In my research, I refer to Interaction design as a field in which possibilities for interactions
with artefacts: products, services, spaces and systems — mostly but not only digital — are creat- ed but also studied (Fallman, 2008; Löwgren, 2008). The ways in which methods and ideas
from this field are used in this research is present- ed in more detail in the chapter 3.3 Interaction design methods and interactive art. Interaction design differs from other many other design paradigms in that it defines acts of intended use. It is helpful to separate functions and interac- tions: when interactive things do something as we use them, they function, but people — me, you and other users — interact with them (Hallnäs, 2011). Interaction designers create relationships between functions and interactions.
Interaction design in this study is seen as a broader field of design, which concerns creating design, which allows interactive experiences — behaviour over time — to happen. In this thesis, this also means that the fields of, for exam- ple, audio design, programming, visual design, tactile design, and spatial design are discussed and analysed, since they affect the interactive situation. These subfields are part of Interaction design, when the designer thinks and creates choices which support (or alter) the usage of in- teractive things. One of these subfields is the design of interaction: simultaneous or turn-based communication or co-operation of people with man-built machines, products, objects and sys-
s
Interaction design is about studying,
exploring and creating control
possibilities and feedback processes
for physical things, text, images, sound
Qualities of Simplicity in Designing Interactive Art
tems through or with an interface, typically a computational or programming element. The two meanings are present in this thesis: Interaction design refers to the whole field of research and
the design of interactive artworks as a complete and complex process, and design of interactivity
refers to the design of the turn-based interaction: creating the information architecture, design- ing and programming the navigation, the interface possibilities and the way the artefact gives feedback and responds to the user. In this research, the programmed computer has a vital role in this interactive loop. Spatial and physical design, graphic design and audio design, are talked about through the lens of Interaction design, i.e. how they contribute to interactivity — rather than through their respective fields.
Figure 5 displays the field of Interaction design from the points of view of the Designer, the User and the Artefact as they appear in this thesis. Intended design talks about the Design- er’s choices, processes and given forms related to the artefact. They are not only physical, visual or audible forms but also expressions of interaction over time: the ways of use which are intend- ed by the designer. A different discussion and set of research tools and method is needed in the analysis of the actual use experience. The user perceives the design, tries it out by interacting with the artefact and judges it’s usability: whether the artefact is effective or efficient, useful,
Designer Perceived design Created design use experience Intended use Interactive artefact User
36
2 Research context: Designing art
learnable, playful etc. — depending on the individual case (Rogers et al., 2015). Digital, pro- grammable devices such as mobile phones and computers behave differently from many other design objects, since they represent things virtually and can have multiple use purposes or func- tions, the (graphical) user interface adapting to various very different tasks: paying bills, creating a birthday card, composing music, manipulating a photograph, writing a thesis. The focus of the design is no longer about the physical qualities of the object. Designing the interaction requires some software skills: programming is used to create the acts of use, and system responses to the use. Sketches, demos and different software versions are needed during the process to improve interactivity with a digital system (Löwgren, 2012). The algorithms and programs change the way an interactive digital machine behaves in time and in space. It can be argued that the logic of the design of interactivity creates expressive qualities of actual use, and that the aesthetics of interaction can be studied (Hallnäs, 2011).
The field of Interaction design often challenges commonly held assumptions about interactivity, everyday actions and behaviours (Ehn & Löwgren, 2003). Also, the core of new media art (and even hacker culture) is often to take interactions with computers or technology to new realms: hackers and artists create systems and interfaces which make new things possible or reveal new things about computing, technology, life, or even interaction itself. In contrast to experimentally difficult interfaces in interactive media art, which was criticised above, in the context of design these experiments are typically tested with users to find out if innovations in the interfaces or interaction methods actually work.
3 Research methods: from
an interactive artist to an
Interaction designer
In this chapter, I present my research methods and give an overview of the research process. I started my research journey with a strong commitment to contribute something to interactive art research, noting that usability and Interaction design issues had not really been popular topics in research concerning interactive art. By getting to know the field of design re- search my focus has shifted more to the field of Interaction design, distanced from the art world and art research. It still can be said that the written research process and the creative artwork have been influenced by both art and design research practices. It can be argued that interactive
40
3 Research methods: from an interactive artist to an Interaction designer
art should be also considered to contain both fields as well: unlike in other art forms, interactive art has to be used, operated by someone else than its creators — and this brings in designerly practices.
One of the main starting points in this research is that as the artwork is manipulated or operated physically and behaves actively, creating a bond with its observers, in a way that differs profoundly from the position that traditional art theories have determined for artworks (Heinrich, 2008). Throughout this research, designerly techniques and tools have been used to collect information to illustrate how the artist can use designerly techniques to take users into account. As important has also been the discussion on how the users experience interactivity, especially in interactive art. In this constructive design research process, both of these positions will be looked at through the lens of simplicity. A Simplicity Framework will be constructed from a set of qualities. The research suggests that interactive artworks should contain these qualities for establishing a smooth interaction flow.
3.1 Constructive design research
The iterative design process: making the artwork, installing and presenting it in public — has taken place side by side with the written research. The design changes can contribute
to the theory and the theoretical writing process motivates changes in the design in a cyclical pro- cess. This type of approach has been called the practice of research through design (see e.g., Zim- merman & Forlizzi, 2008). As a refinement of this practice, an even more descriptive name was given for this type of methodology: constructive design research (Koskinen et al., 2011). Both methodologies are still used today. This research addresses mostly constructive research design, in which the focus is in the construction pro- cess: a design artefact is improved and perfected as design problems are solved, producing new knowledge in the meantime. Iteration continues, and as the work evolves, new and different
s
In constructive design research (
CDR)
the focus is on the construction
process, which contributes new
information which not only the design
Qualities of Simplicity in Designing Interactive Art
design challenges arise, and the loop goes on. The construction of the artefact takes a central position: the construction process should not be seen only as a method to improve the artefact, but also as a way to construct knowledge (Koskinen et al., 2011). It can be said, that the process is not only interested in the construction of prototypes and more finished artefacts, but also in creating new theoretical models. Hypotheses and research questions can change through the discoveries made during the design phase. This type of cyclical constructive knowledge
Figure 6. Experiments act as a driving wheel for constructive design research (Bang et al., 2012). motivation knowledge hypothesis research question evaluation relevance experiment
42
3 Research methods: from an interactive artist to an Interaction designer
building and iterative design process suits this research perfectly: the process in which the theoretical framework has been established, iterated, improved and finally tested has hap- pened concurrently with design sketching, prototype building, software and hardware work, presenting the work in public, and making improvements based on user observations. Figure 6
illustrates a cyclical view of the constructive research process (Bang et al., 2012). This thesis presents a constructive design research journey, a reiterative way of working with the artefact: sketches, demo versions, released versions of the design and how they construct the theory of simplicity. Design improvements, additions, corrections, and clarifications made to Climatable
are presented and discussed. Also, creative solutions which support the notion of simplicity in
Background research on simplicity Artworks should be easier to use
Initial simplicity framework & matrix
Simplicity improves interaction
How can I improve the simplicity of my own artworks? Qualities of Simplicity
defined
Mapping the Qualities of Simplicity to any artw
ork
Analysing simplicity in my own and others’ artworks
Sketching, demos, first public display of Climatable Qualities of
Simplicity in Climatable
Background research on interactive art and interaction design
Qualities of Simplicity in Designing Interactive Art
the author’s other interactive installations are discussed. The perspective of a designer continu- ously improving the work — in this case concurrently with written research — is complemented in this research with discussion on user experiences of other publicly displayed interactive art- works from a first-person participatory perspective. In addition, user observations, user surveys, descriptions of non-written comments and behaviours of people using interactive installations are discussed. In this study, it has become evident, that the research undertaken needs three things: the artwork creation process, the presentation and observation of the artwork in public, and the written research. They have all been focused upon many times during the cyclical, iterative design-research process, and often it is impossible to say which one follows or precedes
Figure 8. Later hypothesis, research question, evaluation and outcomes.
User and Designer Knowledge and Artefact functions defined
Simplicity is sometimes defined as an experienced quality, sometimes as an created quality
Simplicity and modes of interaction
Simplicity is both created and experienced
How to analyse both created and
experienced simplicity? Experienced simplicity
added to the framework and to the matrix
User evaluation to highlight simplicity in interactiv e artefacts Rethinking the Qualities of Simplicity from the experience point of view Software improvements, Public displays of Climatable
Defining the user and use situations User evaluation
with the Simplicity Framework
44
3 Research methods: from an interactive artist to an Interaction designer
the others in time.
Figure 7 and Figure 8 display two main phases of the constructive design process during this research: The hypotheses, research questions, and evaluations have changed and different types of insights, knowledge and relevance have been created in both rounds. These cycles are naturally generalisations and the research has led to other paths as well, including sidesteps and smaller insights which are not displayed in the figures. The motivation that interactive artworks should be easier to use has led to the initial hypothesis that simplicity improves interaction. This has been taken as a starting point for the research, and interactive sketches and program- ming experiments were made. The way the term simplicity is defined and used throughout the thesis adds another layer, a motivational context to the research. Along with the design experiments, background literature research on design theories and simplicity was carried out.
Climatable was exhibited for the first time and observing its use in the wild provided discoveries
about simplicity that led to changes being made to the design. Evaluation of the experiments, interviews with interactive artists, and analysis of other interactive artworks helped to Establish the Qualities of Simplicity, to build a Simplicity Framework and to create a Simplicity Matrix for
Climatable. This cycle can be seen in Figure 7. Starting from a new hypothesis that sim- plicity is not only designed but also experienced led to a second constructive design cycle where the role of the user and use contexts became more important, as simplicity was also defined as an experienced quality. Written research which was carried out based on the first loop was reviewed and for the most part rewritten. The research question also changed from a personal goal towards a more general question and the wording of it was refined more than once. The Simplicity Framework was rethought. Re-exhib- iting Climatable on different occasions with improved design provided more detailed entries to
the Simplicity Matrix. The framework was augmented with checklists for both design and user experience evaluations. This cycle can be seen to end finally with a discussion on different in-
s
This research has three aspects: the
main body of the research material
consists of interactive art, but the
study itself is firmly located in the field
of Interaction design, and the method
used comes from constructive design
Qualities of Simplicity in Designing Interactive Art
Paradigm shift Focus on simplicity and the interaction process. Initial Qualities of Simplicity Simplicity Framework & Matrix Simplicity documented in Climatable Refining the framework Qualities of Simplicity explored further. Separating experienced and designed Qualities of Simplicity
Sketching, building the first demo and the table. Idea to use Climate as a topic. Preliminary sketches, Software versions, building the table, building electronics, finishing the software.
Climatable in St. Etienne Biennale. Refining the design on site.
Rebuilding electronics and graphics before the public presentations, minor adjustments, updating data.
First public
presentation 2nd, 3rd and 4th exhibitions
Rebuilding electronics, updating data before 5th exhibition 5th public presentation Initial paradigm Visual music installation Design exploration Winter 2008 Design research User obsevation Observing user behaviour in St. Etienne
November 2008 Winter 2010 - spring 2010
Winter 2017
Evaluating the Framework User testing on Climatable and two other interactive installations
Fall 2015 Spring - summer 2017 Fall 2008
teraction modes of interactive art installations and their relationships to the simplicity qualities.
Figure 8 illustrates the second cycle.
The main phases of the research of simplicity in relationship to the interactive art installa- tion Climatable are plotted on a timeline in Figure 9. This timeline highlights some of the main design research milestones as well as design explorations — constructive design experiments. The simultaneous influence of exploration and research upon one another is clearly visible. There are also a few notable gaps. It is worth recalling, that this timeline displays research and exploration activities only related to the Climatable installation. Many aspects of this research
are not visualised on the timeline. Also, during 2009–13 I attended the Elomedia research school as a status researcher (i.e. not full time), and a lot of the research tasks during that time focused on things like writing an abstract, creating a table of contents, definition of key con-
46
3 Research methods: from an interactive artist to an Interaction designer
cepts, etc. While the research moved on it did not affect the constructive design research cycle iterations so much.
It is crucial for the constructive research design process that the results of experimentation are exhibited in public. Evaluations of the experiments bring in new knowledge, and create new motivations. The whole cycle affects and changes even the foundational elements of the research itself: the hypothesis, the main research question and the research title (Bang et al., 2012). These types of foundational changes have occurred in this thesis multiple times.