Cyberjournalism, from the sender-receiver's interaction and communication processes perspective. .... The mass media Era begins to give place to the self-media sphere (the self- ...... email); and multimedia visualization (the user chooses his own ...... In every cluster of variables, we verified in EL PaÃs website the best ...
INTERACTION DESIGN IN THE CYBERJOURNALISM SPHERE [Master Thesis in Science Communications. Author: Inês Amaral (University of Minho, Portugal)] ABSTRACT The present research focused on the impact of the Interaction Design in the context of Cyberjournalism, from the sender-receiver’s interaction and communication processes perspective. The thesis emphasizes the study of Human-Computer interaction as a communication process that is conducted through an interface. The concept of interactivity was formulated by means of a multidimensional definition. The new digital scenery and the introduction of interactivity in journalism were object of particular attention in this study about Interaction Design. We have looked at this field of design from a three-dimension perspective, interconnected with the elements that contextualized it and the user’s experience; furthermore, we’ve also analyzed the impact of Interaction Design in online information production. A conceptual model for analyzing the impact of Interaction Design was developed, in the context of Cyberjournalism. The model was operationalized into a matrix and into an interactivity scale. Through an observation instrument constructed with variables from the matrix, we applied the developed model to a sample of digital journals. The results show the viability of the model to analyze the interaction processes in the new media. The empiric study showed that Interaction Design changes the traditional process of communication in the Cyberjournalism sphere and that it stimulates negotiated construction between the sender and receiver, through a conjugation of visual metaphors and behaviours.
TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF TABLES INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 1: HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION 1.1 The process of communication as an interaction and vice-versa 1.2 Human-computer interaction paradigms 1.3 The concept of interface CHAPTER 2: INTERACTIVITY AND CYBERJOURNALISM 2.1 Interactivity: a concept with multiple definitions and dimensions 2.2 The new digital scenery: new forms of writing and reading in journalism 2.3 The Interactivity in the context of Cyberjournalism CHAPTER 3: INTERACTION DESIGN 3.1 Arguments and principles: contributions to a three-dimensional definition 3.2 The elements that contextualize Interaction Design 3.2.1 Navigability 3.2.2 Information architecture 3.2.3 Other subjects of Design 3.3 The user’s experience elements, from the interface’s perspective: psychological and sociocognitive issues 3.4 The Interaction Design in the Cyberjournalism sphere CHAPTER 4: THE CIRCULAR INTERACTION MODEL – A CONCEPTUAL MODEL TO INTERACTION DESIGN IN THE CYBERJOURNALISM SPHERE 4.1 The model’s Contextualization 4.2 A conceptual model for the Interaction Design in the Cyberjournalism sphere: The Circular Interaction Model 4.3 The model’s operationalization: analyses matrix and interactivity scale design CHAPTER 5: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CONCEPTUAL MODEL 5.1 Method 5.1.1 Sample Description
5.1.2 Procedure Description 5.1.3 Data analyses Plan 5.2 Presentation and Discussion of the results CONCLUSION REFERENCES
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 – “Matrix for the Four Communication Patterns: Transmission, Conversation, Consultation and Registration”, Bordewijk and Kaam (1986 in Jensen, 1998, p.187) Figure 2 –Kiousis’s Figure (2002, p. 366) synthesizes a variety of definitions of interactivity, from the communication and other studies perspective, considering the goals to pursue Figure 3 – “A simple interaction design model” (Preece, Rogers & Sharp, 2002, p.186) Figure 4 –Nathan Shedroff’s gradual Interactivity graphic Figure 5 – “The relationship between Interaction Design, Human-Computer Interaction, and other approaches” (Preece, Rogers & Sharp, 2002, p.8) Figure 6 – “The usability engineering lifecycle” (Preece, Rogers & Sharp, 2002, pp. 194-195) Figure 7 – “A Four-Part Model of Cyber-Interactivity” (McMillan, 2002a) Figure 8 – "Egg model", from Marti and Rizzo Figure 9 – Conceptual Model of Interaction Design on the Cyberjournalism sphere – “Circular Interaction Model”
LIST OF TABELS Table 1 – Primo and Cassol Synthesis – Description of “Reactive Interaction” and “Mutual Interaction” Divergent processes Table 2 – Analyses Matrix of the Circular Interaction Model Table 3 –Analyses Grid Table 4 – results of the variable “Hypertextuality” Table 5 – results of the variable “Accessibility” Table 6 – results of the variable “Usability” Table 7 –results of the variable “Multimedia” Table 8 – results of the cluster of variables from the section “Narrative” Table 9 – results of the variable “Functionality” Table 10 –results of the variable “Learning” Table 11 - results of the variable “Anticipation” Table 12 – results of the variable “Link” Table 13 - results of the cluster variables from the section “Structure” Table 14 – results of the variable “Memory” pos Table 15 – results of the variable “Personalization” Table 16 - results of the variable “Autonomy” Table 17 – results of the variable “Predictability” Table 18 – results of the cluster of variables from the section “History” Table 19 – total results from the analyses grid application Table 20 – Interactivity levels in the studied applications
INTRODUCTION Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) and Human-Computer Interaction 1
(HCI) arise in a context of change and reformulate the traditional process of communication. The ideological and technological boosts (or vectors) suggest modifications in paradigms. Presently, we believe that we are facing the beginning of the individualization paradigm, along with the progressive process of general computerization of society. This paradigm is illustrated by the possibility of the receiver to be also the sender, assuming itself as a personalization model. The transition from a mass oriented communication to an individualized of communication allows the materialization of the “global village” metaphor, proposed by Marshall McLuhan, and reaffirms the process of communication as an interaction and vice-versa. The mass media Era begins to give place to the self-media sphere (the selfedition or non-professionalized information, produced by the common user) and also to new media (the professional communication media that broadcasts the message through the network), so that the forms of communication tend to change. The unidirectionality and verticality may, potentially, give place to a bidirectional and horizontal communication, associated with the idea of interactivity. However, the possible interaction with new technologies is not a mere technical occurrence. The broad definition of communication, regarded as a social interaction through messages (Fiske, 1990), underlies this investigation. The studies about interactivity, in the field of Cyberjournalism, generally focus on the construction of the concept itself, on the analysis of digital supports interactive tools, on the general features of online communication, on the news reports structure within the online environment (the hypertextual reports), on the new languages fomented by the new media, on the new role of the journalist (or on it’s redefinition). In the present work, we regard interactivity as the relationship between two or more elements, within a digital environment, presuming reciprocal exchanges. Interactivity exists in the context of HCI and also between users (Computer Mediated Communication). 1
HCI – This consensual acronym was originated from the English term “Human-Computer Interaction”, and will be used in the present work to identify the human-computer interaction.
6
The direct influence of interactivity and Interaction Design2 on the processes of communication (which invariably refers to the processes of production and reception of online news reports and its interaction) remains an unexplored domain of studies within the field of Communication Sciences. In this work, we consider that the Design of Interactivity consists on a technical area of production of interactive products that conceptualizes the interaction within digital domains – the interaction between the user and the system and/or the interaction between users. This field of design defines the visual metaphors and their behaviours with the purpose of outlining the possible interaction. The crossing of Online Journalism and Interaction Design domains also remains uncharted, and requires the construction of concepts as well as a deep analysis of Interaction Design in the field of Cyberjournalism. To this effect, the choice of this theme focuses on the need to understand this universe, from the receiver and information production perspectives, aiming an active reception (the receiver is, from this angle, a user, with the ability to control the communication elements available through interface- a link between sender and receiver involved in the process of interaction). The transition from the traditional notion of audience to the concept of user is, therefore, the starting point of this investigation. To accomplish this purpose we ought to understand the role of the Interaction Design in the production and reception of online information. Note that this concept is different from Interaction Design, since it refers to a technical area of production of interactive products that conceptualizes the interaction in digital spaces- the interaction between user and system and/or the interaction between users. This work centres on two themes: The Interactivity Design and Cyberjournalism. The major problematic of this thesis refers to the relationship between Interactivity Design subject and the processes of interaction reinvented by the new media. How do the interaction design change interaction processes of the traditional communication medium to online interactive informative products? The key purpose of this dissertation is the construction of an analyses model of the Interaction design of online informative products that allows conceptualizing an interactivity scale. Assuming that interaction is an incontestable element of Computer-Mediated Communication, the Interactivity Design comes out as a central issue in the 2
In this paper, the nomenclature Interaction Design and Design of the interactivity will be used as synonyms.
7
problematization to develop, since this concept, and its application to the online media will allow us to understand the alterations in the sender-receiver interaction processes, introduced by interactivity- as a new element added to the communication process. Thus, the goals of study in this work are the interaction processes in the context of Cyberjournalism. Therefore, we propose the study of the relationship between the discipline of Interaction Design, and the processes of interaction between sender and receiver, as reinvented by the new media. The starting question, which expresses this project, is: How does Interactivity Design interfere with Interaction Processes in Cyberjournalism? A set of investigation questions where originated from this statement, in order to clarify the problematic issue: a) Which of the changes in the traditional journalistic redaction processes introduces the Interactivity Design in Cyberjournalism? B) Does the Interactivity Design change the role of the receiver in Cyberjournalism? (C) Does the introduction of Interactivity Design in Cyberjournalism change the traditional Interaction Sender-Receiver in the traditional media? This project’s development is based on of the following hypothesis: (a) Interactivity Design modifies the closed structure of the journalistic writing, allowing the receiver’s interaction and presenting an open structure. (b) Interactivity Design transforms the role of online information receiver, making it active by giving him the possibility to control the sequence, rhythm and contents. (c) The sender-receiver interaction processes are converted into interactive and active processes by meaning the introduction of the interactive design in the journalistic sphere. Based on Interactivity Design concept previously introduced, we aim to comprehend the dialogue with the interaction possibilities of the new interactive informative media. Therefore, our proposal relies on the study of the influence of Interactivity Design in the journalistic sphere. Within a multidisciplinary and threedimensional perspective, the model being developed will allow us to analyse the impact of Interactivity Design on Human-Computer Interaction, in the Cyberjournalism Sphere, materialized through a scale. The implementation of the model will be accomplished through a matrix that summarizes the variables of the model and allows the analyses of concrete cases, which can be classified in the interactivity scale suggested. In order to test the conceptual model, we will apply an analyses grid (build up after the matrix developed), to a digital journals sample, so that we may be able to analyse the behaviour of the application, from the Interactive Design’s perspective. The interactivity scale 8
aims to evaluate the interactive communication tools and techniques, employed by online informative media. The specific goals of this work focus on the following premises: (a) To investigate Interaction as a process of communication, Human-Computer Interaction and question the components of user’s experience, from the interface’s perspective in hypertextual informative spaces; (b) Investigate/reflect about the Interactivity Design and its context- dimensions, levels and psychological related usefulness; (c) To develop a theoretical approach to the several clusters of Design, used in online interactive systems production; (d) Investigate the transformations in the field of communicational journalism as a consequence of the introduction of Interactivity; (e) Analyse the impact of Interactivity Design in the interaction processes between sender and receiver, as reinvented by the new media; (f) To Build an analyses matrix in order to evaluate the impact of Interactivity Design on the Cyberjournalism sphere and define an interactivity scale; (g) To apply an analyses grid to a sample of digital Journals in order to implement a conceptual model of Interactivity Design, applied to online Informative products as well as to define interactivity levels, allowing the experiment in concrete situations. This thesis is divided into two parts. First, we present the framework of the investigation issue, its theoretical framing, and we expose the reference frame adopted, our goals and work hypothesis. Secondly, we present the method employed in the empirical study, the results and their discussion. This work is organized in five chapters as subsequently described: Chapter 1 – Human-Computer Interaction – We present the issue framing, which is transversal to the investigation. This chapter is divided into three sections: The Process of Communication as an Interaction and vice-versa; Human-Computer interaction paradigms; the concept of interface. We discuss the social nature of the communication process in reference to new technologies; we contextualize the HCI Process and define the notion of interface as an intersection point. Chapter 2 – Interactivity and Cyberjournalism – It consists on three sections – Interactivity: a concept of multiple definitions and dimensions; the new digital scenery: new forms of writing and reading in journalism; Interactivity in the context of Cyberjournalism. In this chapter, we review the previous research on interactivity and present different conceptualizations from studies in the fields of Sciences of 9
communication and Communication and Information Technologies. In the second section, we present the potential change of the communicative paradigm (regarded as an evolution) as an outcome from technological progress (Kerckhove, 1997). We expose the impact of Internet in the journalism domain; discuss the new digital scenery characteristics, the new forms of writing and subsequently of reading. In the last section, we establish the relationship between interactivity and the new media, exposing the new outcome of the new models of communication. Chapter 3 – Interaction Design – In this chapter, we present the tridimensionl definition of Interaction Design (see section: Arguments and Principles: contributions to a three-dimensional definition) originated from the premise that this subject matter is related with the visual metaphors and its behaviours. In the second section (The elements which contextualize the interaction Design), we present the elements that allow contextualizing and conceptualizing Interactivity Design. Then, we discuss the elements of the user’s experience, from the interface perspective. In this section (The elements of the user’s experience from the interface’s perspective: psychological and socio-cognitive issues) we highlight the psychological and socio-cognitive issues. The last section is called Interaction Design in the Cyberjournalism Sphere and has got the purpose to understand the role of the Interaction design in the Cyberjournalism sphere. Chapter 4 – The Circular Interaction Model: A conceptual model to interaction Design in the Cyberjournalism sphere – This chapter consists on three sections – Model’s Contextualization; a Conceptual Model for Interaction Design in the Cyberjournalism sphere: The Circular Interaction Model; Model implementation: analyses matrix and interactivity scale design. At this work point, we present a conceptual model of interactivity design on the Cyberjournalism sphere (context and theory). Next, we delineate an analyses matrix (with the purpose to implement the model in real situations) and an interactivity scale, which has the purpose to evaluate online media tools, methods and interactive communication techniques. Chapter 5 – Conceptual Model Implementation – In this chapter, we present two sections: Method and Presentation and Discussion of the results. At this stage of work, we describe the experimental, on concrete situations, of the analyses matrix of the conceptual model. First, we describe the investigation design (procedure), the analyses domain, the sample and its selection criteria, the observation instrument, variables in study and data analyses plan. The second part of this chapter presents and discusses the results. 10
Finally, we present the investigation conclusions, were we emphasize the practical conclusions of this work and analyse the consistency and limitations of the conceptual model proposed.
11
CHAPTER 1: HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION 1.1. The Process of Communication as an Interaction and vice-versa Multimedia and new technologies bring to men a new challenge: to re-equate reality and redraw images of himself and his surroundings. Multimedia communication, regarded as a process of interaction, is based on the idea of visual communication and its influence in the psychological domain. Thus, in order to study the Human-Computer Interaction, we must analyse the new social and cognitive representations that arise with digital format reality or the so called “cognitive technologies” (Lévy, 2001). The message might always be the central object of the communication process, even though, the content analyses advocated by Lasswell is exceed by Mc Luhan’s ideathe environment primacy. McLuhan’s hot and cold media are, somewhat, recovered along with multimedia and the interaction which flows from it. This author sustained that, the increase of information elements in the communicative process is associated to a hotter message. Therefore, the hot and cold media are distinguished, based on the reception mode and its intensity. Consequently, we believe McLuhan’s idea can be applied to the new technologies universe. Communication regarded as a process of interaction and vice-versa is the central idea in communicational analyses of multimedia technologies. This phenomenon has established new concepts of time and space in social interaction- from which emerge new differential forms of sociability. Communication as interaction identifies and reinvents old and new relationships between the several domains of thought, from exact sciences to sociology, once we cannot study communication without analysing society and its culture. In fact, interactivity arising by way of new technologies has restructured interactions at all levels: personal relationships, mediated (by institutions or technologies) and mediatised (throughout traditional media), as observes Rogério Santos (20033): «Communication as interaction identifies the relationships and establishes links between the different culture aceptions, so that there isn’t a thought about communication without a thought about culture and society».
3
Available at weblog Teorias da Comunicação URL: on the 23rd of May 2003 [online] (retrieved on December 2005)
12
Human imaginary is related to innovation and consequently to technique. And has always been like that. Therefore, we cannot think about technology in a different context that isn’t society or as an isolated element. Pierre Lévy (1994) proposes the concept of “Intellectual Technology” in order to study the means by which technique influences our social and collective memory - the forms of sociability: «concerning to informatics, memory is so materialized in automatic devices, and detached from individuals body or collective habits that we cannot help wondering if the memory notion itself is still relevant» (Lévy, 1994 in Guimarães JR, s.d). This author enumerates three intellectual technologies that appeared in an order of succession: Orality, Writing and Informatics, highlighting the way each one has influenced the imaginary of its era. The emergency of new technologies has originated a radical change in the human imaginary, once it transforms the nature of the relationship between men and technologies and even between themselves. Lévy postulates a direct relation between subjectivity and technology. From this author’s point of view, technique influences the human in an extraordinarily determinant way, once it provides the referential which adjusts our way of representing the world and interacting with it. The concept of “Intellectual technology” results from the assumption that the technical devices transformed space notions and time. Therefore, if orality has generated the notion of circular time and writing of linear time, on the contrary, informatics time is “here” and “now”. Pierre Lévy entitles it as «punctual time» and questions the legitimacy of the concept of memory, which is objectively materialized in the informatics devices. This author defends that” intellectual technologies” derive changes in the imaginary- changes in the way how people relate each others and with technology; furthermore, it rises new forms of sociability- which are different even tough structurally alike. In the author’s perspective, ”intellectual technologies” which are associated with informatics, are renewing a modality of thought eminently imagistic and dispossessed - these features are usually associated with orality intellectual technology. «An Intelligence technology is everything we get (in conscientious or un conscientious ways) during our communication, when elaborating our thoughts, when creating our knowledge and which, besides our feelings and affections, sustain our intelligence: the languages, signs systems, logical resources, instruments which we use for » (Moura, 2001).
13
In fact, “intellectual technologies” are a part of Human life and its History. Our intellectual functioning refers to different languages and speeches, logical and significant systems developed simultaneously with the precedent communities, becoming a truly “Collective Intelligence”. (Lévy, 2001). The basic foundation of this concept relies on the mutual knowledge of human beings, as society elements, considering the multiplicity of its history, knowledge and capacities. “Collective Intelligence” creates a constructive and cooperative perspective of social bounds, in which every person may contribute. The social nature of the communication process asserts it has a negotiating and, therefore, interaction process. In
multimedia
communication,
interaction
requires
understanding
the
restructuring of the traditional process: the whole of “Emerec’s Era” (Cloutier, 1975) men are simultaneously a sender and a receiver. Taking in consideration, that communication processes are always negotiating processes of meaning, becomes unequivocal that communication with the informatics process is constantly mediated by the set of primary social and cognitive expectations concerning the process, held by an individual, and it determines the development of the communication process. Rommetveit (1974, 1988 in Mendes, s.d) conceptualizes the communication process as an attempt from the interlocutors to transcend the private sphere and temporarily create a collective world (the social world). Therefore, the author believes that the interaction is regulated by implicit contracts and rules, from which the most fundamental is the complementarity rule – the sender adapts its statements to the receiver who, in turn, predisposes himself to understand the message the sender is attempting to send out. This completeness essentially relies on the consonance or dissonancy degrees of expectation and intentions presented by the sender and receiver, by the time they initiated the communication process. The communication model proposed by Rommetveit presumes that interaction takes place within certain communication frames, frequently linked to institutions and traditions that guide and delineate the interlocutor’s behaviour. As a result, some sort of “metacontract” would regulate relationships. The process of communication regarded as an interaction, expresses negotiation. Moreover, accordingly to Rommetveit’s model, the results of these negotiation/contracts underlie action and/or verbal expression, as well as of comprehension/prevision of what will occur.
14
«The basic model from which sociological interaction concept stems from, is thus the relationship between two or more people who, in a given situation, mutually adapt their behaviour and actions to each other. The important aspects here, are that clear – cut social systems and specific situations are involved, where the partners in the interaction are in close physical proximity, and “symbolic interaction” is also involved. In other words, a mutual exchange and negotiation regarding meaning takes place between partners who find themselves in the same social context. A situation which communication and media studies would call communication. Within sociology then, it’s possible to have communication without interaction (f. ex. Listening to the radio and/or watching TV) but not interaction without communication» (Jensen, 1998, p.188).
Sociologically, interaction occurs when an action between two or more people is a mutual one. Interaction suggests bidirectionality. Along with new technologies, we encompass a user in permanent dialogue with and within a digital environment. Interactivity with new technologies can be defined in generic topics: Form- in order to control the material development (possibility of choosing pathways in already existing material); Content- the possibility to integrate (the production of) contents in already existing material. Interactive Communication consists on a direct and effective exchange process. The unidirectionality in traditional media communication is replaced by bidirectionality as well as by a horizontal communication model where the receiver is pro-active and assumes the role of significance producer. We are standing before the interface primacy – a point of intersection and convergence. The introduction of this new element in communication, allows the possible action of the user and consequent responses from the computer.
1.2 Human-Computer Interaction Paradigms Human-Computer interaction is created within a social and technological context – different types of applications for different purposes are needed. In the late 70’s, emerged a few study fields, linked with design and information processing systems. Simultaneously, with the outburst of personal computers, were developed studies about the interactions between user and the machine. In parallel, with the development of new technologies as a consequence of the forthcoming of interactive and multimedia 15
applications, digital devices of screen reproduction as well as cyberspace4, it arise the “Human-Computer Interaction” field of study. The human-computer interaction process comprises psychological, ergonomic and social traits of the users. The communication relationship established between these two distinct elements (human and machine) is set up through interface. HCI can be understood, as everything that takes place between a human being and a computer employed to perform several tasks, in other words, communication between these two elements. Yet, Interface is the element responsible for the requests made by the user, to the system, as well as for presenting the results produced by the application. The central purpose of human-computer interactions is to generate systems capable of increasingly attending to the user’s needs considering, not just accessibility (an accessible system, without obstacles) and functionality (the usefulness of the application from the task’s perspective) criteria, but also usability-to maximize the system’s recourses with the purpose to effectiveness and efficacy and use satisfaction (Nielsen, 2000; A.Silva, n/d). In order to study the interaction in technological environments, we postulate that the concept itself should be emphasised. Thus, we ought to understand communication and the relationships between HCI elements. With the intention of accomplish this aim, it is relevant to consider the factor pointed out by Primo e Cassol (n/d): The relationship emerges between the inter-agents and is defined throughout the process by the interaction participants. It is very important for the agents, once it is responsible for the way each one will interact. Therefore, we “regard interaction as an “action between”» (Id, Ibid). This interaction does not occur outside a relevant context to understanding the acts of action as well as the reciprocal relationship that occurs in human-machine communication. «If in one hand, the linear and mechanicist paradigms are the foundations of typically reactive and restrictive interaction interfaces perspectives, on the other, Constructivist and Communication Pragmatics, value the construction between inter-agents, namely, a content and non predictable interactivity,
4
The word cyberspace was first mentioned in William Gibson’s book Neuromancer (1984). This notion is applied to the entire space connected to the network, non tangible and timeless, which is created by (with) computer) mediated interactions and HCI.
16
which emerge during the relation (which don’t exist “a priori” as illustrated in the previous model)» (Primo and Cassol, Ibid).
Primo and Cassol identified two types of interaction in relationships between the HCI elements: Reactive and mutual (which can be plural), interpretating these classifications considering the following dimensions (not excluding): «System: set of objects or entities which inter-connect with each other, forming a totality; process: events which present changes throughout time; operation: relation between the action and the transformation; Flux: course or sequence of the relation; throughput: what happens/takes place between the decoding and theencoding, “inputs” and “outputs”, between the action and the reaction; relation: the meeting, connection, exchanges between elements or sub-systems; interface: surface of contact, assemblages, articulation, interpretation and translation ».
Table 1 – Primo and Cassol Synthesis – Description of “Reactive Interaction” and “Mutual Interaction” Divergent processes
Dimension
Reactive Interaction
Mutual Interaction
System
closed system
open system
Process
smuli-answer
negotiation
Operation
action/reaction
cooperation
Flux
linear and pre-determined
dynamic
Throughput
interpretation
automatism/reflex
Relation
strictly causal
negotiated construction
Interface
potential interface
virtual interface
The HCI can be described as a process of communication built up between two cognitive systems that make the processing of symbolic information, resulting from that interaction. A system is a human being, whose cognitive structures build symbolic representations of reality. On the other side, stands the computer, a machine which transforms the signals produced by programmers into signals interpretated and manipulated by users in their interfaces (Amaral, 2005): «Human-Machine Interaction Model may be analysed from four main components: Human, Computer, Task
17
environment and Machine environment. Are assumed two basic information and control fluxes.» (Lamas, Gouveia & Gouveia, n/d). The HCI process presumes information flux, and also interfaces control. Therefore, requires tasks and environments. According to Lamas, Gouveia and Gouveia, «one of the ways to analyse the user is made using the Human Processor Model, which describes and predicts the human-machine interaction instead of trying to describe what happens inside users minds” (Ibid). Those authors present a Human Processor model which comprises three elements: a) Perceptual system, which contains senses and memories, which register sensations from the physical world into internal representations; b) Cognitive system: includes working and long-term memory and a cognitive processor. It carries information from memories to working memory and the already existing memories in long term memory, to the answer generator; c) Processing motor: Consists on an answer generating processor. According to the Human-Machine Interface General Model, designed by Lamas, Gouveia and Gouveia, information flux (originated in task’s environment) and the interface control flux (which arises in machine’s environment) associated with the operations developed by users, among which, we emphasize the access and production (Gouveia, s.d). The first flux occurs from the task execution by the user. «The task determines the context and also the several factors from the context, such as error cost, time importance and the criteria to task successful conclusion. » (Id, Ibid). Information is cognitively processed by the user resulting in an interaction and consequently in an action. The second flux- the control flux is originated in the response produced by the user. The machine presents the data in response to the user’s action. Cybis (n/d) believes that interactive systems can be split into two basic subsystems: functional nucleus and interface with the user. «The functional nucleus is mostly formed by application programmes, algorithms and data base. Interface with the user is formed by information, data, controls and commands presentations. It is this Interface, the one that also requests and receives data, controls and commands inputs. Finally, it also controls the dialogue between the presentations and the inputs. An interface, both defines the strategies to the task performance and conducts, orients,
18
receives, alerts, helps, responds to the user during the interactions » (Cybis, Ibid).
HCI may be divided into several categories (Cañas, Salmerón & Gámez, 2001). A style of interaction may be summarised into a general concept that groups up the different forms the users communicate with computer. The predominant humancomputer interaction styles, mentioned by the authors are: a) Interface with the command line: This was the first style to be employed, in a widespread manner, to the interaction. Its main feature, is giving instructions directly to the system. Interaction can happen through the keys associated with functions, characters, short abbreviations, key words. The most prominent interfaces directed to interaction with the command line are UNIX and MS-DOS systems. b) Menus and formularies: A Menu is a body of options (interaction hypothesis) that can be visualized through a window, be selected, executes any request made to the system and presumes an alteration in the interface status. Formularies allow the request of any type of information to the machine, through the filling of information fields. c) Direct manipulation: Refers to the visual representation of possible actions. Humancomputer interaction throughout direct manipulation describes systems encompassing the following characteristics: continuous representation of objects and actions, from the interaction; total change in command syntax through the manipulation of objects and actions; quick actions already developed and reversible, which originate an immediate visible effect, on the selected object. Normally, direct manipulation systems contain icons represented by objects, which can be moved in the window and manipulated through the control of the mouse device. d) Assisted interaction: this is the new HCI style. Assisted interaction uses the personal assistant metaphor, which collaborates with the user in the same work environment. Therefore, instead of directing the interaction, the user works in a cooperative environment in which communicates with the interface agents, controls events and performs tasks. The interface agents (or assistants) features are: autonomy- they work in second degree and observe the users actions; intelligence- they act by their own initiative and may work in heterogeneous fields, adapting to numerous situations; personal use- adapt to and learn with the user, and do not insist in a certain situation if the user chooses another one.
19
1.3 The concept of interface Interface consists on an intersection and convergence point. The process of Human-Computer communication/interaction wouldn’t be possible without interface. By the time it emerged, the concept of interface was regarded as the hardware and the software, through which a human being and a computer were able to communicate. Presently, this notion also comprises the aspects related with the user’s perceptual, motor and cognitive processing. The concept of interface is of major importance, going beyond the mere graphic aspect. This notion includes structural and interactive aspects, which aim to facilitate the dialogue between user and computer. Interactivity, manipulation, virtualization are keywords to the comprehension of this concept. Interface is the new element introduced in communication; it allows HCI and also the possible actions of the user and the consequent responses from the system. Interface consists on an essential component in the interactive systems context, and a determinant aspect for a system’s project success or failure. We may regard the interactive system as the one whose flux of data and information is controlled by the user’s request. The interface is a device that establishes the communication between the two independent systems and, thus, a mediator that enables communication between the languages of different subject matters. Although there aren’t universally accepted methods to interface conception, the user should be the centre of the strategy. Interface designs seek to answer the need of a fluent dialogue between the user and the body of information, provided by the machine: «The draw up process of interface has a conceptual genesis, in which are comprised the following levels: functionality semantic level; modular structure, syntactic level; data input and output systems, lexical level » (Correia, n/d).
Presently, the universe of electronic devices, which allow Human-Computer Interaction, has got a determinant aspect to its continuity, the interfaces design. As previous focused, there aren’t universally accepted methods of conceiving an interface,
20
tough, there is an agreement in what refers to the significance of the type of user and its motivation, when interacting with the machine. The Interface design project team should take in account three basic types of possible involvement: Informative, Consultant and participative (Cybis, n/d). Interface is the intersection point between the sender and the receiver, allowing communication between these two elements and encouraging the alteration from the notion of receiver to the notion of user. The last assumption will be analysed in the following chapter, from the journalism perspective, and providing a framework to the concept of interactivity, as well as studying the Cyberjournalism scenery- the new forms of writing and consequently, reading.
21
CHAPTER 2: INTERACTIVITY IN CYBERJOURNALISM The introduction of new technologies in public and private spheres of society directly interferes in our way to perceive the world. The new media- devices which «carry out the communicational recontext in present days» (Marcelo, 2004), promote changes in the social-cultural and, consequently, communicational field (Amaral, 2005). Along with the progressive and general computerization process of society, we believe that we are currently living the beginning of the individualization paradigm, which can be illustrated in the possibility of the receiver to also be a sender, and it assumes itself as a model for the personalization of communication. The transition from the mass paradigm to the individualization Era, embodies the «global village» metaphor from McLuhan, but does not assume a rupture with traditional media or old media. We can, thus, confirm experience acceleration through electronics. Therefore, communication for the mass is also altered. The new media, as well as the self media5 point towards a reconfiguration of mediatic space, which results from freedom of access (to contents and publication) for receivers, and thus, it occurs an adaption of mass media, to a more interactive and personalized communication, inside a new universe of interaction and socialization: the cyberspace. It is the Era of Cyberculture. This concept embodies the social-political, cultural, economic and anthropological dynamics, encouraged by the Internet within the new electronic virtual space- the cyberspace. Kerckhove (1997) states that, the evolution of the social and communicative paradigm is directly associated with technology. Notice, that we do not support in the current work the change from mass communication to cyberculture is expressed into an exclusion process. The changing of paradigm does not imply the suppression of the precedent, but instead, a process of adjustment. By definition and tradition, changes in the ideological and technological fields generate changing in the communicative paradigm. Essentially, throughout the last decade, these vectors of change have pointed out to a transition from a mass perspective to individualization, allowing the progressive transformation from an information Era into a pos-information one. Technically, we are facing a transmutation from analogical to digital: from Gutenberg’s Galaxy to Marconi’s Galaxy (Sousa, n/d). The new digital scenery, illustrates the individualization 5
The self media may be defined as an extension of new media, and demonstrate the alternative spaces of non-professionalized communication, in the Internet. Internet’s technology allows men to develop into a medium-“self-medium”, turning its messages accessible to the network public.
22
of communication as well as the adjustment to the new digital tools, operated in traditional media. We move from the traditional model of vertical and one-sided communication, to horizontal, interactive and two-sided communication. The “technophiles” suggest a democratization of communication. In the “technophobes” perspective, the new devices represent a menace to information reliability, and challenge the models of communication. The concept of Interactivity synthesizes the differential features imputed to new technologies. One of its most accurate definitions is: «a type of relationship with machines, which requires reciprocal trades»6. In fact, interactivity is the main trait of the new technologies (online and offline) and has its foundations on the hypertextnonlinear and non-sequential writing (Amaral, 2005). Brenda Laurel (1990) describes interactivity as an ability of human beings to participate and interact in actions developed in representation contexts, on screens. «Interactivity is a vital concept for Internet related studies, because it holds the key to understanding the dynamics of interactive communication processes in the Internet» (Sohn & Lee, 2005). The concept of interactivity is essential to the study of the actionreaction relationship and of all the subject matters related with human-machine and human-human interaction, in the computer. Nevertheless, every definition ought to lay on the assumption that, according to Rafaeli and Sudweeks (1997), «interactivity is not a characteristic of the medium. It is a process-related construct about communication». In our perspective, interactivity is the responsible element, for mediating the communicative process.
2.1 Interactivity: A concept with multiple definitions and dimensions The idea that, as long as there are hyperlinks, the applications are definitive examples of interactivity unites agreement. «However, is it that linear? Are the interfaces whose only allow a small (inter) action with the user, examples of interactivity? TV programmes were the audience may vote in pre-established options, computer and consoles games which respond to the joystick, are examples of the dim
6
INTERACTIVIDADE in Dicionário Priberam – http://www.priberam.pt/dlpo/ [online]
23
frontiers between interactivity and reactivity. » (Primo & Cassol, in Amaral, 2005). The discussion about interactivity, based on the previous examples, may include technology. Certainly, they are examples of interactivity. However, computer mediated interaction can be more than it. «Interactivity can be understood as a formal element to (non mediated or mediated) conversations. While it is often perceived as a characteristic of dialogue, interactivity is limited neither to two people nor to face-to-face communication. It can be seen as a variable of responsiveness in interpersonal and societal communication» (Schultz, 1999).
The majority of studies over interaction with the new media have focused on the development of the concept of interactivity. The empirical research developed has mainly attempted to understand the effects of a multiplicity of levels of interactivity, in the user’s cognitive process, as well as on its decision capacity. (Sohn & Lee, 2005). There is no consensus about the variety of definitions explored from the communication and social sciences point of view. «”Interactivity” has remained a buzzword that many people use, yet few define the concept» (Kenney, Gorelink & Mwangi, 1999). McMillan and Hwang (2002 in Wo, 2005) classify the multiple definitions of interactivity according to its focus: «process; feature; perception; a combination of process, feature and/or perception». The dimensional categorization of interactivity, towards the construction of a concept, remains controversial. We can find many and various definitions, which consider one or multiple dimensions, in the several conceptualizations of the concept of interactivity. Berlo (1991 in Primo & Cassol, n/d) describes a relationship of interdependency in the interaction, where each agent depends on and influences the other. Considering that this interdependency may vary in what refers to its degree, quality and context, this author stands out, how limitative may be to interpret interaction as an “action-reaction” cycle. According to Berlo, accepting the action-reaction paradigm, results in viewing the process in a linear and only from de “source” perspective - feedback production in order to assure the efficacy of the message. Interactivity is regarded as a synonym concept of the intersection of environment and the receiver’s perception. The acceptance of this concept- in one or multiple dimensions cannot be carried out solely from interactivity’s characteristics perspective,
24
risking setting on the bias to any attempt to isolate and build a notion. The dimensions are criteria for understanding and building the concept of interactivity, even tough they should focus on the functionality of the system and on human perception. « (…) The functional and perceptual aspects are essential elements of humancomputer interaction. Without either the functionality of the medium or human perception, the concept of interactivity cannot be defined or even scientifically studied, because interactivity is an emergent outcome from the intersection of the two. What we, as social scientists, should do is not to reduce the concept to either a technological attribute or a personal characteristic, but rather to understand the relationships between the two. Knowing the internal structure of each concept – whether it be perception or medium functionality – is a necessary first step to pursuing this goal» (Sohn & Lee, 2005).
Jensen (1998) states that, the concept of interactivity is an extension of the notion of interaction and this latter depends on the context where it is used. Interactivity is, consequently, «a measure of a media’s potential ability to let the user exert an influence on the content and/or form of mediated communication» (Ibid, p.201). According to this author, interaction is a multi discursive concept, which we ought to understand from the informatics perspective, where the system operates: «How is the informatics’ concept of “interaction” constructed? The basic model which this concept uses its starting point is, contrary to the sociological tradition, (even though the concept has been partially taken from there) the relationship between people and machines which in this tradition is often called humancomputer interaction (HCI) or man-machine interaction. (…) “Interaction” in the informatics’ sense refers, in other words, to the process that takes place when a human user operates a machine. However, it doesn’t cover communication between two people, mediated by a machine, - a process to as computer mediated communication (CMC). Within informatics then, (in contrast to sociology) it is possible to have (human-machine) interaction without having communication, but not (computer mediated) communication without also having (humancomputer) interaction» (Jensen, Ibid, p.190).
25
Rafaeli (1988) has built a concept of interactivity, based on a continuous dimension. This definition, lays on the concept of «responsiveness», seen as the measure of capacity of media to respond, and react in response to the users. The model developed by this author, makes use of three progressive in continuum levels: two pathways of communication; reactive communication; interactive communication: «Interactivity is an expression of the extent that in a given series of communication exchanges, any third (or later) transmission (on message) is related to the degree which previous exchanges referred to even earlier transmissions» (Rafaeli, Ibid, p.111 in Jensen, 1998, p.203)
Jonathan Steuer (1995) does the transition from one-dimension definitions of interactivity to bidimensional ones. This author develops a bidimensional matrix based on the two parameters: «vividness» – «ability of a technology to produce a sensory rich mediated environment» (Steuer, Ibid, p.41 in Jensen, Ibid, p.194) and Interactivity«degree to which users of a medium can influence the form on content of the mediated environment» (Id, Ibid). The author7 indicates three factors that contribute to interactivity: velocity (broad band)- the velocity at which an input can be assimilated by the mediated environment; Amplitude (Frequency)- the interaction’s amplitude is determined by the number of attributes in the mediated environment, that can be manipulated, and by the quantity of variation possible in each action; «mapping» (navigation) – refers to the way how the receivers actions are linked, and have impact in the mediated environment. Brenda Laurel (1990) presents a three dimensions concept of interactivity. This author states the existence of a continuum, characterized by three variables: «frequency» – how often is it possible to interact; «range» – How many choices are possible to do in each interaction; and «significance» – In what way do the user’s choices are really significant, throughout the interaction. Schwier and Misanchuck (1993 in Sims, 1995) present taxonomy of interactivity, based on three dimensions: levels (reactive, proactive and mutual), functions (confirmation, «pacing», navigation, research and elaboration) and operational devices (key board, screen touch, mouse and voice). According to the three dimensional approach, Rhodes and Azbell (in Primo & Cassol, n/d) have identified three levels of 7
Steuer, 1993 ap. Primo & Cassol, s.d.
26
interactivity: reactive – the options and the “feedback” are directed by the system, and as a result, the user possesses hardly any control over the content structure; co-activethe user’s possibility to control the sequence, rhythm and style; pro-active- at this level, the user may control both structure and content. Bordewijk and Kaam (1986 in Jensen, 1998) have developed a matrix with the purpose of analysing four models on interactive communication: information production and distribution control. Subsequently, these authors have delineated their models: transmission (controlled distribution and information, produced by an information provider service); conversion (controlled distribution and information, produced by the consumer); consult (consumer’s controlled distribution, and information produced by an information provider service); registry (distribution controlled by an information provider service, and information produced by the consumer). Figure 1 – “Matrix for the Four Communication Patterns: Transmission, Conversation, Consultation and Registration”, Bordewijk and Kaam (1986 in Jensen, 1998, p.187)
According to Rogers, «interactivity is a variable, some communications Technologies are relatively low in their degree of interactivity (for example, network television), while others (such as computer bulletin boards) are more highly interactive» (1986, p.211 in Jensen, 1998, p.192). This author defends a multi-dimensional concept of interactivity, which allows quantifying degrees in a continuum, considering a “low” a “high” scale. Rod Sims presents several categories of interactivity, in order to classify the different models of communication and Human-Computer interaction: «construct interactivity; reflective interactivity; simulation interactivity; hyperlinked interactivity; non-immersive contextual interactivity; immersive virtual interactivity; object interactivity; linear interactivity; hierarchical interactivity; support interactivity; update interactivity». (Id, 1995)
27
The taxonomy suggested by the author, has the purpose to classify the different forms of human-computer interaction. McMillan and Downes (2000 in Kiousis, 2002) present a definition of interactivity, considering five dimensions: «direction of communication; timing flexibility; sense of place; level of control; responsiveness and the perceived purpose of communication». Figure 2 –Kiousis’s Figure (2002, p. 366) synthesizes a variety of definitions of interactivity, from the communication and other studies perspective, considering the goals to pursue
Accounting as referential framing, the key concepts proposed by Rafaeli, towards the construction of the concept of interactivity- «bidirectionality; quick response; bandwith; user control; amount of user activity; ratio of user to medium activity; feedback; transparency; social presence; artificial intelligence» (1988, p.115)in the present work, we adopt Nathan Shedroff’s perspective and we defend a definition of interactivity regarded as the mediation element of communication (Rafaeli, 1988; Schultz, 1999), whose degree is dependent on its use in context, on the user’s experience psychological elements and on the systems information architecture and navigability.
28
We look upon interactivity, as a process of interaction and communication, which occurs at two levels in informatics environments, through interface: between users and between the users and the application, relying on five dimension sited in task and machine environment’s intersection: navigation– the possibilities of the user to progress in the application; content– the content structure and presentation; adaptability – directly related to effectiveness and efficacy; control- the possibility of the user to control its navigation, whether concerning to rhythm, sequence and/at content’s level; and communication – communication tools which allow the dialogue between sender and receiver. In our perspective, these are the criteria required to classify an application as interactive, even if it occurs at a low extent.
2.2 The new digital scenery: new forms of reading and writing in journalism Three areas can express the impact of Internet in the journalism sphere: transposition of the in print8, computer assisted journalism9 and Cyberjournalism10. Interactivity regarded as a key feature of the new digital scenery, introduces new forms of information, writing and reading, produced with the intent to cyberspace diffusion. New technologies introduce alterations on the form used to present information products, distributed in the cyberspace (Gradim, n/d). Canavilhas (2001) indicates four structural factors, which are determinant in making a distinction between traditional and digital journalism: distribution (the access), personalization (user’s active role), periodicity (the end of de «one edition, one product»’s logic) and useful information (practical and objective). The reconfiguration of the mediatic sphere, executed by the Internet, is focused on these elements. In fact, we have verified alterations in the journalistic information access forms, as well as in its formal and structural organization, in the context of journalism produced to web transmission’s purpose. It is 8
The transposition from the in print is expressed in the reproduction of the on paper journal, to the Internet, where they occupy a still area on the screen. Thus, actualization underlies journals editions. A number of authors, defend that the definition “transposition of the in print” also applies to television websites and radios, illustrated by the reproduction of material, elaborated for the traditional supports and whose updating also depends on traditional media’s programming. 9 This expression is used to identify the information collecting, through the use of computer. (Nora Paul, 1995) 10 We regard Cyberjournalism as the production of information, with the purpose to be distributed exclusively through Internet, presuming a continuous updating and the employment of several elements such as multimedia, hypertext and hyper media.
29
evident, that Cyberjournalism maintains the profession’s basic principles, and however, it requires adjustment at three levels: diffusion, information and redaction organization/information presentation » (Amaral, Ibid.). The cyberspace, regarded as an anthropological space, requires substantial alterations concerning to the mass communication paradigm: the receiver is currently the user. In such case, technologies have introduced new forms of speech and reading. The classic narrative of “one-all” communication’s traditional model fades away alongside with the potentialities of the Internet. The transmutation from analogical to digital requires alterations in the electronic support of information edition and publication, within the traditional models. Internet rebuilds the journalistic speech: «In the context of a traditional communication schema “one-all”, the journalist and his audience’s functions are clearly defined. However, in online journalism environment, the readers have, frequently, access to the same information sources journalists have, and may easily publish on the web, even assuming themselves as journalists, the relations and procedures of both groups are being redefined » (Barbosa, n/d).
The communication specificities of the virtual space, which result from contemporary society’s characteristics, require new journalistic routines and languages. Canavilhas (2001) believes that the idea “we write, you read” belongs to the past, in consequence of online journalism. In such case, we ought to analyse the way technology was appropriated by Cyberjournalism. If the process of reception changes with Internet, the production of journalistic speech needs to adapt to the interactive environment. Carole Rich (1998) writes (with respect to his matter), «cyberspace belongs to readers, not writers». The potentials of the new medium are renowned, however, we must understand if journalistic practices have actually changed. In theory, the new media looses the definition of mass communication. Its features and technical possibilities, suggest that we are moving from mass communication to segmented, personalized and individualized communication (Alonzo & Martínez, 200311). To this effect, the authors believe that we can define the new media as digital (they use digital technology diffusion, to transmit messages); interactive (allow the user to relate and participate directly with the environment, with 11
Alonzo, J. & Martínez, L. (2003), Medios interactivos: caracterización y contenidos. In Nocí, J. D. & Salaverría, R. (org.), Manual de Redacción Ciberperiodística (pp. 261-305). Barcelona: Ariel
30
the publicity announcers and/or with the other users); personalized (the new media make available to the user new interactive tools, which allow him to personalize contents); multimedia (possesses technical capacities to converge and combine static and dynamic elements); instantaneous (new media allow the user the immediate and instantaneous access to information, combined with another feature: the continuous updating; they also permit the synchronous and/or asynchronous communication between the users and the environment and between the receivers themselves); hypertextual (allow the deconstruction of informative documents, going beyond the traditional media time and space barriers; simultaneously, they permit new forms of research, archive and bring in a new concept: “navigation” through information); universal (new media carry the possibility of universal distribution, and only the language barrier may prevent its employment by receivers all over the world); innovator (throughout its technical possibilities, the new media encompass the capacity
to
experiment and implement new narratives, other forms to present information and communicate). New technologies require the reconfiguration of the journalistic practices, in order to allow the distribution of information in cyberspace, once interactivity- the main characteristic of the digital scenery- allows the personalization of information. López, Gago and Pereira (2003)12 stated that the classification of different forms of possible personalization, in online informative means, lay on three factors: heterogeneity, materials and technologies. Based on this assumption, the authors have suggested five types of personalization, which can be applied to the cyber means: graphic appearance (requires the adaptation of usability to the user’s decoding capacities); informative contents (the contents visualization criteria, set up by the user); services (the possibility for the user to select the contents representation criteria, based on its preferences); information sending (the user selects the type of information he wishes to receive in his email); and multimedia visualization (the user chooses his own personalization criteria, taking in account the technology available). The new technological devices add a new modus operandi to the journalistic practice. The online environment is characterized by instantaneity and also by the end of the conventional “dead-line”; interactivity and user’s active involvement; and hypertextuality, eradicating traditional media’s conventional time and space notions, 12
12 López, X., Gago, M., & Pereira, X. (2003), Arquitectura y organización de la información. In Nocí, J. D. & Salaverría, R. (org.), Manual de RedacciónCiberperiodística (pp. 195-230). Barcelona: Ariel.
31
and introducing the concept of nonlinear reading-active production of meanings (Puccinin, 2003). Internet’s true dimension is illustrated in a dynamic and interactive medium that combines static and in motion elements (dynamics, whether captured from real or produced by computer), without any time-space restrictions. Palácios (2002) enumerates six particular characteristics for digital journalism: multimedia/convergence, interactivity, hypertextuality, personalization, memory and continuous updating. The listing proposed by this author has its foundation on the elements which compose Internets multimedia language- text (static), hypertext (dynamic text), static image (captured from real), graphics (computer synthesized design), sound (captured from real and/or computer synthesized), video (captured from real), animations (computer synthesized) and dynamic relationships (hypermedia) - and the possibilities presented by the digital tools, such as real time actualization and permanent archive (Amaral, 2005). Deuze (2004)13 considers that Cyberjournalism possesses
three
features,
which
synthesise
the
web’s
editorial
paradigms:
hypertextuality, multimedia and interactivity. According to this author, these are the “key features” (Id., 168), which permit to delineate new potential strategies for the online journalism. Marcos14 (2003) considers that technology influences the content and, therefore, he believes new media contribute to the transition from inverted pyramid to a convergent pyramid. This author notes, that this transformation is directly connected with the multitextuality, introduced into the journalistic production context by new technologies. Consequently, states that “the issue is not the modification of the way to make journalism, but instead, adapting news production to digital speech and to the inverted pyramid logics, which describes it. The convergent pyramid follows the inverted pyramid logics, however, completes the central information using textual and multimedia elements, joined in a hyperlinks network» (Amaral, 2005). The notions of multimedia, interactivity, hypertextuality and personalization, which characterize the digital journalism speech, define their own information production. The use of multimedia, although, it is still a non generalized practice, it is included in online environment interaction logic. It is additional to static information, 13
Deuze, M. (2004) A Internet e os seus jornalismos: teoria, pesquisa e estratégia da produção de notícia online. In Oliveira, J.M. Paquete; Cardoso, Gustavo., & Barreiros, J.J. (org), Comunicação, Cultura e Tecnologias de Informação (pp. 161-189). Lisboa: Quimera. 14 14 Marcos, J. Álvarez (2003), El periodismo ante la tecnología hipertextual. In Nocí, J. D. & Salaverría, R. (org.), Manual de Redacción Ciberperiodística (pp. 231-259). Barcelona: Ariel
32
assuming itself as a subdivision of hypertextual tree. Retrieving Marco’s idea of convergent pyramid seems evident that online news production should focus on the concept of interactivity. Thus, we believe to be crucial, an adjustment of writing to the web (to hypertext and hyper media); that the use of multimedia elements should be adjusted to the approach angle, as well as to the written information in static text; that the use of infographics should present it self as the visual summary of the news reports. Consequently, personalization exists in new media as a possibility, available to the reader, with interactive narrative and its components. The concepts of universality, instantaneity and memory are postulated by several authors, and are mainly located in online information distribution. This is due to the fact that they are technological characteristics of the diffusion means (non exclusives to journalism), nevertheless, it doesn’t prevent journalism to require to be outlined by this parameters. Information exchange between the user and the journalist and between the users themselves may also be developed by means of new media. In fact, digital journals should encourage bidirectional fluxes, through the production of interactive processes, interrelated in tools such as, emails, discussion lists, forums, chats, enquires, article comments. The creation of a mutual interaction and of the desired personalization, replacing traditional reactive interactivity, predominantly mechanical and intuitive, principally depends on the exploration of these tools.
2.3 Interactivity in the context of Cyberjournalism In new media, interactivity is established through a system of multiple relations, presented to the user as a virtual web of associations (through hypertext). Even tough the system may be pre-programmed, the user/reader still experiences a sensation of total freedom. In general, interactivity in the Cyberjournalism spheres may be understood as «the technological possibility to invert the traditional and dominant orientation of communication, once the receiver communicates with the sender (Cascais, 2001, p.115). Interaction in new media demands a model of multi-direction communication. The receiver is recognized as an active participant in the communication process. In online communication, the concept of mass media audience can not be operated: «Today’s Journalists must choose. As gatekeepers, they can transfer lots of information, or they
33
can make users a smarter, more active and questioning audience, for news events and issues» (Singer, 1994 in Kenney, Gorelink & Mwangi, 1999). Lemos (1997) observes the transition from “one-all” model to “all-all” model, which describes as a kind of evolution. The author defends that, on one hand, mass media illustrates the audience passivity and makes a pre-selection of the information to transmit, on the other hand, digital technologies introduce new forms of making information circulate, allowing a decentralized and universal model of communication (Amaral, 2005). In Cyberjournalism, interactivity exists in the context of a series of sequential processes. In such case, the user establishes several interaction relations, in the online environment through interface: with the machine; with the product; with other users. (Reckziegel, 2001 in Amaral, 2005): «One of the phenomena observed in digital interactivity is the progressive disappearance of the separation between producer and information consumer. In the Internet, every person is potentially and simultaneously writers and journalists, editors and readers, buyers and sellers » (Giussani, 1997 in Quadros, n/d).
Interactivity, regarded as a technical device, is a constituent of online journalism. However, we verify that it is simultaneously a conditioning, to the relations established between the new media and the audience/users. Consequently, interactivity possesses a formative and simultaneously formed role, in the production of news/reports to the web (Amaral, 2005): «Interactivity is more than a mere feature and may be understood as a device: something that influences, conditionates and determines ,processes which interfere on the production, the product and on the reception of web purpose developed journalistic sites » (Mielniczuk, 1999 in Amaral, 2005).
According to the possible type of interaction, and to the editorial line («contentinteractivity domain»), Mark Deuze (2004) suggests four types of online journalism: reference news reports sites – closed participative communication; index and categories sites – Digital content concentration; comment sites and meta-sites – public connectivity concentration; and sharing and discussion sites – open and participative communication. 34
Alonso and Martínez (2003)15 consider that by the means of the new technological resources and interactivity, the concepts of mass public and audience refer to a different notion: the user notion. «the new media build a new form of writing, and consequently of reading. In such case, the user begins to have a pro-active role, and searches for personalized information, according to his interests. The authors also argue that if the selection depends on the receiver, besides the sender, we may refer to a mixed «gatekeeping ». This alteration from traditional media is mostly due to interactivity as an inherent characteristic of the web. This digital scenery element, modifies the classic relation between sender and receiver, once now the receiver becomes the user and may, simultaneously, be the message sender» (Amaral, Ibid.). Lopez García (2003)16 notes that, the sender looses his historical identity during the process of communication by Cyberjournalism. According to García, the public regains the major role, changing the notion of “gatekeeper”17and introducing the concept of «sysop» – system operator. The author presents the concept of «sysop» as a moderator of interactivity with the users. «However, in our perspective, this theory doesn’t seem incompatible with the “gatekeeper’s” function, once it is not placed in journalistic routine sphere. If it seems evident that the production of information, for Internet purpose, is considerably different from the journalistic routines of traditional media, we do not agree with the nearly apocalyptic version that defends that the journalistic on the web is restricted to a mere content producer and interaction intermediary. Thus, we believe that the function of the “gatekeeper” is preserved, even tough, being altered by the expected modification imposed by the interactive environment » (Id., Ibid.). In this context, may be relevant to quote Anabela Gradim (n/d): «The access to the sources, is facilitated and the exchanges with the readers are elevated, it weaknesses the journalist (the readers, collectively, possess more knowledge than himself) and is has been used to produce an enhanced journalism and to improve the processes of fact checking».
15
15 Alonzo, J. and Martínez, L. (2003), Medios interactivos: caracterización y contenidos. In Nocí, J. D. e Salaverría, R. (org.), Manual de Redacción Ciberperiodística (pp. 261-305). Barcelona: Ariel 16 16 Lopez, G. (2003), Géneros interpretativos: el reportaje y la crónica. In Nocí, J. D. and Salaverría, R. (org.), Manual de Redacción Ciberperiodística (pp. 449-494). Barcelona: Editorial Ariel 17 The one who, utterly, determines what the news will or will not be.
35
Along with Internet’s velocity, we loose the assumption that the reader does not have access to the journalistic source, and once the Internet is an open access and acceleration space, we need to rethink the “gatekeeper’s” function: «As noted by Raquel Recuero (2003), this theory was created in the context of mass communication, where we may find a “one-all” communication model. In the Internet, communication flux is predominantly horizontal and chaotic. Thus, the users have the possibility to access the primary information sources. In such case, the new devices (such as weblogs and webzines) and computer mediated communications, require a redefinition of the “gatekeeper”, but, principally the recognition of the existence of non-professionalized information in the web» (Amaral, Ibid.).
However, we ought to emphasize, that interactivity in Cyberjournalism does not self-directs the process of communication, nor makes the journalist character null. The innovation refers to the possibility of the user to design his navigation, through published information, which allows him to define the rhythm and sequence of the course. «In a brief navigation, through the net, we verify that there is little interactivity in online communication media. A number of times, it is possible to classify the interaction as reactive– the user has merely the possibility of nonlinear and contact navigation, through email» (Amaral, 2005). Traditionally, professional journalism offers the audience some interactive communication opportunities (Schultz, 1999). Take as an example, the letters directed to the director of printed journalism. However, this type of communication is reactive, except if it includes an answer from the medium – what almost never happens. In fact, indirect feedback is not interactivity. «Clearly, the Internet is a new medium that could extent interactive options in journalism» (Schultz, Ibid). Nevertheless, not all Internet mediated communications are classified as interactive, and the journalism case is no exception. Schultz has analysed the interactive options of 100 north-American online journals. Through the introduction of categories, was possible to proceed to content analyses, with the aim to respond to the question posed by the investigation developed: «what and how many (different) interactive options, do online journals offer? » (Ibid). This study concluded that «many news organizations infrequently exploit this advantage
36
of the new medium. Journalistic web sites are not necessarily interactive at all» (Ibid). Although many of the interactive options remain unexplored, one of the author’s conclusions is that, email is an extraordinarily employed and explored tool. Kenney, Gorelink and Mwangi (1999) have developed 18 measures to determine the degree of interactivity, applying these parameters to 100 north-American digital journals. Were analysed, exclusively, digital journals but also online versions of printed journals18, with and without profit purposes, of the several north-American states and world organisms19, during the first semester of the year 1999. The theoretical frame adopted, was the conceptual definition of interactivity, developed by Carrie Heeter (1989). This author presents the concept based on the idea of two (or more) directional fluxes of information. .Since there, result six dimensions which allow to implement the concept: «complexity of choice available; effort users must exert; responsiveness to the user; monitoring information use; case of adding information; facilitation of interpersonal communication» (Id, Ibid). These dimensions lay on the basis of the analyses criteria. The study has permitted to conclude that, most news sites do not explore Internet’s interactive capacity: «online journals seem to consider themselves interactive, if they provide some hyperlinks and email addresses» (Kenney, Gorelink & Mwangi, op. cit.). The interaction is conceived by the Interaction Design, which defines the visual metaphors and its behaviours. Thus, we consider that the analyses of the introduction of interactivity in the context of Cyberjournalism (allowing the birth of Cyberjournalism) requires the study of the interaction design and its impact in this sphere. In the following chapter, we present the framework and conceptualization for this notion.
18
Not the transposition from printed, but the online version whose original is printed. The researchers refer the language issue as a conditioning to the study of journals in other counties; consequently, the list was mostly composed by north-American journals.
19
37
CHAPTER 3: INTERACTION DESIGN The interaction design translates the process’s conception of the communication between sender and receiver. This is related with the visual metaphor and its behaviour. «How it looks and how it behaves» (Figueiredo & Roque, 2002). The definition of this part of the design includes experience’s relations with this several senses and the way they are stimulated. Winograd (1997 in Preece, Rogers & Sharp, 2002, p.6) describes it as «the designing of spaces for human communication and interaction». This means, these topics are absolutely essential in the design of interactivity, multiplicity, rhythm, synchrony (or synchronization), intensity and the impact. The main purpose of the interactivity design is the definition (concerning the conception) of the possible interaction between user and the application. The interaction design is focused on the interrelation between digital interactive and several human’s experiences. Its attention is centralized on the interaction between experience and its audience. In this sense, it explores the dialogue, products, people and contexts: «Interaction design is multidisciplinary, involving many inputs from widereaching disciplines and fields» (Preece, Rogers & Sharp, 2002, p.30).
3.1 Arguments and principles: contributes for a threedimensional definition Dan Saffer defines interaction design as «the art of facilitating or instigating interactions between humans (or their agents), mediated by products. To a lesser degree, interaction design can also signify interactions between humans and reactive or responsive products» (2005, pp. 3-4). The Interactivity design consists on four basic activities: identify needs and create requires; develop alternative designs that go on the way to defined requires; create interactive design versions; evaluate the developed prototypes (Preece, Rogers & Sharp, 2002). The designer’s perspective in interactivity sphere is to understand how and why the audience desires to explore the application. In this way, it should consider the experience as the whole and not as simply group of functionalities and attributes. Which elements make an experience becoming interactive? The feedback, the control, the
38
creativity, the productivity, the communication and the pro-activity should be considered in the general model of HCI. Figure 3 – “A simple interaction design model” (Preece, Rogers & Sharp, 2002, p.186)
The way the user can influence or decide the experience’s course in interactive applications depends directly on the interactivity design, that creates multiple related systems - a virtual web of associations that the receiver can explore. Then, this meaning is showed in «arrangement’s actions» (Figueiredo and Roque, 2002). The interaction design objectives are the action’s definition between user and programme; the rule’s definition that determine, in each moment, user’s actions, and what way they will be fulfilled; the answers definition of the programme to the user’s actions (virtualization of the communication process). Figueiredo and Roque (Ibid) enumerated several principles for the interaction design: «Predictability – Previsibilidade (plausibliness); Consistency – Consistência ; Progression – Progressão ; Natural Constraints – Naturalidade (of the restrictions) ; Visibility – Visibilidade; Transparency – Transparência; Feedback – Retorno; Modes of Operation – Modos de Operação; Pace – Passo (Rythm); Appropriateness – Ajuste (to the user or the task?); Content Directs, Design Mediates; Social Science, not Rocket Science».
Bruce Tognazzini (2003) describes some of the interaction design principles: «anticipation; autonomy; colour blindness; consistency; defaults; efficiency of the user; explorable interfaces; fitt’s law [the time to acquire a target is a function of the distance to and size of the target]; human interfaces objects; latency reduction; learnability; metaphors, use of; protect user’s work; readability; track state; visible navigation».
39
McMillan (2002a) mentions three interaction tendencies in informatized environments «human-to human»; «human-to-documents»; «human-to-system». It’s available to identify these three types in HCI drawn by interactivity Design, in some extensions: the personal interaction; symbolic interaction; social interaction; interaction as feedback; interaction between users. Preece, Rogers & Sharp refer three components that permit the understanding of the Human-Computer interaction in the interaction Design field: «Essentially, there are three interacting components: the designer, the user, and the system. Behind each of these are three interlinking conceptual models: ▪ the design model – the model the designer has of how the system should work; ▪ the system image – how the system actually works; ▪ the user’s model – how the user understands how the system works. In the ideal world, all three should map onto each other. Users should be able to carry out their tasks in the way intended by the designer through interacting with the system image, which makes it obvious what to do. (…) Another way of describing conceptual models is in terms of interface metaphors. By this is meant a conceptual model that has been developed to be similar in some way to aspects of a physical entity (or entities) but that also has its own behaviours and properties. Such models can be based on an activity or an object or both» (2002, pp. 54-55).
The design is the main concept in the communication process and interactive products interaction. «Design determines form. And the form should follow the function. The base of the design is the adequacy of the objects to their function, in aesthetically agreeable/pleasant way» (Figueiredo, 2004, p.49). There are two possibilities in Interaction Design’s concept: the first consists on previously defining interaction process; the other option is the permission, given the users to express themselves using the instruments provided, to them. The users role valorisation, in interaction, leads to operations in a reciprocal interaction in the pyramid, which Thomas Powell (2002, p.5) defined for the Web Design. We retake and adequate it to the Interaction Design: «users, designers, form, function, content, purpose». Nathan Shedroff20 describes interactivity based on six criterions: feedback, control, creativity/co-creativity, productivity, communications, and adaptability. The author 20
Available at the electronic address: http://www.nathan.com [online]
40
sustains that the frontier between passive and interactive products stand on the study of these criteria. Figure 4 –Nathan Shedroff’s gradual Interactivity graphic
Referring the multidimensional definition of interactivity, which we have already presented21 in the last chapter, and following Lemos (1997) «metadesign» concept22, we propose a three-dimensional approach in Interaction Design. Considering several authors perspectives, we realise that interaction Design contains three dimensions: narrative, structure and history. It is the association of these criteria that could create a more or less interactive product. The dimension “narrative” is directly reported to the dimensions “navigation” and “content”, proposed to the interactivity concept. The criteria that define “narrative” are sequential and random which go forward to content’s access order (delineated by the system or the user, in a linear, nonlinear form or non-sequential form). This way, there are
two
written
techniques:
narrative
linearity
(the
classic
sequence
cause/temporal/spatial, containing a beginning, middle and end) and the hypertext (permitting the creation of related content units and text external links text- navigation). The use of classic narrative (and therefore, a linear narrative) does not mean a noninteractive product. There are some cases, like didactic products, in which content’s unit assimilation is essential for narrative understanding and the system should define the
21
Interactivity, as the element which mediates communication, and from whose degree depends on the in context use (Jensen, 1998), on the user’s experience psychological elements and on the systems navigability and architecture. For further information: Chapter 2. Interactivity and Cyberjornalism – 2.1. Interactivity: a concept with multiple definitions and dimensions. 22 Lemos believes that digital interactivity is the dialogue between man and machine, occurring through a «contact area» –the graphic interfaces and hypertext lead to «metadesign»’s concept.
41
narrative structure. In other cases, the chance to “navigate” without content’s units authorization is imperative for the application type. The dimension “structure” is connected to the dimension “control” defined in interactivity multidimensional approach and also concerns the orientation. The products are more or less structured in relation with interaction cycle and the machine defined in structure (action-reaction; action-consequence…). The system may direct or guide the user or, on the contrary, should be the user to orient himself or to be deliberately disoriented by the programmed structure. The structure depends on the system specificities, target-audience, and purpose and uses context, and can be more centralized contents than in the process (more structured products) or more directed to the process than the content (mode unstructured products which impose a great sense of randomness). The dimension “history” is applied to the temporally and evolution issues. The systems may or may not have the presence of time-of the application and not of the user. Therefore, the programme status may change in time or being invariable- that guides us to the life system (evolution). The programmes are also or not able to memorise the user’s actions (which we can or not update in each session)- history concept (memory). Considering that interactivity in any programme doesn’t depend exclusively on the Interaction Design, the criteria we define for interactivity doesn’t correspond straightly to the three-dimensional Interactivity Design. In such case, Interaction Design dimensions (or vectors) relate with their function: the visual metaphors and their behaviour. The criteria which permit an interactive system definition are not only closed related to the interaction design extents, but also with the whole context- several clusters, navigability components and information architecture elements formed a group which work together with the Interaction Design, contributing to the development of the interactive applications23. It is important to mention that the previously referred interaction design elements are directly connected to Interactivity definition but also with the elements that make part of the context. All of them permit together to operate an interactive system. We also emphasise, that if the Interaction Design’s dimensions concern the operations originated by the responsible in the area, in interactive applications development context, the criteria (which materialise the multi-dimensions 23
For further information: section “The elements which contextualize Interaction Design”.
42
definition we have already concerned) to evaluate an interactive application are items for analysing. We state the idea that interaction design dimensions formed the structure of this design field and that the interactivity dimensions are criteria to evaluating different areas, involved in the conception and development of interface mediated interactive systems. According to this, the Interaction Design dimensions, which compose this field of Design and interactivity dimensions, are criteria to evaluate the several areas involved in the conception and development of interface mediated interactive systems.
3.2 The elements that contextualize Interaction Design Multimedia applications interactivity, appears from the combination of Interactivity Design with areas such as: Screen applied Design, Interfaces Design, Navigation Design, Information Design and Hypermedia Systems Design. According to this, it’s imperative to analyse the Interaction Design context paying attention to its intersection with known areas and information architecture and navigability components. Figure 5 – “The relationship between Interaction Design, Human-Computer Interaction, and other approaches” (Preece, Rogers & Sharp, 2002, p.8)
3.2.1 Navigability Interactive application’s navigability depends on three elements (which exist simultaneously): accessibility, functionality; usability. We can say that, utterly, navigability concerns all the characteristics, which allow the user to interact with the 43
computer in a more satisfactory way. Though, it is important to remark all the elements that form this concept. According to the Engineering Centre in Communication and Information Technologies Rehabilitation (CERTIC)24, accessibility involves three notions: a) users – any obstacle should be imposed to the individual’s sensory and/or functional capacities; b) system- the system should be accessible and usable in several situations, it shouldn’t depend on the software, communications or equipments; c) environment- the access shouldn’t be limited by the internal or external physical environment. «Internet’s accessibility is defined by information flexibility and interaction concerning the support and presentation. This flexibility allows its use by persons who show difficulties and it can also be used in different situations and environments, through equipments or navigators» (CERTIC’s definition). An interactive application’s functionality (online or offline) is connected to usefulness: What is it for? It should exist a special function. To following this idea, it’s absolutely necessary to make a rigid plan: What are the objectives? To who is it first addressed? What means should be involved? What model to use for an information structure? Functionality doesn’t refer to a functional application, meaning easy to use, on the contrary, it means the direct device function. An idea should be accepted: there is a direct relationship between diversity and usefulness. If the application is more exact, the information becomes few diverse (Nielsen, 2000). In order to fulfil the objectives (functionality) and easy assessment (accessibility), it must be usefulness. It stands the idea that different users to obtain specific objectives, providing efficiency, efficacy and pleasure in its concrete and particular use, can use the product. Efficacy concerns the user’s precision, in order to get specific objectives, effectiveness concerns objective’s precision in reference to the used means; satisfaction illustrates the system’s use acceptability. (Nielsen, 2000; A. Silva, n/d; Cybis, n/d). Then, we get goals that lead to the topics: simplify, enhance, optimize, facilitate, improve and accelerate.
24
The Engineering Centre in Communication and Information Technologies Rehabilitation is available at the electronic address: http://www.acessibilidade.net/.
44
«Usability is defined in the ISO 9241 norm as the capacity, presented by an interactive system, to be operated in a efficient, effective and agreeable way, within a certain operation context, to the tasks and user’s realization » (Cybis, Ibid.).
The main agents in the website’s usefulness are: quickness (elements optimization) and predictability (intuitive navigation- support pre-conceived mental schemes) Obviously, there are two main elements we should have to consider when we are doing any evaluation, in an interactive system: knowledge of the user’s functions and the adjustment of the differences and characteristics of every individual user. It is important to refer that different users realize different operations in the same application. Thus, Preece, Rogers and Sharp lined six usefulness objectives: «effectiveness, efficiency, safety, utility, learnability, memorability» (2002. p.14). Summarizing, the utility basic rules of an interactive application are focused to form and content issues: clearness in information architecture, easiness in navigation, simplicity, content relevance, quickness and attention on users (Nielsen, 2000; A. Silva, n/d). Valter Matos (2004) refers some of the utility rules reported to the humancomputer interaction: consistency, the possibility to allow the most frequent users the use of shortcuts; the possibility to remark feedback; get easy manners for managing errors; possibility to come back; and transparency.
45
Figure 6 – “The usability engineering lifecycle” (Preece, Rogers & Sharp, 2002, pp. 194-195)
3.2.2 Information Architecture The information architecture can be defined as an interface design. In fact, it is the element which defines navigation and content structure of an interactive application. «The information architecture is the science which aims the construction of information systems, through the conception of plants or maps previous to the website construction, in order to optimize the contents organization and to simplify the access to all the possible users » (A. Silva, Ibid.).
Information Architecture is based on three topics: content structure- decided, concerning its own or innate characteristics and communication intents; navigationbased and projected regarding the structure or events based, choices of each user; the interface- created in order to permit an interaction with information acquired, giving the user freedom in the exploration (Figueiredo and Roque, 2002). A. Silva (Ibid.) refers two essential aspects to consider in an interface formulation, related to information architecture: navigation fluxes definition; functional elements positioning; section’s nomenclature definition; interface technologies definition; usability concepts application; sections and subsections contents organization. Information architecture’s filed of work, rears to «elaborate the totality or integrate the already produced elements» (Figueiredo and Roque, Ibid.). Information
46
Architecture conceives the organizational model of information to be integrated by design. There are several models of informative organization in an interactive system, adequate to its specific context and target-audience. Figueiredo and Roque refer seven models: Linear, Hierarchic, Net, Parallel, Matricial, Overposition and Zoom. 3.2.3 Other Design subjects Interaction Design appears from the intersection of a group of Design subjects. Thus, this section’s objective is to summarize the relationship between Interactivity Design and other Design branches. The Interfaces Design aims answering to the pertinent necessity of dialogue between the application and the user, and consequently represents the materialization of Interaction Design. The design processes of an Interface contain three levels: functionality semantic level (the application form); syntactic level of the modular structure (screen position of the element); lexical level of the data input and output system (Correia, n/d). Joined to this Design branch, is the discipline that operates navigability and its elements- accessibility, functionality and usefulness. Navigation Design has the function to answer the questions: “Where am I?”, “What can I do here?” “How did I get here?”. “Where can I go?” and “How can I get there?” Navigation Design defines the interactivity levels and the complexity of a multimedia product, maintaining a close relationship, not only with the interfaces Design but also with Interaction Design. This is the moment to define the user’s navigation possibilities. The usefulness rules, accessibility and functionality should be thought into navigation design. The navigation schema of a webpage should be functional and well related to the visual comfort of the elements harmoniously located. The visual presentation should be coordinated with the website’s functionality. An intermediate point should exist between these two factors. Utterly, Navigation Design is one of the interface elements that lead user’s progress through the application. The content is generally the main reason for the user’s choice, at the interaction application. Therefore, quality contents are an important factor in multimedia products. This is the real function of the Content Design. The Information Design’s origin comes from Graphic Design’s universe. Its function consists on the arrangement of the data organization and presentation. It means 47
Informative Design changes data into meaningful information throughout the structure (support) used and the context. Its function is to organize artistic products into structure components (Figueiredo & Roque, Ibid.). It is a determinant subject for the projects which manage with much information. It assumes its structural design practice in the information field, providing an intuitive assess to the content. The information’s meaning is developed by its own organization and is changed when she is altered. Each structure creates a new model/mental schema in the user, showing the information in a way to facilitate the understanding. Meirinhos (1998) traces eight principles from the Hypermedia Systems Design, and interpretates them as soundness and textual representative stimulus, ordered to the user: synchronized stimulation principle25; interactivity principle26; dynamic stimulation principle27; thematic necessity principle28; visual unity principle29; temporal economizing principle30; functional uniformity principle31; ergonomic principle32. «Multimedia and Hypermedia systems result from a mentality change in the informatics industry actors, and require the conjugation of the audiovisual language with the informatics language (human-machine interaction, processes and information handling, image processing, sound digitalization, 25
The information transmission is accomplished by the synchronization of image, text and sound. The message’s acquirement is most successfully through synergies between different channels. 26 Allows the user to be participative and active, in different possible sceneries. This principle appliance requires developing the idea that the user navigates freely, even tough, he may be submitted to preconceived schema. 27 Hypermedia systems should be schemas with its own dynamics and visual and auditive stimulation capacity. Life simulation is very grateful to users searching for interactivity. 28 The existence of a multimedia product must be justified with an answer to a user’s specific necessity. The system’s materialization and navigability depends on the thematic. 29 The system must assume, both in form as in content, a unique visual aspect and an invariable style. The graphic and textual homogeneity shouldn’t be monotonous, but instead accomplish consistency and identity functions. 30 The time economy is a key issue in hypermedia systems. It is imperative a brief and concise narrative in the interactivity demanded by the user. Thus, the failness of the discourse is similar to the publicity words. 31 Functioning rules should be uniform: «the variables which construct an uniform hypermedia system are: typographic uniformity (the use of a limited number of typographic sources), regular human-machine interaction (constant interaction process, to avoid the use of double click or the right button of the mouse device), fix functions domains (the spatial arrangement of the fix navigation buttons or icons), iconic uniformity (photographs’ graphic style, illustrations and constant schemes) » (Meirinhos, 1998). 32 «This principle requires the system to possess user’s internal pathways, sensorization capacity, predicting and allowing a critical path method for reaching the objectives» (Meirinhos, 1998)
48
etc.). From this conjugation, merges the necessity to define a body of ruling postulates of the interactive products development. In fact, the different orientations from interactive multimedia and hypermedia, create obstacles to any axiomatic attempt of the qualities these products should possess» (Meirinhos, 1998).
3.3 User’s experience elements, from the interface’s perspective: Psychological and socio-cognitive issues Cognitive psychology and the knowledge about human characteristics in the information processing are important to the conception of an interactive application. «It has always been acknowledged that for interaction design to succeed, many disciplines need to be involved. The importance of understanding how users act and react to events and how they communicate and interact together has led people from a variety of disciplines, such as psychologists and sociologists, to become involved» (Preece, Rogers & Sharp, 2002, p. 6).
To consider the user’s profile means to know more about his cognitive abilities and capacities, besides the information provided by ergonomic analysis. «The way an interface is designed, can greatly affect how well people can perceive, attend, learn, and remember how to carry out their tasks» (Id., Ibid., p.104).
It is relevant to know how cognitive processing occurs during a computerized task, in order to make possible to trace the lines of an interactive multimedia product: «Cognitive theories describe two basic types of mental models: the ones that represent procedures, and the ones that represent concepts. Both are organized into hierarchic semantic and procedure knowledge’s webs about, for instance, the interactive system function’s meanings and how these functions operate. The function (concepts) and operation (procedures) logics of a device, are associated to the nature of these two types of mental representations, and also contribute to its understanding. Consequently, helping texts should explore
49
these two interactive software’s perspectives; how they work and how their functions operate » (Cybis, n/d).
The general rules about behaviours (behaviourism) and the mechanisms which explain it’s functioning (cognitivism), should be Interaction Design’s basis. «Optimizing the interaction between users and interactive products requires taking into account a number of interdependent factors, including context of use, type of task, and kind of user» (Preece, Rogers & Sharp, Ibid.,. p.30). The conception and evaluation of human-Computer Interfaces, depend on the human behaviours and cognitive structures: «Research findings and theories from cognitive psychology need to be carefully reinterpreted in the context of interaction design, to avoid oversimplification and misapplication» (Id., Ibid., p.104).
As referred by Preece, Rogers and Sharp, «cognition has also been described in terms of specific kinds of processes. These include: attention; perception and recognition; memory; learning; reading, speaking, and listening; problem solving, planning, reasoning, decision making» (Ibid., p.75). In fact, the human cognitive system is defined by the symbolic information processing. It means that people conceive reality through models/representations/mental schemas, which organize from any stimulus. These models totally, influence the individual’s behaviour and form its reality vision. Concerning mental schemes elaborated throughout an interactive application, they change by user’s perspective, depending on his previous experiences and evolution, according to his knowledge. Human-computer interaction also depends on two concepts that belong to the cognitive processes: Perception and Memory. Perception is defined by the adding of structures and processing, through which the brain imposes meaning to the sensations produced by the perceptive organs. The sensation is a specific answer to a sensorial stimulus; perception is the body of encoding and coordination mechanisms of different elementary sensations, in such a way to get a meaning. «The study of perception is placed into a minor sensorial level, and in a more cognitive than the study of sensation » (Cybis, Ibid). According to the author, the body of autonomous systems that characterize perception is composed by: visual perception, auditive perception; speech
50
perception; attention and surveillance. Considering Cybis point of view, the human memory capacity is stated into three processes: recognition - referring the human capacity to (re)find in their perceptive field, elements which were previously memorised; reconstruction- referring to the human capacity to recreate elements already memorised in their last organization; and remembering- referring the human capacity to entirely recuperate a situation already lived, even in the absence of the past elements. The memory function is also relevant in the user’s experience of an interactive application: “ The models and mental representations are gathered and recuperated through a phenomena conjoint, which have in common the informative return with a minor or major transformation, after a certain time, when the information source is not present anymore” (Cybis, Ibid.) Human-Computer interaction depends on the identification of the interactive application: «The most important thing to design is the user’s conceptual model. Everything else should be subordinated to making that model clear, obvious, and substantial.
That is almost exactly the opposite of how most software is designed» (David Liddle, 1996, p. 17 in Preece, Rogers & Sharp, 2002., p.39). The task realization, origins cognitive activities or processes, which can be divided into three main phases: (Cybis, Ibid.): task analysis (oriented perception based on activation, observation, categorization and interpretation); action planification (possibilities evaluation, task definition and procedure’s sequence stipulation); action control (after being executed, the actions are controlled and evaluated according to their results. Control exists based on the user’s abilities and knowledge, like the rules). Jesse James Garrett (2000) divides the user’s experience elements into a web «the web as software interface» and «the web as a hypertext system». According the author, considering the product as an interface and starting from the abstract to the concrete in a task oriented analysis, the technical conception derives from user’s necessities (external origin objectives) and from product objectives (internal origin objectives). The next phase concerns the functional specifications (detailed functionalities descriptions, which the application might include in order to respond to the user’s necessities).
51
In the Interaction Design phase, tasks strategies are developed for the interaction between user and programme. The information Design is also one of the conception phases of a product concerning task orientation. The user’s experience elements, at this point, depend on the information presentation, forward to their understanding. Then, Interface Design influences interactive experience with the purpose to design the interface elements to facilitate the interaction between the user and the given functionalities. Finally, in this task oriented, from the abstract to the concrete, analyses, we concern the Visual Design in order to make the graphic processing of the interface elements. The author suggests that there are some different topics from the task-oriented analyses to consider, when we analyse the interactive application as a hypertext system (product oriented analyses). By this perspective, from conception to maturity, we conceive the user’s necessities and the product objectives the same way. The content requires (necessary content elements definition, in order to respond to the user’s needs) are considered in the following phase. Replacing the Interaction Design from the taskoriented analyses by Information Architecture, has the purpose to conceive the information space structural design, to facilitate the intuitive access to the content. Information Design is conceived the same mode, by the Interface Design replaced by the Navigation Design (Interface elements design, in order to facilitate user movement in the information architecture. The visual Design is also considered, but in other perspective: text visual processing, graphic elements and navigation components. Garrett still defines five plans, starting from the abstract to the concrete, which directly interfere with the user’s experience. To note: strategy (the starting point – we define the objectives and the way we can get them); space (materializes the strategy: requires analyses); structure (gives substance to space: how the information is going to be arranged); skeleton (materialises the structure: which components will be interactive and what kind of interactivity will be allowed to the user); surface (visual coordinates the other four plans, making the project concrete).
52
3.4 Interaction Design in the Cyberjornalism sphere The interaction occurs when an action, between receiver and machine or two or more individuals, is mutual. In the new media, the unidirectional communication of the traditional media is replaced by a bidirectional and horizontal communication model, where the receiver is proactive and assumes a meaning and course’s producer role. To the consensual communication model33 is added a new element: the interface. This new communication component permits the user’s possible action and consequently the application answers. Information and communication’ personalization mark the new media Era. Thus, there is a new relationship between sender and receiver, in which their roles are sometimes confused. In what concerns to interactive applications, the communication act is systematic, creating a cycle of “intention-action-answer” which moves from the task environment (user’s cognitive processing) to the machine environment (computer processing) To the conception of efficient interactive informative products, a dialogue between Interaction Design and new media possibilities is necessary. As Allen (2004) refers, «online journalism needs better design for active readers rather than passive consumers». The several studies about interactivity in digital journals reveal that in many studied cases, the possible interaction is resumed to the email addresses indication. The demand to hypertext, besides the necessary to web publication- the hyperlinks to access to each article and/or journal’s sections - is practically null. We call the attention to the fact that nonlinear navigation may be frequently classified as “semi-linear”. Besides having a sender, receiver, message, channel, code, mean and context, and the possibility to choose the navigation form, the use’s action is limited. This type of navigation leads to an interaction that may be classified as reactive (Amaral, 2005): «In many ways, online publishing design has stalled. Content producers seem happy with the raw benefits of the medium – timely access, self-publishing, links, and search – while barely scratching the surface of interactive publishing design opportunities. As a system of communication, online interactive documents are close to the days of spinning zoetrope filmstrips (a 33
Sender, receiver, message, code, channel, mean and context.
53
precursor to cinema), where the online form and technique lack the power and quality of mature mediums like cinema and print. Writers, designers, experiment developers, publishers and readers must experiment and push the medium beyond its seminal beginnings, just as film moved for beyond the zoetrope» (Allen, 2004).
Besides the great potentialities on the Internet, online media are similar to traditional media, assuming a almost linear schema or even semi-linear, as already presented, using only few resources-the strictly necessary to get publication and basic functionalities. «Even much of today’s interactive media fails to reach beyond the interactive quality of print media, and paces in comparison to print’s usability, information density, and compelling materiality. For example, the benefits of reading the news at the New York Times on the web have mostly to do with features around the edges of linear content – timely updates, links, search, and anywhere availability» (Allen, 2004).
There are so much new Internet potentialities from the journalistic production and diffusion’s perspective. Primarily, because these new potentialities allow an entirely new concept: direct interaction with the environment. «La noticia en los medios digitales ha dejado de estar reducida a un texto más o menos corto, en el que se ofrece información sucinta y sin interpretación sobre un hecho oticioso, para convertirse en un género que permite al lector elegir la profundidad a la que quiere llegar en el conocimiento de un asunto. Además, la posibilidad del hipertexto, con la ruptura de la linealidad que ello conlleva, permite al usuario trazar su propio itinerario a través de los documentos que contiene la información. Los enlaces a elementos diversos – sonido, vídeo, animaciones y otras imágenes – enriquecen la noticia. Los hipervínculos a informaciones relacionadas hacen posible la profundización en temas de actualidad. A ello se suma la inmediatez del medio, lo que conlleva
54
la actualización permanente de las noticias, principalmente aquellas que se anuncian en la página principal» (Sandoval, 2003, p.42534)
Internet’s interactive capacity allows the user’s ideal experience: «absorbed» or «immersed» (Kenney, Gorelink & Mwangi, 1999). «Interactivity as been discussed as a challenge for journalism, that can be met, at least partly, by the thoughtful development of Internet websites. The Internet allows for quick movement from an asymmetrical mode of communication to a more egalitarian, interactive mode» (Schultz, 1999). Therefore, «designers of interactive media must offer choices that have some meaning and consequence» (Pearce, 1997; Meadow, 1998, p.200 in Kenney, Gorelink e Mwangi, 1999). In interactive terms, we may evaluate the digital journals websites concerning to the navigation (navigation possibilities), structure (the way how the webpage is the presented to the reader), and link (between micro scales-articles and subsections-and macro-mains sections- of the website’s navigation). Crossing Interaction Design’s subject with the Cyberjournalism sphere is possible to understand the necessity of working and projecting interactivity in this journalism field. Interaction design works together with several areas which permit creating interactive systems: information architecture and navigability (the whole assemblence or the integration of the produced elements, in an accessible, functional and “usable” form); data storage (archive capacity); communication (communication tools, between users and system and users; synchronous and asynchronous; information design (artistical products organization into structure components); identity design (artistic creation of unique visual references- data organization with a communication purpose); interface design (design of the dialogue between the application and the user, based on the Interaction Design); among others. Theoretically (and ideally), digital news is composed by textual elements (title elements, lead and text development), hyperlinks type (internal-website navigation, fragments fro the same information and connected links; and external), images (staticcaptured from real or computer synthesised, animations, sound and video), and discursive structure (characterized by hypertextuality and multimedia – from the inverted pyramid to the convergent pyramid) (Sandoval, 2003). We can brief the purpose in a sentence: «Making users smarter means involving them in a collaborative 34
Sandoval, M. T. (2003), Géneros Informativos: La Noticia. In Nocí, J. D. e Salaverría, R. (org.), Manual de Redacción Ciberperiodística (pp. 261- 305). Barcelona: Editorial Ariel
55
experience, i.e. interaction» (Schlosberg, 1998: 71 in Kenney, Gorelink e Mwangi, 1999). Van Allen (2004) proposes a design system entitled «productive interaction», which changes the audience vision as consumer into producer. This model for the interactive informative product conception, focus on the idea of user as co-producer.: «Productive interaction aligns the design of nonlinear content, context and affordance in an open, collaborative fashion, enabling the direct manipulation of the work’s material. Users can create custom, personally significant meaning spaces of their own. (…) It flips the focus from consumerist manipulation through experience, to a facilitated, productive output via active dialog between the work and the user. (…) The productive interaction designer frames an exploration of meaning space, making sure the audience has the affordances to create their own “take”» (Id, Ibid).
Van Allen proposes a different conceptualization of design, according to the environment (information diffusion) and different audience (the passive receiver is replaced by the user): «Productive interaction requires a different approach to design, and a different view of the audience. To help frame these differences, we can look at the development of productive interaction systems through four major vectors: content – information, narrative elements, meanings and sensations as communicated in text, image, video, sound, tactile and other modes; context – the integrated presentation of content in form decoration, attitude, organization, selection, values, and experiences; affordance – the handles that enable audience to work with and manipulate the content and context; audience – the users as integral elements of the total system, who operate it through the affordances, and who create the final expressions» (Id, Ibid).
The conceived model, from the Interaction Design’ s perspective, aims to define vectors, requires and necessities, in order to allow the design an interactive system of an online information mean, and simultaneously to predict the interface’s efficacy, in an interactive experience. Assuming that Interface is the “entrance” to the system’s functionality, and the space through which the interaction occurs, the author’s
56
perspective is stated by the need of changing receiver into a complete user, besides the mere «reactivity» (Primo & Cassol, n/d): «In contrast to traditional media, productive interaction’s strength is facilitating and provoking the dialog. (…) Productive interaction gives the reader a pair of scissors and permission to cut up the book (…) It’s a system of a direct manipulation, where the user becomes a co-designer in the creation of custom content stream suited to their immediate desires, purposes and intents. And because the interaction is mediated by a computer rather than a static bookbinding, many affordances can be built to help the user create more meaning» (Allen, Ibid).
Knowing that «digital technology provides a double rupture: in the form to concept information (micro-electronic production processes) and in the way of diffusing information (“all-all” model)» (Lemos, 1997), it is important to understand the Interaction Design’s role in the Cyberjournalism sphere. The investigation orientation, as developed by Allen, is a great contribute for the debate and asks some questions that fulfil the crossing of these two areas: «- In what directions do we want interaction to go and what are the ideologies behind these visions? - What are some principles and techniques that can help get it there? - What are the implications for designers? »
In the following chapter we present a conceptual model for the Interaction Design analyses, in the context of online journalism with the purpose to be materialized into an interactivity scale, allowing experimentation in real situations.
57
CHAPTER 4: THE CIRCULAR INTERACTION MODEL – A CONCEPTUAL MODEL TO THE INTERACTION DESIGN IN THE CYBERJOURNALISM SPHERE The conceptual design models are usually employed to predict the efficacy of an interface, in an interactive experience, compare performances between different versions of the same product, or define development/production phases of an interactive application, from design’s perspective. According to another approach, the model we propose seeks to conceptualize interactivity design, in the context of Cyberjournalism with the aim to build an interactivity scale. The proposal is to study the influence and consequences of introducing interaction design, in the journalistic sphere. Within a multidisciplinary and three-dimensional perspective, the model we developed has got the purpose to analyse the impact of Interactivity Design in HCI, in the Cyberjournalism sphere, and materialise it in interactivity degrees, in the context of digital diaries. We seek to clarify the initial questions delineated for this work purpose (and which specify the preliminary question35: a) which alterations to the traditional journalistic redaction processes, introduces interactivity design in Cyberjournalism?; b) Does the interaction design change the receiver’s role in Cyberjournalism? c) Does the introduction of Interactivity Design, in Cyberjournalism environments, modify the traditional sender-receiver interaction, in traditional media? Utterly, our intents are to understand the role of the interactivity design, in communication and interaction processes of online interactive informative applications, as well as to develop a matrix able to operacionalize and implement a conceptual system about interaction design in the Cyberjournalism sphere. .
4.1 The Model’s Contextualization McMillan (2002a) observes three traditions in interactivity: «user-to-user»; «user-to-documents», and «user-to-system»36. This author, suggests a model for cyber
35
How does interaction design interferes in interaction processes, in cyber journalism? For further information: Chapter “Introduction”. 36 For further information: Section: “Arguments and principles: Contributions to a tri/three dimensions definition” chapter “Interaction Design”.
58
activity, which is separated into four parts37 (originating four different levels of interactivity), which match the three perspectives previously suggested. From here, result three models, corresponding to each type of interactivity. In what refers to the typology of interaction, in HCI, we briefly wish to emphasize that, in the present work, we regard interactivity as a process of interaction and communication, which occurs in informatics environments through two levels of interface: between users and between users and the system. The sub models proposed by McMillan (2002a, 2002b) are based in a bidimensional concept of interactivity: communication direction and receiver’s level of control. The objectives of the model are illustrated in the starting questions, developed by the author for investigation purposes. «How similar are models of cyber-interactivity defined by perceptions of the two key dimensions of interactivity (direction and control) and those defined by features that facilitate direction and control of communication? What relationships exist between both perception-based and feature-based models of cyber-interactivity and: a) attitude toward the website; b) relevance of site topic; c) behavioural intentions? » (McMillan, 2002b)
McMillan’s model is divided into four parts, corresponding to each type of interaction. To the same effect, the schema proposed to analyse interactivity between users, suggests four different levels of interactivity– «feedback, mutual discourse, monologue, responsive dialogue», depending on the intersection between the receivers’s control level and direction of the communication. In order to evaluate interactivity between users and documents, the author suggests the adjustment of the dimensions delineated in the investigation, in reference to the type of interaction: communication direction is replaced by the audience nature. From the analyses of the interaction between the audience’s nature and receiver’s control level, outcome four levels of interactivity: «content-on-demand, co-created content, packaged content, content exchange». The interaction between the user and the systems also requires the adjustment of the variables delineated:
the centre of control criteria replaces the
receiver’s level of control and the communication direction is replaced by interface. The schema delineated by McMillan, in order to evaluate the interaction between the user 37
This Model is called “A four parted model of cyber-interactivity”.
59
and the system, also unfolds into four qualitative levels of interactivity: «human-based interaction, flow, computer-based interaction, adaptive interaction». In the “four-part model of cyber-interactivity”, it is essential to respond to the following investigation questions (McMillan, 2002a, p.31): - «Who is in control, the compute or the human(s) interacting with it? » - «How much is the interface apparent enough to require user attention vs. becoming a transparent part of the user’s experience? » Figure 7 – “A Four-Part Model of Cyber-Interactivity” (McMillan, 2002a)
Marti and Rizzo (2003) propose a design model of interactive systems, from the interaction’s perspective, entitled “egg model”. The proposal is to minimize generalities, frequently applied to the interaction design and to propose appropriate techniques to define interactivity levels, starting from three key-topics: usability, interaction and user’s experience. The central idea is such that different interaction purposes and contexts, originate different levels of interactivity: «The “egg model” is a model of design articulated on three levels, reactive, proactive and emergent, each one consisting of different combination of the main phases of the design process: activity analyses, concept design and evaluation». (Ibid.)
60
Figure 8 – "Egg model", from Marti and Rizzo
According to the authors, the reactive level «is that in which the HCI designer is called to solve problems of use of a system already existing and fully operational» (Id., 2003). In this model’s context, the intermediary level – proactive, «is that in which the designer is called to develop a new system to support a well-known category of users and human activity» (Ibid.). The degree of emergent interactivity is introduced as «that one often referred as “creative design”. In this context, design is viewed as completely unrelated to problem solving. It applies techniques to “envision” human activities that could not exist without the artefact or system being designed. The emergent level addresses uncertain situations but definitely the more charming and challenging for the designer» (Ibid.). We must underline that both models were not delineated in interaction design’s perspective, with the purpose to be carried out in the Cyberjournalism context. The first schema presented, aims the analyses, however, the “egg model” is defined as «a framework to orient the adoption and use of a set of techniques for interaction and experience design suited to different design contexts» (Marti e Rizzo, 2003). As already seen in previous chapters, the impact of interaction design in Cyberjournalism remains an unexplored domain. A conceptual model cannot be presented in an isolated form: its context is relevant and determinant. The model we propose has got distinct purposes, when compared with most conceptual models in design’s area- generally, used to 61
evaluate the efficacy of the interfaces, to compare performances or to delineate interactive systems stages of production. Nevertheless, the “four-part model of cyberinteractivity” and the “egg model” schemas are assumed as our proposal’s theoretical framework, which, intersected with the referential setting and the objectives delineated, allow us to conceive a model capable of analysing the impact of the interaction design discipline, in the interaction processes between sender and receiver, such as reinvented by the new media. They also allow the construction and implementation of an analyses matrix, as well as an interactivity scale, to apply to existent situations. The theoretical framework underlying the conceptual model we designed, are the models previously mentioned and, as a referential setting, the multidimensional definition adopted for the notion of interactivity, the three dimension approach to the Interaction Design developed, as well as the communication principles and strategies employed by the individual, throughout the interaction with the system. This model’s starting point is, in such case, the user. The core assumption is to interpret the structure, at the machine’s environment level (computer processing) intending the task environment (cognitive processing). In such case, it seems fundamental the study of the mental architectures (pre-conceived mental schemas) in HCI processes, in the context of Interactivity design, as well as the prediction of the cognitive and psychological processes, in interaction with computerized systems. This model requires a theoretical context- already referenced and analysed in previous chapter- which is illustrated by questioning the concepts related to the human-computer interaction, the components of navigability and information architecture, the criteria used to define interactivity and interaction design, and the new elements of communication, which interfere in Cyberjournalism sphere. To accomplish this, the theoretical assumptions that delineate this model’s referential frame, are the following: - The general representation of HCI, defined by Lamas, Gouveia and Gouveia (n/d); - The alteration from the traditional model of communication along with the introduction of a new element– the interface; - The network allows an entirely new concept: direct interaction wit the environment; - The systematic communication act is demonstrated by the “interaction-action-answer” cycle and progresses from the task environment to the machine environment; - A multidimensional perspective of interactivity, defined as the element which mediates communication, and whose degree depends on the use, in a certain context, of 62
the elements of the user’s experience, on navigability and systems information architecture. This would mean, in other words, that interactivity is a process of interaction and communication, which occurs in informatics environments through interface, and whose level relies on the analyses of the following vectors (dimensions): navigation, content, adaptability, control and communication; - Communication between a Human and a computer is an interactive circuit, in which the elements interact in a continuum (Jensen, 1998; Crawford, 1990 in McMillan, 2002a, p.29); - The intersection of a three-dimensional approach of interaction design (composed by the dimensions: narrative, structure and history), with the psychological tools which result from the user’s experience; - The user’s cognitive, psychological, ergonomic and social factors, which influence the Human-Computer interaction process; - The importance of the hypermedia, visual metaphors and several clusters of design components, as components of the interactive process; - The navigability (usability, accessibility e functionality) is an undeniable element in HCI, and the combination of its elements originates more or less interactive systems; - Within the Cyberjournalism context, the receiver becomes the user; - The new technologies claim the reconfiguration of journalistic practices, in order to produce information suitable to be broadcasted in cyberspace; - The innovation of the dynamic text (hypertext) and its importance to making the transition from inverted pyramid to convergent pyramid (Marcos, 2003)38.
4.2
A
conceptual
model
to
Interaction
Design
in
the
Cyberjournalism Sphere: The Circular Model of Interaction This model foresees different contexts and objectives for the interaction within the Cyberjournalism sphere and is based on this statement: «cyberspace belongs to readers, not writers» (Rich, 1998).
38
For further information: Section “the new digital scenery: new forms of writing and reading in journalism”, chapter “Interactivity and cyber-journalism”.
63
Based on the assumption that, new digital scenery refers to the individualization of communication, the conceptual schema we intend to implement crosses the three dimensions approach of interaction design, with the multi dimension definition of interactivity, the psychological tools which arise from the user’s experience and the communication principles and strategies, mobilized by the user during the interaction with the system. The structure of this model is thought at the machine’s environment level, aiming the task environment, allowing the study of the interaction processes in informatics environments, through interface, at the user-application’s communication level. Within the present model, we are interested in exploring the HCI, from a «userto-system» perspective (McMillan, 2002a): «the interaction between people and the computer (or other type of new media system) » (Ibid., p. 25). Even though we regard the importance of the remaining forms of interaction39, the model we propose, has got the purpose to evaluate and measure the Human-technologies interfaces interactivity (Ibid.). It is imperative to clarify that, the model does not focus computer-mediated communication or communication with isolated documents, but instead on communication with interactive systems. Figure 9 – Conceptual Model of Interaction Design on the Cyberjornalism sphere – “Circular Interaction Model”
39
As previously, and in chapter “Interaction Design” exposed, in what concerns to the types of HCI, from our perspective there are two forms of interaction: between users (which points towards the ComputerMediated Interaction, a concept implemented through interface, and a category of HCI) and between users and the application. In such case, we believe that «user-to-documents» interaction, defined by McMillan (2002a) may be included in the interactivity derived from the communication process between user and the system.
64
The conceptual model of Interaction Design, applied to the Cyberjournalism sphere, was conceived from the idea of interactivity as a continuum (Jensen, 1998), from which arises the idea of circular interaction. The graphic representation of the model implies intersection points, considering that the model is planned from the machine’s perspective, aiming the task environment. Furthermore, the interface is the convergence space. Graphically, are represented three dimensions of the interaction design, intersected with vectors that define the notion of interactivity. With the intention of analyse the impact of the Interaction Design in the Cyberjournalism sphere, the conceptual schema we propose establishes circular and interdependent relations between the filed of design, the interaction (as a process of communication and negotiation) and the definition of interactivity. The criteria that define interactivity and the multi dimensions approach to interaction design, summarize the essence of what we project as the user’s experience. If the vectors of interactivity focus on the intersection between the machine and the task environment, from the individual’s perspective, the interactivity design’s dimensions outline the basis of communicational strategies calculated for the Human-Machine dialogue, through interface. It is about drawing the interaction design’s structure, in a crossed sphere with criteria that allow evaluating the interaction, from the task’s environment point of view in interactive informative systems, interface mediated. Hence, results that the
65
intersection of the variables, graphically represented in the interface, allow defining a more or less interactive informative product. In the core of this model, are de Interaction Design dimensions40 represented in interrelated specific spheres that interrelate. The “narrative” concerns to the content access order, which, may be summarized in the dichotomy sequenciality versus /randomness. This Interaction Design dimension, adjusting the visual metaphors and their behaviour, defines the presentation and organization. Thus, the specification of the functionalities or tasks (functional hypothesis) is delineated by content access. This variable of the model is directly related to the “structure”, which is the dimension responsible for defining the structural design of information space. In fact, the navigation courses depend on the “structure”, which reveals the user’s function and emphasizes the user’ cognitive aspects concerning the task, in the performance context. Therefore, this dimension of interaction Design is a synonym of orientation in the application: it may be the system to direct or disorient on purpose the user or, in opposite, be the receiver the one who entirely defines the navigation courses. The “structure” may focus on the processes or on the content. The dimension “History”, which concerns to the presence of time and evolution in the interactive systems, illustrates the intersection and convergence point of the “narrative” and “structure” variables. The presence of time notion allows evolution, resulting in a kind of living concept of the application. This idea indicates the product’s intelligence, which is a very appreciative feature to the ones seeking interactivity. Interaction Design variables are integrated into a specific divider, limited by the “control” vector. This graphic representation can be justified by the fact that the user’s control level over the system distinguishes an interactive application from a noninteractive one, from the perspective of interaction as a process of negotiation. Therefore, the control the user has got over the product assumes itself as a basis to evaluate the level of interactivity of a certain platform. Thus, the centres of the sphere are Interaction Design variables, crossed with “control”, which allows making a connection with the other criteria that also define interactivity. Utterly, from the variable “control”, it is possible to immediately conclude if we are facing an interactive or one
40
The Interaction design dimensions assume, in the proposed model, the role of variables when conceptualizing the process of HCI, from the interactivity design’s perspective, in the context of online journalism.
66
non interactive application; from there, the crossing of the remaining variables permits to define the interactivity level. The graphic representation of the criteria, which allow evaluating the interactivity in the model proposed, is based on the fact that the proposal is oriented from the machine environment to the task environment, within an approach that begins with the general points of Interaction Design and progresses to the Cyberjournalism perspective. The variable “navigation” increases the “narrative” since it concerns about the concrete possibilities presented by the user- if the “narrative” dimension is structured from the machine’s environment, intending the task environment, the “navigation” variable is focused on the user’s sphere. The “content” criteria focus on the issue of presentation and structure of the contents, not only from the visual metaphors and behaviour perspective but also in the receiver’s perspective, but at this time converted into systems user, at the form or/and content level, in the context of the new digital scenery. The “adaptability” variable is directly related with effectiveness and efficacy since they allow, respectively to evaluate the precision of the accomplished goals in reference to the resources employed and the accuracy obtained by the users when achieving specific objectives. The “communication” criteria analyses and evaluates the communication tools that delineate the dialogue within the interaction circle sender-receiver, structured in the interface by the HCI.
4.3 Model Operationalization: A design of the analyses matrix and interactivity scale The crossing of interaction techniques, design and user’s experience elements, synthesized by the model in eight assembled variables, allows to analyse the interaction and communication processes in the Cyberjournalism context. The evaluation of the interactivity products, according to this model, is possible through an analyses matrix to be implemented through observation instruments. Table 2 – Analyses Matrix of the Circular Interaction Model
Navigation
Narrative
Strucrure
History
Hypertextuality
Antecipation
Memory
67
Content
Multimedia
Link
Personalization
Adaptability
Usability
Learning
Autonomy
Communication
Acessibility
Functionality
Predictability
Control This matrix has got the objective to respond to the investigation questions, posed for this work purpose, with the intention to implement the conceptual model, in order to analyse the impact of interaction design on the interaction processes between sender and receiver, as well as to define interaction levels. The matrix, aims to permit the experimentation in real situations. Utterly, has got the purpose to allow the model operationalization and implementation, so as to study and evaluate the interactive processes in online informative products. Therefore, the matrix assembles the interaction Design dimensions, the criteria used to define Interactivity and the assumptions of the model- navigability components (accessibility, functionality and usability), the elements we believe to compose the convergent pyramid (multimedia, hypertextuality and link- between the micro scales [articles and subsections] and macro [main sections] of site navigation), an integrated synthesis of the user’s experience elements (predictability and memory– the need to return to) and with four guidelines (anticipation, autonomy, personalization and learning )41 which wish to structure the user’s ideal experience – «absorverd» (Kenney, Gorelink & Mwangi, 1999), from the user as online information receiver, based on the journalistic practices reconfiguration. In order to test the model in real situations, throughout the delineated variables in the analyses matrix, we ought to build an interactivity scale, which allows evaluating the interactive communication tools and techniques, in the online informative media. In fact, the appliance of an observation and analyses instrument (designed from the developed matrix), in order to measure interactivity degrees requires an interaction levels scale articulated with the variables of the model from the task’s environment 41
a) Anticipation- the applications should anticipate what the user wishes as well as his needs. In each stage of the design process, the information, structure and tools should be defined, in order to develop a mutual interaction open system; b) Autonomy- the task environment should be developed in such a way that, the user might be autonomous. Should exist a well defined concept, so that the user could have enough information to encourage the control over the interaction; c) Personalization- concerns the possibility to explore the interface, by the user, throughout tools (metaphors) which allow to personalize the rhythm, sequence and/or content; d) Learning- the user should have the possibility to delineate a learning curve, through its interaction with the product. The levels of learning, rely on the negotiation between the user and the application. 68
perspective. The scale we propose, has got the purpose to allow the appliance to real situations, as long as it intends the implementation of the above-described model and based on the matrix variables (which exemplify the conceptual schema proposed). To this effect, is important to clarify that, the classification proposed applies to the online informative media-measuring the quality of the interactivity levels of the communication process between sender and receiver, being directly related to the relevant variables to the analyses of the impact of interaction design in the Cyberjournalism sphere and it is not specifically related to the analyses instrument we wish to apply to this project. Therefore, this scale permits to qualify the levels of interactivity of online informative products, from the sender-receiver interaction processes perspective. The definition of four levels of interactivity (reactive, oriented, negotiated and open) already presented, results from the concept of interactivity as a continuum (Jensen, 1998), within a circular perspective of interaction composed by intersected variables, along with the course from the machine’s environment to the task environment. The levels are described in a qualitative form, allowing its adaptation to observation instruments and analyses matrixes, different from the ones delineated for this work purposes. However, the scale materializes the conceptual model proposed and its application requires following the same referential frame. It is important to emphasize, as already referred, that the interactivity level scale propose wishes to evaluate interaction processes between sender and receiver, from de interaction Design’s perspective, in the Cyberjournalism sphere. The interactivity scale of the circular model of interaction is divided into four levels: Level 1 – Reactive Interactivity – the options (and corresponding feedback) are oriented by the application and the user has almost a null control over the navigation (access order to the contents), once it is presented in a pre-determined sequence (a kind of semi-linearity). The functionalities/tasks are delineated by a structure that coordinates the user within a pre-defined design on the information space that does not allow being manipulated, whether it centres on the process or content. At this level, the notion of time it is not present (and consequently there’s no evolution). Consequently, at the reactive interactivity level, the user’s control is merely reactive. However, is may be opportune to refer that the “control” variable exists in a reactive interactivity perspective (cycle “action-reaction-action”), although we may verify passive interactivity operations from the receiver’s perspective. In the task environment, the navigation is identified and 69
presents concrete possibilities that guide the user in the structure, restricted by a semilinear narrative. At the content’s level, the receiver may interact in a passive/reactive way with the form- following the orientation presented by the application. The adaptability reveals it self diminished, especially from efficacy’s perspective (the accuracy level accomplished by the users, when meeting specific objectives). At this level of interactivity, digital diaries present basic and usually synchronous communication tools, without direct interaction and which request the development of communication external to the application, such as email. Level 2 – Oriented Interactivity – A series of possibilities (a defined array of options) are presented to the user, in order to control the sequence and rhythm of the navigation, conducting him throughout the application and guiding him in the task. At this level, we may verify the presence or absence of notion of time. The control assumed by the user over the content (form) is directly associated to a Navigation, which is representative of the possible actions and respective consequences. In Oriented Interactivity, the adaptability may be medium or high. In what concerns to the variable “communication”, there are tools (synchronous or asynchronous) which allow the dialogue, particularly between users, besides the tradition email contacts. From communication’s point of view, Interactivity is oriented by functionalities, which allow send/recommend by emails articles, enquires. Level 3 – Negotiated Interactivity – the user may control the sequence and rhythm of the navigation, by means of a narrative that allows ordering the access to contents in a non linear way, and by means of a structure with a reduced level of orientation. The user’s control, at the content level, occurs over the form and he has the possibility to personalize the content. Consequently, the notion of time is part of the negotiated interactivity. Tendentiously, at this interactivity level, the communication tools alter synchronous or asynchronous, allowing a more close dialogue between sender and receiver (alongside with the introduction of comments, article classification). At this level, it is also essential the dialogue possibility, between user’s in the application context and outside the platform (by sending articles through email), as well as the possibility of personalizing the presentation of the forms and contents. The adaptability degree at this interaction level, as a negotiated process of communication, is medium or high. We may also verify the importance of the user’s role in the interaction, through a negotiated construction.
70
Level 4 – Open Interactivity– the user may control the structure and the content, and we can remark a non-structured product, with a multi-linear narrative and navigation oriented towards the user’s sphere. At this level, we verify a proactive elaboration (Sims, 1995) in an immersive environment, which directly responds to the user’s actions in such a way that tendentiously seems to be individualized. Consequently, the sense of time (the lifetime of the application) is present, as the user’s control over the form and the content itself. The degree of applicability is high and the contents may be manipulated in the presentation and/or structure, as well as the form itself (personalization). We believe that open interactivity requests multiple tools for interaction with the system itself within or outside its context (possibility of using aggregators, for instance) as well as with other users and the sender itself (again, inside or outside the application context). At this interaction level we notice an open system in a continuum cycle between sender and receiver. J.D. Lassica (in Kenney, Gorelink and Mwangi, 1999) states the difference between “old” and “new” media and the progressive development of interactive communication through several factors: multimedia, speed, continuous updating, horizontal distribution, decentralization, accessibility, interactivity, censorship and hierarchy exclusion. The conceptual model we have developed and the interactivity scale proposed, are based on Lassica’s assumption, as well as on the referential frame described in the previous chapter. Those were the basis of the work hypothesis, formulated for this project purpose42, as already presented in the introduction: (a) Interactivity Design modifies the closed structure of the journalistic writing, allowing the receiver to participate in the interaction and presenting an open structure. (b) Interactivity Design transforms the role of the online information receiver, making him active by giving him the possibility to control the sequence, rhythm and contents. (c) Sender-Receiver Interaction processes, become active and interactive processes, as a consequence of the introduction of the Interactivity Design in the journalistic sphere.
42
Which will be tested in the empirical phase of the experiment of the proposed model’s matrix, through the execution of an analyses grid, to digital journals in a selected sample.
71
In the following chapter we present the procedures and the appliance of an empirical study to the implementation of the Circular Interaction Model, with the purpose to test the hypotheses earlier enumerated.
CHAPTER 5: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CONCEPTUAL MODEL 5.1 Method The implementation of the conceptual model, by the operationalization of the analyses matrix, has got the purpose to study the interaction processes in Cyberjournalism environments at the communication between users and application’s level. At this investigation phase, further than analysing a reality, we wish to implement the conceived, and already presented in the previous chapter, model. Essentially, we aspire to design a theory and a model. The experimentation in real situations has got the purpose to verify the viability of the model and scale designed. The experimentation phase has got the objective of evaluating the product’s interactivity, through an observation instrument designed from the analyses matrix defined. Utterly, it is possible to state that this moment includes the realization of tests over the model, in order to study its viability. The conceptual schema proposed, relies on the crossing of eight variables: content, navigation, adaptability, communication, control, narrative, history and structure. These criteria establish a circular idea of communication, on the basis of a definition of interactivity as a continuum (Jensen, 1998), as well as on the assumption that interface is the intersection/convergent point between sender and receiver. 5.1.1 Sample Description The selected journals sample aims to implement the developed model and analyse the applications behaviour from the interaction design’s perspective. The testing to the model will be executed through an analyses matrix that synthesizes the variables of the model and allows the evaluation of real situations with the implementation of an analyses matrix (observation instrument), resulting in a classification in the interactivity
72
scale proposed. The selected sample (November 2006) for study purpose is composed by eight digital journals: Le Liberátion43; Globo.com (news)44; SIC Online45; CNN46; El País47; Corriere della Sera48; Haaretz49; BBC (News - UK Edition)50. The sample choice is justified by a several reasons: these eight sites are an illustrative of distinct realities (without language barriers) which explore the Cyberjournalism tools according to the technical capacities of the country infrastructures, the sender and receiver; the titles chosen are online autonomous organisms property of groups with other titles in the traditional media, which gives them more credibility and distinguishes them from the independent media (with different features), collaborative or other; each and every one of the sites work on the de breaking news; logic; another reason for this selection was the representativeness they hold on the Internet. 5.1.2 Procedure Description The implementation procedure of the Circular Interaction Model over the sample already described consists on analysing the delineated criteria on basis of such a model. In order to pursue that purpose, we built an analyses grid composed by 62 closed questions that synthesise the model features. The observation instrument is divided into three sections, which directly concern the crossing of interaction design dimensions with the vectors that define interactivity. We developed closed questions to each group51 concerning the variables we were aiming to test – hypertextuality; multimedia;
43
Digital journal with an available paper version of the French journal Le Liberátion. Language: French. Electronic address: http://www.liberation.fr 44 Digital Journal by the Group Globo.com. The analysed space is Globo digital Journal. Language: Portuguese. Electronic address http://g1.globo.com.br. 45 Digital journal by the television station SIC. Language: Portuguese. Electronic address: http://www.sic.pt. 46 Digital journal by the television station CNN. Language: English. Electronic address: http://www.cnn.com. 47 Digital journal with an available paper version of the Spanish journal El País. Language: Spanish. . Electronic address: http://www.elPaís.es 48 Digital journal with an available paper version of the Italian journal Corriere della Sera. Language: Italian. Electronic address: http://www.corriere.it 49 Digital journal with an available paper version of the Israelite journal Haaretz. Language: English. Electronic address: http://www.haaretz.com 50 Digital journal by the group BBC. The analysed space is BBC digital journal, UK version. Language: English. Electronic address http://news.bbc.co.uk 51 “Narrative / Navigation / Content / Adaptability / Communication / Control” , “Structure / Navigation / Content / Adaptability / Communication / Control”, “History / Navigation / Control / Adaptability / Communication / Control “.
73
usability;
accessibility;
anticipation;
link;
learning;
functionality;
memory;
personalization; autonomy; predictability. We intend to test each of these traits, as proprieties of the products, as well as measure the degree of interactivity in reference to the developed scale, based on the conceptual model proposed. Table 3 – Analyses Grid
Y 1
N
Narrative / Navigation / Content / Adaptability / Communication / Control
1.1
Is the order of content free access?
1.2
Is the “navigation” metaphor highlighted?
1.3
Do navigation controls allow the access to any space of the application, without any conditions?
1.4
Is it possible to recover previous actions using navigation controls?
1.5
Does the user have the notion of the changes, every time he executes an operation?
1.6
Does the application adapt in terms of accessibility – user, situation and environment?
1.7
Is the application compatible with any reading system (hardware and/or software)?
1.8
Do the graphic elements of the product modify according to the reading system (hardware and/or software)
1.9
Is the elements optimization accessible?
1.10 Are the forms of executing similar actions consistent? 1.11 Is there “readingness”/transparency in the contents presentation? 1.12 Are language and interface codes familiar? 1.13 Is there a textual description of the navigation graphic elements? 1.14 Do images and graphics match with information function and esthetical and technical criteria? 1.15 Does the application have an identical/combined graphic
74
structure (colours, elements, fonts) in every sections and under-sections? 1.16 Is the graphic composition easily understandable? 1.17 There is no noise in the visual message. 1.18 Is there a graphic combination of static and dynamic elements? 1.19 Is there Hypermedia? 1.20 Is there any sound? 1.21 Is there any video? 1.22 Is there any animation? 1.23 Are there dynamic elements in the informative pieces/peças? 1.24 Are there more than one dynamic elements in the informative pieces? 1.25 Does the system have synchronous communication tools? 1.26 Does the system have asynchronous communication tools? 1.27 Does the system have simultaneously synchronous and asynchronous communication tools? 1.28 Do communication tools allow the dialogue between sender and receiver? 1.29 Do communication tools allow the dialogue between users? 1.30 Is there any functionality which allow the receiver to use the application outside the interface context (email sending, printing)? 1.31 Are the resources used in the communication and interaction processes efficient? 2
Structure / Navigation / Content / Adaptabiity / Communication / Control
2.1
Is
it
possible
to
graphically
identify
the
structure?/graphic identification of
75
2.2
Does the structure encourage searching?
2.3
Is the navigation functionality predictable to the user?
2.4
Dos the application encourage the user to have an active attitude?
2.5
It doesn’t exist irrelevant and unnecessary information.
2.6
Does the information structure present consistency and coherency?
2.7
Are learning and exploration absolutely necessary to the application perception?
2.8
Is there a fluxgram of the application?
2.9
Are there any shortcuts which allow the expert users to execute actions in a faster way?
2.10 Are there any ways of allowing the user to easily leave unforeseen spaces? 2.11 Are there any internal links? 2.12 Do internal hyperlinks execute one or more hypertext functions (complement cite or contextualize)? 2.13 Is there hypermedia in the internal links? 2.14 Are there any external links? 2.15 Do external hyperlinks execute one or more hypertext functions (complement, cite or contextualize)? 2.16 Is there hypermedia in the external links? 3
History / Navigation / Control / Adaptability / Communication / Control
3.1
Is the notion of time present?
3.2
Does the program memorize the user’s actions?
3.3
Does the application state change with time?
3.4
Is there appropriate feedback for every action?
3.5
Does the interaction produce long last effects?
3.6
Does the program progression depend on the user’s attention?
3.7
Does the application require the user’s memory capacity?
76
3.8
Does the system have available services to registered users?
3.9
Is there any possibility to personalize the index presentation?
3.10 Is there the possibility to personalize the index contents? 3.11 Does the user have autonomy to navigate in the structure without any guidance from the system? 3.12 Are the possible actions previously determined, allowing the user to be autonomous? 3.13 Is there familiarity with the environment/interface? 3.14 Do the programme codes have a socially contextualized identification? 3.15 Does
the
user
have
access
to
help
Information/documentation?
Table 3 subtitle: Y= Yes; N = No
The first group of questions corresponds to 31 possible points52 and studies four (hypertextuality, multimedia, usability, accessibility) of the variables defined in the analyses matrix, in order to cross the dimension “Narrative” of the interaction design, with the five criteria53 which conceptualize interactivity. The variable Hypertextuality is tested in questions 1.1 to 1.5; accessibility is verified in questions 1.6 to 1.8 and the trait multimedia is transversal to all the questions from the first section of the analyses grid and is tested in 1.9 to 1.17 questions and also from 1.25 to 1.31. It is convenient to refer that, accessibility was tested in different software’s (in the most recent versions of Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox, Netscape Navigator and Safari browsers), in Windows and Macintosh environments. The section concerning to anticipation, links, learning and functionality54 variables, is composed by 16 questions pre-arranged to test the sample by the following 52
It is given 1 point to each positive response. Navigation, content, adaptability, communication and control. 54 Defined in the analyses matrix for the crossing of Interaction Design’s “Structure” dimension with the five criteria, used to conceptualize Interactivity. 53
77
procedure: 2.1 to 2.6 – functionality variable; 2.7 and 2.8 – learning variable; 2.9 and 2.10 – anticipation variable; 2.11 to 2.16 –Link variable. The last set of questions presented in the analyses grid, concerns the study of the dimension “history” of the interaction Design with the interactivity characteristics. This group contains 15 questions synthesized in the variables to test: memory– 3.1 to 3.7; personalization – 3.8 to 3.10; autonomy – 3.11 and 3.12; predictability – 3.13 to 3.15. The non-equivalent distribution of the questions/points, by the three groups is justified because the variables from the crossing of the criteria “Narrative/ Navigation/ Content/ Adaptability / Communication / Control” demand a higher number of questions (particularly usability), with the purpose to carry out a better testing of this features, in the studied applications. 5.1.3 Data analyses Plan The data collect was executed in a systematic manner, through the implementation of the analyses grid to each of the objects in study. The whole sample was tested in seven distinct days, in order to verify the consistency and coherency of the answers, in different moments. All the eight websites were tested in the same days, throughout a week- from 9 to 15 of October 2006. The processing and analyses of the results requires a scale and analyses grid quantification. The observation instrument is composed by 62 closed questions and the possible answers are “yes” or “no”. It is given a point to each positive answer. The negative answers do not obtain any punctuation. The distribution of the 62 possible points in the grid is realized with 31 points in the group “Narrative / Navigation / Content / Adaptability / Communication / Control”, 16 points in the section “Structure / Navigation / Content / Adaptability / Communication / Control” and 15 points to the crossing of the variables of the criteria “History / Navigation / Content / Adaptability / Communication / Control”. The interactivity scale was operationalized as following: Level 1 – Reactive Interactivity – 0 to 20 total points Level 2 – Oriented Interactivity – 21 to 35 total points Level 3 – Negotiated Interactivity – 36 to 50 total points 78
Level 4 – Open Interactivity – 51 to 62 total points
5.2 Presentation and Discussion of the results Table 4 – results of the variable “Hypertextuality”
Hypertextuality – 5 possible points BBC
CNN
Corriere
Le
della
Liberátion
El País
Globo
Haaretz
SIC
3
4
3
4
Sera 4
3
3
3
The questions developed, in order to test the variable “hipertextuality” focus on the notion of user as well as on the navigation metaphor. We should understand if the user has got the possibility to decide the rhythm and sequence of his navigation through the contents, in the studied applications. The centre of this point, is the dichotomy sequenciality versus randomness, thus we should analyse the access to contents. In every case, the access order to contents is free, and it is not present, in any system, a previous definition or a semi-linear navigation. The highlight of the “navigation” metaphor is also a constant in the analysed products. In what concerns to the free (without any requires) content access, we found that only BBC, Globo and SIC Online allow a restriction free navigation. Note that, in most of the cases, the restricted access to contents is focused on the traditional medium version, associated to or in exclusive online contents55. Even tough El País also limits the access to content, once it demands the receiver to have installed a specific software (Flash in its most actual version) and furthermore, presents a link were they may download the programme (or the plug-in). None of the applications allow the recover of previous actions through navigation controls, what points towards the programmes lifetime issue. All the applications allow the user to understand the graphic and content level alterations, which take place every time an operation is executed. We underline that the analyses of
55
.In both cases, it is necessary a register which in most websites is requires a fee.
79
the resource to hypertext is also tested, in the questions elaborated for the “Link” variable. Considering that we calculated five possible points, for the affirmative answers to the questions elaborated for this variable, we regard the average obtained (3.38) as satisfactory, and reveals that the applications explores the “navigation” metaphor, underlining the user’s role and over passing the traditional passive receiver. In general, the navigation elements simplify the user’s progress throughout the information architecture. Table 5 – results of the variable “Accessibility”
Accessibility– 3 possible points BBC
CNN
Corriere
Le
della
Liberátion
El País
Globo
Haaretz
SIC
3
1
3
4
Sera 3
1
3
3
As previous referred, the accessibility of the studied applications was tested in different software’s and operative systems. The delineated questions had the purpose to confirm if the application could adapt to the user’s level, situation and environment. Questions 1.6 and 1.7 were good specifiers of accessibility, in what concerns to more specific contents. With the exception of CNN and Globo, we verified that, the remaining applications respected the consensual norms. Accessibility from the user environment perspective is respected in every application. However, in what concerns to situation56, Globo and CNN reveal deficiencies at the dynamic contents reading level, within the several reading systems. We call attention to the fact that this situation is related with the website’s publicity and does not occur systematically. Still, considering the frequency in which this situation has occurred (bear in mind that the applications were analysed throughout 7 consecutive days), we considered pertinent to classify in a negative form the questions: “Does the application adapt to the user, situation and environment in what concerns to accessibility?” (1.6) and “is the application compatible in any reading system (hardware and/or software)?” (1.7). Although we consider few 56
The system should be accessible and usable in several situations, despite the software, communications and/or equipments.
80
the accessibility in the previous applications, the other products have received the maximum punctuation and reveal technical concern about accessibility in the digital environment. Table 6 – results of the variable “Usability”
Usability – 16 possible points BBC
CNN
Corriere
Le
della
Liberátion
El País
Globo
Haaretz
SIC
15
13
10
10
Sera 11
7
11
12
The variable “usability”, due to its specificity, has required the development of 16 questions. At this phase, we should comprehend the sample’s behaviour, in what concerns to several elements. Those elements are: optimization; similarity of the possible operations; contents “readingness”; code and language familiarity; textual description of the navigation graphic elements (the graphic navigation controls); informative function and images
and/or graphics
esthetical criteria; easily
understandable graphic composition and a coherent graphic structure; inexistence of visual racket; employment of communication tools; the existence of functionalities which allow the receiver to use the application outer the system interface context; and efficiency of the resources, used in interaction and communication processes. In general, we verify that the usability rules are respected. There is fastness (elements optimization) and predictability (intuitive navigation- the socially pre conceived mental schemas are almost always kept). The sample manifests a satisfactory behaviour in what concerns to usability, accomplishing an average of 11.1 points. CNN is the application that manifests more flaws at this level. Bearing in mind Jakob Nielsen (2000)’s ideas, we may classify the other applications in the following way: clarity in the information architecture; navigation facility; visual elements simplicity; relative coherence in the information presentation; attention paid to the users through complementary references to the navigation domains were they stand; possibility of asynchronous communication with the sender. Table 7 – results of the variable “Multimedia”
81
Multimedia – 7 possible points BBC
CNN
Corriere
Le
della
Liberátion
El País
Globo
Haaretz
SIC
7
6
0
5
Sera 4
7
3
2
Table 7 shows the test results to the variable “multimedia”. CNN and El País stand out because they obtained the 7 possible points, by combining static and dynamic elements and presenting an integrated multimedia language. Globo and SIC, have associated specific traditional media, what explains why they turn to multimedia components as autonomous elements, as well to complementary elements of the written information in static and/or hypertexual text, producing also hypermedia. Corriere della Sera and Le Liberátion websites stand out by the inefficient use of multimedia. These two applications possess multimedia elements, although solely captured from real (audio and sound). Only Corriere della Sera manifests hypermedia kind links and none of them registers the presence of dynamic elements in the informative pieces. BBC, even tough, registers 4 points, also lacks dynamic contents in the articles context. In what refers to Haaretz, we verify that there isn’t any type of multimedia kind presence, in the website, besides the publicity banners – which we consider non relevant to the analyses of the study context, of this variable. Table 8 – results of the cluster of variables from the section “Narrative”
Narrative – 31 Total possible points BBC
CNN
Corriere
Le
della
Liberátion
El País
Globo
Haaretz
SIC
28
24
16
22
Sera 23
18
20
20
In table 8, we present the punctuation results (in a total of 31 points) of the applications within the analyses of the group of questions defined in the section “Narrative”. We verify an average result of 21.4 points, in which the digital diary El País obtains a significantly high punctuation (28 points). Except for Haaretz and CNN, 82
the remaining applications punctuate approximately twenty points and manifest the integration of the four variables in study, in a convergent way. The two mentioned websites show a discrepancy of the analysed features. Note that CNN presents the lowest punctuation in the variables “accessibility” and “usability” and the highest concerning to multimedia. The Haaretz shows more consistency but still notorious lacks at the multimedia level. Table 9 – results of the variable “Functionality”
Functionality – 6 possible points BBC
CNN
Corriere
Le
della
Liberátion
El País
Globo
Haaretz
SIC
6
6
1
4
Sera 3
3
2
6
In what refers to the analysed applications functionality, we verify the inefficiency of Corriere della Sera and Haaretz websites. BBC and CNN present an medium punctuation, as well as SIC. Le Liberátion, El País and Globo achieved the maximum punctuation, showing a great identification of the navigation components and answering to the basic questions: “Where am I?”, “What can I do here?”, “How did I get here?”, “Where can I go?” and “How may I get there?” Except for these applications, the former comprise unnecessary and irrelevant information (noise) and most of them do not stimulate an active attitude in the user. We presume an active or pro-active posture from the receiver, in what concerns to content and communication tools exploration, beyond the mere consult in this last statement. We may conclude the difference between an active attitude and whether the structure motivates or not the exploration. That is, we presuppose that an active attitude is the search for control over the structure and the content; motivate to exploration, refers to the control over the form, sequence and rhythm. Nevertheless, we underline that all the applications observed, filled the assignment of identifying the website’s function. Yet, we also verify that, in most cases, there is excessive information. Table 10 –results of the variable “Learning”
83
Learning – 6 possible points BBC
CNN
Corriere
Le
della
Liberátion
El País
Globo
Haaretz
SIC
2
1
0
0
Sera 0
1
0
1
At the implementation of the variable “learning” level, we verify that, half of the sample does not demonstrate effective results. With respect to the others, only El País obtained 2 of the possible points. The two delineated questions had the purpose to determine the learning levels, which occur from the construction of negotiation with the application. We verified that solely El País presents a website map We also considered that, this application, together with the ones obtaining 1 point, requires the exploration and learning about the system, in order to perceive57 the programme. Table 11 - results of the variable “Anticipation”
Anticipation
BBC
CNN
– 2 possible points
Corriere
Le
della
Liberátion
El País
Globo
Haaretz
SIC
1
1
1
1
Sera 1
0
1
0
With respect to the testing of the variable “anticipation”, we verified that none of the applications comprises available shortcuts, in order to allow the expert users to execute actions in a more immediate way. CNN and Le Liberátion do not present positive points in this analyses phase. In what refers to the other websites, the exits are referenced. In our opinion, this is noteworthy, once it transmits the user a sense of control over the application. Table 12 – results of the variable “Link”
Link – 6 possible points
57
We regard perception as a body of mechanisms which encode and coordinate different elementary sensations, with the intent to confer them meaning.
84
BBC
CNN
Corriere
Le
della
Liberátion
El País
Globo
Haaretz
SIC
3
5
2
2
Sera 4
3
3
5
The results obtained from the analyses to the variable “Links” are represented in table 12 and allows us to conclude that, the totality of the websites present internal hyperlinks on the new development, which keep one or more basic functions of the hypertext- complement, cite and contextualize. BBC does not present hypermedia in any type of link (internal or external). Haaretz only presents internal links, without hypermedia but, which accomplish hypertextual writing basic functions. CNN, El País and SIC do not present any type of external hyperlink, failing the commitment of horizontality in information. Globo and Le Liberátion have internal and external links, which accomplish the hypertext functions, yet do not present hypermedia in the links to other websites. In what concerns to internal links, in general, we verify that they are a constant, which allow the user to choose the content access order and above all, decide about how profound they want to treat informação. Table 13 - results of the cluster variables from the section “Structure”
Structure – Total of possible points: 16 BBC
CNN
Corriere
Le
della
Liberátion
El País
Globo
Haaretz
SIC
12
13
4
8
Sera 8
7
6
12
In table 13 are presented the results analyses to the cluster of variables from the “Structure” section, which shows that most websites observed are inefficient in what refers to the crossing of the variables “functionality”, “learning”, “anticipation” and “links”. The highlight goes to the Globo website, followed by Le Liberátion and El País. In this group, the analyses focus were the description of the navigation paths, the application function and the user’s experience elements. we verified that only three applications– Le Liberátion, El País and Globo –accomplish the function of guiding the user within the structure, giving him control over the situation. 85
Table 14 – results of the variable “Memory”
Memory – 7 possible points BBC
CNN
Corriere
Le
della
Liberátion
El País
Globo
Haaretz
SIC
5
2
2
2
Sera 2
2
2
3
The results presented in table 14 allow deducting that, the memory function and the sense of time are reduced in most applications. With exception for El País and Le Liberátion, the other websites show the same behaviour, within the 7 possible points: the state of the application changes with time (because all the websites work in a breaking news logic and occurs systematic updating) and feedback, according to each action (the answers are presented in time, without discrepancies with the user’s time). El País and Le Liberárion present accessible synchronous tools, which allow the interaction to produce effects in time. We add that, the El País website demands the user’s attention and memory capacity, in order to progress throughout the application. None of the applications reveals sense of time (at the evolution of the programme’s level – only occurs content updating) or memorizes the user’s action (although the discussion forums preserve a register of the messages, there isn’t any register of the actions developed (History) by the user). Thus, we conclude that the user’s memory charge is relatively reduced or null, in the rest of applications. Table 15 – results of the variable “Personalization”
Personalization – 3 possible points BBC
CNN
Corriere
Le
della
Liberátion
El País
Globo
Haaretz
SIC
3
0
1
0
Sera 1
2
1
1
In what concerns to the variable “personalization”, we verify that only El País presents, simultaneously, services directed to registered users and allows personalizing
86
both website form and content. CNN doesn’t allow controlling the website index presentation, and the other applications punctuating 1 point, offer services do registered users- generally related to the traditional media, which are their associated. We verify that most websites are inefficient in one of the most innovative functions of Cyberjournalism: the possibility of the user to personalize the representation criteria, at the form and/or content level, according to his preferences. Thus, we conclude that, in general, user’s control over the application is not satisfactory. Table 16 - results of the variable “Autonomy”
Autonomy – 2 possible points BBC
CNN
Corriere
Le
della
Liberátion
El País
Globo
Haaretz
SIC
2
2
2
2
Sera 2
1
2
2
Tests to the variable “autonomy in the selected sample reveal that, except for CNN, all the websites allow the user to be autonomous and present the action previously. CNN shows some flaws at this level, once some of the subsections are not accessible from the index, but only from some sections. There are also some situations where it is only possible to access to subsections through momentaneous hypertextual links. Therefore, we consider that, in CNN website, the user does not have autonomy to navigate in the structure without the systems directions. Table 17 – results of the variable “Predictability”
Predictability – 3 possible points BBC
CNN
Corriere
Le
della
Liberátion
El País
Globo
Haaretz
SIC
3
3
1
1
Sera 2
2
1
1
Predictability concerns to familiarity with the interface, in result from the used codes and the presence of navigation help devices, allowing the user to predict
87
situations and consequences. All the websites allow stating the idea of familiarity with the environment, once they emphasize the informative function and employ traditional press visual metaphors (for instance, the way of presenting information at the titles level-type of fonts and title structure). Not all the websites present codes, identified with the social context, what makes the user certain feel a certain disorientation within the structure. This lack of predictability may be balanced with help information to the user that is a requisite presented in only three applications (El País, Globo, BBC). Table 18 – results of the cluster of variables from the section “History”
History– Total possible points: 15 BBC
CNN
Corriere
Le
della
Liberátion
El País
Globo
Haaretz
SIC
12
7
6
5
Sera 7
7
6
7
Table 18 allows us to conclude that, the majority of the sample is not efficient in integrating and in the interaction of the variables “memory”, “personalization”, “autonomy” and “predictability”. El País website is the only one to exceed 10 points. We consider that the most inefficient properties concern the variable “memory”. Therefore, the sample reveals efficiency in what refers to the user’s autonomy. The features tested in the delineated questions in order to identify the “personalization” and “predictability” variables present them as satisfactory. Table 19 – total results from the analyses grid application
Total Punctuation– Total possible points: 62 BBC
CNN
Corriere
Le
della
Liberátion
El País
Globo
Haaretz
SIC
53
44
26
35
Sera 38
32
32
38
Table 19 presents the total results of the application of the analyses grid, delineated from the Circular Interaction Model, with the purpose to study Interaction
88
Design in the journalism sphere. The highest result is found in EL País website (52 points), followed by Globo digital diary (44 points). The remaining websites obtained about thirty points and Haaretz digital diary achieved only a total of 26 points, from the 63 possible. After a qualitative interpretation of the results, the first conclusion is that the majority of the applications in study developed themselves mainly in the system processing and information publication domains. In such case, they focus essentially in the information flux (machine environment), overlooking the control flux (task/user environment). We verify that the applications were conceived with the purpose to allow interactivity with the user. However, it appears to be a lack of consistency in the process development. Most of the websites, register a high flaw at the “history” level, what may compromise the control and predictability success. The timelessness completely changes interaction with the user. Thus, it minimizes the accuracy to what the goals are achieved, in what concerns to the resources employed by the application, considering that the system processing does not nearly rely on the task environment. The applications also evidence deficiencies in the direct experience of the user with the interface, in cognitive, technical and communication aspects. The results analyses allows to conclude that the applications, which permit a major interactivity are based on the user’s experience, and subsequently the process of interaction is included in a more efficient communication paradigm. The majority of the products tested, allow interaction; nevertheless, they register flaws in the communicative process. Therefore, the major lacks verified in the studied applications, concern to the features tested to locate the proficiency, at the following variables level: multimedia, anticipation, memory and personalization. Table 20 – Interactivity levels in the studied applications
Total Punctuation – Total possible points: 62 BBC
CNN
Corriere
Le
della
Liberátion
El País
Globo
Haaretz
SIC
I.A
I.N
I.O.
I.O.
Sera I.N.
I.O.
I.O.
I.N
Subtitle:
89
I.O. = Oriented Interactivity (Level 2 of Interactivity) I.N. = Negotiated Interactivity (Level 3 of Interactivity) I.A. = Open Interactivity (Level 4 of Interactivity)
In general, we verify that the observed websites show a considerable positive interactivity, avoiding the reactive interactivity (defined as level 1 in the interactivity scale proposed). Most websites (CNN, Corriere dela Sera, Haaretz and SIC) present a level of oriented interactivity. BBC, Le Libération and Globo’s digital diary possess a negotiated interactivity. El País website, presents a higher level of open interactivity. The websites classified in the second level of interactivity, in the defined scale (oriented interactivity), present a body of defined options that allow the user to control the navigation sequence and rhythm. We verify a certain tendency to task orientation and the absence of the notion of time, in what concerns to the progression direction, of the receiver throughout the system. Adaptability (applications effectiveness and efficacy) is medium. The communication devices presented, are synchronous tools of communication, between the user and the sender (through email) and, in some cases, are also available discussion forums that allow thematic discussions between users. It is also a dominant note the use of functionalities, such as sending by email, scripts for pieces direct print, enquiries. Note that, according to the operationalization proposed to the interactivity scale (with the implementation of the analyses grid), Sic website is placed at level 2, with 35 points, the maximum punctuation at his level. BBC, Le Liberátion and Globo applications reveal a negotiated interactivity and allow the user to control the structure, with a reduced degree of orientation from the system. The notion of time is found, not in the system progression but in the specificity of the communication functionalities with the sender and other users. Personalization exists at the register level, except in Globo. We consider that the adaptability level in these three applications is superior. The behaviour of these products shows a negotiated interactivity once, and above all, we verify the significance of the user’s role in the interaction - which arises at this stage as a process of negotiated construction. El País was the application that showed the highest degree of interactivity and may be classified as an open interactivity. The presence of notion of time, personalization, autonomy, predictability and help existence is some of the aspects that allow understanding this application feature’s behaviour and such a high interaction classification. In every cluster of variables, we verified in EL País website the best
90
results above the average. We verify that this product consents the user to control, both the structure and the content, assuming itself as a non-structured or oriented platform, from the user’s sphere. Such as at other interaction levels, the narrative is considered nonlinear. The difference resides in the fact that, is presented in an immersive environment, where the interaction is individualized. Moreover, the application makes use of multiple interaction tools with the system itself (in and outside the interface context) the sender and with other users.
91
CONCLUSIONS In this work we presented the main concepts related to Human-Computer interaction, from Interactivity Design’ perspective, in the Cyberjournalism sphere. We developed a conceptual model based on the promotion of the user’s role, to analyse the impact of interaction design in the context of sender-receiver interaction processes, in online informative products. The main purpose of this thesis was to comprehend, from the communicative perspective, the potentialities of the interaction, with the aim to implement an analyses model and an interactivity scale. The first phase of this project consisted on doing a reflection about Interaction Design subject relationship, with the interaction and communication processes, reinvented through new media. Based on the statement that, interaction and communication are two processes that should converge into an interactive product, interactivity and interaction design’s concepts have been built. According to Jensen’s (1998) idea of interaction, as a multi-speech concept, we have presented this interactivity idea supported in five vectors/dimensions, included into the task and machine’s environments intersection: navigation, content, adaptability, control and communication. In our view, accepting Rafaeli’s (1988) referential frame, interactivity is the agent that makes the mediation for informatics communication through interface (between users and the users and the application). We have created an interactivity concept based on the idea draft, in interaction and communication processes, in digital environments, through interface. We believe, in fact, that its intensity depends on user’s elements of experience, navigability factors, system’s information architecture and the use in context (Jensen, 1998). The theoretical investigation leads to the elaboration of a trans-subject model, materialized into an analysis matrix based on the criteria defined regarding this model application, in concrete cases. The model started from the statement that, interactivity design is the main concept of communication and interaction processes of online 92
informative products. The model delineated is processed to task orientation and therefore, to the information. The audience’s (traditional notion) replacement for user’s concept, takes form as strong statement of the delineated model. The analysis matrix designed, has been materialized into an observation instrument, applied to a sample of eight journalistic websites. The analysis grid has been developed regarding Interaction Design impact, in Cyberjournalism, allowing studying the receiver and information production perspectives, in order to get an active reception. To this effect, and after the grid analysis and application of the defined interactivity scale (materialization of the developed model), we realize the viability of work hypothesis. During this project, we traced three work hypotheses which we can now validate: the interactivity Design modifies the journalistic writing closed structure; Interaction Design changes online information receiver’s role, making him active with the possibility to control sequence, rhythm and contents; sender-receiver interaction processes become interactive and active processes, as a consequence of the Interactivity Design introduction, in the journalistic sphere. Our empirical study showed that, the notion of user and the navigation metaphor are a common denominator in the Cyberjournalism sphere. The accessibility issues (in what concerns to user, situation and environment) are also, in general, respected. Although we have found some inconsistencies at the dynamic contents reading level, we have concluded, from the studied sample, that digital journals begin to worry about technical issues referring to accessibility, in digital environments. The interface is the “entrance” to the systems functionality. Interaction design is the principle key to maximize interaction, between sender and receiver in digital environments. Design is being redefined through the system’s usability evaluation, ever since the first two phases of its conception. The usability evaluation phase, allows the designers and programmers to incorporate the user’s and client’s feedback in the system, before reaching its final version. The best form to assure a good usability is through the testing using real users. Thus, we consider crucial to develop an Interaction Design focused on the user and task oriented- and consequently, information oriented. The analysed usability in Digital journals, allows concluding that they ought to follow the speediness and optimization rules. Nevertheless, the harmony between the message, tasks and the visual aspect isn’t always present. The dimension multimedia is still hardly explored in Cyberjournalism. By norm, and judging by the sample studied, we verify that, the use of dynamic elements 93
(computer synthesized or captured from real) is modest and dissociated from hypermedia functions: complete, contextualize and cite. The sample studied also allows concluding that the use of multimedia takes place in an isolated way, hardly never in the context of informative pieces. The functionality is an appreciated item in the analysed sample. Still, we frequently have found unnecessary and irrelevant information. The message noise influences the application, which in turn, does not stimulate the user to have an active attitude. The learning resulting from the construction of negotiation with the system is a little explored dimension by the selected sample. Another limitation that we believe weaknesses the sender-receiver interaction, is anticipation. We highlight that none of the applications makes available shortcuts, to allow the expert users to execute actions in a more immediate way. Internal and external hyperlinks fulfil the functions of hypertextual writing. However, the hypermedia and external hyperlinks are rare. The memory and sense of time are workless elements, in the studied applications. The user’s memory charge is also reduced. The personalization, which we regard as one of the most innovative functions of Cyberjournalism, is not integrated in the sample websites. Moreover, we verify that the application’s control by the user is not satisfactory, what we consider an obstacle to the full interaction. Autonomy and predictability are explored elements in the sample and promote the efficiency and efficacy as well as use satisfaction. One of the main conclusions of this work refers to the fact that, new media request a reconfiguration of the media space and consequently, a communicational (re) contextualization. The bibliographic review supported the previous premise: communication is a process of interaction (and vice-versa), and is a central idea concerning to the analysis of multimedia technologies, from the communicational perspective. We may also conclude that new media get back McLuhan’s ideas about the environment primacy. In fact, in the Cyberjournalism universe, the user is in permanent dialogue with and in a digital environment. Note that we regard dialogue as a process of interaction and convergence is the element where communication and interaction process (es) happen. The communicative paradigm change, results in a new horizontal and bilateral model, where the receiver has got an active role. One of the main alterations in the new paradigm of communication is the transition from the notion of receiver to user. The interactive products need to be usable. By this motive, the construction of the concept of 94
interactivity and the study of analyses of Interaction Design, in the Cyberjournalism sphere, are imperative in the new communication Era. The introduction of interactivity in the journalism sphere requires an alteration of the traditional notion of «gatekeeper», allowing the creation of the «sysop» (Lopez García, 2003). This concept of «system operator» consists on the interactivity between applications and its users, moderator. Another conclusion may be that, informative production for web transmission purpose, must be oriented to navigation. The user is an active receiver who must interact with the platform. However, it is important to emphasize that, we do not consider the journalist’s role attenuated or null. In our opinion, communication in the web requires interaction. This process may be translated into several possible options for the user, allowing the active experience. Although we consider there is mediation, once journalism is a social construction of the reality, the receiver in Cyberjournalism becomes an active part in the communication process. On contrary, in the traditional media the receiver has a passive role, in what concerns to direct interaction with the product and/or the journalist. The bibliographic review and the empirical study allow concluding that, this is the basis of interactivity in online informative products. The main purpose of Interactivity Design is to understand how and why the target-audience does intend to explore the applications. Navigation, functionalities and features may be delineated throughout the user’s experience examination. Thus, the proposal we presented for the conceptualizing the Interaction Design, from a three-dimensional perspective, results from the idea of «metadesign» (Lemos, 1997). The starting question designed for this project aimed to understand «How does Interaction Design change the Interaction processes of the traditional media, in online informative products?». During our investigation, we delineated other questions in order to precise our starting question: What changes to the traditional journalistic redaction processes, does Interaction Design introduce in Cyberjournalism; Does the Interaction Design change the receiver’s role in Cyberjournalism? Does Interaction Design in Cyberjournalism environments change the traditional media interaction? In order to conclude, we will try to respond to these questions, considering the investigation developed and the empirical study. In consequence of the introduction of Interaction Design, the main alterations in journalistic redaction processes essentially concerns to the concept of user. Writing maintains the inverted pyramid structure, yet, adapts to a convergent pyramid scheme. 95
This means that, the basilar rules of journalistic writing are maintained in the Cyberjournalism sphere, yet, the introduction of the hypertext (and hypermedia) change the way to produce and receive information. The related links, hyperlinks, in the text itself, the dynamic elements boxes and/or multimedia, the buttons with basic functionalities (such as printing, sending text via email), the possibility to insert comments and the discussion between users spaces are entirely new elements, in the context of the journalistic message. This is mainly because they hold free access – contrarily to traditional media where the interaction with the users is restricted to screenings. The convergent pyramid, illustrates a hyperlinks and various other elements web, which completes, contexts and cites the fundamental information. In the Cyberjournalism context the traditional receiver’s role found in traditional media changes because there’s an alteration in the communicative model. The receiver converts into the user and assumes a pro-active character. We may observe an active communication process in the digital journals, which is build under the form of negotiation. The navigation metaphor illustrates the changes in the traditional media receiver’s role. Interaction Design directly influences this change, once this subject field delineates interaction in digital environment. Direct interaction with the environment is an innovation of the Internet and is delineated by Interaction Design– «How it looks and how it behaves» (Figueiredo and Roque, 2002). Assuming itself as central matter of HCI, Interactivity Design allows the transition from the traditional notion of receiver to the notion of user, once the narratives and structures created by this field of design, support the receiver’s action. In traditional media, the receiver does not have the capacity to simultaneously be a sender. By introducing the Interaction Design in the journalism field, we find that the user may be an integrated part of the communication process, regarded as negotiation. In such case, directly interacts with the form and content and the sender, and is simultaneously a potential sender. The importance of Interaction Design does not only refer to the user. This concept is determinant in every Human-Computer Interaction and is relevant for two elements: user - May make the difference between completing or not with efficacious precise tasks; sender - defines the efficiency, the success our failure of a system, at the form and contents level. 96
The introduction of Interaction Design in Cyberjournalism environments changes the traditional sender-receiver interaction, of traditional media, once direct feedback becomes (inter) action. Consequently, it is possible for the sender (journalist) to directly interact with the receiver (now converted into user), whether in the context of Computer Mediated Communication instruments, as through interface (throughout the user’s navigation). The interactive circuit is regarded as a continuum (Jensen, 1998), where sender and receiver directly and indirectly interact, producing effects over the communication process. Thus, we consider that, the sender-receiver interaction is distinct from the traditional media, once we find an effective interaction that overcomes the indirect feedback and establishes a communication process. The less interactive applications make the users more passive. Therefore, we find indispensable to think about the user’s behaviour issue- essentiality in the more interactive products. This means that, we ought to explore certain (logical) notions that arise motivation, as well as the sensations given to the user by the situations. This work allowed us to conclude that, the user’s experience is the basis of the more interactive applications.
Therefore, we state that Interaction Design changes the traditional
interaction and communication processes in the Cyberjournalism sphere, encouraging the negotiated construction between sender and receiver, through the conjugation of the visual metaphors and the behaviours. To this effect, the model and interactivity scale developed allow to fulfil the gaps, concerning the construction of Interaction Design concepts, as applied to the journalism context. On the other hand, we think that, the interactivity scale allows studying digital diaries in an integrated form, analysing the informative content in the form’s context with the purpose to evaluate the interaction.
97
REFERENCES Alonzo, J. & Martínez, L. (2003), Medios interactivos: caracterización y contenidos. In Nocí, J. D. & Salaverría, R. (org.), Manual de Redacción Ciberperiodística (pp. 261305). Barcelona: Editorial Ariel. [Language: Spanish] Amaral, Inês (2005) A interactividade na esfera do Ciberjornalismo. Comunicação apresentada no IV SOPCOM – Repensar os Media: Novos Contextos da Comunicação e da Informação, Universidade de Aveiro, 20 e 21 de Outubro de 2005. [Language: Portuguese]
Barbosa, Elisabete (2001), Interactividade: a grande promessa do Jornalismo Online. URL: (Retrieved on January 2006) [Language: Portuguese] Barbosa, Elisabete (n/d), Jornalistas e público: novas funções no ambiente online. URL:
(Retrieved on January 2006) [Language: Portuguese] Bogéa,
Denise
(n/d),
Hipermídia
e
Multimídia
tecnologias e aplicações. http://www.eca.usp.br/alunos/posgrad/denise/hipermd.htm (Retrieved on November 2005) [Language: Portuguese] Câmara, Ana Cristina (1999), Dos Mass Media aos Self Media. URL: (Retrieved on March 2006) [Language: Portuguese] Canavilhas, João (2001), Webjornalismo: considerações gerais sobre jornalismo na web.
URL:
(Retrieved on December 2005) [Language: Portuguese] Cañas, José; Salmerón, Ladislao; Gámez, Pilar, (2001), El factor humano, URL:
(Retrieved
on
February
2006)
[Language: Spanish]
98
Cascais, Fernando (2001), Dicionário de Jornalismo, Lisboa: Editorial Verbo. [Language: Portuguese] Certic (website), URL: (Retrieved on December 2005) [Language: Portuguese] Cloutier, Jean (1975), A era de EMEREC. Lisboa: Ministério da Educação Instituto de Tecnologia Educativa. [Language: Portuguese] Correia, Carlos (n/d), Estrutura do módulo sobre desenho de interfaces. URL: (Retrieved on March 2006) [Language: Portuguese] Correia, Cláudia; Andrade, Heloísa (1998), Noções Básicas de Hipertexto. URL: (Retrieved on April 2006) [Language: Portuguese] Cybis, Walter de Abreu (n/d), Engenharia de Usabilidade: uma abordagem ergonómica.
URL:
(Retrieved on March 2006) [Language: Portuguese] Deuze, Mark (2004), A Internet e os seus jornalismos: teoria, pesquisa e estratégia da produção de notícia on-line. In Oliveira, J.M. Paquete; Cardoso, Gustavo., & Barreiros, J.J. (org), Comunicação, Cultura e Tecnologias de Informação (pp. 161-189). Lisboa: Quimera. [Language: Portuguese] Figueiredo, António; Roque, Licínio (2002), Interacção com o Utilizador, URL: (Retrieved on March 2006) [Language: Portuguese] Fiske, John (1990), Introdução ao estudo da comunicação. Porto: Edições ASA [Language: Portuguese] Garret,
Jesse
James
(2000),
Elements
of
User
Experience,
URL:
(Retrieved on January 2006) Gordon, Bob; Gordon, Maggie (2003), Design Gráfico Digital. Livros e Livros. [Language: Portuguese] Gouveia,
Luís
Manuel
Borges
(n/d),
Media
interactivos.
URL:
(Retrieved on January 2006) [Language: Portuguese]
99
Gradim, Anabela (n/d), Os géneros e a convergência: o jornalista multimédia do século XXI. URL: (Retrieved on December 2005) [Language: Portuguese] Heeter, Carrie (1989), Implications of interactivity for communication research. In J. L. Salvaggio and J. Bryant (Eds.), Media Use in the Information Age: Emerging Patterns of Adoption and Consumer Use (pp. 217-235). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Jensen, Jens F. (1998), Interactivity: tracking a new concept in Media and Communication Studies. Nordicom Review 19 (pp.185–204) Kenney, Keith; Gorelik, Alexander; Mwangi, Sam (1999) Interactive Features of Online
Newspapers.
First
Monday,
volume
5,
number
1
URL:
(Retrieved on June 2006) Kerckhove, Derrick (1997), A Pele da Cultura. Lisboa: Relógio d'Água. [Language: Portuguese]
Kiousis, Spirous (2002), Interactivity: a concept explication. New Media & Society, 4, (pp. 255-283). London: Sage. Lamas, David; Gouveia, Feliz; Gouveia, Luís (n/d), O símbolo e a interactividade no uso de computadores, URL: (Retrieved on April 2006) [Language: Portuguese] Laurel, Brenda (1990), The Art of Human-computer Interface Design. New York: Addison Wesley. Lemos, André (1997), Anjos interativos e retribalização do mundo, sobre interatividade
e
interfaces
digitais.
URL:
(Retrieved on January 2006) [Language: Portuguese] Lévy, Pierre (1994), As Tecnologias da Inteligência: o futuro do pensamento na era informática. Lisboa: Instituto Piaget. [Language: Portuguese] Lévy, Pierre (2001), O que é o virtual?. Coimbra: Quarteto. [Language: Portuguese] López, X., Gago, M., & Pereira, X. (2003), Arquitectura y organización de la información. In Nocí, J. D. & Salaverría, R. (org.), Manual de Redacción Ciberperiodística (pp. 195-230). Barcelona: Editorial Ariel [Language: Spanish] 100
Marcelo, Ana Sofia (2004), Novos media: inauguração de novas formas de sociabilidade. Comunicação apresentada no Ibérico 2004, Universidade da Beira Interior, Covilhã, 23 e 24 de Abril de 2004. [Language: Portuguese] Marti, Patrizia; Rizzo, Antonio (2003), Proceedings of HCI International ‘03, In C. Stephanidis (Ed.) Universal Access in HCI. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Matos, Valter (2004), Regras de Usabilidade para a Produção de aplicações em Televisão Interactiva. Comunicação apresentada no VI LUSOCOM, Universidade da Beira Interior, Covilhã, 21 e 22 de Abril de 2004. [Language: Portuguese] McMillan, Sally (2002a), Exploring models of interactivity from multiple research traditions: users, documents, and systems. In L. Lievrouw and S. Livingstone (eds), The handbook of new media, (pp. 163-82). London: Sage. McMillan, Sally (2002b), A four-part model of Cyber-interactivity: some cyberplaces are more interactive than others. New Media & Society 4 nº2 (pp. 271-91). London: Sage. McMillan, Sally, Downes, Eduard (2002), Defining interactivity: a qualitative identification of key dimensions. New Media and Society vol. 2 nº2 (pp.157-79). London: Sage. Meirinhos, Galvão (1998), Regras fundamentais do design de sistemas hipermédia. URL:
(Retrieved on February 2006) [Language: Portuguese] Mendes, António Quintas (n/d), Comunicação e interacção sujeito-computador em sujeitos não peritos. URL: (Retrieved on March 2006) [Language: Portuguese] Mielniczuk, Luciana (1999), Interatividade no Jornalismo Online: o Caso do Netestado. URL: (Retrieved on January 2006) [Language: Portuguese] Mielniczuk, Luciana (2000), Interatividade como dispositivo do jornalismo online. URL: (Retrieved on January 2006) [Language: Portuguese]
101
Moraes, Maira (1998), Produtos interativos para consumidores multimídia. URL:
(Retrieved
on
January
2006)
Coletiva.
URL:
[Language: Portuguese]
Moura,
Arthur
Hyppólito
(2001),
A
Inteligência
(Retrieved on March 2006) [Language: Portuguese]
Nielsen, Jakob (2000), Usabilidad, Diseños de Sitios Web. Madrid: Prentice may. [Language: Spanish] Oliveira, Roseli Maria de Souza (2001), O impacto da Internet no jornalismo: características e recomendações para a concepção de jornais digitais interativos. URL: (Retrieved on January 2006) [Language: Portuguese]
Otman, Gabriel (2001), Dicionário da Cibercultura. Lisboa: Instituto Piaget. [Language: Portuguese] Palacios, Marcos Silva (2002), Jornalismo Online, Informação e Memória: Apontamentos
para
debate.
URL:
(Retrieved on January 2006) [Language: Portuguese] Paul, Nora (1999), Computer Assisted Research. Bonus Books. Powell, Thomas (2002), Web Design: The Complete Reference. McGrawHill/Osborne (2ª edição) Preece, Jenny; Rogers, Ivonne; Sharp, Helen (2002), Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction. Wiley. Priberam,
Dicionário
URL:
(Retrieved
on
December 2005) [Language: Portuguese] Primo, Alexandre; Cassol, Márcio (n/d), Explorando o conceito de interatividade: definições e taxonomias. URL: (Retrieved on January 2006) [Language: Portuguese] Puccinin, Fabiana (2003), Jornalismo online e prática profissional: questionamentos sobre
a
apuração
e
edição
de
notícias
para
web.
URL: 102
(Retrieved on December 2005) [Language: Portuguese] Quadros, Cláudia (n/d), Jornalismo na Internet: conveniência, informação e interacção.
URL:
(Retrieved on January 2006) [Language: Portuguese] Quivy, Raymond; Van Campenhoudt, Luc (1998) Manual de investigação em Ciências Sociais. Lisboa: Gradiva. [Language: Portuguese] Rafaeli, Sheizaf (1988), Interactivity: From New Media to Communication. In R.P. Hawkins, J.M. Wieman and S. Pingree (eds) Advancing Communication Science: Merging Mass and Interpersonal Processes, (pp. 110–34). Newbury Park: Sage. Rafaeli, Sheizaf; Sudweeks, Fay (1997), Networked Interactivity. Journal of Computer
Mediated
Communication
2
nº
4,
URL:
(Retrieved on May 2006) Reckziegel,
José
Sadi
(2001),
Recepção
em
Jornalismo
Online.
URL:
(Retrieved on December 2005) [Language: Portuguese] Recuero, Raquel da Cunha (2003), Warblogs: Os Blogs, a Guerra do Iraque e o Jornalismo Online. URL: (Retrieved on January 2006) [Language: Portuguese] Rich,
Carole
(1998),
Newswriting
for
the
web.
URL:
(Retrieved on January 2006) Saffer, Dan (2005), The role of metaphor in interaction design, URL: (Retrieved on May 2006) Sandoval, M. T. (2003), Géneros Informativos: La Noticia.
In Nocí, J. D. e
Salaverría, R. (org.), Manual de Redacción Ciberperiodística (pp. 261-305). Barcelona: Editorial Ariel. [Language: Spanish] Santos, Rogério (2003), [weblog] Teorias da Comunicação. URL: (Retrieved on March 2006) [Language: Portuguese]
103
Schneiderman, Ben; Plaisant, Catherine (2004), Designing the User Interface: Fourth Edition Preview. New York: Addison Wesley. Schultz, Tanjev (1999), Interactive options in online journalism: a content analysis of 100 U.S. newspapers. The Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 5, Article 1. URL: (Retrieved on April 2006) Shedroff, Nathan (website), URL: (Retrieved on April 2006) Silva, Alexandre Castro e (n/d), Usabilidade. URL: (Retrieved on December 2005) [Language: Portuguese] Silva, Júnia Coutinho Anacleto (n/d), Interação Humano-Computador. URL: (Retrieved on April 2006) [Language: Portuguese]
Silva, Lídia (1999), Comunicação: A Internet – a geração de um novo espaço antropológico.
URL:
(Retrieved on January 2006) [Language: Portuguese] Sims, Roderick (1995), Interactivity: A Forgotten Art?. Instructional Technology Research Online. URL: (Retrieved on May 2006) Sohn, Dongyoung; Lee, Byung-Kwan (2005), Dimensions of Interactivity: Differential Effects of Social and Psychological Factors, 10(3), article 6. URL: (Retrieved on May 2006) Steuer,
J.S.
(1992),
Defining
Virtual
Reality:
Dimensions
Determining
Telepresence. In F. Biocca & M. R. Levy (Eds.), Communication in the Age of Virtual Reality (pp. 33-56). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Suler,
John
(1999),
Psycology
of
Cyberspace,
URL:
(Retrieved on April 2006) Tognazzini, Bruce (2003), First Principles of Interaction Design. URL: (Retrieved on December 2005) van Allen, Philip (2004), Thinking about Interaction Design for online news delivery.
Online
Journalism
Review.
URL:
(Retrieved on December 2005) 104
Wo, Guohua (2005), The mediating role of Perceived Interactivity in the effect of Actual Interactivity on attitude to toward the website. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 5 (2). URL: (Retrieved on July 2006)
105
