new media society 2006 richards 531 50
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/29/2019 New Media Society 2006 Richards 531 50
1/21
http://nms.sagepub.com/New Media & Society
http://nms.sagepub.com/content/8/4/531The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/1461444806064485
2006 8: 531New Media SocietyRussell Richards
Users, interactivity and generation
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
can be found at:New Media & SocietyAdditional services and information for
http://nms.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://nms.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
http://nms.sagepub.com/content/8/4/531.refs.htmlCitations:
What is This?
- Jul 19, 2006Version of Record>>
at MACKENZIE BIBLIOTECA on September 28, 2012nms.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://nms.sagepub.com/http://nms.sagepub.com/http://nms.sagepub.com/content/8/4/531http://nms.sagepub.com/content/8/4/531http://nms.sagepub.com/content/8/4/531http://www.sagepublications.com/http://nms.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://nms.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://nms.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://nms.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://nms.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://nms.sagepub.com/content/8/4/531.refs.htmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://nms.sagepub.com/content/8/4/531.full.pdfhttp://nms.sagepub.com/http://nms.sagepub.com/http://nms.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://nms.sagepub.com/content/8/4/531.full.pdfhttp://nms.sagepub.com/content/8/4/531.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://nms.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://nms.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.sagepublications.com/http://nms.sagepub.com/content/8/4/531http://nms.sagepub.com/ -
7/29/2019 New Media Society 2006 Richards 531 50
2/21
ARTICLE
Users, interactivity and
generation............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
RUSSELL RICHARDS
Southampton Solent University, UK............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Abstract
This article is, in part, a response to articles for this
Journal by Sally McMillan and Spiro Kiousis. The article
examines the analytical problems caused by the fact that
interactivity is both a property and an activity. It asserts
that interactivity is a contextualizing facility that mediates
between environments and content and users. The article
analyses the modes of operation both for the production of
the properties of interactivity and usage/production in the
activity of interactivity. The concept of positioning is
offered as a means of moving the debate on from the
application of communication models or the practical
development of features. The article proposes succession
mapping as a methodology that acknowledges the building
up of the interactive offer and also the generativecapabilities of packages. The concept of the active user
engaged in user production i.e. generation is introduced as
being of value to academics, practitioners and those who
practice, teach and research.
Key words
consumer generation generator interactivity
positioning processor succession mapping user
production
INTRODUCTION
This article is concerned with the production of interactivity and the
inadequacy of many theoretical approaches to describe the possible
new media & society
Copyright 2006 SAGE Publications
London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi
Vol8(4):531550 [DOI: 10.1177/1461444806064485]
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
531
at MACKENZIE BIBLIOTECA on September 28, 2012nms.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://nms.sagepub.com/http://nms.sagepub.com/http://nms.sagepub.com/http://nms.sagepub.com/ -
7/29/2019 New Media Society 2006 Richards 531 50
3/21
generative power of interactivity. It seeks to develop theoretical resources,
applicable either in critiquing, or producing interactive packages. Much
analysis of users and interactivity has focused on the perception of the latter
by the former, or in the search for moments of interactivity as a separate
phenomenon. This article asserts that interactivity is a contextualizing facilitythat mediates between environments and content and users and enables the
generation of further content. This is a dynamic and inter-related process. The
mode/s of interactivity on offer provide qualitatively different contexts for
the types of environment, content, and positions (extending Bourdieu)
occupied by the user. All these elements and the motivations of the user
influence the forms of generation.1 These components are examined below.
The article is concerned with definitions of terms of, and related to,
interactivity. Research methods utilizing succession mapping are
investigated. There is an analysis of the qualitatively different modes of
interactivity as an activity. Some examples from the different modes of
production of properties of interactivity are also presented. In each case the
focus returns to the relationships between the user and the generation of
content. The article concludes by emphasizing the need for further research
into the application of these proposals.
DEFINITIONS
InteractivityInteractivity is not a word often found in hard copy dictionaries. Even a
survey of on-line dictionaries maintained on the web yielded no mention of
the word.2 If the word is included in hard copy dictionaries it is usually
described as a derivative of interactive, although older dictionaries only offer
interactively as a derivative. The only reference found listing interactivity in
its own right is in the new Shorter Oxford English Dictionary 2002 edition:
Interactivity n (a) an activity that involves interaction: b) the property of
being interactive. This dual application of the word, as both an activity and
a property, seems significant and worthy of investigation. However, most
analysts have focused on one of the two meanings.
Interactivity as an activity
In 1988, Sheizaf Rafaeli, defined interactivity exclusively with regard to the
activity of communication exchanges, i.e. An expression of the extent that,
in a given series of communication exchanges, any third (or later)
transmission (or message) is related to the degree to which previous
exchanges referred to even earlier transmissions (Rafaeli, 1988: 11).Contained within Rafaelis approach, though not emphasized by him, is
the acknowledgement that interactivity is about the facilitation of generation
by referral to content in context. In fact it can be argued that it is a
context/content mix that is being generated. Rafaeli did not write of this
New Media & Society8(4)
532
at MACKENZIE BIBLIOTECA on September 28, 2012nms.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://nms.sagepub.com/http://nms.sagepub.com/http://nms.sagepub.com/http://nms.sagepub.com/ -
7/29/2019 New Media Society 2006 Richards 531 50
4/21
process in such terms. His concern was to differentiate interactivity as a
communication activity, as opposed to a technology-led phenomenon.
However, this article explores the implications of this reassessment
particularly with regard to where actors are positioned in relation to the
generation of this mix. Interactivity is not just about exchange ofcommunication but also generation of content. Who is doing the generation
is in itself an important question. We are now moving into an era where
there will be further opportunities for users to engage with applications as
facilities where the personal context of the user informs the content of the
package and/or where the contextual framework supplied requires the user
to supply some or all content and/or where the contextual framework itself
is supplied by the user. These opportunities constitute qualitatively different
activities that are not just about communication between people.
Interactivity as a property
The work of S.S. Sundar provides an exemplar of this mode of analysis:
Interactivity is an attribute of technology (Sundar, 2004: 387). This is
very much a practitioners approach. They must learn how to embed
interactivity as a property. Scientists and designers codify the parameters for
embedding interactivity in multimedia packages (e.g. Benedikt, 1991). This
embedding presents interactivity as a resource with varying degrees of
sophistication and also a dormant resource, awaiting a user to respond to
it. Sundar puts it thus: How users interact with the system under
conditions of high or low interactivity is an effects question (2004: 386).
Consequently, the resulting focus is on design (of interface) and technique
(usability). Of course these properties are important because they provide
part of the context for the delivery of content to the user. However, this
approach is inadequate in describing interactivity as an activity (e.g.
Benedikt, 1991; Garret, 2002; Neilsen, 2002). Furthermore, the content
itself is largely ignored in these analyses.
Interactivity as a property and an activity
Recently, a number of academics have attempted to bring together these
two aspects.3 Sally McMillan and Spiro Kiousis have both contributed to
this process in articles for this journal (Kiousis, 2002; McMillan, 2002a).
McMillan writes ofperception in use (activity) and features (property).
She quotes Rafaeli but seeks to move on from his single dimension
approach (2002b: 272). McMillan proposes a four-part typology of cyber-interactivity (2002b: 272), with the component parts being: monologue,
feedback, responsive dialogue and mutual discourse. These are qualitatively
different types of communication, starting with monologue that refers to a
sender talking at a receiver and moving through to mutual discourse that is
Richards: Users, interactivity and generation
533
at MACKENZIE BIBLIOTECA on September 28, 2012nms.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://nms.sagepub.com/http://nms.sagepub.com/http://nms.sagepub.com/http://nms.sagepub.com/ -
7/29/2019 New Media Society 2006 Richards 531 50
5/21
often described in dictionary definitions as interaction per se. McMillan
took the four-part typology and the notions ofperception in use and
features and applied them in fieldwork. She used students to analyse over
100 health-related websites. The results had very low scorings of relevance
that she put down to her researchers being young, healthy students (2002b:284). Yet there are many issues (AIDS for one) that affect young people.
McMillans research did not deal with the content of the sites. The criteria
used to analyse the websites were predominately functional, i.e. were there,
or were there not, opportunities forperception in use (activity), and what
features (properties) were available on each website. The article is highly
significant because it takes the dual nature of interactivity seriously.
However, McMillans quantitative approach reveals nothing of the
positioning of the user in relation to the content. Furthermore, McMillanuses an isolation mode of categorization that results in sites appearing to be
solely Mutual Discourse or solely Monologue or solely Feedback or
Responsive (2002b: 276). Of course, in reality, it is extremely rare to find
a site involving rich interactive possibilities that does not also have sections
which command/direct the user if only to supply directions of use or in fact
all four of the above. McMillan defines Rafaelis approach as in a single
dimension (2002b: 272), however, his definition actually points towards
multi-dimensional description because of its connection of change in
content/context over time. This article argues that the user adds the
additional dimensions in the activity of interactivity through the properties
of interactivity enabled in the environment.
Spiro Kiousis, in his article entitled Interactivity: a Concept Explication,
attempts to place activity, property and perception of the user within the
same analytical grid (2002). This approach is important because it reveals the
analytical footprint of a wide variety of studies. As detailed below, it also
shows what is notbeing analysed.
Kiousis analysis also references Rafaelis work, but in a more detailedmanner. The generation of conversation is described by Kiousis as third-
order dependency. In so doing, he acknowledges the importance of these
processes. Kiousis also places the canon in a two dimensional grid. In his
case the grid is horizontally labeled with intellectual perspective through
communication and non-communication and in the vertical with object
emphasized through technology, communication setting and perceiver. The
outcome of this mapping exercise is highly significant. The vast majority of
investigations do indeed fit into this grid but very few of them appear inmore than one quadrant. Kiousis response is to argue for a meta-definition
of interactivity that incorporates all the above criteria and requires the
application of a range of methodologies to extract different data from
specific sites of interactivity that can then be fed back into the grid. Thus,
New Media & Society8(4)
534
at MACKENZIE BIBLIOTECA on September 28, 2012nms.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://nms.sagepub.com/http://nms.sagepub.com/http://nms.sagepub.com/http://nms.sagepub.com/ -
7/29/2019 New Media Society 2006 Richards 531 50
6/21
Kiousis seeks a way of amalgamating otherwise disparate approaches, but, far
more importantly, shows clearly where the gaps are in the research. For
example, although he acknowledges that there has been a move towards
researching the significance of interactivity for, and of the user, Kiousis does
not incorporate the significance of content for the user within his schema.The concentration solely on the usersperception of the interactivity itself
ignores the motivation for being with the package in the first place (cf.
McMillans research above).4 The mode of interactivity provides the context
of the relationship between the user/s and the content. It is not an end in
itself. It is a contextualizing facility. A further problem with Kiosis approach
is that interactivity is again reduced to the act of communication alone and
in fact, as Kiousis puts it, to: . . . technological simulation of interpersonal
communication (2002: 373). This reductive approach results in theadmission that: Therefore, a conversation over the phone is interactive,
while a dialogue in person is not (2002: 373). Although Kiousis does
qualify this surprising result by saying that it is valid for his study and not
others, there are several anomalies here. There are properties and activities at
work that result in content being created in a social environment through
interactivity, be it in person or via other technologies. This is not included
in Kiousis grid. A further problem with this reduction is that it delimits the
number of communication media that can be described as interactive. Most
significantly, Kiousis attempt at producing a meta-definition is immediately
undermined by such qualifications.
Whereas McMillan can be criticized for not inter-relating activity and
property even as she acknowledges their existence and Kiousis can be
criticized for his reductionism, they both manage to write extensively on
interactivity without incorporating the motivations of the user with regard
to content. This results in analysis of screen-based interaction in terms of
users perception of interactivity isolated from content. The emphasis has
been on the act not the outcomes; the pleasure or pain of the activity of theinteractivity and not the motives/needs of the user; on interactivity as a
thing in itself and not as a contextualizing facility that mediates between
environments and content and users and enables generation.
Practitioners, by comparison, have to be concerned with the positions of
the user in relation to the content, their motivations within specific types of
media environments and always with regards to the dynamic of generation
through the engagement with concepts that can be politically challenging,
intellectually or emotionally stimulating or simply raising consciousnessabout a product. However, it is also the case that practitioners have often
considered the activity of interactivity in mechanical terms, i.e. basic
usability/task completion (Neilsen, 2002). It is now time for both academics
and practitioners to address the positioning of the user.
Richards: Users, interactivity and generation
535
at MACKENZIE BIBLIOTECA on September 28, 2012nms.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://nms.sagepub.com/http://nms.sagepub.com/http://nms.sagepub.com/http://nms.sagepub.com/ -
7/29/2019 New Media Society 2006 Richards 531 50
7/21
POSITIONING
Interactivity facilitates and is an outcome of person/technology/world to
person/technology/world contact. It is what we do and what we are
subjected to as people. A component part of these processes is positioning.
We as humans are constantly both positioning and positioned. Here I amdrawing on the work of Bourdieu (1993) and Thompson (1995). Bourdieu
extensively analysed the development of culture with specific references to
writers in 19th-century France. He uses the notion of the field in which
such production occurs. Writers as producers and audience as consumers
occupy different positions within fields within fields dependent upon class,
economic opportunity, and affiliation. These fields are dynamic in
themselves and the relations between them are also dynamic. For Bourdieu,
this dynamism is also within the agents who occupy these fields. A
particular writer can occupy one social position, have a complementary or
antagonistic disposition and take a further conflicting or supporting position
for a given situation. The power of the term position here is that it can be
used to express social role, mental framework and implementation of ideas,
all of which carry different modes of expression. Bourdieus focus is on the
producers of culture with little reference made to the consumers of culture,
a point made by Nick Couldry in his Media@LSE working paper (2003).
Bourdieu does, however, offer tantalizing glimpses into the possibilities of
position for the audience, writing both of the space of production (1993:45) and the space of consumption (1993: 45). However, Bourdieu raised
this relationship to illustrate a homology between: positions occupied in the
space of production, with the correlative position-takings, and positions in
the space of consumption, that is, . . . [for example] in the field of power,
opposition between the dominant and dominated fractions (1993: 45). This
modernist approach is reliable in the sense that culture was something
presented to most people as material for consumption, that the audience was
subjected to and by culture. In the digital/interactive age, there are
possibilities for new forms of positioning with regards to culture where the
use of the term consumer without qualification is inadequate. As
mentioned above, the starting point of this article is to analyse the position
of the user in relation to the generation of content. Swingewood implies
the need for this addition in his critique of Bourdieu:
the instrumental nature of action in Bourdieus cultural theory is related to hisfailure to develop a theory of interaction within a structural context, to addressthe issue of the making of culture through dialogue and communication by
those participants who commit themselves through a reflexive consciousness ofculture . . . (1998: 180)
This is an additional position to those put forward by Bourdieu: a position
of a consumer/user as a producer of culture. User production is the term
New Media & Society8(4)
536
at MACKENZIE BIBLIOTECA on September 28, 2012nms.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://nms.sagepub.com/http://nms.sagepub.com/http://nms.sagepub.com/http://nms.sagepub.com/ -
7/29/2019 New Media Society 2006 Richards 531 50
8/21
coined here to describe these possibilities. User production becomes
possible when the user is positioned/can position themselves in a proactive
role with regards to culture and the creation of content. It is important to
remember here that both interactivity and user production can occur outside
ofscreen-based media (SBM). Thompsons analysis of media consumptionin the late 20th century does not reference SBM apart from in one footnote
(Thompson, 1995: fn 3, p. 278), but does examine the concept of what he
calls quasi-interaction (1995: 12). This approach treats seriously the
assertion that there need be no simple encode/decode process in media
consumption. Thompson argues that deferred interaction is possible as the
viewer uses and re-interprets broadcast output. Fiske examined this issue
from the perspective of the inter-relations of texts i.e., intertextuality: The
theory of intertextuality proposes that any one text is necessarily read in
relationship to others and that a range of textual knowledges is brought to
bear upon it (1987: 108). A viewer (and now user) may simply incorporate
the overt meaning of specific cultural artifact. Conversely their response
need bear little or no relation to the rationale proposed by the producer/
director/designer of the material. A user presented with a position by an
artifact with no opportunities for generation through theirterms of reference
may in fact adopt a counter position and reject the thing out of hand or
repurpose the text/package. These approaches give credit to the users ability
to take an artifact and transform it by incorporating it within their cognitivemap. A cognitive map, as expressed by Bourdieu (1993), contains many
different positions. We phase from consumer to processor to generator of
goods, money, social relations and information. Furthermore, we are situated
in fields/matrices of power, technology and culture, each of which effects
how we receive, and to what extent we can transmit into interactive
environments. That is why the concept of interactivity is such a challenge:
to move beyond a simple behavioral/communication definition two-way
flow (see McMillan, 2002a: 174) is to be confronted by the requirement to
research to what extent generation of content occurs and how this
generation is facilitated by the package, in the package, and through the
package. What is happening here is that a user is being positioned into
differing relationships with content. An analysis of interactivity that does not
take all these realities of positioning on board becomes a sterile exercise.
METHODOLOGY
Succession mapping
In order to analyse the variety of matrices in which we are positioned/position ourselves and the variety of opportunities/lack of opportunities for
generative experiences, we must use a method of mapping that can chart
the corresponding varieties of generation that we are subject to/take control
of. This approach moves the analysis of interactive packages on from the
Richards: Users, interactivity and generation
537
at MACKENZIE BIBLIOTECA on September 28, 2012nms.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://nms.sagepub.com/http://nms.sagepub.com/http://nms.sagepub.com/http://nms.sagepub.com/ -
7/29/2019 New Media Society 2006 Richards 531 50
9/21
search for isolated moments to the placement of such moments in context.
There is a need to develop methods of analysis that relate to both activity
and properties of interactivity: a new mapping methodology.
Succession mapping acknowledges that any present method of generation
contains within it aspects of previous states. Bourdieu wrote of thisapproach:
Because the whole series of pertinent changes is present, practically, in thelatest (just as the six figures already dialed on the telephone are present in theseventh), a work or an aesthetic movement is irreducible to any other situatedin the series. (1993: 60)
Works or packages can contain successive levels of sophistication, each of
which is different in quality from those that came before, precisely becausethey build upon the previous modes. The latest mode brings the other
modes along within. Qualitatively different modes can offer different
positions for the user to take in relation to the generation of content.
Critique of applications of succession mapping
There have been a number of attempts to utilize a form of succession
mapping within the digital domain. The three applications critiqued below
operate at different analytical levels and fail for different reasons.
Bolter and Grusins exposition Remediation (Bolter and Grusin, 2001) is anattempt to apply aspects of succession mapping from old media to new
media. Although this has merit as an analytical rationale the result is a
compartmentalization of the aspects of new media. Here, the use of
succession mapping is applied to individual media modes only, not to the
reality of convergence in media and divergence in production possibilities.
Bolter and Grusin reinforce this finding by their inclusion of a short chapter
entitled Convergence that offers: Convergence is the mutual remediation
of at least three important technologies telephone, television and
computer . . . (2001: 224). However, only television appears in the book as
a medium to be remediated. What is needed is a methodology of inclusion
rather than separation.
By comparison, Jesse Garretts examination of the concept ofuser
experience does attempt to apply the notion of successive planes of
production processes, i.e. Strategy, Scope, Structure, Skeleton, Surface: with
each plane dependent on the plane below (Garrett, 2002: 25). However,
Garrett undermines this inter-dependency by arguing for a strategy: . . . to
have work on each plane finish before work on the next can finish (2002:27). There is some acknowledgment of succession in Garrets approach but
only in articulating the various stages (planes) of the production process.
This succession is local and discrete at each stage, rather than a matter of
incorporation of that which came before. In reality, as any production team
New Media & Society8(4)
538
at MACKENZIE BIBLIOTECA on September 28, 2012nms.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://nms.sagepub.com/http://nms.sagepub.com/http://nms.sagepub.com/http://nms.sagepub.com/ -
7/29/2019 New Media Society 2006 Richards 531 50
10/21
knows, a strategy may need to be revised due to events at any stage of a
project. It is the generation of content and the processes of use enabled by
all planes that should be the focus of investigation. That is what user
experience should be about.
More recently, John Newhagen has sought to apply a form of successiondirectly to the concept of interactivity (Newhagen, 2004). Newhagen inter-
relates semiotic analysis and symbol processing in an attempt to site content
generation within the user at the level of cognition. For Newhagen such
content generation occurs when there is a mismatch between the mental
state of the user and the presentation of new material through some form
of interface. He draws on the work of Allen Newell (Newell, 1990) and his
time scale of human action (Newhagen, 2004: 400): [Newells] time-based
model describes how discrete iterative processes at one cognitive level build
on the output level just below it and go on to deliver up qualitatively
unique content to the level above (Newhagen, 2004: 4001).
This is succession at the level of cognition. Newhagen terms this as
holistic aggregation where symbols holistically emerge at the next level
(Newhagen, 2004: 401). For Newhagen, Interactivity . . . is an information-
based process that takes place within the individual (2004: 397, emphasis
added). Newhagens definition seems to resonate with the phenomenon of
intertextuality examined below. However, the fundamental difference here
is its ideology of individualism. The logical outcome of this approach is thatthe context for interactivity does not exist outside of mental processes and
thus has no origin/site in the external world. Intertextuality describes the
incorporation or contestation of social phenomena by agents in society and
that interaction can precipitate further interactions out in the social arena.
Newhagen should be praised for highlighting generative processes made
possible by interactivity. However, he should be criticized for reducing the
scope of operation to ideas formed by mental processes alone.
This article takes a different approach to the concept of succession. The
user can be positioned with regards to the generation of content through
the utilization of three qualitatively different modes of interactivity, each of
which succeeds, as in incorporates, the former. These modes are:
consumer, processor and generator interactivity. The following section
explores these modes.
MODES OF INTERACTIVITY AS ACTIVITIES
By combining the concepts ofpositioning and succession mapping
together, the aim is to provide tangible methods of analysis of therelationships within interactivity. The focus is on screen-based interactivity.
However, there are implications here for the analysis of face-to-face
interactivity. A number of academics have wrestled with the notion, in some
cases denying it (see Kiousis above) and some cases foregrounding it (see
Richards: Users, interactivity and generation
539
at MACKENZIE BIBLIOTECA on September 28, 2012nms.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://nms.sagepub.com/http://nms.sagepub.com/http://nms.sagepub.com/http://nms.sagepub.com/ -
7/29/2019 New Media Society 2006 Richards 531 50
11/21
McMillan and Rafaeli above). The observations on the implications for face-
to-face interactivity included in each of the following three sections indicate
some directions for further research in this area.
Consumer interactivityHere, the term consumer is being used in the sense of being positioned/
positioning oneself in society, not just in the sense of an agent performing
specific tasks. Media position us by our job specification, by our relations,
friends and acquaintances often into a reception mode. Content is
prescribed and although there can be multiple readings, even by the same
person at different times in their life, crucially they cannot change that
content. However, it is inadequate to define this as simply a passive
audience/user position. As mentioned above, it is possible to react, act andinteract with this unchanging content by taking its stimulus into other
domains. This intertextuality will incorporate the referencing of codes and
conventions and will unfold, as the product is viewed/listened to. The
recognition by the reader of these attributes can evoke a feeling of
identification with the scenarios, of being spoken to, and extreme cases of
fandom, of a feeling of being in a one-to-one relationship with the content,
and/or the author/s (Jenkins, 2002: 157). It is a matter of specific research
to determine what roles the content of a product is playing in the life of the
reader/user and how they are being positioned in relation to it. Alienation is
as much a possible outcome as illumination or exultation if the content
speaks another social or conceptual language. Furthermore, it is possible to
reject being positioned as passive and contest the content, whether it is
feminist graffiti over billboards, or Napster, or reappropriation of television
culture (Fiske, 1987). In each case, the content is prescribed but the context
for that content is contested or re-configured orpostscribed (Thompson,
1995). The user production achieved here is a reactive form. We draw
strength from the culture around us. This can be highly important insupporting cultural identity in the face of oppression. However, the user
production here is outside of the content/context: it is quasi-interaction
(Thompson, 1995: 12) but nonetheless powerful in that ideas can be
extracted from content and used to generate reaction outside a domain.
Succession mapping can chart the relationships between the content and its
acceptance/contestation in and through the user out into the social arena.
When applying the consumer mode of interactivity to face-to-face
communication there are occasions when a didactic form of communicationis taking place. Again the user is in reception mode or at least is being
positioned by the other in this mode. As with the mediated types described
above, there are opportunities to accept, repurpose or deny the messages
from the other.
New Media & Society8(4)
540
at MACKENZIE BIBLIOTECA on September 28, 2012nms.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://nms.sagepub.com/http://nms.sagepub.com/http://nms.sagepub.com/http://nms.sagepub.com/ -
7/29/2019 New Media Society 2006 Richards 531 50
12/21
Processor interactivity (incorporating consumer
interactivity)
Here the user occupies the same environment as in consumer interactivity,
but with additional components that allow them to position themselves in
order to take up opportunities to contribute. The point being thatsomething must be processed. However, the context for this authorship is
pre-determined, be it sending an email for further information on a product
or taking part in a phone-in or writing a report. In face-to-face
communication the contributions may be observations, notes for
clarification, or responses, but only in terms of the reference points
presented. Succession mapping draws out two expressions of positioning
here, that is: 1) the same person can shift from a receiver to a transmitter of
information; and 2) the user has access to further responses from others/
systems in an arena/network of circulation. Here the present provides the
context for future communications. Compared with consumer interactivity,
there are opportunities to contribute back into a domain. However, the
context for this contribution is prescribed, as is the content itself. The user
production here is in terms of additions to a database, the sending of an
order, or the response to a request to vote on a burning issue of the day.
Processing usually means the user providing aspects of their profile back into
a commercial environment, although the same processes can occur in other
domains. In face-to-face communication the support, or otherwise, for agiven message is in its own terms: the others terms of reference. This
analysis challenges Rafaeli in that a conversation can refer back onto that
which came before, but the generation of ideas can be limited to the quality
of the original notion. The user is positioned to be involved in the process
as a subordinate.
Generator interactivity (incorporating consumer and
processor interactivity)
Here the user is positioned into places and spaces where they can author the
content and/or the context of the environment. Users are, of course, subject
to a variety of infrastructural constraints in the same arenas/networks as
above, but they are able to provide others with content. Photographs can be
uploaded onto an iPhoto site. Websites can be created that require an email
response. A new thread is begun on a discussion board. Or an application is
created that enables further interactive involvement, the pinnacle of which
would be to facilitate the creation of new application/s. There is a shift in
how the component parts of the system are made available. Instead of end-on and opaque, the production processes are visible and available to the user
as generator. That which is produced moves into the future offering
opportunities forprogeneration. Succession mapping illuminates two
different orders of positioning: 1) an application can be produced by a
Richards: Users, interactivity and generation
541
at MACKENZIE BIBLIOTECA on September 28, 2012nms.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://nms.sagepub.com/http://nms.sagepub.com/http://nms.sagepub.com/http://nms.sagepub.com/ -
7/29/2019 New Media Society 2006 Richards 531 50
13/21
generator that enables the positioning of others in the role of consumer or
processor; and 2) an application can be produced by a generator that utilizes
consumer or processor resources that positions others in the role of
generator. It is not clear what the future will be for such generative
material. These new applications join the line of applications that were oncefor professional use only and are now freely available on computer desktops,
for example: word processors, image manipulators, video editors, etc.
In face-to-face communication Rafaelis referencing back and McMillans
mutual discourse are in full form here. Ideas, terms of reference, alternatives,
and pointers forward can be made by either partner in the communication.
Of course, in a given face-to-face communication sequence there can be a
succession through the three modes. The users position in relation to the
generation of content can succeed and for that matter recede. The specific
outcomes of different positionings are a matter for further research.
This analysis of succession across positionings of users in relation to
content provides a schema that can be applied to interactive packages to
determine the range of activities on offer. Analysing the range of properties
contained within such interactive packages can illuminate the other half of
the story.
MODES OF PRODUCTION OF THE PROPERTIES OF
INTERACTIVITYThere is a need to start with the initial production processes in order to
analyse how the dynamics of interactivity are facilitated.5 There are a
number of modes of production each enabling specific properties under the
consumer, processor and generator modes of interactivity, each of which
results in specific types of positioning of the user in relation to the
generation of content. It is possible to examine both how the properties of
interactivity are constructed in the package and in what ways the package
facilitates generation of content either inside or outside of the package.
Consumer-focused production for interactivity
Linear production Immediately, from a production perspective, the phrase
linear production is contradictory. Every editor knows that a linear package
is the result of a variety of non-linear operations. The creative processes in
developing the original ideas involve the intermingling of content and form.
This process cannot be linear because any change in a particular part of the
concept/structure will effect the before and after of the package. Material isgathered and assembled out of order due to logistical and project
management constraints. Off-line edits are created which prove the concept
but may not make it to the final cut. The processes of consumption are also
not linear. The consumer is subject to a variety of promos, crits, ads,
New Media & Society8(4)
542
at MACKENZIE BIBLIOTECA on September 28, 2012nms.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://nms.sagepub.com/http://nms.sagepub.com/http://nms.sagepub.com/http://nms.sagepub.com/ -
7/29/2019 New Media Society 2006 Richards 531 50
14/21
previews, prequels, all of which inform/undermine the viewing of the
package as a linear thing in itself (Marshall, 2002: 768). These systems of
pre-figuring and prescribing help define the way the subsequent linear
package is interpreted. This can be described as corporate intertextuality.
Non-linear production One critique that is applied to interactivity per se
is that it dupes users into believing that they have choice and control
(Butterick, 1996). A non-extensible CD-ROM can be described in a two-
dimensional flowchart. A website or a CD-ROM or a DVD can purport to
be interactive but this interactivity is an editing facility of the simplest kind,
i.e. a user edits/generates a path through existing content. In fact as a
flowchart indicates, websites, CDs or DVDs are often multi-linear rather
than non-linear in construction. This is a phenomenon coined as ergodic
by Espen J. Aarseth with respect to non-linearfiction: from a readers
perspective all stories are linear [in experience] (summarized in Peacock,
2000: 24).
The content itself contains neither the possibility of processing through
data entry systems, nor generation. In fact, processing occurs before
authoring in terms of marketing and product testing and the only
generation occurs in the resultant production process of the CD. A vision of
a million corporate websites/CD-ROMs comes to mind. Alpha leads to beta
leads to gold.
Processor production for interactivity
Filter production With filter production the linear/non-linear offer is
complexified through the inclusion of search engines, reference numbers
and a variety of means of user response that enables the material in the
package to be influenced or purchased. It is also often the case that the offer
is so great that the only way of accessing the correct bit of it is through
some form offiltering system. In this mode the user does the filtering
through overt intervention. However, the opportunities to process the
available information and engage with the package are prescribed. The filter
may be used specifically as part of the engagement with the package as a
means of providing access to restricted areas. Abbey Road Interactive have
used this approach by requiring owners of a Marillion CD to provide their
profile on a website before receiving a password to unlock hidden elements
on the CD.
The initial production process involves a mix of linear and non-linearoperations. The aim should be to move a user through a linear offer then
close for a sale or an active response. However, at the same time, a
multiplicity of opportunities can only be offered through a non-linear
access system. The development of the database containing the content
Richards: Users, interactivity and generation
543
at MACKENZIE BIBLIOTECA on September 28, 2012nms.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://nms.sagepub.com/http://nms.sagepub.com/http://nms.sagepub.com/http://nms.sagepub.com/ -
7/29/2019 New Media Society 2006 Richards 531 50
15/21
(linear resource) and the access system (non-linear delivery) needs to be
examined in great detail so that the scale of the resource can be efficiently
used. The accruing of content for the database is an ongoing process that
is linear in the sense that it is additive: just another record. Indeed, it may
be the users themselves, as in the case of the Marillion CD, who fill thedatabase with records. The processing continues beyond the initial
construction of the package.
Adaptive production
The principle of adaptive production requires the user to input a profile of
themselves or an array of information. Software agents then use this profile
to process/filter the available offer of the package in advance of its display to
the user. The generative capability of the package is pre-coded in at the
initial production phase. Adaptive programming enables the resulting code
objects to be self-referential and learn the behaviour of the user as they
develop a relationship with the package. The common use of this form of
system is in electronic programme guides (EPG) for television. These EPGs
accept/learn the users profile and then pre-choose a selection of television
programmes in attempts to match the predilections of the user. A final
selection/filtering/processing is then made by the user. This process gives
the impression of intelligence at work, a slave taking the pain of choice
away from the user. Normans notion of information appliances falls intothis category: invisible computers automatically deliver rich content to a
user (Norman, 1999). While the result can be usable information/goods/
services, and the user may feel that they have control over the offer, they are
positioned as remote from the intelligence in the system. When artificial
intelligence (AI) is referenced with regard to the digital it is usually from an
adaptive programming perspective. Although the generative processes that
occur are of a far more sophisticated nature than in filter production they
are just as opaque to the user. Surely AI could and should be used to offer
more generative options to the user and not less?
ASP (application service provision) production This form of production
relocates the administrative processes of a company through the safety of
an internet connection to a remote server. The selling point for this
approach is that a company can buy a complete service that can be
modified and enhanced by the providing company, thus avoiding on-site
maintenance. The content is supplied solely by the purchasing company as
they utilize the framework supplied by the ASP. The production processuses the same architectures as filter production. However, in this instance it
is the purchasers of the package who determine the modes of filtering to
be applied. This, of course, involves some generation of new apps or mini-
apps as time goes by, but significantly the control of the generation of new
New Media & Society8(4)
544
at MACKENZIE BIBLIOTECA on September 28, 2012nms.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://nms.sagepub.com/http://nms.sagepub.com/http://nms.sagepub.com/http://nms.sagepub.com/ -
7/29/2019 New Media Society 2006 Richards 531 50
16/21
capabilities lies with the ASP Company. Indeed, that is what they are
being paid for. ASPs at least point to the opportunities possible for
company-centred creation of packages that generate new facilities under
their own auspices.
Generator production for interactivity
Standard application use As mentioned above, there are a number of
professional packages that are now freely available either on or off-line that
enable the user to generate new content. The simplicity (subject sometimes
to extensive learning curves) of these packages belies both their capabilities
and the cultural significance of them. A word processing package can be
written off as a simple extension of a typewriter but an image
manipulation or video-editing package cannot be so easily assigned
antecedents. These applications are so ubiquitous that their power is ignored
in favour of looking for two-way interactive expressions.
End-user computing End-user computing is the first manifestation of on-
screen user production of additional facilities within a package. It has a
specific origin and mode of operation. As documented by Nardi (1992) and
more recently Mahmood (2002), the focus of end-user computing is that of
providing solutions through computer programming to increase efficiencywithin an organization. The generation that occurs is by either primary or
secondary raw coding of new routines, for example in C+, or through the
redesign of a formula in a spreadsheet. Although the user can extend the
capabilities of the application at hand the resultant mini-application is not
free standing. The mini-apps power comes from a redeployment of the main
applications capabilities. Still, as a presage of what is to come in user
production, end-user computing is highly significant.
Generator production This mode of production is about the development
of a facility that is a mode of production in itself. It is the resultant
generation of new content, facilities and applications that stops this
definition from being a tautology. This is production by generatorsnot
simply usersand it is generators in the form of packages that are being
utilized. The original producers of the package have to be concerned with
the subsequent opportunities for production offered to the users of the
package. Here the methods of further production are fore-grounded in the
product. The initial production processes require the development of opensource, open architecture and open modular facilities that set up possibilities
of further generation. Here the intelligence and generative capabilities in the
system are freely available to the user/generator. This does not mean that it
has to be complex. Creating a new thread in a discussion board is a process
Richards: Users, interactivity and generation
545
at MACKENZIE BIBLIOTECA on September 28, 2012nms.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://nms.sagepub.com/http://nms.sagepub.com/http://nms.sagepub.com/http://nms.sagepub.com/ -
7/29/2019 New Media Society 2006 Richards 531 50
17/21
both quick to code and to apply. The over-arching criterion for generator
production is that the user/generator is positioned in relation to the package
as a creator of content.
The system within which such activity takes place need not be purely
software-based. The Simputer concept is a PDA-style hand-held device thatis extensible both in open source software and hardware. The rationale of
the Simputer is to produce a package that is deliberately not complex and
aimed specifically at Indias poor: Bridging the Digital Divide as one splash
screen states. Simputer software already available includes text-to-speech in a
number of dialects with icon driven menus and hardware that includes the
ability to connect with a wide variety of other hardware and the net. This
relocation of the creative process to being imminent within the package and
presented not as an opportunity to play with C+ but to liberate illiterateIndians is highly significant. Here, a single Simputer, allowing multiple
smartcards to be inserted, can enable an entire community to access the
internet for advice, information or communication. Thus there is a shift
from the simple reproduction of a typewriter into a digital domain to
responsive software and hardware that can be defined as liberating
technology. Both are equally significant from a cultural perspective but they
offer qualitatively different opportunities for the creation of content.
CONCLUSION
The aim of this article is to re-orientate the focus of research into the
phenomenon of interactivity. As has been shown, academics have found a
variety of ways to extract aspects of interactivity and then study them in
isolation. This has occurred at the structural level of analysing interactivity,
either as an activity or as a property. It has also occurred at an imminent
level, where the perception of interactivity and/or the properties of
interactivity are seen as ends in themselves. In one case this technique of
isolation has reached the nth degree with the proposition that interactivityonly resides in the person. The proposals put forward in this article should
be seen as a counterpoint to the plethora of contradictory studies of sub-
components of interactivity and of interactivity as a thing in itself.
The line of argument detailed in the article does not reject the
significance of previous studies. The activity of interactivity and the properties
of interactivity are both important but only in the context of the positioning
of the user in relation to thegeneration of content. The aim of this
formulation is to emphasize the interconnection of architectures that supportgeneration andthe users motivations for being in/with those moments of
interactivity. This interconnection is dynamic and successive, requiring
specific methods of analysis to assess the qualities of interactivity on offer to
the user. Succession mapping is proposed as a means to explore the inter-
New Media & Society8(4)
546
at MACKENZIE BIBLIOTECA on September 28, 2012nms.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://nms.sagepub.com/http://nms.sagepub.com/http://nms.sagepub.com/http://nms.sagepub.com/ -
7/29/2019 New Media Society 2006 Richards 531 50
18/21
relationships between qualitatively different modes of interactivity. Succession
mapping as a tool for analysis is not new. The above critiques of previous
attempts to use succession mapping (without naming the term) show that, for
a variety of reasons, academics have acknowledged succession mapping as a
useful tool but have not followed through the significance of its application asa dynamic resource. Succession mapping can elucidate the inter-connections
between users, content generation and modes of positioning across
qualitatively different content delivery systems. Further research should test
whether this approach has a utility across a range of applications.
For researchers, consumer, processor and generator modes of interactivity
offer ways in which to move beyond user experiences and communication
models and towards more complex and integrated methods of analysis,
including succession mapping and positioning.There should be further research regarding the proposals in this article
and face-to-face encounters. From the examples given above, it would seem
that the consumer, processor and generator modes of interactivity have
currency away from the screen. However, these assertions only point to a
synthesis between on and off-screen interactivity. Specific research is
required to verify that synthesis.
It should be remembered that people can position themselves and be
positioned. Further research should be conducted into the forms of power
that can be facilitated by the different modes of interactivity, of benefit, or
of harm to users.6 In this regard, the notion ofuser production should be
seen in the different senses of the phrase, i.e. that users can produce, can
produce themselves and can be produced. In the latter case, opportunities
for interaction may be being used to dupe rather than support users. Banner
ads that present themselves as system dialogue boxes are a case in point.
All these cases above indicate that there is plenty of work to be done in
what this article asserts is a newly invigorated field of study: interactivity as
a conceptualizing facility that mediates between environments and contentand users enabling generation. We need to expand out from the analysis of
linear and discrete media effects to the notion of generation in user-
produced environments. What will be the positions for users in relation to
the generation of content?
Notes1 Generation is used here specifically to emphasize the building up of content during
interactivity. The word has other connotations, but, despite that, is the most apt wordfor the purpose, i.e. production by natural or artificial process (Concise English
Dictionary, OUP, 1991). Generation is a word equally applicable to face-to-face or
technologically mediated interactivity.
2 A search of the following on-line dictionaries has produce no results forinteractivity
or as is often used no match for interactivity:
Richards: Users, interactivity and generation
547
at MACKENZIE BIBLIOTECA on September 28, 2012nms.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://nms.sagepub.com/http://nms.sagepub.com/http://nms.sagepub.com/http://nms.sagepub.com/ -
7/29/2019 New Media Society 2006 Richards 531 50
19/21
(URLs consulted January 2003)
Dictionary.com at: http://www.dictionary.com;
Hyper Dictionary, The Exploding Dictionary at: http:/
/www.hyperdictionary.com
Oxford English Dictionary On-line at: http://www.oed.com/
Websters Online Dictionary at: http://www.m-w.com
3 Jennifer Stromer-Galley has recently proposed the analysis ofinteractivity-as-process
and interactivity-as-product (Stromer-Galley, 2004: 393) as another way to describe
the activity and the properties of interactivity. While activity and process occupy the
same terrain, Stromer-Galleys use ofproduct over-emphasizes interactivity as an end-
in-itself. See below for critique of this reduction.
4 Erik P. Bucy has recently restated this focus on the perception of interactivity in a
forum in the Information SocietyJournal (Bucy, 2004: 375). Bucys position is strongly
critiqued by S. Shyam Sundar in the same forum, i.e. [T]he correlation between
perceived interactivity and other self-reported variables is a reflection of the users inthe sample rather than the technologies they are asked to evaluate. Its simply self-
fulfilling (Sundar, 2004: 388).
On the other hand, Sundar argues that interactivity is an attribute of technology
and not that of the user (Sundar, 2004: 385) and is thus guilty of the opposite
reduction.
5 The research for this article has encountered only one assessment of interactivity that
includes the significance of the producers of that interactivity in its approach. Jerome
Durlak (quoted in Mayer, 1998: 44) identifies hardware, software, tools and people as
all being significant in the development of an interactive media system. However,
Durlaks work focuses predominantly on arcane aspects of computing, e.g. Batch
Processing and thus needs radically updating.
6 This approach draws on the work of S. Shyam Sundar whose analysis of users
perceptions of interactive features has indicated frustration, confusion and
inefficiencies in retaining information (Sundar, 2004).
ReferencesBenedikt, M. (1991) Cyberspace: First Steps. London: Massachusetts Institute of
Technology Press.
Bolter, J.D. and R. Grusin (2001) Remediation: Understanding New Media. London:Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1993) The Field of Cultural Production. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bucy, E.P. (2004) Interactivity in Society: Locating an Elusive Concept, The Information
Society 20(5): 37383.
Butterick, M. (1996) On Interactivity Information and Digital Design, Netscape
Developers Conference, URL (consulted Sept. 2002): http://www.atomicvision.com/
manifest/index.html
Couldry, N. (2003) Media, Symbolic Power and the Limits of Bourdieus Field Theory,
MEDIA@LSE Electronic Working Papers, No. 2. (consulted Sept. 2002): http:/
/www.lse.ac.uk/collections/media@lse/mediaWorkingPapers/ewpNumber2.htm
Fiske, J. (1987) Television Culture. London: Methuen.
Garrett, J.J. (2002) The Elements of User Experience. New York: AIGA/New Riders.
Jenkins, H. (2002) Interactive Audiences?, in D. Harries (ed.) The New Media Book, pp.
15780. London: BFI Publishing.
New Media & Society8(4)
548
at MACKENZIE BIBLIOTECA on September 28, 2012nms.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://nms.sagepub.com/http://nms.sagepub.com/http://nms.sagepub.com/http://nms.sagepub.com/ -
7/29/2019 New Media Society 2006 Richards 531 50
20/21
Kiousis, S. (2002) Interactivity: A Concept Explication, New Media & Society 4(2):
27191.
Laurel, B. (1991) Computers as Theatre. Menlo Park: Addison-Wesley.
McMillan, S. (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. 16382. London: Sage.
McMillan, S. (2002b) A Four-Part Model of Cyber-interactivity: Some Cyber-places are
More Interactive Than Others, New Media & Society 4(2): 27191.
Mahmood, M.A. (2002)Advanced Topics In End User Computing Volume 1, Advanced Topics
in End User Computing Series. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.
Marshall, P.D. (2002) The New Intertextual Commodity, in D. Harries (ed.) The New
Media Book, pp. 6981. London: BFI Publishing.
Mayer, P. (1998) Computer-Mediated Interactivity: A Socio-Semiotic Perspective,
Convergence4(3): 4058.
Nardi, B. (1992)A Small Matter of Programming: Perspectives on End User Computing.London: MIT Press.
Neilsen, J. (2002) Writings on Usability, URL (consulted Jan. 2003): http:/
/www.useit.com/
Newell, A. (1990) Unified Theories of Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Newhagen, J.E. (2004) Interactivity, Dynamic Symbol Processing, and the Emergence
of Content in Human Communication, The Information Society 20(5): 397402.
Norman, D.A. (1999) The Invisible Computer: Why Good Products Can Fail, the Personal
Computer is So Complex, and Information Appliances are the Solution. London: MIT
Press.Peacock, A. (2000) Cooling Hot: Redundancy and Entropy in Critique of Interactivity,
Convergence6(1): 228.
Rafaeli, S. (1988) Interactivity: From New Media to Communication, in H. Hawkins,
J. Wiemann and S. Pingree (eds)Advancing Communication Science: Merging Mass and
Interpersonal Processes, pp. 11034. London: Sage.
Richards, R. and M. Weaver (2001a) Adding a New Dimension to On-line Learning
SupportThe Creation of a 3D Intranet Environment for MA Interactive
Production in the Faculty of Media, Arts and Society,Journal of Media Practice1(3):
15764, URL: http://www.user-production.co.uk/papers/webdesign.htm
Roper, J. (1995) The Heart of Multimedia: Interactivity or Experience?, Convergence1(2): 235.
Stromer-Galley, J. (2004) Interactivity-as-Product and Interactivity-as-Process, The
Information Society 20(5): 3936.
Sundar, S.S. (2004) Theorizing Interactivitys Effects, The Information Society 20(5):
3859.
Swingewood, A. (1998) Cultural Theory and the Problem of Modernity. London: Macmillan
Press.
Thompson, J.B. (1995) The Media and Modernity: A Social Theory of the Media .
Cambridge: Polity Press.
RUSSELL RICHARDS is Senior Lecturer in the Faculty of Media, Arts and Society at
Southampton Solent University. Russell is a practicing digital artist working in installation, print,
application and web production. His digital artwork includes: a virtual installation Memory is
Made of This; a music generator installation
Richards: Users, interactivity and generation
549
at MACKENZIE BIBLIOTECA on September 28, 2012nms.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://nms.sagepub.com/http://nms.sagepub.com/http://nms.sagepub.com/http://nms.sagepub.com/ -
7/29/2019 New Media Society 2006 Richards 531 50
21/21
DiskO; Covertor, a digital art creation application; and Nebula gascloud generator. Russell
is a member of BAFTA, BIMA, Rhizome and New Media Caucus. He is a founder member of
HIDRAZONE.COM
Address: Southampton Solent University, East Park Terrace, Southamton SO14 0RF, UK.
[email: [email protected]]
New Media & Society8(4)