Interactivity and User Engagement in Art Presentation Interfaces

  • Jeni Maleshkova
  • Matthew Purver
  • Tim Weyrich
  • Peter W. McOwan
Part of the Springer Series on Cultural Computing book series (SSCC)

Abstract

In spite of the rapid technological development in the field of digital image processing and communication, the dominant way of presenting works of visual art virtually is still based on more traditional methods. These are commonly related to the ‘white cube’ exhibition space, which is a popular way of displaying art in museums. Most of the attempts to introduce modern technologies in the digital presentation of visual art are based on the approach of recreating the conventional real environment using realistically rendered two- or three-dimensional computer models. Such forms of presentation fail to take full advantage of the new opportunities, offered by modern digital technologies. In this chapter, we examine through quantitative studies how interactivity in virtual environments can contribute towards visual art presentation. More precisely, we investigate how four interactivity modes through which images of visual art are presented, relate to the different phases of user engagement. The results from our studies indicate that more interactivity in an interactive application contributes towards higher user engagement with the presented content and the application itself.

References

  1. Adams M, Moussouri T (2002) “The interactive experience: linking research & practice”. Web publication of keynote address at the Interactive Learning in Museums of Art & Design: an International Conference. Victoria & Albert Museum, London, http://media.vam.ac.uk/media/documents/legacy_documents/file_upload/5748_file.pdf Google Scholar
  2. Bilda Z, Costello B, Amitani S (2006) Collaborative analysis framework for evaluating interactive art experience. CoDesign 2(4):238–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bilda Z, Edmonds E, Candy L (2008) Designing for creative engagement. Des Stud 29(6):525–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bollo A, Dal Pozzolo L (2005) Analysis of visitor behaviour inside the Museum: an empirical study. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Arts and Cultural ManagementGoogle Scholar
  5. Bowman DA (2005) 3D User interfaces. Theory and practice. Addison-Wesley ProfessionalGoogle Scholar
  6. Bowman DA, Hodges L (1999) Formalizing the design, evaluation, and application of interaction techniques for immersive virtual environments. J Vis Lang Comput 10(1):37–53Google Scholar
  7. Bowman DA, Johnson D, Hodges L (2001) Testbed evaluation of immersive virtual environments. Presence: Teleop Virt Environ 10:75–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chapman P (1997) Models of engagement: intrinsically motivated interaction with multimedia learning software. Unpublished master’s thesis. University of Waterloo, WaterlooGoogle Scholar
  9. Chapman P, Selvarajah S, Webster J (1999) Engagement in multimedia training systems. In Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences pp. 1084. Washington, DC: IEEEGoogle Scholar
  10. Cornock S, Edmonds E (1973) The creative process where the artist is amplified or superseded by the computer. Leonardo 6(1):11–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Edmonds EA, Muller L, Connell M (2006) On creative engagement. Vis Commun 5(3):307–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Edmonds, E.A., Muller, L. and Connell, M. (2006) On Creative Engagement.Visual Communication, 5(3). 307–322.Google Scholar
  13. Fox J (2005) The R Commander: a basic-statistics graphical user interface to R. Journal of Statistical Software, vol 14, Issue 9Google Scholar
  14. Hall S (2004) Telling old stories new ways: using technology to create interactive learning experiences. Technical report. Smithsonian Center for Education and Museum Studies, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  15. Haywood N, Cairns P (2006) Engagement with an interactive Museum exhibit. People and computers XIX – the bigger picture. Proceedings of HCI 2005. Springer-Verlag London Limited, pp 113–129Google Scholar
  16. Jacques R, Preece J, Carey T (1995) Engagement as a design concept for multimedia. Can J Educ Commun 24(1):49–59Google Scholar
  17. Joiner R (1998) Gender, task scenarios and children’s computer-based problem solving. Educ Psychol 18(3):327–340MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jonassen DH (1988) Instructional designs for microcomputer courseware. Lawrence Erlbaum, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
  19. Kaur K (1998) Designing virtual environments for usabilityGoogle Scholar
  20. Latulipe C, Carroll E, Lottridge D (2011) Love, hate, arousal and engagement: exploring audience responses to performing arts, Proceeding CHI ‘11 Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1845–1854Google Scholar
  21. Laurel B (1993) Computers as theatre, vol 2. Addison-Wesley, Reading, pp 214–219, Conference on MultimediaGoogle Scholar
  22. Lind DA, Marchal WG, Wathen SA (2014) Statistical techniques in business and economics. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Maleshkova J, Purver M ((2014) Beyond the white cube: presentation of visual art in interactive 3D environments. In: Electronic Visualisation and the Arts (EVA): proceedings of EVA London 2014. BCS Learning, SwindonGoogle Scholar
  24. Maleshkova J, Purver M, Grau O, Pansiot J (2013) Presentation and communication of artworks in an interactive virtual environment. Poster, in ACM SIGGRAPH Asia, Hong KongGoogle Scholar
  25. Murray J (1997) Hamlet on the holodeck: the future of narrative in cyberspace. The Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Navarro D (2013) Learning statistics with R., http://ua.edu.au/ccs/teaching/lsr
  27. Norman D (1988) The design of everyday things. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. O’Brien H, Toms E (2008) What is user engagement? A conceptual framework for defining user engagement with technology. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 59(6):938–955CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pares N, Pares R (2001) Interaction-driven virtual reality application design. A particular case: El Ball del Fanalet or lightpools. Presence: Teleop Virt Environ 10(2):236–245Google Scholar
  30. Quesenbery W (2003) Dimensions of usability: defining the conversation, driving the process. In: Proceedings of the UPA 2003 conference, 23–27 JuneGoogle Scholar
  31. Rafaeli S (1988) Interactivity: from new media to communication, Sage annual review of communication research: advancing communication science, vol 16. Sage, Beverly Hills, pp 110–134Google Scholar
  32. Rhodes D, Azbell J (1985) Designing interactive video instruction professionally. Train Dev J 39(12):31–33Google Scholar
  33. Rokeby D (1998) The construction of experience: interface as content. In: Dodsworth C (ed) Digital illusion: entertaining the future with high technology. ACM Press, New York, pp 27–47Google Scholar
  34. Roussou M (2006) Interactivity and learning: examining primary school children’s activity within virtual environments. PhD Thesis, pp 1–282Google Scholar
  35. Ryan ML (2001) Beyond myth and metaphor – the case of narrative in digital media, published. In: Game studies – the international journal of computer game research, vol 1, Issue 1, July 2001; presented as a paper at the Computer Games & Digital Textualities conference in Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  36. Said N (2004) An engaging multimedia design model. In Proceedings of the 2004, Conference on Interaction Design and Children. ACM, New York, pp 169–172Google Scholar
  37. Sheridan JG (2006) Digital live art: mediating wittingness in playful arenas, PhD thesis, Lancaster University, UKGoogle Scholar
  38. Sims R (1997) Interactivity: a forgotten art? Comput Hum Behav 13(2):157–180MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Steuer J (1992) Defining virtual reality: dimension determining telepresence. J Commun 42(4):73–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Webster J, Ho H (1997) Audience engagement in multimedia presentations. Database Adv Inf Syst 28(2):63–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeni Maleshkova
    • 1
  • Matthew Purver
    • 1
  • Tim Weyrich
    • 2
  • Peter W. McOwan
    • 1
  1. 1.Cognitive Science Research Group, Electronic Engineering and Computer ScienceQueen Mary University of LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.Virtual Environments and Computer Graphics Research Group, Department of Computer ScienceUniversity College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations