Category Archives: Research

Evaluation

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The following  are the research questions that we have for our project, keeping in mind our GOALS of the research for Exploring Interactive Theatre. We have formulated these questions that fit our goals and our research.

1.1  What is interactive theater?

1.2

1.2.1  How is the performance of the actors influenced by the interactive parts?
How hard/easy is it to learn how to use it? Are they comfortable with the usage? Are there any disturbances between different parts? Do they have any tips, how to improve it?

1.2.2  How did the cooperation between designers and technicians influence the creative output? What kind of problems appeared? Was there anything that made working together harder
or easier?

1.2.3  Does the audience realize the interactive parts?
Are they able to get the interaction? Are they interested in how it works? Do they like it?
Does the audience get the whole concept of the play?

2

2.1  Are there conventional techniques that could be an alternative solution for the interactive parts?
Where does conventional theater end and interactive theater start? What are the differences,
what are the similarities between conventional and interactive theatre?

2.2  What is the motivation behind putting interactive props/costumes on stage?
What is the biggest advantage of using interactive technologies in that theater play? Is the usage of interactive parts enhancing the outcome of the play?

2.3  What do actors/audience/creators expect when they take part in an interactive theater play?
Where the interactive parts distracting or did the actors/audience like it?
How would actors/audience/creators participating in the project describe the term interactive theater?

Evaluation

Methods For Evaluation

                 ACTORS                AUDIENCE  CREATORS
               Semi – structured                               Interview                            (with Video & Audio)*      Semi – structured                       Interview** Semi – structured   Interview**
„Not-call-it -Focus-Group“-
Discussion
(with Video & Audio)**		 “Audience Talk”
Publikumsgespräch
(record Audio)		 Focus Group:divided in Tec.
and Design groups
(record Audio)**
——- Questionnaires ——-
Observation In field Observation In field ——-
Direct(notes) Direct(notes)
Indirect(camera during rehersals and play) —

 

* done by Project-teams

** optional

 

Actors:

Semi-Structured Interview:

Our method of evaluation for the actors is a semi-structured interview, where its an open conversation but we have a set of guiding questions to cover the same topics with each participant. Questions are open and closed. Interviewer follows a framework of questions but can react to the participants individually.  By this method we are able to explore deeper into the questions and the  best way to understand the  experience of actors and experts (director, stage designer).

Observation:

In this observation method we directly observe the actors  experience and reactions to the interactive technology when they are rehearsing in their natural environment (in field) and also during the final play. We instantly observe situations and take notes  about the reaction of actors in rehearsal; thereby making the analysis suddenly(direct). In the final, (indirect) observation, we collect data about the development of the play, where the creators take notes of their activities on a regular basis; instrumenting the software to record users’ activity in a log; video-recording during rehearsals and plays.

Audience:

Questionnaire:

By using the Questionnaire method we get answers to specific questions from a large group of people, useful to confirm the conclusions from the audience after watching the play. Closed or open questions can be used to collect demographic data and users’ opinions.

“Audience Talk”:Publikumsgespräch

In the Publikumsgespräch, the audience can ask questions to the the actors, director and the creators. It is an open talk session where all question are open regarding the play, for example, questions to the actors about their acting, about the story to the director, technical questions to the creators and so on.

Observation:

In the Field observation we directly observe the audience and their reaction to the play in their natural environment. In the direct observation we instantly observe situations and take notes  about the reaction of the audience during the play; thereby making the analysis suddenly. In the indirect observation we collect diaries (=notes), interaction logs, photos and videos material to analyze later, which is useful to track the audience’s activities during the play.

 

Literature

Designing the Spectator Experience

Designing the Spectator Experience

Paper by: Stuart Reevea, Steve Benford, Claire O’Malley and Mike Fraser

Summary of paper:

In the paper Designing the Spectator Experience by Stuart Reeves, Steve Benford, Claire O’Malley and Mike Fraser, they have discussed about how the spectators should experience a performer’s interaction with a computer? To show the ways in which interaction affects and is affected by spectators. Every action that is performed has its manipulations by the performer and the effects of it hidden, partially revealed, fully revealed or amplified to the spectators. The manipulation by the performers is the input in the interface and the effects that the spectators see is the output of these manipulations. In a broad view of performance the artists, musicians and the actors implicitly perform interactions to be seen in a public environment, whereas in workplace studies, the interactions are performed in a controlled room environments. But we observe how these design settings in theatres, exhibitions, galleries amusement arcades, theme-parks and museums interact with the spectators. The aim of this paper is to help interface designers to familiarise them public interface designs and also the techniques.

Public and Private interactions:

Personal phone calls is often a private action, where the outsiders cannot view the action conducted though in a public environment. A performance by artist using interactive technology but are careful in what they reveal in a public setting. There are some in-between interactions such as in museums, where one user is directly involved in the interaction while the other bystanders learn and watch. A more expressive way to show distinct possibilities, the interaction is sub-divided into manipulations and effects.

Manipulation:

Actions carried out by the performer which may include physical controls like buttons, mouse or a joystick and also gestures, movements and speech which may not directly be the input. Using gestures sometimes play two important roles, one: interactions are more than just the contact with the interface and secondly, performing interactions helps spectators to appreciate,  express skills or control and use aesthetic components of the technology.

Effects:

It is the result of these manipulations which can be display of images, audio or video. These effects include the apparent action of the interface on the performers as well. When performers display physical or emotional reaction to the interface, the output as gestures, movements or expressions around the interface can be seen as part of the effect.

Hidden:Manipulations and effects are hidden for the spectators but are only accessible by the performer. e.g: Kiosk photo booth

Revealed:Both effects and manipulations are revealed to the spectators. e.g: Single Display Groupware – people collaborate around a shared display

Partially revealed/hidden:The effects are revealed but the manipulations are hidden sometimes even from performers (magic like effects). e.g: Wizard of Oz

Amplified:Here the manipulations are revealed by the performer but the effects are hidden. e.g: immersive head displays used in public settings allowing the spectators to only see the performer’s manipulations.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

 

Picture from: Designing the Spectator Experience Stuart Reeves1, Steve Benford1, Claire O’Malley1 and Mike Fraser2 – PowerPoint PPT

http://www.powershow.com/view1/bc305-ZDc1Z/Designing_the_Spectator_Experience_Stuart_Reeves1_Steve_Benford1_Claire_OMalley1_and_Mike_Fraser2_powerpoint_ppt_presentation

Performances:

When artists perform with interactive technology are not always content in revealing their manipulations, but amplify the manipulations to make their performance more expressive. Sometimes amplification is not involved in all performances.

9

10

Taxonomy:

There are four genera approaches to design public interfaces.

Secretive: Interface tends to hide both the manipulations and the effects

Expressive: Interface tends to reveal sometimes amplify both the manipulations and the effects.

Magical: Interface tends to reveal effects but hide the manipulation that led to them.

Suspenseful: Interface tends to reveal manipulations while hiding the effects.

We can also see that there are more possibilities for our interfaces that simply reveal or hide manipulations /effects.

Partially revealing: the interface partially reveals the manipulations and the effects depending on the scale of the interface or the distance of the performer form the spectators.

Transforming: A possible way to transform our manipulations, either through non-linear mapping or aggregating multiple inputs when mapping it to the effects.

Amplifying: The performers may amplify their manipulations and effects rather than revealing them.

Other facets:

There are many other aspects for designing the performer interface, which some are discussed in the paper which is relevant to works related in this research.

Interactive spectators:

Possibility of the spectators to interact with the interface. While performing, a performer is aware of spectators and how their reactions shows the flow in the performance. For example, the authors have talked about the techniques for aggregating the spectator input form audience voting system to video-tracking crowd behaviour which are expressed for the interactive experiences and how the presence of the spectators brings a sense of liveness to the performance.

Performer awareness of spectator:

The awareness of spectators may also have a negative impact on the performer making him pressurised, to perform better or potential embarrassment of making mistakes. An example that was discussed here was Uncle Roy All Around You, a game-like performance where public used wireless PDAs to search the city for mysterious characters. This was a see a performer’s experience in a public environment which enhanced the awareness of the spectators.

Transitions and Handovers:

There are many transitions between the spectators and the performers, especially in exhibitions or museums where the visitors change the controls of the exhibits to each other. An example to emphasize on the transitions, where a painted scene with two figures and their faces were painted on the doors. There were small screens behind the door linked to mirrors. When a person performed the act by looking into the mirror, their face was captured on a hidden video camera and then it was displayed on one of the screens in the painting. As a result the performers could not see the effect of their own manipulations but it was the spectators that pointed to the performer that his/her face can be seen on the screen.

Orchestration:

Most stage performances usually have a set of activities that are used to having a smooth running of the experience.  These set of activities can be the people such as the ushers, receptionists or announcers that deal with the front end of the theatre and the back end of it is done by for example, the stage managers, floor managers, prompters or the technical crew. The orchestrators will have to be aware of the manipulations and the effects of other participants, spectators and even the performers.

Conclusion:

A significant raise in designing the interfaces is a new challenge for HCI, one being the spectator interface. To validate the approaches the authors have developed a taxonomy that expresses the differences and brings out the underlying approach to design. The taxonomy is to complement other frameworks for designing public performances. The performer’s use of interface is the actions or the manipulation which then lead to the effects. The event that are viewed by the spectators that is the effects from the manipulation of the performers can be hidden, partially hidden, transformed, revealed or amplified.

Some of the other design issues were, can the spectators also interact; the performers awareness of the spectators, supporting fluid transitions between spectating and performing; and support for behind-the-scenes operation. Designing the spectator experience will be an increasing and challenging part of HCI which requires deeper understanding of new issues such as expression, suspense and magic. This taxonomy that was published is just a start for the challenges involved and also to the range of potential solutions available.

Literature

Mixed Reality Performance and Interaction

Interaction as Performance (Proc. CHI’05, ACM Press 2005)

Steve Benford & Gabriella Giannachi

The goal of this paper is to discuss about the strong relationship between interaction design, theatre and performance to form a conceptual framework as well as a language to express the possible way of computation that can be involved into performative experiences for the practitioners and researchers.  Furthermore, the goal is to create a boundary object that might sit at the intersection of HCI and theatre and performance studies. This paper documents the mixed-reality performance, an emerging theatrical genre, which is intended to convey two major ideas: creating experience which will mix rich and complex real and virtual worlds; and combining live performance of participants in interactive digital media.

A series of landmark mixed-reality performances by various artists are discussed and analysed for further discussion.

Desert Rain (1997), based on first Gulf War, provides a great example of mixtures of real and virtual worlds, forms a hybrid theatrical set. It uses series of “rain curtains” (projection screens made of fine water spray through which participants can pass). Ethnographic studies showed how the artists orchestrated the experience to create key climatic moments in the performance.

 

The following example shows the hybrid city streets model where online players are chased by actors equipped with GPS along with streaming live audio to catch them.  The researcher’s study revealed how the experience needed to accommodate so-called seams (in the underlying technical infrastructure.

 

Similar to previous work, Uncle Roy All Around You (2003), connected an online virtual world to city streets but focusing on how a performance might exploit the ambiguity of relationships between street players, online players and public spectators. The street players were engaged with props, locations and actors in the city. Ethnographic studies expressed the significant challenges of orchestrating a distributed mobile experience on city streets.

 

To explore the nature of mobile engagement furthermore, researchers worked with another mixed reality performance called “Rider Spoke (2007) where cyclists explored a city at night, recording a series of stories, leaving them at key locations, and then listening to the stories of others.

Rider Spoke (2007)

To explore complex temporal relationships between real and virtual world a text-messaging adventure game for mobile phones called “Day of the figurines (2006) took a different tack. Ethnographic studies showed the challenges of managing highly episodic engagement, especially how participants had to be responsible for interruption and changing pattern of phone use with other people like family, friends and colleagues.

 

This study focused on the multilayered nature of the instructions which managed to address the four different aspects of location, sequence of actions, public comportment and relationships to content.

 

The role of HCI researchers is not only to develop interfaces and supporting technologies for the participants but also to create  authority and orchestration tools for the artists. Another major role is to study the participants’ experience that will provide “thick description” of experience from participant’s point of view. These studies have informed theoretical work through a series of conceptual frameworks that generalise key aspects of performative interaction for the wider HCI audience. Examples are:

  • Potential benefits of ambiguity in interface designing that produce reflection and interpretation
  • Seamful design
  • Approaches to design the spectator experience
  • Moulding discussions of how experiences are framed

First observation of the researchers is that the mixed-reality performances tend to be inherently hybrid in their structure as they are combination multilayered timescales and participants with different roles to integrate a diverse form of interface into a single experience. According to the arguments of the researchers, such task can be described in terms of three fundamental kinds of trajectory:

  1. Canonical Trajectory: Plan for the experience using different subjective forms such as scripts, set design, media and code designs, stage management instructions. Multiple canonical trajectory may have branching and rejoining structures.
  2. Participant Trajectory: Actual path that a particular participant makes through a particular instance of the performance. It may diverge from pre-planned canonical trajectories as participant makes individual choices.
  3. Historic Trajectory: Documentation of the experiences providing the reflections and retelling. Although being a vital role, it has often been neglected in the mixed-reality performance scenario.

Introducing trajectory forwards us to some controversial questions. Does the notation of trajectories have wider relevance to other domains of HCI? Studying and analysing different cultural experiences such as visits to museum, galleries and theme parks or playing pervasive games which share many of the characteristics of mixed-reality performance, researchers of this paper argues that it has relevance. They suggested that HCI needs to consider how a user experience expands across many Interface spaces, timescales and roles. Mixed-reality performances provides a concrete projection of trajectories which is considered to be the glimpse of future user experience.

Benford, Steven, Giannachi, Gabriella. Interaction as Performance. In Proc. CHI’05, ACM Press (2005), pp. 741-750.

Evaluation, Research

Data Gathering Techniques

Rogers, Y., Sharp, H., Preece, J. Interaction design : beyond human-computer interaction. 3rd ed., Wiley, 2011,  p. 222-268.

Technique Definition Kind of data Relevance to our project
Interviews “Conversation with purpose” Mostly Qualitative Some Quantitative Exploring issues
Unstructured Exploratory Conversation around one topic,Questions are open. Qualitative Can be used to explore the range of opinions, good for deeper understanding of the topic.→ first questions to the actors
Structured Predetermined conversation with reproducible course. Questions are closed, short and clearly worded. Every participant is asked the same and in the same order. Qualitative and Quantitative Working well when people are in a rush since they only need to answer specific questions.→ actors and audience after seeing play.
Semi-structured A guided conversation to cover the same topics with each participant Questions are open and closed. Interviewer follows a framework of questions but can react to the participants individually. Qualitative and Quantitative Is able to explore deeper questions as well as to cover certain topics→ best way to track down experience of actors and experts (director, stage designer)
Focus Groups Conversation of a small group guided by one trained facilitator. Participants represent target population. Questions are open and lead to a flexible discussion with agenda that it follows. Mostly Qualitative Some Quantitative Collecting multiple viewpoints, explores also sensitive or diverse questions, good for community issues. Encourages contact between developers and actors.→ overview of actors opinions, group experience
Questionnaires Use closed or open questions to collect demographic data and users’ opinions. Qualitative and Quantitative Getting Answer to specific questions from a large group of people, useful to confirming the conclusions.→ audience after watching the play
Observation Paying close attention to the users in order to gather data required. Qualitative and Quantitative Gathering data at different/any stage during the development of the play.
In the field Getting a full and true story through observing what the users are doing or how to achieve a task in their natural environment Mostly Qualitative Filling in details and nuances in that are not elicited from the other forms of investigation.→ actors during the rehearsals; creators when designing the play; audience when watching the play
Controlled environment Monitoring users within “a purpose-built usability laboratory” (what they are doing is within an artificial situation) Qualitative and Quantitative Researching on the details of what individuals do in the laboratory.→ inviting actors to the laboratory to test equipment; inviting audience to the rehearsals
Indirect Collecting material to analyze later.Useful to tracking users’ activities that cannot be present over the duration of the study.Diaries (=notes), interaction logs, photos and videos are several main techniques. Qualitative and Quantitative Collecting data about the development of the play.→ creators take notes of their activities on a regular basis; instrumenting the software to record users’ activity in a log; video-recording during rehearsals and plays
Direct Instantly observing situations and taking notes etc.Making analysis suddenly. Qualitative and Quantitative Collecting data about certain situations.→ observing and taking notes about the reaction of actors in rehearsal; the reaction of audience during the play

 

 

Evaluation, Research

Exploring Interactive Theatre – The Goals

The goal of the research is to explore Interactive Theatre. In achieving this goal, the commission will address two strategic objectives. The following index will give more details about what that means and how it is planned to setup the study.

1. Explore the effects of interactive technology involved.
The commission wants to find out about the feelings and thoughts that people have participating in the Interactive Theatre. To cover every perspective three different populations will be analyzed.

1.1 Find characteristics, despriptions and a definition for interactive effects applied in theater plays

1.2 Analyze the feelings and thoughts that people have being involved in Interactive Theatre. Considering three different populations:
1.2.1 The actors, the people that use the interactive technology on stage and for that reason will be the main source of direct feedback.
1.2.2 The creators, the people developing and thinking about the usage of interactive technology and therefore will be some sort of experts.
1.2.3 The audience, the people who experience the interactive theater play and how it affects their viewer experience.

2. Explore the impact that the interactive technology has on the play
The commission will measure the impact of interactive technology so as to see to what extent has the technology influence the theater.
To attain the objective, the research will cover three aspects:

2.1 The impact of interactive technology in comparison to conventional staging techniques
A comparison between conventional and interactive theater will be made to extract differences

2.2 The necessity of using interactive technology in theater
Finding out the necessity of using interactive technology in theater as well as the additional benefits of involving interactive technology into a play

2.3 The perception of interactive theater
Investigating the perception of Interactive Theater through participants (users, secondary stakeholder, audience) feedback

 

Our understanding of how to evaluate interactive media is mainly based on “Interaction Design – beyond human-computer interaction 3rd Edition”, Yvonne Rogers, Helen Sharp, Jennifer Preece, published by John Wiley & Sons (2011).

For more information about the explicit source, take a look at the post “Data Gathering Techniques”

Evaluation, Research

D.E.C.I.D.E. !

Rogers, Y., Sharp, H., Preece, J. Interaction design : beyond human-computer interaction. 3rd ed., Wiley, 2011, pp. 456 ff.

“DECIDE: A Framework to Guide Evaluation

1. Determine the goals

2. Explore the questions

3. Choose the evaluation methods

4. Identify the practical issues

5. Decide how to deal with the ethical issues

6. Evaluate, analyze, interpret, and present the data.”

According to this framework, we can design, plan, and conduct our study. Our main goals have been determined Exploring Interactive Theater – The Goals. Based on that the question are to be asked by the mini-project groups (blog post for “Research Questions” can be found here). Together we can than decide which method or combination of methods are appropriate to get answers to our research questions. A post about possible methods & their relevance for our project can be found Data Gathering Techniques. After that we can continue with step 4 & 5: We can filter the practical issues based on the design-tech development processes & the methods to apply. Furtehrmore, we can take ethical concerns into account. The last main part is the evaluation itself – firstly, we have to prepare e.g. questions & guidelines for interviews or we have to setup cameras for observation purposes, then we will collect the data during the rehearsals & plays. Afterwards, we can analyze them & make interpretations for publishing our exploration results.

Literature

Integration of Interactive Technology

Reference: Latulipe, Celine, Wilson, David, Huskey, Sybil, Gonzalez, Berto, Word, Melissa. Temporal Integration of Interactive Technology in Dance: Creative Process Impacts. In Proc. C&C’11, ACM Press (2011), pp. 107-116.

Summary: Regarding six university productions the text is dealing with questions in organizing a dance production, which includes interactive technology.

In what way will the different components of a performance production have an impact on each other and in which way this could be fruitful or negative for the development? On which parts of the process can be worked parallel and on which has to be worked together? Who has to be present during rehearsal time?

According to the answers on these questions the timing of the whole working process should be set.
There is not one right way of organization, but it depends on every single production, what has to be ready before the actors start their rehearsal. One should be aware of the time when you bring in technology, costumes, props, stage design, light, music/sound, etc. into the production process, because it will have an impact on the workflow and the outcome.

Relevance for our project:

It’s important to be aware, that all components of a performance production are linked. So everybody involved should at several points of the process talk to each other and adjust their work with each other. Considering the experiences of the authors of the text, we should plan our own workflow.

The text proposes a lot of productive questions, we should pose ourselves during the preparation and rehearsal-period as well as according advises:

Concerning Performers, Costumes and included Technique:

Shall performers develop their actions by using the interactive technologies or shall the use of technology respond to the actions of the actors?
Case 1 : Technology has to be ready by the beginning of the rehearsal with the actors.
Case 2: The choreography has to be ready/actors have to be ready to repeat their actions in nearly the same manner, when the technology is integrated into their play.
Case 3: Mixed version of 1 and 2. Technology has to be ready as a trial version by the beginning of rehearsals and both are developed in response of each other.

What hardware is needed for the project?
At least have the needed hardware set and in place before the production cycle begins.

Will the used technical devices be placed in the space or on the bodies of the performers?

Since placing technology on the bodies of the performers always has an impact on their movements, at least fake technology or trial versions of them should be included from the beginning into the working process of the performers.

Shall technology be hidden in costumes or be shown?
How will the body work of the performers have an impact on the devices (Sweat, pressure, etc…)?
Plan time to adjust the devices to resist as long as they are needed.

How much energy does it cost the performers to wear technology?Make performers feel as comfortable as possible in wearing devices!

How long does it take to get the actors into their costumes?Integrate more time in the planning or make the costumes put on more easily

Concerning Space and Technique:

When projections will be used in the play it is necessary to find a lighting atmosphere, which allows the performers to see well enough to be safe and also doesn’t wipe out the projections.

Which technical possibilities are given by the space in which is rehearsed and which in the space in which the performance will be shown in the end?

What will change when moving from one stage to another (be it from rehearsal space to stage or while touring between different stages?

Is there electric noise at the place which could disturb the devices needed for the performance?

Be aware of the used places while working to make the impact of miving as small as possible. Integrate special technical rehearsal time to adjust all components when moving to a new place.

Does the sound match with the acoustic circumstances of the space?Plan time to adjust the sound to the acoustic possibilities of the space.

Concerning the Team:

Who has to be present during rehearsal time?
At certain rehearsals everybody involved should meet. But the smaller the group is, the better, to have a high concentration level. Only people who are immediately needed should be there.

What kind of “care” does the technique require and who will be doing this during rehearsals as well as before, during and after performances?

Make sure if performances should go on or stop if technique isn’t working and who should take care of fixing it.

Literature

Live Media: Hand on Interactive Technology and Theatre

David Z. Saltz. Live Media: Interactive Media and Theatre. Theatre Topics, Volume 11, Number 2, September 2001, pp. 107-130 (Article)

In this paper, David Z. Saltz showed us thoughts on the subject of categorizing types of interactive media through her great deal of  experience. The author shared her opinion on 3 main distinguishing factors between classic, old, “linear” media versus the new, innovative, “interactive” media, supported by the rise of digital instruments. She also went carefully through various pieces in order to give further insight on how “interactive media” was practically utilized on stage. At the end of the work, Saltz presented a “neither exhaustive or mutually exclusive” list of relationship between actors and  the media.

The first play is Hair– a rock musical piece famous in its time for addressing urgent social issues such as Vietnam War, the hippe movement and recreational drug usage. Digital technology was used to generate animation to enhance the sensation of drug-induced hallucinations. Notable interactive element was mostly the projection breaking the norm and influence the stage in a somewhat “mediated” way. It means that rather than restricting the actor to a linear projection, the offstage player used hundred of MIDI-triggered still images and video clips to conform with the actors activities in a tight manner.

The second play, Kaspar, was ideal for interactive implementation due to its content. Objects were rigged to produce sound and effect as the actor interacted with them correctly. There was also an eye-like object which followed the main actor , controlled by a offstage computer operator. In this play, the element of “unmediated” interaction between actor and the media was introduced, featuring Kaspar’s investigation of each piece of furniture, achieved by using various type of sensors.

The third play, The Tempest, employed an interactive-human tracking to portray an ethereal entity, a spirit. A player offstage was equipped with tracking devices and literally controlled the animation projected on the stage in real time. This type of representation is not available with the traditional linear media.

With the paper, we can learn many things about practical case of interactive media integrated into theatre’s plays .And with the list of relationship provided, one can somewhat narrow down the choices of what should be implemented interactively to achieve certain positive effects. It is also notable that using interactive media, while considered to be the new age, does not come hand in hand with the guaranteed “better” result than traditional media. It is even stated in the paper that interactive activities, without proper representation, might not even be distinguishable from normal, simple linear media.