Design Challenges

К оглавлению
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 
34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 
68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 
102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 
119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 
136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 
153 154 155 156 

In this section the main challenges for the design of spectator support are

discussed. Spectators reported little interest in accessing event information

during the highest points of action in the field. However, within the intervals

between highlights there is room in time for a general overview and current

standings, etc. Further, one of the most important issues for design is to avoid

disruption and interference between spectator mobility and access of event

information. Therefore, one challenge is to offer mobile access to the event

information, which enables spectators to get updates without remaining in

relatively close proximity of fixed information hot spots.

To interact with a spectator information support system demands sufficient time

to withdraw the attention from the action in the field. Events like the Rally do

not leave much room for sustained system interaction. This finding became

rather evident due to high demand of visual attention and short delays between

passing competitors. The Swedish Match Cup and Roskilde required less

focus on the visual action and provided the spectators with considerably more

time to interact with both people and technology. This was due to the lower

pace of the event itself. Still, spectators’ attention within all three studies

resembled a periodic nature regarding their visual attention.

As evidence from the three studies have suggested, spectators at the three

different events face many different situations depending on where they

currently are, when and with whom they are with. Ultimately, this will shape

which information content that will be asked for. Further, the intensity in the

current surrounding context will also act as an important factor of, for instance,

if and to what extent the spectator is “open” to receive or actively collect event

information. Another important aspect of getting information to fit into context

is to design access so that event information is linked together with what

spectators currently are watching. This is one thing that existing technologies

have not yet accounted for.

Implications For Design

The results from the fieldwork indicate that the spectators face many different

situations as a result of the constantly changing context. We have established

that the demand for specific event information content is therefore heavily

dependent on the momentary context viewed from the individual spectator.

Accordingly, how the system behaves in terms of how and when information is

to be transferred should be based on users’ own preferences, which could be

implemented by using real-time interaction with personal profiles. The manner

in which information is transferred should allow users to define it to broadcast

event information obtrusively, and also unobtrusively allow the user to actively

collect information as well. An unobtrusive system feature would therefore

avoid interruptions in, for instance, social interaction or a focused visual

attention on the action in the field. In addition, end users should, in conjunction

to this, be able to influence the cues for interaction that the system will use to

notify the user. In other words, obtrusive cues could be constituted by

vibrations from the artifact being used when information arrive. The unobtrusive

method could, on the other hand, simply use graphical cues such as interface

blinkers to allow interaction when the user initiates it (simply because the user

will not learn that new information is available until he/she looks at the screen).

One strategy to bring a system closer to situated content could be to implement

certain context-aware features (cf., Abowd & Dey, 2000; Pascoe, 1998;

Schilit, Adams, & Want, 1994), which several contributions in the literature

have been concerned with (e.g. Aoki, Grinter, Hurst, Szymanski, Thornton, &

Woodruff, 2002; Pascoe, 1997). For example, in the case of the Roskilde

festival and the Swedish Match Cup, positioning technology could be used to

make the system more location-aware, which could offer situated information

content based on where spectators are located and link “appropriate” information

to specific locations. However, the Swedish Rally is the event that stretches

over the largest geographical area. It would be a rather expensive challenge to

cover if a fixed network would be required. From that point of view, the setting

of the Rally would benefit more from a wireless infrastructure that could rely on,

for instance, cellular network connectivity. Still, it needs to be argued, that

simply adding context-aware features for the users will not eliminate or

“resolve” context variety. Context-aware capabilities have the potential to

bring spectator support closer to situated information access and content.

However, to make event information fit into context requires that users also can

influence information depth (level of detail), specific content, time of transfer,

form and how the system notifies the user. This implies that the system should

feature a hierarchical structure of information, which is dynamically updated

and can be accessed at will.

Based on the three studies, and with the main contextual requirements in mind,

an application that seeks to continuously support spectators in situ could rely

on a hand-held computer, for instance a PDA (Personal Digital Assistant),

which would provide further interaction capabilities. Additionally, this would

require a roaming, wireless network to be implemented.

Theoretical Considerations

In this section we discuss and sum up on to what extent background constructs

within theory have served in this research and to which extent these mindsets

have been used.

The guidance and help gained in this research from looking into concepts, such

as formative context and situated action, mainly consists of general constructs

as support for thought when it comes to understanding how distributed events

actually take place. Further, it has also been useful concerning the understanding

of the interdependencies between different parts of the events, actors,

activities and how the current setting is shaped by contextualized and situated

properties. The three studies share many contextual properties and are very

similar in nature, i.e., the underlying concept, purpose, geographical setting and

requirements put on spectators.

When it comes to formative context and applying ideas that originate from

organizational settings, it incorporates a stance towards an underlying structure,

where this structure is represented by norms, routines, procedure,

conduct, form or ways for collaboration to name a few. Further, these aspects

of structure are, as described by Ciborra & Lanzara (1994), re-enforced by the

enactment of them. However, the very same enactment shapes the formative

context when new incitements are integrated into practice.

When seeing distributed events as a formative context, i.e., its fundamental

concept and layout, we have paid attention to basic arrangements by organizers

and the cognitive imageries that repeatedly are enacted by the spectators. The

formative context finds expression in, first, the spatial layout of the event and

existing sources of information support within this space. Secondly, another

expression concerns the established notion among spectators that they are, to

some extent, responsible for designing their own experience, that is, they have

choices, yet limited, on how to take part of the event. Further, many of the

spectators share and communicate a basic, common understanding of what

information support to expect. This knowledge is enacted and moulds the

formative context.

Spectator mobility appears to follow an established pattern, resembling the

notion of formative context (Ciborra & Lanzara, 1994); moving around is the

action originating from the interest driven aspiration to benefit as much of the

live experience as possible and is an evident activity to all attending spectators.

Thus, mobility is required to actively take part of the event. In this context, there

is no consensus needed for practice, nor incitements on how things should be

handled to be in line with other actors’ actions. Instead, action, and accordingly

mobility, is negotiated inside small social constellations, i.e., groups or pairs of

individuals, on where to go, what to see, etc. Still, the basic structure of the

event serves as a framework and shapes the range of activity.

Our claim, as this chapter has strived to put forward, is to design information

support that breaks up mechanisms fostering the establishment of a formative

context, and instead make way for and liberate situated enactment of the event

experience. Moreover, with a notion of formative context as a general construct

and mindset, distributed events can be viewed as having, to some extent, a

fundamental structure, which has been described above. However, what does

lack structure is how spectators enact and go about their activities at the event.

The decision-making concerning focus of the event and where this spatially is

to be experienced is socially negotiated and situated among spectators (Suchman,

1987). How spectators go about experiencing the event depends on how they

perceive it, i.e., what catches their main interest for the moment. To benefit as

much as possible from the experience of the event has, from our perspective as

researchers, been viewed as the basic course of action and plan. Since

spectators continuously re-negotiate what and where to observe, both enactment

and setting becomes the target for highly situated, interest-driven action.

As a result, the different context-specific circumstances around the spectators

are utterly difficult to anticipate. For example, it is a rather demanding task to

predict what the spectator is currently interested to know about, the current

social context (for instance, if broadcasted information is interrupting social

interaction), or recent, local events that call for specific detailed information.

To apply a work-related framework in contexts of leisure could seem problematic.

However, this research does not apply formative context and situated

action in its most unyielding sense; rather it has served as an instrument in the

qualitative analysis of empirical data. For instance, when applying the notion of

formative context, we interpret and use the instance of structure in a less

organized sense. Thus, structure, or describing it roughly as the heart of norms

and common practice, becomes relevant when looking at how boundaries at

distributed events shape spectator action. The notion of situated action has

been treated similarly, although we find it reasonable to recognize situated

action to permeate a major part of human activity. To sum this up, we

perceive the use of situated action in this research as considering the

uncertainty of what course of action spectators will undertake whilst

taking part of the event. In addition, the use of formative context becomes a

means of identifying the boundaries put on the possible range of activity or

action for spectators.