titty. :32.
..¥..l.7fo(§

E

‘

I . .15.!!!

..!.....2........ 5.5.2.... .r
in

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘ HESIS

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

31293 00904 9499

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

CREATING DIRECT ENGAGEMENT

presented by

John Harold Bauman

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

 

M.A. dmyfinn Telecommunication

 

Major professor

Date 7/2 ?/73

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

LIBRARY }
Michigan State
L University I

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

x;-

l 2‘”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

c:\circ\daleduevpm3-pl‘

 

 

 

CREATING DIRECT ENGAGEMENT
By

John Harold Bauman

A THESIS

 

Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment ofthe requirements for the
degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department ofTelecommunication

1993

 

ABSTRACT

CREATING DIRECT ENGAGEMENT
By

John Harold Bauman

Computer interface designers often strive to simplify the way computers are used.
Many researchers now believe that computer interfaces can be more effective if they not
only simplify computer use but also involve and directly engage users. However, no one
has defined the criteria necessary to achieve "direct engagement" in users.

The program "Movie Madness" attempts to create direct engagement by
incorporating a set of design criteria. Subjects used "Movie Madness" and responded to a
questionnaire afier completing the program. The questionnaire looks for evidence that
"Movie Madness" created direct engagement in the user and tries to identify the criteria
that contributed most strongly to the direct engagement effect.

This study found that certain design criteria seem to enable users to feel directly
engaged, that some criteria contribute more strongly to the direct engagement effect than

others, and that some people appear to experience direct engagement more readily than

others.

 

 

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank a number of people for supporting me and providing me with
valuable input while I pursued this project. First of all, I would like to thank the members
of my thesis committee, Dr. Carrie Heeter, Dr. Thomas Muth, and Dr. Frank Rutledge,
whose constructive criticism and generous input of ideas contributed greatly to the success
of this project. Thanks to faculty members Dr. Gilbert Williams, Dr. Gretchen Barbatsis,
Lucy Ramsey, Denise Mahoney, Shelly Villareal, and Jim Clark, all of whom assisted me
on numerous occasions. Thanks to fellow graduate students Steve Sneed, Pericles
Gomes, and Randy Russell, who offered, free of charge, their bountifiJl multimedia and
virtual reality expertise. Thanks to Yvonne Sanchez, Keith Pyne, and Sandra Bauman,
whose creative contributions are evident in "Movie Madness." Thanks to my family,
Richard Bauman, Marie Bauman, Rick Bauman, and Sandra Bauman, who offered endless
moral support and their willingness to help me over the rough spots of this project. And
finally, thanks to a set of friends who I consider family, David Decker, Scott Doring, Jeff

Lamb, and Keith Pyne, who supported me in this project in ways too numerable to

mention.

iii

 

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................... VII
LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................... VIII
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 1
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................................... 3
Direct Engagement & Direct Manipulation ............................................................. 3
Interface Design Considerations ............................................................................. 5
Theater and Direct Engagement ............................................................................. 8
Summary ............................................................................................................... 8
CHAPTER III: RESEARCH AND DESIGN QUESTIONS ........................................ 10
Hypothesis ............................................................................................................. 10
Research Questions ................................................................................................ 12
Design Philosophy and Aesthetic ............................................................................ 13
CHAPTER IV: METHOD ........................................................................................... 15
Production Design ................................................................................................. 15
Definition of Direct Engagement ...................................................................... 15
Design Factors for Creating "Direct Engagement" ............................................ 16
Program Goal ................................................... . ............................................... 17
Program Audience ............................................................................................ 17
Program Type .................................................................................................. 18
Program Content .............................................................................................. 18
Program Structure ............................................................................................ 18

 

 

 

Using the Program ........................................................ 19

User Control .................................................................................................... 28
Creative Touches ............................................................................................. 29
Graphic Elements ................................................................................ . ............ 30
Sound .............................................................................................................. 31
Toolbook as Deve10pment tool ........................................................................ 33
Evaluation Design .................................................................................................. 34
Sample ............................................................................................................. 35
Instruments ...................................................................................................... 36
Procedures ....................................................................................................... 36
CHAPTER V: RESULTS ............................................................................................ 38
Participant Characteristics ...................................................................................... 3 8
Gaining and Holding the User's Attention ............................................................... 39
Emotional Response/Catharsis ............................................................................... 44
Continuous representation of objects/actions .......................................................... 50
Emphasis on action ................................................................................................ 52
Immediate results ..................................................................................... . ............. 53
Actions reversible ............................................................................ . ..................... 55
Actions represented in objects ................................................................................ 56
Natural, unobtrusive interface ................................................................................ 57
Set Dressing ..................................................................................... . ..................... 61
Agency .................................................................................................................. 61
Split Variable Results ............................................................................................. 65
CHAPTER VI: DISCUSSION .......................................... ......... , ........................... 73
Was Direct Engagement Achieved? ........................................................................ 73
Continuous representation of objects/actions .......................................................... 74
Emphasis on action ........................................................... . .................................... 75

 

 

 

Actions reversible .................................................................................................. 76

Actions represented in objects ................................................................................ 76
Natural, unobtrusive interface ................................................................................ 76
Set Dressing ........................................................................................................... 76
Agency .................................................................................................................. 77
Key Direct Engagement Design Factors ................................................................. 78
Split Variables ........................................................................................................ 79
Summary ............................................................................................................... 80
CHAPTER VII: RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................... 81
Factors to Include for Direct Engagement .............................................................. 81
Enhancements to Direct Engagement Interfaces ..................................................... 81
Further study ..................................................................... _ ....................... . ........... 82
Applying Direct Engagement Concepts to Different Types of Programs ........... 82

Effect of Technology on Direct Engagement .................................................... 83
Personal Characteristics Compatible With Direct Engagement .......................... 83
Additional Techniques for Creating Direct Engagement .................................... 83
APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................. 85
BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................... 95

vi

 

 

Table 5.0:
Table 5.1:
Table 5.2:
Table 5.3:
Table 5.4:
Table 5.5:
Table 5.6:

 

LIST OF TABLES

T-Test Results for Sex ........................................... , ..................................... 66
T-Test Results for Nationality ..................................................................... 67
T-Test Results for Graduates ....................................................................... 68
T-Test Results for Movie Buffs .. ................................................................. 69
T-Test Results for Theater Buffs .................................... . ............................ 7O
T-Test Results for Television Buffs ............................................................. 71
T-Test Results for Science Fiction Fans ....................................................... 72

vii

 

 

 

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 4.0: Paths Between Screens .............................................................................. 19
Figure 4.]: Title Screen ............................................................................................... 20
Figure 4.2: Introduction Screen ................................................................................... 20
Figure 4.3: Instruction Screen ...................................................................................... 21
Figure 4.4: Studio Hub Intro ........................................................................................ 22
Figure 4.5: Movie Genre Crossroads ............................................................................ 23
Figure 4.6: Science Fiction Movie Crossroads .............................................................. 23
Figure 4.7: Movie Set .................................................................................................. 24
Figure 4.8: Screening Room ........................................................................................ 25
Figure 4.9: Credit Book ............................................................................................... 26
Figure 4.10: Star Trailer .............................................................................................. 26
Figure 4.11: Signature Screen ...................................................................................... 27
Figure 4.12: Audition Stage ........................................................ .............................. 28
Figure 5.0: How Convincing Was The Experience? ...................................................... 39
Figure 5.1: Interest in using the program ...................................................................... 40
Figure 5.2: Level of Engagement ................................................................................. 41
Figure 5.3: Believability of Program ............................................................................. 41
Figure 5.4: Part ofthe On-Screen Story ......................................... . ............................. 43
Figure 5.5: Degree of User Involvement in Program Action ............................. . ........... 43
Figure 5.6: Enjoyment of "Movie Madness" Activities ................................................. 45
Figure 5.7: Happiness and Annoyance ......................... . ................................................ 47

viii

 

 

 

Figure 5.8: Boredom and Confusion ............................................................................ 48

Figure 5.9: Catharsis .................................................................................................... 48
Figure 5.10: Satisfaction With Actor Choice ................................................................ 49
Figure 5.11: Work or Play ........................................................................................... 49
Figure 5.12: Experiencing "Movie Madness" Again ...................................................... 50
Figure 5.13: Obviousness of Actions ............................................................................ 51
Figure 5.14: Consistent Choices ...................................................................... . ............ 51
Figure 5.15: Performing Desired Actions ..................................................................... 52
Figure 5.16: Action Considerations .............................................................................. 52
Figure 5.17: How Real Did Actions Seem .................................................................... 53
Figure 5.18: Did the Program Respond Quickly ......... . ................................................. 54
Figure 5.19: Effects of Slow Program Response ..................................................... 54
Figure 5.20: How Often Did User Get Stuck ................................................................ 55
Figure 5.21: Ease of Undoing Actions .............................................. .. .......................... 56
Figure 5.22: Ease of Performing Various Activities ...................................................... 58
Figure 5.23: How Clearly Did Objects Represent Actions ............................................ 59
Figure 5.24: Interacting With Computer or With Characters & Objects ........................ 60
Figure 5.25: Level of Control ....................................................................................... 60
Figure 5.26: Ease of Using the Program ............................................... _ ....................... 60
Figure 5.27: How Would Ability to Talk Back Improve Experience ............................. 61
Figure 5.28: Evaluation ofPierre ................................................................................. 62
Figure 5.29: Evaluation ofThe Boss ............................................................................ 63
Figure 5.30: Were the Actors Believable Personalities .................................................. 63
Figure 5.31: Could User Communicate With Characters .............................................. 64
Figure 5.32: How Did Ability to Talk Increase Believability ............................ 64
Figure 5.33: User's Role as Director ......................................... . .................. . .............. 65

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

Interface designers are continually trying to improve the ways in which peOple
interact with their computers. In recent years, the concept of ”direct manipulation" has
been applied to graphical user interfaces. A direct manipulation interface should be
transparent to the user. It must visibly represents objects and actions which can be applied
to those objects. Finally, it must allow the user to directly interact with the objects
(Heeter, 1991). When direct manipulation is applied to graphical user interfaces, objects
can be represented graphically (Heeter, 1991). Part of the idea behind direct manipulation
is that if the computer can represent objects and tools within a context that people are
familiar with, they will find using the computer to be an easy, natural experience (Laurel,
1991)

Some theorists and designers propose an extension ofthe direct manipulation
concept dubbed "Direct Engagement." "Direct Engagement" interfaces are like direct
manipulation interfaces in that they create representations of objects within a context for
users to work with (Hutchins, Hollan, and Norman, 1986). However, they are different
from direct manipulation interfaces in that they must meet additional requirements: they
must gain and hold the user's attention, they must create coherent and consistent virtual
objects, entities, and environments, and they must generate a "feeling" or "emotional
response" within the user related to the "experience" of using the interface (Laurel, 1991).
The feeling that is generated is described in this study as "catharsis", a word which
Aristotle defined as "the release of emotion evoked by the action represented in a play"
(Aristotle, 1954). The word catharsis is used somewhat liberally in the current study to

refer to "the release of positive emotions and the sense of satisfaction that comes about

afier successfully participating in the action ofa program."

 

 

 

As of yet, no one has operationally elaborated the factors necessary to create an
interface that generates a sense of direct engagement for its users (Laurel, 1991). In all
likelihood, there is no one set of factors that can achieve this goal for all applications. But
it is possible to identify a variety of factors that seem likely to help create a sense of direct
engagement.

The current study attempts to operationally define criteria for direct engagement
interfaces and apply them to the design of a software application called "Movie Madness."
User reactions are then assessed relative to the identified criteria. The criteria are then

evaluated.

IQ

 

 

 

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW

The purpose ofthe literature review was to gain an understanding of what direct
engagement is, why it is a good thing, and how to achieve it. One part of the review
involved exploring direct engagement and its relationship to direct manipulation. Another
part of the review related some general advice and design principles that interface
designers and researchers seem to consider important for building good interfaces to direct
engagement. The last part of the review examined the contribution that theatrical
concepts can make to direct engagement. In the end, the literature review helped to form
a picture of direct engagement that includes several interface design principles and

concepts from a variety of disciplines, especially theater.

Direct Engagement & Direct Manipulation

Direct engagement and direct manipulation are often viewed as close relatives.
Many theorists, including Laurel (1991) and Hutchins, Hollan, and Norman (1986) believe
that the requirements for creating direct manipulation constitute a subset ofthe
requirements necessary for creating direct engagement. It makes sense, therefore, to
examine direct manipulation before delving into a discussion of direct engagement.

Direct manipulation interfaces rely on knowledge ofhow people interact with
objects in the real world in the beliefthat they can carry that knowledge across to the
manipulation of virtual objects that represent actions that can be performed on a computer
(Laurel, 1991). Heeter (1991) notes that the definition of direct manipulation in academic

human interface literature encompasses the following characteristics:

1.) the objects and actions which can be applied to those objects are
visible.

2.) the interface is transparent;

3.) the user interacts with objects instead ofintermediaries;

4.) using the interface feels like driving a car

LIJ

 

 

 

 

Shneiderman (1987) describes direct manipulation as including the following three
characteristics:

1.) the object or objects ofinterest must be continually represented for the
user;

2.) the user must be allowed to interact physically with the objects to
perform actions rather than be required to enter complex syntax to
perform actions.

3.) the operations the user takes on the objects should be reversible if
necessary and should have an immediate visible impact on the objects.

Though an interface need not be graphical in nature in order to facilitate direct
manipulation, it often helps if it is (Heeter, 1991). Graphical metaphors provide a good
way to represent actions in a direct manipulation interface. Since metaphors symbolize
objects or activities that people are already familiar with, they can be used to represent
actions in computer programs (Laurel, 1991). However, Erickson (1990) notes that care
must be taken to ensure that the metaphors used in a program are appropriate for the task
the program is trying to facilitate; failure to do so can result in interfaces that are
confusing and frustrating to users. Metaphors should be carefully designed and pre-tested
to ensure their appropriateness.

Laurel (1991) defines ”direct engagement" as a positive feeling that occurs when a
user experiences direct interaction with the objects in a domain. Whereas direct
manipulation focuses on the qualities of action, direct engagement focuses on subjective
response. Laurel notes that while no one knows what the requirements are for producing
direct engagement, most human interface researchers agree that it must, minimally, include
the criteria for achieving direct manipulation.

Hutchins, Hollan, and Norman (1986) believe that additional requirements are
needed for producing the direct engagement effect. They feel that a direct engagement
interface should be unobtrusive, should depict changes caused to an object by a set of

operations, and should give the illusion ofimmediate response .

 

 

 

 

Direct manipulation and direct engagement are facilitated by recent advances in
computer technology. Today's personal computers have the speed and graphics
capabilities to create virtual objects and to allow people to manipulate them with the click
of a mouse. The speed of today's computers enhances their ability to create the illusion of
immediate response to user's actions. As a result, it is becoming increasingly possible to
incorporate direct manipulation and direct engagement into interfaces so that they feel like

a natural, involving extension of real-world actions a person might take (Laurel, 1991).

Interface Design Considerations

The human interface literature contains an abundance of principles, techniques, and
general advice that can be applied to direct engagement interfaces. For example,
information relating to ease of use can aid in the attempt to make an interface unobtrusive.
Jacobson (1992) stresses the importance of interface intuitiveness in facilitating ease of
use. He asserts that the goal ofinterface design is to achieve an intuitiveness that mirrors
people's self images and acts as an extension oftheir minds. Norman (1988) advocates
displaying knowledge "in the world" where people can readily access it without having to
memorize it. This implies that interfaces can be made easier to use by providing users
with descriptive instructions or other operating clues.

Another technique for simplifying interfaces is to limit the paths a user can take
through them. The available paths should be those that will likely be most useful or
desirable to the user (Jacobson, 1992). Examples ofthis would be to present only a few
menu choices and hide obscure choices in sub-menus, and to constrain the actions that the
user can take to prevent inappropriate ones from being taken. Norman (1988) notes that
natural constraints in the world restrict allowed behaviors and limit the operations that
can be taken on objects. User interfaces can also incorporate constraints, such as dimming

menu choices, to help users avoid inappropriate actions.

 

 

 

Many interface theorists believe that it is important to focus sharply on people and
the tasks they wish to accomplish when designing an interface. Rheingold (1990) and
Jacobson (1992) assert that computer software has too often been designed around
consideration of what the program should be able to do rather than around what the user
wants to do and how they want to do it. Rheingold also notes that programs should
include appropriate tools that allow users to accomplish desired tasks in a natural,
unobtrusive manner. Grudin (1989) stresses the importance of designing and positioning
interface objects in accordance with the tasks users wish to perform. The tasks a user will
be performing through a direct engagement interface must be considered when
determining how to facilitate those tasks through direct manipulation principles.
Designing for the task and the needs ofthe user is also critical for making a direct
engagement interface unobtrusive.

Interface designers note the importance of creating good human-computer
dialogues. This task poses a significant challenge. The user must be familiar with a set of
commands that the program can understand, and the computer must respond to those
commands in a manner that makes sense to the user (Molich, 1990). Furthermore, the set
ofcommands the user must learn is often daunting, and the commands don't always
describe the actions that follow accurately. Erickson (1990) notes that in recent years,
graphical metaphors have been used to facilitate complex computer dialogs. Metaphors
serve as natural models that allow people to take their knowledge of familiar objects and
actions and use it to give structure to other concepts. It's easy to see how metaphors can
be used to enhance interaction in direct manipulation and direct engagement interfaces.

No recipe book currently exists for designing direct engagement. However, an
examination ofgood design techniques from a variety ofdisciplines might yield some of
direct engagement's ingredients. Erickson (1990) and Kim (1990) believe that interface
design can benefit from knowledge from a variety ofdisciplines. Donald Norman (1988)

suggests that designers in all fields should look at design features around us to get a feel

 

 

 

for the ones that work. By developing a general sensitivity to good design, computer
interface designers should be able to improve their work substantially (Rheingold, 1990).
Computer interface designers might also consider design techniques from other disciplines
such as engineering, art, and theater (Mountford, 1990). Kim (1990) notes that though it
may be difficult for designers of one discipline to accept design ideas from another
discipline, the influx of new ideas make the task worthwhile.

There are many challenges inherent in designing direct engagement interfaces and
interfaces in general. Erickson (1990) notes that it's often challenging to come up with an
interface that balances ease of use with a large degree of functionality. Users who have
never seen a particular program often must be able to easily perform complex tasks with it.
Furthermore, Grudin (1989) and Marchionini (1992) assert that ease oflearning and ease
ofuse are often at odds with each other. Program features designed to make a program
easy to learn for casual users often get in the way of more experienced users.

There are often so many competing requirements in the design ofan interface that
any solution is likely to be a compromise (Erickson, 1990). For example, Grudin (1989)
suggests that the quest for user interface consistency often compromises the effort to
focus on users and their work when designing an interface. Ideally, programs must
balance requirements specifying that they should respond quickly, be visually detailed,
create emotion in the user, etceteras.

Mountford (1990) suggest that designers might try ”role playing" to evaluate
interfaces from different points ofview. Designers could look at a project from the
perspective of an open-minded explorer, an artist who generates problem-solving ideas, a
judge who evaluates and filters ideas, and a warrior who champions particular ideas. Role
playing might provide designers with a useful method for balancing the requirements of

direct engagement interfaces and interfaces in general.

 

 

 

 

Theater and Direct Engagement

Many interface designers contend that our interaction with computers could be
greatly improved if it more closely resembled the way we interact in the real world.
Theater is an art form that specializes in representing agents, or characters, and the actions
they take. It stands to reason that the techniques used in theater to represent actions and
agents in the real world might hold promise as a foundation for thinking about and
designing human-computer experiences (Laurel, 1991 ). Furthermore, theater would
provide a model for human—computer activity that is familiar, comprehensible, and
evocative (Laurel, 1991).

In addition to providing an excellent model for human-computer interaction,
theater could reveal important clues to generating a sense of"direct engagement" through
computer interfaces. A key reason is that drama has the power to involve audience
members both emotionally and cognitively (Mountford, 1990). Isolating the key factors
contributing to audience involvement and participation could help researchers to discover
techniques for enhancing direct engagement through human-computer interaction
(Mountford, 1990).

Laurel (1991) discusses many different factors that seem to be important for
involving audiences. Some ofthe factors are: emphasizing action, making creative use of
agency, paying attention to "set dressing” and other artistic details. and employing
empathy for the audience. The challenge for interface designers is to discover how to best

use these factors to help bring about direct engagement.

Summary
Direct engagement is a positive feeling that occurs when a user experiences direct
interaction with the objects in a domain. The concept ofdirect engagement is closely
related to direct manipulation and is based in part on the requirements for creating direct

manipulation. Some human interface researchers add that direct engagement interfaces

 

 

 

 

should be unobtrusive, should depict changes caused to an object by a set of Operations,
and should give the illusion of immediate response.

The human interface literature contains a wealth ofinformation that can be utilized
by designers of direct engagement Human interface theorists and practitioners mention
principles of good interface design that can be applied to the design ofdirect engagement
interfaces, such as ease of use, emphasis on users and their tasks, establishing a good
human-computer dialogue, and incorporating principles from other disciplines. They also
mention some of the challenges to designing good interfaces.

Theater might prove useful for modeling human computer activity and for
providing a foundation for thinking about and designing human-computer experiences. If
key factors for involving audiences are identified, they might prove useful for enhancing

computer-based direct engagement experiences.

 

 

 

CHAPTER III: RESEARCH AND DESIGN QUESTIONS

Hypothesis

The current study explores the hypothesis that a computer program capable of
producing a sense of direct engagement in its users can be created using a specified set of
design factors. The program ”Movie Madness" incorporates the proposed set of factors
in an attempt to verify the hypothesis. Ten design factors were identified for the current
study and are described in the following paragraphs.

Continuous Representation ofthe objectfs) ofinterest. The purpose ofthis design
factor is to ensure that objects ofimportance, such as those that represent the actions a
user can take and those that help the user to establish his or her bearings in a virtual world,
are displayed for the user at all times. Screens should be designed to accurately portray
where the user is in the virtual world. Every action a user can take at a given time must be
represented by an object that clearly indicates the action.

Physical actions instead of complex syntax. In the past, most computer programs
required users to be familiar with a complex syntax in order to operate them. The
program responded to commands that the user typed at a prompt. An interface that
allows users to perform tasks by taking physical actions, such as clicking on an object with
a mouse, provides an environment in which users can accomplish tasks by directly
manipulating symbols.

Rapid incremental reversible operations. This design factor dictates that an
interface must allow the user to rapidly and easily perform a series of actions that
contribute to the completion ofa whole task. The user should be able to easily undo an
operation if necessary.

Depicting the Result of Actions on Objects. When an action, such as a mouse

click, is taken on an object, some indication must be given that the action took place. For

 

 

 

 

example, ifa simulated button is pressed, animation might be used to depict the button
depressing.

Creating Instantaneous Response. Users should be given the impression that the
actions they perform on objects take place in "real time," that is, they should not have to
wait for the computer to respond to the action they took.

Unobtrusive Interface In order for an interface to be unobtrusive, it should be
invisible. In other words, the user of such an unobtrusive interface should be able to
concentrate on the actions he or she wishes to perform rather than thinking about the
mechanisms for performing them. Performing tasks with an unobtrusive interface should
"feel" as natural as performing non-computer tasks.

Emphasis on Action. The purpose ofthis design factor is to ensure that the design
of an interface gives the highest priority to clearly and accurately representing the set of
actions that can be performed. It suggests that representing the actions that can be
performed in a program is far more important than creating a visual cornucOpia which is
pleasing to the eye but lacking in clarity of purpose.

"Movie Madness" attempts to involve the user in the on-screen action whenever
possible. For example, the program allows the user to change the settings on each cue
card, hand the contract to an actor or actress, and control the slide show using the slide
controller.

Agency. Interacting with other people is an important part of performing activities
in everyday life. The idea behind agency is to make computer interface use feel more like
everyday life by creating characters for the user to interact with and by giving the user a

role within the program.

Agency is used extensively in ”Movie Madness. Pierre and the Boss are both
talking agents designed to provide the user with instruction and a sense of
"companionship" while wandering around the virtual backlots. The characters address the

user directly and refer to her or him as the "director," a role which fits in with the theme of

l I

 

 

 

 

the program. The actors are also agents, and the user has the opportunity to interact with
them extensively on the audition stage.

Set Dressing Set dressing refers to the small details that enhance the overall look
and feel of an interface. The details might include special graphics, a sound effect, or a
piece of animation.

Empathy. Empathy is closely related to set dressing. It enables a designer to
create an interface containing the subtle touches that will stir a user's emotions and leave

him or her with a positive or cathartic feeling upon completing the program.

Research Questions

Twenty research participants took part in the current study. Each participant spent
approximately twenty to thirty minutes using "Movie Madness” and then filled out a
questionnaire designed to give feedback on his or her perceptions ofthe program (see the
questionnaire in Appendix A). The data from the questionnaires is presented in chapter V,
"Results."

The first question that must be answered for the current study is "Was Movie
Madness able to generate a sense of direct engagement in its users?" The first two
categories ofquestions that are reported on in chapter V, ”Results,” provide feedback to
answer the question.

If"Movie Madness" successfully creates direct engagement, a logical question is
"which ofthe ten design factors contribute most strongly to achieving direct engagement?"
Identifying these factors could lead to a more accurate "ingredient list” for creating direct
engagement. The remaining categories ofquestions that are reported on in chapter V,
"Results," provide feedback to answer the question.

Direct engagement might be a phenomenon more readily experienced by certain
types of people than others. What personal characteristics might contribute to a person's

ability to experience a sense of direct engagement? The current study analyzes the

12

 

 

 

 

questionnaire data to see how differences in sex, nationality, and various other factors

affect people's ability to experience direct engagement.

Design Philosophy and Aesthetic

Several design guidelines were employed while developing "Movie Madness" to
ensure the quality and reliability ofthe program and to increase the likelihood that it would
meet its goal of creating direct engagement. Most ofthe design guidelines stem from the
developer's years of experience as a software engineer and developer of multimedia
programs. The rest ofthe guidelines are derived from the literature review of direct
engagement and computer interfaces.

Stay focused on the purpose ofthe program. It's easy to get carried away when
developing software and start including fancy bells and whistles that don't further the goal
ofthe program. If an enhancement doesn't contribute to the program's purpose, leave it
out. For example, the goal of "Movie Madness" is to create a sense of direct engagement
in its users, not to provide spectacular visuals. The program's graphics may be simple, but
they adequately represent the virtual "Movie Madness" world and the actions that the user
can take there.

Think like a user. Constantly evaluate the interface to determine how users will
perceive it. When you can't separate yourself from your role as developer, test out the
interface on someone else. Observe those testing the program to see ifthey seem to be

experiencing the two key elements ofdirect engagement. involvement and emotional

response.

 

Keep it simple. Exquisite graphics, sound, and animation are nice, but they take a
huge amount oftime to produce and are not requirements for creating direct engagement.
The size ofthe "Movie Madness" project dictates that simplicity must be maintained in

order to complete the program in a timely manner.

 

 

 

 

Document carefully. A program the size of"Movie Madness" becomes
unmanageable ifthe code for it is not well-documented. Comment everything so that
modifications will be easy.

Test thoroughly. Make sure the program is debugged as thoroughly as possible
before the users have a chance to try it. Testing must be performed by several people,
both computer literate and computer illiterate. Testing by the developer alone is not
sufficient.

A program that is not tested thoroughly is likely to have a variety ofbugs and
inconsistencies. One ofthe criteria for a direct engagement interface is that it be
unobtrusive. An interface flawed by bugs is anything but unobtrusive and therefore
unacceptable as a direct engagement interface.

Incorporate direct engagement factors. The ten direct engagement design factors

identified in chapter three must be incorporated into "Movie Madness. Evaluate the

program at every step to make sure they are included.

 

 

 

“He-h; mifi'- 9" ‘

CHAPTER IV: M ETl-IOD

Production Design
An interactive multimedia program was produced that attempts to create a sense of
direct engagement for those using it. The program, "Movie Madness," is a simulated visit
to a movie studio during which the user plays the "role" ofa director. The user has the
opportunity to visit movie sets, review movie stills and information in a screening room,
visit actors in their dressing rooms, and direct actors in an on-stage audition. ”Movie
Madness" was designed for use on IBM-PC compatible computers using the software

program Asymetrix Toolbook (version 1.53).

Definition of Direct Engagement

The literature search did not uncover a definition for direct engagement. Several
ofthe authors who discussed this subject, however, described when direct engagement
occurs, what its characteristics are, and some ofthe design factors necessary to create it.
By factoring together this information, along with some dictionary definitions, a definition
for direct engagement can be derived.

The American Heritage Dictionary says that to "engage" is to "obtain and hold the
attention of." Engagement, therefore, is a state where one's attention has been obtained
and is being held. A computer program that can gain and hold the attention ofit's users
fits this criteria by creating a sense of engagement.

Several experts in the area ofhuman-computer interaction have stated that "Direct
engagement," as it applies to computer interfaces, occurs when a user experiences direct
interaction with objects in a domain (Laurel, 1991). Interacting directly with computer-
generated representations of objects within a specific context is often referred to as ”direct

manipulation" (Mountford and Gaver, 1990). Furthermore, Brenda Laurel implies in

 

 

 

 

"Computers as Theatre" (1991) that direct engagement involves a positive emotional
response from the user.

Taking the above information and definitions into account, ”Direct engagement"
can be defined as "a human-computer interaction in which the computer user
experiences positive emotions and his/her attention is obtained and held by directly
interacting with coherent, consistent computer-generated representations of objects

within a specific domain environment."

Design Factors for Creating "Direct Engagement"

The ten design factors for creating direct engagement that are listed in chapter
three were obtained from several different places. Given that direct manipulation is an
important characteristic of direct engagement (Laurel, 1991 ), the design factors for
creating a direct manipulation interface are included as the first three design factors for
producing direct engagement. They include ”continuous representation ofthe objects of
interest," "physical actions instead of complex syntax," and "rapid incremental reversible
operations whose impact on the object ofinterest is immediately visible" (Brennan, 1990).

The next three design factors for achieving a sense of direct engagement are
identified by Hutchins, Hollan, and Norman (1986). They include "Changes caused to an
object by a set of operations must be depicted in the representation ofthe objects," "The
system must create the illusion ofinstantaneous response," and "The interface should be
unobtrusive."

In addition to the design factors listed above, several ideas from Brenda Laurel's
book "Computers as Theater" (1991) can be employed to create a sense ofdirect
engagement. Laurel offers insights into what might create the feeling ofdirect
engagement. She emphasizes that what goes on in a program, the action, is more
important than the characteristics ofthe objects and characters in the program. Objects

and characters may be beautifully designed as carefully thought-out metaphors, but

 

 

 

without appropriate action to "get the experience rollino, they are nothing more than
fancy window dressing. It is through action that a person can become involved and
interested and experience a sense of direct engagement with the representational world
presented by the program.

Laurel notes that another aspect oftheater that could help in producing direct
engagement is to include "agents" or "characters" that interact with the user ofa program.
The user should also be made to feel that he/she is one ofthe characters within the
program and thus has a "role" in the program. This can be accomplished by having agents
within the program address the user and respond to input from the user, by referring to the
user as just another character in the program, and by giving the user a sense of how he/she
should interact with agents and objects in the program.

There are a two other theatrical elements mentioned in "Computers as Theatre"
that could contribute to generating a sense of direct engagement. These include aspects of

set dressing (graphics, metaphors, sound), and a sense ofempathy for "stirring the user's

feelings" to create a sense ofinvolvement and catharsis.

Program Goal

The purpose of"Movie Madness" is to create a sense of direct engagement in its
users by successfully incorporating the set ofinterface design factors identified for this
project. Success will be measured by how closely the program creates direct engagement

as it is defined above.

Program Audience
"Movie Madness" is intended for use by a wide audience ofpeople, but is
especially relevant for those who have an interest in movies and/or role-playing games.

Some experience with computers and mouse pointing devices will aid in the use ofthis

 

 

 

. Ywfi v—r‘v—r - .

program, but even inexperienced computer users should be able to use "Movie Madness"

with minimal instruction.

Program Type

The program is a cross between a simulated tour and a role playing experience. It
was conceived this way because research suggests that simulated "tour" type programs are
especially amenable to a direct engagement approach, and providing the user with a "role"
to play during the experience can greatly enhance his/her sense of engagement in the

activity (Laurel, 1991).

Program Content

"Movie Madness" lets the user roam the grounds ofa virtual movie studio. The
user has the opportunity to visit movie sets, learn about movies in media screening rooms,
visit actors from the films in their star trailers, and direct an actor's audition for a movie

role.

Program Structure

The program provides the user with freedom to wander around the virtual studio
and to decide what activities to partake in. There are certain places the user will probably
want to visit before others (for example, visiting the studio boss is a good idea before
venturing into the backlots - the user is encouraged to visit him - but the user has freedom
to bypass the boss if he/she desires). There are certain activities that must be performed
before others (an actor must be selected before an audition can be held, for example), but
in general the user has freedom to roam around the virtual studio at will.

The program consists of 12 different types ofscreens. Some screen types have
multiple instances (for example, there are 5 different movie sets, 5 different star trailers,
etc.) Some screens have multiple entrance and exit points, and others have only one.

Figure 4.0 depicts the paths between screens in the program.

18

 

 

 

 

Title Screen

fi—J

Introduction
Screen

 

 

lnstructron
Screen

 
   
  
 

 

 

  

Studio Hub
Introduction

Auditr on Stage

  

 

 

     
   

Movre Genre
Crossroads

Science Fiction

Movie
Crossroads

 

 

   
  
 

 

 

F Star Trailers Srgnature
Screen

Credit Books Screenrng Movre Sets
Rooms

 

 

 

 

Figure 4.0: Paths Between Screens

Using the Program

The program provides the user with some initial instruction and an "assignment"
that should be performed before leaving the studio. Once instruction has been given, the
user is encouraged to wander around the movie backlots and learn as much as possible
about different films. When the user is ready, he or she can carry out the "assignment" of
choosing an actor to audition for a role in an upcoming movie and then directing the
audition.

Title Screen. Upon entering the "Movie Madness" world, the user is greeted by a
title screen depicting a movie reel, a film strip showing scenes from a variety of films, and
a sign that can be clicked on to enter the studio. The theme from "Star Wars" plays while
the user is on the title screen (see Figure 4. l ).

Introduction Screen. When the user enters the studio, he or she is greeted by a

talking agent named Pierre. Pierre greets the user as "our new director" and explains that

l9

 

 

Figure 4.1: Title Screen

the studio president would like to "see you right away” to go over your assignment.
Pierre also lets the user know that it is acceptable to bypass the visit to the studio
president ifthe user is already familiar with the assignment. To continue from this screen,
the user can click on the door to the boss's office or on the footsteps leading to the center

part ofthe studio (see Figure 4.2).

 
 

”ta-:lnwsmwt-tm‘. » : .. , .-

 

 
 

Studio entrance _
”Vii-3"“ ‘ Sour-:1 Sage l

    
    
  
   

   
 
 
 
 
 

'V
@
was???” ,
was .,
.

a;
y.
g.

     

0°} .9

9v

     
   
    
 

«as?»
/
'9“/
eat;
A 0516‘.

.3.“

a .

“as
69' .' °
far-3°:

.6

     

 

e.
a:

Figure 4.2: Introduction Screen

 

Instruction Screen. Upon entering this screen, the user sees an executive's office
with a gray-haired studio president sitting behind a desk. The president or "boss" delivers
instruction to the user on this screen. After promptly looking up and greeting the user as
"our new director," the boss suggests that he or she take some time to "wander around the
backlots and become familiar with the studio." He then directs the user to choose an actor
to play the lead role in a new version of "Macbeth" that the studio is producing. The user
should then direct the actor's audition for the role on the studio's audition stage. After
explaining the assignment, the boss describes how to use various objects (signs, doors,
megaphones) to navigate around the studio and perform actions. When the boss has
finished delivering information, he points the user to the door, bends his head down, and
gets back to "work." To continue from this screen, the user clicks on the "exit" door (see

Figure 4.3).

mewwwnamw

VWVMVMVWWWMX MMV/WnvwmVMVMV’MVWWVMXWMVWMVIWVMVMV >

“KW WWJW W W W WW“? ' 1A“ A"
Vm . '

g. “MWXWWM*°‘W“Wfi-Xttxmxmx

WWW/WWIWA wa

 

Figure 4.3: Instruction Screen

Studio Hub Intro. The studio hub is the first part ofthe studio the user will enter

 

after receiving initial instruction from Pierre and the boss. When the user enters this

screen, Pierre points out the audition stage where the audition for "Macbeth" will take

21

 

 

place. He then points out the entrance to the backlots. If the user tries to enter the
auditorium where the audition stage resides before an actor has been signed, Pierre
explains that the user can not enter the auditorium until an actor has been selected. To
continue from this screen, the user can click on the footsteps to go to the backlots, or
click on the auditorium door to go to the audition stage (provided an actor has been

selected) (see Figure 4.4).

a a
'8‘” it} a? - - -
sea - . - -
twee ° seem, _
assess

‘8“
a

 

A beam W

Figure 4.4: Studio Hub Intro

Movie Genre Crossroads. When the user follows the footsteps to the backlots, he
or she arrives at a "crossroads" that points the way to the backlots for different movie
genres. The different backlots are indicated on signs pointing in different directions. Only
the science fiction backlot is currently accessible, and Pierre explains that this is so
because the other backlots are "undergoing renovation." Pierre then beckons the user to
click on the science fiction sign to visit its associated backlot. The user can also return to
the screen with the audition stage's auditorium by clicking on the "To Audition Stage" sign

(see Figure 4.5).

22

 

 

Figure 4.5: Movie Genre Crossroads

Science Fiction Movie Crossroads. The user sees signs pointing the way to
different science fiction movie sets upon entering this screen. Pierre notes that some sets
are closed due to renovations, and then explains that the user can visit open sets by
clicking on their signs. The user also has the option to return to the movie genre screen by

clicking on the "To Movie Genres" sign (see Figure 4.6).

 

Figure 4.6: Science Fiction Movie Crossroads

23

 

Movie Sets. Each movie set is designed to look appropriate for the movie it
represents. When the user enters a movie set, Pierre points out the screening room and
the star trailer and encourages the user to enter either one by clicking on their respective
doors. The user can also return to the science fiction movie crossroads or to the audition

stage by clicking on the appropriate sign (see Figure 4.7).

 

Figure 4.7: Movie Set

Screening Rooms. Each screening room contains a slide projector, a movie
screen, and a credits book. Pierre welcomes the user to the screening room and explains
that the user can either view slides ofthe film or look at credit information for the film in
the credits book. To view slides, the user clicks on the "show slides" megaphone. Pierre
then "hands" a slide projector controller to the user and explains how to use it. After
explaining the controller's use, Pierre asks that the lights be dimmed and sits down to
watch the slides with the user. The user can leaf through slides by pressing the forward
and backward arrows on the projector controller. To stop the slide show, the user can
click on the "oft" button on the controller. When the button is pressed, Pierre stands up,

asks that the lights be turned back on, and sets the controller back on the table next to the

24

projector. The credits book can be opened by clicking on it. To exit the screening room,

the user clicks on the exit door (see Figure 4.8).

 

Figure 4.8: Screening Room

Credits Books. The credits books contain information pertaining to specific films.
When the user clicks on the credit book icon in the screening room, the book "opens" to
reveal information about the film. To close the book, the user clicks on the bookmark
labeled "close book" (see Figure 4.9).

Star Trailers Each star trailer contains one to three "dressing room doors" behind
which the user will find the actors named on the doors. When the user enters the trailer,
Pierre tells him or her to click on the dressing room doors to meet the stars. When the
user clicks on a door, it opens and the star appears and utters one of their more famous
movie lines. Pierre also indicates that a star can be signed to play Macbeth by clicking on
his briefcase and dragging the contract in it over to the star to sign. Ifthe user does sign a
star, Pierre returns the contract to his briefcase and encourages the user to audition the

actor on the audition stage. To exit the star trailer, the user clicks on the exit door (see

Figure 4.10).

25

 

Superman superman

(an 91' (Manor: Technical (rum:

h
5monplov.--..Mqum Pm ,Dcvid New-Ion.
11¢ Noam“, Gabon that“
(native Consultant ....T0li Manhunt-cl
ml n.....1Mm llJlIllms

 

   

 

 
   
 
 

In Tun-mm ___________ Vol. I. hula-
Vcnddt...“ I: ”It
Gourd Led to tom
Ma :11“..— '
Sum-nah Vuk

Yawn; 003:“ Kent... Mk cm
JImnvO .Mm MtClum
Um. ........ ”.ka Douglas
Sound fldu ............. Han rv Mun-mus

 

 

 

 

Figure 4.9: Credit Book

 

 

unmet Kidder "fl'fi
“Lou Lune" Ex! '

Enter
.;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4.10: Star Trailer

Signature Screen. The signature screen appears when the user signs an actor to
play the role of ”Macbeth." The screen shows animation ofa hand signing the name ofthe

actor the user selected for the role. This screen is automatically exited after the name is

signed (see Figure 4.1 1).

26

   

Contract

I hereby agree to audition for the role of
Macbeth in the upcoming Madness
Studios presentation of Shakespeare's
play "Macbeth."

 

 

 

 

Figure 4.11: Signature Screen

Audition Stage. The audition stage screen is where the audition ofthe actor takes
place. Upon entering this screen, the user sees a stage with a closed curtain in front of it,
a table with a briefcase on it, and Pierre standing next to a cue card stand. Pierre tells the
user about the mechanics of directing the actor on the stage. To open the curtain, the user
clicks on the open curtain megaphone, upon which the curtain opens to reveal the star
standing on stage. To read the script, the user clicks on the script in the briefcase. Ifthe
user clicks on a script line, Pierre will place a cue card on the stand that allows the user to
change the way the actor reads the line. The cue card has boxes describing the actors eye
position, mouth expression, arm position, and voice tone. These attributes are changed by
clicking on the boxes. When the user has specified how the lines in the script should be
read, he or she can click on the "action" megaphone to see how the actor reads the lines.
Clicking on the "cut" megaphone will cause the actor to stop the audition. After the actor
has completed the audition, Pierre's cellular phone rings with a call from the boss. Pierre
holds the phone out towards the user and the boss offers congratulations on the audition,

which he says he has been watching on closed circuit television. Pierre then hangs up the

27

 

phone. The user exits the audition stage by clicking on the "stage exit" sign (see Figure

4.12).

1! .IOIU.“
-_~" r..r|Ir
. UOU’OSDJO' Ul-Illf "GEN“

IONODOD: I'Dld I
r "--rr‘rr:lir-;

 

 

Figure 4.12: Audition Stage

User Control

The user is provided with a small handfiil of ways to control "Movie Madness."
The number of controls was purposely kept small to simplify use and thus focus attention
on the activity taking place in the program rather than on the mechanism for getting things
done. Likewise, user controls are all metaphors to help simplify use, increase
intuitiveness, and enhance the sense of engagement (Erickson, 1990; Laurel, 1991).

User controls can be divided into two primary types: navigation controls and
action controls. Navigation controls are any controls that allow the user to move from
one virtual "place" in the program to another. These controls include labeled doors, signs,
and footprints. A door labeled "enter" will take you into its building. A sign will take you
to the place indicated by its label. Footsteps pointing towards a destination will take you ‘

to that destination.

28

 

Action controls are designed to allow the user to perform various tasks or actions.
One action control is the megaphone. Megaphones, when clicked, will initiate the action
that they are labeled with. They are intended as a substitute for actual voice commands
that the user might give in a real-life situation. Another action control is the slide
projector controller. This device looks like a controller for a slide projector and fiinctions
the same way, allowing the user to advance forward or backward through the slides in the
slide projector. Cue cards allow the user to change the attributes with which the actor
addresses each line in a script. The script allows the user to select lines to set the
attributes for. Pierre's briefcase contains the script and actor contract. It opens to reveal
one or the other when clicked. The contract can be dragged over an actor and released,
upon which the actor will sign it and perform on the audition stage when the user enters

the auditorium.

Creative Touches

Subtle "artistic touches" might prove to be an important part of creating direct
engagement. In theatrical terms, such touches might be referred to as "set dressing" or
"special effects." For "Movie Madness," a variety of creative touches were added that the
designer felt would appeal to users and help draw them into the experience.

One of the touches added was to make Pierre "reach out" with objects such as the
slide projector controller and the telephone. This effect emphasized the notion that the
user, or "director," is a part of the experience and is viewed as such by the characters in
the program. It also helps to simulate a three dimensional effect that enables the world on
the computer screen to reach out to the user and draw him or her in.

Another touch is the use of sound for added realism. The slide projector clicks
when the user changes a slide, and the telephone rings when the boss calls to congratulate
the user's directorial debut. Thus, the sound effects help to engage the users ears as well

as eyes and make "Movie Madness" a multiple sensory experience.

29

Animation is also used to help enhance "Movie Madness." For instance, Pierre
moves his head, eyes, and arms often while explaining things to the user. He physically
changes the cue cards on the stand when necessary, and holds the cue cards for the actor
to read during the audition. The boss looks down at his desk and writes on a paper after
he has finished delivering instructions to the user. In addition, his cigar smoke continually
moves as he smokes. When the user selects an actor to play "Macbeth," the actor's hand
signs a contract. The curtain on the audition stage peels back when the user wants the
audition to begin. Such details are important when trying to maintain the user's attention

and level of enjoyment.

Graphic Elements

"Movie Madness" relies heavily on a variety of graphics to portray the virtual
movie studio and the characters that inhabit it. A majority of the graphics present in the
program were created with Toolbook's own graphics tools. Though Toolbook provides
only a basic set of tools, they proved to be versatile and sufficient for rendering a variety
of objects. When a high degree of realism was required, scanned-in images manipulated
by paint programs were used. The actors and some of the movie set backdrops, both of
which needed to look like the movies they came from, were created with scanned images.

Pierre and the Boss were represented as cartoon-like characters in part to make
them easier to develop, and in part because their simple speech would seem inappropriate
coming from characters that looked real (Laurel, 1991). They were created using
Toolbook's graphics tools. One of the reasons for using Toolbook to create them is that
it is capable of creating simple, "cartoon-like" characters via its set of graphics tools. A
more important reason for creating Pierre and the Boss in Toolbook is that Toolbook
graphics are treated as graphic "objects" which can be easily manipulated and combined.
Furthermore, Toolbook's graphics objects generally take up less memory than scanned bit

map images. These were important considerations when building Pierre and the Boss, for

30

 

each of them is composed of a large number of graphic elements to facilitate the variety of
animated positions they can assume. Toolbook simplified the building of these animated
characters by allowing the developer to manipulate the objects that comprise the
character's bodies into a variety of animated positions.

The actors in "Movie Madness" were created by scanning in images of the actors
and then manipulating these images using a variety of paint programs. In many cases,
actors were "pieced together" from several different scanned pictures. This was
necessary, for the Movie Madness actors needed to appear as if they were standing
straight up, facing forward, with their arms at the side. Action photos from movies rarely
portray actors in such a mundane position; hence, a variety of paint program tools were
used to clip, rotate, airbrush, smudge, shrink, and combine segments of different pictures
to create the Movie Madness actors. Once the actors' heads and bodies were constructed,
toolbook objects representing mouth and eye positions were superimposed over the actors'
faces. The actors were brought to life with scripts designed to manipulate the objects
comprising their mouths, eyes, and arms.

In order to create direct engagement, it is more important for graphics to
accurately represent available actions than to look realistic and flashy (Norman, 1988).
Therefore, all of objects in "Movie Madness," with the exception of two scanned movie
set backdrops, were created using Toolbook's simple graphics tools. Object were
carefully designed and positioned on the screens so that their meanings would be properly
conveyed. Hence, footsteps lead towards gated entrances, doors are labeled "enter" and

"exit," megaphones are labeled with the simple commands they perform, and signs are

used to represent destinations.

Sound

Speech was used to deliver instructions to the user and to add realism to the

program. Sounds were created using a ProAudio Spectrum 16 sound card and some

31

 

simple sound recording and mixing programs. Since sound files take up large amounts of
disk storage space, sounds were recorded at the low recording rate of 1 1 kHz in mono.
Sixteen bit sound was used, however, to eliminate static. The resulting sound quality was
very clear and perfectly acceptable for the purposes of this program.

A simple, pleasant voice was chosen for Pierre, since he would be with the user
throughout the program. An early version of Pierre used a voice that was rough and
grating - several of the users commented during developmental testing that his voice
became annoying quickly. A stereotypical or "caricature" voice was chosen for "the Boss"
to add an immediate sense of familiarity with the character; he is meant to sound like a
stuffy, pompous, "Hollywood executive."

Voices for the stars in their trailers are digitized clips of their most famous film
lines. Though it would have been desirable to have a different voice for each actor on the
audition stage, the fact that 40 different sound clips are required to reproduce the lines in
the script from Macbeth for one voice made it prohibitive. Furthermore, it would have
been difficult to adequately imitate the voice of each of the actors. Since it would take up
too much disk space, time, and be too difficult to provide a different voice for each actor,
only two voices were used, one male and one female. Since, for this research project, a
user only had about 20-30 minutes to use Movie Madness, chances are they would only
have time to try out one or two actors anyway and would not have to listen to the same
voice too many times.

Sound effects were also used to enhance "Movie Madness", including introductory
theme music, the sound of a slide projector clicking, and the sound of a ringing telephone
when the boss calls to congratulate the director on the audition. More music and special
sound effects would have been incorporated into "Movie Madness" had more development

time been available.

32

 

Toolbook as Development tool

Toolbook version 1.53 was used to develop "Movie Madness." Toolbook is
intended as a high-level object-oriented programming package for designing Windows
applications on IBM Personal Computers and compatibles. It provides developers with a
scripting language for programming actions and a set of tools for creating and
manipulating objects.

Toolbook provided a good environment for developing "Movie Madness." The
graphical nature of Toolbook's interface made it easy to manipulate graphic objects to
perfect the look and feel of screens. Animation was easy to create and test, for Toolbook
allows developers to test scripts simply by switching to the proper mode and initiating an
animation script. Toolbook's built in navigation functions simplified screen transitions.
Finally, the ability to "cut and paste" scripts, characters, and objects made it possible to re-
use them in various places throughout the program.

To help facilitate development of "Movie Madness," several special tools were
obtained or developed. One tool allowed the developer to enter and edit the script for an
object by clicking a mouse button. The developer created a tool for displaying all of the
hidden objects on a page automatically. This tool was very useful for editing animated
characters comprised of parts that were often hidden (for example, an animated character
could have several arm positions, but only one set of arms would be shown at any time -
the other arms were hidden). Finally, a companion Toolbook was used by the developer
to perfect characters and objects before copying them to the "Movie Madness" book. The
companion book also contained a library of characters and objects that the developer
could draw from when creating new screens in "Movie Madness."

While Toolbook provided a good environment for creating "Movie Madness," it
did have a few problems. Synchronizing sound and animation was difficult due to an

awkward and somewhat unreliable set of multimedia control functions. Several

33

modifications were made to the "Movie Madness" code in order to "work around"
problems that caused the sound commands to fail.

Another problem with Toolbook was the memory limit it places on individual
screens of information. Toolbook can hold a limited amount of material on a single
screen, so some screens had to be simplified or split into multiple screens to work around
the limitation.

The last major problem with Toolbook was speed. Animated sequences often had
to be simplified to run quickly in the Toolbook environment. In addition, transitions
between screens were very slow when the destination screen contained a large amount of
information. The problems with speed were remedied in part by installing additional

memory in the computers that ran "Movie Madness."

Evaluation Design

The evaluation of "Movie Madness" had several goals. One goal was to determine
whether the program was successfiil at bringing about a sense of direct engagement in the
project participants. Another goal was to evaluate the set of design factors for creating
direct engagement to determine which ones contributed most to the direct engagement
effect. Finally, the evaluation looked at personal characteristics to see if certain types of
people tend to experience direct engagement more readily than others. The information
obtained from this study will hopefirlly give interface designers a better picture of how to
create interfaces capable of engaging users.

The program was evaluated by means of a questionnaire administered to study
participants who used the "Movie Madness" program. The questionnaire contained
questions designed to give generous feedback on the proposed design factors for creating
direct engagement. Some of the questions addressed included "To what extent did you

feel like you were a part ofthe world presented in Movie Madness," "Did Movie Madness

34

make you smile or laugh," and "Did you feel like you were interacting with a computer

program or with characters and objects."

Sample

The participants for this project are a non-probability "convenience" sample
comprised entirely of students. Participants were recruited by visiting their classes and
asking for volunteers to take part in the project. Twenty of the twenty-seven volunteers
who signed up for the study actually showed up to take part in it. Though the sample size
was small, it was appropriate for the exploratory nature of this project.

The participants in this study represented a variety of backgrounds and interests, a
fact that enabled the data to be examined in a variety of ways. Participants were easily
divided into two categories for several different characteristics. For instance, eleven on
the participants were male, and nine were female. Six out of the 20 subjects were foreign
students, and seven of the 20 subjects were graduate students.

Participants were also analyzed on the basis of whether they considered themselves
"buffs" of several different types of media. For each media category, there were sufficient
numbers of both buffs and non-buffs so that data analysis could be performed.

Some of the characteristics of the research participants likely added to the success
of the project. Most of the subjects were computer literate, spending an average of
sixteen hours on a computer each week. Computer literacy was a definite aid to using
"Movie Madness." Participant's answers to a series of questions indicated that they had a
propensity to use their imagination and suspend their disbelief at times. Finally, most of

the subjects gave a strong indication that they are open to exploring new experiences and

new technology.

35

 

Instruments

The measurement instrument for this study was a questionnaire designed to
examine user response to the "Movie Madness" program in order to gain information
pertaining to direct engagement. The questionnaire addressed the following categories of

questions:

- Did the program gain and hold the user's attention?

- Did the program stimulate an emotional response in users?

- Were objects and actions represented continuously?

- Did the program successfully incorporate and emphasize action?
- How did the program's response time affect user perceptions?
- Was it easy to reverse an action?

- Did objects represent actions adequately?

- Was the interface unobtrusive?

- How did set dressing contribute to the experience?

- How did the use of agents contribute to the experience?

- User information

The questionnaire can be found in Appendix A.

Procedures

Development and debugging of "Movie Madness" took place on a 486 personal
computer with eight megabytes of memory, a 200 megabyte hard drive, and a super VGA
15 inch color monitor. The computer was equipped with a ProAudio Spectrum 16 sound
card for playing speech, music, and sound effects. Two small stereo computer speakers
were used for presenting sound.

Testing and debugging of "Movie Madness" took place on two 486 personal
computers with eight megabytes of memory, 130 megabyte hard drives, and super VGA
14 inch color monitors. One computer was equipped with a ProAudio Spectrum 16 sound
card for playing sound, and the other computer was equipped with a Microsoft Sound
System card. There was no noticeable difference in the quality of the sound generated by

the different cards. A pair of stereo headphones was used with each sound card for

playing sound.

36

User testing took place over a period of three days. On the first day, eleven
participants took part in the study. On the second day, eight participants took part in the
study. One participant took part in the study on the third day. Each participant was
allowed one half hour to use "Movie Madness," after which they filled out the
questionnaire.

All testing was performed in the same computer laboratory on the two computers
outfitted to run "Movie Madness." The lighting at both computer stations was the same,
as were the chairs. Blinds were closed over the one window in the laboratory.

When a participant arrived for testing, he or she was seated at a computer and
given a questionnaire with project instructions on the cover (see the questionnaire in
appendix A). The researcher then demonstrated, if necessary, how to use the mouse and
start the program. The participant was asked to read the instruction sheet on the
questionnaire before beginning the program.

During development and testing of "Movie Madness," one or two recurring bugs
were identified. By the time testing began, the bugs appeared to be gone, but the
researcher remained in the room with the participants to troubleshoot any problems that
came up.

After using "Movie Madness," each participant immediately filled out the
questionnaire. The completed questionnaire was then placed in a folder and later shuffled

with other questionnaires to maintain the participant's anonymity.

37

CHAPTER V: RESULTS

Participant Characteristics

The participants in this study were all students enrolled at Michigan State
University. Eleven of the participants were male, and 9 were female. The mean age of
participants was 25.1, where the youngest was 20 and the oldest was 43. Eleven
members of the study group were seniors, 7 were graduate students, and two were
juniors. Fourteen members of the study were from the United States, and 6 members were
from other countries including Japan, Taiwan, Portugal, and Turkey. English was not the
native language of the foreign participants.

The participants rated their exposure to various forms of media. On average, they
played 1.3 arcade video games per month and 1.9 home video games per month.
Participants watch, on average, 2 movies at a movie theater and 3.6 rented movies at
home per month. The number of plays they view per year averages 2, and the number of
hours of television they watch in a week averages 14.

The average number of hours, 16.1, participants spend using computers each week
suggests a high level of computer literacy among them. When asked, "How much do you
like computers and technology?," participants responded with a mean score of 5.85 on a 7
point scale, where 1 = "not at all" and 7 = "very much."

Participants answered a series of questions describing their propensity to seek out
and become engaged in various media. The first question, "How important is it to you to
seek out new experiences?," received a mean score of 6.5 on a 7 point scale, where 1 =
"not at all" and 7 = "very much." The question, "How appealing to you is the thought of
participating in entertainment, rather than just watching it" received a very high mean
score of 6.35 on a 7 point scale, where 1 = "not at all appealing" and 7 = "very appealing."

The lowest score the question received was a 4. Another question, "How engrossed do

you get in a movie plot?," received a mean response of 5.35 on a 7 point scale, where 1 =
"not at all engrossed" and 7 = "very engrossed." Seventy-five percent of the participants
responded with a rating of 5 or higher. The last question gauging user's ability to become
engaged, "How often do you get lost in a day dream?," had a mean rating of 4.25 on a 7
point scale, where l = "not often at all" and 7 = "very often."

Several questions were asked to get a feel for the types of media and entertainment
participants enjoy. Seventy percent of participants indicated that they consider themselves
to be movie buffs. Sixty-five percent of participants are fans of science fiction. The
number of participants who consider themselves fans of television or theater was fairly
low, with 40 percent identifying themselves as television buffs and thirty percent

identifying themselves as theater buffs.

Gaining and Holding the User's Attention
In response to the question, "Did "Movie Madness" feel more like visiting a movie
studio or using a computer?," 6 participants chose "visiting a movie studio" and 14 chose
"using a computer." When asked "Did "Movie Madness" feel more like watching a movie
or acting in a movie?," 13 respondents felt that it was more like watching a movie, and 7

respondents felt that it was more like acting in a movie (see Figure 5.0).

 

Visiting studio/Using computer Watching/Acting in a movie

14
12

 

   

—L
OmemO

 

 

Studio Computr Watch Act

 

 

Figure 5.0: How Convincing Was The Experience?

39

The question "How interested were you when using "Movie Madness?“ received
a mean score of 5.6 on a 7 point scale where 1 = "not at all interested" and 7 = "very
interested." 80 percent of respondents gave a rating of 5 or higher. Likewise, when asked
"To what extent did you become bored while using "Movie Madness?"," 75 percent of
respondents gave a rating of 3 or lower on a 7 point scale where 1 = "not at all bored" and

7 = "very bored." The mean response for this question was 2.58 (see Figure 5.1).

 

 

How interested were you... How bored did you become...

12 12

—L
CN¢O§CDO
u—l
OmemO

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 5.1: Interest in using the program

When participants were asked "To what extent did you forget about the outside
world while using "Movie Madness?"," their responses resulted in a mean score of 3.95 on
a 7 point scale where l = "not at all" and 7 = "very much." 65 % of respondents gave a
rating of 4 or higher. The question "To what extent did you feel like you were a part of
the world presented in "Movie Madness“ received a similar response, with 75 percent of
participants responding with a rating of 4 or higher on a 7 point scale where 1 = "not at
all" and 7 = "very much." The mean score for this question was 4.05. Finally, when
asked, "To what degree did you feel like you were the character you were playing in
Movie Madness?," the mean response was 3.85 on a 7 point scale, where 7 = "very much"

and 1 = "not at all" (see Figure 5.2).

40

 

 

Forget about outside world... Part of world presented...

12 12
10 10
8 8
6 6
4 4
2 2
0 0

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Felt like character...

12

 

—L
ONAQCDO

 

 

 

Figure 5.2: Level of Engagement

The mean score for the question "How "believable" did this experience feel to
you?" was a moderate 3.65 on a 7 point scale, where 1 = "not at all believable" and 7 =
"very believable." Half of the respondents answered yes to the question "Was "Movie
Madness" consistently believable from start to end?" and half answered no (see Figure

5.3).

 

 

How believable...

Consistently believable...

12

 

 

 

—L
(BM-507030
p-_L——%F__‘L—J

—L
omrscnooo

 

 

 

 

 

 

I Yes No

 

 

 

Figure 5.3: Believability of Program

41

Participants were asked the open-ended question, "What part of "Movie Madness"
seemed most believable to you?" Six of them responded that the audition seemed most
believable, and 5 responded that watching the movie slides in the screening room seemed
most believable. The remaining participants all gave different answers to this question.

Another open-ended question, "What part of "Movie Madness" seemed least
believable to you?," saw little agreement in the responses it received. Two respondents
agreed that "meeting the stars in their trailers" seemed unrealistic, and two respondents
felt that "auditioning the actors" was unrealistic. The rest of the respondents all gave
different answers.

When asked "To what degree did you feel that you were participating in a "story"
or "adventure?"," 60 percent of the subjects answered with a score of 5 or higher on a
scale from I to 7, where l = "not at all " and 7 = "very much. " The mean rating was 4.5.
The question "To what extent did you feel like you had entered the "Movie Madness"
world shown on the computer screen?" received a mean rating of 3.85 on a scale from 1 to
7, where 1 = "not at all" and 7 = "very much." When asked "How involved were you in
experiencing "Movie Madness?"," 65 percent of respondents gave a rating of 5 or higher,
contributing to a mean of4.8 on a 7 point scale where 1 = "not at all involved" and 7 =
"very involved (see Figure 5.4).

70 percent of participants responded with a rating of 5 or higher to the question
"To what extent did you really try to cast actors you thought would fit the parts in the
movie scene?" The rating scale was from 1 to 7, where 1 = "not at all" and 7 = "very
much." The mean for the question was 4.6. The question "When faced with making a
choice or decision in "Movie Madness, " to what extent did you make it quickly to get it
over with?" received a mean score of 3.05 on a 7 point scale, where 1 = "not at all" and 7

= "very much." One participant did not respond to this question (see Figure 5.5).

42

 

 

12

--I
ONAOQO

Story or adventure...

 

12

—L
ONAQGO

Entered world on computer...

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How involved with experience...

12

 

—L
ONAQCDO

 

 

 

Figure 5.4: Part of the On-Screen Story

 

 

Making decisions quickly...

Try to cast appropriate actors...

12 12

A
ONACDCDO

 

(3me

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 5.5: Degree of User Involvement in Program Action

In summary, the questions in this section suggest that the program did gain and
hold the user's attention. The first category of questions looked at how convincingly the
program simulated a visit to a movie studio, and about a third of respondents indicated
that they were convinced by the simulation. The second category of questions indicated
that about eighty percent of respondents found the program to be very interesting. About

two thirds ofthe participants strongly indicated that they forgot about the outside world

43

while using the program, and about half of them strongly indicated that they felt like the
character they were playing in the program.

Although participants gave a moderate overall rating to the believability of the

 

program, they gave a strong indication that the program was involving and that they felt
like they were participating in a story or adventure. In addition, most participants
indicated that they tried to cast appropriate actors and carefully make decisions,

suggesting a high level of involvement in the action of the program.

Emotional Response/Catharsis

Participants were asked the question "How much did you enjoy the following
activities in "Movie Madness:"" and then given a list of activities to rate on a 7 point scale,
where l = "not at all" and 7 = "very much." The first activity, "Meeting the studio Boss,"
received a mean rating of 4.72. Only 25 percent of respondents gave a rating under 4.
"Reading the script for "Macbeth” received a mean rating of 4.8. "Visiting the movie
backlots" had a very strong mean of 5. I, with 70 percent of respondents giving a score of
5 or higher. A favorite activity was "Viewing slides from the movies in the screening
rooms" which 55 percent of participants rated 7. This activity had a mean score of 5.68.
"Visiting the actors in their dressing rooms" received a strong mean of4.8, and "Signing
an actor to play the role of "Macbeth” received the lowest ratings, with a mean of 3.9.
The favorite activity was "Directing the movie scene at the end of "Movie Madness""
which received a mean rating of 6 and which 55 percent of participants rated 7. One
participant did not rate the activity (see Figure 5.6).

Participants were asked the open-ended question, "What did you like or dislike
most about each of the following activities in "Movie Madness:" and then given a list of
activities to comment on. The number of people who commented on each of the activities

was fairly low, usually around eight to twelve. Even so, their comments provided insight

into what worked and what didn't work with "Movie Madness."

44

 

 

 

Meeting the Studio Boss...

10

Omem

 

 

Reading the Script...

10

owemoo

 

 

 

 

Visiting the Movie
Backlots..

—I-§

ONbOODON

 

 

 

Viewing Slides...

 

 

 

 

 

Visiting the Actors... 1r Signing an Actor...
12 12
10 10
8 8
6 6
4 4
2 2
0 0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Directing the Movie Scene...

 

 

 

Figure 5.6: Enjoyment of "Movie Madness" Activities

45

 

The first activity, "Meeting the studio Boss," received positive marks for the boss's
voice, the humorous things the boss said, and the smoke waiting from the Boss's cigar.
This activity received negative marks because the boss couldn't talk back and he
sometimes repeated the same speech when visited more than once.

Some participants commented that they liked "Reading the script for the movie
scene" because of the quality of the script and the way it could be used to change the way
the actor read each line. A few others commented that they disliked reading the script
because it was "boring."

Few participants commented on "Visiting the movie backlots." Those who did
indicated that they enjoyed seeing the various film backdrops but disliked the lack of
realism of some of the sets.

Participants commented that "Viewing scenes from the movies in the screening
rooms" was fun. Some participants, however, expressed a desire to see full-motion movie
clips instead of stills.

"Visiting the actors in their dressing rooms" received high marks from a few
participants for the humorous lines the actors recited and the fact that the actors recited
different lines each time they were visited. Other participants, however, complained that
the actors could not interact with them and that they should say a larger variety of lines.

Several participants liked "Casting the actors in roles for the movie scene" because
they had freedom to cast the actor they were most interested in. Only two participants
had negative comments about this activity.

The aspect of ”Directing the movie scene at the end of Movie Madness" that
participants enjoyed most was the feeling of actually controlling the way the actor read the
lines. A few people had negative comments, usually related to the actors' limited
movements and expressions.

The question "To what degree did you experience a feeling of happiness or

pleasure while using "Movie Madness?"" received a strong mean score of 4.9 on a scale

46

 

from 1 to 7, where 1 = "not at all" and 7 = "very much." 75 percent of respondents gave a

rating of 5 or higher. The question "To what degree did you experience a feeling of

 

annoyance while using "Movie Madness?"" received a mean score of 2.7 on a 7 point
scale, where 1 = "not at all" and 7 = "very much." Only two participants rated this

question higher than 3 (see Figure 5.7).

 

 

Happiness or Pleasure... Feeling of Annoyance...

 

 

10

0'0me

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 5.7: Happiness and Annoyance

When asked "To what degree did you experience a feeling of boredom while using
"Movie Madness?"," 85 percent of respondents gave a rating of 3 or lower on a 7 point
scale where 1 = "not at all" and 7 = "very much." The mean score was 2.6. Eighty
percent of respondents gave a rating of 3 or lower to the question "To what degree did
you experience a feeling of COl’ifiJSlOii while using "Movie Madness?"." The rating scale
for this question ran from i, which was ”not at all" to 7, which was "very much." The
mean score was 2.65 (see Figure 5.8).

When asked "How would you describe your level of satisfaction after completing
"Movie Madness?"," 75 percent of participants gave a rating of 5 or higher on a 7 point
scale, where 1 = "not at all satisfied" and 7 = "very satisfied." The mean for this question
was 5.25. The mean score for the question "How would you describe your level of

happiness after being congratulated by the boss after directing the audition?" was 4.4 on a

47

 

seven point scale, where 1 = "not at all happy" and 7 = "very happy." Over 50 percent of

respondents responded with a rating of 5 or higher (see Figure 5.9).

 

Feeling of Boredon... Feeling of Confusion...
12 12
10 10
8 8
6 6
4 4
2 2
0 0

   

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 5.8: Boredom and Confusion

 

Level of Satisfaction... Level of Happiness...

12

—L
ONACDCDO

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 5.9: Catharsis

When asked "How pleased were you with the way the actor you chose played the
part of "Macbeth"," 65 percent of participants responded with 5 or higher on a seven point
scale, where l = "not at all pleased" and 7 = ”very pleased.” The mean score was 4.7.
Eighteen of the twenty participants answered yes to the question ”Would you like to try
auditioning different actors for the role of "Macbeth?“ (see Figure 5.10).

When asked, "Did using "Movie Madness" feel more like play or work?," every
respondent gave a rating of4 or higher on a 7 point scale, where i = "work" and 7 =

"play." Eighty-five percent of respondents gave a rating of 6 or 7. The mean score for

48

 

this question was 6.35. When asked "Did "Movie Madness” make you smile or laugh?,"

18 participants answered yes, and 2 answered no (see Figure 5.1 l).

 

 

 

Pleased with Actor choice... Auditioning Different Actors...
12 12
10 10
8 8
6 6
4 4
2 2
0 0

Yes No

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 5.10: Satisfaction With Actor Choice

 

 

Did it Feel Like Work or Play... Did You Smile or Laugh...

12 12

 

d
owacncoo
ONAGOJO

 

Yes No

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 5.11: Work or Play

The last emotional response question, "How interested would you be in
experiencing "Movie Madness" again?," earned a mean score of 5. 15 on a scale from 1 to
7, where l = ”not at all interested" and 7 = "very interested." Seventy-five percent of

participants rated this question a 5 or higher (see Figure 5.12).

49

 

 

Experience Program Again...

12

 

cub
ONAGQO

 

 

 

 

Figure 5.12: Experiencing "Movie Madness" Again

In summary, responses to questions in this section suggest that participants
experienced an emotional release or "catharsis" while using "Movie Madness."
Participants indicated that they enjoyed, at least moderately, each of the activities they
tried in the program. The average level of happiness while using the program was high,
and the average levels of annoyance, boredom, and confiJsion were low. Most
participants strongly indicated that they felt satisfied after completing the program and
happy after being congratulated by the Boss. Furthermore, most participants were
satisfied with the actors they chose for the audition and interested in auditioning more
actors as well. Ninety percent of participants said that ”Movie Madness" made them smile
or laugh, and almost every participant indicated that the program felt much more like play
than work. Finally, participants indicated strongly that they would like to experience

"Movie Madness" again.

Continuous representation of objects/actions
The mean score for the question "How obvious to you were the actions you could
take while using "Movie madness?“ was 5.2 on a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 = "not at all
obvious" and 7 = "very obvious." Eighty percent of respondents gave a rating of 5 or
higher. Nine respondents answered "yes" to the question "Were there times when the
things you could do in "Movie Madness" were unclear?” Eleven respondents answered

no (see Figure 5.13).

50

 

Obviousness of Actions... Were Things Unclear at Times..

12 12

 

 

 

 

[Ill

iiii

 

 

 

 

 

 

—L
CNAQQO
—l
ON¢O§®O

 

Yes No

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 5.13: Obviousness of Actions

When asked, "Did the choices of what you could do feel consistent throughout the
experience?," 14 participants answered yes and 5 answered no. One participant did not

respond to this question (see Figure 5.14).

 

Did Choices Feel Consistent...

12

ONAQQO

 

Yes No

 

 

 

Figure 5.14: Consistent Choices

The mean score for the question "How often did something you clicked on NOT
do what you wanted it to do?" was 2.55 on a seven point scale, where l = "not at all
often" and 7 = "very often." Seventy-five percent of respondents gave a rating of 3 or
lower to this question. When asked, "How often were you confiJsed about what to do
next?," eighty percent of respondents gave a rating of 3 or lower on a 7 point scale, where

1 = "not at all often" and 7 = "very often." The mean score was 2.55 (see Figure 5.15).

51

 

 

Does Not do What You Want... Confused About What to do
Next

12

 

 

 

 

 

 

n—b
ONAOOO

 

 

1:1 r::11:1
1234567

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 5.15: Performing Desired Actions

Emphasis on action
The mean score for the question "To what degree did you feel limited by the
available actions you could take?" was 4.15 on a seven point scale, where 1 = "not at all
limited" and 7 = "very limited." When asked "Did you like using an interface that mirrors
real world actions and places, or would you prefer to choose actors from a list of names
and then click on a "view scene" button to watch the movie scene?," 12 respondents said
they preferred an interface that mirrors real world actions and places, and 4 respondents
said they would prefer to choose actors from a list. Four participants did not respond to

this question (see Figure 5.16).

 

Limited by Available Actions... Real World/List of Names

12 12

 

d
ONAQGJO
-—L
OMmeDO

 

Real List

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 5.16: Action Considerations

52

 

In response to the question "How "real" did it feel to you to perform various
actions in "Movie Madness" (i.e., opening a door, walking through an entrance, giving
instructions through the megaphone)?," 65 percent of respondents gave a rating of 4 or
higher. The mean score was a moderate 3.8. The mean score for the question "To what
extent did you feel like you were actually directing the actor's audition?" was 4.1 on a 7
point scale, where 1 = "not at all" and 7 = "very much." 65 percent of respondents gave a

rating of 4 or higher (see Figure 5.17).

 

How Real Did Actions Feel... Actually Directing Audition...
12 12
10 10
8 8
6 6
4 4
2 2
0 0

   

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 5.17: How Real Did Actions Seem

Immediate results

The mean score for the question "How quickly did "Movie Madness" respond to
your mouse clicks?" was 4.67 on a scale from i to 7, where l = "not at all quickly" and 7
= "very quickly." 72 percent of those responding gave a rating of 4 or higher, and 2
participants did not respond to the question. When asked "How often did you get
impatient waiting for the computer to complete some activity?," respondents gave a mean
score of3.8 on a scale from 1 to 7, where l = "never" and 7 = "all the time." No
respondent gave a score of l or 7 (see Figure 5.18).

The question ”To what extent did waiting for the computer to respond make you

lose interest in "Movie Madness?” received a mean score of 3.3 on a seven point scale,

53

 

 

Response to Mouse Clicks... Impatient Waiting for Activity...

12 12

.I
onatmooo
A
ONAQQO

   

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 5.18: Did the Program Respond Quickly

where 1 = "not at all" and 7 = "very much." Seventy-five percent of the participants gave
a rating of 3 or lower. The mean score for the question "To what extent did waiting for
the computer to respond decrease your enjoyment of "Movie Madness?” was 3.45 on a 7
point scale, where l = "not at all" and 7 = "very much." Sixty-five percent of respondents
gave a rating of 3 or lower. When asked "To what extent did waiting for the computer to
respond make "Movie Madness" feel less real?," participants gave a mean score of 4.32.

One participant did not respond to this question (see Figure 5.19).

 

Waiting/Loss of Interest... l Waiting/Decreased Enjoyment...

12 12

a-A
orotsmooo
ONACDCDO

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

12

A
ONAQOJO

 

 

 

Figure 5.19: Effects of Slow Program Response

54

Actions reversible
Eighty percent of participants gave a rating of 3 or lower when asked "How often
did you get "stuck" while using "Movie Madness" and find it unclear how to continue?."
The rating scale runs from 1 to 7, where 1 = "never" and 7 = "all the time." The mean

score, 2.2, was very low (see Figure 5.20).

 

l-low Oflen Did User Get Stuck...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3‘" i @1414

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 

 

 

 

Figure 5.20: How Often Did User Get Stuck

The question "How easy was it to use directional signs to go back to "Movie
Madness" locations you had visited before?" received a high mean score of 6. 15 on a 7
point scale, where l = "not at all easy" and 7 = "very easy." Ninety-five percent of
participants gave a rating of S or higher. The mean score for the question "How easy was
it to change an actor choice?" was 5.23 on a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 = "not at all easy"
and 7 = "very easy.” Seven participants did not respond to this question, perhaps because
they did not attempt to select a different actor. When asked, "How easy was it to cut
the audition?," every response was either 6 or seven on a seven point scale where 1 = "not
at all easy" and 7 = "very easy." The mean score was an extremely high 675. Four
participants did not answer this question, perhaps because they did not try to cut the

audition (see Figure 5.21).

55

 

Ease of Using Directional Ease of Changing Actor
Signs... Choice...

10

ONAQG

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ease of Cutting the Audition...

12

—-I
OmemO

 

 

 

 

Figure 5.21: Ease of Undoing Actions

Actions represented in objects

Participants were asked the question "How easy was it to perform the following
actions in "Movie Madness?" and then given a list of actions to rate. The rating scale ran
from 1 to 7, where 1 = "not at all easy" and 7 = "very easy." The first action, "Issue a
command using a megaphone" received a mean score of 5.89, with 80 percent of
participants giving a rating of 5 or higher. The mean for the action "Follow directional
signs around the "Movie Madness" studio" received a mean score of 6.4. Participants
found it very easy to "Follow the footprints around the "Movie Madness" studio," for that
action received a mean score of 6.5. The action "Get Pierre to give you instructions when
needed" received a mean score of 5.5, and the action "Get the Boss to give you
instructions" received a slightly lower mean score of 5.05. Every respondent found it easy
to "Flip through the movie stills in the screening room," for the mean score for this action

was 6.72 and no rating was lower than 5. Two participants did not respond to this

56

question. The last action, "Choose an actor for a role in the movie scene" received a 6.1
mean score, with one participant not rating the action (see Figure 5.22).

Participants were asked to express "How clearly did the following objects in
"Movie Madness" represent actions that you could take?" The rating scale provided ran
from 1 to 7, with 1 being "not at all clearly" and 7 being "very clearly." The mean scores
for the objects were as follows: "Megaphones," 6; "Footprints," 6.105; "Directional
Signs," 6.32; "Doors," 6.28; "Slide Projector Controls," 6.83; "Pierre's briefcase," 6.17;
"Cue Cards," 6 (see Figure 5.23).

Natural, unobtrusive interface

When asked "Did you feel more like you were interacting with a computer
program or interacting with characters and objects?," 55 percent of participants indicated
that they felt they were interacting with characters and objects, and 40 percent said that
they felt they were interacting with a computer. One participant did not respond to this
question (see Figure 5.24).

The question "To what extent did you feel that you controlled what happened
during your experience with "Movie Madness?” received a mean score of 4.95 on a 7
point scale, where 1 = "not at all" and 7 = "very much." Seventy-five percent of
participants gave a rating of 4 or higher. The mean score for the question "How satisfied
were you with the amount of control you had while using "Movie Madness?"" was 5 on a
scale from 1 to 7, where l = "not at all satisfied" and 7 = "very satisfied." No response to
the question was lower than 3. One participant did not respond to the question (see
Figure 5.25)

When asked "How would you rate the level of difficulty of using "Movie
Madness?"," 75 percent of respondents gave a rating of 6 or 7 on a 7 point scale, where l
= "not at all easy" and 7 = "very easy." No participant gave a rating lower than 3. One

participant did not answer the question. Eighty-five percent of participants gave a rating

57

 

 

 

issue Command wlMegaphone

12

—b
onamooo

 

 

 

 

Follow Directional Signs...

 

 

 

 

 

 

Follow the Footprints...

 

 

12

a—l
ONAOOJO

 

Get Pierre to Give Instructions...

 

 

 

 

 

Get Boss to Give instructions...

12

—L
onemooo

 

 

r__

 

 

Flip Through Movie Stills...

 

 

 

 

12

.5
ONAOJGO

 

Choose an Actor for the Role...

 

 

Figure 5.22: Ease of Performing Various Activities

58

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

Mega phones Footprints

12 12
10 1O

8 8

6 6

4 4

2 2

O 0

Directional Signs Doors

12
10

8

6

4

2

0

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

Slide Projector Controls Pierre's Briefcase

12

10

8

6

4

2

O

Cue Cards

12
10
8
6
4
2
0

 

 

 

Figure 5.23: How Clearly Did Objects Represent Actions

59

 

 

 

 

 

 

Program/Cha rs 8. Objects...

 

 

 

 

Hi

.‘P
17

 

 

 

 

 

 

Program Chars

 

 

 

Figure 5.24: Interacting With Computer or With Characters & Objects

 

Extent You Controlled Things... Satisfied With Amt. of Control...

12 12

u—l
ONAQQO
ONAQCDO

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 5.25: Level of Control

of 5 or higher when asked "How comfortable were you using "Movie Madness?"." The
rating scale ran from 1 to 7, where l = "not at all comfortable" and 7 = "very
comfortable." The mean score for this question was a high 6.05. One participant did not

respond to the question (see Figure 5.26).

 

Rate Level of Difficulty... How Comfortable Were You...

12 12

—§
ONAOICDO
ONb-CDGJO

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 5.26: Ease of Using the Program

60

Set Dressing

Participants were asked "On a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 is detracted from
enjoyment and 10 is enhanced enjoyment, how did the following details present in "Movie
Madness" affect your enjoyment of it?" Participants gave a rating of 7.9 to "The
characters." "The sound effects" received a mean rating of 9. 1. Another high mean, 8.3,
was given to "The movie stills." "The level of realism of the graphics" received a mean
rating of 7. "The animation" was given a mean of 6.7.

The question "How much would the ability to talk back to the computer improve
your experience with it?" received a mean score of 5.63 on a seven point scale, where l =
"not at all" and 7 = "very much." Sixty percent of respondents gave a rating of 7, and one

participant did not respond to the question (see Figure 5.27).

 

Ability to Talk Back...

12

—b
ONAOQO

 

 

 

 

Figure 5.27: How Would Ability to Talk Back Improve Experience

Agency
When asked "To what extent did Pierre come across as a believable personality?,"
participants responded with a mean score of 4.53 on a seven point scale, where 1 = "not at
all" and 7 = "very much." Fifteen of the twenty participants gave a rating of 4 or higher.
One participant did not answer the question. The question "To what extent was Pierre's
character consistent throughout "Movie Madness?“ earned a mean score of 5.68 on a

scale of 1 to 7, where l = "not at all" and 7 = "very much." 70 percent of the participants

61

gave a rating of 5 or higher. One participant did not answer the question. The mean score
for the question "How much did you like Pierre?" was 4.95 on a seven point scale where l
= "not at all" and 7 = "very much." Eighty-five percent of the participants gave a rating of

4 or higher. One participant did not answer the question (see Figure 5.28).

 

 

Pierre/Believable Personality... Pierre/Consistent Character...
12 12
10 1O
8 8
6 6
4 4
2 2
0 0

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How Much Did You Like Pierre

12

—I
onemooo

 

 

 

 

Figure 5.28: Evaluation of Pierre

The question "To what extent did the Boss come across as a believable
personality?" received a mean score of 4.90 on a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 = "not at all"
and 7 = "very much." Eighty percent of participants gave a rating of 4 or higher. One
participant did not answer the question. The mean score for the question "How much did
you like the Boss?," was 4.53 on a seven point scale, where 1 = "not at all" and 7 = "very
much." Seventy percent of participants gave a rating of 4 or higher. One participant did

not answer the question (see figure 5.29).

62

 

 

Boss/Believable Personality... How Much Did You Like Boss

12 12

-§
ONAO’QO
A
ON&O)(DO

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 5.29: Evaluation of The Boss

The question "To what extent did the actors come across as believable
personalities?" received a mean score of 4.95 on a 7 point scale, where l = "not at all" and
7 = "very much." Eighty five percent of participants gave a rating of 4 or higher, and one

participant did not answer the question (see Figure 5.30).

 

Actors/Believable Personalities

12

—L
ONAQQO

 

 

 

 

Figure 5.30: Were the Actors Believable Personalities

When asked "Did you feel you could communicate with Pierre?," 55 percent of
participants felt that they could communicate with Pierre, and 40 percent felt that they
could not. One participant did not answer the question. When asked "Did you feel you
could communicate with the Boss?," 20 percent of participants felt that they could and 75
percent felt that they could not. One participant did not answer the question (see Figure

5.31).

63

 

 

Communicate With Pierre... Communicate With the Boss...

12 12 ——-———-_- «~-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

101— 10
8% 8
6 ——~ — 6
.r: 2 _ .
2+ 6.2 —— 2
o o

 

 

 

Yes No Yes No

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 5.31: Could User Communicate With Characters

Seventy percent of participants answered the question "How much did the
characters' ability to talk help them to be believable?" with a rating of 5 or higher. One
participant did not answer the question. The mean score for the question was 5.58 (see

Figure 5.32).

 

Ability to Talk/Believability...

12

ONhsOJCDO

 

 

 

 

Figure 5.32: How Did Ability to Talk Increase Believability

The question "How effectively did the characters in "Movie Madness" make you
feel like a movie director?" received a mean rating of 4.3 on a seven point scale, where 1 =
"not at all effectively" and 7 = "very effectively." Over half of the participants gave a
rating of 5 or higher. One participant did not answer the question. The mean score for
the question "To what extent did you enjoy playing a role in "Movie Madness?"" was 5.25
on a seven point scale, where l = "not at all" and 7 = "very much." Seventy percent of

participants gave a rating of5 or higher (see Figure 5.33).

64

 

 

 

 

Feel Like a Movie Director... Enjoy Playing a Role...

12 12

anammo
OmemO

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 5.33: User's Role as Director

 

Split Variable Results
T-tests were performed on several split variables, including sex, United States
versus foreign participants, graduate students versus undergraduate students, movie buffs
versus non-movie buffs, theater buffs versus non-theater buffs, television buffs versus non-
television buffs, and science fiction fans versus non-science fiction fans. The results are

shown in the following tables.

65

Table 5.0: T-Test Results for Sex

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Question Male Female P
Mean Mean Value

To what degree did you experience annoyance using 2.45 3.00 .000
W?
To what degree did you experience boredom using MM? 2.64 2.56 .014
To what degree did you experience confusion using MM? 1.82 3.67 .017
How obvious to you were the actions you could take 5.36 5.00 .064
while using MM?
How often did something you clicked on NOT do what 1.82 3.44 .087
you wanted?
How often were you confused about what to do next? 1.82 3.44 .004
To what degree did you feel limited by available actions ? 4.18 4.11 .066
How quickly did "Movie Madness" respond to your 5.20 4.00 .060
mouse clicks?
To what extent did waiting for computer make you lose 2.73 4.00 .018
interest in MM?
How easy was it to use directional signs to go back to 6.64 5.56 .003
MM locations?
How easy was it to issue a command using a megaphone? 6.18 5.50 .035
How easy was it to follow directional signs around the 6.82 5.89 .002
MM studio?
How easy was it to follow the footprints around the MM 6.82 6.11 .000
studio?
How easy was it to flip through the movie stills in the 6.82 6.57 .063
screening room?
How easy was it to choose an actor the movie scene role? 6.55 5.50 .002
How clearly did the megaphone represent the action it 6.36 5.50 .037
performed?
How clearly did the footprints represent the action they 6.55 5.50 .010
performed?
How clearly did directional signs represent the action they 6.82 5.63 .000
performed?
How clearly did the doors represent the action they 6.80 5.63 .001
performed?
How clearly did the slide projector controls represent 6.90 6.75 .029
their actions?
How would you rate the level of difficulty of using MM? 6.50 5.33 .003
How much would ability to talk to computer improve 6.40 4.78 .069

your experience?

 

 

 

 

66

 

 

Table 5.1: T-Test Results for Nationality

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Question U.S. Non- P
Mean U.S. Value
Mean
How interested were you in using "Movie Madness?" 6.00 4.67 .037
To what extent did you feel like you had entered the MM 4.00 3.50 .065
world?
How easy was it to use directional signs to go back to MM 6.64 5.00 .000
locations?
How easy was it to issue a command using a megaphone? 6.21 5.00 .031
How easy was it to follow directional signs around the MM 6.71 5.67 .001
studio?
How easy was it to follow the footprints around the MM 6.79 5.83 .000
studio?
How easy was it to flip through the movie stills in the 6.79 6.50 .023
screening room?
How clearly did the megaphone represent the action it 6.36 5.00 .004
performed?
How clearly did the footprints represent the action they 6.64 4.60 .000
performed?
How clearly did directional signs represent the action they 6.79 5.00 .000'
performed?
How clearly did the slide projector controls represent their 6.92 6.60 .001
actions?
How clearly did Pierre's briefcase represent action you 6.38 5.60 .032
could take?
How comfortable were you using "Movie Madness?" 6.46 5.17 .064
How did the movie stills affect your enjoyment of "Movie 8.46 7.75 .041
Madness?"
To what extent did the boss come across as a believable 4.77 5.17 .019
personality?
Did you feel you could communicate with the Boss? 1.92 1.50 .050

 

67

 

 

Table 5.2: T-T est Results for Graduates

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Question Non- Grad P
Grad Mean Value
Mean

To what degree did you experience a feeling of confusion 1.92 4.00 .001
using MM?
How often were you confiJsed about what to do next? 1.77 4.00 .003
To what extent did waiting for computer make you lose 2.62 4.57 .042
interest in MM?
How easy was it to use directional signs to go back to MM 6.62 5.29 .001
locations?
How easy was it to issue a command using a megaphone? 6.31 5.00 .013
How easy was it to follow directional signs around the MM 6.77 5.71 .001
studio?
How easy was it to follow the footprints around the MM 6.77 6.00 .000
studio?
How easy was it to flip through the movie stills in the 6.85 6.40 .017
screening room?
How clearly did the megaphone represent the action it 6.23 5.50 .011
performed?
How clearly did the footprints represent the action they 6.46 5.33 .001
performed?
How clearly did directional signs represent the action they 6.77 5.33 .000
performed?
How clearly did the slide projector controls represent their 6.92 6.67 .004
actions?
How clearly did Pierre's briefcase represent action you 6.33 5.83 .043
could take?
How clearly did the cue cards represent the action you 6.50 5.00 .038
could take?
How would you rate the level of difficulty of using "Movie 6.50 5.00 .001

Madness?"

 

 

 

 

68

 

Table 5.3: T-Test Results for Movie Buffs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Question Buff Non- P
Mean Buff Value
_ Mean

How interested were you in using "Movie Madness?" 5.36 6.17 .062
How believable did this experience feel to you? 3.29 4.50 .082
How much did you enpy meetinLthe studio boss? 4.00 6.17 .053
How interested would you be in experiencing "Movie 4.64 6.33 .019
Madness" again?
To what extent did waiting for computer decrease 3.86 2.50 .066
enjoyment of W?
How easy was it to change an actor choice? 6.00 4.33 .052
How easy was it to follow the footprints around the W 6.43 6.67 .021
studio?
How easy was it to flip through the movie stills in the 6.83 6.50 .032
screening room?
How clearly did the doors represent the action they 6.92 5.00 .000
performed?
How did the characters affect your enjoyment of "Movie 7.42 9.00 .056
Madness?"
How much did the character's ability to talk help them to be 5.15 6.50 .020

believable?

 

 

 

 

69

 

 

 

Table 5.4: T-Test Results for Theater Buffs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Question Buff Non- P
Mean Buff Value
Mean

Did using "Movie Madness" feel more like work or play? 6.83 6.14 .074
How real did it feel to you to perform actions in "Movie 3.67 3.86 .008
Madness?"
How easy was it to use directional signs to go back to MM 5.83 6.29 .005
locations?
How easy was it to follow the footprints around the MM 5.83 6.79 .000
studio?
How easy was it to choose an actor the movie scene role? 5.40 6.36 .002
How clearly did the megaphone represent the action it 5.67 6.15 .006
performed?
How clearly did the footprints represent the action they 5.67 6.31 .019
performed?
How clearly did the doors represent the action they 6.83 6.00 .003
performed?
How clearly did Pierre's briefcase represent action you 6.67 5.92 .066
could take?
How much would ability to talk to computer improve your 5.00 5.92 .058
experience?
To what extent did the boss come across as a believable 3.50 5.54 .009
personality?
How much did the character's ability to talk help them to be 4.67 6.00 .020
believable?
How much did you like the boss? 3.17 5.15 .013
To what extent did the actors come across as believable 4.50 5.15 .012

personalities?

 

 

 

 

7O

 

Table 5.5: T-Test Results for Television Buffs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Question Buff Non- P
Mean Buff Value
Mean

How much did you enjoy directing the movie scene at the 5.75 6.18 .065
end of MM?
To what degree did you experience a feeling of boredom 2.88 2.42 .047
using MM?
Did using "Movie Madness" feel more like work or play? 6.63 6.17 .079
How easy was it to use directional signs to go back to MM 5.88 6.33 .012
locations?
How easy was it to issue a command using a megaphone? 5.00 6.55 .001
How easy was it to follow the footprints around the MM 6.13 6.75 .000
studio?
How easy was it to choose an actor the movie scene role? 6.43 5.92 .007
How clearly did the megaphone represent the action it 5.25 6.55 .005
performed?
How clearly did the footprints represent the action they 5.63 6.45 .025
performed?
To what extent did Pierre come across as a believable 4.86 4.33 .041
personality?
To what extent did the boss come across as a believable 5.86 4.33 .033

personality?

 

 

 

 

71

 

Table 5.6: T-Test Results for Science Fiction Fans

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Question Fan Non- P
Mean Fan Value
Mean

To what extent did you feel like you had entered the MM 3.92 4.00 .053
world?
To what extent did you make choices quickly to get them 2.92 3.00 .072
over with?
How much did you enjoy visiting the movie backlots? 5.54 5.40 .074
To what degree did you experience happiness or pleasure 4.92 5.40 .058
during MM?
How interested would you be in experiencing "Movie 5.23 5.80 .018
Madness" again?
How obvious to you were the actions you could take while 5.46 5.40 .065
using MM?
How real did it feel to you to perform actions in "Movie 3.69 4.20 .068
Madness?"
How easy was it to follow directional signs around the MM 6.77 5.80 .003
studio?
How easy was it to flip through the movie stills in the 6.92 6.20 .003
screening room?
How clearly did directional signs represent the action they 6.85 5.40 .000
performed?
How much did the character's ability to talk help them to be 6.25 4.60 .068

believable?

 

 

 

 

72

 

CHAPTER VI: DISCUSSION

Was Direct Engagement Achieved?

"Direct Engagement," as defined earlier, is "a state in which a computer user
experiences positive emotions and his/her attention is obtained and held by directly
interacting with computer-generated representations of objects within a specific context."
The research findings of this study suggest that "Movie Madness" successfully met the
requirements for direct engagement stated in the definition.

Research participants were asked a variety of questions to gauge whether their
attention was obtained and held by interacting in the "Movie Madness" world. Their
responses to the questions suggest that it was. Participants indicated that they were very
interested in using the program and that they felt highly involved while experiencing it.

A number of questions were asked to help ascertain whether participants felt that
they could directly interact with the objects in "Movie Madness." Participants strongly
indicated that they understood the actions represented by objects and that they could
easily use the objects to perform actions.

The studio setting for "Movie Madness" provides a context that helps to define the
actions that can take place in the program. The ease with which participants were able to

perform and understand studio-related activities such as "signing an actor, auditioning
an actor," and "previewing movie slides" suggests that they utilized the information
implied by the program's context.

The participants in this study appear to have experienced positive emotions while
using "Movie Madness." They indicated that they had fun using the program and that they

enjoyed most of the activities they performed. Ninety percent of the participants indicated

that the program made them smile or laugh, and the overall level of satisfaction upon

completing the program was very high. Furthermore, most participants indicated that they
would enjoy experiencing "Movie Madness" again in the fiiture.

Direct engagement was achieved despite the fact that participants didn't find the
program to be particularly "real." This finding is in agreement with the belief that the
action that takes place through an interface is more important than the representation of
objects (Norman, 1988). Interestingly, the parts of the program that participants rated as
the most believable, auditioning the actors and viewing the slides, were arguably the most

interactive.

Continuous representation of objects/actions
Participants felt comfortable with the actions they could take in "Movie Madness"
and didn't seem to have much difficulty identifying how to perform them. Most indicated

that the available actions were clearly and consistently represented.

Emphasis on action

The responses participants gave to action questions indicated that they liked using
an interface that mirrors real world actions. The actions, however, felt only moderately
real to them. Part of the reason stems from the cartoon-like quality of the graphics. If the
user had the opportunity to take actions by manipulating life-like objects, the actions might
feel more real.

Another way to improve the level of reality of actions might be to provide different
types of feedback when an action is initiated. Sound and animation could both be used for
this purpose. For example, when a user clicks on a door to enter a virtual room, a
knocking sound could be made, the door could open, and the program could respond with

an animated "zoom" into the room.

74

Immediate results

The mean scores for questions relating to the speed of the program indicate that
the study participants were satisfied with its response times. However, participants also
indicated that they occasionally became impatient waiting for the computer to respond and
felt that the program seemed less real when they had to wait.

Unfortunately, achieving immediate response in any program is a very difficult task
today. When processor-intensive elements such as graphics and animation are handled by
a computer, speed usually languishes. Additional memory was added to the computers
running "Movie Madness" to make the program run more quickly. Despite the extra
memory, the program still lags in several places.

The slowest events in "Movie Madness" are the screen transitions. When moving
to a screen that contains large amounts of graphics, the computer has to first load the
graphics into memory. This process can take considerable time. Some screen transitions
in "Movie Madness" take as long as 5 seconds to complete.

Given that immediate results can not always be achieved in "Movie Madness," the
program was modified to make waiting less frustrating. The cursor becomes an hourglass
when the user has to wait for the computer to perform a task. Transitions to complex
screens are preceded by a "wipe to black" to let the user know that the computer is

working on the transition.

75

Actions reversible
Reversing actions in "Movie Madness" was extremely easy for participants. They
rarely became "stuck" and found it a simple matter to return to a scene they had just

visited.

Actions represented in objects
Participants had little difliculty manipulating objects on the screen to perform
actions. They also had no problem determining the actions that are represented by various
objects. This was encouraging given that the participants had never used the program
before. It suggests that the on-screen instruction provided by the characters in the
program is effective, and that graphical metaphors can help computer users to transfer

their knowledge of how things work in the real world to the computer screen.

Natural, unobtrusive interface
An unobtrusive interface is one which seems invisible and does not get in the way
of the actions the user wants to perform. Participants felt that "Movie Madness" meets
these criteria. They gave the program very high scores for ease of use and level of

control.

Set Dressing
The elements of"set dressing" in the program received high marks from
participants. The program's sound effects received the most praise, and its animation the
least.
While "Movie Madness" included several special touches, the majority ofthe
artistic enhancements planned for the program were not included due to lack of time.
Sound effects were planned to accompany every action in the program, and music was

going to be played during each scene transition. The actors and agents were originally

76

envisioned as having a large variety of motions. They were also going to be designed with
ability to respond to the user in a "semi-intelligent" manner based on the actions the user
took. A variety of special effects were planned, but only a few, including the boss's cigar
smoke, were developed.

Set dressing is a part of program design that is often overlooked. For the purpose
of creating direct engagement, set dressing should not be ignored. The special effects and
unexpected animation present in a program are the "icing on the cake" that help to lead

users deeper into a direct engagement experience.

Agency

Despite the cartoon-like appearance of Pierre, the Boss, and the actors,
participants in this study gave a strong indication that they found the various agents in this
program believable and consistent They also gave high marks to the experience of playing
the role of director in the program.

Over half ofthe participants said that they felt they could communicate with
Pierre, while only twenty percent said that they could communicate with the Boss. This
reaction is likely due to the fact that the Boss is only present in one scene of the program,
whereas Pierre is with the user throughout the program. In addition, users have
opportunities to interact with Pierre by using the slide controller he hands them in the
screening room, by pulling a contract out of his briefcase for an actor to sign, and by using
him to handle the cue cards during the audition. Users also issue commands to Pierre via
megaphones in the screening rooms and by the audition stage.

The character's ability to talk was an important factor contributing to their
believability. One might reasonably speculate that the ability to talk back to characters
would facilitate greater interaction with them and make them seem more believable.
Artificial intelligence might also be employed to help control the actions and verbal

responses of agents.

77

Key Direct Engagement Design Factors

The results of this study suggest that continuous representation of actions, agency,
set dressing, and interface unobtrusiveness are the factors that most strongly contribute to
the creation of direct engagement. Justification for this conclusion is derived from the
high ratings questions in each of these categories received, observation of participants as
they used the program, and the current body of literature relating to direct engagement.

Though participants didn't always feel that the actions they took seemed real, their
responses indicate that the ability to perform actions that were clearly represented and
easy to initiate drew them into the experience. The fact that users gave the highest
enjoyment and believability ratings to the two most action-intensive sections of the "Movie
Madness" experience lends support to this notion.

Agency also played a key role in bringing about direct engagement. Users
consistently gave high marks to the characters they encountered in "Movie Madness."
Observation of the users revealed that the emotional responses they made, such as smiling
and laughing, came about as a direct result of interaction with the program's agents.

Set dressing is included as an important direct engagement requirement in part
because of positive participant response to specific elements of set dressing. However, the
questions in this study only begin to explore why set dressing is important. Observation of
study participants suggested that set dressing played a part in enhancing and strengthening
every facet of the program. It made the characters more life-like and entertaining (the
Boss's cigar smoke and his cough), made scenes more enjoyable to look at, and helped to
enhance the interactive, involving feel of the program.

The screening room exemplifies how set dressing adds to an interface; Pierre holds
out a slide controller for the user, the slide projector emits a click when slides are changed,
and the room lights dim when the slide show begins. These small touches enhanced the

action in the scene and received positive comments from participants as a result.

78

 

Split Variables

T-tests were performed on several different split variables to learn if certain
differences in people made them more or less likely to experience the direct engagement
effect. Several personal characteristics, including sex, nationality, level of schooling, and
entertainment preferences were examined.

The first test looked at differences based on sex and revealed that males tended to
find "Movie Madness" easier and far less frustrating to use than females did. Males also
seemed to have more patience when the program responded slowly. The differences may
be due in part to the fact that the males participating in the study spent on average
approximately twice as many hours per week working on computers as did the females
participating in the study. Also, five ofthe nine female participants in the study were
foreign, whereas only one of the eleven male participants in the study was foreign.

Foreign participants had more difficulty performing actions and perceiving the
actions represented by metaphors than did non-foreign participants. Foreign participants
also indicated a lower level of "comfort" using the program. The differences may be
attributable to cultural biases regarding symbol interpretation and the fact that English is
not the native language of the foreign participants.

Interestingly, those participating in the study from outside the United States found
the Boss to be more real than did participants from the United States, and they also felt
that they could communicate with him more often than did people from the United States.
Did foreign participants relate to the familiar stereotype ofa "studio executive" that the
Boss was based on? Research on whether stereotypes can be effectively applied to agents
to make them feel more "real" and familiar might be warranted.

Analysis ofthe remaining split variables failed to show any major trends, though a
few interesting differences were observed. Those identifying themselves as theater buffs
were less accepting of the Boss as a believable character than were non-theater buffs.

Movie buffs seemed to find "Movie Madness" less believable than non-movie buffs,

79

perhaps because their familiarity with the movie-going experience raised a different set of
expectations of what "Movie Madness" should be. Television buffs found the Boss and
Pierre to be more believable than non-buffs. Graduate students had more difficulty
performing actions and perceiving the actions represented by metaphors than
undergraduates. This trend parallels the trend for foreign students, and can be explained
in part by the fact that five of the seven graduate students in the sample were also foreign

students.

Summary

The current study achieved direct engagement as it is defined for the study.
Participants experienced a high level of involvement in the program and felt positive
emotions while using the program and upon successfully completing the program.

Several design factors for creating direct engagement stood out as especially
effective. Continuous representation of actions, agency, set dressing, and interface
unobtrusiveness all played major roles in bringing about the direct engagement effect in
participants. Each of these factors received an especially strong positive response from
the study participants.

T-test analysis revealed strong trends in the perception of "Movie Madness" based
on sex and national status. Male participants tended to find the program easier and less
frustrating to use than did female participants. Males also seemed to have more patience
with the program than did females. Though foreign participants had more difficulty
performing actions and perceiving the actions represented by metaphors than did non-
foreign participants, they related to the Boss better than non-foreign participants did.
Several minor trends were identified based on differences relating to participants' interest

in different forms of entertainment.

80

CHAPTER VII: RECOMMENDATIONS

Factors to Include for Direct Engagement
The design factors identified in the current study for creating direct engagement all
appear to have merit. However, continuous representation of actions, agency, set
dressing, and interface unobtrusiveness stand out as key factors for achieving the effect.

Emphasis should be placed on these factors when designing for direct engagement.

Enhancements to Direct Engagement Interfaces

The current study identified four primary design factors that should be included in
a direct engagement interface. Different techniques could be used to enhance the
effectiveness of the factors. A few of the possible enhancements are described below.

Random events. "Real life" often includes unexpected events that people must
respond to. Creating a variety of random events in a direct engagement interface for users
to respond to could help to draw them in to the experience and make it seem more real.
Random events might be viewed as a form of "set dressing" or as a method of emphasizing
action in the program.

Intelligent characters. Agents might be improved by providing them with the
ability to give "context—sensitive" advice to users and to make random comments based
user actions. These abilities might enhance user-agent interaction and make the agents
seem more believable.

Animated enhancements. The boss's cigar smoke, the animated hand signing the
contract, and the audition stage curtains all provide bits of animation that enhance the
credibility of the "Movie Madness" experience. Animated enhancements are an important
part of set dressing and can be used to draw users' attention and to make a program feel

more active and "alive."

81

Bantering agents. Agents could be given the ability to make random quips to users
and to each other. Agents that talk, banter, and joke at unexpected times could help to
make virtual worlds that feel more active, involving, and emotionally rewarding.

Sound effects. Sound effects can greatly benefit direct engagement interfaces.

The "Movie Madness" sound effects, including the slide projector controller and the
ringing telephone, were the highest rated "artistic" element in the program. The world is
not a quiet place, and a virtual world shouldn't be quiet, either. Doors should creak and
slam when they are opened and shut. Music should play for users while they wait for
screen transitions to take place. An interface should appeal to as many senses as possible

if it hopes to create an involving extension of real world experiences.

Further study

Applying Direct Engagement Concepts to Different Types of Programs

Direct engagement concepts are easily applicable to certain types of programs,
such as virtual tours, games, and educational simulations. These types of activities are
typically involving and amenable to producing emotional response in participants.

Other types of programs, such as business applications, scientific packages, and
utilities are less readily amenable to a direct engagement approach. The very nature of
these applications is analytical, and the actions performed with them are not usually geared
towards producing emotional response.

Research to determine whether analytical programs could benefit from a direct
engagement approach to their design might yield interesting information. What elements
of direct engagement might benefit analytical applications? Could a new generation of
applications be developed that create a story-like, involving environment for completing
tasks as mundane as creating a spreadsheet? Exploration of these questions could help to

redefine a variety oftasks and turn them into more engaging experiences.

Effect of Technology on Direct Engagement

Technological advances will continually open up new avenues for applying direct
engagement principles. As computer technology progresses and virtual reality equipment
gains the ability to portray more and more lifelike worlds, will virtual experiences become
more engaging? Is the representation of action as important in a real-looking virtual world
as it is on a computer screen with limited graphic capabilities? Will people be able to
achieve a level of engagement that totally immerses them in a virtual world and makes
them forget about the real world?

The results of the current study suggest that the principles of direct engagement
will continue to be applicable as technology progresses. Technological advances will
undoubtedly improve the way actions are performed, characters are portrayed, interfaces
are rendered seamless and artistic touches are applied. The influence on users of a more

realistic implementation ofthese principles is worth studying.

Personal Characteristics Compatible With Direct Engagement

An analysis of personal characteristics that predispose some people to easily
experiencing direct engagement would make for an interesting and useful study. The
current study discovered that certain aspects of the direct engagement interface tested
were accepted better by some groups of peOple than by others. More research needs to be
done in this area to provide a better picture of how to successfully create direct

engagement for different types of people.

Additional Techniques for Creating Direct Engagement

The current study identified several techniques for creating direct engagement, but
others undoubtedly exist as well. Would incorporating random, entertaining events into a
program force the user to deal with them and heighten his or her engagement? How might
artificial intelligence be applied to interface agents to make them more realistic,

interactive, and engaging? What disciplines besides theater and film can interface

83

designers learn from to create better direct engagement interfaces? Considerable research
needs to be done to expand the set of techniques designers can use for creating direct

engagement interfaces.

84

APPENDIX A

 

 

APPENDIX A

Questionnaire

Please do not write your names on the questionnaire. It is intended to be
anonymous. All results will be treated with strict confidence and the subjects will remain
anonymous.

Before you complete this questionnaire, you will spend approximately 20-30
minutes using multimedia computer software called "Movie Madness." The software and
this questionnaire are part of John Bauman's master's thesis research involving multimedia
and virtual reality computer interfaces. The questionnaire is intended to provide feedback
on your perceptions of the "Movie Madness" software. It should take approximately 10-
20 minutes to fill out the questionnaire.

By using the "Movie Madness" software and answering the questions on the
following pages, you will be helping to provide information that will be useful to designers
of multimedia and virtual reality applications. Your participation in this research should be
voluntary. Therefore, although you are asked to use "Movie Madness" from beginningm
w, you may discontinue using it at any time. Likewise, although you are asked to
respond to the questionnaire, you may discontinue answering at any time or choose not to
turn it in. If you choose to turn it in, your answers will become part of John Bauman's
master's thesis research on multimedia and virtual reality programs.

Although we prefer that you answer all of the questions, if there are some you are
not comfortable answering, it is OK to leave them blank.

When you have finished reading this page, please inform John Bauman and he will
help you begin using "Movie Madness." Once you have finished using "Movie Madness, "
you may complete this questionnaire.

You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate in this research by using
"Movie Madness" and by completing and returning this questionnaire.

Tips for using "Movie Madness:"

- Click on objects with the LEFT mouse button. You only need to click on an
object once to activate it.

- Listen to what the characters on the screen have to tell you. They will give you
instructions for proceeding through the program.

- If you click on an object while a character is talking, you might interrupt what the
character has to say.

- You will have 20-30 minutes to use "Movie Madness.
"auditioning an actor" within this time.

You should be sure to try

85

Did "Movie Madness" feel more like visiting a movie studio or using a computer?
Visiting a movie Studio Using a computer

Did "Movie Madness" feel more like watching a movie or acting in a movie?
Watching a movie Acting in a movie

To what degree did you feel like you were the character you were playing in
"Movie Madness?"
Very much 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Not at all

How interested were you when using "Movie Madness?"
Very Interested 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Not at all Interested

To what extent did you become bored while using "Movie Madness?"
Very Bored 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Not at all Bored

To what extent did you forget about the outside world while using "Movie
Madness?"
Very much 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Not at all

To what extent did you feel like you were a part of the world presented in "Movie
Madness."

Verymuch 7 6 5 4 3 2 l Notatall

How "believable" did this experience feel to you?
Very Believable 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Not at all Believable

Was "Movie Madness" consistently believable from start to end?
Yes No

What part of"Movie Madness" seemed most believable to you?
What part of "Movie Madness" seemed least believable to you?
To what degree did you feel that you were participating in a "story" or
"adventure?"
Verymuch 7 6 5 4 3 2 l Notatall
To what extent did you feel like you had entered the "Movie Madness" world

shown on the computer screen?
Verymuch 7 6 5 4 3 2 l Notatall

86

How involved were you in experiencing "Movie Madness?"
Very Involved 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Not at all Involved

To what extent did you really try to cast actors you thought would fit the parts in
the movie scene?

Very much 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Not at all
When faced with making a choice or decision in "Movie Madness," to what extent
did you make it quickly to get it over with?

Very much 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Not at all
How much did you enjoy the following activities in "Movie Madness:"

Meeting the studio Boss

Verymuch 7 6 5 4 3 2 l Notatall

Reading the script for the scene from "Macbeth"
Verymuch 7 6 5 4 3 2 l Notatall

Visiting the movie backlots
Verymuch 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Notatall

Viewing slides from the movies in the screening rooms
Verymuch 7 6 5 4 3 2 l Notatall

Visiting the actors in their dressing rooms
Verymuch 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Notatall

Signing an actor to play the role of "Macbeth"
Verymuch 7 6 5 4 3 2 l Notatall

Directing the movie scene at the end of"Movie Madness"
Verymuch 7 6 5 4 3 2 l Notatall

What did you like or dislike most about each ofthe following activities in "Movie
Madness:"

Meeting the studio Boss

Reading the script for the movie scene

Visiting the movie backlots

Viewing scenes from the movies in the screening rooms

Visiting the actors in their "dressing rooms"

87

Casting the actors in roles for the movie scene
Directing the movie scene at the end of "Movie Madness"

To what degree did you experience a feeling of happiness or pleasure while using
"Movie Madness?"
Verymuch 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Not at all

To what degree did you experience a feeling of annoyance while using "Movie
Madness?"
Verymuch 7 6 5 4 3 2 l Notatall

To what degree did you experience a feeling of boredom while using "Movie
Madness?"
Verymuch 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Not at all

To what degree did you experience a feeling of COilfiJSIOil while using "Movie
Madness?"
Verymuch 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Not atall

How would you describe your level of satisfaction after completing "Movie
Madness?"
Very Satisfied 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Not at all Satisfied

How would you describe your level of happiness after being congratulated by the
boss after directing the audition?
Very Happy 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Not at all Happy

How pleased were you with the way the actor you chose played the part of
"Macbeth?"
Very Pleased 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Not at all Pleased

Would you like to try auditioning different actors for the role of"Macbeth?"
Yes No

Did using "Movie Madness" feel more like play or work?
Play7654321Work

Did "Movie Madness" make you smile or laugh?
Yes No

How interested would you be in experiencing "Movie Madness" again?
Very Interested 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Not at all Interested

88

How obvious to you were the actions you could take while using "Movie
madness?"
Very Obvious 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Not at all Obvious

Did the choices of what you could do feel consistent throughout the experience?
Yes No

Were there times when the things you could do in "Movie Madness" were unclear?
Yes No
If "Yes," please explain:

How often did something you clicked on NOT do what you wanted it to do?
Very Often 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Not at all Often

How often were you confirsed about what to do next?
Very Often 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Not at all Often

To what degree did you feel limited by the available actions you could take?
Very Limited 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Not at all Limited

How "real" did it feel to you to perform various actions in "Movie Madness" (i.e.,
opening a door, walking through an entrance, giving instructions through the
megaphone)?

Very Real 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Not at all Real

To what extent did you feel like you were actually directing the actor's audition?
Verymuch 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Not atall

Did you like using an interface that mirrors real world actions and places, or would
you prefer to choose actors from a list of names and then click on a "view scene"
button to watch the movie scene?

Real World Interface "List of names" Interface

How quickly did "Movie Madness" respond to your mouse clicks?

Very Quickly 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Not at all Quickly
How often did you get impatient waiting for the computer to complete some
activity?

All the Time 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Never

To what extent did waiting for the computer to respond make you lose interest in
"Movie Madness?"
Verymuch 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Notat all

89

To what extent did waiting for the computer to respond decrease your enjoyment
of "Movie Madness?"
Verymuch 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Not at all

To what extent did waiting for the computer to respond make "Movie Madness"
feel less real?
Verymuch 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Notatall

How easy was it to use directional signs to go back to "Movie Madness" locations
you had visited before?

Very Easy 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Not at all Easy
Did you try selecting a different actor after you already signed one?
Yes No
If Yes, How easy was it to change an actor choice?
Very Easy 7 6 5 4 3 2 I Not at all Easy
Did you try to "Cut" the audition after it started?
Yes No
If Yes, How easy was it to cut the audition?
Very Easy 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Not at all Easy

How often did you get "stuck" while using "Movie Madness" and find it unclear
how to continue?
All the Time 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Never

How easy was it to perform the following actions in "Movie Madness?"

Issue a command using a megaphone?
Very Easy 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Not at all Easy

Follow directional signs around the "Movie Madness" studio?
Very Easy 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Not at all Easy

Follow the footprints around the "Movie Madness" studio?
Very Easy 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Not at all Easy

Get Pierre to give you instructions when needed?
Very Easy 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Not at all Easy

90

Get the Boss to give you instructions?
Very Easy 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Not at all Easy

Flip through the movie stills in the screening room?
VeryEasy 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Not at all Easy

Choose an actor for a role in the movie scene?
Very Easy 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Not at all Easy

How clearly did the following objects in "Movie Madness" represent actions that
you could take?

Megaphones

VeryClearly 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Not at all Clearly
Footprints

VeryClearly 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Not at all Clearly
Directional Signs

VeryClearly 7 6 5 4 3 2 I Not atall Clearly
Doors

VeryClearly 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Not at all Clearly
Slide Projector Controls

VeryClearly 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Not atall Clearly
Pierre's Briefcase

VeryClearly 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Not at all Clearly
Cue Cards

VeryClearly 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Not atall Clearly

Did you feel more like you were interacting with a computer program or
interacting with characters and objects?
Computer Program Characters and Objects

91

To what extent did you feel that you controlled what happened during your
experience with "Movie Madness?"
Very much 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Not at all

How satisfied were you with the amount of control you had while using "Movie
Madness?"
Very Satisfied 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Not at all Satisfied

How would you rate the level of difficulty of using "Movie Madness?"
Very Easy 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Not at all Easy

How comfortable were you using "Movie Madness?"
Very Comfortable 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Not at all Comfortable

On a scale from 1 to 10, where l is detracted from enjoyment and 10 is enhanced
enjoyment, how did the following details present in "Movie Madness" affect your
enjoyment of it?

The characters

The sound effects

 

The movie stills
The level of realism ofthe graphics
The animation

How much would the ability to talk back to the computer improve your experience
with it?

Very much 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Not at all

To what extent did Pierre come across as a believable personality?
Very much 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Not at all

To what extent was Pierre's character consistent throughout "Movie Madness?"
Very much 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Not at all

How much did you like Pierre?
Very much 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Not at all

To what extent did the Boss come across as a believable personality?
Very much 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Not at all

How much did the characters' ability to talk help them to be believable?
Very much 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Not at all

How much did you like the Boss?
Verymuch 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Notatall

To what extent did the actors come across as believable personalities?
Verymuch 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Not atall

Did you feel you could communicate with Pierre?
Yes No

Did you feel you could communicate with the Boss?
Yes No

How effectively did the characters in "Movie Madness" make you feel like a movie
director?
Very Effectively 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Not at all Effectively
To what extent did you enjoy playing a role in "Movie Madness?"
Verymuch 7 6 5 4 3 2 I Not atall
How many TIMES PER MONTH do you play arcade video games?
How many TIMES PER MONTH do you play a video game at home? _
How many movies do you go out to see IN A MONTH?
How many movies do you rent to watch at home IN A MONTH?
How many plays do you go out to see IN A YEAR?
How many hours oftelevision do you watch IN A WEEK?

How many hours do you spend on a computer IN A WEEK?

How much do you like computers and technology?
Very much 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Not at all

How important is it to you to seek out new experiences?

.5

Veryimportant 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Not at all important

How appealing to you is the thought ofparticipating in entertainment, rather than
just watching it?
Very appealing 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Not at all appealing

How engrossed do you get in a movie plot? Do you ever almost forget it's just a
movie?
Very engrossed 7 6 5 4 3 2 I Not at all engrossed

How often do you get lost in a day dream?
Very often 7 6 5 4 3 2 I Not often at all

Do you consider yourself to be a movie buff?
Yes No

Do you consider yourselfto be a theater buff?
Yes No

Do you consider yourselfto be a television buff?
Yes No

Are you a science fiction fan?
Yes No

How old are you?
Are you: FEMALE MALE

What is your nationality?

 

What is your class level?

 

What is your major?

 

94

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aristotle. The Poetics. Translated by Ingram Bywater. In Rhetoric and Poetics of Aristotle.
Edited by Friedrich Solmsen. New York: The Modern Library, 1954.

Borgman, Christine L, Donald 0. Case, and Charles T. Meadow. "The design and evaluation of a
front-end user interface for energy researchers." Journal of the American Society for
Information Science, March 1989 v40 n2 p99(l 1).

Brain, Marshall. "Hidden persuaders." Byte, April 1992 v17 n4 p3 68( l ).

Brennan, Susan E. "Conversation as Direct Manipulation." In The Art of Human-Computer
Interface Design, edited by Brenda Laurel. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley, 1990.

Erickson, Thomas D. "Creativity and Design." In The Art of Human—Computer Interface Design,
edited by Brenda Laurel. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley, 1990.

Erickson, Thomas D. "Interface and Evolution of Pidgins." In The Art ofHuman-Computer
Interface Design, edited by Brenda Laurel. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley, 1990.

Erickson, Thomas D. "Working with Interface Metaphors." In The Art ofHuman-Computer
Interface Design, edited by Brenda Laurel. Reading, Mass: Addison—Wesley, 1990.

Frisse, Mark F. and Steve B. Cousins. "Models for Hypertext." Journal of the American Society
for Information Science, March 1992 v43 n2 pl83(9).

Gauch, Susan. "Intelligent information retrieval: an introduction." Journal of the American
Society for Information Science, March 1992 v43 n2 p175(8).

Gomoll, Kathleen. "Some Techniques for Observing Users." In The Art ofHuman-Computer
Interface Design, edited by Brenda Laurel. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley, 1990.

Greenberg, Donald P. "Computers and Architecture." .S'cientif/c American, February 1991 v264
n2 p104(6).

Grudin, Jonathan. "The case against user interface consistency." Comnntnications of the ACM,
October 1989 v32 n10 pl 164(10).

Harman, Donna. "User-Friendly Systems Instead of User-Friendly Front-Ends." Journal ofthe
Americal Society for Information Science, March 1992 v43 n2 pl64(l l).

Heeter, Carrie. "BattleTech Masters: Emergence ofthe First US. Virtual Reality SubCulture.”

95

Heeter, Carrie. "The Look and Feel of Direct Manipulation." H YPERNEX US: Journal of
Hypermedia and Multimedia Studies, fall 1991.

Heeter, Carrie. "The Thin Line: Hypermedia meets Virtual Reality." Ed-Tech Review.

Hutchins, Edwin L., James D. Hollan, and Donald A. Norman. "Direct Manipulation Interfaces."
In User Centered System Design: New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction,
edited by DA. Norman and S. Draper. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1986.

Jacobson, Bob. "The ultimate user interface." Byte, April 1992 v17 n1 p175(7).

Kim, Scott. "Interdisciplinary Collaboration." In The Art of Human-( "omputer Interface Design,
edited by Brenda Laurel. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley, 1990.

Kirkpatrick, David. "Computing gets a new face." Fortune, Oct. 7, 1991 le4 n8 p97(l).
Laurel, Brenda. "Agents & points ofview." Whole Earth Review, Summer 1991 n71 p58(2).
Laurel, Brenda. Computers as Theater. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley, 1991.

Laurel, Brenda. "Strange new worlds of entertainment". Computel, No 1991 v13 n1 1 plO2(3).
Lid, France. "It's the Real Thing, Virtually." Sports Illustrated, October 7, 1991 v75 n15 p10(2).

Linderholm, Owen. "Mind melding; How far can the human/computer interface go?" Byte, Oct.
15, 1991 v16 n11p41(5).

Marchionini, Gary. "Interfaces for end-user information seeking." Journal of the American
Society for Information Science, March 1992 v43 n2 p156(8).

Martin, Thomas H. "Standards for case studies in human-computer interaction." Bulletin of the
American Society for Information Science, April-May 1989 v15 n4 pl9(2).

Molich, Rolf and Jakob Nielsen. "Improving a human-computer dialogue." Communications of
the ACM, March 1990 v33 n3 p338(l 1).

Morgan, Jas. "Brenda Laurel: Lizard Queen." Mondo 2000, 1992, Issue 7 p82(8).
Mountford, S. Joy and William W. Gaver. "Talking and Listening to Computers." In The Art of
Human-Computer Interface Design, edited by Brenda Laurel. Reading, Mass: Addison-

Wesley, 1990.

Mountford, S. Joy. "Tools and Techniques for Creative Design." In The Art ofHuman-Computer
Interface Design, edited by Brenda Laurel. Reading, Mass; Addison-Wesley, 1990.

96

Mylonis, Elli. "An interface to classical Greek civilization." Journal of the American Society for
Information Science, March 1992 v43 n2 pl92(10).

Nash, Ian. "Visions for a Braver World." Times Educational .S'upp/ement, September 6, I991
n3923 p12(1).

Norman, Donald A. The Pgtchology of Everyday Things. New York: Basic Books, 1988.
Oren, Tim. "Storytelling agents." Whole Earth Review, Summer 1991 n71 p60(2)..

Oren, Tim. "Why multimedia publishing is a crock: re-examining new media" Whole Earth
Review, Winter 1991 n73 p82(5).

"Retina projection, tactile fields and other toys: the merger of the computer and TV will change
the fundamentals." (supplement: Broadcasting - The First Sixty Years) Broadcasting, Dec
9, 1991 v121 n24 pS66(2).

Rheingold, Howard. "An Interview with Don Norman." In The Art of Human—Computer Interface
Design, edited by Brenda Laurel. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley, 1990.

Rheingold, Howard. Virtual Reality. New York: Summit Books, 1991.
Ridgway, Lenore 8., Roger A Grice, and Emilie Gould. "I'm OK; you're only a user: a
transactional analysis of computer-human dialog." Technical Communication, Feb. 1992

v39n1p38(11).

Shneiderman, Ben. Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-computer
Interaction. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley, 1987.

"Using Their Illusions." The Economist, October 12, 1991 V321 n7728 p89(1).
Vertelney, Laurie and Sue Booker. "Designing the Whole-Product User Interface." In The Art of
Human-Computer Interface Design, edited by Brenda Laurel. Reading, Mass: Addison-

Wesley, 1990.

"Video 'Immersion': Programming Virtual Worlds." Broadcasting, December 9, 1991 lel n24
pS64(3).

Wozny, Lucy Ann. "It looks like a book do you use it like a book?" Bulletin ofthe American
Society for Information .S'cience, Feb-March 1992 v18 n3 p20(2).

Zachmann, William F. "For once, a study worth studying." PC Magazine, June 1 l, 1991 VIC n11
p97(2).

97

   

"111111111Illilllflf