Advertisement

The depth of interactivity in the interaction with multimedia content: the development of user-friendly application

  • Nidal Al SaidEmail author
Special Issue
  • 1 Downloads

Abstract

Interactivity is a commonly used term. Although interactivity is well described in terms of mechanics, the basic model lacks clarity and understanding. The interactivity is defined in the literature review and applies to a wide range of situations. The interactivity is a basic concept that easily adapts to any situation precisely because it still seems vague and is used ambiguously when the features of technology are taken into account. Here, the conceptual term “dialogue” is suggested as a basis for considering interactivity. The key consequences of this are the provision of information for logical processing, inconsistent access to information and an approach based on the unfolding dialogue between the user and the application. Natural language processing does not yet have a sufficient degree of control and predictability. Despite this, artificial intelligence is a promising breakthrough in information technology. Hence, artificial intelligence can be embedded in interactivity shortly. This prompts the researches in more detail to study the components that make the “dialogue” work and try to apply them in interactive multimedia applications. This study proposes a new approach to the formation of a multimedia application with a user-friendly depth of interactivity. This approach includes interactivity and allows selecting the degree of interactivity by tracking the emotional response of the user and choosing the control points of interest in the media content.

Keywords

Emotion recognition Artificial intelligence Multimedia application Interactivity 

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    Komendantskaya E, Stewart R, Duncan K, Kienitz D, Hen PL, Bacchus P (2019) Neural network verification for the masses (of AI graduates). arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.01297
  2. 2.
    Gallardo-Echenique EE, Minelli J, Marqués-Molias L, Esteve-Mon F (2015) Digital competence in the knowledge society. MERLOT J Online Learn Teach 11(1):1–16Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Song HS, Kalet AL, Plass JL (2016) Interplay of prior knowledge, self-regulation and motivation in complex multimedia learning environments. J Comput Assist Learn 32(1):31–50.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12117 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Vonbun R, Königslöw KKV, Schoenbach K (2016) Intermedia agenda-setting in a multimedia news environment. Journalism 17(8):1054–1073.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884915595475 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fergie G, Hilton S, Hunt K (2016) Young adults’ experiences of seeking online information about diabetes and mental health in the age of social media. Health Expect 19(6):1324–1335.  https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12430 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Salaverría R (2019) Digital journalism. Int Encycl Journal Stud.  https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118841570.iejs0189 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Peterlin LJ, Peters J (2019) Teaching journalism ethics through “the newsroom”: an enhanced learning experience. Journal Mass Commun Educ 74(1):44–59.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1077695818767230 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Emmer M (2018) Online-Kommunikation und politische Öffentlichkeit. Handbuch Online-Kommunikation.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-18017-1_3-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    D’heer E, Courtois C (2016) The changing dynamics of television consumption in the multimedia living room. Convergence 22(1):3–17.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856514543451 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Abbasi A, Sarker S, Chiang RH (2016) Big data research in information systems: toward an inclusive research agenda. J Assoc Inf Syst 17(2):IGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Babiker M, Elmagzoub A (2015) For effective use of multimedia in education, teachers must develop their own educational multimedia applications. Turk Online J Educ Technol TOJET 14(4):62–68Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lee CD (2017) Toward a framework for culturally responsive design in multimedia computer environments: cultural modeling as a case. In: Cole M (ed) Culture, technology, and development. Psychology Press, London, pp 42–61Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Raskin J (2000) The humane interface: new directions for designing interactive systems. Addison-Wesley Professional, BostonGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sedig K, Parsons P, Dittmer M, Haworth R (2014) Human-centered interactivity of visualization tools: Micro-and macro-level considerations. In: Huang W (ed) Handbook of human centric visualization. Springer, New York, pp 717–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wolff A, Mulholland P, Zdrahal Z, Joiner R (2007) Re-using digital narrative content in interactive games. Int J Hum Comput Stud 65(3):244–272.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.10.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Alexander B (2017) The new digital storytelling: creating narratives with new media-revised and updated edition. Abc-clio, Santa BarbaraGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Partridge A (2001) Real-time interactive 3D games: creating 3D games in macromedia director 8.5/shockwave studio. Pearson Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rouse R III (2010) Game design: theory and practice. Jones & Bartlett Learning, BurlingtonGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Van Eck R (2007) Building artificially intelligent learning games. In: Gibson D, Aldrich C, Prensky M (eds) Games and simulations in online learning: research and development frameworks. IGI Global, Pennsylvania, pp 271–307Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Whistler K (2012) Three approaches to systems thinking for design. In: IDSA education conferenceGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Luo H, Koszalka T, Zuo M (2016) Investigating the effects of visual cues in multimedia instruction using eye-tracking. In: International conference on blended learning. Springer, Cham, pp 63–72Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rogers EM, Valente TW (2017) A history of information theory in communication research. In: Ruben BD (ed) Between communication and information. Routledge, Abingdon, pp 35–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Berry R (2005) Making the most of metalanguage. Lang Aware 14(1):3–20.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410508668817 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Adler R, Proctor RF II (2015) Looking out, looking in. Nelson Education, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dang-Nguyen DT, Boato G, De Natale FG (2015) 3D-model-based video analysis for computer generated faces identification. IEEE Trans Inf Forensics Secur 10(8):1752–1763.  https://doi.org/10.1109/TIFS.2015.2427778 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Salam H, Séguier R (2018) A survey on face modeling: building a bridge between face analysis and synthesis. Vis Comput 34(2):289–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    MacDonald IL, Zucchini W (2016) Hidden Markov models for discrete-valued time series. In: Handbook of discrete-valued time series, pp 267–286Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Matuszek C, Herbst E, Zettlemoyer L, Fox D (2012) Learning to parse natural language commands to a robot control system. In: Proceedings of the 13th international symposium on experimental roboticsGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fasol J, Mataric MJ (2013) Using semantic fields to model dynamic spatial relations in a robot architecture for natural language instruction of service robots. In: IEEE/RSJ int’l conference on intelligent robots and systemsGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Chai JY, Prasov Z, Qu S (2006) Cognitive principles in robust multimodal interpretation. J Artif Intell Res 27:55–83.  https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.1936 CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tellex S, Kollar T, Dickerson S, Walter M, Banerjee A, Teller S, Roy N (2011) Approaching the symbol grounding problem with probabilistic graphical models. AI Mag 32(4):64–76.  https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v32i4.2384 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Weizenbaum J (1976) Computer power and human reason: from judgment to calculation. W. H. Freeman & Co, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Williams T (2016) Architectural mechanisms for situated natural language understanding in uncertain and open worlds. In: Thirtieth AAAI conference on artificial intelligenceGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Smith JH (2002) The dragon in the attic—on the limits of interactive fiction. http://www.gameresearch.com/art_dragon_in_the_attic.asp. Accessed 15 June 2019
  35. 35.
    Bates B (2001) Story: writing skills for game developers. game developers conference, San Jose. http://www.gamasutra.com/gdcarchive/2001/bates.doc. Accesses 4 Sept 2010
  36. 36.
    Ishida H (2006) Learners’ perception and interpretation of contextualization cues in spontaneous Japanese conversation: back-channel cue Uun. J Pragmat 38(11):1943–1981.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.08.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Chang X, Ma Z, Lin M, Yang Y, Hauptmann AG (2017) Feature interaction augmented sparse learning for fast kinect motion detection. IEEE Trans Image Process 26(8):3911–3920MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Chang X, Ma Z, Yang Y, Zeng Z, Hauptmann AG (2016) Bi-level semantic representation analysis for multimedia event detection. IEEE Trans Cybern 47(5):1180–1197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Chang X, Yang Y (2016) Semisupervised feature analysis by mining correlations among multiple tasks. IEEE Trans Neural Netw Learn Syst 28(10):2294–2305MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Chang X, Yu YL, Yang Y, Xing EP (2016) Semantic pooling for complex event analysis in untrimmed videos. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 39(8):1617–1632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Li Z, Nie F, Chang X, Yang Y (2017) Beyond trace ratio: weighted harmonic mean of trace ratios for multiclass discriminant analysis. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 29(10):2100–2110CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Mass CommunicationAjman UniversityAjmanUnited Arab Emirates

Personalised recommendations