Musical agency and an ecological perspective of DMIs: collective embodiment in third wave HCI

Abstract

Understanding how to take into account the breadth of considerations required by third-wave HCI remains a challenge when designing technologies. This requires an understanding of what embodiment means, and in particular, a collective notion of embodiment. Within the field of digital musical instrument (DMI) design, the need for a DMI to support musical agency has been recognised along with a view of the inter-relationship between musician, instrument, context and audience as an ecology has been developed. These considerations are consonant with an understanding of embodiment within this field. In this paper we describe a project in which a digital musical instrument was designed and developed adopting an approach informed by participatory design where musicians became integral to the design process. Through this process a practical understanding of the nature of musical agency and this ecology was developed. This understanding provides insights into the nature of embodiment and meaning making within a creative and performative practice, and is informative to the wider field of HCI as it seeks to understand considerations of embodiment.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

References

  1. 1.

    Bannon L (2011) Reimagining HCI: toward a more human-centered perspective. Interactions 4(4):50–57

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Bardzell S (2010) Feminist HCI: taking stock and outlining an agenda for design. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New York, NY, USA, pp 1301–1310

  3. 3.

    Berthaut F, Coyle D, Moore JW and Limerick H (2015) Liveness through the lens of agency and causality

  4. 4.

    Bødker S (2019) Breaking away from waves through generative HCI research - Sketchnote created by Nic Marquardt

  5. 5.

    Bødker S (2015) Third-wave HCI, 10 years later---participation and sharing. Interactions 22(5):24–31. https://doi.org/10.1145/2804405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Bødker S (2006) When second wave HCI meets third wave challenges. Proceedings of the 4th Nordic conference on Human-computer interaction: changing roles, pp 1–8

  7. 7.

    Brown D, Nash C and Mitchell T (2017) A user experience review of music interaction evaluations. 6

  8. 8.

    Cook P (2017) 2001: principles for designing computer music controllers. In: Jensenius AR, Lyons MJ (eds) A NIME Reader. Springer International Publishing, pp 1–13

  9. 9.

    Cooper G and Bowers J (1995) Representing the user: notes on the disciplinary rhetoric of human-computer interaction. Cambridge Series on Human Computer Interaction, pp 48–66

  10. 10.

    Dourish P (2004) Where the action is: the foundations of embodied interaction. MIT Press

  11. 11.

    Duarte EF and Baranauskas MCC (2016) Revisiting the three HCI waves: a preliminary discussion on philosophy of science and research paradigms. Proceedings of the 15th Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 38

  12. 12.

    El-Shimy D, Cooperstock JR (2016) User-driven techniques for the design and evaluation of new musical interfaces. Comput Music J 40(2):35–46. https://doi.org/10.1162/COMJ_a_00357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Filimowicz M and Tzankova V (2018) Introduction | New directions in third wave HCI. New directions in third wave human-computer interaction: volume 1 - Technologies. M Filimowicz and V Tzankova, eds. Springer International Publishing, pp 1–10

  14. 14.

    Grudin J (2005) Three faces of human-computer interaction. IEEE Ann Hist Comput 27(4):46–62

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Gurevich M and Treviño J (2007) Expression and its discontents: toward an ecology of musical creation. Proceedings of the 7th international conference on New interfaces for musical expression, 106–111

  16. 16.

    Harrison S, Sengers P, Tatar D (2011) Making epistemological trouble: third-paradigm HCI as successor science. Interact Comput 23(5):385–392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Harrison S, Tatar D and Sengers P (2007) The three paradigms of HCI. (San Jose, California, USA, 2007), 1–18

  18. 18.

    Hunter T, Worthy P, Matthews B and Viller S (2019) Soundscape: participatory design of an interface for musical expression. Proceedings of the 14th International Audio Mostly Conference: A Journey in Sound on ZZZ, New York, NY, USA, 292–296

  19. 19.

    Hunter T, Worthy P, Matthews B and Viller S (2019) Using participatory design in the development of a new musical interface: understanding musician’s needs beyond usability. Proceedings of the 14th International Audio Mostly Conference: A Journey in Sound on ZZZ, New York, NY, USA, 268–271

  20. 20.

    Johnston A (2017) Interfaces and expression in context: tracing relationships in a complex ecosystem (expert commentary). A NIME Reader: fifteen years of new interfaces for musical expression. AR Jensenius MJ Lyons R Bader M Leman, and R-I Godoy (eds) Springer International Publishing

  21. 21.

    Magnusson T (2009) Of epistemic tools: musical instruments as cognitive extensions. Organised Sound 14(2):168–176. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355771809000272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Norman DA (2004) Emotional design: why we love (or hate) everyday things. Basic Civitas Books

  23. 23.

    Rogers Y (2012) HCI theory: classical, modern, and contemporary. Synth Lect Hum Centered Informatics 5(2):1–129. https://doi.org/10.2200/S00418ED1V01Y201205HCI014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Ryan J (1991) Some remarks on musical instrument design at STEIM. Contemp Music Rev 6(1):3–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/07494469100640021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Sengers P and Gaver B (2006) Staying open to interpretation: engaging multiple meanings in design and evaluation. Proceedings of the 6th conference on Designing Interactive systems, 99–108

  26. 26.

    Tanaka A (2006) Interaction, experience and the future of music. Consuming music together: social and collaborative aspects of music consumption technologies. K O’Hara and B Brown (eds) Springer, pp 267–288

  27. 27.

    Wessel D, Wright M (2002) Problems and prospects for intimate musical control of computers. Comput Music J 26(3):11–22. https://doi.org/10.1162/014892602320582945

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the significant contribution to our project by the members of UQ School of Music iPad ensemble and the opportunity to collaborate with them throughout the project. We would like to thank staff from the UQ School of Music: Chris Perrin who co-ordinated the course that UQiPad ensemble students participated in and for arranging the final performance of the ensemble, and Dr. Eve Klein for establishing and then facilitating the collaboration. Finally, we would also like to acknowledge and thank Shiva Balachandran a Master of Interaction Design student who also worked on the project throughout, helping to construct Soundscape and participated in the design process that was fundamental to the project.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Worthy.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Worthy, P., Hunter, T., Matthews, B. et al. Musical agency and an ecological perspective of DMIs: collective embodiment in third wave HCI. Pers Ubiquit Comput (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-020-01429-9

Download citation