A phenomenological design analysis of audience experience in digitally augmented exhibitions

Anita Kocsis

* Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia, akocsis@swin.edu.au

Abstract: The museum is undergoing profound changes in the way it conceptualises its audiences.

The providers of augmented spaces and interactive media seldom reflect on audience practices

(beyond usage) and on attendant potential new ways of interacting and being.

A phenomenological analysis of audience experience of the PLACE-hampi, a digital immersive

exhibition provides new knowledge of audience behaviour, modes of interaction and detailed

discussion on technological, virtual, individual and social outcomes. Along with this analyses an

interactive artifact visualizing audience experience designed employing aesthetic visualisation

semiotics drawn from the principles of information design, computational aesthetics and human

centred design is argued as a relevant adjunct to a digital exhibition. This artifact known as the

Coda proposes a dynamic and evolving post installation activity. It draws audience participation

and provides a space for experiential and cognitive debriefing. The data in its visual new media

form provides a conceptual map of the exhibition experience. It constitutes audience research that

is contiguous with the installation in medial and experiential terms. The data yielded can inform

stakeholders about the epistemological, curatorial and cognitive effects of a new media installation.

Key words: audience experience, co creation, human centered design, interactive visualisation, digital augmented exhibition

1. Introduction

The way designers conceptualise museum exhibition audiences is changing. In reframing their nature

and practices, museums have come to understand their audience as plural in its composition [13]. The

‘appearance’ of the audience in the philosophical domains of museology and design is an important concurrence

[32]. Over the last ten years, a move towards an inclusive and interpretive paradigm of practice concerned with

better understanding people has affected a number of disciplines within the museum, including audience research,

museum pedagogy and exhibition evaluation [32][21]. With the adoption of advanced technology, the spaces of

the contemporary or ‘new museum’ are wired and mutable, possessing many forms of digital technology

including new transdisciplinary cultural practices [38]. Along with this change the museum also seeks to stage

experiences, here the concept of ‘experience’ suggest a human centred approach that has seen a shift in

123

audiences role from passive recipient to an active participant in the overall scheme of the design process

[16,12,40, 30].

Human centred design (HCD) philosophy argues for an egalitarian, inclusive and participatory process

one where traditional roles of designer as all knowing author has reconfigured into a brokering role facilitating

and communicating across communities of practice [54,27,28]. Interdisciplinary technological co creative

practices demonstrated in user-centred design, participatory design, co-design and co-creation activities share a

common premise for a collaborative, egalitarian and creative design process [52].

Contemporary interdisciplinary digital virtual exhibition platforms that are becoming part of the

museums curatorial program requires stakeholders to consider “using the language and experience of the

audience.”[12] Although stakeholders such as designers, content providers, curators, artists and museum

professionals acknowledge that audience research should be integrated into the design and production

programme there still seems to be little understanding nor a critical approach addressing the relationship between

the digital mediated exhibition and the audience response [48].

Sharon Macdonald argues that although museum audience research encompasses issues of media,

sociality and space and recognises an active pluralist audience, “that there has not yet developed a significant

language in which to describe and analyse the phenomena on which they focus” [32] Evidently, the work of

sketching out this horizon and of finding a language for a technological phenomenology presents a daunting task

indeed. Macdonald also suggests that devising an ‘affective syntax’ of exhibitions or a common set of rules

seems a rather complex project [33]. Nonetheless, such work eventually will greatly contribute to the ways

humans view and interact with technology. Design is the contemporary arena where the encounter between user

and machine, human and interface and (on a larger scale) between technical system and human environments is

negotiated. Importantly, the way to assess technology is shifting, while the functional criteria become

complemented by phenomenological criteria. The shift is thus from a notion of “How is it used?” to “How does

it feel to use?” Design values have moved from “objects to experiences, from procedure to situation, and from

behaviour to intent ”[37]. McCullough explains that the investigation into the ‘phenomenology of engagement’

is evident in the work of designers who build technologies and digital artifacts around the everyday [36].

It is remarkable, however, that the phenomena of experience in design research have attracted

seemingly little descriptive and analytic focus whereas schematic frameworks and experimental toolkits

dominate research methods.

Audience experience evaluations across diverse spectra of digital augmented exhibitions in the public

domain are sparse and varied. Authors of these spaces acknowledge audience research [21] yet it remains as an

accumulation of tacit knowledge acquired through the experience of practice that is unfortunately not easily

obtained. Heritage and museum professionals working with digital technologies also undertake audience

analyses yet limitations are evident as studies are conducted in labs and protocols and guidelines are not

consistent. Assessments are primarily technology focused with little emphasis pertaining to audience’s thoughts,

feelings and actions [1,5, 9,11, 47].

Presence research attributed to the study of virtual environments is concerned with ones experience of

being in “one place or environment, even when one is physically situated in another”[57]. Presence research

124

once employed traditional cognitive models of evaluation has started to include social, non-verbal and contextual

information. Traditional investigation of perceptual deviations to do with physical affect such as nausea,

legibility and interface tasks are no longer central to the research as new research of inner-presence pertains to

the ‘‘understanding and management of the causal texture of both the physical and social worlds not necessarily

linked to the experience of a medium”[44]. Inner presence an emerging term is a psychosocial view, comprising

the psychology of presence related to the body and the embodiment process, human action and its organization

in the environment. Therefore “understanding, measuring and describing inherent characteristics of presence

include perception, cognition, interaction, emotion and affect”[44].

In the context of this paper the audience’s experience of digital augmented exhibition environments

from an interdisciplinary design perspective has initiated a number of questions.

If in our analysis of an experience of a digitally augmented, interactive semi-immersive exhibition

what can we learn about such an environment? What are the ramifications of the spatio-temporal factors of

experience? What meaning is made of the content, the interactive infrastructure, and participative and

performative levels of interactivity? What do we know about whether or not there is a sense of fulfillment or

completion for the audience user-participant? What influence does the physical structure of the space have on an

experience and does this effect the way the screen content is accessed and received? In what ways does the body

receive the sensory information, is it comfortable or uncomfortable, and how easily, if at all, can this be

articulated? What notable emotions related to the experience of the exhibition does the audience encounter?

This paper aims to enrich the discussion pertaining to the world of the audience in a digital augmented

interactive visualization exhibition platform (digital container). A study of PLACE-hampi consisted of a

questionnaire that was conducted in conjunction with the exhibition, Spark to Pixel at the Martin-Gropius-Bau,

Berlin, 2007 [60, 61]. The questionnaire was designed to generate a mix of quantitative and qualitative

information about audience experience in the PLACE Hampi exhibit. PLACE- Hampi based on an interactive

projection system, invented by Jeffrey Shaw in 1995, has today integrated stereoscopic 3D projection amongst

other features [61]. Its main attraction is the motorised platform that lets the viewer rotate in their projected point

of view in 360 degree within its large cylindrical screen enabling a multi-media multi-sensory presentation of the

archaeological, historical, and sacred locations at the site of the World Heritage of Vijayanagar in Hampi,

southern India [22, 23,24,25, 26, 61].

An analysis of the findings bought new information pertaining to the audience’s world within the

exhibition space [60]. Findings from the study inform the creative and experimental framework of the Coda.

Furthermore findings about the social and the co-experiential aspects of the exhibition audience inspired the

visualisation of the audience experience enabled by an interactive artifact. This artifact known as the Coda is

proposed as an adjunct to a digital container exhibition. The Coda aims to provide a post exhibition debrief

whilst facilitating for stakeholders of a digital exhibition project a creative participatory avenue in the

exploratory, generative and evaluative phases of research and design [17]. The Coda provides an abstract and

experimental visualisation of an equally abstract and difficult to qualify expression, namely ones experience of

the exhibition.

125

The Coda, a phenomenological analyses of audience experiences as seen in new practices, both

singular and social, intends to ‘emerge not from the designers of the system, but from the actions of its users’ [8].

The Coda is in essence an interactive that can be applied in a number of forms, projected, on screen, on line, on a

PDA within a space in close proximity to the main exhibition site. The Coda is designed to be engaging and

highly participatory a type of “exploratory experiment,” where action by the designer enables the discovery of

“evolving intentions” and unintended consequences”[53]. Participation in the Coda is proposed as the vehicle for

engagement, discussion and analyses. And in keeping with HCD principles makes room for discussion with

participants who have the power to alter designs and ultimately educate the designer. Information displayed from

the Coda represented as a mix of data and abstract patterns does not aim to provide a distinctive set of tools nor a

universal set of answers. The Coda by design relies on creativity and experimentation thus drawing on levels of

metaphor and abstraction reflecting interpretations of experience, discussed further in detail. The Coda’s

fundamental purpose is a visual catalyst contributing to the much needed discussion, theorization, empirical

investigation and analysis of the qualitative aspects related to place, space and systems of an experience in the

digital domain.

2.A phenomenological approach to audience experience

2.1 Understanding an experience The difficulty with experience, however, is that we can only experience our own life, what is received

by our own consciousness. We can never know completely another’s experiences, even though we

have many clues and make inferences all the time.[55]

While a discussion of experience would not appear to require specialist knowledge, since it is a

universal concept that we can all relate to on some level, a concise understanding, framing and conceptualisation

of the term is not easily accomplished. In the context of the author’s investigation, the concept of experience is

described as qualitative aspects of human thought, activity and behaviour. Here experience is defined as a

synthesis between abstract reasoning and the senses. It enables the designer to identify and make useful the

difference between the learnt and the felt, between intuition and formal knowledge, and between the objective

and analytic and subjective perspectives.

Evidently, the complex and abstract nature of a user’s inner life frequently places limits on the HCD

designer’s aim of extrapolating the meaning of experiences in a process of reciprocal, mutual and shared

understanding. Its fleeting and effusive character and its unclear temporal nature – the fact that experience seems

suspended in time between presence and its memory- make difficult any attempt at defining experience. As

Wilhelm Dilthey argues,

the relationship between experience and its expressions is always problematic […] and the

relationship is clearly dialogic and dialectical, for experience structures expressions, in that we

understand other people and their expressions on the basis of our own experience and self-

understanding [7].

126

Furthermore, Turner and Bruner in their interpretation of Dilthey stress that the structure of

experience is a hermeneutical and reciprocal process in which is revealed the intimate connection between

experience and representing experience: “experience structures expressions and expressions structure

experience”[55]. Deweys account of ‘an experience’ serves as a workable context informing the meaning

attributed to the design of the Coda and analysis of audiences. An experience is defined by a clear start,

completion and a cohesive trajectory. Dewey thus clearly distinguishes an experience as marked by a sense of

fulfillment, unity and completion [6]. It is this working definition of experience in conjunction with a pragmatic

phenomenological framework that forms the context for drawing specific insights about the audience experience

in the digital container. A phenomenological account proposes that the task for researchers is “ to make manifest

the incessant tangle or reflexivity of action, situation, and reality in the various modes of being in the world.”[43]

Phenomenological studies undertake analyses of small groups, social situations and organizations using a

number of qualitative techniques, methods are employed to uncover the subjects “life world”.

User/audience experience research today is becoming part of the design program. Experience research

and in particular the term user experience as it originated from industry such as HCI, product development and

design is yet to have a single unifying definition. Where the digital field is concerned, such disciplines as

information design, interaction design, interior exhibition design, installation design, interface design, game

design, and architecture have not begun to correspond with one another, nor established a common discourse

about the phenomena of ‘experience’.

McCarthy and Wright’s focus on ‘felt-life’ includes a deconstruction of experience into four threads:

compositional, sensory, emotional and spatial-temporal [35]. Victor Margolin provides a classification of

experiences in relation to the way in which people interact with designed products as being categorizing,

operational, inventive, aesthetic and social [31].

Overbeeke and Wensveen focus on the influence of aesthetics, interaction, and the behaviours that

inform feedback and feed-forward. They identify influences on interaction in relation to action through time,

location, direction, modality, dynamics and expression [41] [42]. Paul Dourish argues that traditional methods in

HCI are no longer sustainable and that a holistic embodied approach to the human experience must be

considered in our interactions with technology [8]. Elizabeth Sanders contends that “experiencing is a

constructive activity” hence the argument for co design and co creative activities [51]. What seems generally

agreed on is that experience research seeks to investigate the user beyond the functional dimension of a design

project.

2.2 Coda- interaction/user experience methods The following outlines a selection of methods employed to investigate the phenomenon of ‘an

experience’.

Visualising and discussing abstract emotions are represented not only through ethnographic transcripts

but also visual frameworks. James Russell’s spatial visualisation map designed in the 1980s is a self-reporting

tool representing emotions [47]. Russell’s theory and method are used in contemporary interface design such as

the eMoto mobile interface. Designers developed the eMoto system to let users express their emotions in the

communication process. The eMoto system attempts to “engage users both cognitively and physically using a

127

tangible interface, allowing for affective gestures that are mirrored in the expressions produced by the

system”[10]. Ideally the design does not invite a single emotion to a user expression but rather as a series of

mixed or blended states, and Russell argues that affective states rather than being independent are interrelated in

systematic clusters. The use of colour and pressuring action on the mobile interface was the participatory vehicle

for selecting an emotion in conjunction with the text response. Russell’s map of emotions visualized as a

dynamic between arousal and valence was mapped over the colour wheel interface.

Elizabeth Sanders’ co-design framework in the generative phase of design and development aims for a

mutual language between designer and user. The premise of the design language is “built upon aesthetics of

experience rather than on an aesthetics of form.” For Sanders, to access people’s feelings and ideas, enables

designers to establish resonance. Resonance, in Sanders’ terminology, is the ability to be in synch with users and

to be able to respond to their changing needs and aspirations. Sanders and her team have designed customised

emotional and cognitive toolkits. Ultimately, for Sanders the process of investigation is constitutive of reciprocal

learning and of positive collaborative outcomes [49][50].

The framework that follows aims to assist designer’s consider the qualities of experiences and its

relevance to the user. One of the goals outlined in product design methodology is for designers “to understand

how to embody new qualities of experience”[51]. Here the components of experience: sub-consciousness,

cognition, narrative, and storytelling are considered.

Katherine Isbister et al’s iterative prototype of The Sensual Evaluation Instrument aims to enable

designers to engage in scaled user testing of emotional experiences, irrespective of system, artifact or service

[20]. They argue that although there is some non-representational work on sensing emotion there is little

systematic work done to asses the specific emotional effects of various materials. Their research demonstrated a

real time self report method that engaged in non-verbal, affective responses to a computer game. Sculptured

biomorphic shapes were employed in conjunction with a psychological mapping system. Eight objects were

crafted to suggest the following list of emotions such as confusion, frustration, fear, happiness, surprise,

satisfaction, contentment, stress, and flow that later was expanded upon. The shapes were not a direct

representation of the emotion but rather intended to express a family of similar emotions for each shape.

As this tool is not derivative of a questionnaire and reliant on sensory abstract elements, levels of

ambiguity can be positively and negatively interpreted. Ambiguity in the process is argued as being more

receptive to co-designing the interpretation of the experience between user and designer as this method crosses

cultural boundaries and ultimately solicits a richer response. The authors claim that their evaluation instrument

manages to reveal unsaid hidden emotional and embodied experiences.

Overbeeke et al argue that “for too long psychologists have led designers to make overly cognitive

designs.” They suggest integrating fun and beauty in interaction and focusing on the expressive and experiential

qualities of interaction [42].

128

3.Coda-The post exhibition interface

3.2 Background In 2007 the relationship between the experiences of the space (PLACE Hampi) and the dynamics of

the digital container was the primary subject of a study A questionnaire formed part of that study [59]. Key

concepts pertaining to an experience as part of the questionnaire focused around “specific propositions, questions,

or activities”[58] of the digital container developed by the author were clustered thematically and listed as

follows:

- Orientation / navigation /negotiation / time in the space / spatio-temporal

- Bodily experience of the space / embodiment

- Relationship between user and screen content

- Relationship between user and interface usability / participation / orientation

- Level of immersion (“being there”, presence, sense of travel)

- Flow (time spent, level of involvement)

- Social experience levels: individual and co-experience

Following on from this study two major issues informed/fueled the proposition of the interactive

artifact. Firstly post analysis of the questionnaire the social and largely co experiential life of the audience in the

digital container was revealed. Secondly anecdotal discussion with the participants revealed that they had hoped

for follow-ups or further discussion given the extensive and somewhat grueling length of the questionnaire. The

lack of opportunity to share, discuss and learn what others had to say about the exhibition, directly after the

exhibition became a predominant criticism post the questionnaire. The designer saw the opportunity for a co

creational activity for all stakeholders employing the language of interaction design and computational aesthetics

to provide an abstract, visual platform to portray elements of the exhibition experience.

4. About the Coda

In the context of digitally augmented spaces, audience experience research can become integrated into

the installation experience as a post installation ‘Visualising Experience Coda’.

As in HCD, in co-design and in participatory design practice, the designer is required to bring together

non-design stakeholders as the advocate for the audience. The audience experience can become a conversational

tool to communicate across disciplinary boundaries and across the stakeholders’ embedded knowledge’s and

practices.

The findings provide a series of designerly observations that relate the technological capability of the

PLACE platform to its effective experiential dimension. The work of visualising experience brings together a

number of disparate elements. Visualisation can overcome the limitations of text-based questionnaires that can

be laborious to interpret and counter-intuitive to the post-installation emotive make-up of the audience. Using a

visual language and an easily understood metaphoric concept, a post-installation Coda can utilise the

representational potential of digital media native to the installation in order to enable participatory audience

feedback. Here it draws not only on the audience’s experience of the installation, but also on the everyday

creativity of audience participants in making visible, legible and tangible their personal reception of a work.

129

The psychology of participation means that, following the installation, the audience can debrief

cognitively while interacting with an easy-to-use and easy-to-understand visual interface. Similarly, seeing their

own experience visualised in relation to other audience member’s experiential expressions stimulates and

furthers the co-experiential aspect and creates a sense of communal meaning making. The

visitor/participant/audience member is no longer atomised, but can understand his or her own reception in the

context of others. At the same time the continual evolution of the Coda makes conceivable a non-local, possibly

transnational, possibly online virtual, extension of the installation where the duration of the work is not limited

by the museum location.

Current work on the Coda uses Processing [13,15]. The Coda, in collaboration with the author was

designed and coded by Indae Hwang [61]. The physical interface consists of mouse and touch screen connected

to customized data projection. Designs of both physical and virtual interface are aimed at intuitive participation

and the existence of a terminal is compelling in itself; no instructions are needed. The cognitive difficulty of the

Coda is designed to be significantly less than that of the installation.

The two interface design iterations titled “field” (figure 1) and “body” (figure 2) demonstrate

examples of interactive co-experience. Both designs are developed in regard to aesthetic visualisation semiotics

drawn from the principles of information design, computational aesthetics and user centred design [63]. The two

themes have been chosen to illustrate the capacity of computational aesthetics and making meaning of data. The

interface motifs and iconographic display can be designed to correspond to the exhibition or installation for the

purpose of thematic consistency.

Figure 1: Screen grab of interface titled ‘ field’

In the current Coda the interface ‘field’ is a virtual field comprising virtual flowers that grow over

time. A flower represents a single participant’s responses, while the field represents all such responses in a

collective form. The attributes of the flower (height, colour, petal shape) depend on the responses prompted by

the dialogue boxes. The virtual field exists in real time. The progress of time is represented by the background

130

sky changing from night to day illustrated by colour hues. Here nature iconography is used to express and

illustrate visitor experiences and to elicit a phenomenological spectrum of responses.

Figure.2 Screen grab of interface titled ‘ body’

While the ‘field’ interface of the Coda researches emotional and cognitive states, the ‘body’ interface

focuses on embodiment and physical reception of the installation. The interface ‘body’ specifically questions

bodily responses of the work over time. The virtual on-screen body maps colour-coded ‘visual’, ‘aural’ and

‘spatial’ visitor responses. These responses are further divided into age and gender statistics. The embodiment

responses over time form colour clusters. These clusters reveal physical sensorial reception patterns.

The interfaces are designed to provide a real-time enjoyable activity in the presence of other visitors and co-

participants. Interface responses become visible in real time and are represented in correspondence to all other

responses. The interface thus “encourages us to leave our isolated self and interact with a greater social group.”

The following conceptual diagram (figure 3) represents the interface in situ.

Figure.3 In situ example of installation ‘ field’

131

The interfaces collect and contain valuable audience experience data. Stakeholders and designer can

discern patterns of data over time, can monitor the fluctuations and experiential progress of an installation, and

the real-time data can be deployed in rapid re-design processes. The data in its visual form, as images, provides a

conceptual map of the exhibition experience. The continual evolution of the data (as more and more responses

are fed into the interface) also provides an installation experience history that “makes the human response a

contantly active and evolving interface” [3].

The Coda represents a dynamic and evolving post installation artifact. It draws audience participation

and provides a space for experiential and cognitive debriefing. It constitutes audience research that is contigious

with the installation in medial and experiential terms. The data yielded can inform stakeholders about the

epistemological, curatorial and cognitive effects of a new media installation, and the ways in which audiences

interact and make meaning of the new digital worlds.

One of the key finding of the 2007 case study is the co-experiential aspect of PLACE. In the data a

distinct sense of ‘togetherness’ among the audience, and some tacit and overt forms of collaboration and conflict

become visible. Indeed the co-experience potential is significant and stands in marked contrast to conventional

museum visitor behaviour. Interface use here constitutes the intersection of intimate personal reception of the

work, and the social dynamics of PLACE. Thus, PLACE technology and co-experience are not only not

opposing factors, but are deeply interconnected. While the technology allows the displacement of self-awareness,

the interface use generates levels of performativity.

Subsequently, “vibrancy”, interface negotiation and dwelling dispersion combine to produce hitherto

unknown modes of operation, modes that were not explicitly designed for, namely, performative co-experiential

ways of being in the space.

Given this information this paper further seeks to investigate these important issues over time, over a

number of exhibitions and across varying cultures. The Coda aims to facilitate this enquiry albeit on an abstract

and contentious form of ‘experiential and qualitative data collection.

5. Conclusions The ‘experiential’ data can serve a number of functions. Firstly, it can enrich the stakeholders’ future co-design

work, because data is present at the outset of a project. In the case of PLACE, the data should be eminently

useful in conversations between content providers, artists and curators. Furthermore this conversation can be

ongoing as technology allows. In addition, this can overcome the traditional separation between content

providers and the audience, because the data can illustrate to non-artist stakeholders how audiences, and under

what conditions, interact in PLACE.

132

5. References and Citations [1] Bonini, E. (2008) Building virtual cultural heritage environments: the embodied mind at the core of the

learning processes, International Journal Of Digital Culture and Electronic Tourism 2, 2(2), pp.113 – 125, p.129

[2] Buchanan, Richard (2006) Human Dignity and Human Rights: Thoughts on the Principles of Human-Centered Design, Design Studies: Theory and Research in Graphic Design, (ed.) Bennett, Audrey, Princeton Architectural Press, , pp.300-305, p.303.

[3] Bullivant, Lucy, (2005) Introduction, 4dspace: Interactive Architecture (Architectural Design), 75(1), p.5-7, p.5

[4] Castle, Helen, (2005) Editorial, 4dspace: Interactive Architecture (Architectural Design), 75(1) p.4 [5] Dallas, C., (2004) The presence of visitors in virtual museum exhibitions. Numérisation, lien social, lectures

colloquium, University of Crete, Rethymnon, 3‐4 June. Museology, Issue 4: Performitivity, Interactivity, Virtuality, and Museums, Avaliable online at http://museology.ct.aegean.gr/indexEE.php

[6] Dewey, John, (1979) Art as Experience, New York, Paragon Books [7] Dilthey, Wilhelm, (1976) Selected Writings, (ed.) H.P. Rickman, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press,

p. 161. [8] Dourish, Paul, (2004) Where the action is: the foundations of embodied interaction, Boston, MIT Press, p.4 [9] Economou, M. and Pujol, L. (2006) Educational tool or expensive toy? Evaluating VR evaluation and its

relevance for Virtual Heritage. In: New Heritage. New media and cultural heritage. (Eds.). Kalay, Y., Kvan, Th. and Affleck, J. Oxon, Routledge, ch19.

[10] Fagerberg Petra, Stahl Anna, Hook Kristina, (2004) eMoto: emotionally engaging interaction, Personal Ubiquitous Computing, Vol.8, , pp.377-381, p.377

[11] Forte M., Pescarin, S., Pujol, L. (2006) VR applications, new devices and museums: what about the audience's feedback and learning? In The e-volution of information technology in Cultural Heritage. Where Hi-Tech touches the Past: risks and challenges for the 21st century. In proceedings at The 7th International Symposium on Virtual Reality, Archaeology and Cultural Heritage (VAST) , (eds)M. Ioannides, D. Arnold, F. Niccolucci, K. Mania, pp.5.

[12] Frascara, Jorge, (1997) User-Centred Graphic Design Mass Communication and Social Change, London, Taylor and Francis, p.11

[13] Fry, Ben Reas Casey, (2007) Processing, Cambridge Massachusetts, MIT Press. See also http://www.processing.org

[14] Giaccardi, Elisa, (2006) Collective Storytelling and Social Creativity in the Virtual Museum: A Case Study, Design Issues, 22(3), pp.29-41, p.32

[15] Greenberg Ira, (2007) Processing: Creative Coding and Computational Art, friends of ED; 1 edition [16] Hanington, Bruce, (2003) Methods in the Making: A Perspective on the State of Human Research in Design,

Design Issues, 19(4), pp.9-19, p.12. [17] Hanington Bruce, (2007) Generative Research in Design Education, International Association of Design

Research, In Proceedings of (IASDR),Hong Kong, pp.1-15. p.3 [18] Hein, Hilde S., (2000) The museum in transition: a philosophical perspective, Washington, Smithsonian

Books, p.79 [19] Hooper-Greenhill, Eilean, (2006) Studying Visitors, A Companion to Museum Studies, (ed.) Macdonald,

Sharon, Oxford, Blackwell Publishing, pp.363-376. [20] Isbister, Katherine, Höök, Kia, Sharp, Michael, Laaksolahti, Jarmo, (2006) The Sensual Evaluation

Instrument: Developing an Affective Evaluation Tool, Available in Proceedings, Beliefs and Effect, CHI, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, ACM,pp.1163-1172 p. 1164

[21] Kelly, Lynda, (2004) Evaluation, Research and Communities of Practice: Program Evaluation in Museums, Archival Science, Vol. 4, pp.45-69, p.50.

[22] Kenderdine, S. (2008) An Entanglement of People-Things: PLACE-Hampi , special issue on Digital Matter Intangible Cultural Heritage, International Journal of Digital Cultural Heritage and E-Tourism (IJDCE), Inderscience Publishers Ltd.Volume 1, Numbers 2-3, 24, 139-156

[23] Kenderdine, S. (2007) Somatic Solidarity, Magical Realism and Animating Popular Gods: PLACE-Hampi where intensities are felt, in (eds). Banissi, E., Burkhard, R. A., Grinstein, G., Cvek, U., Trutschl, M, Stuart, L., Wyeld, T. G., Andrienko, G., Dykes, J., Jern, M., Groth, D., and Ursyn, Available in proceedings of the 11th European Information Visualisation Conference, IV07, Zurich, Switzerland, July 03-07, IEEE Comp Society, 402-408.

[24] Kenderdine, S. (2007) The Irreducible Ensemble: PLACE-Hampi, available in selected Proceedings, 13th Annual Virtual System and Multimedia Conference, Brisbane, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp58-67.

[25] Kenderdine, S. (2007) Speaking in Rama: Panoramic vision in cultural heritage visualisation, (eds) Cameron and Kenderdine, Digital Cultural Heritage: a critical discourse, MIT Press.

[26] Kenderdine, S.(2004) Stereographic panoramas of Angkor, Cambodia , Virtual System and Multimedia, Gifu, Japan, Available in Proceedings, 10th International Society for Virtual Systems and Multimedia. pp. 612-621.

133

[27] Kocsis, Anita and Barnes, Carolyn, (2008) Making Exhibitions, Brokering Meaning: Designing new connections across communities of practice, In Proceedings Undisciplined!, Design Research Society Sheffield, UK,

[28] Kocsis, Anita, (2007) Unravelling Information and Crocheting Meaning: Designing Complex Information, In proceedings of International Association of Societies of Design Research, pp.1-13.

[29] Krippendorff, Klaus, (2006) The semantic turn: a new foundation for design, Boca Raton, FL, Taylor and Francis Group, p.39

[30] Laurel Brenda (1993),Computers as Theatre, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, Massachusetts.

[31] Margolin Victor, (2007) Design, the Future and the Human Spirit, Design Issues, Volume 23, Number 3, MIT Press, pp.4-15, p.15

[32] Macdonald, Sharon, (ed.) (2006) A Companion to Museum Studies, Oxford, Blackwell, p 321 [33] Macdonald, Sharon, (2007) Interconnecting: museum visiting and exhibition design, CoDesign

International Journal of Co Creation in Design and the Arts, 3(1), pp.149-162, p.158 [34] Margolin, Victor, (1997) Getting to Know the User, Design Studies, 18(3), pp.227-241 [35] McCarthy, John, Wright, Peter, (2004) Technology as experience, Boston, MIT Press, pp.79-104 [36] McClellan, Andrew, (2007) Museum Studies Now, Art History, Association of Art Historians, 30(4), Oxford,

UK, Blackwell Publishing, pp 566-570, p.566 [37] McCullough, Malcolm, (2005) Digital ground: architecture, pervasive computing, and environmental

knowing, Boston, MIT Press, p.50 [38] Mills, Simon, Stewart, Gavin and Thomas, Sue, (eds.) (2006) An End to the New? Re-assessing the Claims

for New Media Writing(s), Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 12(4), pp.371-373, p.372.

[39] Norman, Donald. A, (1993) Computers as Theatre, Foreword, Laurel Brenda, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, Massachusetts, p.xv

[40] Norman, Donald. A and Draper, Stephen. (eds.) (1986) User Centred System Design: New perspectives on Human Computer Interaction, Hillsdale New Jersey W, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Introduction, p.2

[41] Overbeeke, Kees, Djajadiningrat, Tom, Hummels, Caroline, Wensveen, Stephan and Frens, Joep, (2003) Let’s Make Things Engaging, Funology: From Usability to Enjoyment, (eds.) Blythe, Mark, et al, Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic, pp.7-17, p.11

[42] Overbeeke, Kees, Wenseven, C.J., (2003) Reflection on pleasure: From perception to experience, from affordances to irresistibles, Available in Proceedings of the DPP103 Conference, pp.92-97.

[43] Orleans, Myron, (2000) Phenomenology, Gale Encyclopedia of sociology 2nd edition Vol. 3, (eds.) Borgatta, E.F., Rhonda, J.V., New York, Gale, pp.2099-2107, p.2101

[44] Riva, Giuseppe, (2007) Are Robots present? Towards Embodied Intelligence , Keho the place for Presence research, Vol.1, pp.10-13, p.11.

[45] Robertson, Toni, (2006), Ethical Issues in Interaction Design, Ethics and Information Technology 8: Springer, pp49-49, p.49

[46] Rousseau, M, (2000) Virtual heritage: from the research lab to the broad public, ,Available in Proceedings of Virtual Archaeology (VAST) Euroconference, pp 93-100.

[47] Russell, J.A., (1980) A circumplex model of affect, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.39.6, pp.1161–1178

[48] Russo Angelina, and Watkins, Jerry, (2007) Digital Cultural Communication: Audience and Remediation, Theorizing Digital Cultural Heritage: a critical discourse, (eds.) Cameron, Fiona, and Kenderdine, Sarah, Boston, MIT Press, 2007, pp.148-164.

[49] Sanders, Elizabeth B. N, Stappers, Pieter Jan, (2008) Co-creation and the new landscape of design, CoDesign, 4(1), pp.5-18, p.3

[50] Sanders, Elizabeth, (2002) From user-centred to participatory design approaches, Design and the social sciences: Making Connections, (ed.) Frascara, Jorge, London, Taylor and Francis, pp.1-8, p.5

[51] Ibid, p.422 [52] Sanders, Elizabeth, (2006) Scaffolds for Building Everyday Creativity, Designing effective communications:

creating contexts for clarity and meaning, (ed.) Frascara, Jorge, New York, Allworth Press, pp. 65-77, p.66 [53] Schön, Donald A, (2000) The Reflective Practitioner: How professionals think in action, London, Ashgate

Publishing 2000, p.138 [54] Schuler Douglas and Namioka Aki, (eds.) (1993) Participatory Design Principles and Practices, Hilsdale,

NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum, , pp.xi-xiii, p.xii [55] Turner, Victor and Bruner, Edward (eds.), (1986) The Anthropology of Experience, Chicago, University of

Illinois Press, p.5 and [56] Ibid p6 [57] Witmer, Bob G., and Singer, Michael J.(1998) Measuring Presence in Virtual Environments: A Presence

Questionnaire, Presence, 7(3), pp.225-240, p.225 [58] Yin, Robert. K, (1981) The Case Study Crisis: some answers, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 26,

pp.58-65. [59] PLACE-Hampi Evaluation Survey aggragated data, Available online DOI= http://www.place-

hampi.museum/pdf/Avie_Berlin_Questionnaire_08_data_screen.pdf Last accessed Friday, April 10, 2009. [60] Kenderdine S, Shaw J, Kocsis A, (2009) Dramaturgies of PLACE: Evaluation, Embodiment and

Performance in PLACE-Hampi, Submitted to DIMEA 09, ACE 2009: 5th Advances in Computer

134

Entertainment Technology Conference incorporating DIMEA 2009(3rd Digital Interactive Media Entertainment and Arts Conference) Athens, Greece, October 28-30, http://www.ace-conf.org/ace2009/

[61] PLACE-Hampi DOI= http://place-hampi.museum [62] Indae Hwang collaborated on the design and is the programmer for the Coda, See also

http://www.urbanscreens08.net/usm08-multimedia-program [63] Software studies http://lab.softwarestudies.com

135