Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".