UX Prototyping: Analysing Riot!

  • Published on

  • View

  • Download


  • 1. Interdisciplinary Criticism:d Analysing the experience of riot! a location-sensitive digital narrative Kangeun Lee UX Prototyping

2. Table of Contents O About Riot! O Core Research Ideas O Research Questions O Key Theories of Experience O Method O Results and Findings O Critical Analysis O Conclusion O Critique 3. About Riot! O Interactive play for voices based on location-sensitive technology O Users receive PDA, GPS receiver & headphones O Explore Queens Square and hear certain sound files based on location O Content based on historical background of Bristol riots in 1831 England 4. Map of square (on handout) Regions in square (layout) 5. Core Research Ideas O HCI and user experience O Usability important but so is user enjoyment and engagement O Analyze sensations and emotions in addition to behavior and perception O Value of interdisciplinary approach to exploring user experience O Literature, performance, education, etc. O Relationship of content, technology, place & user background O Commonality (group) vs. particularity (individual) O Experience can be designed but not standardized O Artistic pole (controlled by designer) vs. Aesthetic pole (user reaction, uncontrollable) 6. Research Purpose O To investigate value of interdisciplinary approach for exploring the commonality and particularity of interactive user experience with location-sensitive digital narrative. O Reach beyond usability to evaluate user enjoyment and engagement (experience- centered approach) 7. Theories of Experience O Performance theory O Burke: Dramatism (act, agent, scene, agency, purpose) O Turner: Categories of social drama (Breech, crisis, redressive action, reintegration) O Elements of drama help understand social conflict and performance in daily life 8. Theories of Experience O Museum studies O Trend of location-sensitive media tour & sharing experience (Tate Modern & iView) O Theories of education O Piagets active learning O Bruners discovery learning O Theories of play (ibid) O Csikszentmihalyis study of flow O Falk and Dierking, Interactive Experience Model (personal/social/physical context) 9. Theories of Experience O Literary and critical theory O Close reading O Theoretical accounts of narrative (more later) 10. Method O Questionnaire Survey O 563 people, ages 18-55 O Broad impression, quantitative data O Semi-structured interviews O 30 people (individuals and groups) O Ask how in control they felt, how being in place affected experience and social interaction O Ethnographic case studies O Before: interviewed about city, art, technology O During: think aloud during experience O After: 1) critical reflection immediately after, 2) write email account of experience 5 months later O Critical Analysis O Apply literature theories (characterization, authority and resolution, narrative expectation) 11. Results and Findings O From survey O Enjoyed by most people (avg 74.5/100) O More by younger and older rather than middle group (20s and 30s) O Those who found out from word of mouth & TV enjoyed most O Importance of expectation and anticipation 12. Results and Findings O From interview O Enjoyment vs. Frustration 13. Results and Findings O Understanding of system and narrative O Not aware of multiple clips (3) per area O Didnt notice logic of ordering files O No temporal sequence, confusing O Loose relation of scene with location O Users made up own challenges for experience (understanding history, completing course, listening to all the files, etc.) 14. Results and Findings O Place and Content O Location important, adds authenticity O Content matching place important O GPS errors -> use this ambiguity instead? O 3 random clips per region -> not all related to specific location -> inconsistency 15. Results and Findings O From ethnographic studies O Habitus: set of acquired dispositions (social, occupational, educational backgrounds) O Sally (50s, middle class, married with children, social service worker ) O Eva (27, environmentalist, activist, recent graduate) O Joe (35, working-class background) O Tony (35, teacher, artsy) 16. Results and Findings O Sally O Likes classical novel adaptations, high theater (Macbeth), classical music concerts O Enjoyed narration which sound like BBC radio dramas (appeal to educated middle classes) O Rated experience as highly enjoyable like most in her age group 17. Results and Findings O Eva O Thought theatrics of content sounded too rehearsed and characters too stereotypical O Resistance to technology (environmentalist) O Content too mainstream for her O But subject matter appealed to her (has been in riots as an activist) 18. Results and Findings O Joe O Working-class origin, does not like high- class culture and artsiness O Negative experience with education O Did not like Riot! experience O Did not like randomness, lack of structure 19. Results and Findings O Tony O Likes artsiness, likes being challenged O Likes risky and radical things O Experience too mainstream for him, not thought-provoking enough 20. Critical Analysis O Characterization O Clips short, characters 2D and stereotypical O No main character to grab interest O Authority and Resolution O No historical context/political analysis O Resolution (summary of rioter deaths) in 21st century form 21. Critical Analysis O Narrative expectation O Linear narrative O Most people expect beginning, middle, and end O Not necessarily chronological O Problems O Stages not recognized (intro, explanation of state, initiating acts, emotional reaction, complicating action, etc.) O Important scenes conveyed immediately instead of towards end where climax usually is, fly over users heads O Though linear structure is there, medium is non-linear O Can select which scenes they want to hear next but have no information on them O Some successes (overlapping of meaningful related scenes, background noise of crowd, etc.) O Maybe non-linear content was needed instead (users move in and out of scenes freely) 22. Conclusion O Analysis of Riot! needed interdisciplinary approach rather than just one theory -> more enriching UX O Experience = technology + content + place + users characteristics as group/individuals (demographic & personal background) O Location important (especially to Bristol natives) O Different impression of Queens Square after experience (psychogeography of public space as medium for art) O Trend: professionals in social sciences (art, theater, music, literature, etc.) increasingly getting involved in designing technology 23. Critique O Interesting to read about applying literary theories to understanding user experience and identifying related problems (Ex: usability) O Feel like they are being used to prove things that are already known O Purpose of Riot! not really that clear O Some theories mentioned briefly, not really applied to case study O Drawbacks of location-sensitive technology (faulty GPS signal, etc.)