Design Iterations

Future Development Opportunities

With future development of my interactive graphic, instead of using a bounding box I would encase the dancers in an outline around their physical body, as well as incorporating a constantly changing background. I have came to this decision after reflecting on my audience feedback which was gathered at the user-testing stage. In doing this I believe that my interactive graphic, will not only embody the idea of claustrophobia in the digital World by encasing the participants, but also the participants would be given the opportunity to try and fit within a given environment. Thus potentially trying to break free of the encasing surrounding them. Performance would definitely be a key aspect again, and this future development would potentially bring participants to ‘act’ out in the given environment.

Below is a Photoshop representation of what I would aim to achieve, by future development of my interactive graphic:

2

Advertisements

Design Iterations

Final Evaluation 

Within the management environment iterative process, it is essential to review evaluation as a key stage to a products development. This specific iterative process allows the ability for us to re-evaluate, improve and redefine a design, and therefore create potential future development opportunities.

Overall having weighed up the following factors, I believe that I have successfully created a piece of interactive information design for a shared public space, which intends to elucidate and explain some idea or concept we perceive key to our 21st Century media experience. From user testing I found my project to be a success in reflecting the concepts and ideals. I believe that I have a better understanding not only of Processing but also as following the design iterative process. Throughout my blog I linked the theory modules that I studied to my practice (media spaces and identity) thus successfully obtaining a better understanding of this theory and allowing me to utilise effective theoretical analysis. I followed the management environment iterative process through the whole development of my interactive graphic, this process allowed me to re-evaluate, re-define and gain required feedback for future development opportunities. I will be going on to further discuss the future development opportunities for my interactive graphic.

Design Iterations

Evaluation Of User Testing

Within this process I elected to choose user testing to help evaluate the success of my interactive information graphic with its reflection of key concepts. I interviewed a male and female representative, a dancer, along with taking random audience participants on the display day. From both observation and interviewing individuals I found that the movements they took in interacting with my piece included ‘stretching the box’, ‘crouching’, ‘expanding the box’ and ‘moving arms outwards and inwards compressing and pushing out the box’. These movements corresponded to the concept of claustrophobia and its ideals of entrapment extremely well, in that individuals try to relieve themselves from the space by stretching the bounding box as well as confining themselves within the box. Furthermore in relation to their understanding, feedback I received included ideas such as ‘entrapment’, ‘adaptation’, ‘containment and entrapment of humans in space’, ‘breaking free and making their own space’, ‘enclosing’ and ‘tracking’.

Furthermore from given feedback, I have noted that my participants liked how the piece ‘adapted’, said it was ‘fun’, ‘dynamic’, ‘interactive’, ‘conformed to movements’ and that the ‘more you move, the more you see around you’. My participants left feeling emotions of ‘light heartedness’, ‘energy’, ‘fun’ as well as ‘isolation’. I am extremely happy from the given feedback, as it suggests a successful product was produced relating to key concepts.

Design Iterations

Reflection Of The Concepts

In reflecting upon my interactive information graphic (product) and its response to the brief, I found it correlated extremely well. The reason being that it was displayed on one of the public screens in Weymouth House, Bournemouth University but also it reflected upon concepts we perceive to be key to our 21st Century media experience. These concepts include claustrophobia in the digital World, media spaces and technology as a performance phenomenon. The concept of claustrophobia is based upon the idea that we are stuck inside what is deemed a ‘super-brain’ and categorised by such as web based-algorithms. Thus coinciding to limitations of both what we see and what information is available to us online. This super-brain constructs an enclosed media space of access which furthemore links back to claustrophobia and entrapment.

The concept of media space was utilised in conjunction with Anthony Gormley – Blind Light installation, in that the individuals who participate become the art itself. In addition it is also relevant to Floryan’s (2011) suggestions in that my interactive graphic only becomes art when individuals interact with the piece. Moreover participants are placed into a disorientating situation, a bounding box. The visual effect of a bounding box demonstrates both the ideas of enclosure and entrapment from a visual perspective, which leads on to the key concept of claustrophobia. The bounding box I believe is a exceedingly brilliant representation of claustrophobia, as it encloses individuals to the smallest of boundaries based upon their physical dimensions. In addition the bounding box reflects the concept, in that what ever movements an individual takes leaves traces and reflects the given space, similarly to how our algorithm generated identities reflect various search engines.

Lastly the concept of technology as a performance pheneomenon was heavily inspired by Disorder by CENC in that it combines aspects of performance (dance) and Processing. Disorder, demonstrates technologies potential in creating performance phenomenons with computer generated imagery. I utilised this concept within my own work, combining both dance and Processing to create a visually beautiful performance for audience purposes.

References

Floryan, M., 2010. Interactive and Participatory Art [online]. Art 21 Magazine. Available from: http://blog.art21.org/2010/06/03/interactive-and-participatory-art/#.VMKcpMblc5Q21 [Accessed 21 January 2015].

Mapping Festival, 2011. CENC – Mapping Festival 2011[online]. Available from: http://vimeo.com/32111537 [Accessed 20th November 2014].

Walters, H., 2012. Making space within and without: Antony Gormley at TEDGlobal2012 [online]. TED Blog. Available from: http://blog.ted.com/2012/06/26/making-space-within-and-without-antony-gormley-at-tedglobal2012/ [Accessed 6th December 2014].

Design Iterations

User Testing – Interviews

In acquiring feedback for my interactive graphic, I interviewed both dancers and audience participants. The questions I asked in the interviews were drawn up prior to my user testing plan. These questions were written to obtain as much valuable feedback as possible. The following video clip combines all the interviews to each given question:

I will be going on to evaluate all the gathered user testing feedback, to gauge both the success of my product, as well to suggest potential future development opportunities.

Design Iterations

Interactive Graphic Display – Weymouth House

For the purposes of the Design Iterations brief I presented my interactive graphic on one of the public screens in the foyer of  Weymouth House, Bournemouth University. In displaying the interactive graphic I booked out a TV space along with all the equipment such as a HDMI cable and portable TV screen. In its display I got a variety of individuals to interact with my installation, including dancers and audience participants. I took a range of photos with participants interacting with the piece, performing various movements as shown below:

1

2

3

In addition I also filmed individuals interacting with my interactive graphic and produced the following video clip:

This video clip demonstrates how individuals reacted and responded to the interactive graphic. It is clear that the participants tried to stretch the bounding box, as well as enclose themselves within it. I was extremely pleased with the performance (dance) aspect of the interactive graphic. Users are forced to interact through taking out various movements, creating visually beautiful graphic imagery on screen.

It is worth noting that the interactive graphic is only art when participants and audiences are interacting with the piece. Kaprow (2007) mentions that ‘Our advanced art approaches a fragile but marvelous life, one that maintains itself by a mere thread, melting into an elusive, changeable configuration, the surroundings, the artist, his work and everyone who comes to it’. Floryan (2011) suggests that Kaprow’s comment meant audiences are invited into the art itself. In addition, with relation to interactive art and my own interactive graphic, the individuals become the art itself and the art only became alive due to their participation.

Furthermore, Edmonds (2011) states the following ‘Interactive art is distinguished by its dynamic ‘behaviour’ in response to external stimuli, such as people moving and speaking. For artists, this means that observing people interact with their works provides a way of understanding exactly how the work ‘performs’, that is, how it responds to the gestures, sounds and other features of audience behaviour in the immediate environment. Observing the responses of an interactive work can reveal unexpected effects that may or may not be predictable from the artist’s point of view’. I believe this applies to my piece considerably in that, myself as the artist, can better understand my work and its performance when seeing it in practice and observing its interaction.

References

Edmonds, E., 2011. Interactive Art [online]. University of Technology: Sydney.

Floryan, M., 2010. Interactive and Participatory Art [online]. Art 21 Magazine. Available from: http://blog.art21.org/2010/06/03/interactive-and-participatory-art/#.VMKcpMblc5Q21 [Accessed 21 January 2015]. 

Design Iterations

Interactive Graphic – Display Setup

When setting up my interactive graphic in Weymouth House, I was having the same issue as previously, in that the camera I was using was interpreting the lighting differently so the bounding box element (blob detection library) was not performing as desired. To resolve this problem I had to change my setup and use the camera on my laptop as well as a portable TV public screen. This was due to the fact that the camera on my laptop interpreted the lighting in the correct format, and with connecting my chosen public screen to the TV space it would have needed a HDMI cable over 8m long and an amplifier. The University unfortunately did not have an amplifier available for use.

This was the initial setup:

IMG_3238IMG_3236

This was the final display setup:

IMG_3245IMG_3247