Co-experience: Understanding user experiences in social interaction

More documents

Recommendations

Info

138 4 PRESENTING THE ARTICLES Similarly, people often elaborate “meta-experiences” together (see Forlizzi and Ford 2000). In this paper we do not focus specifically on meta-experience, for two reasons. First, the pragmatist model of Forlizzi and Ford already accounts for it. When people compare experiences, often collected over several years, they come to find similarities and differences, and classify them in stories. Ultimately, some stories may become key symbols of their identities (see Orr’s 1996 analysis of technicians’ “war stories”). Also, stories provide one of the main mechanisms for reconstructing memories (Neisser 1980, Orr 1996). Second, we see storytelling as just another form of social interaction. It is a significant form of social interaction when sharing experiences verbally, but not necessarily the dominant form for digital media. Although storytelling has well-studied forms and traits, it nevertheless is included in the more general approach of symbolic interactionism, thus making it a special case of the more general argument for all social interaction. The following example (Figure 1) illustrates the strength of this framework. The figure is a mobile multimedia (MMS) message: a photo, audio and text message sent from one mobile phone to another during a pilot study in Finland in 2002 (the pilot study and further details of the messaging are described below under Data and Methods). It shows how Thomas, a father, lifts up a significant experience, the toddler Mikey’s evening tantrum. Jani, a friend, reciprocates by saying that his experiences in babysitting Mikey have been similar, and Thomas should consider getting him a soccer ball of his own. Jani’s comment could be taken as a rejection suggesting a disinterest in Mikey and his temper. In a subsequent reply Thomas reinstated the importance of the event, and furthermore, turned it into an opportunity to tease Jani. His reply contained a good audio sample of the howling and a picture of the boy, red in the face and tears streaming down his cheeks, and suggested similarities between Mikey and Jani. However, Jani’s softened rejection was successful: there were no more reports on Mikey crying after that. As this example shows, people may use technology to share meaningful experiences, to sympathize with them, to suggest that they are not particularly significant, or even to reject denial of their significance. These experiences would not occur to a user alone; identities, roles and emotions are resources for interpreting and continuing interaction (Blumer 1968). For instance, in our example, Thomas and Jani do more than share an experience: they actively interpret it, relate to it, reinterpret it, and in so doing, constitute a line of action and come to define their mutual relationship for a brief moment. The other recipients remain more or less neutral bystanders. The interactionist perspective on co-experience claims that experience is a so-
From Thomas to all: 10 th July 21:49 Text: Jani and Mikey are alike, they get similar tantrums (for different reasons!) Audio (baby crying): “Oooo ooo… no!.. Noo! Nooo!…” ARTICLE 4 139 FIGURE 1 A little boy’s bad mood. cial phenomenon, and needs to be understood as such. Also, it claims that bodily and psychological responses to external phenomena do not necessarily lead to predictable emotional reactions, because of an interpretive social process in between (see Shott 1979). Thus, relying solely on emotion as an index of experience leads us astray. For these same reasons, empathizing with individuals does not explain co-experience. Empathy is necessary, but the focus must first be on interaction. When people act together, they come to create unpredictable situations where they must respond to each other’s actions creatively. In the lifecycle of an experience (compare to Rhea 1992), we need to pay attention to co-experience, not just to individual aspects of experience. This is the crux of the symbolic interactionist perspective on user experience. DATA AND METHODS We illustrate our argument with data from Mobile Multimedia, a multimedia messaging pilot study organized with Radiolinja, a Finnish telecommunications operator. In Mobile Multimedia several groups of friends exchanged multimedia messages with each other for about five weeks in the summer of 2002. Each par-
Page 3 and 4:
Katja Battarbee UNDERSTANDING USER
Page 5 and 6:
FOR YOU
Page 7 and 8:
4 PRESENTING THE ARTICLES 101 1 IT
Page 9 and 10:
an experience, the recipient is use
Page 11 and 12:
It takes a group to turn a design s
Page 15 and 16:
1 INTRO - DUCTION 1.1 FOCUS AND AIM
Page 17 and 18:
duction cycles are short and the st
Page 19 and 20:
fizzy flavoured water seem to be ab
Page 21 and 22:
tronic, and there was no movement o
Page 23 and 24:
and content developers to channel t
Page 25 and 26:
1.3 WHAT IS DESIGN FOR USER EXPERIE
Page 27 and 28:
longer process, in the order of mon
Page 29 and 30:
something independent of being and
Page 31 and 32:
panies are more likely to publish r
Page 33 and 34:
3 CO-EXPERIENCE takes the most prom
Page 37 and 38:
2 USER EXPERIENCE DEMYSTIFIED This
Page 39 and 40:
ecause of the way people enjoy chal
Page 41 and 42:
ness - the ability to facilitate ta
Page 43 and 44:
43 ACTION GOAL goal goal goal actio
Page 45 and 46:
Interaction designers who focus on
Page 47 and 48:
other kinds of products. These mode
Page 49 and 50:
THE MOMENT PAST EXPERIENCE DREAMS F
Page 51 and 52:
experiences with products that do n
Page 53 and 54:
53 ACTION INHERENT INFORMATION AUGM
Page 55 and 56:
Hassenzahl defines fun as a mode of
Page 57 and 58:
ing, and coveting products all elic
Page 59 and 60:
verbal self-reports are subject to
Page 61 and 62:
veen’s alarm clock (ibid.) is int
Page 63 and 64:
spaces illustrates, merely telling
Page 65 and 66:
even artistic, approach that treats
Page 67 and 68:
BEHAVIOUR EXPERIENCE 67 OBSERVATION
Page 69 and 70:
FIGURE 14 69 Empathic observations
Page 71 and 72:
Liz Sanders has been influential in
Page 73 and 74:
FIGURE 17 73 Examples of self docum
Page 76:
3.1 REALITY SEEKS THEORY FOR SERIOU
Page 80 and 81:
3.1 REALITY SEEKS THEORY FOR SERIOU
Page 82 and 83:
3.1.1 EXPERIENCES IN SOCIAL INTERAC
Page 84 and 85:
He succeeds in terminating the repo
Page 86 and 87:
86 3 CO-EXPERIENCE drawn from the c
Page 88 and 89: 21 FIGURES 20 The actual fishing ex
Page 90 and 91: 90 3 CO-EXPERIENCE typically half-w
Page 92 and 93: field testing as an early research
Page 94 and 95: ple explore a product or a technolo
Page 96 and 97: the time (articles 1 Mäkelä & Bat
Page 98: 1 IT’S FUN TO DO THINGS TOGETHER
Page 102 and 103: 102 4 PRESENTING THE ARTICLES cial
Page 104 and 105: 104 4 PRESENTING THE ARTICLES
Page 106 and 107: The results of the two user studies
Page 108 and 109: FIGURE 2 One of the users with a Ph
Page 110 and 111: joyed the challenge of breaking the
Page 112 and 113: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We thank the other
Page 114 and 115: KEYWORDS User experience, interacti
Page 116 and 117: pretation act to shape the experien
Page 120 and 121: CATEGORIES AND SUBJECT DESCRIPTORS:
Page 122 and 123: make proposals and counterproposals
Page 124 and 125: The first message (figure 1) is jus
Page 126 and 127: and sunniest time of year. The “f
Page 128 and 129: ecome fluent in forms of media, the
Page 130 and 131: mote storytelling. [3] Narration an
Page 132 and 133: in Computer Systems 2002, Minneapol
Page 134 and 135: INTRODUCTION Usability experts know
Page 136 and 137: 136 4 PRESENTING THE ARTICLES ence
Page 140 and 141: ticipant was given a MMS phone (eit
Page 142 and 143: Sometimes experiences belong to lar
Page 144 and 145: From Liisa: 11 th July 2002 6:35 p.
Page 146 and 147: People may also align with negative
Page 148 and 149: From Thomas: 16 th July 2002 1:41 p
Page 150 and 151: 150 4 PRESENTING THE ARTICLES disti
Page 152 and 153: 152 4 PRESENTING THE ARTICLES 6. Bl
Page 154 and 155: 52. Taylor, A. and Harper, R. (2002
Page 156 and 157: CATEGORIES AND SUBJECT DESCRIPTORS:
Page 158 and 159: 158 4 PRESENTING THE ARTICLES proac
Page 160 and 161: USER-PRODUCT INTERACTIONS: FLUENT,
Page 162 and 163: 162 4 PRESENTING THE ARTICLES end,
Page 164 and 165: tive, often shared experiences - su
Page 166 and 167: 166 4 PRESENTING THE ARTICLES inter
Page 168 and 169: oth a subjective and objective view
Page 170 and 171: 170 4 PRESENTING THE ARTICLES T. Ed
Page 174 and 175: This leads us to the core question
Page 176 and 177: that resist all your attempts to un
Page 178 and 179: or even grass. This poses new chall
Page 180 and 181: FIGURE 2 The large emply piazza. FI
Page 182 and 183: INTERVENTIONS A first attempt to sp
Page 184 and 185: • After recording, preview the me
Page 186 and 187: A SCENARIO FOR THE SATELLITES The s
Page 188 and 189:
pants can experience affective inti
Page 190 and 191:
the importance of qualitative exper
Page 192:
A AFFECTIVE COMPUTING WEBSITE . . .
Page 196 and 197:
196 REFERENCES Beyer, Hugh. & Karen
Page 198 and 199:
198 REFERENCES Garrett, Jesse James
Page 200 and 201:
200 REFERENCES The ever improving d
Page 202 and 203:
202 REFERENCES Picard, Rosalind W.
Page 204:
1900 ZEPPELIN, ESCALATOR . . . . .
Page 208 and 209:
EVENTS, INVENTIONS, ART, CULTURE DE
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
show all

Co-experience: Understanding user experiences in social interaction

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?