Second SEMIA Workshop: objectives and short report

What do people look for, as they access large collections of digitized films, and how do they want to conduct their explorations? Those were the central questions of the second SEMIA workshop, that took place at the offices of project partner Studio Louter, on 28 March 2018.

Compared to the first workshop, this second one took a much more hands-on approach. The abovementioned questions had to be translated into creative assignments, that would be appealing for a diverse audience of media scholars, media artists and creative industry professionals, and professionals concerned in their daily practice with the interests of museum visitors. Participants for the workshop were selected from those four groups.

In the first assignment of the day, the attendees, sat in small groups and surrounded by thousands of film stills, began combining images they felt visually belonged together. Individually, they created one or two collections, chosen out of the 500 sets of stills on their tables. Subsequently, they wrote down on post-its the characteristics which they had centred their collection around, and then associated those labels with the categories of ‘colour’, ‘shape’, ‘movement’, ‘texture’ (all particularly relevant to the SEMIA project) or ‘other’. This way, they manually produced the ‘features’ which extraction in the first stage of the project revolves around, but focussing on those that held particular appeal or relevance to them as (potential) users. Oftentimes, participants decided on highly abstract characteristics (often in terms of the emotions images represented or elicited), which ended up being labelled as ‘other’. Among the four pre-determined categories, ‘form’ was the most chosen one.

In the next time slot, the attendees were asked to highlight their preferences among a wide range of interface types. Here, they could choose between tangible interfaces, pointing device interfaces, motion tracking interfaces, text-based interfaces, touch & gesture interfaces, mixed interfaces – AR, mixed interfaces – VR, speech/sound interfaces and toggle user interfaces (or combinations thereof). All groups of participants were particularly attracted to the tangible interface types, which enable users to interact with the information displayed through their physical environment.

For the next series of assignments, seven groups of 3 to 4 people had to put their preferences into practice. Armed with markers, paper and scissors, the groups created their own interfaces on two posters. On a first one, they designed an interface that enabled users to explore a film collection. On a second, they made suggestions as to how an interface might present the results generated in the course of image analysis, on the basis of the users’ explorations. Once again, a number of patterns emerged in the participants’ suggestions. First, all groups designed interfaces that produced unexpected results, or in other words: that embraced serendipity. Second, many of the prototypes proposed were spatial installations. Third, a great many groups saw potential for new ways of exploring film collections in 3D, rather than in 2D set-ups. Finally, almost every prototype involved a control device that somehow linked to the user’s senses and/or emotions.

The last assignment of the workshop had the participants individually choose one ‘input’ poster (i.e., one chosen from those that made proposals for specific principles of exploration) and one ‘output’ poster (that is, chosen from among the second type, focussing on the presentation of exploration results). The most often-selected ‘input’ poster showed an interface that favoured unintended encounters: it had a person entering an immersive experience, where the interface reversed everything he or she did or gave expression to – their movements or emotions, for instance – by displaying films representing or eliciting the opposite or inverse. Within this proposed set-up, users could however ‘take back control’ by using an app on their mobile phones. The most often-chosen ‘output’ poster showed an interface whereby the result of a search was an actual film, rather than a graph (so, the analysis result as translated back into an image selection, rather than the analysis as an abstraction).

The workshop’s outcomes will be taken into consideration during a first creative brainstorm session with the SEMIA partners at the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, who will be developing prototypes for an interface that gives users access to the image analysis tool developed by the University of Amsterdam’s Informatics department.

The clip below gives a visual impression of this most inspiring day.

– Simone Slagboom

This entry was posted in Artistic Research, Data Visualization, Interfaces, Moving Image Archives, Prototyping, Workshop. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *