Applying Activity Theory in the Design of Usable Software: How Personal Beliefs Shape the Use of...

8/13/2019 Applying Activity Theory in the Design of Usable Software: How Personal Beliefs Shape the Use of Tools

1/69

APPLYINGACTIVITYTHEORYINTHE

DESIGNOFUSABLESOFTWARE:

HOWPERSONALBELIEFSSHAPETHEUSEOFTOOLS

ATHESISSUBMITTEDINPARTIALFULLFILLMENT

OFTHEREQUIREMENTSFORTHEDEGREEOF

MASTEROFARTS

IN

INTERDISCIPLINARYCOMPUTERSCIENCE

BartonFriedland

October,2006


2/69

ii

2006BartonFriedland

AllRightsReserved.


3/69

a ^ ^ - ^ - . ^ - l l - r r z .n I J I , r v v s u v J r

n ^ ^ - ^ - ' ^ - . i l . r r r .n P P u v s u p J .

l n n r a r r a r i h r r .n I J I J v

Approved by:

n ^ ^ - ^ - . ^ - l 1 - r r r .n P P v v s u v J .

Chr is B rown , In terd isc ip f inarYP r o f e s s o r o f M u s i c /co-Di rec tor o f t he Cen t e r fo rM i l f s Co t l ege , Oak . land

Advi-sorContemporary Mus.rc

ef rnudena Konrad, Computer Sc ience Advisorand Computer Sc ienceDepartment of Mathemat fcsMi f l -s Co I l ege ' oak l and

E l f e n S p e r t u s ,n a n a r f m o n j - o fM i f l s C o l l e g e ,

M ar i anne Shefdon, Di rec torMi f l s Co l l ege / Oak land

of G radua t e S t ud i es

Pr imf ry Com pu t e r Sc renceMathelnat ics and Computer

O a k l a n d

.JU_L.rD e p a r

r Sc ience Adv isorSc. renceanford

1[


4/69

Tothespiritoflearning


5/69

v

Iftheartistdoesnotperfectanewvisioninhisprocessofdoing,heacts

mechanicallyandrepeatssomeoldmodelfixedlikeablueprintinhismind.

JohnDewey,ArtasExperience


6/69

vi

TableofContents

TableofContents...........................................................................................................vi

List

of

Figures ..............................................................................................................viiiAcknowledgements ....................................................................................................... ix

Abstract ......................................................................................................................... xiii

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1

1.1 AGeneralProblem.......................................................................................... 1

1.2 Scope .................................................................................................................. 2

1.3 Consequences ................................................................................................... 5

1.4 ResearchApproach.......................................................................................... 6

1.4.1 EthnographyandGroundedTheory .................................................. 10

1.4.2 ActivityTheory....................................................................................... 12

1.5 Motivation

for

the

Study............................................................................... 15

1.5.1 TheFourHatsofCreativity.................................................................. 16

1.5.2 Commandlinevs.GUImodesofcomputeruse............................... 18

1.5.3 WorkingAssumptions .......................................................................... 21

1.6 Goals................................................................................................................ 23

2 DataAnalysis:Phase1 ......................................................................................... 24

2.1 BasicPopulationStatistics ............................................................................ 24

2.2 InitialImpressionsofSuperCollider3.0 ..................................................... 25

2.3 WhatworkedinSuperCollider3.0.............................................................. 27

2.4 SuggestionstoimproveSuperCollider3.0 ................................................. 28

2.4.1 GUI

Requests.......................................................................................... 28

2.4.2 Starter/ExampleKits............................................................................ 30

2.4.3 AssessmentofSuggestions................................................................... 30

3 ImplementationofTestInterface ...................................................................... 31

4 DataAnalysis:Phase2 ......................................................................................... 35

4.1.1 ResponsetoSCBusyBox...................................................................... 35

4.1.2 WhenBeliefsConflict ............................................................................ 374.1.3 Aptitude versus Belief............................................................................... 38

4.1.4 Assessment of Beliefs is Vital for User Acceptance ................................ 39

4.1.5 AKeyFactorinLargeScaleSystemAdoptionFailures................... 39

4.2 CharacteristicsofSuccessfulAdoptersofSC3.......................................... 41

4.3 ResultsofPhase2QuantitativeTimetoCompletionTests..................... 434.3.1 Overturning of the Dominant GUI Paradigm ........................................... 45

5 Conclusions............................................................................................................ 475.1.1 Future Work.............................................................................................. 49

6 References............................................................................................................... 50

7 AppendixASampleInterviewProtocolforInformants............................ 54


7/69

vii


8/69

viii

ListofFigures

Figure1BasicStructureofanActivity(BasedondiagrambyKuutti)............... 14

Figure2TheFourCreativeHats(Artist:RichGold) ......................................... 177

Figure3ClassDiagramofTXModularFramework ........................................... 32

Figure4ModificationofTXModFramework........................................................ 33

Figure5StandardSC3ProgrammingEnvironment.............................................. 34

Note:Wherenotnotedotherwise,imagesinthisdocumentwerecreatedbythe

author.


9/69

ix

Acknowledgements

Thisthesisactuallystartedlongbeforetheformalprojectofthethesis

began.ItsrootsareinpreviousworkandrelationshipsthatwerebuiltwhenI

startedmyeffortstopursuethedisciplineofcomputerscience.

Severalpeople,someofwhomareactuallyonmythesiscommittee,have

beeninstrumentalinguidingnotonlythisthesis,butinhelpingmetoacquire

theskillsandknowledgethatarebeingexercisedthroughthisthesis.

IwouldliketothankthefirstpersonIreachedouttoandwhohasstayed

bymysidethroughoutthisentireprocess:JulieZelenski.PeoplelikeJulie,who

combineintelligence,enthusiasm,andagoodheartednesstowardothers,area

realgift.ItisnounderstatementtosaythatwithoutherInevercouldhavegotten

whereIamtoday.

Followingasequentialorderofpeoplewhohavesupportedmyeffortsto

acquireknowledge,IwouldliketothankTerryWinogradforwelcomingmeinto

hisworld,supportingmyefforts,andintroducingmetosomanypeoplewho

haveinfluencedandchangedmylife,includingthelate(great)RichGold,Robert

Horn,andVictoriaBellotti.

Richtaughtmethatitispossibletoboldlyandsuccessfullyspanseveral

disciplines.HismemorygivesmehopethatItoo,caninnovatefrommyunique


10/69

x

perspectiveontheworld.RobertHornshowedmethatwhatweseeisreflexively

tiedtohowwethinkandhistirelesssupport,vision,andfriendshiphascarried

methroughoutthisprocess.VictoriaBellottidemandedthatIdofieldresearch,

whichturnsouttobeafundamentalaspectofthisthesis;oneofwhichIam

extremelyproud.Victoriahasalsobeenextremelygenerouswithhertime,

reviewingdraftsofthisthesisdespitehermanyothercommitments.Iam

extremelygratefulforherguidanceandsupport.

JerryCainhasgiventomeexponentially.Hehasbeenagreatfriendand

theverybestteacherIcouldeverhopetohaveinwhatsomefindtobean

unfathomablediscipline.MaggieJohnsonhasalsogivenmetremendoussupport

andencouragementwhenIwastakingmyfirststeps.ItisduetobothJerryand

MaggiethatIcanattributethegoodfortuneIhavehadtoalsohavebeena

studentatStanford.

MehranSahamiistherecipientofmyrecurringthemeawardforalways

beingthereatadistance.Hehelpedmeinmyfirstdayswithdiscretemathand

introducedmetotheextraordinarilytalentedDianaLy,whotooktimeto

personallytutormewhenIwasaCStoddler.

GoingbacktoJulieZelenskiforamoment,Ishouldacknowledgethatit

wasalsoJuliewhosuggestedthatImightwanttolookatMillsCollege,which,in

herwords,alsoprovidesaworldclassCSeducation.


11/69

xi

AndsoItrekkedacrosstheBaytovisitDr.EllenSpertus,whoseoffice

lookedlikeanexplosionofcomputerpartsandlegopieces,andwhose

memorablewords,...ifyoucometoMillsyouwillbuildyourowncomputer

wereallIreallyneededtoheartoknowthatIhadfoundtherightpersonand

placetostudycomputerscience.

IkneweventhenthatthisveryspecialwomanwastheverybestteacherI

couldpossiblyfind.Iamsoverygratefultoherforallofthehourssittingbymy

sidedebuggingandexplaining. Hertirelessnessinansweringmyneverending

questions,herincrediblyhonorableanddisciplinedsenseofvalues,andher

inexplicablydrysenseofhumorhaveallgivenmeamuchricherunderstanding

ofwhatitmeanstobeatruehackerandcomputerscientist.IwillalsoaddthatI

didbuildthatcomputerwithwires,chipsandbreadboard,whichwasoneofthe

singlymostenlighteningexperiencesinthisprocess.

IamalsoverymuchindebttoSusanWang,AlmudenaKonrad,Chris

BrownandallotherMillsfacultywhohaveprovidedmewithsuchawonderful

learningenvironmentandhavegivenmesomanyvaluableskillsand

experiences.

IwouldliketothankMikeDillingerforhissupportinhelpingmetakemy

interviewdataandturnitintosolidscientifictheoryandforhissupportin


12/69

xii

helpingmestructurethisthesis.Thankyou,Mike,forsharingyourknowledge

andabilitiessofreely.

Onapersonallevel,Iwouldalsoliketothankmyfriendsandfamily.I

wouldliketothankmyparents.Icouldnothavebeenabletodothiswithout

theirsupport.Thankyouforbelievinginmydreams.Iwanttothankmy

partner,Bruce,whohasstoodbymysideevenwhenIaskedhimtobequiet

becauseIneededtodomyhomework.IwanttothankmydearfriendCharlie,

whoreallyshouldhavebeenacomputerscientist,forallofhishelpwithmy

schoolworkandforhissupportinallofmyefforts.Ialsoextendaveryspecial

thankstomybrother,JonDavid,who,despitehowbusyheiswiththedetailsof

hislifeandwork,chosetoporeoverseveralearlydraftsofthisthesisandwas

extremelyhelpfulinbringingaboutmuchimprovementinformandstyle.And

finally,amostspecialandheartfeltthankstomyfriendMarinaLaPalma,whose

incredibleunderstandingoftherelationshipbetweenartandsciencehas

broadenedthescopeofthisthesisandhelpedmetobeabletoexplaintoyou,

gentlereader,theverydelicatelinethoseofuswhomixartandsciencemust

walkeachdayofourlives.


13/69

xiii

Abstract

Thegeneralproblemoftailoringsoftwaretoindividualdifferencesisan

importantissuewithbroadramificationsinsoftwareengineeringandinterface

design.Inordertobetterunderstandthisproblemwithinaspecificcontext,I

conductedanethnographicstudyofagroupofuserswhoareinvolvedasartists

inmakingelectronicmusicwithsoftware.Thestudywasmotivatedbythedesire

todevelop

amore

extensible

system

that

could

be

customized

through

aGUI.

WhileIwasunsuccessfulatfindingageneraldesignthatsatisfiedmostofthe

users,Ifoundanumberofinterestingresults.Thefindingspresentedinthis

thesisareusefulforinterfacedesignersandthoseintheHCIfieldandare

summarizedasfollows:1)thestudyshowsachasmbetweenwhatusersthink

theywant

and

what

they

actuallywant; 2) the

categorization

of

users

into

roles

withassociatedusagehabitsdoesnotholdasapredictorforusagepreferences;

3)thewellestablishedParetoprinciple,or80/20rule,didnotseemtoapplyin

thisstudy:nosolutionthatrequired20%ofthepopulationtoshareaconsensus

cameclosetoprovidingacompletesolutionfor80%oftheusersinthegroup.In

addition,Ifound

that

the

use

of

activity

theory

as

amethod

for

data

analysis

in

theethnographicstudyprovidesaccesstovitalinformationthatothermethods

maynotcapture.


14/69

xiv


15/69

1

1 Introduction

1.1 AGeneralProblem

Regardlessofhowmanyfeaturesasoftwareapplicationprovides,there

eventuallycomesamomentwheretheuserofthatprogramtriestodo

somethingthateithertheprogramwillnotdo,or,whichtheycannotfigureout

howtodoeventhoughthesoftwareiscompletelycapableofdoingwhattheuser

wants.Irefertothisproblemastheboundaryofusability.

Peopleandorganizationsdevelopsoftwareforavarietyofreasons.

Motivatorsincludepersonalinterest,companydirectives,marketresearch,and

resultscomingfromscientifictesting.Someeffortsresultinsoftwarethatbetter

servestheneedsoftheusersforwhomitisdesignedthanothers.

Yet,anysoftware,regardlessofhowwellitmeetstheneedsofthesetof

usersforwhomitwasdesigned,willeventuallybeencounteredbysomeuserin

thatsetwhofindsitdoesnotmeetherneeds.Minimizingthenumberofthese

disempoweredusersisanimportantgoalinsystemdesign.

Thegeneralproblemofdesigningandimplementingasoftwarepackage

whichmeetstheneedsofthelargestpossiblenumberofitsusersisacontinually


16/69

2

presentgoalfacedbyanyentitythatdevelopssoftware.Itisanextremely

importantissuewithverypracticalimplications. Irefertothisissueasoneof

generaladaptabilitythroughoutthisthesis.

1.2 Scope

Afewspecializedsolutionsfordesigningsoftwarebasedonuser

differencesexist.Forexample,methodstolocalizesoftwareforvarious

languagesarewellestablishedsuchthatthecreatorsofapplicationscan

systematicallyplugindifferentlanguagestoanapplicationwithouthavingto

rewritetheentireapplicationfromscratchforeachlanguage.

Iflanguagesweretheonlydifferencesbetweenusers,thescopeofthe

problemwouldbesmallindeed.Butpeoplearediverseandtheirdifferences

great,resultinginaproblemwhosescopeisexceptionallybroad.

Theproblemissowidespreadthatmanyfeelcomputerscausemore

problemsthantheysolve.UponreceivingtheTuringAward,thehighestaward

grantedinthefieldofcomputersciencefromtheAssociationofComputing

Machinery(ACM),EdsgerDijkstra,inhis1972recipientlecture,claimedthat:

...theelectronicindustryhasnotsolvedasingleproblem,ithas

onlycreatedthemithascreatedtheproblemofusingitsproducts.To

putitanotherway:asthepowerofavailablemachinesgrewbyafactorof

morethanathousand,societysambitiontoapplythesemachinesgrewin


17/69

3

proportion,anditwasthepoorprogrammerwhofoundhisjobinthis

explodedfieldoftensionbetweenendsandmeans.[8]

SpectorandWang,tworesearcherswhohaveexploredissuesrelatingto

integratingtechnologyintolearningenvironments,supportandexpandthe

scopeofDijkstrasclaim:

theproblemraisedbyDijkstrain1972inthecontextofsoftware

engineeringremainsoneofthecentralproblemswithregardtolearning

environmentsand

performance

technologies.

[40]

ArtistandScientistRichGold,aformer memberoftheXeroxPARC

researchprojectonubiquitouscomputing[45,46],alsospentagreatdealoftime

andeffortlookingattheissueDijkstraraised.InGoldsbook,ThePlenitude,he

generalizedtheproblemevenfurther,applyingitnotspecificallytocomputer

technology,buttotheprocessofproblemsolvingingeneral.Goldframedthe

problemasDesireinContext[14],whereproposedsolutionscanbeseenasthe

pathsfromaparticularcontexttoaparticulardesire.Underthisview,upon

implementationofasolution,thecontextchanges,spawningmanynewdesires.

Goldprovidesanexample:

TheRamificationsoftheSolutioncalledtheGoldenGateBridgeare

many.Forinstance,thereisSmog,whichiscausedwhenlargenumbersof

carsacttosatisfytheDesiresoftheirowners.Largenumbersofvehicles


18/69

4

alsocreatesTrafficJamswhich,attimes,canmakeitsoslowtogoover

theBridgethatdesireonceagainbecomesDesire.Engineersalloverthe

worldaretryingtofindSolutionstoSmogandTraffic.[15]

ForGold,theproblemisnotoneoftechnology,butliesinsteadinthe

natureofproblemsolvingingeneral;allsolutionscreatenewdesiresand

problems,manyofwhichcannotbeidentifieduntilthesolutionhasbeen

implemented.

Entiredisciplines,suchashumancomputerinteraction(HCI)havebeen

formalizedtoaddresstheproblemofgeneraladaptabilitywithinaveryspecific

context:howtooptimizeinteractionbetweenhumansandcomputers.

Inthisthesis,IamfocusingontheHCIcontextofusabilityratherthan

Goldsmoregeneralview.Itisimportant,however,tonotethattheHCIproblem

isnotsimplyoneofusability;asusability,inturn,affectsotherareassuchas

learningandperformance.

Userswhoemploysoftwareinonefashionataparticularpointintime

mayatsomefuturepointgainsomeexperience,understanding,orinsightthat

maycausethemtomovefromonemodeofusagetoanother.Ifthesoftwaredoes

notworktheywaytheywantorexpectatthatfuturetime,theusermaydecide

thatthesoftwarenolongermeetstheirneeds.


19/69

5

1.3 Consequences

Theconsequencesofnothavingmoresolutionstotheproblemofgeneral

usabilityaresignificant.Withoutmoresolutions,softwarewillcontinuetobe

producedwhosefeaturesgountouchedbecauseusersdonotknowwheretofind

themorhowtousethem.UsersofsoftwareAmaybecomesofrustratedwith

itthattheymayswitchtosoftwareBtoaccomplishthesametask.Theseusers

mayfeelthatsoftwareBworksbetterfortheirneedsthansoftwareA.

Whilethereareclearlymonetaryissuesatstakeforcommercialentities

whosesoftwaredoesnotmeettheneedsofitsusers,anotherkeyconsequenceis

lossofproductivityfortheindividual.Considersoftwarethatisdesignedtohelp

peoplelearn.Ifitdoesnothelpsomeofthepeople,forwhomitwasdesigned,to

achievetheirgoals,thisrepresentsalossinhumangrowth,whichmayormay

notbemonetized.

Theconsequencesofthisproblemareindeedwidespreadandfar

reaching.


20/69

6

1.4 ResearchApproach

Anymodeloftheworldprovidesaframeofreference,aperspective,a

lensthroughwhichtoviewevents.Appliedtothesamesetofobservations,

differingmodelspredisposeonetowarddifferingconclusionsandconsequences.

Marxism,Feminism,Christianity,Science,ZenBuddhism;eachprovidessucha

model.

CarolWilderMottRigor&Imagination

I

employed

an

interdisciplinary

research

approach

explore

solutions

to

the

problemIhavebeendescribing.Idecidedtofocusononeparticularsoftware

packageandonesetofusersusingthatsoftwareasabasistoresearchpossible

solutions.

Aqualitativeresearchapproach,theethnographicstudy[1113]fromthe

social

sciences,

was

applied

to

collect

data.

I

chose

to

employactivitytheory

[23,

33,44]asaframeworktoanalyzethedatacollectedintheethnographicstudy.

Activitytheoryisageneralconceptualapproachusedtounderstandhuman

activity,derivedfromthedisciplineofhumanpsychology,andhasbeen

successfullyemployedinrecentHCIresearch[5,7,10,17,19,20,29,32,33,36,39,

50].

TheselectedsoftwarewasSuperCollider3(SC3)[28].SC3isanopen

sourceaudiosignalprocessingsystemwrittenbyMcCartneyetal.Interaction


21/69

7

withSC3isprimarilyviaacommandlineinterfacealongwiththeuseofits

Smalltalkderived[18]programminglanguagesclang.Liketheprogramming

languagesLISP[27]andScheme[1],SC3featuresaruntimeenvironmentwhere

statementsareinterpretedassoonastheuserpressestheenterkey,allowingfor

aflexibleanddynamicprogrammingenvironmentwheretheusercanmake

changestothesystemwhileitisrunningbyexecutingadditionalcode.

SC3isusedatMillsCollegeaswellasmanyotheracademic

environments.AtMills,itisemployedaspartofacurriculumdesignedto

supportstudentsinlearninghowtocreatemusicalinstrumentsusingsoftware.

Creatingandperformingmusicmayfollowfromthis,butthecreationof

softwareinstrumentsbythemselvesistheprimarygoal.

IstudiedelectronicmusicstudentsenrolledinMillsCollegesFall2004or

Spring2006GraduateSeminarinElectronicMusicclass,facultymembersfrom

theMillsCenterforContemporaryMusic(CCM),andmusiciansfromoutsideof

MillswhouseSC3intheirwork.

UndertheapproachIchose,theparticipantsarereferredtoasinformants

becausetheirroleistoactivelyinformtheresearcher.Thisisincontrasttotheuse

ofthetermsubjectsforexperimentalstudies,wheresubjectsaresubjectedto

certainexperimentalconditionsandobserved[34,35].


22/69

8

UsinganactivitychecklistdevelopedbyKaptelinin,Nardi,andMacaulay

[17],Idevelopedasetofdomainspecifictopicareasandquestions (see

AppendixA)thatIposedtoeachinformant.Interviewswereconductedintwo

phases,separatedbyanimplementationphasewhereatestinterfacewas

assembledbeforeproceedingwithfurtherresearch.

Thefirstphaseofinterviewswasdesignedtogatherdetailsaboutthe

informants,aswellastheirmusicalbackgrounds,technicalexperiences,

preferences,andinterests.Questionsaboutsoundcreation,composition,

arrangementandperformance,aswellastheirideasfortheidealSC3interface

werealsoposed.

Thephase1interviewswerethenanalyzedandusedasabasistoattempt

togeneralizetherequestsoftheinformantsandassembleauserinterfacethat

containedmanyofthecommonfeaturesthatwererequested.Thisinterfacewas

thenpresentedtotheinformantsandtestedaspartofasecondphaseof

interviews,where,inadditiontogatheringinformationsimilartowhatwas

gatheredinthephase1,theinformantswerepresentedwithseveraltasksto

performusingbothatestuserinterfaceandthestandardcommandlineinterface

inSC3.Thesetasksweretimedandobservationsweremadeaboutthe

informantsaswellasfeedbacksolicitedfromthemabouttheirexperiencesin

workingwiththesetwoverydifferentapproachestointeraction.


23/69

9

Someoftheinformantswhoparticipatedinthephase2interviewshad

alsoparticipatedinphase1.Thisprovidedanopportunitytocheckinwiththese

informantsregardingwhatworkhadbeenaccomplishedintheinterim,and

whatgoalshadbeenachieved.Phase2alsoprovidedanadditionalchanceto

gainabroaderperspectiveabouttheinformantbyexploringwhathadchanged

betweenthefirstandsecondinterview.

Thestyleoftheinterviewwasconversational;ifaninteresting

conversationalthreadaroseintheinterview,itwasopportunisticallyfollowed.

Wheneverpossible,interviewswereconductedattheinformantsstudioor

workspace,sothatthetoolsusedtomaketheirmusicwereathand[43].

Electronicaudiorecordingsweremadeofallinterviews.

Duringatypicalinterview,Iexplainedthatthepurposeofthestudywas

tolookatwaystoimprovetheusabilityoftheSC3systemandtolearnwhatwas

involvedinmakingelectronicmusic,whatsortsofsoftwaretheinformantused

forthistask,andwhatreasonstheinformanthadforusingornotusingcertain

software.Ratherthanstrictlyfollowingthelistofquestions,Iallowed

conversationtoflownaturallybutmadesurealltopicareaswerecovered.

Interviewsrangedfrom13hoursperinformant.Intotal,23informantswere

interviewedovera13monthperiod.


24/69

10

1.4.1 EthnographyandGroundedTheory

Inanthropology,oranywaysocialanthropology,whatthepractitioners

doisethnography.Anditisinunderstandingwhatethnographyis,ormore

exactlywhatdoingethnographyis,thatastartcanbemadetowardgrasping

whatanthropologicalanalysisamountstoasaformofknowledge. This,itmust

immediatelybesaid,isnotamatterofmethods. Fromonepointofview,thatof

thetextbook,doingethnographyisestablishingrapport,selectinginformants,

transcribingtexts,takinggenealogies,mappingfields,keepingadiary,andsoon.

Butitisnotthesethings,techniquesandreceivedprocedures,thatdefinethe

enterprise.Whatdefinesitisthekindofintellectualeffortis:anelaborateventure

in,toborrowanotionfromGilbertRyle,thickdescription.

CliffordGeertzTheInterpretationofCultures

Ethnographyisaqualitativeapproachtoresearch,normallyappliedtothe

disciplinesofculturalorsocialanthropology,usedtoexplainhumansocial

phenomena.Manycanonicaltextswrittenbyluminariesofanthropologysuchas

LviStrauss,MargaretMead,Bateson,andMalinowskiemployanethnographic

approach[47].

Anextensionofthisapproach,groundedtheory[42],wasconceivedby

GlaserandStraussasamodelforresearchthatwouldresolveoneofthekey

problemsinsocialscience:howtoresearchthepersonal,or,usingtheterm

introducedbySuchman,situated[43],viewsofotherswithoutsuperimposingthe


25/69

11

nonsituatedpersonalviewoftheresearcher.Addressingthisparticularproblem

involvestwoseparategoals:avoidingthetestingofahypothesisandremaining

atadescriptivelevel.

AccordingtoGlaserandStraus,thedangerofhypothesistestingthrough

ascientificmodelisthatthevieweitherfailstoincludewhatisrelevantor

removesessentialdifferencesthroughtheuseofstatistics.Conversely,theystate

thatthedangerofdescriptionisthatitisambiguous,toolocalized,orproducesa

descriptionofvalueonlytosubjects.Groundedtheoryproposesaresearch

methodologythatremainsgroundedintheconceptualstructuresheldbythe

subjectsbutstillproducesadescriptivetheorythatcanbeusedtounderstand

andsometimespredictthereactionoftheseandsimilarsubjectstofuturechange.

Severalresearcherswithinthefieldofhumancomputerinteraction,

includingareassuchasusercentereddesign,humanfactorsincomputing

systems,andcomputersupportedcooperativework(CSCW),aswellasthefield

ofbioinformatics,havesuccessfullyappliedtheprinciplesofgroundedtheoryin

theirwork[2,3,25,34,35,37,38].Themajorityoftheseresearchersreferintheir

worktoaresearchapproachbasedontheprinciplesofgroundedtheory

synonymouslywiththetermethnographicstudy.

Animportantaspectofthistypeofresearchisthattheinformantis

providingadescriptionoftheirperceptionabouttheirexperience.Thisis


26/69

12

especiallyimportanttotakeintoaccountwhenundertakingthistypeofresearch

whereanytypeofselfappraisaltakesplace.Aninformantsperceptionisnot

necessarilyanaccuratemeasureofthatinformantstrueabilitiesbutinsteadtheir

idea.Toobtainaccurateperformancemeasures,othermethodsmustbeemployed

[49].

Theresearchinthisthesiswascarriedoutundertheabovementioned

principlesforanumberofreasons.Foremostamongthesewasthedesireto

developadeeperunderstandingoftheusagescenariosandpatternsoftheusers

thatwerestudied. Additionally,afundamentalnotionofgroundedtheorystates

thatthetheoryshouldemergefromthedata[42],whichprovidesafoundation

fromwhichamuchbroadertheoreticalnetcanbecast.Withoutpresupposinga

theory,theresearcherislesspredisposedtofocusonaspectsofthedatathat

matchwhatisinalignmentwiththehypothesis,incorporatingdatathatmaynot

havecaughthisorherattentionotherwise.Finally,inseekingoutsideadvices

fromexpertsinthefield,suchasVictoriaBellottiandBonnieNardi,this

approachtodatacollectioncamehighlyrecommended.

1.4.2 ActivityTheory

Ethnographyprovidesanapproachtocollectdata;however,asan

approachitdoesnotprovidetheclearestdirectionwithrespecttotheissueof

howtovieworinterpretdatathathasbeencollected.Activitytheoryis


27/69

13

championedasaframeworkfortheanalysisofethnographicdatainHCI

researchbyKariKuutti[20],BonnieNardi[33]andothers.

AlexeiLeontiev,basedonearlierworkbyLevVytgosky,originally

developedformalactivitytheoryinthedomainofPsychology. ItwasVytgosky,

however,whoproposeditsseminalresearchdirectionin1934.Vytgoskyskey

insightwasbasedonthepremisethatdespitetheexistenceofvariousmethodsof

researchtostudydistinctfunctionsofconsciousness,consciousnessisaunified

constructandthatthe:

singlefunctionswereassumedtooperateinseparably,inan

uninterruptedconnectionwitheachother. Butthisunityofconsciousness

wastakenusuallyasapostulate,ratherthanasafieldofstudy. [44]

AsNardiputsit:

Theobjectofactivitytheoryistounderstandtheunityof

consciousnessandactivity. Activitytheoryincorporatesstrongnotionsof

intentionality,history,mediation,collaborationanddevelopmentin

constructingconsciousnessactivitytheoristsarguethatconsciousnessis

notasetofdiscretedisembodiedcognitiveacts(decisionmaking,

classification,remembering),andcertainlyitisnotinthebrain;rather,

consciousnessis

located

in

everyday

practice:

you

are

what

you

do.

And

whatyoudoisfirmlyandinextricablyembeddedinthesocialmatrixof

whicheverypersonisanorganicpart.Thissocialmatrixiscomposedof

peopleandartifacts.Artifactsmaybephysicaltoolsorsignsystemssuch


28/69

14

ashumanlanguage.Understandingtheinterpenetrationoftheindividual,

otherpeople,andartifactsineverydayactivityisthechallengeactivity

theoryhassetforitself.[33]

WhenNarditellsusthatactivitytheoryproposesastrongnotionof

mediation[33],shemeansthatthevariouscomponentsofanactivity(Figure1)

areshapedthroughtheinteractionsofthevariouscomponentsofthatactivity,

suchasasubject,itsobject,thetools,therules,acommunity,oradivisionof

labor.Activitytheorythusprovidesamultidimensionalapproachtointerpreting

databyallowingtheresearchertoviewtheinformantdatathroughanyofthe

componentsofactivitytheory.Asamethodforinterpretingqualitative

Figure 1 - Basic Structure of an activity (Based on diagram by Kuutti)

Artifacts / Instruments / Tools

Subject

Rules

The Structure of an Activity under Activity Theory

CommunityDivision of Labor

Object Outcome

Transformative

Process


29/69

15

ethnographicdata,activitytheoryallowsforawidesetofinterpretationsofthe

datathatinclude,forexample,therelationshipasubjecthastoacommunityand

itsrulesthatotherdataanalysisapproachescouldeasilyoverlook.Forthese

reasons,activitytheorywasselectedasthemethodforinterpretationofthe

ethnographicdatacollectedaspartofthisresearch.

1.5 MotivationfortheStudy

Themotivationsforthisthesisareborneoutofmypersonalexperiences

andperceptions.Thesecanbetracedfromtwoprimarysources.Thefirstisan

abstractnotionoftherolespeopleplaywhenengaginginparticulardisciplinesand

theboundariesbetweentheseroles.Iamcontinuallyfascinatedwiththefactthat

whilepeoplecomefromdiversebackgrounds,somepeopleinvolvethemselves

inmultipledisciplineswhileotherschoosetofocusonaparticulararea.My

interestisinhowthesechoicesaffectthestructureofapersonalidentityand

accompanyingpreferences.Iarguethatpersonalidentityandpreferenceshavea

greatdealtodowithwhetherpeopleusecomputersatall,and,ifso,whatkinds

ofsoftwaretheyprefertousetodotheirwork,andhowflexibleorinterested

theyareinlearningnewtools.Thesecondmotivationcomesfrommyexperience

asastudentatMillsCollegewhereIobservedarangeofstudentswith


30/69

16

seeminglysimilarabilities,someofwhomdidquitewell,whileothersstruggled

withthematerial.Idescribethesedifferencesindetailbelow.

1.5.1 TheFourHatsofCreativity

AprimarymotivatingfactorforthisworkcomesfromalecturethatI

attendedonOctober11,2002,andwhichtookplaceattheongoingStanford

SeminaronPeople,Computers,andDesignentitledDesireinContext[14].Atthis

lecture,RichGolddiscussedhisnotionofthe4hatsofcreativity(Figure2)to

representrolesheplayedduringhislife.Thefourhatsarealsointroducedinhis

bookThePlenitudeasfollows:

DuringmylifeIputonandtookofffourhatsofcreativity:artist,

scientist,designerandengineer.Ithinkofeachoneasquitedistinctwith

itsownmethods,worldviews,precedents,predecessors,styleofdress,

interiordecorations,

histories,

vocabularies,

alliances,

likes,

dislikes,

prejudices,tools,techniquesanddemeanors.Icanwalkintoanofficeand

knowimmediatelyifitisadesignersofficeoranengineersoffice.I

instantaneouslyknowifitisanartistsloftorascientistslabevenifthey

arefilledwiththesamedigitaltools.Actuallyitisonlywithgreateffort

thatIhavebegunthinkingaboutthemashats;insomerealway,forme,

theyarestatesofbeingasdifferentasalligatorsandelephants.[15]


31/69

17

Figure2TheFourCreativeHats(Artist:RichGold)

SinceIattendedthatlecture,somethingabouttherelationshipsand

boundariesbetweentherolesGolddescribedhaveremaineddominantinmy

thinking.Ihavebeeninterestedinexploringwhetheritwaspossibletorecast

andbroadenGoldsstrictoccupationalclassificationswhilemaintainingthe

essentialnotionthatpeoplesabilitiesdofallintocategoriesmarkedbyparticular

stylesofthinking,and,asaresult,particularpatternsofcomputerusagewithina

category.Iwastofindintheresearchundertakenforthisthesisthatthetruthis

farmorecomplexthanIhadimagined.


32/69

18

1.5.2 Commandlinevs.GUImodesofcomputeruse

Whileitwasnotalwaysthecase,personalcomputersystemsthatpresent

andallowmanipulationofinformationvisuallythroughagraphicuserinterface

(GUI)arecurrentlydominant.Muchhasbeenwrittenwithrespecttotheroleof

visualinformationandthewaysinwhichthesegraphicalinterfacescanbe

leveragedaspartofthelearningprocess[6,7,16,48].Still,debatecontinuesasto

whethercommandlineinterfacesaremoreuserfriendly,andtherefore

superiortotheirgraphicalcounterparts[2022,41].Myfindingsquestionthis

assumption,pointinginsteadtotheusefulnessofthetoolasamoresignificant

measureofsuperiorityforagiventask.

InmyobservationsasastudentintheFall2005GraduateSeminarin

ElectronicMusicclassinelectronicmusicatMills,therewereseveralinteresting

challengesIobservedstudentsfacinginthisenvironmentthatappearedtorelate

directlytotheissueofcommandlinevs.GUIusage.Forexample,themajorityof

thestudentsenrolledinthatclasshadnoformalprogrammingbackground,yet

SC3sprimarymodeofinteractionisthroughacommandlineanditsformal

programminglanguage,sclang.

TherearemanyGUIbasedsoftwaresynthesissystemsavailable,

includingMAX/MSPandReaktor,whichenablepeopletomanipulategraphic

objectstoprogramsoftwarebasedsynthesis. OneoftheaspectsthatmakesSC3


33/69

19

particularlyuniqueamongsoftwarebasedsynthesissystemsisthefactthatis

exposesapowerfulprogramminglanguage.Aswillbeshown,somestudents

findthistobeapotenttool,enablingtheexpressionoffunctionsthatcannotbe

expressedasclearlyinavisualenvironment.However,itmaybethatonlya

subsetofstudentsarecapableoffullygraspingtheseconceptsifthisistheirfirst

exposuretoaprogramminglanguage.

Iobservedthatformanyofthestudents,thiswasapparentlytheirfirst

introductiontothedisciplineofcomputerscience,bywayofelectronicmusic.

Thisappearedtoaddasignificantdegreeofcomplexitytothetaskoflearning

theextensivecapabilitiesfoundwithinSC3.Thesestudentsalsofacedthe

additionaltasksinvolvedwithlearningandapplyingthebasicsofprogramming

constructssuchasassignment,arrays,hashtables,andconditionallogic.Itwas

notedthatstudentswhocameintotheclasswithpreviousknowledgeofthese

conceptswillbepositionedbettertoapplytheseconceptstowardsthe

constructionofmusicalinstrumentsinsoftware.

Anadditionalhurdleformanystudentsintheclasshadtodowith

graspingaconceptualmodelofsignalflowtheoryandsynthesisthatSC3

abstractsthroughsclang.Manystudents,inadditiontoneverworkingwitha

programminglanguagebefore,hadalsoneverstudiedanyformofsignalflowor


34/69

20

synthesistheory.Thesestudentsappearedespeciallyhandicappedintheirability

toassimilatethecoursematerial.

Iobservedthatifastudentisnotabletoovercomethehurdlesoflearning

howtoprogramaswellasfullygraspingtheessentialsofsignalflowand

synthesistheory,theymaywellmissoutonarichsetoflearningopportunities

availablewithintheSC3environment.Onesimplesolutiontothisproblemcould

betorequirethatallstudentstakeabasicprogrammingclassasaprerequisite

beforetheclasswhereSC3istaught.Thiswould,attheveryleast,ensurethat

studentsenrollinginthisclassdonotspendasignificantamountoftheir

precioustimelearningbasicprogrammingtechniques.Thisapproachcarriesthe

disadvantageofexcludingstudentswhohavenottakensuchaprerequisite.

Anotherapproach,thatthisthesisexplores,couldbetoprovidesome

higherlevelconstructssuchasaGUIwhichprovidesvisualprogramming

functionalityforthosestudentsforwhomprogrammingisstillanewor

especiallychallengingdomain.


35/69

21

1.5.3 WorkingAssumptions

Theseandotherexperiencesledmetoasetofworkingassumptionsthat

canbesummarizedasfollows:

1. Userscanbecategorizedaccordingtocertainbehavioraltraits,

whichmaybeapredictorforcertainkindsofcomputerusage

patterns;

2. Featuresetsinsoftwareapplicationscanalsobecategorizedand

mappedtothesamecategoriesthatdescribethesetofusers;

3. Itmaybepossibletoemployassumptions1and2togeneratean

approachforsolvinggeneraladaptability.

4. ProgramsthatemployGUIsastheirprimaryinterfaceareeasier

forpeopletolearn,especiallythosewhodonothavea

backgroundincomputerscience;

5. Studentswhohavechallengeslearningormasteringacommand

lineenvironmentmayhaveanimprovedlearningexperienceby

dealingwithaGUItolearnthefundamentalsofelectronicmusic.

Basedontheseassumptionsandtheinitialresultsfromthephase1

interviews,IassembledatestinterfacebyslightlymodifyingPaulMillersopen


36/69

22

sourceGUIframeworkforSC3,TXModular[30],inordertotestthese

assumptions.

AsIwastodiscover,myinitialassumptionsweretoosimplistic.Iwas

hoping,bystartingfromGoldsfourhats,todevelopamoreabstractandgeneral

formulationthatcouldbeappliedtosolveproblemsofusability.

Forexample,somesoftwarefeaturesorcapabilitiesmayexistinthesame

formacrossallcategories.Suchafeaturewouldbeconsideredglobaltothe

application.Forexample,itmaybethattheoperationtosaveadocumentmaybe

identicalforallusers.Otherfeaturesmayexistinseveralcategoriesbutare

implementedonewayfortheartistcategoryandanotherwayforthe

engineercategory.Ageneralizedexamplehereisthattheapplicationmay

exposeacommandlineinterfaceforengineeringtypeswhileexposinga

graphicaluserinterfacethathaspleasingstheticqualitiesforartistictypes.Still

otherfeaturesmayexistonlyinonecategoryforonegroupofusers.Apossible

exampleherewouldbeafunctionavailableonlyatthecommandlinefor

engineeringtypes.

Myhopewasthatsuchanapproachtodesignwouldprovideamodular

andextensibleapproachtosoftwarerequirementsanalysis,enablingfeaturesets

tobemappedtodiversegroupsofusersinamethodicalfashion,and,in

addition,supportingdiscretestagingoffeaturesetsduringimplementation.


37/69

23

Suchanapproach,ifitwerepossible,wouldhavetheadvantageofbeing

scalable,asmoredimensionsofdifferencescouldbeadded,creatinga

multidimensionalmodelthatcanbescaledtoanarbitrarilyhighnumberof

dimensions,thuscreatinghigherdegreesofgranularitybetweenusersegments,

features,anduniqueimplementationsteps.

1.6 Goals

ThisthesisseekstoexplainwhatIhavelearnedregardingtheinitial

beliefsandassumptionsIheldattheoutsetofthestudy.Italsoattemptsto

explainwhatIlearnedfromthegroupofinformantsIfollowedthroughthis

study.Thisincludesobservationsthatcaninformthedesignofsystemsmeantto

adapttodifferencesinusers.Ihope,inparticular,toshedlightonthecomplex

relationshipbetweentheinformantsselfdefinedgoalsandtheirownconception

oftheiridentity.Itisthisrelationship,betweenselfdefinedgoalsandself

identification,ratherthanculturedefinedrolethatIfoundtobethebest

predictorastowhatcategoryofusageapersonwilltendtochoose.

Additionally,IhopetoshowthattheparticulargroupIresearched

demonstratesthattherearecaseswhereitisimpossibletoprovideasingle

computationalplatformtomeetstheneedsofallusers.


38/69

24

2 DataAnalysis:Phase1

Thefirst

phase

of

interviews

was

designed

to

gather

details

about

the

informant,theirmusicalandtechnicalbackground,preferences,andinterests.

MostoftheseinformantshadcompletedaseminarincomputermusicatMills

whereSC3wastheprimarytool.Questionsaboutsoundcreation,composition,

arrangementandperformance,aswellastheirideasfortheidealSC3interface

werealso

posed.

Below

are

some

of

the

key

quantitative

data

regarding

the

population.

2.1 BasicPopulationStatistics

Thefollowingaresomebasiccharacteristicsofthepopulationof23

informants:

Informant

Type %

Faculty 13%

Professional 22%

Student 65%

Musical

Parents

%

Yes 61%

No 39%


39/69

25

BackgroundinMusic

Theory %

Yes 63%

No 37%

Hadcomputerhasachild %

Yes 52%

No 48%

Backgroundinprogramming %

Yes 30%

No 70%

Backgroundinsignal

flow %

Yes 57%

No 43%

StronginMathematics %

Yes 43%

No 57%

Allofthesemeasurementswerebasedontheinformantsselfassessment

oftheirownbackgroundandabilities,notonanyobjectivetest.

2.2 InitialImpressionsofSuperCollider3.0

OneofthemostconsistenttrendsindataIfoundwasaninitialimpression

ofthesystemrangingfromintimidationandfeartounbridledhatred.Hereare

someexamplesoftheanswersinformantsprovidedwhenIaskedthemaboutthe

firstexperienceswithSC3:


40/69

26

Idontknowwhattodowithitveryconfusing.

veryfrustrating.

justabigmess.

horribleandpainful.

disconnectbetweenmusicalmindandmyprogrammaticmind.

prettyroughresultswerenotuptomyexpectations.

gaveupitturnedmeoff.

howtoharnessthepossibilities

[the]beautyofSCisthatitissoopen butthatsadoubleedged

sword.

frustratinglimitationsinmyunderstandingofthearchitecturenot

themostintuitivething.

Illhaveanideaandnothaveanyideahowtoimplementit.

IwishIwasspendingmoretimemakingmusicthanprogramming.

Ifoundthetransitionbetweengraphicalandcommandlinejarring.

timeconsuming,andyoureconstantlyalteringtheselittleminutiae

valuesspendinghoursandhours,youknow,Ivelookedatthiscodesolongthis

IOlookslikeIOIOIO,itsofftoworkIgo

NotoneinformantIspoketo,whenposedthisquestion,expressedpositive

feelingstowardthetool.Fromanactivitytheoryperspective,thisevidence

impliesthatmostinformantsheldaviewladenwithavarietyofformsofhighly

chargednegativeemotion.Thisnegativeemotionrepresentsabarrierthe

informantwouldneedtoreverseinordertoestablishacomfortablerelationship

withthetool.


41/69

27

2.3 WhatworkedinSuperCollider3.0

When

I

posed

the

informants

the

question,

What

worked

for

you

in

SC3?,Ireceivedabroadspectrumofanswers.About60%oftheinformants

repliedthattheymostlikedthequalityofthesoundthatthesystemproduced.The

remainderoftheresponseswassplitacrossthepopulation,withthedesignated

percentages:

liberated

from

commercial

software

(15%);

changedmyideaofwhatIamcapableofasanartistandmusician(15%);

founditlessambiguoustoprogramincodevs.programmingwitha

graphicuserinterface(10%)

Whatisinterestingaboutthefirsttwoitemsinthelistaboveisthatthey

do

not

refer

to

SC3

capabilities,

rather,

to

the

informants

capabilities,

either

in

termsofchangingtheirfeelings,orexpandingtheirviewofthemselves.Onlythe

mostcommonresponse(qualityofsound)andtheleastcommonresponse

(programmability)wereactuallyobservationsaboutthetoolitself.

Inobservingtheseresponses,Ibegantotakenotethatwhatwasbeing

reportedherewasnotsimplyaviewofthetool,butalsooftheperson,theirview

ofthemselves,theirviewoftheworld,andarecognitionthatallofthesefactors

playsignificantlyintothewaythatpersonconstructstheactivity.


42/69

28

2.4 SuggestionstoimproveSuperCollider3.0

One

of

the

fundamental

reasons

that

this

form

of

research

was

undertaken

wastouncover,fromtheusersperspective,aclearsenseofwhatimprovements

couldbemadetotheSC3environmenttomakeitmoreuseful.Whenaskedwhat

improvementsshouldbemadetothesystem,avarietyofideasemerged.These

fellintoseveralgeneralcategoriesandarepresentedinthesectionsbelowin

order

of

popularity.

2.4.1 GUIRequests

Thiswasbyfarthemostpopulartypeofsuggestion.Over85%ofthe

suggestionsinvolvedprovidingsomelevelofGUIinteractiontotheSC3

command

line

interface.

Suggestions

included

the

following:

Routing/patchinginterface;

Visualautomationdraganddropasynthontoaroutine;

Provideamethodtoprogramvisually;

Avisualinspector forasynthmodule;

Adockofallsynthobjects/libraries representedvisuallythatcouldbe

draggedontopaletteandconnectedtootherobjects;

Provideavisualtimelineorgraphwhereonecouldlayout/drawevents

ordoalittledraganddrop;

iPhotoforsounds

TheseinformantsexpressedthathavingaGUIwouldprovidegreaterease

ofuseandminimizewhatwasgenerallycharacterizedforthemasatediousand


43/69

29

nonessentialprocessofwritinganddebuggingcode. Thisgroupofpeople

generallyfeltthatwritingcodewasnotanartisticactivity.Havinglabeleditas

such,thisgroupchosenottoinvestthesamelevelofenergythatother

informants,whodidfeelthatwritingcodewasinclusivetotheartisticprocess,

wouldputintolearningsclang.Thisselflabelingofwhatisandwhatisnot

artisticturnedouttobethemostsignificantindicatorastohowthe

informantwoulddirecttheirenergiestowardstheuseoftheirtools.

Mostinformantstoldmethatart,beingacreativeendeavor,isnotatall

liketheworkofscienceandthatitisnotpossibletosaywithanyprecisionwhat

isorwhatisnotartistic.AtleastinthecultureofthegroupthatIstudied,the

demarcationbetweenartandscienceremainedapersonalchoiceandamatterof

subjectivity1.

Manyoftheinformantsfeltthatthecommandlineprogramming

paradigmdidnotfittheirownselfimageofanactivitywithinanartistswork.

Theseinformantsfeltthattheprocessofprogrammingnegativelychangedthe

waytheirmindsoperatedinsuchawayastodetachthemfromtheirartistic

senseofself.Thisschismbetweensocalledscientificandartisticactivities

washighlyprevalentandobservedin92%ofthisgroup.

1Therearecultures,particularlytraditionalAsianartculture,whereemulating

themasteristhedesiredgoalandindividualdifferencesarenotatallprized.

Thisisoneexamplewherewecansee,fromanactivityperspective,thatculture

hasadirectimpactontheactivity.


44/69

30

2.4.2 Starter/ExampleKits

Theremaining15%oftheinformantsrequestedastarterkittosupport

theminparticularexercisesbeyondthosethatwerepresentedaspartoftheclass.

Theseindividualsseemedlessinterestedinactuallyimprovingthewaythetool

workedbutinsteadfocusedonimprovementsthatwouldhelpimprovetheir

understandingandcomprehensionoftheunderlyingfunctionalitywithinSC3.This

groupofinformantswasopentotheideaofprogramminganddidnotfeelin

anywaythattheactofprogrammingwasaviolationoftheirartisticidentity.

Theseinformantswerebyfarthemostsuccessfulintermsoftheirassessmentof

theirperformanceintheclassandintheirlevelofcomfortworkingdirectlywith

sclang.

2.4.3 AssessmentofSuggestions

Once I assessed what users wanted, my next step was to design and

implement an improved interface and evaluate users responses to it.

SincethevastmajorityofthepopulationrequestedaGUItomediate

betweenthemanyprogrammingtaskstheywouldotherwisehavetoengagein,I

reviewedthevariousrequestsandcametotheconclusionthatbasedonmyown

resources,IcouldprovidealimitedGUIthatmediatedsomeofthecommon

taskssuchasinstantiatingoscillatorsandsynths,settingtheirparameters,and

patchingtheoutputofonemoduletotheinputofanother.Theseseemedtobe


45/69

31

tasksalloftheinformantsengagedinandtheideathatemergedwastobuilda

GUItestenvironmentthatenabledsuchactivitiesfromaGUI.Myobjectivewas

todeterminewhetherwhenprovidedwithsuchaninterfacetheinformants

wouldfinditanimprovement.

3 ImplementationofTestInterface

Inresearchingvariousapproachestopreparingatestinterface,Icame

acrossPaulMillersTXModular[30]frameworkforSC3thatdidalmost

everythingIwanted.

Millerhasinvestedasignificantamountoftimeimplementingan

extensiveobjectorientedframeworkthatrunsontopofSC3andpresentsthe

capabilityofexecutingmanycommontasksinSC3usingaGUIratherthana

commandlineinterface.

ThefollowingisanoverallclassdiagramoftheTXModularframework:


46/69

32

Figure3ClassDiagramofTXModularFramework


47/69

33

Havingidentifiedawellwrittenandwellorganizedframework,my

implementationwasverysimpleandstraightforward.Theframeworkalready

didvirtuallyeverythingIhadidentifiedasarequirementinthePhase1process.

Mymodificationswerethereforelimitedalmostentirelytostheticchangesof

theGUIcolorpalettebasedonmysenseofcolor.

BelowisascreenshotofmymodifiedTXModularcodethatInamedSC

BusyBox,whichIusedasthetestinterfaceforPhase2interviews:

Figure4ModificationofTXModframework

Thechannelstrips,whicharethecolumnsontheleft,areafamiliar

metaphorforanyuserwhohaspreviouslyworkedwithaphysicalmixing

consoleandallowthevisualcontrolofparameterssuchasvolume(amplitude),


48/69

34

stereopanning,sendingofsignaltootherchannelstrips,aswellasthenotionof

aninsert,whichistheabilitytoplaceaneffectdirectlyontothechannel.

Ontherightsideisaninspector,whichallowsspecificparametersfor

thesynthmodulethatisthesourceforanychannelstriptobechangedinreal

timeviathemouseratherthanviacommandline.

ContrastthiswiththestandardSC3environment:

Figure5StandardSC3ProgrammingEnvironment

Inthestandardenvironment,allaspectsofthesystemarecontrolledviaa

commandlineinterfacethroughsclang.TheTXModularframeworkisdesigned

toaddressthislimitation.


49/69

35

Havingfoundsoftwarethatmettheinformantsstatedwishes,mynext

stepwastopresentthissoftwaretotheinformantsandassesstheirresponsetoit.

4 DataAnalysis:Phase2

Thephase2interviewswereverysimilartothephase1interviewsinform

andstyle,withthreemajordifferences.First,about50%oftheinformants

interviewedhadneverusedorbeenexposedtoSC3before.Second,insteadof

solicitingideasfromtheinformantsabouthowtoimprovethebasicSC3

interface,theywerepresentedwithboththeSCBusyBoxGUIdescribedinthe

previoussectionandthestandardSC3interfaceandaskedtocommentonthe

usabilityofeachbasedontheirparticularusagegoals.Thethirddifferenceisthat

timedtaskswererecordedforeachinterfaceinordertoobtainaquantitative

measureofhowlongittookaninformanttocompleteaparticulartaskineach

interface.

4.1.1 ResponsetoSCBusyBox

Almostalluserswereimmediatelycomfortablewiththegraphical

metaphorsofchannelstripsandinspectorsintheSCBusyBoxandableto

performtherequestedtaskofcreatinganoscillatorandconnectingittoaneffect


50/69

36

significantlyfasterthaninthecommandlineenvironment(seesection4.3below

forquantitativecomparisons).

This,however,didnotmeanthattheinformantfeltthattheSCBusyBox

interfacewaseitherusableorsuperiortothestandardSC3interface.

Inover94%ofthepopulation,informantsstatedthattheywouldnotuse

theSCBusyBoxinterfacetodotheirwork.Whenpressedastowhytheywould

notusetheinterface,theanswersfellintothreegeneralcategories:

1. Iwouldprefertobuildsomethingmyselfthatisareflectionofmy

artisticcreativity(66%);

2. Ifindthisinterfacetoolimiting(18%);

3. IdonotfindthetasksthattheSCBusyBoxsupportstobewithinthe

setoftasksIcommonlyuseinmymusicmakingprocess(16%)

Thefirstandmostcommonlyofferedreasonforrejectingthetoolhas

nothingtodowiththetoolitself.Instead,itreflectsmoreontheinformants

beliefsabouttheroleofanartist.Thesebeliefsdefineandlimitwhatkindsof

taskstheartistengagesin.Fortheseinformants,thereisaverystronglyheld

beliefthattheyshouldbuildthingsthemselves.Oneinformantsummarizedthis

beliefbystating:


51/69

37

Thereisadifferencebetweenmakingandplayingaguitar,butin

atechnologicalworldwherepeoplehaveaccesstosimilartechnology,

howdoyoudifferentiatewhatyoudo?Makeyourown.

Thereisanironicparadoxhere:whileoneofthemainbenefitsof

softwarebasedsystemsistheabilitytoprovidechangeableorcustomizable

behaviorwithoutchangingthehardware,researchshowsthatonlyaminorityof

usersundertakethechallengeofcustomizingthebehavioroftheirsoftware[26,

34].Myresearchsupportsthesefindings.

4.1.2 WhenBeliefsConflict

Notwithstandingtheoverwhelmingnumberofinformantswhoshareda

similarbelief,whenpressedfurtherontheramifications,manyinformants

recognizedaconflict

in

their

own

self

definitions.

Specifically,

many

of

the

informantswhowantedtobuildtheirowntoolsalsoheldaconflictingbelief:

thatapplyingtheirmindstothetaskofbuildingatooltookthemoutofthe

realmofcreativityandintoscientificactivity,whichtheyregardedas

unacceptable.Oneinformantstatedtheconflictinthisfashion:

[Whenthinking

through

the

issue

of]

tool

building

vs.

instrumentsbuildingandgettingboggeddowninthewholeideathatI

canbuildthesetoolssomaybeIshouldbecauseusingyourowntoolsis

betterthanusingsomeoneelsestools.ButIalwaysfeelIuseothertools


52/69


53/69

39

thesameaptitudebutfeltthatprogrammingactivitieswerepartofanartistic

andcreativeprocessperformedmuchbetter.Thisresearchshowsthatforthis

groupofinformantsthatbeliefsareastrongerindicatorthanaptitudefor

performance.

4.1.4 Assessment of Beliefs is Vital for User Acceptance

Therefore,Iarguethatitisvital,inthedesignofusableandadaptable

systemsthataredesignedforawidevarietyofusers,toincludeaspartofthe

designprocessaclearunderstandingofthebeliefsinformantshaveaboutthe

toolstheyuseinparallelwithanyefforttoimproveordesignbettertools ifit

isagoaloftheimplementationthatthosetoolsbeadoptedandfullyutilized.To

achieveadoption,atleastinthepopulationIstudied,itisnotenoughtosimply

takealistofrequirementsandimplementagainstthese.

4.1.5 AKeyFactorinLargeScaleSystemAdoptionFailures

Thestudyofbeliefsregardingwhichactivitiesanindividualconsiders

acceptableisnotahottopicincurrentHCIwork.Iargueherethatlackofthis

typeofqualitativeinformationisakeyfactorinthefailureofawiderangeof

largescalesystemimplementations.

Accordingto InfoWorld,researchconductedbyGartner/MetaGroup

showsthatonaverage,about70percentofallITrelatedprojectsfailtomeet


54/69

40

theirobjectives[24]andattributessuchfailurestothefactthatmanylargescale

systemimplementationssuchasERP(EnterpriseResourcePlanning),SCM

(SupplyChainManagement),andCRM(ClientRelationshipManagement)

overlookthefactthattheyaredealingwithafundamentalchangeinour

relationshipwiththeenterprise[24].

TomAmerongenofiFusion,aCRMconsultancysupportsthisidea,

statingthatCRMisnotjustabouttechnologyandthattoturnacompanys

CRMgoalsintotrueresults,yourCRMstrategymustbeconsideredholistically.

[4].

SusanEhrlich,inher1987ACMpaperonstrategiesforencouraging

successfuladoptionofofficecommunicationsystems,alsospeakstothispointas

partofherconclusion,advisingresearcherstoincludestudiesthattake

psychologicalfactorsintoaccountasanaidtoimprovesystemadoptionand

acceptance[9].Inherstudy,sheusedthetermsocialconventionstoreferto

thesetofbeliefsthatusersheldandthatneededtobeaddressedbeforeasystem

couldbesuccessfullyadopted.

Theresearchconductedwithinthescopeofthisthesissupportsand

extendsEhrlichsfindingsbyusingactivitytheoryasadatacollection

methodologytouncoverkeypsychologicaldatathatmayimposebarrierstothe

acceptanceofasystem.


55/69

41

4.2 CharacteristicsofSuccessfulAdoptersofSC3

There

were,

however,

a

small

percentage

of

users

(9%)

who

were

very

positiveabouttheuseofSC3initsnativecommandlinemodeasatoolfor

artisticexpression.Itishelpfultounderstandthecontrastingbeliefsthatthese

informantsexpressedinordertobetterunderstandthedifferencesbetweenthose

whoareandarenotsuccessfulwiththisplatforminitscommandlinemode.

Here

are

some

of

the

comments

from

the

people

who

were

facile

and

comfortableinthisenvironment:

Codeismyinstrument.

IgetavisionaboutwhatIwanttodoandIseeitincode.

Iseetheentireinstrumentasamentalmodelinmyhead,

specifiedincode.

IllhaveasoundworldinmymindandIllbuilditout,proceed

towardthat,buildinstrumentstowardthat,andperformtoward

that.

Whatalloftheinformantswhowerecomfortableinthecommandline

environmenthadincommonwasanartisticembracingofthefollowingtwo

skills:

1. Anunderstandingofunitgeneratorsandsignalflowtheory;


56/69

42

2. Afacileunderstandingofcomputerlanguagessuchthattheycould

thinkincode;

Thesecondskilldeservesfurtherdiscussion.OneoftheinformantsI

spokewithofferedthefollowingdescriptionofwhatitmeanstothinkincode:

Thereisapointinreadingcodethatyourenotthinkingaboutthe

codefunctionallyordescriptively.Thereareinsteadfunctional

relationshipsandyouceasetothinkaboutsyntax.Thisisthesame

phenomenonthatoccurswhenlearningEnglish.Thereisapoint

wherethewordsbecometransparentandyoustarttounderstand

meaning.

Inmyresearch,thisfluencywithaprogramminglanguagewasonly

achievedbythosewhofirstmadeaninternaldecisionthattowraphermind

aroundtheconceptssurroundingthetopicwasaninclusivestepintheirartistic

journey.Ifanindividualchoosesthepathtowardsclangfluency,anumberof

factorswereobservedtooccur. Theseincludethattheindividualreviewed

examplesofwellwrittencode,thatshepersistentlyfocusedhercreativeability

intoprogramminglanguageconstructs,andthatshesoughtongoingguidance

fromanexpertprogrammer.Onlythenwastheindividualabletoachieve

fluencywithsclang.


57/69

43

4.3 ResultsofPhase2QuantitativeTimetoCompletionTests

Two

quantitative

tests

were

administered

to

phase

2

population

to

test

whethertheSCBusyBoxwasmoreefficientatsupportingusersinperforminga

particulartask.Thisgroupconsistedofatotalof10subjects3.Eachsubjectwas

presentedfirstwiththeSCBusyBoxinterfaceandaskedtocreateabasic

oscillatorthatemittedsomesoundandconnectthistosomeeffectoftheirchoice.

They

were

then

asked

to

do

the

same

task

within

the

standard

SC3

command

lineenvironment.Theresultswereveryinteresting.

Forthefirsttest,theshortesttimetocompletionwas50secondsandthe

longesttimewas3minutes20seconds.Theaveragetimewas2minutes,17

seconds.Inallcases,thesubjectsstatedthatcompletingthetaskfeltlikea

relatively

straightforward

task.

In

some

cases,

the

subject

pointed

out

some

ways

theymightchangetheGUItomakeselectionandstatemoreobvioustothem.

Forthesecondcommandlinetest,60%ofthepopulationdeclinedto

attemptthetest.Thiswassurprising,especiallysincesomeofthepeoplewho

declinedwerealsointhecategoryofbeingfluentinsclangandinprinciple,

shouldhavebeenabletoperformthetaskwithoutissue.

3HereIusethemorecommontermsubjectasopposedtoinformantasthe

individualissubjectedtoquantitativetestandtheirresponsesareobserved.


58/69

44

Inallcases,thesubjectsestimateoftheamountofworkthatwouldbe

involvedwasintherangeofseveralhours.Herearesomeofthecommentsthat

thesubjectsprovidedinresponsetotheproposalofthesecondtest:

Yourekidding,right?Wellbehereallafternoonifyouwantme

todothat.

IfyouwantmetodotheexactsamethingaswhattheGUIdoesin

code,tohaveanycontroloveritwouldtakeme2to3hoursandI

dontwanttogothroughthat.

Ofthefoursubjectsthatdidattemptthetest,onegaveupafter12

minutes,andforallsubjects,thefollowingphysicalsymptomswerenotedthat

didnotoccurinthefirsttest:

audiblewhisperingtoselfineitheraselfdeprecatingor

questioningfashion;

heavysighing;

significantchangesinposturemorebentoverandheadmuch

closertothecomputerscreen;

Ihypothesizethatsomeshiftinpsychologicalattitudeoccurredforthese

subjectswhensettingthemselvestothetaskofprogrammingthatalteredtheir

behaviorinthismanner.Somesubjectsspokeaboutthenotionofdifferent

partsoftheirmindperhapsthesephysicalexpressionswerehabitsassociated

withthatpartoftheirmind.


59/69

45

Forthethreeremainingsubjectsthatdidcompletethesecondtest,the

shortesttimetocompletionwas6minutes20seconds.Theaveragetimewas12

minutes45seconds,andthelongesttimetocompletionwas22minutes30

seconds.Itisnotablethatittooksubjectssignificantlylesstimethanthey

estimateditwouldtakethemtocompletethistest.

Iassertthatthesetestsdoshowthatfortheparticulartaskthatwastested

thattheSCBusyBoxinterfacewasmoreefficientthantheSC3interface.The

subjectsalsoreportedthatitwaseasiertouse.However,asstatedpreviously,

eventhosesubjectswhostatedthattheylikedtheinterfacesaidtheywouldnot

useitforthereasonsquotedinsection4.1.1above.

Basedontheconclusionsreportedintheabovereferencedsection,these

quantitativetests,whileinteresting,donotsupportanynotionoftheideathatby

providingauserinterfacetostudentsthattheywouldacceptitasatooltobe

employedbytheirartisticvision.

4.3.1 Overturning of the Dominant GUI Paradigm

Anotherinterestingfeaturethatwasnotedamongthissubgroupofthree

subjectsisapreferenceforcommandlinetoolsoverGUItoolsforgeneral

computeroperation.Ofthissubgroup,33%hadsomebackgroundincomputer

science.Theremaining66%wereselftaught.Oneoftheseremaining66%ran


60/69

46

theirownLINUXkernelwithSC3andworkedalmostentirelyatthecommand

lineforvirtuallyalloperations.Thisisbehavioronemightnormallyassociate

withahackerorprogrammer,butnotanartist.

Thispreferencemaybeimportant.Ifitcanbeshowninalarger

population,thismaycastdoubtonthealmostunanimousassumptionthatthe

GUIissuperiortothecommandline,especiallysincethepopulationbeing

studiedhasbeenacculturatedtoartratherthancomputerscience.Inourculture,

weveryoftenassociatetheartistwiththetypeofpersonalitywhoprefers

graphicaltoolsandhasnointerestinlearningaboutmoretechnicalmatters.

Thesefewindividuals,whilenotthenorm,areasignificantpartofthe

populationIstudiedandamongitsmostfacileintermsoftheirapplicationof

theirartisticabilities.Softwaredesignerswoulddowelltotakethisfeatureinto

accountwhendesigningfuturesoftwareforartists.


61/69

47

ElectronicmusicpioneerandcreatorofthefamousMoogsynthesizer,

RobertMoogoffershispersonalviewofthedifferencebetweenamusicianand

anengineer:

Musiciansareintelligentpeople.Iftheywanttobuildsoundsup

orconstructsoundsincertainways,theycanlearntechniquesfor

doingit.Youdonthavetobeanengineertouseasynthesizer,but

youdohavetounderstandthatinordertomakethepitchofa

soundgoupanddownregularly,youneedaregularlychanging

voltagetocontrolthatpitch.Onceyouexperienceconnectinga

regularlychangingcontrolledvoltagetochangethepitch,making

itgoupanddownregularly,itbecomesanaturalthing.Itsjustas

naturalas,say,drawingabowacrossastring.Youdevelopafeelingforit.Youdevelopanintuitionforit;thatsdifferentthan

beinganengineerorbeingatechnicalpersonandunderstandingin

greatdetailandgreatprecisionexactlywhatsgoingon.[31]

5 Conclusions

The

results

of

this

research

suggest

that

the

standards

for

judging

GUI

interfacequalityintheHCIfieldmaynotapplytoGUIdesignforsoftwarebuilt

forartistsorthoseengaginginwhatmightbeconsideredcreativeprocesses.It

alsosuggeststhatusinganactivitytheorymodeltoexposepsychologicalfactors

suchaspersonalbeliefsmaybehelpfulinuncoveringtheadoptionissuesthat

aretherootcauseofmanylargescalesystemimplementationfailures.


62/69

48

InthegroupIstudied,itappearedthatthewellestablished80/20ruledid

notapply,inthatindividualdifferencesprecludeaggregatinganysetof

functionstosupport80%oftheuserpopulation.

Theworkinthisthesistodesigninterfacestomeettheneedsof

specializedsubgroupsofartistsservesasanimportantwarningtofuture

softwareandinterfacedesigners.Thewarningislikeanearlyphaseininterface

designbetweennaveandexperiencedusers,asreferredtoinMacCleanspaper

UserTailorableSystems:PressingtheIssueswithButtons,whichusesthemetaphor

ofthetailorabilitymountaintodescribethelevelsofdifficultyinvolvedfor

userstocustomizetheirsoftwareenvironments[26].Inthiscase,however,itis

theinterfacedesignerwhowouldhavetoclimbthesemountainsanditismy

observationthatthelevelsaretenfoldmoreinthecreativespace.

Thisthesissupportsthenotionthatactivitytheoryisausefulmethodology

forqualitativedatainterpretationthatprovidesaccesstolevelsofinformation

aboutthepopulationforwhomthesoftwareisdesigned.

Finally,thisstudyquestionsthealmostunanimousassumptionthatthe

GUIissuperiortothecommandline.Itwasclearfromtheinformationprovided

bythesmallsampleofinformantsthattherearepeopleforwhomthecommand

lineisclearlyasuperiortoolandthisfactshouldnotbedisregardedbydesigners

offuturesoftwaresystems.


63/69

49

5.1.1 Future Work

Itismyhypothesisthatifclearargumentswerepresentedtothe

individualattheoutsetoftheclassastothefactthatindividualsdomake

choicesaboutwhattheyconsiderartisticprocessesandwhyanindividualshould

considerscientificactivitiessuchasprogramminganartisticactivity,someof

thepeoplewhowouldotherwisechooseagainstitmayinsteadopentheirminds

totheideaandenduplearningalotmoreaboutwhatistrulypossiblewithinthe

powerfulSC3environment.

Afuturestudycouldexplorethishypothesisusingthesamemethodsas

thisstudyandreportontheoutcome.


64/69

50

6 References

1. Abelson,H.,Sussman,G.J.andSussman,J.StructureandInterpretationof

ComputerPrograms.MITPress,McGrawHill;,Cambridge,Mass.,New

York,1996.

2. Adams,A.,Blandford,A.,Budd,D.andBailey,N.Organizational

CommunicationandAwareness:anovelsolutionforhealthinformatics.

HealthInformaticsJournal,11(3).163178.

3. Adams,A.andSasse,M.A.TamingtheWolfinSheepsClothing:privacyin

multimediacommunications.ACMPress,Orlando,FL,1999.

4.

Amerongen,

T.

Hitting

the

Mark

With

CRM

(http://hosteddocs.ittoolbox.com/TA061503.pdf),Electronicallyaccessed

on6/12/2006,2004.

5. Barthelmeiss,P.andAnderson,K.M.AViewofSoftwareDevelopment

EnvironmentsBasedonActivityTheory.ComputerSupportedCooperative

Work(CSCW),11(12).1337.

6. Bruer,J.T.SchoolsforThought:AScienceofLearningintheClassroom.MIT

Press,Cambridge,Mass.,1993.

7. Collins,P.,Shukla,S.andRedmiles,D.ActivityTheoryandSystem

Design:aviewfromthetrenches.ComputerSupportedCooperativeWork

(CSCW),

11

(1

2).

55

80.

8. Dijkstra,E.W.TheHumbleProgrammer.CommunicationsoftheACM,15

(10).859866.

9. Ehrlich,S.F.StrategiesforEncouragingSuccessfulAdoptionofOffice

CommunicationSystems.ACMTransactionsonInformationSystems(TOIS),

5(4).340357.

10. Fjeld,M.,Lauche,K.,Bichset,M.,Voorhost,F.,Krueger,H.and

Rauterberg,M.PhysicalandVirtualTools:activitytheoryappliedtothe

designofgroupware.ComputerSupportedCooperativeWork(CSCW),11(1

2).153180.

11. Geertz,C.TheInterpretationofCultures;selectedessays.BasicBooks,New

York,1973.

12. Glaser,B.G.TheoreticalSensitivity:advancesinthemethodologyofgrounded

theory.SociologyPress,MillValley,CA,1978.

13. Glaser,B.G.andStrauss,A.L.TheDiscoveryofGroundedTheory:Strategies

forQualitativeResearch.AldinePub.Co.,Chicago,,1967.


65/69

51

14. Gold,R.DesireinContext(http://hci.stanford.edu/cs547/abstracts/02

03/021011gold.html).Winograd,T.ed.StanfordSeminaronPeople,

Computers,andDesign,StanfordUniversity,Stanford,CA,2002.

15. Gold,R.ThePlenitude.ThePresentPress,PaloAlto,CA,2002.

16. Horn,R.E.VisualLanguage:GlobalCommunicationforthe21stCentury.

MacroVU,Inc.,BainbridgeIsland,Wash.,1998.

17. Kaptelinin,V.,Nardi,B.A.andMacaulay,C.Methods&Tools:theactivity

checklist:atoolforrepresentingthespaceofcontext.InteractionsJournal,

6(4).2739.

18. Kay,A.,TheEarlyHistoryofSmallTalk.inThesecondACMSIGPLAN

conferenceonHistoryofprogramminglanguages,(Cambridge,Massachusetts,

UnitedStates,1993),ACMPress,6995.

19. Korpela,M.,Mursu,A.andSoriyan,H.A.InformationSystems

DevelopmentasanActivity.ComputerSupportedCooperativeWork(CSCW),

11(12).111128.20. Kuutti,K.ActivityTheoryasaPotentialFrameworkforHuman

ComputerInteractionResearch.inNardi,B.A.ed.Contextand

Consciousness:activitytheoryandhumancomputerinteraction,MITPress,

Cambridge,MA,1996,1744.

21. Landauer,T.K.TheTroublewithComputers:Usefulness,Usability,and

Productivity.MITPress,Cambridge,Mass.,1995.

22. Laurel,B.andMountford,S.J.TheArtofHumanComputerInterfaceDesign.

AddisonWesleyPub.Co.,Reading,Mass.,1990.

23. Leontev,A.N.Activity,Consciousness,andPersonality.PrenticeHall,

EnglewoodCliffs,NJ,1978.24. Lewis,B.The70%FailureSurvivalGuide

(http://www.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/01/10/29/011029opsurvival.ht

ml),Electronicallyaccessed06/12/2006InfoWorld,2001.

25. Lonkila,M.GroundedTheoryasanEmergingParadigmforComputer

AssistedQualitativeDataAnalysis.inKelle,U.,Prein,G.andBird,K.eds.

ComputerAidedQualitativeDataAnalysis:theory,methodsandpractice,Sage

Publications,ThousandOaks,CA,1995.

26. MacLean,A.,Carter,K.,Lvstrand,L.andMoran,T.P.,UserTailorable

Systems:PressingtheIssueswithButtons.inProceedingsoftheSIGCHI

ConferenceonHumanFactorsinComputingSystems:empoweringpeople(Seattle,WA,1990),ACM,175182.

27. McCarthy,J.RecursiveFunctionsofSymbolicExpressionsandtheir

ComputationbyMachine.RLEandMITComputationCenter,[Cambridge,

Mass],1959.


66/69

52

28. McCartney,J.,SuperCollider:ANewRealTimeSynthesislanguage.in

InternationalComputerMusicConference,(HongKong,1996).

29. Miettinen,R.andHasu,M.ArticulatingUserNeedsinCollaborative

Design:towardsanactivitytheoreticalapproach.ComputerSupported

CooperativeWork(CSCW),11(12).129151.

30. Miller,P.TheTXModularSystem:anopensourceframeworkfor

SuperCollider3(http://palemoonrising.co.uk/),Electronicallyaccessed

11/12/2005,2005.

31. Moog,R.Interview.inShapiro,P.ed.Modulations:Ahistoryofelectronic

music/throbbingwordsonsound,Caipirinha,NewYork,NY,2000,206209.

32. Nardi,B.A.BeyondBandwidth:dimensionsofconnectionininterpersonal

communication.ComputerSupportedCooperativeWork(CSCW),14(2).91

130.

33. Nardi,B.A.ContextandConsciousness:activitytheoryandhumancomputer

interaction.MITPress,Cambridge,Mass.,1996.34. Nardi,B.A.ASmallMatterofProgramming:perspectivesonenduser

computing.MITPress,Cambridge,MA,1993.

35. Nardi,B.A.andJohnson,J.A.UserPreferencesforTaskSpecificvs.Generic

ApplicationSoftware.ACMPress,Boston,Massachusetts,UnitedStates,

1994.

36. Nardi,B.A.,Whittaker,S.andSchwarz,H.NetWORKersandtheir

ActivityinIntensionalNetworks.ComputerSupportedCooperativeWork

(CSCW),11(12).205242.

37. Pace,S.AGroundedTheoryoftheFlowExperiencesofWebUsers.

InternationalJournalHumanComputerStudies,60(3).327363.38. PriesHeje,J.ThreeBarriersforContinuinguseofComputerBasedTools

inInformationSystemsDevelopment:agroundedtheoryapproach.

ScandinavianJournalofInformationSystems,3.119136.

39. Spasser,M.A.RealistActivityTheoryforDigitalLibraryEvaluation:

ConceptualFrameworkandCaseStudy.ComputerSupportedCooperative

Work(CSCW),11(12).81110.

40. Spector,M.andWang,X.IntegratingTechnologyintoLearningand

Working:promisingopportunitiesandproblematicissues.Educational

Technology&Society,5(1).

41. Stephenson,N.IntheBeginningwastheCommandLine(http://www.cryptonomicon.com/beginning.html),1999.

42. Strauss,A.L.andCorbin,J.M.BasicsofQualitativeResearch:Techniquesand

ProceduresforDevelopingGroundedTheory.SagePublications,Thousand

Oaks,1998.


67/69

53

43. Suchman,L.A.PlansandSituatedActions:TheProblemofHumanMachine

Communication.NewYork,CambridgeCambridgeshire,1987.

44. Vygotsky,L.S.andKozulin,A.ThoughtandLanguage.MITPress,

Cambridge,Mass.,1986.

45. Weiser,M.SomeComputerScienceProblemsinUbiquitousComputing.

CommunicationsoftheACM,36(7).7584.

46. Weiser,M.,Gold,Rich,Brown,JohnS.TheOriginsofUbiquitous

ComputingResearchatPARCintheLate1980s.IBMSystemsJournal,38

(4).693696.

47. Wikipedia.ChauvetCave:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chauvet_Cave,

2005.

48. Winn,W.D.VisualizationinLearningandInstruction:ACognitive

Approach.EducationalCommunicationandTechnology:AJournalofTheory,

Research,andDevelopment,30(1).325.

49. Woodruff,A.PersonalConversationwithAllisonWoodruff.Friedland,B.ed.,Berkeley,CA,2005.

50. Zager,D.CollaborationasanActivityCoordinatingwithPseudo

CollectiveObjects.ComputerSupportedCooperativeWork(CSCW),11(12).

181204.


68/69

54

7 AppendixASampleInterviewProtocolfor

Informants

Background

Doyoucomefromamusicalfamily?

Whendidyoubecomeawareofmusic?

Whendidyoustartplayingamusicalinstrument?

When/howdidyoufirstcomeintocontactwithelectronicmusicequipment?

Doyoucomposemusic?

Whendidyoustarttocompose?

Musicalinterests

Whatwereyourinitialinterestsinmusic?

Whendid

you

start

to

become

interested

in

electronic

music?

Whatinfluencesyoumostinchoosingwhatyoulistentonow?

Technicalability/understandingofcomputerscience

Howlonghaveyouusedcomputers?

Doyouconsideryourselfaprogrammer?

Haveyou

taken

classes

in

programming

or

had

any

other

formal

computer

scienceeducation?

Howcomfortabledoyoufeelwithprogramming?Withlearningnewlanguages?

Useofsoftwareforcomposition,productionandperformanceofmusic


69/69

Whatsoftwaredoyouusetomakemusic?

Doyouusedifferentsoftwareforcomposition,production,orperformance?

Whatdoyoulikeaboutthesoftwareyouuse?

Whatisthemostchallengingthingthatyoudoinyouruseofcomputersand

electronicmusic?

UseofSuperCollider3

HaveyouheardofaprogramcalledSuperCollider3?

Ifyes,howdidyouhearaboutit?

Whatdoyouuseitfor?

Whatdoyoulikeaboutit?Dislike?

(Iftheinformantisselectedfortheuserstudy,theymayalsobeaskedthe

following)

SomeuserswillbegiventhecommandlineversionofSuperCollider3while

otherswillbegivenauserinterfacedesignedtosupportaspecificsetoftasks.

Pleaseusethissoftwaretoselectasynthesizernamed_______.

Pleaseusethissoftwaretosendtheoutputofthesynthesizernamed_______to

theinputoftheeffectnamed________.

Didyoufindthistaskeasyordifficult?

Whyorwhynot?

Applying Activity Theory in the Design of Usable Software: How Personal Beliefs Shape the Use of...

Documents

Transcript of Applying Activity Theory in the Design of Usable Software: How Personal Beliefs Shape the Use of...