Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The field of design research, thinking, and practice relies on various mediums and methods (Hanington, 2003) to improve the designs of products, services, and experiences. Even though the use of video and digital media has been studied within the design field, the use of interactive documentaries (i.e., I-docs) remains unexplored. Aston, Gaudenzi, and Rose (2017) define I-docs as “any project that starts with the intention to engage with the real and that uses digital interactive technology to realize this intention,” as they consider 'real' as "the breadth of lived experience". Interactive documentaries can be non-linear in the way that they present documented experiences, co-creative in making, and polyphonic by involving multiple perspectives (Aston & Odorico, 2018). These qualities of interactive documentaries make them interesting as a medium. Aiming to answer the question "How can I-docs be helpful to the design field?" the study conducts a literature review that looks at the uses of interactive documentaries and the existing design research methods. The study is particularly interested in user-centered design and co-design as two main design approaches. The reviewed papers were subjected to qualitative content analysis to understand the patterns between what existing methods in design research provide and what interactive documentaries can offer. The user-centered design approach focuses on the user and relies on user research to understand the user experience. And co-design is where the "users" are considered "co-designers." Interactive documentaries offer potential uses for both of these design approaches. For the user-centered design approach, the stages of design thinking were used as a structure to see how each of these steps can be improved by utilizing interactive documentaries. Design thinking is known to have five main stages that are iterative and non-linear: empathize (researching your users' needs), define (stating the users' needs and problems), ideate (challenging assumptions and creating ideas), prototype (starting to create solutions), and test (trying the solutions). In light of this, the paper proposes potential uses of I-docs in the first three stages of design thinking. The study argues that interactive documentaries can be used to document and present the user experience in a unique way. When compared to other user data collection methods, the interactive documentary stands out since it can retell user experiences in an in-depth and non-linear way by showing different perspectives and including multiple stakeholders. So, I-docs can inform the design process by supporting the "empathize" stage. Secondly, I-docs can help to compare these multiple perspectives and help designers form a design focus in the "define" stage. Lastly, I-docs can challenge assumptions regarding what the users need and can be stimulating for thinking about various concepts to support the "ideate" stage. In the context of co-design, interactive documentaries can be made co-creatively, as evident by the many works noted by Cizek and Uricchio (2022), making them a co-designed medium. Therefore, I-docs can be a catalyst for co-design processes. This work aspires to spark a conversation between I-docs and design and invite other researchers to explore the opportunities between the fields.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».