Blending Art Events and HCI Research

Chapter

Abstract

We present experiences as artists and Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) researchers exhibiting an interactive artwork called Tweetris at a public event, and its simultaneous research evaluation. We describe the unique opportunities a public art event offered for achieving our research goals, then discuss three key challenges we encountered: tensions between creative and research goals before the event, ethical considerations during the event and in analysis, and obstacles complicating subsequent evaluation as the work has evolved. We offer observations throughout that are important to consider when conducting HCI research at public art events.

References

  1. Bengler B, Bryan-Kinns N (2014) In the wild: evaluating collaborative interactive musical experiences in public settings. In: Candy L, Ferguson S (eds) Interactive experience in the digital age: evaluating new art practice. Springer, London, pp 169–186Google Scholar
  2. Bryan Kinns N (2014) Mutual engagement in digitally mediated public art. In: Candy L, Ferguson S (eds) Interactive experience in the digital age: evaluating new art practice. Springer, London, pp 123–138Google Scholar
  3. Csikszentmihalyi M (1990) Flow: the psychology of optimal experience. Harper & Row, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Edmonds EA (2014) Human computer interaction, experience and art. In: Candy L, Ferguson S (eds) Interactive experience in the digital age: evaluating new art practice. Springer, London, pp 11–23Google Scholar
  5. Freeman D, Chevalier F, Lapierre N, Reilly D (2013) Tweetris: a study of whole body interaction at a public art event. In: Proceedings of ACM creativity and Cognition Conference (C&C’13). ACM, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  6. Holland S, Wilkie K, Bouwer A, Dalgleish M, Mulholland P (2011) Whole body interaction in abstract domains. In: England D (ed) Whole body interaction, Human-computer interaction series. Springer, London, pp 19–34Google Scholar
  7. Hornecker E, Marshall P, Rogers Y (2007) From entry to access: how shareability comes about. In: Proceedings of the 2007 conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces (DPPI’07). ACM, New York, pp 328–342Google Scholar
  8. Johnston A (2014) Keeping research in tune with practice. In: Candy L, Ferguson S (eds) Interactive experience in the digital age: evaluating new art practice. Springer, London, pp 49–62Google Scholar
  9. Lainer R, Wagner I (1998) Connecting qualities of social use with spatial qualities. In: Proceedings of CoBuild’98. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 191–203Google Scholar
  10. Nijholt A, Pasch M, van Dijk EMAG, Reidsma D, Heylen DKJ (2011) Observations on experience and flow in movement-based interaction. Springer, London, pp 101–119Google Scholar
  11. O’Hara K, Glancy M, Robertshaw S (2008) Understanding collective play in an urban street game. In: Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW’08). ACM, New York, pp 67–76Google Scholar
  12. Paulos E, Jenkins T (2005) Urban probes: encountering our emerging urban atmospheres. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI’05). ACM, New York, pp 341–350Google Scholar
  13. Reilly D, Freeman D, Chevalier F, Lapierre N, Neil D, Patel J (2013) Mammoth Stickman plays Tetris: whole body interaction with large displays at an outdoor public art event. CHI 2013 Workshop on experiencing interactivity in public spaces, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  14. Wobbrock JO, Morris MR, Wilson AD (2009) User-defined gestures for surface computing. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI’09). ACM, New York, pp 1083–1092Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Computer ScienceDalhousie UniversityHalifaxCanada
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations