Hypothesis: Even when a construction is made that places the visitors in the role of “patient” (following Moore and Anderson, 1969) there may still be opportunities to repurpose the responsive environment and/or its content.
This hypothesis addresses the following research questions developed from the themes collated from the literature review:
1. Can an environment that is configured to offer limited roles (“patient” level) still stimulate users/visitors both inside and outside of its remit?
This takes a much more positive approach to Krueger’s response to “erroneous conclusions” from his subjects. Any such re-interpretation/repurposing should be seen in a more positive light.
2. Can an environment that is configured to offer limited positions (patient level) still stimulate users/visitors both inside and outside of its remit?
This relates to the possibilities of the shifting of positions with regards to the responsive environment and its content across Patient, Agent, Reciprocator and Referee (Moore and Anderson, 1969 p.568).
3. Can repurposing opportunities arise even when the content is closely locked, i.e. allowing limited input from the user/visitor and, if so, what forms does that repurposing take?
This compares with the delimiting opportunities on offer through “Interactive Ads for Shanghai Stadium Subway Station” (Lino, Salem and Rauterberg 2010 p.358). 4. What forms of learning experience are possible even when the content of a responsive environment is locked down?
This draws on Power’s dichotomy of trivialised versus liberatory interactions. 5. How can a responsive environment use sound, visuals and presence to enable forms of enrichment?
This moves the principles on from that of “Audiovisuology” (Daniels and Naumann 2010) to include the user/visitor’s presence and involvement.
6. What value and/or values are enabled in and through the responsive environment?
These values must come from the context of the environment in the first instance.
The proposal for the first practice project is that these themes can be explored through the development of a simple interface that ostensibly offers the “patient” role i.e. that visitors are positioned to receive content (following Moore and Anderson) but may yet enable more sophisticated responses through the repurposing of the content and that that illustrates a more protagonist role at work even in constrained circumstances. Thus, from a theoretical perspective the remit for the first practice project requires minimal activity in terms of learning what to do and that there should be minimal interaction i.e. that (following Kortbek and Grønbæk, 2008) the visitors’ presence would be sufficient in the construction. Concomitant on these criteria are the limited opportunities for expression of Bishop’s categories of “authorship”, “activation” or “community”, the extent or otherwise to be determined through the application of the first practice project.
The Dimbola Museum and Galleries in Freshwater, Isle of Wight was approached regarding the possibility of staging the first practice project. Through a process of discussion and demonstration the Dimbola team offered the opportunity to create an installation, named “Mad Hatter’s Magic Mirror”. Using an Android app on a tablet character heads from Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass and What Alice Found There (Carroll 1994) could be super-imposed onto visitors to their “The Wonderland of Alice” exhibition from July to October 2013. This 71
form of augmented reality would satisfy the Dimbola team’s, and specifically the curator, Gail Middleton’s desire to bring the visitors into the world of Alice. 72
A conceptual reference point was the work of Brenda Laurel i.e. Computers as Theatre (Laurel 1993). In the first edition of the book Laurel’s approach focused upon defining interactivity as “[T]he ability of humans to participate in actions in a representational context” (1993, p.35) and “[T]o act within a
See Appendix B for details of that development.
71
Augmented reality means the superimposition of computer graphics onto a real scene i.e. the
72
representation” (1993, p.21). “Act” in this context relates to Aristotelian dramaturgy. The representation, as the world of Alice, could enable visitors to the exhibition to feel that they were part of the action. However, Laurel’s interest in dramaturgy was at a more metaphorical level and she cites problematic examples were the audience joins the actors on stage but the “[p]eople who are participating in the representation aren’t audience members anymore […] they become actors” (Laurel 1993, p.17). Laurel contrasts computer-based representation thus: “Whether the magic is created by hardware, software, or wetware is of no consequence; its only value is in what it produces on the “stage”. In other words, the representation [on screen] is all there is (Laurel 1993, p.17). However, an augmented reality installation in a 73
gallery can draw on conventions inter-relating the exhibition to the visitor/users. This Laurel has subsequently acknowledged in her second edition of Computers as Theatre (2014, p.198):
In Chapter 1, I argued that “the representation is all there is.” But in augmented and mixed reality, what we make of the part of the real world on which things are overlaid? We can think of the actual world as forming part of the representation in that it becomes setting and environment. In combination with what we have designed, we impart new meaning to the actual world – meaning that works within the representational context… the real world becomes part of a larger representation that we are co- creating.
Thus an augmented reality for the Alice exhibition both draws the user/visitors into that world and could bring Alice’s world into theirs. In turn this installation could enable research into the user/visitors adoption of a protagonist role even as they are positioned as participants. This shifts the co-creating from between the designer and the environment to an inter-connection between the practitioner, the environment and the user/visitor.
This assertion mirrors Krueger’s and Kwastek’s sole focus on interactivity as Laurel so closely
73
Unfortunately, there were considerable delays beyond control of the research project with the arrival of the Ethical Policy clearance from the parent university that meant that the installation could only go into Dimbola for the final two days of the exhibition run. Although, this late entry meant that there was little time to gather data i.e. two days and no time to make adjustments to the rig, through lifecycle design in response to input from the visitors, the data gained from the experience at least can be seen as indicative (Rogers, Sharp & Preece 2011, p. 332). The justification of this consideration is given below.
The data gathering methods were questionnaires, written records of comments, video film and still photography used to assess the visitors’ interactions with the installation. These protocols followed a social science mode of analysis i.e. the exhibition as social experiment with attendant and standard methods of data gathering and analysis.
The advantages of using this installation as a first practice project include:
1. The visitors were not asked to perform any tasks or come with prior skills or detailed information in advance of the visit.
2. The use of Ketai “face detection” technology did not require any learning by the visitors i.e. they simply needed a face that could be detected (there is a caveat with regard to people with beards).
3. The installation was built into the ambience of the exhibition room and thus the aim was for it to be complementary to the general atmosphere rather than being a “stand-out piece”, see Figure 18 below. The subtlety of the interaction was designed to encourage that holistic approach.
Figure 21: The Mad Hatter’s Magic Mirror in situ
4. Although the technology is based on an Android app built in Processing (Processing 2015) that could allow downloads to other mobile devices, the construction is discrete i.e. the output, in this first iteration at least, is in a single location. There are technical advantages of using a tablet in such a construction. For example, the profile of the installation is far smaller than if a laptop or PC were used to provide computing power, see Figure 18 above.
With regard to the forms of presence, offered by Lombard and Ditton (1997), there is some evidence that forms 1 – 4 occurred in the installation with direct comments made in this regard, see Appendix B for more details. However, the only forms of interaction with the environment, form of presence 5, were through attempts to play with the limited functionality. With regard to form of presence 6, the locked off format of the installation meant that there was little social interaction and nothing sustained.