In an urban complex, every installation is examined by the users and the surrounding environment which might raise potentials for encounters. Depending on our previous experiences related to technology and built environment. The deployment of new technology in our physical space might alter our habitual behaviours or simply amplify them. Sometimes, they facilitate various forms of social engagements which might empower public relations. In recent years, digital screens becomes increasingly dominate in our public space, they made variable in all sizes, forms and functions only used for displaying information. They become integrated with our environment might generate a novel urban experience which is capable of shaping our behaviours and movements.在一个城市中，每个媒体用户和周围的环境都可能会遇到潜在的商机。根据我们的经验与技术和建筑环境布局来说，部署技术在我们的物理空间可能会改变我们的行为习惯或简单地放大它们。作业指南 有时,他们促进各种形式的社会活动,可能会使公共关系。近年来,数字屏幕变得日益主导在我们的公共空间,他们让变量在所有大小,形式和功能仅用于显示信息。他们成为集成与我们的环境可能会生成一个新颖的城市的经验能够塑造我们的行为和动作。

 

In this paper, we presented two types of screen applications implemented in diverse urban contexts; the first screen uses video conferencing technology to connect two remote places in order to investigate connectivity generated in-between digital and physical spaces; The second screen is a playful interactive interface which creates a room for individual to pay attention to the role they are playing within urban environment. The space can be used as a stage to perform and enhance their awareness to others so as to encourage new kinds of social interactions to unfold as well as sustain the existing ones. We described initial findings from deployment of both projects in urban settings. The aim of the project is to explore emergent social behaviours and interactions mediated by screen technology within public space.在本文中,我们介绍了两种类型的屏幕应用程序在不同城市环境下的实现;第一个屏幕使用视频会议技术来连接两个遥远的地方,以探讨连接生成的中间的数字和物理空间;第二个屏幕是一个好玩的交互式界面,创建一个房间为个人关注他们正在扮演的角色在城市环境。空间可以用作一个阶段执行,提高他们的意识到别人,以鼓励新类型的社会交互来展开以及维持现有的。我们描述的初步调查结果从部署两个项目在城市环境中。这个项目的目的是探讨自发性社会行为和互动的调停下屏幕技术在公共空间。

 

Our initial findings indicated that by introducing different screen applications to the public space have constructed new meanings to the place and users. Regarding to Goffman, ubiquitous computing technology provides a novel means to establish and become drawn into face engagement, where we found a sense of mutual activity (Goffman 1963). This enriches our urban experiences of shared encounters and increase public confidence to modify ways of communications with others, making it a creative one in order to generate varies types of interactions and engagements. Through initial study, we highlighted some important factors in order to provide some insights for designing suitable urban screen applications within a fixed spatial setting.

The first key to concern is with the physical space where the screens are located. We studied the characteristics of two locations and their relations to each other for video conferencing application. As we saw, the five locations had their own identities can influence people’s behaviours with the screen in varies degrees. This is because spatial quality of a physical space is constructed by movements and behaviours generated by people. Depending on what activities people do while there, the emergent behaviours are shaped around those habitual behavious embedded within the location. In pilot study, we learned the relationship between two locations is also important since video conferencing is about connecting people and places. The study suggested that a busy location with large number of passerby might potentially increase chances for encounters. However, it did not necessary encourage social interactions since the property of video conferencing application requires coherent flow of people on both sides in order to trigger people’s attentions. Judging by the response, people watched the screen stayed longer when they can clearly see the activities were taking place on the other side.

A second issue is social factors. An urban environment occupied by large number of people from varies cultural backgrounds manipulating the space differently show high level of social complexity does not allow us to foresee how people would interact with the screen. Schieck also argues that physical space can generate social patterns, providing a platform for diverse social encounters [refer to digital carpet paper]. The dynamic relationship between people and built environment made it difficult to design a particular application suitable for all social structures. In the field study, we highlight on general behavior patterns which indicated the potential encounters. An example of officers uses the space regularly for smoking. In other situations, for instance, we discussed strategies of using hand gestures, toys, and texts in order to trigger people’s attention and initiate interactions in video conferencing projects. With the interactive interfaces the system was constantly reviewed in order to target potential encounters, such as kids. For example, in pilot study, at location ‘b’, the system was mainly reacting to the background movements, generating patterns filled the screen. It did not make sense to the audience. We improved the situations by simplifying the visual shapes and re-orientated the camera to cut off the streets.

A third issue is the physical property of the installation, in particular, how quickly audiences can understand the application in order to perform. Without given any explicit instructions of use, users had to adopt an experimental approach to understand the screen applications. However, it is always hard to initiate the interaction at the beginning. In most cases, we had to invite people by speaking to them and explaining the project. Other cases, people simply just walked up and used it. We observed in the case of providing face to face support can enhance both audiences and players interactions. People show greater confidence in performing. However, this might not be possible in long term basis in urban context [red nose]. Therefore, it is important for us to think how we can design an application that can be adaptive to its changing environments. Of course, this can be a technique challenge; however, the design tool and application alone achieve little, “without real-world interactions” (Buscher 2008) to build trustworthy relationship between users as they explore the technical interface and the purpose for using the technology [Bluetooth as a playful public art interface Maria N. stukoff]. One possible strategy is to improve the framework around the screen, make it visually more attractive to the public. Furthermore, due to the size of the screen, it does not encourage large performative interactions like the BBC screens. However, in pilot study, we observed children perform widely with their body movements and gestures. One participant also commented on the big screens require performative interaction might cause embarrassment for the public so it discourages interactions whereas the small screen allows people to build intimate relationship to the people on the other side in the case of video conferencing and it was less ambiguous.

A fourth issue is the affordance of the application that would strength collocated interactions. As we discussed earlier, the initiation of interaction is a difficult task. In an urban context, most audiences share no relationship to the potential participants which caused a reluctance to initiate interactions [red nose]. We observed other aspects of the design issues which might encourage people to interact without face to face support. One of those things was the notion of magic effect [designing the spectator experience], in one example, during video conferencing experiment, a professor walked up to the front of the screen, a messaged showed up saying hello professor which caused surprising effect although the message was not meant for him. It encourages social engagement and also enriches the public experience. The magical effect is caused by reveling effect while hiding the manipulations []. Wiseman discussed that the cause of magic effect rely on the “method” we use. An example of magician, they might use different methods to achieve the same result, however their manipulations are hidden and the emphasis is up on the effects []. In this case, we cannot see the actions carried out by the player but the results of these effects can be profound. In the interactive interface applications, we also designed magical effect, the visual element only appear when someone interact with it. However, it was less effective since the manipulation was revealed to the user. This indicated that effects can be found not only in technology but also in the human element []. Furthermore, our evaluation indicated that human effects have much greater potential in reinforcing interactive experiences. They also allow changes in methods to be made quickly without design at beforehand.

One of the other design aspects which can create potentials for interaction is the notion of accidental interaction []. In a public setting, people can be embarrassed to interact and this needs to overcome in order for people to engage [understanding collective play in an urban screen]. In interactive interface experiment, accidental interaction occurred when the public passed the screen; the camera caught the movements and generates visual patterns. These issues can be frustrating but within a public setting these errors can be inhibited []. They are demonstrations to the public of the interface mechanism so as to encourage people to interact. On occasion in pilot study, people watched those accidental interactions more likely to interact with screen. In the final experiment, a researcher was interested in the project and international interacted with the screen. This action attracted people to watch and understand the application.