Sense and sensibility: evaluation and interactive art Export

@inproceedings{citeulike:130350, author = {H\&\#246;\&\#246;k, Kristina and Sengers, Phoebe and Andersson, Gerd}, booktitle = {CHI '03: Proceedings of the conference on Human factors in computing systems}, citeulike-article-id = {130350}, citeulike-linkout-0 = {http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=642654}, citeulike-linkout-1 = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/642611.642654}, comment = {Abstract: HCI evaluation methods are useful for improving the design of interactive systems, yet they may be rejected by nontraditional technology disciplines such as media art. We have developed a two-tiered evaluation model that responds to the concerns of interactive artists and have used it to improve the design of an interactive artwork, the Influencing Machine, exploring issues in affective computing. The method was interpretive, focusing on giving the artists a grounded feeling for how the machine was interpreted and their message was communicated. We describe the resulting design of the Influencing Machine and the reactions of users. The study itself is part of the art piece - together these activities achieve the goal of the artists: to provoke our cultural notions of whether a machine can "have emotions". ---=note-separator=--- Conclusions seem to argue for consideration between which questions HCI evaluation methods are appropriate. An appropriate question would be "is this good interaction?" Or, does the interaction observed match the goals of the artist? An inappropriate question is "is this good art?" The introduction to the problem and the related work on user studies and art is quite helpful. While they did spend time considering the setting of the study, they aimed to strike a balance between a lab study and a study in context. However, I think there is a lot of work to do in thinking about social context of piece. User groups spent a great deal of time with this piece when they might not have done as much if it had been in a museum or a gallery. They audiences played for a long time and experimented. Studies were combination of observation in a "lab," pre-interviews, and follow-up group interviews. Note "co-discovery" method (Dumas and Redish 1993).}, doi = {10.1145/642611.642654}, isbn = {1581136307}, keywords = {art, design, evaluation, hci, methodology, methods, prototyping}, pages = {241--248}, posted-at = {2006-01-16 22:29:34}, priority = {0}, publisher = {ACM Press}, title = {Sense and sensibility: evaluation and interactive art}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/642611.642654}, year = {2003} }

TY - CONF ID - citeulike:130350 L3 - citeulike-article-id:130350 SN - 1581136307 EP - 248 TI - Sense and sensibility: evaluation and interactive art PB - ACM Press T2 - CHI '03: Proceedings of the conference on Human factors in computing systems SP - 241 KW - art KW - design KW - evaluation KW - hci KW - methodology KW - methods KW - prototyping N1 - Abstract: HCI evaluation methods are useful for improving the design of interactive systems, yet they may be rejected by nontraditional technology disciplines such as media art. We have developed a two-tiered evaluation model that responds to the concerns of interactive artists and have used it to improve the design of an interactive artwork, the Influencing Machine, exploring issues in affective computing. The method was interpretive, focusing on giving the artists a grounded feeling for how the machine was interpreted and their message was communicated. We describe the resulting design of the Influencing Machine and the reactions of users. The study itself is part of the art piece - together these activities achieve the goal of the artists: to provoke our cultural notions of whether a machine can "have emotions". N1 - Conclusions seem to argue for consideration between which questions HCI evaluation methods are appropriate. An appropriate question would be "is this good interaction?" Or, does the interaction observed match the goals of the artist? An inappropriate question is "is this good art?" The introduction to the problem and the related work on user studies and art is quite helpful. While they did spend time considering the setting of the study, they aimed to strike a balance between a lab study and a study in context. However, I think there is a lot of work to do in thinking about social context of piece. User groups spent a great deal of time with this piece when they might not have done as much if it had been in a museum or a gallery. They audiences played for a long time and experimented. Studies were combination of observation in a "lab," pre-interviews, and follow-up group interviews. Note "co-discovery" method (Dumas and Redish 1993). AU - H\&\#246;\&\#246;k, Kristina AU - Sengers, Phoebe AU - Andersson, Gerd PY - 2003/// UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/642611.642654 ER -