Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

The Authoring Problem pp 65–72Cite as

We Make How We Learn: The Role of Community in Authoring Tool Longevity

Part of the Human–Computer Interaction Series book series (HCIS)

Abstract

Since 1979, hundreds of authoring tools have been created. While many factors contribute to the survival of a tool beyond its initial introduction, the largest factor for an authoring tool lasting more than a publication or initial experiment is the active involvement of a community. Authoring tools survive by those who use them. Active community involvement in projects extends their lives, and the resources created by communities around a tool help new users learn to use it. This chapter examines three different open-source projects, authoring tools, Bitsy and Twine, and scripting language, ink, with a focus on how their communities have played a role in their perception and longevity.

Keywords

  • Authoring tools
  • Community
  • Twine
  • Ink
  • Bitsy

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

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Koenitz H, Eladhari MP (2019) Challenges of IDN research and teaching. In: Cardona-Rivera RE, Sullivan A, Young RM (eds) Interactive storytelling. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 26–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33894-7_4

  2. Green D, Hargood C, Charles F (2018) Contemporary issues in interactive storytelling authoring systems. In: Rouse R, Koenitz H, Haahr M (eds) Interactive storytelling. ICIDS 2018. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 11318. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04028-4_59

  3. Shibolet Y, Knoller N, Koenitz H (2018) A framework for classifying and describing authoring tools for interactive digital narrative. In: Rouse R, Koenitz H, Haahr M (eds) Interactive storytelling. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 523–533. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04028-4_61

  4. Avelino G, Constantinou E, Valente MT, Serebrenik A (2019) On the abandonment and survival of open source projects: an empirical investigation. In: 2019 ACM/IEEE international symposium on empirical software engineering and measurement (ESEM). IEEE, Porto de Galinhas, Recife, Brazil, pp 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1109/ESEM.2019.8870181

  5. Kaur R, Kaur K (2022) Insights into developers’ abandonment in FLOSS projects. In: Nagar AK, Jat DS, Marín-Raventós G, Mishra DK (eds) Intelligent sustainable systems. Springer Nature Singapore, Singapore, pp 731–740. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-6309-3_69

  6. Aberdour M (2007) Achieving quality in open-source software. IEEE Softw 24:58–64. https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2007.2

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  7. Doux AL (2022) Bitsy. GitHub. https://github.com/le-doux/bitsy. Accessed 18 Jun 2022

  8. Finley K (2019) You too can make these fun games (no experience necessary). Wired. https://www.wired.com/story/you-make-fun-games-no-experience/. Accessed 18 Jun 2022

  9. Reed E (2020) From tool to community to style: the influence of software tools on game development communities and aesthetics. In: Clarke MJ, Wang C (eds) Indie games in the digital age. Bloomsbury Academic, London, pp 99–122. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781501356421.0010. Accessed 18 Jun 2022

  10. Dixon A (2018) How small game makers found their community with Bitsy. Rock, Paper, Shotgun. https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/how-small-game-makers-found-their-community-with-bitsy. Accessed 18 Jun 2022

  11. Kelly A (2020) People are making amazing, tiny games with this free tool, and I can’t get enough of them. PC Gamer. https://www.pcgamer.com/people-are-making-amazing-tiny-games-with-this-free-tool-and-i-cant-get-enough-of-them/. Accessed 18 Jun 2022

  12. LeBlanc SS (2022) Bitsy hacks. GitHub. https://github.com/seleb/bitsy-hacks. Accessed 18 Jun 2022

  13. Colson D (2022) Unreal ink. GitHub. https://github.com/DavidColson/UnrealInk. Accessed 18 Jun 2022

  14. Lohse Y (2022) y-lohse/inkjs. GitHub. https://github.com/y-lohse/inkjs. Accessed 18 Jun 2022

  15. Writing with ink. inkle. GitHub (2022) https://github.com/inkle/ink/blob/master/Documentation/WritingWithInk.md. Accessed 18 Jun 2022

  16. Cox D, Howard T (2020) Unofficial ink cookbook. GitHub. https://github.com/videlais/Unofficial-Ink-Cookbook. Accessed 18 Jun 2022

  17. Cox D (2021) Hands-on dynamic story scripting with ink: create dialogue and procedural storytelling systems for unity projects. Packt Publishing

    Google Scholar 

  18. Reed A (2011) Creating interactive fiction with Inform 7. Course Technology, Cengage Learning, Boston, MA

    Google Scholar 

  19. Salter A, Moulthrop S (2021) Twining: critical and creative approaches to hypertext narratives. Amherst College Press

    Google Scholar 

  20. Jane F (2014) Untangling Twine: a platform study. In: DiGRA 2013—Proceedings of the 2013 DiGRA international conference: DeFragging game studies. http://www.digra.org/digital-library/publications/untangling-twine-a-platform-study/

  21. Tran KM (2016) “Her story was complex”: a Twine workshop for ten- to twelve-year-old girls. E-Learn Digit Media 13:212–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/2042753016689635

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  22. Salter A (2016) Playing at empathy: representing and experiencing emotional growth through Twine games. In: 2016 IEEE international conference on serious games and applications for health (SeGAH). IEEE, Orlando, FL, USA, pp 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/SeGAH.2016.7586272

  23. Barbara J (2020) Twine and DooM as authoring tools in teaching IDN design of LudoNarrative dissonance. In: Bosser A-G, Millard DE, Hargood C (eds) Interactive storytelling. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 120–124. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62516-0_11

  24. Anthropy A (2012) How to make games with Twine. http://www.auntiepixelante.com/twineInternetArchive, https://web.archive.org/web/20120920233553/, http://www.auntiepixelante.com/twine. Accessed 19 Feb 2022

  25. Klimas C (2012) Writing with Twee. http://gimcrackd.com/etc/doc/InternetArchive, https://web.archive.org/web/20120901011337/, http://gimcrackd.com/etc/doc/. Accessed 03 Mar 2022

  26. Anthropy A (2012) Rise of the videogame zinesters: how freaks, normals, amateurs, artists, dreamers, dropouts, queers, housewives, and people like you are taking back an art form. Seven Stories Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  27. Ford M (2016) Writing interactive fiction with Twine. Que, Indianapolis, Indiana

    Google Scholar 

  28. Bernardi J (2013) Choose your own adventure-maker: Twine and the art of personal games. Vice. https://www.vice.com/en/article/xyyp9a/twine-and-the-art-of-personal-games. Accessed 06 Oct 2022

  29. Harvey A (2014) Democratization, depoliticization, and the queering of game design. G|A|M|E. 3/2014. https://www.gamejournal.it/3_harvey/

  30. Ellison C (2013) Anna Anthropy and the Twine revolution. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/gamesblog/2013/apr/10/anna-anthropy-twine-revolution

  31. Arnott L (2022) Harlowe 3.2.3 manual. https://twine2.neocities.org/. Accessed 03 Mar 2022

  32. Edwards TM (2021) SugarCube v2 documentation. https://www.motoslave.net/sugarcube/2/docs/. Accessed 03 Mar 2022

  33. Rauf D (2020) Coding activities for writing stories in Twine. Rosen Publishing, New York

    Google Scholar 

  34. Kirilloff G (2021) Interactive fiction in the humanities classroom: how to create interactive text games using Twine. Programming Historian

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA

    Daniel Cox

Authors
  1. Daniel Cox
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel Cox .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Bournemouth University, Poole, Dorset, UK

    Charlie Hargood

  2. University of Southampton, Southampton, UK

    David E. Millard

  3. National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore

    Alex Mitchell

  4. Hochschule RheinMain, Wiesbaden, Hessen, Germany

    Ulrike Spierling

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Cox, D. (2022). We Make How We Learn: The Role of Community in Authoring Tool Longevity. In: Hargood, C., Millard, D.E., Mitchell, A., Spierling, U. (eds) The Authoring Problem. Human–Computer Interaction Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05214-9_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05214-9_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-05213-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-05214-9

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

search

Navigation