Art Framework

The framework for a discipline of HCI as art has a general problem with a particular scope. Research acquires and validates knowledge, which supports practices, solving the general problem.

Key concepts are defined below (with additional clarification in brackets).

Framework: a basic supporting structure (basic – fundamental; supporting – facilitating/making possible; structure – organisation).

Discipline: an academic field of study/branch of knowledge (academic – scholarly; field of study – subject area; branch of knowledge – division of information/learning).

HCI: human-computer interaction (human – individual/group; computer – interactive/embedded; interaction – active/passive).

Art: creative expression corresponding to some ideal or criteria (creative – imaginative, inventive); (expressive – showing by taking some form); ideal – visionary/perfect); criterion – standard).

General Problem: art design (art – ideal creative expression; design – specification/implementation).

Particular Scope: art human-computer interactions to do something as desired (art – creation/expression; human – individual/group; computer – interactive/embedded; interactions – active/passive; something – action/task); desired: wanted/needed/experienced/felt/valued).

Research: acquires and validates knowledge (acquires – creates by study/practice; validates – confirms; knowledge – experience/expert advice/other artefacts.

– Knowledge: supports practices (supports – facilitates/makes possible; practices – trial and error/implement and test).

Practices: supported by knowledge (supported – facilitated/made possible; knowledge – experience/expert advice/other artefacts).

Solution: resolution of the general problem (resolution – answer/address; problem – question/doubt).

General Problem: art design (art – ideal creative expression; design – specification/implementation).

This framework for a discipline of HCI as art is more complete, coherent and fit-for-purpose than the description afforded by the art approach to HCI (see earlier). The framework thus better supports thinking about and doing art HCI. As the framework is explicit, it can be shared by all interested researchers. Once shared, it enables researchers to build on each other’s work. This sharing and building is further supported by a re-expression of the framework, as a design research exemplar. The latter specifies the complete design research cycle, which once implemented constitutes a case-study of an of an art approach to HCI. The diagram, which follows, presents the art design research exemplar. The empty boxes are not required for the design research exemplar of HCI as Art; but are required elsewhere for HCI, as Engineering. They are included here for completeness.

Examples of such levels are presented here – first a short version and then a long version. Researchers, of course, might have their own lower level descriptions or subscribe to some more generally recognised levels. Such descriptions are acceptable, as long as they fit with the higher level descriptions of the framework and are complete; coherent and fit-for-purpose. In the absence of alternative levels of description, researchers might try the short version first .

These levels go, for example from ‘human’ to ‘user’ and from ‘computer’ to ‘interactive system’. The lowest level, of course, needs to reference the art itself, in terms of the application, for example, for an art interactive system, artist and digital painting Application. Researchers are encouraged to select from the framework extensions as required and to add the lowest level description, relevant to their research. The lowest level is used here to illustrate the extended art framework.

Following the Art Design Research exemplar diagram above, researchers need to specify: Specific Art Problems (as they relate to User Requirements); Art Research; Art Knowledge; and Specific Art Solutions (as thy relate to Interactive Systems).

These specifications require the extended Art framework to include: the Application; the Interactive System; and Performance, relating the former to the latter. Art design requires the Interactive System to do something (the Application) as desired (Performance). Art Research acquires and validates Art Knowledge to support Art Design Practices.

The Art Framework Extension, thus includes: Application; Interactive System; and Performance.

1 Art Applications

1.1 Objects

Art applications (the ‘ something’, which the interactive system does) can be described in terms of objects. Objects may be both abstract and physical and are characterised by their attributes. Abstract attributes are those of information and knowledge. Physical attributes are those of energy and matter.

For example, a digitised painting application (such as for abstract paintings) can be described for design research purposes in terms of objects; their abstract attributes, supporting the creation of abstract paintings; their physical attributes, supporting the visual representation of digitised information in the form of an abstract painting. Art objects are specified as part of art application design and can be researched as such.

1.2 Attributes and Levels

The attributes of an art application object emerge at different levels of description. For example, forms and their configuration on a screen are physical attributes of the object abstract painting, which emerge at one level. The expression of the painting is an abstract attribute, which emerges at a higher level of description.

1.3 Relations between Attributes

Attributes of art application objects are related in two ways. First, attributes are related at different levels of complexity. Second, attributes are related within levels of description. Such relations are specified as part of art application design.

1.4 Attribute States and Affordance

The attributes of art application objects can be described as having states. Further, those states may change. For example, the structure and content (attributes) of an art application abstract painting may change state: the structure with respect to content; its ‘strokes’ with respect to size and colour. Objects exhibit an affordance for transformation, associated with their attributes’ potential for state change.

1.5 Applications and the Requirement for Attribute State Changes

An art application may be described in terms of affordances. Accordingly, an object may be associated with a number of applications. The art object ‘abstract painting’ may be associated with the application of being realised in print (state changes of its layout attributes) and with the application of creator (state changes of its structure and content). In principle, an application may have any level of generality, for example, the painting of abstractions, of portraits, of scenery etc.

Artists have applications and require the realisation of the affordance of their associated objects. For example, ‘creating a sketch’ and ‘making a drawing’’, each have an art form as their transform, where the art forms are objects, whose attributes (their structure, content and expression, for example) have an intended state. Further changing those art forms would produce additional state changes, and therein, new transforms. Requiring new affordances might constitute a Specific Art  Problem and lead to a new work of art, which embodies a Specific Art Solution.

1.6 Application Goals

The requirement for the transformation of art application objects is expressed in the form of goals. A product goal specifies a required transform – the realisation of the affordance of an object. A product goal supposes necessary state changes of many attributes. The requirement of each attribute state change can be expressed as an application task goal, derived from the product goal.

So, for example, the product goal, demanding transformation of an abstract painting, making its expression more emotional, would be expressed by task goals, possibly requiring state changes of semantic attributes of the abstract structure of the painting and of stroke attributes of the  physical structure. Hence, a product goal can be re-expressed as an application task goal structure, a hierarchical structure expressing the relations between task goals, for example, their sequences. The latter might constitute part of an abstract painting application design.

1.7 Art Application as: Doing Something as Desired

The transformation of an object, associated with a product goal, involves many attribute state changes – both within and across levels of complexity. Consequently, there may be alternative transforms, which satisfy a product goal – abstract paintings with different styles. The concept of ‘doing something as desired’ describes the variance of an actual transform with that specified by a product goal.

1.8 Art Application and the User

One description of the art application then, is of objects, characterised by their attributes, and exhibiting an affordance, arising from the potential changes of state of those attributes. By specifying product goals, users express their requirement for transforms – objects with specific attribute states. Transforms are produced by ‘doing something, as desired’.

From product goals is derived a structure of related task goals, which can be assigned, by design practice, either to the user or to the interactive computer (or both) within an associated interactive system. Task goals assigned to the user by the design are those, intended to motivate the user’s behaviours. The actual state changes (and therein transforms), which those behaviours produce, may or may not be those specified by task and product goals, a difference expressed by the concept ‘as desired’, characterised in terms of: wanted/needed/experienced/felt/valued.

2. Art Interactive Computers

2.1 Interactive Systems

An interactive system can be described as a behavioural system, distinguished by a boundary enclosing all human and interactive computer behaviours, whose purpose is to achieve and satisfy a common goal. For example, the behaviours of a artist and digital painting application, whose purpose is to create abstract paintings, constitute an interactive system. Critically, it is only by identifying the common goal, that the boundary of the interactive system can be established and so designed and researched.

Interactive systems transform objects by producing state changes in the abstract and physical attributes of those objects (see 1.1). The artist and painting application may transform the object ‘abstract art’ by changing both the attributes of its expression and the attributes of its structure and content.

The behaviours of the human and the interactive computer are described as behavioural sub-systems of the interactive system – sub-systems, which interact. The human behavioural sub-system is more specifically termed the user. Behaviour may be loosely understood as ‘what the human does’, in contrast with ‘what is done’ (i.e. attribute state changes of application objects).

Although expressible at many levels of description, the user must at least be described at a level, commensurate with the level of description of the transformation of application objects. For example, a artist interacting with a painting application is a user, whose behaviours include creating and modifying abstract paintings.

2.2 Humans as a System of Mental and Physical Behaviours

The behaviours, constituting an interactive system, are both physical and abstract. Abstract behaviours are generally the acquisition, storage, and transformation of information. They represent and process information, at least concerning: application objects and their attributes, attribute relations and attribute states and the transformations, required by goals. Physical behaviours are related to, and express, abstract behaviours.

Accordingly, the user is described as a system of both mental (abstract) and overt (physical) behaviours. They are related within an assumed hierarchy of behaviour types (and their control), wherein mental behaviours generally determine, and are expressed by, overt behaviours. Mental behaviours may transform (abstract) application objects, represented in cognition or express, through overt behaviour, plans for transforming application objects.

For example, a commercial artist has the product goal, required to create an image for a publicity campaign. The artist interacts with the computer by means of the art application interface (whose behaviours include the transmission of information about the publicity image). Hence, the artist acquires a representation of the an initial sketch of the image by evaluating source material information displayed by the screen and assessing it by comparison with the conditions, specified by the product goal. The artist reasons about the attribute state changes, necessary to eliminate any discrepancy between current and desired conditions of the process, that is, the set of related changes, which will produce the publicity image, ‘as desired’. That decision is expressed in the set of instructions issued to the interactive computer through overt behaviour – selecting relevant menu options, such as – shape, colour, for example.

2.3 Human-Computer Interaction

Although user and interactive computer behaviours may be described as separable sub-systems of the interactive system, these sub-systems extert a ‘mutual influence’ or interaction. Their configuration principally determines the interactive system and art application design and research.

Interaction is described as: the mutual influence of the user (i.e. behaviours) and the interactive computer (i.e behaviours), associated within an interactive system. For example, the behaviours of an artist interact with the behaviours of a painting application. The artist’s behaviours influence the behaviours of the interactive computer (access the colour function), while the behaviours of the interactive computer influence the selection behaviour of the artist (display the range of colours). The design of their interaction – the artist’s selection of the colour function, the computer’s presentation of possible colours – determines the interactive system, comprising the artist and interactive computer behaviours in their planning and control of abstract painting. The interaction may be the object of art application design and so design research.

The assignment of task goals by design then, to either the user or the interactive computer, delimits the former and therein specifies the design of the interaction. For example, changing a shape, required by an abstract painting is a product goal, which can be expressed as a task goal structure of necessary and related attribute state changes. In particular, the field for the changed shape demands an attribute state change in the painting’s background. Specifying that state change may be a task goal assigned to the user, as in interaction with the behaviours of early art application designs or it may be a task goal assigned to the interactive computer, as in interaction with the ‘fill in’ behaviours of more recent applications. Design research would be expected to have been involved in the development of these more recent systems. The assignment of the task goal of specification constitutes the design of the interaction of the user and interactive computer behaviours in each case, which in turn may become the object of research.

2.4 Human Resource Costs

‘Doing something as desired’ by means of an interactive system always incurs resource costs. Given the separability of the user and the interactive computer behaviours, certain resource costs are associated with the user and distinguished as behavioural user costs.

Behavioural user costs are the resource costs, incurred by the user (i.e by the implementation of behaviours) to effect an application. They are both physical and mental. Physical costs are those of physical behaviours, for example, the costs of making stylus strokes  and of attending to a screen display; they may be expressed for art application design purposes as physical workload. Mental behavioural costs are the costs of mental behaviours, for example, the costs of knowing, reasoning, and deciding; they may be expressed for art appliation design purposes as mental workload. Mental behavioural costs are ultimately manifest as physical behavioural costs.

3. Performance of the Art Interactive Computer System and the User.

‘To do something as desired’ derives from the relationship of an interactive system with its application. It assimilates both how well the application is performed by the interactive system and the costs incurred by it. These are the primary constituents of ‘doing something as desired’, that is performance. They can be further differentiated, for example, as wanted/needed/experienced/felt/valued. Desired performance is the object of art application design.

Behaviours determine performance. How well an application is performed by an interactive system is described as the actual transformation of application objects with regard to the transformation, demanded by product goals. The costs of carrying out an application are described as the resource costs, incurred by the interactive system and are separately attributed to the user and the interactive computer.

‘Doing something as desired’ by means of an interactive system may be described as absolute or as relative, as in a comparison to be matched or improved upon. Accordingly, criteria expressing ‘as desired’ may either specify categorical gross resource costs and how well an application is performed or they may specify critical instances of those factors to be matched or improved upon. They are the object of design and so of design research.

The common measures of human ‘performance’ – errors and time, are related in this notion of performance. Errors are behaviours, which increase resource costs, incurred in producing a given transform or which reduce the goodness of the transform or both. The duration of user behaviours may (very generally) be associated with increases in behavioural user costs.

Source material: Long and Dowell (1989) and Dowell and Long (1989).

Following the Art Design Research exemplar diagram above, researchers need to specify: Specific Art Problems (as they relate to User Requirements); Art Research; Art Knowledge; and Specific Art Solutions (as thy relate to Interactive Systems).

These specifications require the extended Art framework to include: the Application; the Interactive System; and Performance, relating the former to the latter. Art application design requires the Interactive System to do something (the Application) as desired (Performance). Art Research acquires and validates Art Knowledge to support Art Design Practice.

The Art Framework Extension, thus includes: Application; Interactive System; and Performance.

1 Art Applications

1.1 Objects

Art applications (the ‘something’ the interactive system ‘does’) can be described as objects. Such applications occur in the need of organisations for interactive systems. Objects may be both abstract and physical and are characterised by their attributes. Abstract attributes are those of information and knowledge. Physical attributes are those of energy and matter.

For example, a digitised painting application (such as for abstract paintings) can be described for design research purposes in terms of objects; their abstract attributes, supporting the creation of abstract paintings; their physical attributes, supporting the visual representation of digitised information in the form of an abstract painting. Art objects are specified as part of art application design and can be researched as such.

1.2 Attributes and Levels

The attributes of an art application object emerge at different levels of description.

For example, forms and their configuration on a screen are physical attributes of the object abstract painting, which emerge at one level. The expression of the painting is an abstract attribute, which emerges at a higher level of description.

Attributes of art application objects are related in two ways. First, attributes are related at different levels of complexity. Second, attributes are related within levels of description.

1.4 Attribute States and Affordance

The attributes of art application objects can bedescribed as having states. Further, those states may change. For example, the structure and content (attributes) of an art application abstract painting may change state: the structure with respect to content; its ‘strokes’ with respect to size and colour. Objects exhibit an affordance for transformation, associated with their attributes’ potential for state change.

1.5 Applications and the Requirement for Attribute State Changes

An art application may be described in terms of art affordances. Accordingly, an object may be associated with a number of applications. The art object ‘abstract painting’ may be associated with the application of being realised in print (state changes of its layout attributes) and with the application of creator (state changes of its structure and content). In principle, an application may have any level of generality, for example, the painting of abstractions, of portraits, of scenery etc.

Artists have applications and require the realisation of the affordance of their associated objects. For example, ‘creating a sketch’ and ‘making a drawing’’, each have an art form as their transform, where the art forms are objects, whose attributes (their structure, content and expression, for example) have an intended state. Further changing those art forms would produce additional state changes, and therein, new transforms. Requiring new affordances might constitute a Specific Art Problem and lead to a new work of art, which embodies a Specific Art Solution.

1.6 Application Goals

Organisations express the requirement for the transformation of art application objects in terms of goals. A product goal specifies a required transform – the realisation of the affordance of an object. A product goal generally supposes necessary state changes of many attributes. The requirement of each attribute state change can be expressed as an application task goal, derived from the product goal.

So, for example, the product goal, demanding transformation of an abstract painting, making its expression more emotional, would be expressed by task goals, possibly requiring state changes of semantic attributes of the abstract structure of the painting and of stroke attributes of the physical structure. Hence, a product goal can be re-expressed as an application task goal structure, a hierarchical structure expressing the relations between task goals, for example, their sequences. The latter might constitute part of an abstract painting application design.

1.7 Art Application as: Doing Something as Desired

The transformation of an object, associated with a product goal, involves many attribute state changes – both within and across levels of complexity. Consequently, there may be alternative transforms, which satisfy the same product goal – paintings with different styles, for example, where different transforms exhibit different compromises between attribute state changes of the application object. There may also be transforms, which fail to meet the product goal. The concept of ‘doing something as desired’ describes the variance of an actual transform with that specified by a product goal. It enables all possible outcomes of an application to be equated and evaluated. Such transforms may become the object of art application design and so research.

1.8 Art Application and the User

Description of the art application then, is of objects, characterised by their attributes, and exhibiting an affordance, arising from the potential changes of state of those attributes. By specifying product goals, organisations express their requirement for transforms – objects with specific attribute states. Transforms are produced by ‘doing something, as desired’, which occurs only by means of objects, affording transformation and art interactive systems, capable of producing a transformation. Novel production may be (part of) an art application.

From product goals is derived a structure of related task goals, which can be assigned either to the user or to the interactive computer (or both) within the design of an associated interactive system. The task goals assigned to the user are those, which motivate the user’s behaviours. The actual state changes (and therein transforms), which those behaviours produce, may or may not be those specified by task and product goals, a difference expressed by the concept ‘as desired’, characterised in terms of: wanted/needed/experienced/felt/valued.

2.Art Interactive Computers and the Human

2.1 Interactive Systems

Users are able to conceptualise goals and their corresponding behaviours are said to be intentional (or purposeful). Interactive computers are designed to achieve goals and their corresponding behaviours are said to be intended (or purposive). An interactive system can be described as a behavioural system, distinguished by a boundary enclosing all user and interactive computer behaviours, whose purpose is to achieve and satisfy a common goal.

For example, the behaviours of a artist and digital painting application, whose purpose is to create abstract paintings, constitute an interactive system. Critically, it is only by identifying the common goal, that the boundary of the interactive system can be established and so designed and researched.

Interactive systems transform objects by producing state changes in the abstract and physical attributes of those objects (see 1.1). The artist and painting application may transform the object ‘abstract art’ by changing both the attributes of its expression and the attributes of its structure and content.

The behaviours of the user and the interactive computer are described as behavioural sub-systems of the interactive system – sub-systems, which interact. The human behavioural sub-system is more specifically termed the user. Behaviour may be loosely understood as ‘what the user does’, in contrast with ‘what is done’ (that is, attribute state changes of application objects). More precisely the user is described as:

a system of distinct and related user behaviours, identifiable as the sequence of states of a user interacting with a computer to do something as desired and corresponding with a purposeful (intentional) transformation of application objects.

Although expressible at many levels of description, the user must at least be described for design research purposes at a level, commensurate with the level of description of the transformation of innovation application objects. For example, an artist interacting with a painting application is a user, whose behaviours include creating and modifying abstract paintings.

2.2 Humans as a System of Mental and Physical Behaviours

The behaviours, constituting an interactive system, are both physical and abstract. Abstract behaviours are generally the acquisition, storage, and transformation of information. They represent and process information, at least concerning: application objects and their attributes, attribute relations and attribute states and the transformations, required by goals. Physical behaviours are related to, and express, abstract behaviours.

Accordingly, the user is described as a system of both mental (abstract) and overt (physical) behaviours, which extend a mutual influence – they are related. In particular, they are related within an assumed hierarchy of behaviour types (and their control), wherein mental behaviours generally determine and are expressed by, overt behaviours. Mental behaviours may transform (abstract) application objects, represented in cognition or express, through overt behaviour, plans for transforming application objects.

For example, a commercial artist has the product goal, required to create an image for a publicity campaign. The artist interacts with the computer by means of the art application interface (whose behaviours include the transmission of information about the publicity image). Hence, the artist acquires a representation of the an initial sketch of the image by evaluating source material information displayed by the screen and assessing it by comparison with the conditions, specified by the product goal. The artist reasons about the attribute state changes, necessary to eliminate any discrepancy between current and desired conditions of the process, that is, the set of related changes, which will produce the publicity image, ‘as desired’. That decision is expressed in the set of instructions issued to the interactive computer through overt behaviour – selecting relevant menu options, such as – shape, colour, for example.

The user is described as having cognitive, conative and affective aspects. The cognitive aspects are those of knowing, reasoning and remembering; the conative aspects are those of acting, trying and persevering; and the affective aspects are those of being patient, caring and assuring. Both mental and overt user behaviours are described as having these three aspects, all of which may contribute to ‘doing something, as desired wanted/needed/experienced/felt/valued.

2.3 Human-Computer Interaction

Although user and interactive computer behaviours may be described as separable sub-systems of the interactive system, these sub-systems exert a ‘mutual influence’, that is to say they interact. Their configuration principally determines the interactive system and so its design and the associated research into that and other possible (art application) designs.

Interaction is described as: the mutual influence of the user (i.e. behaviours) and the interactive computer (i.e behaviours), associated within an interactive system. For example, the behaviours of an artist interact with the behaviours of a painting application. The artist’s behaviours influence the behaviours of the interactive computer (access the colour function), while the behaviours of the interactive computer influence the selection behaviour of the artist (display the range of colours). The design of their interaction – the artist’s selection of the colour function, the computer’s presentation of possible colours – determines the interactive system, comprising the artist and interactive computer behaviours in their planning and control of abstract painting. The interaction may be the object of art application design and so design research.

Interaction of the user and the interactive computer behaviours is the fundamental determinant of the interactive system, rather than their individual behaviours per se.

The assignment of task goals by design then, to either the user or the interactive computer, delimits the former and therein specifies the design of the interaction. For example, changing a shape, required by an abstract painting is a product goal, which can be expressed as a task goal structure of necessary and related attribute state changes. In particular, the field for the changed shape demands an attribute state change in the painting’s background. Specifying that state change may be a task goal assigned to the user, as in interaction with the behaviours of early art application designs or it may be a task goal assigned to the interactive computer, as in interaction with the ‘fill in’ behaviours of more recent applications. Design research would be expected to have been involved in the development of these more recent systems. The assignment of the task goal of specification constitutes the design of the interaction of the user and interactive computer behaviours in each case, which in turn may become the object of research.

2.4 Human On-line and Off-line Behaviours

User behaviours may comprise both on-line and off-line behaviours: on-line behaviours are associated with the interactive computer’s representation of the application; off-line behaviours are associated with non-computer representations of the application.

As an illustration of the distinction, consider the example of an interactive system, consisting of the behaviours of an artist and an art application. They are required to produce an enhanced image from a paper-based depiction. The product goal of the interactive system here requires the transformation of the physical representation of the image from one medium to another, that is, from paper to computer. From the product goal derives the task goals, relating to required attribute state changes of the image. Certain of those task goals will be assigned to the artist. The artist’s off-line behaviours include looking at and assimilating the  paper-based image, so acquiring a representation of the application object. By contrast, the artist’s on-line behaviours include specifying the represention by the interactive computer of the transposed content of the image in a desired visual format of stored physical symbols.

On-line and off-line user behaviours are a particular case of the ‘internal’ interactions between a user’s behaviours as, for example, when the artist’s stylus use interacts with memorisations of successive aspects of the paper-based image.

2.5 Structures and the Human

Description of the user as a system of behaviours needs to be extended, for the purposes of design and design research, to the structures supporting that behaviour.

Whereas user behaviours may be loosely understood as ‘what the human does’, the structures supporting them can be understood as ‘the support for the human to be able to do what they do’. There is a one-to-many mapping between a user’s structures and the behaviours they might support: thus, the same structures may support many different behaviours.

In co-extensively enabling behaviours at each level of description, structures must exist at commensurate levels. The user structural architecture is both physical and mental, providing the capability for a user’s overt and mental behaviours. It provides a represention of application information as symbols (physical and abstract) and concepts, and the processes available for the transformation of those representations. It provides an abstract structure for expressing information as mental behaviour. It provides a physical structure for expressing information as physical behaviour.

Physical user structure is neural, bio-mechanical and physiological. Mental structure consists of representational schemes and processes. Corresponding with the behaviours it supports and enables, user structure has cognitive, conative and affective aspects. The cognitive aspects of user structures include information and knowledge – that is, symbolic and conceptual representations – of the application, of the interactive computer and of the user themselves, and it includes the ability to reason. The conative aspects of user structures motivate the implementation of behaviour and its perseverence in pursuing task goals. The affective aspects of user structures include the personality and temperament, which respond to and support behaviour. All three aspects may contribute to ‘ doing something, as desired wanted/needed/experienced/felt/valued’.

To illustrate this description of mental structure, consider the example of the structures supporting an artist’s behaviours in a studio. Physical structure supports perception of a digitised painting’s current display and executing actions to an art application. Mental structures support the acquisition, memorisation and transformation of information about how images are changed. The knowledge, which the artist has of the application and of the interactive computer, supports the collation, assessment and reasoning about the actions required.

The limits of user structures determine the limits of the behaviours they might support. Such structural limits include those of: intellectual ability; knowledge of the application and the interactive computer; memory and attentional capacities; patience; perseverence; dexterity; and visual acuity etc. The structural limits on behaviour may become particularly apparent, when one part of the structure (a channel capacity, perhaps) is required to support concurrent behaviours, perhaps simultaneous visual attending and reasoning behaviours. The user then, is ‘resource-limited’ by the co-extensive user structures.

The behavioural limits of the user, determined by structure, are not only difficult to define with any kind of completeness, they may also be variable, because that structure may change, and in a number of ways. A user may have self-determined changes in response to the application – as expressed in learning phenomena, acquiring new knowledge of the application, of the interactive computer, and indeed of themselves, to better support behaviour. Also, user structures degrade with the expenditure of resources by behaviour, as demonstrated by the phenomena of mental and physical fatigue. User structures may also change in response to motivating or de-motivating influences of whoever owns and  maintains the interactive system.

It must be emphasised that the structure supporting the user is independent of the structure supporting the interactive computer behaviours. Neither structure can make any incursion into the other and neither can directly support the behaviours of the other. (Indeed this separability of structures is a pre-condition for expressing the interactive system as two interacting behavioural sub-systems). Although the structures may change in response to each other, they are not, unlike the behaviours they support, interactive; they are not included within the interactive system. The combination of structures of both user and interactive computer, supporting their interacting behaviours is described as the user interface .

2.6 Human Resource Costs

‘Doing something as desired’ by means of an interactive system always incurs resource costs. Given the separability of the user and the interactive computer behaviours, certain resource costs are associated directly with the user and distinguished as structural user costs and behavioural user costs.

Structural user costs are the costs of the user structures. Such costs are incurred in developing and maintaining user skills and knowledge. More specifically, structural user costs are incurred in training and educating users, so developing in them the structures, which will enable the behaviours necessary for an application . Training and educating may augment or modify existing structures, provide the user with entirely novel structures, or perhaps even reduce existing structures. Structural user costs will be incurred in each case and will frequently be borne by the organisation. An example of structural user costs might be the costs of training an artist to use a painting interface in the particular style of expression, required for the creation of publicity images for a client and in the operation of the interactive computer by which that expression style can be created.

Structural user costs may be differentiated as cognitive, conative and affective structural costs. Cognitive structural costs express the costs of developing the knowledge and reasoning abilities of users and their ability for formulating and expressing novel plans in their overt behaviour – as necessary for ‘doing something as desired’. Conative structural costs express the costs of developing the activity, stamina and persistence of users as necessary for an application. Affective structural costs express the costs of developing in users their patience, care and assurance as necessary for an application.

Behavioural user costs are the resource costs, incurred by the user (i.e by the implementation of their of behaviours) in recruiting user structures to effect an application. They are both physical and mental resource costs. Physical behavioural costs are the costs of physical behaviours, for example, the costs of making stylus strokes and of attending to a digitised pinting’s screen display; they may be expressed without differentiation as physical workload. Mental behavioural costs are the costs of mental behaviours, for example, the costs of knowing, reasoning, and deciding; they may be expressed without differentiation as mental workload. Mental behavioural costs are ultimately manifest as physical behavioural costs. Costs are an important aspect of the design of an interactive computer system.

When differentiated, mental and physical behavioural costs are described as the cognitive, conative and affective behavioural costs of the user. Cognitive behavioural costs relate to both the mental representing and processing of information and the demands made on the user’s extant knowledge, as well as the physical expression thereof in the formulation and expression of a novel plan. Conative behavioural costs relate to the repeated mental and physical actions and effort, required by the formulation and expression of the novel plan. Affective behavioural costs relate to the emotional aspects of the mental and physical behaviours, required in the formulation and expression of the novel plan. Behavioural user costs are evidenced in user fatigue, stress and frustration; they are costs borne directly by the user and so need to be taken into account in the design process.

3. Performance of the Art Interactive Computer System and the User.

‘To do something as desired’ derives from the relationship of an interactive system with its application. It assimilates both how well the application is performed by the interactive system and the costs incurred by it. These are the primary constituents of ‘doing something as desired’, that is performance. They can be further differentiated, for example, as wanted/needed/experienced/felt/valued.

A concordance is assumed between the behaviours of an interactive system and its performance: behaviours determine performance. How well an application is performed by an interactive system is described as the actual transformation of application objects with regard to the transformation, demanded by product goals. The costs of carrying out an application are described as the resource costs, incurred by the interactive system and are separately attributed to the user and the interactive computer. Specifically, the resource costs incurred by the user are differentiated as: structural user costs – the costs of establishing and maintaining the structures supporting behaviour; and behavioural user costs – the costs of the behaviour, recruiting structure to its own support. Structural and behavioural user costs are further differentiated as cognitive, conative and affective costs. Design requires attention to all types of resource costs – both those of the user and of the interactive computer.

‘Doing something as desired’ by means of an interactive system may be described as absolute or as relative, as in a comparison to be matched or improved upon. Accordingly, criteria expressing ‘as desired’ may either specify categorical gross resource costs and how well an application is performed or they may specify critical instances of those factors to be matched or improved upon. They are the object of design and so of design research.

Discriminating the user’s performance within the performance of the interactive system would require the separate assimilation of user resource costs and their achievement of desired attribute state changes, demanded by their assigned task goals. Further assertions concerning the user arise from the description of interactive system performance. First, the description of performance is able to distinguish the goodness of the transforms from the resource costs of the interactive system, which produce them. This distinction is essential for design, as two interactive systems might be capable of producing the same transform, yet if one were to incur a greater resource cost than the other, it would be the lesser (in terms of performance) of the two systems.

Second, given the concordance of behaviour with ‘doing something as desired’, optimal user (and equally, interactive computer) behaviours may be described as those, which incur a (desired) minimum of resource costs in producing a given transform. Design of optimal user behaviour would minimise the resource costs, incurred in producing a transform of a given goodness. However, that optimality may only be categorically determined with regard to interactive system performance and the best performance of an interactive system may still be at variance with what is desired of it. To be more specific, it is not sufficient for user behaviours simply to be error-free. Although the elimination of errorful user behaviours may contribute to the best application possible of a given interactive system, that performance may still be less than ‘as desired’. Conversely, although user behaviours may be errorful, an interactive system may still support ‘doing something, as desired’.

Third, the common measures of human ‘performance’ – errors and time, are related in this conceptualisation of performance. Errors are behaviours, which increase resource costs, incurred in producing a given transform or which reduce the goodness of the transform or both. The duration of user behaviours may (very generally) be associated with increases in behavioural user costs.

Fourth, structural and behavioural user costs may be traded-off in the design of an application. More sophisticated user structures, supporting user behaviours, that is, the knowledge and skills of experienced and trained users, will incur high (structural) costs to develop, but enable more efficient behaviours – and therein, reduced behavioural costs.

Fifth, resource costs, incurred by the user and the interactive computer may be traded-off in the design of the performance of an application. A user can sustain a level of performance of the interactive system by optimising behaviours to compensate for the poorly designed behaviours of the interactive computer (and vice versa), that is, behavioural costs of the user and interactive computer are traded-off in the design process. This is of particular importance as the ability of users to adapt their behaviours to compensate for the poor design of interactive computer-based systems often obscures the fact that the systems are poorly designed.

Source material: Long and Dowell (1989) and Dowell and Long (1989)

Requirement 1: The framework (as a basic support structure) is for a discipline (as an academic field of study and branch of knowledge).

Edmonds references two frameworks – those of Pleasure (Costello, 2007) and Engagement (Edmonds, this paper) (Comment 19). He also mentions design and understanding (Comment 2). However, neither framework appears to be explicitly supported or even related to any concept of discipline or field of study, for example science for the problem of understanding or engineering for the problem of design.

Requirement 2: The framework is for HCI (as human-computer interaction) as art (as an ideal creative expression).

For Edmonds, the ideal creative expression takes the form of the ‘aesthetics of art’. However, the latter is more general than the former. Further, little more is said about the latter, at least in this paper (Comment 1).

Requirement 3: The framework has a general problem (as art design) with a particular scope (as art human-computer interactions to do something as desired).

Edmonds’ framework references both design and understanding; but neither are developed as part of a general problem (Comments 2 and 19). The particular scope includes human-computer interactions with art – both in terms of the interactions themselves and the experience and engagement, which may result (Comment 19). Although mention is made of evaluation (Comment 16) and the criteria of Costello’s (2007) Pleasure Framework (Comment 19), no explicit reference is made to doing something as desired.

Requirement 4: Research ( as acquisition and validation) acquires (as study and practice) and validates (as confirms) knowledge (as experience, expert advice and other artefacts).

Edmonds paper reviews human-computer interactions as art. In so doing, he proposes  an Engagement model of modes and phases, which he relates to Costello’s (2007) Pleasure framework in the contexts of: perception; games/play; experience; and engagement. The relationship is hypothetical and so may count as the first stage of acquisition; but not as validation of knowledge in any form. The paper reports no new study or practice (Comments 17, 18 and 19).

Requirement 5: The framework embodies knowledge, which supports (facilitates) practices (as trial and error and implement and test), which solve (as resolve) the general design problem of art design.

Edmonds’ framework is not applied to design, as implement and test or indeed to any other design practice, although evaluation is mentioned (Comments 4 and 16). There is little or no evidence of the framework’s explicit contribution to solving the general design problem of design, although the review is constructive, as such (Comments 2 and 4).

Conclusion: Edmond’s framework(s) for art and art experience design can be considered only as preliminary. Further development is required concerning: discipline relations of the two general problems referenced (understanding and design); its level of description (needs to be higher and to link with the lower-lower descriptions referenced); more details, concerning the aesthetics of art; and the validation of its proposals.

The frameworks presented here could be useful in such developments.

 First, the Framework, as a basic support structure, is for a discipline, as an academic field of study and branch of knowledge.

Potential:Salisbury’s Art Approach to video games, as performing art, assumes the seeking of cultural value to be a matter of understanding the related phenomena. He considers that such understanding may have utility for the field of game design. Neither understanding nor design is associated with any discipline.

Second, the Framework is for HCI, as human-computer interaction, that is, as art, as an ideal creative expression).

Potential: Salisbury’s Art Approach assumes the game designer produces a creative, technical and imaginative expression of the cultural relationship between game players and the world. No explicit ideal or other criteria are offered for such an expression. Art is not referenced.

Third, the Framework has a general problem, as art design, with a particular scope, as art human-computer interactions to do something as desired.

Potential: Potential: Salisbury’s Art Approach references both design and understanding; but neither is developed as part of a general problem. The particular scope includes human-computer interactions with video games, as performance art – both in terms of the interactions themselves and the experience and engagement, which may result. No explicit reference is made to doing something as desired.

Fourth, the Framework conceives research, as acquisition and validation, acquires, as study and practice and validates, as confirm, knowledge, as experience, expert advice and other artefacts.

Potential: Salisbury’s proposed Art Approach theory constitutes acquired knowledge, as derived from study. There is no reference to validation of the theory proposed, either in terms of understanding or design.

Fifth, the framework embodies knowledge, which supports, that is, facilitates, practices, as trial and error and implement and test, which solve, as resolve, the general design problem of art design.

Potential: Salisbury’s proposed Art Approach theory is not applied to design, as implement and test or to any other design practice, although evaluation is implicitly referenced. There is no evidence of the Approach’s explicit contribution to solving the general design problem of design.

Conclusion: Salisbury’s Art Approach to art experience design can be considered as preliminary. Further development is required concerning: discipline relations of the two general problems referenced (understanding and design); the level of description, concerning both and their links to the lower-lower descriptions of the study; more details, concerning the aesthetics of art; and the validation of its proposals.

The Art Framework proposed here is considered to have potential for contributing to such developments.

Discipline

Innovation – an academic field of study/branch of knowledge (academic – scholarly; field of study – subject area; branch of knowledge – division of information/learning).

Art – an academic field of study/branch of knowledge (academic – scholarly; field of study – subject area; branch of knowledge – division of information/learning).

Craft – an academic field of study/branch of knowledge (academic – scholarly; field of study – subject area; branch of knowledge – division of information/learning).

Applied – an academic field of study/branch of knowledge (academic – scholarly; field of study – subject area; branch of knowledge – division of information/learning).

Science – Discipline: an academic field of study/branch of knowledge (academic – scholarly; field of study – subject area; branch of knowledge – division of information/learning).

Engineering – an academic field of study/branch of knowledge (academic – scholarly; field of study – subject area; branch of knowledge – division of information/learning).

HCI

Innovation – human-computer interaction (human – individual/group; computer – interactive/embedded; interaction – active/passive).

Art – human-computer interaction (human – individual/group; computer – interactive/embedded; interaction – active/passive).

Craft – human-computer interaction (human – individual/group; computer – interactive/embedded; interaction – active/passive).

Applied – human-computer interaction (human – individual/group; computer – interactive/embedded; interaction – active/passive).

Science – human-computer interaction (human – individual/group; computer – interactive/embedded; interaction – active/passive).

Engineering – human-computer interaction (human – individual/group; computer – interactive/embedded; interaction – active/passive).

Framework Type

Innovation – Innovation: novel (novel – new ideas/methods/devices etc)

Art – Art: creative expression corresponding to some ideal or criteria (creative – imaginative, inventive); (expressive – showing by taking some form); ideal – visionary/perfect); criterion – standard).

Craft – Craft: best practice design (practice – design/evaluation; design – specification/implementation).

Applied – Applied: application of other discipline knowledge (application – addition to/prescription; discipline – academic field/branch of knowledge; knowledge – information/learning).

Science – understanding (explanation/prediction)

Engineering – design for performance (design – specification/implementation; performance – how well effected).

General Problem

Innovation – innovation design (innovation – novelty; design – specification/implementation).

Art – art design (art – ideal creative expression; design – specification/implementation).

Craft – craft design (craft – best practice; design – specification/implementation).

Applied – applied design (applied – added/prescribed; design – specification/implementation).

Science – understanding human-computer interactions (understand – explanation/prediction; human – individual/group; computer – interactive/embedded; interaction – active/passive)

Engineering – engineering design (engineering – design for performance; design – specification/implementation).

Particular Scope

Innovation – innovative human-computer interactions to do something as desired (innovative – novel; human – individual/group; computer – interactive/embedded; interactions – active/passive; something – action/task; desired: wanted/needed/experienced/felt/valued).

Art – art human-computer interactions to do something as desired (art – creation/expression; human – individual/group; computer – interactive/embedded; interactions – active/passive; something – action/task); desired: wanted/needed/experienced/felt/valued).

Craft – human-computer interactions to do something as desired, which satisfy user requirements in the form of an interactive system (human – individual/group; computer – interactive/embedded; interactions – active/passive; something – action/task; desired: wanted/needed/experienced/felt/valued; user – human; requirements – needs; satisfied – met/addressed; interactive – active/passive; system – user-computer).

Applied – human-computer interactions to do something as desired, which satisfy user requirements in the form of an interactive system (human – individual/group; computer – interactive/embedded; interactions – active/passive; something – action/task; desired: wanted/needed/experienced/felt/valued; user – human; requirements – needs; satisfied – met/addressed; interactive – active/passive; system – user-computer).

Science – human-computer interactions to do something as desired (human – individual/group; computer – interactive/embedded; interactions – active/passive; something – action/task; desired: wanted/needed/experienced/felt/valued.

Engineering – human-computer interactions to perform tasks effectively as desired (human – individual/group; computer – interactive/embedded; interactions – active/passive; perform – effect/carry out; tasks – actions; desired – wanted/needed/experienced/felt/valued).

Research

Innovation – acquires and validates knowledge to support practices (acquires – creates; validates – confirms; knowledge – patents/expert advice/experience/examples).

Art – acquires and validates knowledge (acquires – creates by study/practice; validates – confirms; knowledge – experience/expert advice/other artefacts.

Craft – acquires and validates knowledge to support practices (acquires – creates; validates – confirms; knowledge – heuristics/methods/expert advice/successful designs/case-studies).

Applied – acquires and validates knowledge to support practices (acquires – creates; validates – confirms; knowledge – heuristics/methods/expert advice/successful designs/case-studies).

Science – acquires and validates knowledge to support practices (acquires – creates; validates – confirms; knowledge – theories/models/laws/data/hypotheses/analytical and empirical methods and tools; practices – explanation/prediction).

Engineering – acquires and validates knowledge to support practices (acquires – creates; validates – confirms; knowledge – design guidelines/models and methods/principles – specific/ general and declarative/methodological).

Knowledge

Innovation – supports practices (supports – facilitates/makes possible; practices – trial-and-error/implement and test).

Art – supports practices (supports – facilitates/makes possible; practices – trial and error/implement and test).

Craft – supports practices (supports – facilitates/makes possible; practices – trial-and-error/implement and test).

Applied – supports practices (supports – facilitates/makes possible; practices – trial-and-error/apply and test).

Science – supports practices (supports – facilitates/makes possible; practices – explanation/prediction).

Engineering – supports practices (supports – facilitates/makes possible; practices – diagnose design problems/prescribe design solutions).

Practices

Innovation – supported by knowledge (supported – facilitated; knowledge – patents/expert advice/experience/examples).

Art – supported by knowledge (supported – facilitated/made possible; knowledge – experience/expert advice/other artefacts).

Craft – supported by knowledge (supported – facilitated; knowledge – heuristics/methods/expert advice/successful designs/case-studies).

Applied – supported by knowledge (supported – facilitated; knowledge – guidelines; heuristics/methods/expert advice/successful designs/case-studies).

Science – supported by knowledge (supported – facilitated; knowledge – theories/models/laws/data/hypotheses/analytical and empirical methods and tools ).

Engineering – supported by knowledge (supported – facilitated; knowledge – design guidelines/models and methods/principles – specific/ general and declarative/methodological).

Solution

Innovation – resolution of a problem (resolution – answer/address; problem – question/doubt).

Art – resolution of the general problem (resolution – answer/address; problem – question/doubt).

Craft – resolution of a problem (resolution – answer/address; problem – question/doubt).

Applied – resolution of a problem (resolution – answer/address; problem – question/doubt).

Science – resolution of a problem (resolution – answer/address; problem – question/doubt).

Engineering – resolution of a problem (resolution – answer/address; problem – question/doubt).