the
Internet
in
a
time
when
the
 industry
is
flooded
with
competition
(Interview,
Brett
Ingram,
Oct.
23,
2009),
and
 documentarians
are
finding
interactive
websites
a
great
way
to
include
content
that
 couldn’t
be
fit
in
the
film
(Interview,
Sandra
Dickson,
Oct.
8,
2009).
 However,
there
are
a
few
technical
and
bureaucratic
problems
with
this
 approach
to
integrating
the
Internet
with
the
documentary.
On
the
bureaucratic
 side,
filmmakers
often
sacrifice
the
ability
to
screen
films
at
festivals
if
they
host
 their
film
online,
forcing
them
to
make
a
decision
between
running
the
lucrative
 festival
circuit
or
allowing
the
film
to
exist
online.
As
a
result,
the
Internet
is
usually
 a
last
resort
for
films
as
a
place
for
distribution
once
they
are
no
longer
eligible
for
 the
festival
circuit
(Interview,
Sadie
Tillery,
Oct.
22,
2009).

 
 Meanwhile,
on
the
technical
side,
the
main
problem
is
that
this
limited
use
of
 the
Internet
tries
to
put
a
passive
medium
into
an
interactive
platform.
There
are
 differences
in
how
people
use
the
Internet
and
how
they
watch
films:
as
filmmaker
 Brett
Ingram
states,
“it's
difficult
to
preserve
the
true
film‐like
experience
on
the
 Web.
The
tiny
screen
and
compressed
image
is
nowhere
near
as
powerful
as
the
 larger
screen
experience,
and
seeing
films
with
an
audience
is
even
more
powerful.”
 (Interview,
Oct.
23,
2009).
As
such,
Internet
users
are
going
to
have
different
 attention
spans
than
people
who
are
knowingly
going
to
the
theater
to
watch
an
 hour
and
a
half
film
(Interview,
Sadie
Tillery,
Oct.
22,
2009).

 
 The
seeming
consequence
of
these
factors
is
that
the
interactive
 documentary
is
in
a
stalemate.
Filmmakers
have
little
incentive
to
turn
their
film
 into
an
interactive
project
as
doing
so
would
limit
its
distribution
to
the
Internet,
 would
relinquish
authorial
control,
and
may
lessen
the
impact
of
the
film
due
to
the
 small
screen
experience,
all
of
which
go
against
the
nature
of
the
filmmaker.
 Furthermore,
documentary
films
aren’t
likely
to
hold
audience
attention
as
well
due
 to
the
nature
of
how
people
use
the
Internet.

Unless
there’s
some
degree
of
 interactivity,
it
simply
doesn’t
make
sense
from
the
Internet
user’s
point
of
view
to
 watch
a
linear
documentary
online
(unless,
of
course,
they’re
actively
seeking
that
 film
out).
Galloway
et
al.
suggest
that
much
of
the
failure
in
the
part
of
interactive
 film
in
general
can
be
appointed
to
high
audience
expectations
of
the
medium
that
 are
unfulfilled
due
to
limited
technically
capabilities
and
aspirations;
for
the
 interactive
documentary
to
succeed,
audiences
need
a
better
melding
of
 “interactive”
and
“film”
(336).

7

But
why
should
we
be
so
concerned
with
integrating
the
documentary
film
 with
interactive
media?
If
they
really
are
so
conflicting,
why
shouldn’t
we
leave
 them
to
lead
their
separate
lives
in
their
respective
mediums?
In
short:
because
they
 need
each
other.
 
 
 The
Case
for
Authorship
 
 In
a
blog
post
critical
of
Second
Life,
Alan
Graham
points
to
a
major
problem
 inherent
to
the
virtual
world:
it’s
incredibly
boring.
 “A
lot
of
people
ask
me
what
I
think
about
Second
Life.
I'm
not
going
to
pull
any
 punches.
It's
boring.
Really…really…boring...
While
there
are
no
"rules"
and
the
 world
is
largely
capable
of
anything
the
users
wish
it
to
be
or
do…it
is
that
lack
of
 structure
that
makes
me
not
care.
It
simply
isn't
enough
to
buy
a
piece
of
virtual
 land
and
put
something
on
it.
Without
story,
without
mythology,
without
a
living
 and
progressing
narrative…without
goals
and
dreams…what's
the
point?”
(Graham,
 “What
Second
Life
Should
Learn
from
Myst”)

Graham’s
observation
perfectly
illustrates
the
need
for
perspective
in
an
interactive
 experience.
Without
it,
the
user
may
question
why
he
or
she
should
be
interacting
 with
it
in
the
first
place.
This
idea
is
similar
to
a
criticism
Gaudenzi
has
of
interactive
 documentaries
that
rely
thar
rely
to
much
on
the
user’s
willingness
to
explore
for
 learning’s
sake.
Simply
put,
without
a
perspective
or
narrative,
the
experience
is
 boring,
whether
the
documentary
is
interactive
or
not.
 A
good
example
of
this
concept
can
be
found
by
looking
at
two
early
 interactive
documentaries,
“Black
Friday”
and
“Becoming
Human.”
The
former
tells
 the
story
of
a
devastating
series
of
brushfires
in
Victoria,
Australia,
while
the
latter
 explores
the
origins
of
the
human
species.
While
both
incorporate
similar
levels
of
 interactivity,
allowing
the
user
to
click
around
the
space
and
explore
information
of
 interest,
“Becoming
Human”
builds
up
a
narrative
around
the
topic
itself,
complete
 with
a
video
introduction
and
incorporates
particular
perspectives
on
the
subject.
 “Black
Friday,”
meanwhile,
merely
explains
the
events
from
an
historical
 perspective
and
lacks
an
overall
perspective
on
the
subject.
It
primarily
uses
text
to
 convey
information,
leaving
out
the
compelling
storytelling
abilities
of
sound
and
 video,
and
the
various
interactive
elements
on
the
site
feel
disjointed
instead
of
 unified
by
an
overall
narrative.
As
Gaudenzi
would
warn,
if
someone
weren’t
 extremely
interested
in
learning
about
the
Victorian
brushfires,
one
likely
wouldn’t
 feel
compelled
to
stay
with
the
documentary
for
long.
 The
documentary
film,
after
all,
works
because
of
its
ability
to
organize
a
 story
in
such
a
way
that
it
is
both
informational
and
entertaining
at
the
same
time
 (Interview,
Sandra
Dickson,
Oct.
8,
2009).

Gibney
notes
that
the
power
of
the
 documentary
film
lies
in
its
ability
to
harness
the
cinematic
techniques
to
leave
 compelling
images
that
propel
people
to
keep
thinking
about
a
subject
after
the
film
 ends.
“This
can’t
be
expressed
in
a
paper
or
in
an
essay,
which
is
the
beauty
of
the

8

documentary,”
says
Gibney.
“It’s
a
narrative
account
of
real
life.
It’s
reality
that
rises
 to
the
mythic.”
(Interview,
Oct.
21,
2009).
 Meanwhile,
the
interactive
documentary
exists
in
a
medium
whose
users
are
 reported
to
spend
an
average
of
56
seconds
on
any
one
page
(Nielsen),
meaning
that
 holding
users
attention
is
no
easy
feat.
In
“Black
Friday,”
there
is
factual
information
 abound,
but
there
are
no
characters
to
relate
to;
there
is
no
combination
of
narrative
 and
image
to
compel
the
user
to
stay
and
leave
him
or
her
with
any
lasting
 impression.
The
power
of
the
film
to
tell
compelling
stories
and
send
resounding
 messages
is
an
essential
to
documentary,
as
are
the
goals
of
documenting
reality,
 and
as
such
it
is
crucial
to
the
success
of
the
genre
in
an
interactive
medium
just
as
it
 is
as
on
linear
film.

 In
this
light,
authorship
is
not
just
something
documentary
filmmakers
want
 to
keep
hold
of
because
of
their
job
to
tell
stories,
but
because
it
is
what
makes
 documentaries
so
compelling
to
begin
with.
While
interactivity
can
provide
 engaging
experiences,
unless
there’s
a
compelling
perspective
it
may
fall
short
of
its
 goals
as
a
documentary.

If
the
medium
is
going
to
become
something
that
attracts
 widespread
audiences,
it
must
have
a
degree
of
authorship
and
perspective
so
that
a
 user’s
experience
will
result
in
a
deeper
and
more
powerful
level
of
understanding
 of
the
topic.
 So
do
the
mediums’
differences
mean
they
can’t
be
reconciled?
Not
 necessarily.
In
fact,
many
films
are
leveraging
interactive
media
to
help
prolong
the
 life
of
their
film,
creating
websites
that
don’t
just
function
as
informational
and
 promotional
hubs
for
the
film
but
as
a
resource
for
additional
content,
user
input,
 and
calls
to
action
(such
as
a
film
about
world
hunger
asking
for
donations
to
the
 World
Food
Program).

This
method
retains
a
high
degree
of
authorship
while
 introducing
elements
of
interactivity
more
suited
for
the
Web.
While
some
may
 deem
this
a
very
limited
definition
of
interactive
documentary,
it
at
least
shows
that
 there
is
potential
for
overlap
between
the
interactive
medium
and
the
documentary
 film
itself,
and
it
is
in
this
overlap
that
there
may
be
hope
for
an
exciting
future
for
 interactive
documentary
film.

 
 
 The
rest
of
this
paper
will
attempt
to
determine
those
very
areas
of
overlap,
 where
interactive
documentary
can
retain
some
of
the
formal
elements
of
 authorship
while
also
making
the
documentary
truly
interactive.
In
this
way,
the
 documentary
film
isn’t
just
able
to
exist
in
an
interactive
medium,
but
can
be
 improved
by
leveraging
it.
This
analysis
will
begin
by
examining
prior
scholarship’s
 models
of
interactive
documentary.
 
 
 Prior
Models
of
the
Interactive
Documentary
 Database
Systems

9

A
long‐standing
conception
of
the
interactive
documentary
can
be
found
in
 the
database
system
model.
The
focus
of
this
model
is
on
the
user’s
navigation
 through
a
series
of
resources
organized
in
a
database.
Each
asset
is
tagged
with
 metadata
that
helps
connect
associated
content
so
that
the
user
can
dynamically
 traverse
the
database
in
a
logical
progression.
These
systems
often
try
to
take
in
 user
feedback
to
help
create
on‐the‐go
associations
between
assets
in
order
to
 create
a
truly
adaptable
system.
 One
of
the
earlier
iterations
of
this
concept
was
called
CyberBELT.
An
early
 technology
in
the
field
of
interactive
documentary
(1995),
the
CyberBELT
was
 designed
to
read
user’s
eye
movements,
react
to
voice
commands,
and
respond
to
 user
control
through
data
gloves.
The
system
would
literally
be
worn
by
viewers,
 and
after
a
video
clip
would
end
the
viewer
would
be
given
a
chance
to
select
what
 s/he
viewed
next.
The
system
also
kept
track
of
patterns
in
user
selection
and
 tracked
eye
movement
to
see
what
users
were
paying
attention
to,
which
had
an
 effect
on
which
options
were
subsequently
presented
to
the
viewer
after
each
clip.
 (Aston
et
al.,
333).

 An
ambitious
experiment
from
a
technology
standpoint,
CyberBELT
 employed
some
techniques
that
are
still
used
in
modern
conceptions
of
database
 systems.
The
combination
of
the
user
choosing
their
path
through
the
database
 while
the
system
actively
suggests
subsequent
content
allows
for
a
unique
 combination
of
authorship
and
user
exploration.
Additionally,
the
system
allowed
 users
to
watch
the
documentary
through
the
paths
that
other
people
had
taken,
 adding
a
new
layer
of
meaning
for
the
individual
viewer
(Aston
et
al,
333).

 Choi
suggests
a
more
modern
example
of
a
database
system.
His
model
uses
 an
open
system
that
gathers
material
into
an
ever‐expanding
database,
where
 ontological
data
design
unifies
different
media
sources
into
the
same
database
of
 metadata,
essentially
allowing
random
media
elements
to
be
recognized
under
a
 similar
set
of
tags.
He
uses
the
example
of
an
exploration
through
a
part
of
Brooklyn
 in
time:
a
user
starts
out
on
a
street
in
one
year,
and
through
the
accumulation
of
 media
elements
the
user
can
see
change
across
time,
focus
in
on
a
particular
 building,
hear
what
Brooklyn
might
sound
like
in
1950,
etc.
The
flexible
system
uses
 metadata
to
connect
different
resources,
much
like
CyberBELT,
but
users
can
also
 redefine
metadata
in
the
middle
of
use,
allowing
them
to
create
entirely
new
 concepts
as
they
go.
(Choi,
51‐53)
 The
system
uses
a
GUI
to
represent
relevant
pathway
options
the
user
may
 decide
to
take,
where
nodes
of
varying
size
(related
to
their
relevance)
represent
 possible
pathways.
Like
CyberBELT,
Choi’s
system
allows
for
dynamic
adaptation
of
 the
relationships
between
media
elements
based
on
observations
of
the
user’s
prior
 decisions.
In
Choi’s
system,
the
authoring
process
comes
in
setting
up
the
 connections
and
lines
of
logic
between
media
elements.
(Choi,
47‐49)
 The
underlying
idea
of
the
database
system
model
is
that
a
user
is
given
a
 chance
to
traverse
the
documentary
through
exploration.
The
result
is
far
removed

10

from
a
film,
but
the
user
receives
an
intimate,
personalized
journey
through
a
 subject
that
might
resonate
on
a
closer
level
because
of
the
explorative
nature
of
the
 model.
In
the
Brooklyn
example,
if
a
user
is
able
to
track
the
change
of
his
or
her
 apartment
building
throughout
time,
the
resulting
experience
may
be
something
 that
a
documentary
film
couldn’t
emulate.
While
the
documentarian
may
lose
his
or
 her
ability
to
shape
the
documentary’s
message,
he
or
she
is
able
to
decide
how
 content
is
associated
within
it
and
become
a
creator
and
shaper
rather
than
a
 storyteller.

 
 Gaudenzi’s
Four
Modes
of
Interactivity
 
 In
her
classification
of
interactive
documentary,
Gaudenzi
recalls
Nichols’
 documentary
categories,
which
are
based
on
how
a
film
creates
meaning
rather
than
 what
kinds
of
meaning
it
creates.
Gaudenzi
applies
this
concept
to
interactive
 documentary,
creating
four
modes
of
interactivity
that
categorize
the
documentary
 based
on
how
its
interactivity
functions
rather
than
what
form
it
takes
(Gaudenzi,
2‐ 3).

 
 Overall,
Gaudenzi
believes
that
the
linear
filmmaker
is
a
storyteller
and
 needs
control,
but
the
interactive
documentary
maker
is
more
akin
to
a
god‐like
 figure
who
wants
to
create
the
world
of
the
documentary
but
not
influence
it
 (Interview,
Oct.
12,
2009).
She
uses
Cybernetic
Theory
to
expound
upon
this
 metaphor
of
the
documentary
as
a
living
thing,
where
the
documentarian
gives
the
 film
life
but
the
documentary
itself
is
sustained
through
outside
users’
 contributions.
She
refers
to
this
concept
as
an
autopaietic
documentary,
meaning
it
 is
always
adapting
itself
to
fit
the
changes
in
the
system
within
which
it
exists,
 allowing
it
to
survive
changes
in
technology
and
changing
cultural
perceptions
 (Interview,
Oct.
12,
2009).
For
Gaudenzi,
this
is
the
ideal
version
of
an
interactive
 documentary
as
it
can
achieve
a
better
representation
of
“truth”
by
allowing
infinite
 views
of
reality
to
exist
within
it.
However,
while
the
autopaietic
documentary
 doesn’t
yet
exist,
her
four
modes
of
interactivity
account
for
the
interactive
 documentaries
that
currently
can
be
found
in
the
docu‐sphere.
 
 Her
first
model
is
the
Conversational
Mode.
In
this
mode,
the
interactivity
 places
the
user
into
a
situation
or
interactive
space
where
the
user
has
an
open‐ ended
“conversation”
with
the
documentary,
continually
doing
something
to
which
 the
system
reacts.
One
example
she
uses
is
a
project
called
the
“Aspen
Moviemap,”
 which
was
not
billed
as
a
documentary
but
serves
as
an
early
example
nonetheless.
 In
this
virtual
reality
simulation
the
user
sat
in
a
seat
with
a
set
of
controls
which
 allowed
him
or
her
to
drive
around
a
virtual
representation
of
the
city
of
Aspen.
 While
a
simple
concept,
it
illustrates
the
idea
of
having
a
conversation
with
the
 documentary
as
users
were
able
to
make
choices
within
the
realm
of
the
 documentary
to
which
it
responded
immediately,
smoothly,
and
unpredictably
(11).
 Just
like
a
real
conversation
is
unpredictable,
potentially
infinite,
and
flexible,
so
is

11

the
documentary
in
this
mode,
simulating
infiniteness
in
its
ability
to
emulate
a
 conversation
(10).
 Gaudenzi
includes
simulations
like
The
Sims
and
other
docu‐games
in
this
 mode,
pointing
to
these
as
examples
of
users
being
able
to
represent
reality
and
life
 in
a
new
context
and
allowing
players
to
gain
insight
in
ways
normally
unavailable
 to
them
through
their
conversations
with
the
system
(12).
In
the
conversational
 mode,
reality
is
meant
to
be
experienced
rather
than
watched,
where
the
user
 becomes
a
role
player
and
configurer
while
the
author
becomes
a
creator
and
 facilitator
(Gaudenzi,
14).


 Gaudenzi’s
second
model
is
that
of
the
Hitchhiking
mode.
The
interactivity
in
 this
mode
operates
as
a
series
of
hyperlinks,
allowing
the
user
to
jump
back
and
 forth
(hitchhike)
between
pre‐determined
content
at
his
or
her
discretion.
Although
 it
is
interesting,
Gaudenzi
points
out
that
this
model
is
essentially
a
closed
 computation,
where
the
user
becomes
more
of
a
guest
to
the
author’s
created
 scenarios
rather
than
one
who
is
having
a
conversation
with
the
system
(16).
Her
 main
issue
with
this
mode
is
that
its
lack
of
narrative
structure
assumes
that
the
 user
is
motivated
by
learning
alone,
and
that
the
user’s
curiosity
will
keep
him
or
 her
exploring
through
the
content
(16).

 The
third
model
is
the
Participative
mode.
In
this
mode,
the
database
is
open
 to
change:
viewers
don’t
just
change
the
story,
but
how
the
story
is
told
(18).
She
 compares
this
mode
with
that
of
a
one‐sided
conversation:
the
user
can
passively
 view
the
documentary
and
intervene
whenever
s/he
wants
to
do
so.
Participation
 can
involve
(but
isn’t
limited
to)
individual
shooting,
editing,
retrieval
of
video,
 annotating
video,
commenting
on
video,
or
rating
video
and
creating
playlists;
 interactivity
is
no
longer
just
a
method
for
moving
through
content
but
a
means
for
 building
it.
Users
act
individually
but
the
end
result
is
collaboration
(20).

 
 The
last
model
is
referred
to
as
the
Experiential
mode,
where
the
interaction
 in
this
model
occurs
and
adapts
in
real
time
(22).
Gaudenzi
uses
the
social
project
 “Riderspoke”
to
illustrate
this
model.

“Riderspoke”
presents
a
way
of
experiencing
 real
life,
where
the
user
isn’t
watching
a
representation
of
reality
but
is
actively
 negotiating
it
in
real
time.
The
user
receives
a
GPS
device
and
a
bicycle
and
is
 directed
to
ride
around
the
city
of
London
to
certain
landmarks
designated
on
the
 GPS.
Once
there,
the
user
is
directed
to
record
his
or
her
thoughts
on
what
he
or
she
 is
thinking
in
that
moment
and
how
he
or
she
feels
in
relation
to
the
city
itself.
 Participants
can
then
hear
recordings
of
prior
riders,
allowing
users
to
both
 experience
and
see
their
current
surroundings
through
the
eyes
of
someone
else.
 Through
immersion,
self
awareness
and
awareness
of
others,
Riderspoke
allows
 users
to
create
their
own
understanding
of
what
it
means
to
live
in
the
city
of
 London
in
a
way
that
no
linear
film
could
ever
hope
to
represent
(23‐25).
In
the
 Experiential
mode,
users
actively
experience
and
create
the
documentary.

12

Galloway
et
al.’s
Four
Categories
of
Interactive
Documentary
 Not
to
be
confused
with
Gaudenzi’s
four
modes
of
interactivity,
Galloway
et
 al.
developed
four
categories
of
interactive
documentary
as
well.
Their
four
 categories
are
the
passive
adaptive,
active
adaptive,
immersive,
and
expansive
 interactive
documentary.
 The
passive
adaptive
documentary
is
similar
to
the
concept
of
the
CyberBELT
 system,
where
the
user
watches
the
documentary
and
the
doc
changes
based
on
 user
responses
to
the
material
(using
technology
to
sense
such
responses).
The
 active
adaptive
category
gives
the
user
the
ability
to
consciously
affect
the
 navigation
of
the
documentary
(similar
to
Gaudenzi’s
Hitchhiking
model).
The
 immersive
category
makes
user
input
and
feedback
fully
participatory,
putting
the
 user
inside
of
the
portrayed
world
so
that
he
or
she
can
experience
the
events
 firsthand
(similar
to
the
Conversational
model).
This
concept
employs
the
idea
of
 games
and
virtual
worlds
as
documentary
experiences,
which
will
be
discussed
in
 the
next
section.
Lastly,
the
expansive
category
employs
a
method
of
mass‐ interaction
to
deliver
a
community‐based
documentary
experience
(similar
to
the
 Participatory
model);
in
other
words,
a
wiki‐documentary.
(Galloway
et
al,
331‐ 335).

 These
four
categories
of
interactive
documentary
are
largely
concerned
with
 leveraging
virtual
environments
to
create
documentary
experiences.
Video
games
 have
begun
leveraging
the
potential
for
sophisticated
simulations
allowed
by
 today’s
technology
and,
in
doing
so,
are
creating
a
potential
new
future
for
 documentary
experiences.
This
last
section
of
interactive
documentary
models
will
 explore
the
merits
and
issues
of
the
use
of
video
games
to
create
documentary
 experiences.
 
 The
Documentary
Game
 The
rapid
growth
of
the
video
game
industry
has
led
to
the
creation
of
a
 number
of
niche
genres,
but
few
may
be
more
controversial
than
the
advent
of
 documentary
computer
games,
called
“serious
games.”
The
purpose
of
these
 simulations,
unlike
most
video
games,
is
first
and
foremost
in
education,
training,
or
 politics
that
go
beyond
entertainment
purposes
(Raessens,
215).

 The
primary
goal
of
the
“docu‐game,”
as
it’s
often
called,
is
to
expose
players
 to
past
events
and
strive
for
“facticity”
–
the
realm
where
something
is
“real
enough”
 that
users
allow
themselves
to
take
away
meaning
from
the
game
and
apply
it
to
 their
own
reality.
(Raessens,
215).
But
can
a
video
game
truly
provide
meaningful
 insight
on
real‐life
events?
Proponents
point
to
the
docu‐game’s
dedication
to
 rebuilding
the
complexity
of
real‐life
experiences
by
simulating
“feel,
moral
 decisions
and
the
sensory,”
leaving
the
player
with
a
sense
of
a
situation
that
s/he
 otherwise
wouldn’t
have
had
a
chance
to
experience
(Raessens,
215‐216).
Galloway
 et
al.
argue
that
there
are
enough
parallels
between
documentary
and
the
goals
of

13

the
documentary
game
to
constitute
a
fair
comparison,
and
where
the
video
game
 has
an
innate
ability
to
build
engaging
stories
and
characters,
it
lends
itself
to
easily
 immersing
the
player
in
the
simulation
(329).

 One
of
the
most
controversial
examples
of
the
documentary
game
occurred
 with
the
release
of
“JFK
Reloaded,”
a
game
that
put
the
player
in
the
role
of
Lee
 Harvey
Oswald
with
the
task
of
assassinating
the
president.
As
cruel
as
this
 description
sounds,
the
makers
vehemently
defended
their
game,
claiming
their
goal
 was
to
let
the
player
either
prove
or
disprove
the
lone
gunman
theory
by
having
 them
try
to
recreate
Oswald’s
supposed
shots
perfectly.
The
makers
stated
that
the
 video
game
treatment
was
a
mere
extension
of
prior
looks
at
the
Kennedy
 assassination
in
the
media,
even
claiming
that
while
Oliver
Stone’s
acclaimed
film
 version
of
the
situation
exploited
the
truth
by
obfuscating
it
with
a
conspiracy
 theory,
their
game
merely
aimed
to
explore
the
situation
by
using
technology
to
try
 and
reenact
the
Warren
Commission’s
account
of
what
happened
(Galloway
et
al.,
 329;
Raessens,
214).
In
his
attempt
to
defend
such
docu‐games
as
having
legitimate
 places
in
the
world
of
documentary,
Raessens
argues
that,
if
nothing
else,
games
like
 JFK
Reloaded
open
up
discussion
and
get
people
talking
about
the
issue,
and,
he
 asks,
is
this
not
one
of
the
goals
of
documentary
(223)?
 Yet
many
people
find
issue
with
the
docu‐game,
proclaiming
that
a
 simulation
can’t
possibility
represent
reality
and
that
there’s
no
accuracy
in
the
 interactive
–
that
history
can’t
be
history
if
players
can
have
a
choice
in
constructing
 it
(Raessens,
219).
Raessens
counters
these
arguments
by
pointing
out
that
 documentary
has
always
been
a
creative
treatment
of
reality,
arguing
that
there’s
 never
been
a
“real”
objective
history
(221).

 However,
this
opens
up
a
serious
discussion
about
what
is
“real”
in
 documentary.
People
are
often
concerned
with
answering
what
is
real
or
not,
but
 Aston,
Ruby
and
Lancioni
point
out
that
while
history
is
often
a
construction
based
 in
subjectivity,
our
question
of
the
documentary
shouldn’t
be
“was
it
real”
but
“could
 it
have
been
real?”
Sadie
Tillery
offers
a
similar
statement:
 “I
think
people
get
hung
up
on
this
idea
that
documentary
has
to
be
real;
I
don’t
 know
what
real
is;
once
it’s
hit
someone’s
lens
and
especially
once
it
hits
the
editing
 table,
it’s
all
formulated;
it’s
all
been
processed
through
an
opinion…in
some
cases
 these
games
are
projecting
what
might
happen,
such
as
in
a
documentary
game
on
 global
warming
that
shows
what
might
happen
over
four
years,
there
might
be
 footage
that’s
included
and
also
footage
that’s
faked
to
show
what
might
happen,
but
 I’m
sure
that
it’s
rooted
in
research
that
would
also
go
into
the
making
of
a
 documentary
film.”
(Interview,
Sadie
Tillery,
Oct
22,
2009).

Thus,
if
one
can
be
comfortable
with
the
fact
that
documentary
film
has
always
had
a
 degree
of
bias,
interactive
documentary
shouldn’t
be
any
more
concerning
than
a
 director’s
creative
treatment
of
reality
(Galloway
et
al.,
335).
 
 This
does
not
mean
that
the
docu‐game
should
be
regarded
without
a
healthy
 degree
of
skepticism,
however.
Raessens
admits
that
docu‐games
must
have
some
 degree
of
entertainment
value
to
be
effective
(223),
so
what
happens
if
the

14

entertainment
value
supersedes
the
documenting
value?
As
Dickson
warns,
there’s
 an
inherent
danger
in
virtual
worlds
in
that
there
is
a
preoccupation
with
the
 entertainment
value
of
the
experience,
and
to
make
that
engaging
a
lot
of
liberties
 on
truth
may
be
taken.
If
the
entertainment
value
supercedes
the
goals
of
the
 documentary,
the
game
has
undergone
a
totally
different
mission
than
that
of
the
 documentary
film
and
enters
a
severe
ethical
gray
area
(Interview,
Oct.
8,
2009).

 If
we
can
accept,
though,
that
there
can
be
legitimate
documentary
 experiences
to
be
had
in
virtual
reality,
there
are
suddenly
a
number
of
doors
that
 are
opened
up
to
the
documentarian.
The
educational
uses
of
Second
Life
have
been
 chronicled
before
([Video
file],
“Educational
Uses
of
Second
Life”)
but
has
the
 documentarian
ever
tried
to
leverage
the
virtual
world
to
create
interactive
 documentary
experiences?
Or,
if
as
April
Walton
of
the
Duke
Center
for
 Documentary
Studies
points
out,
the
medium
is
still
too
obscure
to
the
point
that
it
 would
get
in
the
way
of
the
message
(Interview,
Sept.
30,
2009),
what
about
in
a
 virtual
world
environment
where
the
lines
between
real
and
fake
are
blurred
 beyond
the
point
of
distinction?

 This
is
already
starting
to
occur
with
Google
Earth
Awareness
Overlays
 ([Video
File],
“Awareness
with
Google
Earth”),
where
users
can
draw
attention
to
 issues
by
creating
multimedia
layers
over
the
geographic
location
in
GoogleEarth
 where
the
issue
is
going
on
in
the
world.
This
feature
allows
users
to
“traverse”
the
 issue
in
3D
space,
giving
them
a
perspective
on
the
subject
that
can
only
be
provided
 through
exploration.
As
technology
continues
to
improve
the
realism
of
simulations,
 the
possibilities
for
similar
projects
are
enticing.
 
 The
Gap
Between
The
Real
and
the
Documentary
 But
this
in
itself
raises
another
question
about
the
nature
of
the
 documentary.
Why
is
there
a
compelling
interest
in
making
a
simulation
seem
real?
 If
we’ve
established
that
we
know
a
documentary
is
not
necessarily
“real”
but
can
 still
offer
value
to
our
understanding
of
the
world,
why
is
it
important
that
it
at
least
 appear
so?
After
all,
we
would
be
hard‐pressed
to
view
a
cartoon
as
a
documentary,
 even
if
it
did
claim
to
document
something.
Raessens
suggests
that
while
a
 documentary
game
might
not
be
real,
by
seeming
so
it
can
still
provide
some
form
of
 therapeutic
relief
by
relieving
the
tension
of
the
documented
conflict
with
insight
 and
the
seemingly
real
experience
of
the
game
(222).

 However,
I
would
argue
that
in
any
documentary,
regardless
of
the
medium,
 the
viewer’s
experience
is
always
one
step
removed
from
the
reality
that
the
 documentarian
experienced.
Of
course,
this
is
inherent
to
the
medium,
for
if
there
 were
no
distance
between
the
two,
then
it
would
simply
be
a
lived
experience
 without
any
documented
perspective.
However,
I
believe
that
the
smaller
the
gap
 between
audience
reality
and
documentarian
reality,
the
more
“real”
the
 documentary
experience
becomes.
Choi
argues
that
interactivity
can
reduce
the
gap

15

between
these
two
poles
in
documentary
culture,
between
user
and
producer,
 production
and
reproduction,
and
authoring
and
act
of
inquiry
(44).
If
this
is
so,
 interactivity
itself
has
the
power
to
increase
the
perception
of
realness
in
the
 documentary,
which,
in
turn,
would
lead
to
an
increased
effectiveness
in
engaging
 the
user
with
one’s
project.
 For
example,
if
a
docu‐game
had
very
poor
graphics,
physics,
and
real‐world
 mechanics,
the
gap
between
reality
and
audience
may
be
too
large
for
people
to
take
 the
game
seriously
as
a
documentary.
However,
if
that
game
had
highly
realistic
 portrayal
of
these
things,
audiences
may
be
more
likely
to
translate
some
of
that
 game’s
message
into
real‐world
knowledge.
Similarly,
if
a
documentary
film
used
 scripted
scenes
and
inauthentic
dialogue,
the
viewer
is
going
to
disengage
him
or
 herself
from
the
experience.
Shortening
this
gap
through
the
simulation
of
reality
 would
be
a
powerful
authoring
tool
for
documentarians.
2
 But
it’s
not
just
applicable
to
docu‐games.
The
idea
of
interactive
media
being
 able
to
shorten
the
gap
between
producer
and
user
is
promising
for
any
 documentarian
looking
to
increase
the
engagement
of
their
story
telling.
But
what
 happens
if
the
gap
is
decreased
too
much?
Is
it
possible
that
the
documentary
could
 lose
value
if
it
goes
too
far
in
achieving
realism?
 
 While
the
documentary
attempts
to
decrease
the
gap
between
the
film
and
 reality,
to
get
rid
of
the
gap
entirely
would
be
to
eliminate
the
contextualizing
nature
 of
the
medium.
As
Sandra
Gaudenzi
points
out,
if
the
media’s
purpose
is
to
help
 mediate
reality,
when
all
perspective
is
erased
from
the
documentary
(as
would
be
 the
case
where
there
was
no
gap
between
reality
and
the
documentary)
the
purpose
 of
the
documentary
is
lost
(Interview,
Oct.
12,
2009).
In
other
words,
as
the
 “perceived
reality”
of
the
documentary
approaches
“reality,”
its
message
increases
 in
impact,
but
as
soon
as
it
crosses
the
threshold
into
being
“too
real,”
it
no
longer
 carries
any
message
at
all.

 
 This
creates
a
situation
where
documentary
filmmaking
has
two
potentially
 conflicting
goals:
to
both
heighten
the
reality
of
the
documentary
through
objective
 observation
and
to
comment
upon
reality
to
make
contextual
sense
of
it.
However,
 as
documentarian
Alex
Gibney
argues,
this
is
what
makes
documentary
such
a
 powerful
medium:
 























































 2
This
is
not
to
mean
that
I’m
advocating
trying
to
fool
one’s
audience
by
portraying
inauthentic
 material
as
reality.
I
simply
am
saying
that
where
documentary
film
is
a
subjective
construct
of
 reality,
it
doesn’t
need
to
prove
“this
happened”
but
rather
“this
happened
as
I
saw
it
through
my
 camera
lens,”
and
if
anything
is
faked,
it
won’t
satisfy
that
last
requirement
from
an
ethical
 standpoint.
I’m
simply
saying
that
interactive
media
may
in
fact
bring
the
audience
closer
to
the
 documentary
material
in
a
way
that
linear
film
cannot,
and
in
this
way
the
gap
between
the
perceived
 reality
and
the
documentarian’s
reality
is
shortened.

16
 “As
documentarians,
there’s
a
beautiful
tension
between
those
two
impulses
[to
 simply
portray
reality
and
to
comment
upon
it].
You
don’t
want
to
control
the
 documentary
because
the
reality
is
so
magnificent
but,
at
the
same
time,
 [documentarians]
are
not
just
observers.
There’s
an
angle
on
the
material…that
rich
 tensions
is
great.
Alfred
Hitchcock
once
said,
“In
feature
films
the
director
is
God;
in
 documentary
films
God
is
the
director.”
When
you
wrestle
between
the
two
 tensions,
that’s
where
you
get
something.”
(Interview,
Alex
Gibney,
Oct.
21,
2009).

Finding
the
middle
ground
where
meaning
can
be
maximized
and
the
audience
is
 most
engaged
is
the
role
of
the
documentary
filmmaker,
and
it
is
in
this
middle
 ground
that
documentary
film
and
interactive
media
can
coexist.
By
combining
the
 film
medium’s
power
for
providing
perspective
and
interactivity’s
ability
to
improve
 user
engagement
with
the
material,
the
interactive
documentary
film
can
provide
 more
meaningful
documentary
experiences.
 
 Preserving
the
Role
of
Auteur
in
the
Interactive
Documentary
 
 In
order
to
determine
how
the
interactive
documentary
film
can
incorporate
 a
mixture
of
authorial
and
interactive
elements,
it
may
be
best
to
analyze
the
current
 interactive
docu‐sphere
in
terms
of
how
existing
projects
measure
up
in
terms
of
 type
of
documentary
experience
and
degree
of
openness.

Figure
1:
This
chart
categorizes
the
various
models
and
examples
o
interactive
 documentary
discussed
in
the
paper
based
on
their
degrees
of
openness
and
how
the
 documentary
is
used
by
the
audience.

17

The
above
chart
breaks
down
the
interactive
documentary
into
two
main
 factors
that
determine
the
documentarian’s
control
over
the
piece.
The
x‐axis
 measures
the
degree
to
which
the
documentary
is
either
passively
watched
(on
the
 left)
or
experienced
(on
the
right).
The
y‐axis
measures
the
degree
to
which
a
 documentary
is
a
closed
system
(bottom)
or
an
open‐ended
(top).

 
 On
the
bottom
left
corner
of
the
chart,
the
documentarian
has
the
most
 control,
as
the
system
is
both
closed
and
viewed
by
the
audience.
The
documentary
 film
represents
this,
as
the
author
has
total
control
over
the
message
and
how
the
 data
is
presented.
Conversely,
the
higher
up
and
to
the
right
one
travels
along
the
 chart,
the
more
choice
and
control
the
user
exerts
over
the
documentary’s
message.
 However,
as
mentioned
above,
if
the
gap
between
documented
reality
and
reality
 itself
is
so
small
that
no
perspective
or
narrative
exists
in
the
documentary
 experience,
we
are
left
with
an
unmediated
reality.
The
top
right
corner
is
therefore
 represented
by
real
life,
as
the
author’s
ability
to
control
the
documentary’s
message
 is
diminished
as
one
travels
up
and
to
the
right
on
the
chart.
When
that
ability
is
 altogether
absent,
the
user
is
left
with
nothing
but
an
objective
observation
of
 reality.

 
 By
breaking
down
the
interactive
documentary
into
these
two
parameters
–
 a
documentary’s
storytelling
components
versus
its
malleable
components
–
we
are
 forced
to
analyze
how
the
documentary’s
content
functions
in
terms
of
authorship.
 The
degree
to
which
the
documentarian
or
the
audience
holds
influence
over
the
 documentary
is
the
area
of
concern,
and
the
chart
gives
a
visual
to
where
a
 documentary
exists
in
this
spectrum.
 
 The
chart
indicates
that
anything
in
quadrant
III
will
have
a
high
degree
of
 documentarian
control,
as
it
is
more
likely
to
have
less
user
input
and
interactivity.
 However,
if
our
concern
is
with
how
the
documentary
film
can
leverage
the
uses
of
 interactive
media,
our
focus
will
have
to
shift
up
and/or
to
the
right,
where
the
 documentary
is
less
of
a
closed
film
and
more
of
a
navigated
user
experience.
 Therefore,
for
the
purposes
of
this
paper,
we’ll
want
to
examine
projects
that
are
 located
closer
to
quadrants
II
and
IV.3
 
 Case
Studies
 What
Have
You
Left
Behind?

3
This
is
the
benefit
of
the
Interactive
Documentary
chart;
it
allows
us
to
easily
categorize
an
 interactive
documentary
in
broad
but
distinctive
terms
of
how
its
used
and
how
it
can
be
influenced,
 and
then
allows
us
to
survey
those
projects
in
our
particular
area
of
interest.
If
we
were
concerned
 with
open‐source
documentaries
we
could
analyze
the
techniques
of
documentaries
that
fall
within
 that
particular
area
of
the
chart.
The
chart
doesn’t
claim
to
be
exact,
but
it
can
be
helpful
in
 categorizing
the
broad
field
of
interactive
documentaries.

18

The
premise
behind
Mariana
Mota’s
web
documentary
“What
Have
You
Left
 Behind,”
is
pretty
simple;
according
to
the
website,
the
project
was
born
out
of
 Mota’s
belief
that
everybody,
in
some
way,
can
be
considered
nomads,
constantly
 moving
throughout
our
world
and
leaving
certain
things
behind.
To
illustrate
this
 concept,
she
sent
out
22
notebooks
throughout
the
world,
asking
people
to
share
 their
stories
of
what
they’ve
left
behind
at
some
point
in
their
lives
before
passing
 the
notebook
along.
After
a
month,
the
notebooks
were
to
be
returned
to
Mota,
 where
she
then
digitized
the
journals
and
created
a
website
where
people
could
 explore
all
of
the
journal
entries
and
contribute
their
own
stories
of
what
they
had
 left
behind.
 
 Mota’s
project
turns
out
to
be
a
strong
example
of
preserving
authorship
in
 an
interactive
setting.
The
documentary
itself
is
quite
open‐ended,
both
in
how
the
 material
was
gathered
and
how
the
user
interacts
with
the
material,
and
yet
Mota
 herself
largely
crafts
the
message
that
the
user
ends
up
being
left
with.
She
has
 established
a
framework
within
which
the
material
is
viewed
so
that
any
content
 collected
in
the
notebooks
and
any
subsequent
content
submitted
by
other
users
is
 still
directing
users
back
to
her
original
thesis
statement
that
people
leave
things
 behind
in
many
different
ways.
If
a
user
goes
to
the
site,
reads
a
few
entries,
and
 learns
something
about
him
or
herself
based
on
what
he
or
she
has
read,
Mota’s
goal
 has
been
accomplished
without
her
actually
having
narrated
or
created
any
of
the
 content.

 
 This
is
precisely
what
Galloway
et
al.
mean
when
they
suggest
that
the
 interactive
documentarian
may
make
up
for
in
his
or
her
loss
of
authorial
power
 through
a
more
omnipotent
presence,
establishing
universal
parameters
for
his
or
 her
content
and
the
procedures
for
the
user’s
experience
(336).
The
author
now
has
 less
direct
control
over
the
content
that
gets
included,
but
by
establishing
a
 framework
and
the
rules
for
the
project
as
a
whole
s/he
may
retain
some
aspect
of
 the
overall
message.


 
 From
an
interactive
standpoint,
the
website
itself
is
devoid
of
any
edited
 video
segments
and
relies
on
interactive
navigation
through
the
notebooks’
 contents.
In
this
sense,
it
is
quite
unlike
a
documentary
film,
and
yet
it
operates
 quite
successfully
as
an
interactive
documentary.
People
can
easily
enter
or
exit
the
 system
without
the
penalty
of
having
to
“start
over”
when
they
come
back,
yet
 allows
users
to
dig
deep
into
the
content
should
they
so
choose.
This
method
suits
 the
Internet
audience
well,
and
serves
as
a
good
example
of
translating
a
 documentary
experience
to
the
web
with
the
average
Internet
user
in
mind.

 
 “What
Have
You
Left
Behind”
is
a
great
case
of
employing
documentary
film‐ like
authorship
and
curiosity
to
an
interactive
project
that
remains
open
and
 interactive,
without
sacrificing
the
goals
or
voice
of
the
documentarian.

The
result
is
 something
that
could
never
be
replicated
by
a
film
documentary,
but
still
functions
 as
though
it
were
a
narrative.
It
succeeds
because
the
user
is
given
the
perspective
 of
other
people
–
faceless
strangers,
no
less
–
and
is
directed
by
Mota
(whether
 explicitly
or
implicitly)
to
turn
these
shared
stories
inwards
and
reflect
upon
them.

19

This
goal
is
as
central
to
documentary
filmmaking
as
any,
and
the
fact
that
Mota
is
 able
to
achieve
it
so
succinctly
makes
her
project
a
prime
example
of
how
 interactive
documentary
can
be
both
direct
and
open‐ended.

 
 Filmmaker
in
Residence
 
 On
the
opposite
side
of
the
chart
exists
a
project
that
approaches
the
 interactive
documentary
in
much
more
of
a
film
tradition.
Katerina
Cizek’s
 “Filmmaker
in
Residence”
documentary,
a
project
born
from
the
Film
Board
of
 Canada,
takes
a
much
different
approach
to
the
documentary
than
that
of
most
 filmmakers.
The
goal
of
the
documentary
was
to
create
a
more
collaborative
 relationship
between
subject
and
filmmaker,
making
the
documentary
“participate”
 within
the
subject
matter
rather
than
just
record
it.
 Cizek
was
stationed
at
St.
Michael’s
hospital
in
Toronto
to
document
the
 innovative
practices
at
work
there,
with
the
idea
that
by
having
a
filmmaker
 dedicated
to
a
that
particular
community,
that
group
could
leverage
the
power
of
 the
medium
to
create
real
change.
This
is
a
recurring
theme
that
the
Film
Board
of
 Canada
has
pursued
with
projects
in
the
past,
but
now,
with
the
existence
of
cheaper
 video
cameras
and
editing
equipment,
the
filmmaker
in
residence
program
can
 leave
its
communities
equipped
to
continue
making
change
through
media
long
 after
the
filmmaker
has
left
 This
unique
approach
to
filmmaking
and
somewhat
unorthodox
concept
of
 the
filmmaker/subject
relationship
resulted
in
an
open
and
creative
approach
to
the
 project,
as
a
film
wouldn’t
aptly
achieve
the
goals
of
the
project.
Instead,
“Filmmaker
 in
Residence”
became
an
interactive
documentary,
simultaneously
telling
the
stories
 of
St.
Michael’s
hospital
while
advocating
the
very
idea
of
this
new
approach
to
 documentary
film.
 
 The
resulting
project
is
a
strong
example
of
a
documentary
providing
a
film‐ like
experience
on
an
interactive
platform.
The
viewer
is
led
through
a
series
of
 stories
about
the
innovative
practices
at
the
hospital.
The
project
combines
video,
 audio,
text
and
photography
in
a
highly
authored
way
that
capitalizes
on
the
 dramatic
qualities
of
film
while
still
allowing
for
an
interactive
experience.
The
 documentary
itself
is
quite
closed;
there’s
no
opportunity
for
the
user
to
add
input
 or
change
the
story.
The
only
interactive
elements
are
the
nonlinear
navigation
 through
content,
and
even
then
this
is
limited,
as
once
a
user
chooses
a
storyline
 they
are
forced
to
navigate
it
in
a
straightforward
manner,
simply
hitting
a
“next”
 button
once
they
are
done
with
the
current
segment
to
move
on
with
the
narrative.
 
 However,
while
the
project
itself
lacks
in
complex
interactivity,
the
 documentary
utilizes
the
interactive
medium
quite
well,
using
storytelling
 techniques
that
distinguish
it
from
a
documentary
film.
Its
chapters
are
short
and
 are
comprised
of
various
media
elements,
with
stories
told
primarily
through
text
 but
layered
with
audio,
video
and
photography
at
the
same
time.
The
result
is
a

20

compelling
narrative
that
simply
wouldn’t
work
as
a
film,
as
the
interactive
 documentary
allows
the
viewer
to
move
through
the
piece
at
his
or
her
own
pace,
 giving
us
a
new
understanding
of
the
“fly‐on‐the‐wall”
documentary
style.
 

 It
is
here
that
the
project
finds
its
strength
as
an
interactive
documentary.
By
 carefully
constructing
the
story
in
digestible
“scenes,”
the
viewer
is
led
through
a
 compelling
narrative
but
at
his
or
her
own
leisure.
The
interactivity
is
simple,
but
 it’s
in
this
simplicity
that
the
documentary
is
more
compelling
than
a
film
version
of
 the
same
story
would
be.
It
doesn’t
need
a
complex
level
of
interactivity
to
engage
 the
viewer;
the
simple
ability
to
see
the
subject
up
close
through
video
and
still
 image
and
explore
it
at
the
viewer’s
own
pace
makes
the
experience
that
much
more
 intimate.
The
end
result
is
a
compelling
narrative
that
is
able
to
retain
a
highly
 authored
message
while
still
succeeding
as
an
interactive
documentary.
It
has
an
 identity
that
is
entirely
separate
from
a
linear
film,
and
while
it
essentially
only
 employs
what
Gaudenzi
would
call
a
Hitchhiking
mode
of
interactivity,
it
still
pushes
 the
concept
of
an
interactive
documentary
in
its
creative
mixture
of
media
elements
 and
storytelling.

 
 Further
possibilities
 
 “What
Have
You
Left
Behind”
and
“Filmmaker
in
Residence”
give
us
two
very
 different
approaches
to
successful
interactive
documentary
filmmaking.
The
former
 relies
very
little
on
constructed
narrative,
allowing
users
to
explore
the
content
and
 build
a
personal
experience
from
what’s
there
while
still
imparting
an
authored
 message.
Meanwhile,
the
latter
is
highly
narrative‐focused
but,
through
its
 minimalistic
approach
to
interactivity,
achieves
a
model
that
holds
an
interactive
 audience’s
attention.
 
 But
what
are
some
further
ways
that
authorship
and
interactivity
can
coexist
 to
create
film‐like
experiences
on
an
interactive
platform?
The
web
documentary
 “Diamond
Road”
attempts
to
take
the
concept
of
non‐linear
navigation
to
a
new
level
 by
having
a
collection
of
short,
edited
segments
of
a
documentary
mixed
up
in
a
 database
and
allowing
viewers
to
choose
how
to
navigate
through
them.
After
a
 video
clip
ends,
the
system
suggests
a
few
paths
for
the
viewer
to
take
based
on
the
 topic
of
the
last
clip
viewed,
and
this
process
keeps
repeating
until
the
viewer
is
 finished.
 
 In
this
model,
the
author
is
able
to
keep
a
high
degree
of
control
over
the
 message,
as
viewers
can’t
change
the
content
of
the
video
clips,
only
the
order
in
 which
they
view
them.
It
also
avoids
the
issue
mentioned
earlier
of
interactive
 documentary
relying
too
much
on
the
user
exploring
it
just
for
the
sake
of
learning,
 because
the
system’s
suggestions
help
provide
an
original
narrative
that’s
unique
to
 the
user.
At
the
same
time,
users
are
able
to
upload
their
own
particular
paths
 through
the
documentary
to
a
database
and
watch
the
documentary
from
the
 perspective
of
others
who’ve
done
the
same.
In
this
way,
“Diamond
Road”
allows

21

users
to
come
away
with
multiple
perspectives
on
a
single
subject
by
seeing
how
 others
valued
and
navigated
through
the
material.
New
understandings,
 connections,
and
meanings
can
come
from
the
same
material
through
the
sharing
of
 perspectives.
 
 In
a
similar
fashion,
the
band
Radiohead
provided
an
interactive
 documentary
experience
for
their
fans
by
uploading
footage
from
a
single
song
 played
at
a
concert
shot
from
12
different
cameras.
Users
had
the
ability
to
switch
 camera
angles
as
the
song
played
at
their
leisure,
with
the
system
keeping
track
of
 which
angles
were
used
at
every
moment.
At
the
end
of
the
song,
users
could
again
 upload
their
particular
track
and
view
the
tracks
of
others.
By
including
a
“most
 popular”
category
of
tracks,
it
raised
the
question
as
to
whether
or
not
there
was
a
 “best”
way
to
view
the
concert,
or
if
there
were
different
meanings
within
the
 concert
that
could
be
taken
away
based
on
how
the
user
viewed
it.
The
answer
is
up
 to
the
viewer,
but
by
adding
this
collaborative
option
for
sharing
experiences
with
 the
program,
people
again
received
the
opportunity
to
gain
insight
on
their
own
 perspective
based
on
how
others
perceived
the
same
event.
 
 In
these
last
two
examples,
the
authors
are
creating
the
media,
providing
a
 fairly
structured
experience
and
simply
allowing
users
to
explore
within
the
 constructs
of
their
creation
to
eventually
share
what
they
discover.
Yet
this
 collaboration
is
a
powerful
tool
that
opens
up
the
possibility
for
discovering
new
 meanings
within
the
authored
material,
and
it
is
in
these
collaborative
efforts
that
I
 think
documentary
can
really
leverage
interactivity
to
turn
authored
experiences
 into
sources
for
open
discussion
and
further
understanding.

 
 One
such
example
could
be
achieved
through
the
use
of
tagging.
Tagging
 allows
people
to
associate
thoughts
and
concepts
with
objects,
which
could
be
a
 powerful
tool
for
interactive
documentary.
Before
exploring
this
idea
further,
 however,
I
first
need
to
explain
the
origin
of
the
scenario
with
which
I
will
illustrate
 this
idea.
 In
the
narrative
film
“Carousel,”
made
as
part
of
a
promotion
for
a
Phillips
 television,
the
viewer
receives
the
opportunity
to
explore
a
highly
cinematic
“cops
 and
robbers”
heist
scene.
The
scene
itself
is
frozen
in
time,
with
all
of
the
actors
 caught
in
a
single
moment
of
the
action,
and
the
user
can
traverse
the
scene
by
 following
a
camera
as
it
dollies
throughout
the
scene,
the
last
frame
ending
in
the
 exact
same
spot
as
the
first.
It’s
really
an
impressive
technical
feat,
but
what’s
 stopping
a
documentarian
from
taking
this
idea
and
turning
it
into
an
interactive
 documentary?
 
 For
example,
if
a
documentarian
wanted
to
make
his
or
her
audience
 understand
what
it’s
like
to
live
in
a
village
in
Darfur
where
raids
are
a
common
 occurrence,
he
or
she
could
leverage
“Carousel’s”
idea
and,
with
the
aid
of
 technology,
create
a
highly
cinematic,
traversable
scene
of
the
village
frozen
in
time.
 By
establishing
the
pathway
users
can
go
down,
the
author
is
able
to
maintain
what
 it
is
that
the
viewer
is
exposed
to,
which
would
function
to
maintain
focus
on
the

22

author’s
desired
message
for
the
project
.
At
the
same
time,
if
users
could,
for
 example,
tag
objects
in
the
scene,
the
documentary
could
harbor
collaboration
on
 the
understanding
of
the
scene
itself.
People
could
tag
objects
within
the
scene,
 asking
questions
about
their
use,
to
which
other
users
with
knowledge
on
the
 subject
or
the
filmmaker
him/herself
could
chime
in.
Or
perhaps
users
could
share
 their
thoughts,
opinions
or
reactions
through
the
tagging
of
certain
parts
of
the
 scene.
Users
could
even
include
their
own
video
and
photos
in
their
tags,
expanding
 the
reach
of
the
project.
Ultimately,
through
interactivity,
the
project
would
show
 how
one
scene
from
a
small
village
Darfur
is
related
to
genocide
issues
throughout
 the
country
and,
further
still,
the
world.
If
combined
with
audio
and
video,
this
 method
of
interactive
documentary,
while
very
technical,
could
be
even
more
 powerful.
 
 The
extreme
end
of
this
idea
of
incorporating
collaboration
into
one’s
 documentary
would
be
to
completely
open
up
your
film
to
the
public,
showing
your
 version
of
the
film
and
giving
users
access
to
all
of
your
materials
to
see
how
others
 build
a
narrative
from
the
same
resources.
The
problem
in
this
idea,
however,
is
that
 viewers
wouldn’t
have
the
experience
of
having
lived
the
documentary
as
the
 documentarian
did.
The
emotional
and
experiential
perspective
would
be
missing
 from
the
documentary.
However,
it
does
open
up
an
interesting
thought
experiment,
 and
the
results
would
certainly
be
fascinating.

How
would
this
even
be
mapped
on
 the
chart
of
interactive
documentaries?

 Hypotheticals
aside,
the
potential
for
authorship
and
interactivity
to
 complement
each
other
clearly
exists.
While
some
current
interactive
 documentaries
have
found
ways
to
navigate
this
middle
ground
between
having
 authorship
over
one’s
project
and
having
none,
many
more
possibilities
exist.
By
 understanding
how
current
interactive
documentaries
are
maintaining
film‐like
 qualities,
we
can
better
position
ourselves
as
documentarians
to
find
new
ways
of
 doing
so
in
our
own
projects.
 
 Knowing
Your
Goals
as
a
Documentarian
 
 Overall,
the
key
to
successfully
creating
an
interactive
documentary
lies
in
 understanding
the
goals
of
one’s
project
and
knowing
how
one’s
audience
will
want
 to
use
it.
The
Internet
is
an
infinite
resource
and
there
are
an
infinite
number
of
 possibilities
for
employing
interactivity
into
a
project.
By
knowing
one’s
audience,
 one
can
determine
how
the
goals
of
his
or
her
project
will
best
be
served
and
in
turn
 how
to
best
incorporate
interactivity
into
a
documentary
project.
 
 Take
two
very
different
approaches
to
creating
an
interactive
ethnographic
 documentary
as
an
example.4
As
anthropologists
interested
in
exploring
new
ways
 























































 4
An
ethnography
is
an
anthropological
study
where
the
anthropologist
immerses
him
or
herself
 within
a
culture
in
order
to
better
understand
it.

23

to
accurately
portray
their
ethnographic
findings,
Aston
and
Ruby
both
turned
to
 interactive
media
to
enhance
the
portrayals
of
their
subjects.
 However,
while
Ruby
took
a
minimalist
approach
to
interactivity,
simply
 using
a
website
to
combine
video
clips
with
his
textual
analysis
and
categorize
his
 various
findings
in
a
non‐linear
fashion,
Aston
incorporated
interactive
media
to
 reveal
ethnographic
truths
instead
of
just
using
it
as
a
medium
to
express
them.
 Aston,
whose
research
was
centered
around
how
the
way
the
African
Uduk
people
 “use
language
to
shape
events
and
experience
into
memory
in
order
to
build
 expectations
for
the
future”
(44),
wanted
to
create
a
multi‐layered
narrative
where
 users
could
view
juxtaposed
audiovisual
materials
of
Uduk
people
telling
stories.
By
 being
able
to
choose
those
materials
juxtaposed,
start
and
stop
individual
clips,
and
 examine
the
way
the
Uduk
people
told
stories
at
the
user’s
own
pace,
Aston
believed
 that
the
user
could
come
away
with
an
understanding
of
her
claims
in
a
way
that
 text
could
not
convey
(45‐47).

 For
both
anthropologists,
interactive
media
was
better
suited
for
 ethnographic
study
because
it
allowed
users
to
explore
subjects
that
interested
 them
more
in
deeper
contexts
than
a
linear
text
could
convey
(Aston,
48,
Ruby
10).
 However,
their
varying
goals
for
their
respective
ethnographies
resulted
in
different
 applications
of
interactivity
to
suit
them.
For
Ruby,
who
believed
ethnographic
film
 sacrificed
anthropologic
values
by
conforming
to
the
constraints
of
the
film
medium,
 interactive
media
allowed
him
to
use
video
in
an
unrestrained,
minimalistic
fashion
 which,
according
to
him,
ultimately
allowed
him
to
portray
his
subjects
more
 accurately
(Ruby,
7,
11).
Meanwhile,
Aston,
who
was
interested
in
how
video
could
 be
used
to
reveal
truths
that
text
couldn’t
easily
explain,
used
interactive
media
to
 put
the
power
of
observation
into
the
hands
of
the
user.
Each
anthropologist
had
 their
own
aims
in
their
use
of
documentary
and
allowed
interactivity
to
help
serve
 those
goals
in
different
ways.5

 The
main
goal
of
this
paper
was
to
find
how
authorship
and
interactivity
 could
coexist,
and
I
therefore
focused
on
areas
in
the
chart
where
such
projects
 could
(and
do)
exist.
However,
if
one’s
goal
is
to
determine
how
to
use
interactive
 elements
to
enhance
an
ethnographic
study,
one
can
use
this
chart
to
determine
 how
he
or
she
wants
people
to
experience
it.
By
thinking
about
an
interactive
 documentary
in
terms
of
how
it
is
authored
and
how
it
can
be
manipulated,
we
can
 best
determine
what
elements
of
interactivity
will
make
our
goals
for
the
 documentary
successful.

 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
 “The
idea
of
documenting
–
there’s
a
zillion
different
ideas
of
what
that
means.
Does
 that
mean
just
shooting
something
for
people
to
see
or
taking
different
images
and
 putting
them
together
so
that
they
mean
something
different?
...
That’s
one
of
the
 great
things
about
the
web.
The
web
is
a
great
forum
for
unmediated
expression,

5
Note
that
while
both
uses
of
interactive
media
are
fairly
rudimentary,
they
help
illustrate
the
point
 nonetheless.

24
 which
is
the
expression
of
an
artist,
whether
it
be
a
blog
or
a
short
film,
and
I
don’t
 think
that’s
ever
going
to
go
away.”
(Interview,
Alex
Gibney,
Oct.
21
2009)

The
above
quote
adequately
sums
up
the
possibilities
for
the
future
of
the
 documentary.
Where
the
Internet
allows
for
an
infinite
number
of
possibilities
for
 expression,
the
documentarian
has
just
as
many
interpretations
of
what
constitutes
 a
documentary
and
what
it
can
or
should
be.
In
this
sense,
the
interactive
forum
and
 the
documentary
are
well
suited
to
be
joined
together,
as
their
limitless
potentials
 complement
each
other.
 However,
the
interactive
documentary
should
not
be
seen
as
a
replacement
 for
the
documentary
film,
but
rather
as
an
extension
of
it.
By
combining
the
effects
 of
authored
media
with
interactive
experiences,
the
interactive
documentary
can
 become
a
powerful
new
medium
for
exploring
the
human
condition
and
the
world
 around
us.
6
 Interactive
media
is
creating
new
opportunities
for
old
mediums,
and
 perhaps
no
other
media
genre
is
being
reinvigorated
more
than
documentary.
The
 genre’s
ability
to
teach,
entertain,
ask
and
occasionally
answer
questions
about
the
 human
drama
has
always
captured
the
attention
of
audiences,
and
now
that
the
 barrier
of
entry
to
technology
is
so
low,
there
are
millions
of
people
who
are
finding
 a
voice
in
their
own
attempts
to
document
their
world.
While
interactive
media
is
 literally
changing
how
we
perceive
our
relationship
with
media,
the
interactive
 documentary
is
providing
new
opportunities
for
how
to
perceive
the
world.
 Documentarians
now
have
many
options
for
how
they
portray
their
documentary
 beyond
film,
and
the
future
will
provide
many
more.
But
despite
the
many
options,
 one
constant
can
be
trusted
to
hold
true
in
the
world
of
interactive
documentary:
by
 keeping
an
emphasis
on
the
balance
between
authorship,
perspective
and
 interactivity
based
on
the
goals
of
one’s
project,
documentarians
can
ensure
that
 their
work
will
remain
engaging,
informative
and,
perhaps
most
importantly,
 powerful
observations
of
our
world.

6
In
providing
an
overview
of
the
many
different
manifestations
of
interactive
documentary,
 this
paper
has
attempted
to
point
out
where
documentary
film
and
interactive
documentary
as
a
 whole
differ
in
order
to
offer
some
solutions
for
making
the
two
mediums
more
compatible.
This
is
 not
to
suggest
that
such
documentary
projects
as
collaborative
wiki‐documentaries
are
not
 interesting
or
important;
on
the
contrary,
this
paper
has
attempted
to
highlight
the
benefits
of
a
 collective
effort
towards
interactive
documentary
and
I
am
personally
quite
interested
in
the
 concept.
However,
the
paper
has
also
attempted
to
explain
why
authorship
is
important
to
 interactive
documentary,
and
since
the
documentary
film
has
shown
the
most
difficulty
in
translating
 to
the
interactive
medium,
this
topic
has
been
the
focus.

25
 ANNOTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books and Journal Articles 
 Raessens,
J.
(2006).
Reality
play:
Documentary
computer
games
beyond
fact
and
 fiction.
Popular
Communication,
4(3),
213‐224.
 One
of
the
more
controversial
forms
serious
games
is
that
of
the
docu‐game.
The
 intent
of
these
games
is
to
provide
an
immersive
learning
experience
that
 combines
both
the
documentary
style
and
the
play
of
games.
However,
games
 such
as
“JFK
Reloaded”
and
“Survivor
9/11”
have
touched
nerves
with
many
 people,
putting
the
integrity
of
the
genre
in
question.
This
article
addresses
 the
issues
facing
docu‐games
today
and
forms
an
argument
for
their
merit,
 claiming
that
they
achieve
the
goals
of
documentary
to
preserve,
persuade,
 analyze,
and
express.
Additionally,
while
many
claim
a
docu‐game
cannot
 represent
any
real
world
truth
since
it
is
inherently
a
simulation,
the
author
 argues
that
these
representations
of
reality
are
no
different
than
the
 filmmaker’s
reconstructions
of
reality
in
documentary
film
through
the
 choice
of
shots,
edits,
music,
voice
over’s
and
etc.
These
arguments
for
what
 constitutes
truth
in
documentary
and
the
discourse
on
docu‐games
itself
will
 be
essential
in
my
own
discussion
of
docu‐games
and
where
they
may
lead
 the
documentary.
 
 Lancioni,
J.
(2008).
The
Civil
War:
A
battleground
of
meaning.
Film
&
History,
38(1),
 21‐30.

This
article
uses
Ken
Burn’s
documentary
on
the
Civil
War
as
a
device
for
 discussing
the
various
ways
to
interpret
historical
events.
In
the
author’s
 analysis
he
defines
three
models:
The
Documentary
model,
which
says
 history
is
based
on
objective
facts;
the
Rhetorical
Model,
which
says
history
 to
is
based
on
documents
which
were
subjective
to
the
time
period;
and
the
 Interactive
Model,
a
combination
of
the
two.
This
source
will
be
helpful
for
 illustrating
the
various
interpretations
of
how
documentary
can
function
as
a
 medium.

Aston,
J.
(2008).
Voices
from
the
Blue
Nile:
Using
digital
media
to
create
a
 multilayered
associative
narrative.
Journal
of
Media
Practice,
9(1),
43‐51.

The
documentary
film
as
we
have
come
to
understand
it
is
fairly
 straightforward:
it
has
a
beginning,
middle
and
an
end
like
any
narrative
film,
 with
a
rising
action,
build
up
of
tension
and
release.
However,
as
this
article

26
 points
out,
sometimes
this
rigid
model
of
film
making
is
limiting,
especially
 for
ethnographic
filmmakers
who
are
trying
to
relay
anthropological
findings
 that
must
be
explored
at
varying
levels
of
depth
to
fully
comprehend.
This
 article
proposes
a
method
for
exploring
cultures
through
interactive
 documentary
where
the
individual
navigates
a
series
of
juxtapositions
of
 image,
sound
and
video
to
create
a
more
personal
understanding
of
the
 documentary’s
content.

Galloway,
D.,
McAlpine,
K.
B.,
&
Harris,
P.
(2007).
From
Michael
Moore
to
JFK
 Reloaded:
Towards
a
working
model
of
interactive
documentary.
Journal
of
 Media
Practice,
8(3),
325‐339.

This
article
begins
explaining
how,
throughout
documentary’s
history,
the
 genre
has
always
had
a
degree
of
subjectivity
despite
its
perception
as
a
 device
for
capturing
objective
reality.
Because
of
this,
the
author
argues,
 interactive
documentary
that
expand
upon
the
idea
of
docu‐games
such
as
 “JFK
Reloaded”
are
essentially
just
an
expansion
of
the
already
excepted
 practice
of
reconstructing
the
objective
for
dramatic
and
persuasive
 purposes.
The
author
then
explains
four
possible
interactive
documentary
 models:
the
Passive
Adaptive,
where
the
documentary
(through
mechanical
 observation)
changes
the
documentary
content
based
on
how
the
viewer
is
 reacting
to
material;
the
Active
Adaptive,
where
the
viewer
is
in
control
of
 the
documentary’s
progression;
the
Immersive
Model,
where
the
user
is
 exploring
the
documentary
through
a
virtual
world
or
augmented
reality;
 and,
lastly,
the
Expansive
Model,
where
viewers
are
actually
able
to
 contribute
to
the
documentary
itself,
making
it
an
organic,
ever
growing
 creation.

Bruzzi,
S.
(2000).
New
documentary:
a
critical
introduction.
New
York:
Routledge.

Bruzzi’s
book
can
be
considered
the
modern
view
of
the
documentary,
 highlighting
some
of
the
major
trends
and
innovations
in
documentary
 filmmaking
throughout
the
latter
quarter
of
the
20th
century.
In
addition
to
 taking
note
of
the
significant
films
of
the
period,
she
also
delves
into
 techniques
and
practices.
This
will
be
useful
in
establishing
the
 documentary’s
current
role(s)
in
our
culture
as
part
of
the
paper’s
 deconstruction
of
the
documentary.

Gaudenzi,
S.
(2009)
Interactive
Documentary:
towards
an
aesthetic
of
the
multiple
 (Doctoral
dissertation,
Centre
for
Cultural
Studies
of
Goldsmiths
in
London,
 2009).
http://www.interactivedocumentary.net/’
 Gaudenzi’s
dissertation
argues
that
digital
media
is
allowing
the
 documentary
to
become
more
of
an
“enactive”
documentation
of
reality

27
 rather
than
a
representation
of
it,
where
user’s
participation
becomes
a
 method
for
perceiving
the
documentary
on
an
enhanced
level.
Interactive
 media
is
allowing
people
to
create
knowledge
and
reality
with
user‐ generated
content,
a
collective
reality
that
we
are
able
to
sort
through
for
 ourselves.
The
documentary
isn’t
just
something
that
a
filmmaker
constructs
 for
us
–
it
is
the
cumulative
contributions
of
YouTube
posters
and
Wikipedia
 editors
that
are
documenting
our
world
and
what
we
choose
to
participate
 in,
what
she
calls
the
“multiple
reality.”
In
addition
to
laying
out
a
framework
 for
the
interactive
documentary
–
including
delving
into
Cybernetic
theory
–
 Guarez
attempts
to
create
a
model
for
how
interactive
documentaries
can
tap
 into
the
multiple
reality.

Choi,
I.
(2009).
Interactive
documentary:
A
production
model
for
nonfiction
 multimedia
narratives.
In
A.
Nijohlt,
D.
Reidsma
&
H.
Hondorp
(Eds.),
 Intelligent
Technologies
for
Interactive
Entertainment
(44‐55).
Berlin:
 Springer.

This
paper
takes
a
technical
look
at
the
construction
of
nonfiction
interactive
 narratives.
After
introducing
the
concept
of
an
interactive
documentary,
it
 offers
a
production
model
for
the
genre
including
a
prototype
GUI
that
allows
 for
“concept‐based
navigation,
which
enables
queries
across
media
resources
 of
diverse
types.”
The
article
explains
that
such
a
model
gives
each
user
a
 unique
experience
wherein
they
create
their
own
personal
narrative
through
 the
interactive
documentary.

Bers,
J.,
Elo,
S.,
Lassiter,
S.,
Tamés,
D.
(1995).
CyberBELT:
Multi‐modal
interaction
 with
a
multi‐threaded
documentary.
Conference
on
Human
Factors
in
 Computing
Systems.
322‐323

An
early
technology
in
the
field
of
interactive
documentary,
the
CyberBELT
 was
designed
to
read
user’s
eye
movements,
react
to
voice
commands,
and
be
 controlled
through
data
gloves.
The
system
was
literally
donned
by
viewers,
 and
after
a
clip
would
end
the
viewer
would
be
given
a
chance
to
select
what
 s/he
viewed
next.
The
system
also
kept
track
of
patterns
in
user
selection
 and
tracked
eye
movement
to
see
what
users
were
paying
attention
to,
which
 had
an
affect
on
which
options
were
subsequently
presented
to
the
viewer
 after
each
clip.

While
an
early
and
largely
outdated
innovation
in
the
world
 of
interactive
documentary,
it
gives
a
nice
historical
perspective
on
what
 interactivity
was
trying
to
accomplish
just
over
10
years
ago
and
ties
into
 some
of
the
concepts
defined
in
Galloway’s
(et
al)
article
on
the
future
of
the
 genre.

28

Meadows,
M.S.
(2003),
The
Art
of
Interactive
Narrative,
Indianapolis:
New
Riders.
 Meadows
book
focuses
on
principles
of
the
narrative
and
applies
them
to
 interactive
games,
storytelling
and
art.
The
content,
while
a
bit
dated,
uses
 important
case
studies
to
illustrate
his
arguments
and
will
be
a
good
source
 for
defining
what
goes
into
a
successful
interactive
narrative
experience.
 Since
the
documentary
is
in
effect
a
narrative,
principles
from
this
book
will
 be
used
to
establish
the
different
forms
of
interactive
documentary
in
the
 paper.


 Ruby,
J.
(2008).
A
future
for
ethnographic
film?.
Journal
of
Film
&
Video,
60(2),
5‐14.
 In
this
article,
Temple
University
professor
and
anthropologist
Jay
Ruby
 discusses
the
employment
of
interactive
media
to
create
ethnographic
 documentaries.
After
describing
why
the
bulk
of
ethnographic
films
are
 largely
not
suitable
for
the
theoretical
dialogue
of
anthropology,
Ruby
 suggests
that
interactive
media
can
combine
image,
sound
and
video
to
delve
 into
complex
aspects
of
cultures
of
a
scope
that
the
traditional
film
medium
 can’t
often
capture.
He
then
uses
an
example
of
such
a
documentary
from
his
 own
work
before
concluding
that
film
is
a
powerful
medium
for
ethnographic
 studies,
but
it
must
be
employed
properly
in
order
for
it
to
function
as
one.
 Renov,
M.
(1993).
Theorizing
documentary.
New
York:
Routledge.
 Renov
provides
a
wealth
of
knowledge
on
documentary
theory
in
his
 comprehensive
(if
not
dated)
book.
I
reference
Renov’s
four
functions
of
 documentary
in
my
paper.
 Nielson
Online.
(2009).
Nielson
online
provides
topline
U.S.
data
for
March
2009.
New
 York,
NY:
Michelle
McGiboney.
Retrieved
from:
 http://www.marketingcharts.com/interactive/average‐american‐surfed‐2554‐ pages‐in‐march‐8743/
 A
set
of
useful
statistics
on
how
people
are
using
the
Internet
from
the
 trend
analysis
company
Nielsen
Online.

 
 
 Articles
from
Blogs
and
the
Media
 Ashcraft,
B.
(2009,
April
8).
Konami's
Iraq
War
Game
Brouhaha.
Retrieved
from
 http://kotaku.com/5204550/konamis‐iraq‐war‐game‐brouhaha

29

This
article
discusses
the
controversy
surrounding
the
game
“Six
Days
in
Fallujah,”
a
 docu‐game
based
on
the
actual
events
of
the
pivotal
battle
in
the
Iraq
War.
 The
article
(and
the
ensuing
user
discussion)
touches
upon
the
 appropriateness
of
the
game,
but
more
importantly
how
such
games
could
 possibly
give
users
a
more
thorough
understanding
of
such
impossible
ideas
 to
conceptualize
as
military
decision
making
on
the
battlefield.
 
 Graham,
Alan.
(2007,
March
23).
What
Second
Life
should
learn
from
Myst.
 Retrieved
from
http://blogs.zdnet.com/web2explorer/?p=343
 A
blog
post
discussing
the
potential
for
boredom
in
Second
Life
with
its
lack
 of
an
overarching
narrative.
My
paper
will
be
using
this
post
as
a
jumping
 point
for
discussing
how
Second
Life
can
be
used
to
create
narratives
(more
 specifically,
documentary‐esque
narratives)
that
have
real‐world
value,
 despite
occurring
in
a
virtual‐world
environment.
 
 (2007,
August
10)
Educational
Uses
of
Second
Life
[Video
file].
Video
posted
to
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOFU9oUF2HA

A
YouTube
video
that
adeptly
covers
the
myriad
of
uses
Second
Life
can
have
 as
a
teaching
tool,
many
of
which
can
be
used
as
examples
of
interactive
 documentary.
For
example,
a
virtual
tour
of
a
representation
of
a
Roman
 house
in
Second
Life
can
be
considered
a
documentary,
where
the
user
is
 able
to
explore
and
learn
about
a
concept
that
otherwise,
through
a
 traditional
documentary,
s/he
would
have
only
been
able
to
experience
 based
on
how
the
filmmaker
portrayed
the
subject
matter.

(2008,
November
26)
Awareness
with
Google
Earth
[Video
file].
Video
posted
to
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sVgxxIETxU

A
YouTube
video
chronicling
the
potential
uses
for
the
Social
Issues
layer
 function
of
Google
Earth.
This
feature
in
Google
Earth
allows
users
to
put
a
 physical
representation
of
the
place
to
the
issue,
a
powerful
interactive
 feature.
I
will
use
this
idea
as
an
example
of
a
“Virtual
World
Documentary
 Experience”
and
will
expand
upon
the
idea
to
illustrate
a
potential
immersive
 documentary
where
the
user
is
a
part
of
the
virtual
world,
experiencing
the
 documentary
in
a
real‐time
simulation
of
the
subject
matter.

30

Examples
of
Interactive
Narratives/Documentary
 
 Fahy,
M.
(2004).
Black
Friday.
Retrieved
from
 http://www.abc.net.au/blackfriday/home/default.htm
 An
online
documentary
of
the
historical
1939
bushfires
that
killed
71
people
 in
Victoria,
Australia,
this
piece
is
an
early
example
of
how
the
interactive
 documentary
was
imagined.
Segmented
into
various
interactive
sections,
 such
as
an
interactive
timeline,
an
interactive
map,
audio
and
video,
Black
 Friday
is
a
good
illustration
of
the
“multi‐media”
project
concept.
The
rigid
 segmentation
and
limited
interactivity
may
be
a
bit
dated,
but
makes
for
a
 nice
foundation
for
understanding
the
evolution
of
the
interactive
 documentary.
 
 Marable,
B.
(2008).
Becoming
human.
Retrieved
from
 http://www.becominghuman.org/node/interactive‐documentary

Similar
to
Black
Friday,
Becoming
Human
combines
many
forms
of
media
to
 create
a
sleek,
functional
interactive
learning
experience.
The
use
of
 navigable
timelines
for
each
section
allow
users
to
quickly
jump
to
subjects
 of
interest
and,
design
wise,
the
interface
encourage
visitors
to
explore
the
 content
with
relative
ease.
A
good
example
of
early
interactive
documentary
 at
work.

Phillips.
(2009).
Carousel:
A
Cinema
21:9
production.
Retrieved
from
 http://www.cinema.philips.com/

A
compelling
interactive
film
that
is
as
interesting
as
it
is
technically
 impressive.
I
use
this
as
an
example
of
compelling
interactive
narrative
and
 challenge
whether
this
sort
of
production
could
be
used
in
interactive
 documentary.

Lang,
R.
(2009).
Diamond
Road
online.
Retrieved
from
 http://www.diamondroad.tv/dro.php

Diamond
Road
Online
is
an
interactive
documentary
that
allows
the
viewer
 to
navigate
the
film
in
his
or
her
own
way.
After
each
segment,
the
 documentary
suggests
clips
to
watch
next,
but
the
viewer
is
free
to
go
to
 whichever
clip
s/he
wishes.
The
site
also
incorporates
a
social
aspect
by
 allowing
you
to
save
your
“pathway”
through
the
documentary
so
that
others

31
 may
follow
your
same
path.
In
this
way,
the
documentary
may
even
operate
 at
a
social
level
as
users
may
find
similar
interests
with
other
users
by
 watching
their
paths.
An
interesting
application
of
non‐linear
navigation.

National
Geographic
(2009).
Inside
9/11.
Retrieved
from
 http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/inside‐911#tab‐Interactive
 This
site
was
intended
to
be
a
companion
to
National
Geographic’s
television
 program
of
the
same
name.

A
slick
design
and
presentation
allows
the
user
 to
navigate
a
wealth
of
interviews
by
isolating
clips
based
on
content,
so
if
 there’s
a
particular
area
of
interest
the
viewer
can
instantly
access
a
number
 of
interviews
on
the
subject
and
download
the
transcript
as
well.
A
good
 example
of
functionality
while
giving
users
choice
and
control.

 
 Radiohead
(2009):
12cams,
create
your
rainbow.
Retrieved
from
 http://www.wowow.co.jp/music/radiohead/special/
 A
creative
example
of
allowing
users
to
determine
the
path
they
take
through
 a
narrative,
this
online
video
offers
viewers
12
camera
angles
of
a
Radiohead
 concert
to
watch
the
video
from.
Users
are
free
to
switch
cameras
any
time
 throughout
the
video
by
clicking
on
the
angle
of
choice,
and
as
an
added
twist
 a
timeline
on
the
bottom
of
the
screen
keeps
track
of
what
camera
you
were
 watching
and
when
through
color
coding.
After
the
video
is
complete,
you
 can
upload
your
series
of
camera
angles
to
the
website’s
database
and
watch
 how
other
people
viewed
the
same
video.
Like
the
Diamond
Road
Online
 project
mentioned
above,
this
social
aspect
adds
a
level
of
interactivity
that
 makes
the
experience
much
deeper
than
just
choosing

from
various
camera
 angles
used
to
film
a
concert.
 
 New
York
Times
(2009):
A
cul
de
sac
of
closures.
Retrieved
from
 http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/08/21/us/200908‐beth‐ court.html
 The
New
York
Times
has
many
examples
of
fantastic
interactive
narratives,
 but
this
one
is
a
particular
good
example
of
an
interactive
documentary.
The
 interface
allows
users
to
“stroll”
around
a
Californian
cul‐de‐sac
and
click
on
 particular
houses
to
hear
the
corresponding
family’s
story.
The
combination
 of
data
and
personalization
of
a
national
issue
makes
the
content
very
rich,
 and
the
added
ability
of
the
user
to
navigate
to
what
they
want
to
learn
about
 adds
a
dynamic
layer
to
the
piece.

32

Mota,
M.
(2009):
What
have
you
left
behind?.
Retrieved
from
 http://www.whathaveyouleftbehind.com/
 This
documentary
is
a
beautiful
example
of
leveraging
social
presence
in
an
 online
documentary.
The
filmmaker
sent
journals
throughout
the
world
 asking
people
to
answer
the
question:
“What
have
you
left
behind?”
The
 interactive
documentary
is
simply
the
collection
of
responses
the
filmmaker
 received,
with
the
website
mapping
the
responses
to
their
location
in
the
 world.
The
site
also
allows
visitors
to
add
their
own
answers
to
the
question
 “What
have
you
left
behind?”
so
that
the
project
is
always
growing
–
this
may
 be
along
the
lines
of
what
Galloway
et
al
were
referring
to
by
an
expansive
 documentary.

 
 Cizek,
K.
(2009):
Filmmaker
in
residence.
Retrieved
from
 http://filmmakerinresidence.nfb.ca/
 This
online
documentary
tries
to
maintain
a
cinematic
feel
in
its
presentation
 by
following
a
more
strict
timeline,
but
allowing
users
to
navigate
through
 the
series
of
movie
clips,
sounds
bytes,
and
text
at
their
own
pace.
It’s
not
as
 open
ended,
but
does
tell
its
story
well
while
incorporating
interactivity.
For
 filmmakers
interested
in
maintaining
a
degree
of
“film”
in
their
interactive
 documentary,
Filmmaker
in
Residence
is
a
good
place
to
draw
inspiration
 from.
 
 United
States
Holocaust
Memorial
Museum
(2009):
Mapping
initiatives:
Crisis
in
 Darfur.
Retrieved
from
http://www.ushmm.org/maps/projects/darfur/
 Google’s
teaming
up
with
the
Holocaust
museum
has
yielded
an
excellent
 example
of
what
interactive
documentaries
could
become.
Existing
in
the
 virtual
world
of
Google
Earth,
this
feature
allows
social
issues
to
have
a
visual
 presence
in
the
program
by
having
tags
and
overlays
on
the
areas
where
the
 issue
is
taking
place.
This
idea
will
be
expanded
upon
in
the
paper
by
 imagining
a
virtual
world
where
social
issues
can
be
simulated
in
a
perfect
 representation
of
reality,
allowing
people
to
have
first
person
documentary
 experiences.

Interviews Tillery,
Sadie.
Programmer,
Full
Frame
Film
Festival.
Interview
conducted
Thursday,
 Oct
22nd,
2009.

33

Ingram,
Brett.
Filmmaker.
Interview
conducted
Friday,
Oct.
23rd,
2009.
 
 Dickson,
Sandra.
Filmmaker
and
documentary
professor,
Wake
Forest
University.
 Interview
conducted
Thursday,
Oct.
8th,
2009.
 
 Walton,
April.
Director
of
the
Center
for
Documentary
Studies
at
Duke
University.

 
 Interview
conducted
on
Wednesday,
September
30th,
2009.
 
 Gaudenzi,
Sandra.
Professor,
London
College
of
Media’s
Master’s
in
Interactive
 Media
program.
Interview
conducted
Monday,
October
12th,
2009.
 Gibney,
Alex.
Filmmaker,
Jigsaw
Productions.
Interview
conducted
Wednesday,
 October
21st,
2009.

Select Blog Posts

Learning from the Pros: Sapient Interactive http://conorbritain.wordpress.com/2009/11/30/learning‐from‐the‐pros‐sapient‐ interactive/

Learning from the Pros: Red Interactive
 
 http://conorbritain.wordpress.com/2009/11/23/learning‐from‐the‐pros‐red‐ interactive/

Web Design Wednesdays #2: Font Selection 
 http://conorbritain.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/web‐design‐wednesdays‐2‐font‐ selection/

When Good Groundswells Go Bad

http://conorbritain.wordpress.com/2009/09/20/when‐good‐groundswells‐go‐ bad/

When Good Groundswells Go Bad – Part 2: The Pitfalls of Citizen Journalism
 http://conorbritain.wordpress.com/2009/11/09/when‐good‐groundswells‐go‐ bad‐the‐sequel/

Make Like Google and Don’t be Evil

http://conorbritain.wordpress.com/2009/11/01/make‐like‐google‐and‐dont‐be‐ evil/

5 Blog Tips for Increasing Readership 
 http://conorbritain.wordpress.com/2009/10/07/5‐tips‐for‐increasing‐blog‐ readership/

Apple and Google – the End of a Beautiful Relationship?

http://conorbritain.wordpress.com/2009/10/02/apple‐and‐google‐the‐end‐of‐a‐ beautiful‐relationship/

Introducing The Expanding Bubble Theory

http://conorbritain.wordpress.com/2009/09/23/introducing‐the‐expanding‐ bubble‐theory/

Coming Together: E-Readers and E Ink May Save Newspapers 
 http://conorbritain.wordpress.com/2009/09/12/coming‐together‐e‐readers‐and‐ e‐ink‐may‐save‐newspapers/

Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.