Concepts – Interactive Media and
Entertainment
Lecture 1
Technological Perceptions of an object’s utility, its possibilities for enabling (& constraining,
affordances there are boundaries) human action”
Functional, o Functional view: what does an object allow us to do
relational, o Relational view: we can’t walk on water, but a water spider can, different
contextual to each individual
o Contextual view: sometimes you need to learn the ways things work,
need to be socialized in to them to understand them: analog camera,
WeChat in China, ...
Threshold 1. Criteria #1: neither the object nor a feature of the object
criteria for It is ONLY in relation to usage, you need to use the object in order to point
affordances out the affordance: camera is not an affordance, but recordability is. Found
in the relationship between the individual and the perception of the
environment.
2. Criteria #2: not the outcome
Different outcomes can come from the same the same affordance
Sometimes affordances become visible through the unintended
consequences.
3. Criteria #3: has variability:
Affordances are gradual (technologies can vary in the extent to which they
‘afford’ something)
Recordability: sound, visuals, in color, more or less, ...
→ An object or technology is well-designed when its affordances are readily and
easily perceivable from its features
→ Interactivity is an affordance that users can perceive when the structural
features of a technological interface are well-designed.
→hyperlink not the affordance, but the feature
→ Often misused, also in literature
Features vs. Features are present or absent (a camera in a phone). Affordances are gradual
affordances (technologies can vary in the extent to which they ‘afford’ something)
Function When the original outcome is broadened purposes of use, when it is used what it
creep, was not intended for. Implementation of a technology can lead to affordances
unintended you didn’t know could be there.
consequences → functionality of cameras at the coast: used for screening the population of the
coastal boarder, but could be used for criminal surveillance, control illegal
immigration, parking tickets, ...
Interactivity
at the level of
the medium,
source,
message
, Level of the Source: you already had interaction with the interface before you
sent anything or did anything
o To what degree can users customize and personalize (‘tailor’)?
o Sourceness: Who did the customization (user, news editors, friend), and
can users manipulate this?
o Degree of customization:
LOW (e.g., filter content based on preferences) to HIGH (e.g.,
generate content) Often achieved through ‘tailoring’: information
is matched with and filtered according to unique aspects of the
self
→ User customization enhances sense of agency
Level of the Medium: in what modalities is the message processed: auditorily,
sensory, visuality, ...
o Number of modalities present in one medium
o Multi-mediality: extent to which modalities are simultaneously active
o Each modality and each combination of different modalities has a
different influence on the amount of perceptual bandwidth utilized.
→ Extent to which sensory channels must operate together to build a
mental representation (a videocall instead of a voice call
→ cognitive load of the activity increases
Level of the Message
- To what extent are exchanges contingent upon previous exchanges?
o Non-interactive
o Reactive – message is a direct response
o Responsive – messages are threaded together in a coherent sequence
2
,Model of
interactivity
effects
You need to strike the right spot in order to make sure the users are optimally
engaged with the product.
These 3 levels of activity are included in this model. They will have cognitive,
attitudinal and behavioural effects.
Cognitive, - Cognitive
attitudinal & - Attitudinal
behavioral - Behavioural
effects of The effects of interactivity at the level of the source, modality and message are
interactivity not straightforward:
- More = not always better
- Cognitive, attitudinal and behavioral effects may not align → sometimes an
interface can be good and enjoyable, but it is not good at transmitting the
information.
Social = patterns in the ways in which people organize themselves. These patterns
structures shape the ways in which people (can) behave
→social structures enable and constrain human action (rewards and punishes)
→ Parallels with affordances?
- Social structures are prescriptive: they specify a way of ‘doing things’
(Giddens, 1984) – in other words: they make it logical to organize things
repeatedly and systematically in a certain manner
→ There are also such ‘logics’ present in media technologies:
— ‘Apparatgeist: the “spirit of the machine”: There are logics
prescribed by the technology that direct human behavior – not in
a deterministic way, but rather by providing humans with both a
“rationality of means” and “constraint upon possibilities”.
— In other words: affordances (!!!) that enable and constrain
Agency there is also human agency = an individual’s capacity to reflect on structures, to
reproduce, but also adapt, challenge and resist them
Duality of → This ‘duality’ between structure and agency is an interplay that oftentimes
structure and reveals how power is distributed and negotiated in society
agency
Interactive Through their affordances…
and - Technologies can directly lead to new social structures in society, when
entertainmen technologies introduce new ways of doing things, changing how we organize
t media as aspects of everyday life
contributors
3
, to social → E.g., Read-receipts: a seemingly small technological feature with
change – or to substantial impact on how we communicate,
reproducing →MeToo: virality leads to connectivity and plays a role in societal structures:
social challenging, supporting, ...
structures – - Technologies can directly reproduce or affect existing social structures in
through their society
capacity to Through their affordances, technologies can contribute to …
make us do → Social change in the social structures in society: MeToo
things in new
ways o the reproduction of social structures in society
o New ways of doing things that emphasize the status quo;
→ e.g., victim blaming in the context of sexting
4
Entertainment
Lecture 1
Technological Perceptions of an object’s utility, its possibilities for enabling (& constraining,
affordances there are boundaries) human action”
Functional, o Functional view: what does an object allow us to do
relational, o Relational view: we can’t walk on water, but a water spider can, different
contextual to each individual
o Contextual view: sometimes you need to learn the ways things work,
need to be socialized in to them to understand them: analog camera,
WeChat in China, ...
Threshold 1. Criteria #1: neither the object nor a feature of the object
criteria for It is ONLY in relation to usage, you need to use the object in order to point
affordances out the affordance: camera is not an affordance, but recordability is. Found
in the relationship between the individual and the perception of the
environment.
2. Criteria #2: not the outcome
Different outcomes can come from the same the same affordance
Sometimes affordances become visible through the unintended
consequences.
3. Criteria #3: has variability:
Affordances are gradual (technologies can vary in the extent to which they
‘afford’ something)
Recordability: sound, visuals, in color, more or less, ...
→ An object or technology is well-designed when its affordances are readily and
easily perceivable from its features
→ Interactivity is an affordance that users can perceive when the structural
features of a technological interface are well-designed.
→hyperlink not the affordance, but the feature
→ Often misused, also in literature
Features vs. Features are present or absent (a camera in a phone). Affordances are gradual
affordances (technologies can vary in the extent to which they ‘afford’ something)
Function When the original outcome is broadened purposes of use, when it is used what it
creep, was not intended for. Implementation of a technology can lead to affordances
unintended you didn’t know could be there.
consequences → functionality of cameras at the coast: used for screening the population of the
coastal boarder, but could be used for criminal surveillance, control illegal
immigration, parking tickets, ...
Interactivity
at the level of
the medium,
source,
message
, Level of the Source: you already had interaction with the interface before you
sent anything or did anything
o To what degree can users customize and personalize (‘tailor’)?
o Sourceness: Who did the customization (user, news editors, friend), and
can users manipulate this?
o Degree of customization:
LOW (e.g., filter content based on preferences) to HIGH (e.g.,
generate content) Often achieved through ‘tailoring’: information
is matched with and filtered according to unique aspects of the
self
→ User customization enhances sense of agency
Level of the Medium: in what modalities is the message processed: auditorily,
sensory, visuality, ...
o Number of modalities present in one medium
o Multi-mediality: extent to which modalities are simultaneously active
o Each modality and each combination of different modalities has a
different influence on the amount of perceptual bandwidth utilized.
→ Extent to which sensory channels must operate together to build a
mental representation (a videocall instead of a voice call
→ cognitive load of the activity increases
Level of the Message
- To what extent are exchanges contingent upon previous exchanges?
o Non-interactive
o Reactive – message is a direct response
o Responsive – messages are threaded together in a coherent sequence
2
,Model of
interactivity
effects
You need to strike the right spot in order to make sure the users are optimally
engaged with the product.
These 3 levels of activity are included in this model. They will have cognitive,
attitudinal and behavioural effects.
Cognitive, - Cognitive
attitudinal & - Attitudinal
behavioral - Behavioural
effects of The effects of interactivity at the level of the source, modality and message are
interactivity not straightforward:
- More = not always better
- Cognitive, attitudinal and behavioral effects may not align → sometimes an
interface can be good and enjoyable, but it is not good at transmitting the
information.
Social = patterns in the ways in which people organize themselves. These patterns
structures shape the ways in which people (can) behave
→social structures enable and constrain human action (rewards and punishes)
→ Parallels with affordances?
- Social structures are prescriptive: they specify a way of ‘doing things’
(Giddens, 1984) – in other words: they make it logical to organize things
repeatedly and systematically in a certain manner
→ There are also such ‘logics’ present in media technologies:
— ‘Apparatgeist: the “spirit of the machine”: There are logics
prescribed by the technology that direct human behavior – not in
a deterministic way, but rather by providing humans with both a
“rationality of means” and “constraint upon possibilities”.
— In other words: affordances (!!!) that enable and constrain
Agency there is also human agency = an individual’s capacity to reflect on structures, to
reproduce, but also adapt, challenge and resist them
Duality of → This ‘duality’ between structure and agency is an interplay that oftentimes
structure and reveals how power is distributed and negotiated in society
agency
Interactive Through their affordances…
and - Technologies can directly lead to new social structures in society, when
entertainmen technologies introduce new ways of doing things, changing how we organize
t media as aspects of everyday life
contributors
3
, to social → E.g., Read-receipts: a seemingly small technological feature with
change – or to substantial impact on how we communicate,
reproducing →MeToo: virality leads to connectivity and plays a role in societal structures:
social challenging, supporting, ...
structures – - Technologies can directly reproduce or affect existing social structures in
through their society
capacity to Through their affordances, technologies can contribute to …
make us do → Social change in the social structures in society: MeToo
things in new
ways o the reproduction of social structures in society
o New ways of doing things that emphasize the status quo;
→ e.g., victim blaming in the context of sexting
4
