new media society 2006 richards 531 50

7/29/2019 New Media Society 2006 Richards 531 50

1/21

http://nms.sagepub.com/New Media & Society

http://nms.sagepub.com/content/8/4/531The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1461444806064485

2006 8: 531New Media SocietyRussell Richards

Users, interactivity and generation

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:New Media & SocietyAdditional services and information for

http://nms.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://nms.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://nms.sagepub.com/content/8/4/531.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Jul 19, 2006Version of Record>>

at MACKENZIE BIBLIOTECA on September 28, 2012nms.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://nms.sagepub.com/http://nms.sagepub.com/http://nms.sagepub.com/content/8/4/531http://nms.sagepub.com/content/8/4/531http://nms.sagepub.com/content/8/4/531http://www.sagepublications.com/http://nms.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://nms.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://nms.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://nms.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://nms.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://nms.sagepub.com/content/8/4/531.refs.htmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://nms.sagepub.com/content/8/4/531.full.pdfhttp://nms.sagepub.com/http://nms.sagepub.com/http://nms.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://nms.sagepub.com/content/8/4/531.full.pdfhttp://nms.sagepub.com/content/8/4/531.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://nms.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://nms.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.sagepublications.com/http://nms.sagepub.com/content/8/4/531http://nms.sagepub.com/


2/21

ARTICLE

Users, interactivity and

generation............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

RUSSELL RICHARDS

Southampton Solent University, UK............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Abstract

This article is, in part, a response to articles for this

Journal by Sally McMillan and Spiro Kiousis. The article

examines the analytical problems caused by the fact that

interactivity is both a property and an activity. It asserts

that interactivity is a contextualizing facility that mediates

between environments and content and users. The article

analyses the modes of operation both for the production of

the properties of interactivity and usage/production in the

activity of interactivity. The concept of positioning is

offered as a means of moving the debate on from the

application of communication models or the practical

development of features. The article proposes succession

mapping as a methodology that acknowledges the building

up of the interactive offer and also the generativecapabilities of packages. The concept of the active user

engaged in user production i.e. generation is introduced as

being of value to academics, practitioners and those who

practice, teach and research.

Key words

consumer generation generator interactivity

positioning processor succession mapping user

production

INTRODUCTION

This article is concerned with the production of interactivity and the

inadequacy of many theoretical approaches to describe the possible

new media & society

Copyright 2006 SAGE Publications

London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi

Vol8(4):531550 [DOI: 10.1177/1461444806064485]

........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

531

http://nms.sagepub.com/http://nms.sagepub.com/http://nms.sagepub.com/http://nms.sagepub.com/


3/21

generative power of interactivity. It seeks to develop theoretical resources,

applicable either in critiquing, or producing interactive packages. Much

analysis of users and interactivity has focused on the perception of the latter

by the former, or in the search for moments of interactivity as a separate

phenomenon. This article asserts that interactivity is a contextualizing facilitythat mediates between environments and content and users and enables the

generation of further content. This is a dynamic and inter-related process. The

mode/s of interactivity on offer provide qualitatively different contexts for

the types of environment, content, and positions (extending Bourdieu)

occupied by the user. All these elements and the motivations of the user

influence the forms of generation.1 These components are examined below.

The article is concerned with definitions of terms of, and related to,

interactivity. Research methods utilizing succession mapping are

investigated. There is an analysis of the qualitatively different modes of

interactivity as an activity. Some examples from the different modes of

production of properties of interactivity are also presented. In each case the

focus returns to the relationships between the user and the generation of

content. The article concludes by emphasizing the need for further research

into the application of these proposals.

DEFINITIONS

InteractivityInteractivity is not a word often found in hard copy dictionaries. Even a

survey of on-line dictionaries maintained on the web yielded no mention of

the word.2 If the word is included in hard copy dictionaries it is usually

described as a derivative of interactive, although older dictionaries only offer

interactively as a derivative. The only reference found listing interactivity in

its own right is in the new Shorter Oxford English Dictionary 2002 edition:

Interactivity n (a) an activity that involves interaction: b) the property of

being interactive. This dual application of the word, as both an activity and

a property, seems significant and worthy of investigation. However, most

analysts have focused on one of the two meanings.

Interactivity as an activity

In 1988, Sheizaf Rafaeli, defined interactivity exclusively with regard to the

activity of communication exchanges, i.e. An expression of the extent that,

in a given series of communication exchanges, any third (or later)

transmission (or message) is related to the degree to which previous

exchanges referred to even earlier transmissions (Rafaeli, 1988: 11).Contained within Rafaelis approach, though not emphasized by him, is

the acknowledgement that interactivity is about the facilitation of generation

by referral to content in context. In fact it can be argued that it is a

context/content mix that is being generated. Rafaeli did not write of this

New Media & Society8(4)

532



4/21

process in such terms. His concern was to differentiate interactivity as a

communication activity, as opposed to a technology-led phenomenon.

However, this article explores the implications of this reassessment

particularly with regard to where actors are positioned in relation to the

generation of this mix. Interactivity is not just about exchange ofcommunication but also generation of content. Who is doing the generation

is in itself an important question. We are now moving into an era where

there will be further opportunities for users to engage with applications as

facilities where the personal context of the user informs the content of the

package and/or where the contextual framework supplied requires the user

to supply some or all content and/or where the contextual framework itself

is supplied by the user. These opportunities constitute qualitatively different

activities that are not just about communication between people.

Interactivity as a property

The work of S.S. Sundar provides an exemplar of this mode of analysis:

Interactivity is an attribute of technology (Sundar, 2004: 387). This is

very much a practitioners approach. They must learn how to embed

interactivity as a property. Scientists and designers codify the parameters for

embedding interactivity in multimedia packages (e.g. Benedikt, 1991). This

embedding presents interactivity as a resource with varying degrees of

sophistication and also a dormant resource, awaiting a user to respond to

it. Sundar puts it thus: How users interact with the system under

conditions of high or low interactivity is an effects question (2004: 386).

Consequently, the resulting focus is on design (of interface) and technique

(usability). Of course these properties are important because they provide

part of the context for the delivery of content to the user. However, this

approach is inadequate in describing interactivity as an activity (e.g.

Benedikt, 1991; Garret, 2002; Neilsen, 2002). Furthermore, the content

itself is largely ignored in these analyses.

Interactivity as a property and an activity

Recently, a number of academics have attempted to bring together these

two aspects.3 Sally McMillan and Spiro Kiousis have both contributed to

this process in articles for this journal (Kiousis, 2002; McMillan, 2002a).

McMillan writes ofperception in use (activity) and features (property).

She quotes Rafaeli but seeks to move on from his single dimension

approach (2002b: 272). McMillan proposes a four-part typology of cyber-interactivity (2002b: 272), with the component parts being: monologue,

feedback, responsive dialogue and mutual discourse. These are qualitatively

different types of communication, starting with monologue that refers to a

sender talking at a receiver and moving through to mutual discourse that is

Richards: Users, interactivity and generation

533



5/21

often described in dictionary definitions as interaction per se. McMillan

took the four-part typology and the notions ofperception in use and

features and applied them in fieldwork. She used students to analyse over

100 health-related websites. The results had very low scorings of relevance

that she put down to her researchers being young, healthy students (2002b:284). Yet there are many issues (AIDS for one) that affect young people.

McMillans research did not deal with the content of the sites. The criteria

used to analyse the websites were predominately functional, i.e. were there,

or were there not, opportunities forperception in use (activity), and what

features (properties) were available on each website. The article is highly

significant because it takes the dual nature of interactivity seriously.

However, McMillans quantitative approach reveals nothing of the

positioning of the user in relation to the content. Furthermore, McMillanuses an isolation mode of categorization that results in sites appearing to be

solely Mutual Discourse or solely Monologue or solely Feedback or

Responsive (2002b: 276). Of course, in reality, it is extremely rare to find

a site involving rich interactive possibilities that does not also have sections

which command/direct the user if only to supply directions of use or in fact

all four of the above. McMillan defines Rafaelis approach as in a single

dimension (2002b: 272), however, his definition actually points towards

multi-dimensional description because of its connection of change in

content/context over time. This article argues that the user adds the

additional dimensions in the activity of interactivity through the properties

of interactivity enabled in the environment.

Spiro Kiousis, in his article entitled Interactivity: a Concept Explication,

attempts to place activity, property and perception of the user within the

same analytical grid (2002). This approach is important because it reveals the

analytical footprint of a wide variety of studies. As detailed below, it also

shows what is notbeing analysed.

Kiousis analysis also references Rafaelis work, but in a more detailedmanner. The generation of conversation is described by Kiousis as third-

order dependency. In so doing, he acknowledges the importance of these

processes. Kiousis also places the canon in a two dimensional grid. In his

case the grid is horizontally labeled with intellectual perspective through

communication and non-communication and in the vertical with object

emphasized through technology, communication setting and perceiver. The

outcome of this mapping exercise is highly significant. The vast majority of

investigations do indeed fit into this grid but very few of them appear inmore than one quadrant. Kiousis response is to argue for a meta-definition

of interactivity that incorporates all the above criteria and requires the

application of a range of methodologies to extract different data from

specific sites of interactivity that can then be fed back into the grid. Thus,


534



6/21

Kiousis seeks a way of amalgamating otherwise disparate approaches, but, far

more importantly, shows clearly where the gaps are in the research. For

example, although he acknowledges that there has been a move towards

researching the significance of interactivity for, and of the user, Kiousis does

not incorporate the significance of content for the user within his schema.The concentration solely on the usersperception of the interactivity itself

ignores the motivation for being with the package in the first place (cf.

McMillans research above).4 The mode of interactivity provides the context

of the relationship between the user/s and the content. It is not an end in

itself. It is a contextualizing facility. A further problem with Kiosis approach

is that interactivity is again reduced to the act of communication alone and

in fact, as Kiousis puts it, to: . . . technological simulation of interpersonal

communication (2002: 373). This reductive approach results in theadmission that: Therefore, a conversation over the phone is interactive,

while a dialogue in person is not (2002: 373). Although Kiousis does

qualify this surprising result by saying that it is valid for his study and not

others, there are several anomalies here. There are properties and activities at

work that result in content being created in a social environment through

interactivity, be it in person or via other technologies. This is not included

in Kiousis grid. A further problem with this reduction is that it delimits the

number of communication media that can be described as interactive. Most

significantly, Kiousis attempt at producing a meta-definition is immediately

undermined by such qualifications.

Whereas McMillan can be criticized for not inter-relating activity and

property even as she acknowledges their existence and Kiousis can be

criticized for his reductionism, they both manage to write extensively on

interactivity without incorporating the motivations of the user with regard

to content. This results in analysis of screen-based interaction in terms of

users perception of interactivity isolated from content. The emphasis has

been on the act not the outcomes; the pleasure or pain of the activity of theinteractivity and not the motives/needs of the user; on interactivity as a

thing in itself and not as a contextualizing facility that mediates between

environments and content and users and enables generation.

Practitioners, by comparison, have to be concerned with the positions of

the user in relation to the content, their motivations within specific types of

media environments and always with regards to the dynamic of generation

through the engagement with concepts that can be politically challenging,

intellectually or emotionally stimulating or simply raising consciousnessabout a product. However, it is also the case that practitioners have often

considered the activity of interactivity in mechanical terms, i.e. basic

usability/task completion (Neilsen, 2002). It is now time for both academics

and practitioners to address the positioning of the user.


535



7/21

POSITIONING

Interactivity facilitates and is an outcome of person/technology/world to

person/technology/world contact. It is what we do and what we are

subjected to as people. A component part of these processes is positioning.

We as humans are constantly both positioning and positioned. Here I amdrawing on the work of Bourdieu (1993) and Thompson (1995). Bourdieu

extensively analysed the development of culture with specific references to

writers in 19th-century France. He uses the notion of the field in which

such production occurs. Writers as producers and audience as consumers

occupy different positions within fields within fields dependent upon class,

economic opportunity, and affiliation. These fields are dynamic in

themselves and the relations between them are also dynamic. For Bourdieu,

this dynamism is also within the agents who occupy these fields. A

particular writer can occupy one social position, have a complementary or

antagonistic disposition and take a further conflicting or supporting position

for a given situation. The power of the term position here is that it can be

used to express social role, mental framework and implementation of ideas,

all of which carry different modes of expression. Bourdieus focus is on the

producers of culture with little reference made to the consumers of culture,

a point made by Nick Couldry in his Media@LSE working paper (2003).

Bourdieu does, however, offer tantalizing glimpses into the possibilities of

position for the audience, writing both of the space of production (1993:45) and the space of consumption (1993: 45). However, Bourdieu raised

this relationship to illustrate a homology between: positions occupied in the

space of production, with the correlative position-takings, and positions in

the space of consumption, that is, . . . [for example] in the field of power,

opposition between the dominant and dominated fractions (1993: 45). This

modernist approach is reliable in the sense that culture was something

presented to most people as material for consumption, that the audience was

subjected to and by culture. In the digital/interactive age, there are

possibilities for new forms of positioning with regards to culture where the

use of the term consumer without qualification is inadequate. As

mentioned above, the starting point of this article is to analyse the position

of the user in relation to the generation of content. Swingewood implies

the need for this addition in his critique of Bourdieu:

the instrumental nature of action in Bourdieus cultural theory is related to hisfailure to develop a theory of interaction within a structural context, to addressthe issue of the making of culture through dialogue and communication by

those participants who commit themselves through a reflexive consciousness ofculture . . . (1998: 180)

This is an additional position to those put forward by Bourdieu: a position

of a consumer/user as a producer of culture. User production is the term


536



8/21

coined here to describe these possibilities. User production becomes

possible when the user is positioned/can position themselves in a proactive

role with regards to culture and the creation of content. It is important to

remember here that both interactivity and user production can occur outside

ofscreen-based media (SBM). Thompsons analysis of media consumptionin the late 20th century does not reference SBM apart from in one footnote

(Thompson, 1995: fn 3, p. 278), but does examine the concept of what he

calls quasi-interaction (1995: 12). This approach treats seriously the

assertion that there need be no simple encode/decode process in media

consumption. Thompson argues that deferred interaction is possible as the

viewer uses and re-interprets broadcast output. Fiske examined this issue

from the perspective of the inter-relations of texts i.e., intertextuality: The

theory of intertextuality proposes that any one text is necessarily read in

relationship to others and that a range of textual knowledges is brought to

bear upon it (1987: 108). A viewer (and now user) may simply incorporate

the overt meaning of specific cultural artifact. Conversely their response

need bear little or no relation to the rationale proposed by the producer/

director/designer of the material. A user presented with a position by an

artifact with no opportunities for generation through theirterms of reference

may in fact adopt a counter position and reject the thing out of hand or

repurpose the text/package. These approaches give credit to the users ability

to take an artifact and transform it by incorporating it within their cognitivemap. A cognitive map, as expressed by Bourdieu (1993), contains many

different positions. We phase from consumer to processor to generator of

goods, money, social relations and information. Furthermore, we are situated

in fields/matrices of power, technology and culture, each of which effects

how we receive, and to what extent we can transmit into interactive

environments. That is why the concept of interactivity is such a challenge:

to move beyond a simple behavioral/communication definition two-way

flow (see McMillan, 2002a: 174) is to be confronted by the requirement to

research to what extent generation of content occurs and how this

generation is facilitated by the package, in the package, and through the

package. What is happening here is that a user is being positioned into

differing relationships with content. An analysis of interactivity that does not

take all these realities of positioning on board becomes a sterile exercise.

METHODOLOGY

Succession mapping

In order to analyse the variety of matrices in which we are positioned/position ourselves and the variety of opportunities/lack of opportunities for

generative experiences, we must use a method of mapping that can chart

the corresponding varieties of generation that we are subject to/take control

of. This approach moves the analysis of interactive packages on from the


537



9/21

search for isolated moments to the placement of such moments in context.

There is a need to develop methods of analysis that relate to both activity

and properties of interactivity: a new mapping methodology.

Succession mapping acknowledges that any present method of generation

contains within it aspects of previous states. Bourdieu wrote of thisapproach:

Because the whole series of pertinent changes is present, practically, in thelatest (just as the six figures already dialed on the telephone are present in theseventh), a work or an aesthetic movement is irreducible to any other situatedin the series. (1993: 60)

Works or packages can contain successive levels of sophistication, each of

which is different in quality from those that came before, precisely becausethey build upon the previous modes. The latest mode brings the other

modes along within. Qualitatively different modes can offer different

positions for the user to take in relation to the generation of content.

Critique of applications of succession mapping

There have been a number of attempts to utilize a form of succession

mapping within the digital domain. The three applications critiqued below

operate at different analytical levels and fail for different reasons.

Bolter and Grusins exposition Remediation (Bolter and Grusin, 2001) is anattempt to apply aspects of succession mapping from old media to new

media. Although this has merit as an analytical rationale the result is a

compartmentalization of the aspects of new media. Here, the use of

succession mapping is applied to individual media modes only, not to the

reality of convergence in media and divergence in production possibilities.

Bolter and Grusin reinforce this finding by their inclusion of a short chapter

entitled Convergence that offers: Convergence is the mutual remediation

of at least three important technologies telephone, television and

computer . . . (2001: 224). However, only television appears in the book as

a medium to be remediated. What is needed is a methodology of inclusion

rather than separation.

By comparison, Jesse Garretts examination of the concept ofuser

experience does attempt to apply the notion of successive planes of

production processes, i.e. Strategy, Scope, Structure, Skeleton, Surface: with

each plane dependent on the plane below (Garrett, 2002: 25). However,

Garrett undermines this inter-dependency by arguing for a strategy: . . . to

have work on each plane finish before work on the next can finish (2002:27). There is some acknowledgment of succession in Garrets approach but

only in articulating the various stages (planes) of the production process.

This succession is local and discrete at each stage, rather than a matter of

incorporation of that which came before. In reality, as any production team


538



10/21

knows, a strategy may need to be revised due to events at any stage of a

project. It is the generation of content and the processes of use enabled by

all planes that should be the focus of investigation. That is what user

experience should be about.

More recently, John Newhagen has sought to apply a form of successiondirectly to the concept of interactivity (Newhagen, 2004). Newhagen inter-

relates semiotic analysis and symbol processing in an attempt to site content

generation within the user at the level of cognition. For Newhagen such

content generation occurs when there is a mismatch between the mental

state of the user and the presentation of new material through some form

of interface. He draws on the work of Allen Newell (Newell, 1990) and his

time scale of human action (Newhagen, 2004: 400): [Newells] time-based

model describes how discrete iterative processes at one cognitive level build

on the output level just below it and go on to deliver up qualitatively

unique content to the level above (Newhagen, 2004: 4001).

This is succession at the level of cognition. Newhagen terms this as

holistic aggregation where symbols holistically emerge at the next level

(Newhagen, 2004: 401). For Newhagen, Interactivity . . . is an information-

based process that takes place within the individual (2004: 397, emphasis

added). Newhagens definition seems to resonate with the phenomenon of

intertextuality examined below. However, the fundamental difference here

is its ideology of individualism. The logical outcome of this approach is thatthe context for interactivity does not exist outside of mental processes and

thus has no origin/site in the external world. Intertextuality describes the

incorporation or contestation of social phenomena by agents in society and

that interaction can precipitate further interactions out in the social arena.

Newhagen should be praised for highlighting generative processes made

possible by interactivity. However, he should be criticized for reducing the

scope of operation to ideas formed by mental processes alone.

This article takes a different approach to the concept of succession. The

user can be positioned with regards to the generation of content through

the utilization of three qualitatively different modes of interactivity, each of

which succeeds, as in incorporates, the former. These modes are:

consumer, processor and generator interactivity. The following section

explores these modes.

MODES OF INTERACTIVITY AS ACTIVITIES

By combining the concepts ofpositioning and succession mapping

together, the aim is to provide tangible methods of analysis of therelationships within interactivity. The focus is on screen-based interactivity.

However, there are implications here for the analysis of face-to-face

interactivity. A number of academics have wrestled with the notion, in some

cases denying it (see Kiousis above) and some cases foregrounding it (see


539



11/21

McMillan and Rafaeli above). The observations on the implications for face-

to-face interactivity included in each of the following three sections indicate

some directions for further research in this area.

Consumer interactivityHere, the term consumer is being used in the sense of being positioned/

positioning oneself in society, not just in the sense of an agent performing

specific tasks. Media position us by our job specification, by our relations,

friends and acquaintances often into a reception mode. Content is

prescribed and although there can be multiple readings, even by the same

person at different times in their life, crucially they cannot change that

content. However, it is inadequate to define this as simply a passive

audience/user position. As mentioned above, it is possible to react, act andinteract with this unchanging content by taking its stimulus into other

domains. This intertextuality will incorporate the referencing of codes and

conventions and will unfold, as the product is viewed/listened to. The

recognition by the reader of these attributes can evoke a feeling of

identification with the scenarios, of being spoken to, and extreme cases of

fandom, of a feeling of being in a one-to-one relationship with the content,

and/or the author/s (Jenkins, 2002: 157). It is a matter of specific research

to determine what roles the content of a product is playing in the life of the

reader/user and how they are being positioned in relation to it. Alienation is

as much a possible outcome as illumination or exultation if the content

speaks another social or conceptual language. Furthermore, it is possible to

reject being positioned as passive and contest the content, whether it is

feminist graffiti over billboards, or Napster, or reappropriation of television

culture (Fiske, 1987). In each case, the content is prescribed but the context

for that content is contested or re-configured orpostscribed (Thompson,

1995). The user production achieved here is a reactive form. We draw

strength from the culture around us. This can be highly important insupporting cultural identity in the face of oppression. However, the user

production here is outside of the content/context: it is quasi-interaction

(Thompson, 1995: 12) but nonetheless powerful in that ideas can be

extracted from content and used to generate reaction outside a domain.

Succession mapping can chart the relationships between the content and its

acceptance/contestation in and through the user out into the social arena.

When applying the consumer mode of interactivity to face-to-face

communication there are occasions when a didactic form of communicationis taking place. Again the user is in reception mode or at least is being

positioned by the other in this mode. As with the mediated types described

above, there are opportunities to accept, repurpose or deny the messages

from the other.


540



12/21

Processor interactivity (incorporating consumer

interactivity)

Here the user occupies the same environment as in consumer interactivity,

but with additional components that allow them to position themselves in

order to take up opportunities to contribute. The point being thatsomething must be processed. However, the context for this authorship is

pre-determined, be it sending an email for further information on a product

or taking part in a phone-in or writing a report. In face-to-face

communication the contributions may be observations, notes for

clarification, or responses, but only in terms of the reference points

presented. Succession mapping draws out two expressions of positioning

here, that is: 1) the same person can shift from a receiver to a transmitter of

information; and 2) the user has access to further responses from others/

systems in an arena/network of circulation. Here the present provides the

context for future communications. Compared with consumer interactivity,

there are opportunities to contribute back into a domain. However, the

context for this contribution is prescribed, as is the content itself. The user

production here is in terms of additions to a database, the sending of an

order, or the response to a request to vote on a burning issue of the day.

Processing usually means the user providing aspects of their profile back into

a commercial environment, although the same processes can occur in other

domains. In face-to-face communication the support, or otherwise, for agiven message is in its own terms: the others terms of reference. This

analysis challenges Rafaeli in that a conversation can refer back onto that

which came before, but the generation of ideas can be limited to the quality

of the original notion. The user is positioned to be involved in the process

as a subordinate.

Generator interactivity (incorporating consumer and

processor interactivity)

Here the user is positioned into places and spaces where they can author the

content and/or the context of the environment. Users are, of course, subject

to a variety of infrastructural constraints in the same arenas/networks as

above, but they are able to provide others with content. Photographs can be

uploaded onto an iPhoto site. Websites can be created that require an email

response. A new thread is begun on a discussion board. Or an application is

created that enables further interactive involvement, the pinnacle of which

would be to facilitate the creation of new application/s. There is a shift in

how the component parts of the system are made available. Instead of end-on and opaque, the production processes are visible and available to the user

as generator. That which is produced moves into the future offering

opportunities forprogeneration. Succession mapping illuminates two

different orders of positioning: 1) an application can be produced by a


541



13/21

generator that enables the positioning of others in the role of consumer or

processor; and 2) an application can be produced by a generator that utilizes

consumer or processor resources that positions others in the role of

generator. It is not clear what the future will be for such generative

material. These new applications join the line of applications that were oncefor professional use only and are now freely available on computer desktops,

for example: word processors, image manipulators, video editors, etc.

In face-to-face communication Rafaelis referencing back and McMillans

mutual discourse are in full form here. Ideas, terms of reference, alternatives,

and pointers forward can be made by either partner in the communication.

Of course, in a given face-to-face communication sequence there can be a

succession through the three modes. The users position in relation to the

generation of content can succeed and for that matter recede. The specific

outcomes of different positionings are a matter for further research.

This analysis of succession across positionings of users in relation to

content provides a schema that can be applied to interactive packages to

determine the range of activities on offer. Analysing the range of properties

contained within such interactive packages can illuminate the other half of

the story.

MODES OF PRODUCTION OF THE PROPERTIES OF

INTERACTIVITYThere is a need to start with the initial production processes in order to

analyse how the dynamics of interactivity are facilitated.5 There are a

number of modes of production each enabling specific properties under the

consumer, processor and generator modes of interactivity, each of which

results in specific types of positioning of the user in relation to the

generation of content. It is possible to examine both how the properties of

interactivity are constructed in the package and in what ways the package

facilitates generation of content either inside or outside of the package.

Consumer-focused production for interactivity

Linear production Immediately, from a production perspective, the phrase

linear production is contradictory. Every editor knows that a linear package

is the result of a variety of non-linear operations. The creative processes in

developing the original ideas involve the intermingling of content and form.

This process cannot be linear because any change in a particular part of the

concept/structure will effect the before and after of the package. Material isgathered and assembled out of order due to logistical and project

management constraints. Off-line edits are created which prove the concept

but may not make it to the final cut. The processes of consumption are also

not linear. The consumer is subject to a variety of promos, crits, ads,


542



14/21

previews, prequels, all of which inform/undermine the viewing of the

package as a linear thing in itself (Marshall, 2002: 768). These systems of

pre-figuring and prescribing help define the way the subsequent linear

package is interpreted. This can be described as corporate intertextuality.

Non-linear production One critique that is applied to interactivity per se

is that it dupes users into believing that they have choice and control

(Butterick, 1996). A non-extensible CD-ROM can be described in a two-

dimensional flowchart. A website or a CD-ROM or a DVD can purport to

be interactive but this interactivity is an editing facility of the simplest kind,

i.e. a user edits/generates a path through existing content. In fact as a

flowchart indicates, websites, CDs or DVDs are often multi-linear rather

than non-linear in construction. This is a phenomenon coined as ergodic

by Espen J. Aarseth with respect to non-linearfiction: from a readers

perspective all stories are linear [in experience] (summarized in Peacock,

2000: 24).

The content itself contains neither the possibility of processing through

data entry systems, nor generation. In fact, processing occurs before

authoring in terms of marketing and product testing and the only

generation occurs in the resultant production process of the CD. A vision of

a million corporate websites/CD-ROMs comes to mind. Alpha leads to beta

leads to gold.

Processor production for interactivity

Filter production With filter production the linear/non-linear offer is

complexified through the inclusion of search engines, reference numbers

and a variety of means of user response that enables the material in the

package to be influenced or purchased. It is also often the case that the offer

is so great that the only way of accessing the correct bit of it is through

some form offiltering system. In this mode the user does the filtering

through overt intervention. However, the opportunities to process the

available information and engage with the package are prescribed. The filter

may be used specifically as part of the engagement with the package as a

means of providing access to restricted areas. Abbey Road Interactive have

used this approach by requiring owners of a Marillion CD to provide their

profile on a website before receiving a password to unlock hidden elements

on the CD.

The initial production process involves a mix of linear and non-linearoperations. The aim should be to move a user through a linear offer then

close for a sale or an active response. However, at the same time, a

multiplicity of opportunities can only be offered through a non-linear

access system. The development of the database containing the content


543



15/21

(linear resource) and the access system (non-linear delivery) needs to be

examined in great detail so that the scale of the resource can be efficiently

used. The accruing of content for the database is an ongoing process that

is linear in the sense that it is additive: just another record. Indeed, it may

be the users themselves, as in the case of the Marillion CD, who fill thedatabase with records. The processing continues beyond the initial

construction of the package.

Adaptive production

The principle of adaptive production requires the user to input a profile of

themselves or an array of information. Software agents then use this profile

to process/filter the available offer of the package in advance of its display to

the user. The generative capability of the package is pre-coded in at the

initial production phase. Adaptive programming enables the resulting code

objects to be self-referential and learn the behaviour of the user as they

develop a relationship with the package. The common use of this form of

system is in electronic programme guides (EPG) for television. These EPGs

accept/learn the users profile and then pre-choose a selection of television

programmes in attempts to match the predilections of the user. A final

selection/filtering/processing is then made by the user. This process gives

the impression of intelligence at work, a slave taking the pain of choice

away from the user. Normans notion of information appliances falls intothis category: invisible computers automatically deliver rich content to a

user (Norman, 1999). While the result can be usable information/goods/

services, and the user may feel that they have control over the offer, they are

positioned as remote from the intelligence in the system. When artificial

intelligence (AI) is referenced with regard to the digital it is usually from an

adaptive programming perspective. Although the generative processes that

occur are of a far more sophisticated nature than in filter production they

are just as opaque to the user. Surely AI could and should be used to offer

more generative options to the user and not less?

ASP (application service provision) production This form of production

relocates the administrative processes of a company through the safety of

an internet connection to a remote server. The selling point for this

approach is that a company can buy a complete service that can be

modified and enhanced by the providing company, thus avoiding on-site

maintenance. The content is supplied solely by the purchasing company as

they utilize the framework supplied by the ASP. The production processuses the same architectures as filter production. However, in this instance it

is the purchasers of the package who determine the modes of filtering to

be applied. This, of course, involves some generation of new apps or mini-

apps as time goes by, but significantly the control of the generation of new


544



16/21

capabilities lies with the ASP Company. Indeed, that is what they are

being paid for. ASPs at least point to the opportunities possible for

company-centred creation of packages that generate new facilities under

their own auspices.

Generator production for interactivity

Standard application use As mentioned above, there are a number of

professional packages that are now freely available either on or off-line that

enable the user to generate new content. The simplicity (subject sometimes

to extensive learning curves) of these packages belies both their capabilities

and the cultural significance of them. A word processing package can be

written off as a simple extension of a typewriter but an image

manipulation or video-editing package cannot be so easily assigned

antecedents. These applications are so ubiquitous that their power is ignored

in favour of looking for two-way interactive expressions.

End-user computing End-user computing is the first manifestation of on-

screen user production of additional facilities within a package. It has a

specific origin and mode of operation. As documented by Nardi (1992) and

more recently Mahmood (2002), the focus of end-user computing is that of

providing solutions through computer programming to increase efficiencywithin an organization. The generation that occurs is by either primary or

secondary raw coding of new routines, for example in C+, or through the

redesign of a formula in a spreadsheet. Although the user can extend the

capabilities of the application at hand the resultant mini-application is not

free standing. The mini-apps power comes from a redeployment of the main

applications capabilities. Still, as a presage of what is to come in user

production, end-user computing is highly significant.

Generator production This mode of production is about the development

of a facility that is a mode of production in itself. It is the resultant

generation of new content, facilities and applications that stops this

definition from being a tautology. This is production by generatorsnot

simply usersand it is generators in the form of packages that are being

utilized. The original producers of the package have to be concerned with

the subsequent opportunities for production offered to the users of the

package. Here the methods of further production are fore-grounded in the

product. The initial production processes require the development of opensource, open architecture and open modular facilities that set up possibilities

of further generation. Here the intelligence and generative capabilities in the

system are freely available to the user/generator. This does not mean that it

has to be complex. Creating a new thread in a discussion board is a process


545



17/21

both quick to code and to apply. The over-arching criterion for generator

production is that the user/generator is positioned in relation to the package

as a creator of content.

The system within which such activity takes place need not be purely

software-based. The Simputer concept is a PDA-style hand-held device thatis extensible both in open source software and hardware. The rationale of

the Simputer is to produce a package that is deliberately not complex and

aimed specifically at Indias poor: Bridging the Digital Divide as one splash

screen states. Simputer software already available includes text-to-speech in a

number of dialects with icon driven menus and hardware that includes the

ability to connect with a wide variety of other hardware and the net. This

relocation of the creative process to being imminent within the package and

presented not as an opportunity to play with C+ but to liberate illiterateIndians is highly significant. Here, a single Simputer, allowing multiple

smartcards to be inserted, can enable an entire community to access the

internet for advice, information or communication. Thus there is a shift

from the simple reproduction of a typewriter into a digital domain to

responsive software and hardware that can be defined as liberating

technology. Both are equally significant from a cultural perspective but they

offer qualitatively different opportunities for the creation of content.

CONCLUSION

The aim of this article is to re-orientate the focus of research into the

phenomenon of interactivity. As has been shown, academics have found a

variety of ways to extract aspects of interactivity and then study them in

isolation. This has occurred at the structural level of analysing interactivity,

either as an activity or as a property. It has also occurred at an imminent

level, where the perception of interactivity and/or the properties of

interactivity are seen as ends in themselves. In one case this technique of

isolation has reached the nth degree with the proposition that interactivityonly resides in the person. The proposals put forward in this article should

be seen as a counterpoint to the plethora of contradictory studies of sub-

components of interactivity and of interactivity as a thing in itself.

The line of argument detailed in the article does not reject the

significance of previous studies. The activity of interactivity and the properties

of interactivity are both important but only in the context of the positioning

of the user in relation to thegeneration of content. The aim of this

formulation is to emphasize the interconnection of architectures that supportgeneration andthe users motivations for being in/with those moments of

interactivity. This interconnection is dynamic and successive, requiring

specific methods of analysis to assess the qualities of interactivity on offer to

the user. Succession mapping is proposed as a means to explore the inter-


546



18/21

relationships between qualitatively different modes of interactivity. Succession

mapping as a tool for analysis is not new. The above critiques of previous

attempts to use succession mapping (without naming the term) show that, for

a variety of reasons, academics have acknowledged succession mapping as a

useful tool but have not followed through the significance of its application asa dynamic resource. Succession mapping can elucidate the inter-connections

between users, content generation and modes of positioning across

qualitatively different content delivery systems. Further research should test

whether this approach has a utility across a range of applications.

For researchers, consumer, processor and generator modes of interactivity

offer ways in which to move beyond user experiences and communication

models and towards more complex and integrated methods of analysis,

including succession mapping and positioning.There should be further research regarding the proposals in this article

and face-to-face encounters. From the examples given above, it would seem

that the consumer, processor and generator modes of interactivity have

currency away from the screen. However, these assertions only point to a

synthesis between on and off-screen interactivity. Specific research is

required to verify that synthesis.

It should be remembered that people can position themselves and be

positioned. Further research should be conducted into the forms of power

that can be facilitated by the different modes of interactivity, of benefit, or

of harm to users.6 In this regard, the notion ofuser production should be

seen in the different senses of the phrase, i.e. that users can produce, can

produce themselves and can be produced. In the latter case, opportunities

for interaction may be being used to dupe rather than support users. Banner

ads that present themselves as system dialogue boxes are a case in point.

All these cases above indicate that there is plenty of work to be done in

what this article asserts is a newly invigorated field of study: interactivity as

a conceptualizing facility that mediates between environments and contentand users enabling generation. We need to expand out from the analysis of

linear and discrete media effects to the notion of generation in user-

produced environments. What will be the positions for users in relation to

the generation of content?

Notes1 Generation is used here specifically to emphasize the building up of content during

interactivity. The word has other connotations, but, despite that, is the most apt wordfor the purpose, i.e. production by natural or artificial process (Concise English

Dictionary, OUP, 1991). Generation is a word equally applicable to face-to-face or

technologically mediated interactivity.

2 A search of the following on-line dictionaries has produce no results forinteractivity

or as is often used no match for interactivity:


547



19/21

(URLs consulted January 2003)

Dictionary.com at: http://www.dictionary.com;

Hyper Dictionary, The Exploding Dictionary at: http:/

/www.hyperdictionary.com

Oxford English Dictionary On-line at: http://www.oed.com/

Websters Online Dictionary at: http://www.m-w.com

3 Jennifer Stromer-Galley has recently proposed the analysis ofinteractivity-as-process

and interactivity-as-product (Stromer-Galley, 2004: 393) as another way to describe

the activity and the properties of interactivity. While activity and process occupy the

same terrain, Stromer-Galleys use ofproduct over-emphasizes interactivity as an end-

in-itself. See below for critique of this reduction.

4 Erik P. Bucy has recently restated this focus on the perception of interactivity in a

forum in the Information SocietyJournal (Bucy, 2004: 375). Bucys position is strongly

critiqued by S. Shyam Sundar in the same forum, i.e. [T]he correlation between

perceived interactivity and other self-reported variables is a reflection of the users inthe sample rather than the technologies they are asked to evaluate. Its simply self-

fulfilling (Sundar, 2004: 388).

On the other hand, Sundar argues that interactivity is an attribute of technology

and not that of the user (Sundar, 2004: 385) and is thus guilty of the opposite

reduction.

5 The research for this article has encountered only one assessment of interactivity that

includes the significance of the producers of that interactivity in its approach. Jerome

Durlak (quoted in Mayer, 1998: 44) identifies hardware, software, tools and people as

all being significant in the development of an interactive media system. However,

Durlaks work focuses predominantly on arcane aspects of computing, e.g. Batch

Processing and thus needs radically updating.

6 This approach draws on the work of S. Shyam Sundar whose analysis of users

perceptions of interactive features has indicated frustration, confusion and

inefficiencies in retaining information (Sundar, 2004).

ReferencesBenedikt, M. (1991) Cyberspace: First Steps. London: Massachusetts Institute of

Technology Press.

Bolter, J.D. and R. Grusin (2001) Remediation: Understanding New Media. London:Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1993) The Field of Cultural Production. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Bucy, E.P. (2004) Interactivity in Society: Locating an Elusive Concept, The Information

Society 20(5): 37383.

Butterick, M. (1996) On Interactivity Information and Digital Design, Netscape

Developers Conference, URL (consulted Sept. 2002): http://www.atomicvision.com/

manifest/index.html

Couldry, N. (2003) Media, Symbolic Power and the Limits of Bourdieus Field Theory,

MEDIA@LSE Electronic Working Papers, No. 2. (consulted Sept. 2002): http:/

/www.lse.ac.uk/collections/media@lse/mediaWorkingPapers/ewpNumber2.htm

Fiske, J. (1987) Television Culture. London: Methuen.

Garrett, J.J. (2002) The Elements of User Experience. New York: AIGA/New Riders.

Jenkins, H. (2002) Interactive Audiences?, in D. Harries (ed.) The New Media Book, pp.

15780. London: BFI Publishing.


548



20/21

Kiousis, S. (2002) Interactivity: A Concept Explication, New Media & Society 4(2):

27191.

Laurel, B. (1991) Computers as Theatre. Menlo Park: Addison-Wesley.

McMillan, S. (2002a) Exploring Models of Interactivity from Multiple Research

Traditions: Users, Documents and Systems, in L. Lievrouw and S. Livingstone (eds)

The Handbook of New Media, pp. 16382. London: Sage.

McMillan, S. (2002b) A Four-Part Model of Cyber-interactivity: Some Cyber-places are

More Interactive Than Others, New Media & Society 4(2): 27191.

Mahmood, M.A. (2002)Advanced Topics In End User Computing Volume 1, Advanced Topics

in End User Computing Series. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.

Marshall, P.D. (2002) The New Intertextual Commodity, in D. Harries (ed.) The New

Media Book, pp. 6981. London: BFI Publishing.

Mayer, P. (1998) Computer-Mediated Interactivity: A Socio-Semiotic Perspective,

Convergence4(3): 4058.

Nardi, B. (1992)A Small Matter of Programming: Perspectives on End User Computing.London: MIT Press.

Neilsen, J. (2002) Writings on Usability, URL (consulted Jan. 2003): http:/

/www.useit.com/

Newell, A. (1990) Unified Theories of Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press.

Newhagen, J.E. (2004) Interactivity, Dynamic Symbol Processing, and the Emergence

of Content in Human Communication, The Information Society 20(5): 397402.

Norman, D.A. (1999) The Invisible Computer: Why Good Products Can Fail, the Personal

Computer is So Complex, and Information Appliances are the Solution. London: MIT

Press.Peacock, A. (2000) Cooling Hot: Redundancy and Entropy in Critique of Interactivity,

Convergence6(1): 228.

Rafaeli, S. (1988) Interactivity: From New Media to Communication, in H. Hawkins,

J. Wiemann and S. Pingree (eds)Advancing Communication Science: Merging Mass and

Interpersonal Processes, pp. 11034. London: Sage.

Richards, R. and M. Weaver (2001a) Adding a New Dimension to On-line Learning

SupportThe Creation of a 3D Intranet Environment for MA Interactive

Production in the Faculty of Media, Arts and Society,Journal of Media Practice1(3):

15764, URL: http://www.user-production.co.uk/papers/webdesign.htm

Roper, J. (1995) The Heart of Multimedia: Interactivity or Experience?, Convergence1(2): 235.

Stromer-Galley, J. (2004) Interactivity-as-Product and Interactivity-as-Process, The

Information Society 20(5): 3936.

Sundar, S.S. (2004) Theorizing Interactivitys Effects, The Information Society 20(5):

3859.

Swingewood, A. (1998) Cultural Theory and the Problem of Modernity. London: Macmillan

Press.

Thompson, J.B. (1995) The Media and Modernity: A Social Theory of the Media .

Cambridge: Polity Press.

RUSSELL RICHARDS is Senior Lecturer in the Faculty of Media, Arts and Society at

Southampton Solent University. Russell is a practicing digital artist working in installation, print,

application and web production. His digital artwork includes: a virtual installation Memory is

Made of This; a music generator installation


549



21/21

DiskO; Covertor, a digital art creation application; and Nebula gascloud generator. Russell

is a member of BAFTA, BIMA, Rhizome and New Media Caucus. He is a founder member of

HIDRAZONE.COM

Address: Southampton Solent University, East Park Terrace, Southamton SO14 0RF, UK.

[email: [email protected]]
