Amsterdam

Music and movies

2007-08-19T15:53:00.000-07:00

Place holder until I can wrangle this stuff into shape. . .

Field notes

2007-05-20T23:23:00.000-07:00

My interview went fairly well, and was fascinating.

I interviewed my subject at her place of work on a quiet afternoon. The interview consisted of questions about wayfinding and preferred navigation tools in a familiar environment. I had designed test run questions to get a sense of what might or might not work in future: I attempted to make them simple, open-ended and iterative. On the one hand this was successful--she was engaged, provided relevant information--but I think my follow up questions could use tuning. I also need to work on moving along the conversation: it was a bit hard to know how to strike a balance between staying focused and shutting her down.

I am not sure how much the observer effect was in play. This is someone who I have talked to before, so she may have been more comfortable than she might have been with a stranger--I was a friendly, known quantity, and we established a nice rapport. At the same time, I was conscious of watching and guarding my own responses: I wanted to encourage her to talk without encouraging her to talk--if that makes sense. ( I couldn't help laughing at a few of her comments--which was probably bad technique). I had a sense of trying not to tip my hand about the project, because I did not want her to give me "good" answers. I gave her a vague explanation about what we were doing before we started, and a more detailed explanation at the end.

I took notes while she answered and quickly realized that between my terrible handwriting and the detail with which she responded I was not going to capture everything I would like. I wrote down as many direct quotes as I could, and bracketed a summary of what she was saying at other points. After the interview I immediately re-transcribed (translated) my notes, leaving ellipses where I was unsure of her words.

I will refrain from a full transcription, but I do have to share one quote:
"I guess malls have become natural landmarks."

A final note to self: NEVER try interviewing again without a voice recorder.

e-research

2007-05-02T07:44:00.000-07:00

I had read a bit about e-research in the past, and enjoyed the conversation yesterday, but I still feel a little hesitant trying to define it. At first it seems like a straightforward concept (maybe)--but the more you find out, the more slippery it gets. It isn't necessarily just what you do, but also how and why--this involves a lot of careful defining and abstractions which make naming it a difficult task. One feature which stands out clearly is its interdisciplinarity, because it is based in communication and resource sharing enabled by virtual technologies--which can themselves constitute fields of study. This might create a sort of synergy—new fields, approaches, and objects of study (including the internet itself) can emerge. (This state of potential is another characteristic which makes its boundaries difficult to pin down, though that's probably a good thing). E-research is a way of theorizing explicitly changes which have been developing in many fields as a result of virtual resources, and making them more useful and accessible.

As far as our research project goes, e-research techniques seem helpful for finding out what we want to know, and clarifying our methods. As one part of our project we are interested in the question of how people use current virtual tools (for example blogs, social bookmarking, geotagging) to map their environments--both the tools and the question incorporate e-research elements, and we will be able to look at work already done in this area. We will also take advantage of a group blog to work with some of our research ideas, and may use other tools (such as online surveys) to conduct research which supplements our real world work. More generally, in our group we've talked about how the wayfinding theories we are using are inherently multi-disciplinary. The body of literature crosses through areas including environmental behavior, architecture, urban planning, psychology, graphic design, neuroscience, etc, and brings them together in a way that seems consistent with e-research principles.

wayfinding

2007-04-29T15:54:00.000-07:00

How do people with differing levels of self-identified "nativeness" to a physical environment annotate that environment, either in real space or virtual space? Or do they?

If navigators of a given virtual environment can categorize themselves as either native or newcomer (and categorize themselves similarly with respect to a real space environment), which members of the matrix (above) opt to use annotative tools? Which tools? Is the use consistent over one axis or another (the same type of tool is used to annotate virtual space and real space; the same type of annotation is done in multiple spaces with the same characteristic – real or virtual)?

[edit]

Methods

A variety of methods may be used, some of which will depend on the comfort level of the observed group. Initial surveys can collect self-identified newcomer/native status, and can be followed by subsequent interviews to identify environmental familiarity, technological familiarity, and their sense of their navigation skills. To collect real-world environment data, direct observations of wayfinding behavior and asking participants to voluntarily use journals to record wayfinding instances may be used. Observation of use patterns for virtual/online interactive tools (social bookmarking, blogs, wiki, etc) could be used to collect digital/virtual environment data. Participation in activities would be anonymous and voluntary, with care taken to communicate that there are no penalties involved for non-participation. The researchers would also take part in these activities as participant-observers, paying careful attention to any potential influence they might generate and noting it explicitly.

Wednesday assignment

2007-04-25T07:08:00.000-07:00

Part A
Subject: student
Sex:female
Age: older
Religion: no indicators

Subject is wearing a light green jacket, men's, second hand, slightly worn looking. Under that she is wearing a green hooded sweatshirt which is zipped. The rest of her outfit consists of men's jeans, slightly too short, and a somewhat faded v-neck black t-shirt. Shoes are brown clogs and blue socks are visible. Hands are somewhat battered--short nails and beaten up cuticles. Hair is plain, no particular styling or use of accessories. No makeup and very little jewelry: an unobtrusive silver chain with an onyx pendant and a single pair of small silver hoop earrings. No tattoos or other ornaments are visible.

Part B
Over the past few years what I was (and am also today) wearing has turned into something like a uniform. I wear a variation on it every day, partly so I don't have to think, partly because I am often in a hurry, partly because these clothes are practical and comfortable. (I'm also moving right now, in limbo between two dwellings and not at all comfortable in neither. There's even less likelihood I'll vary what I wear because my options are limited). Like a lot of people, every day I choose from a stack of many similar items. I have several hooded sweatshirts which I like--I tend to wear layers most of the time because I get cold easily. All of my jeans are men's, because I feel rather silly and self-conscious in what I think of as "girl jeans." My dansko clogs are sort of ---crunchy? healthy? seattle? The brand itself communicates something like that. I alternate them with a pair of clunky boots which I found new at Value Village a couple of years ago.

I mentioned Value Village: I am fairly sure that all of my outer clothing on Monday was used, though I may have purchased the sweatshirt at Target. I'm a little ambivalent about shopping at VV sometimes. The one near my house is extremely mothballish and kind of sad, but it has a decent selection--if I need a shirt or a sweater or new jeans, I can stop in as you would at the grocery store.

I do own other types of clothing: while moving I have been struck by the number of clothes that I need to donate. I'd like to believe that I don't really choose what I wear, that I am just a passive creature of habit, but I don't think that is entirely accurate. I'd also like to think that my clothing is too bland to communicate anything in particular, but among other things it likely represents me as non-fashion, uninterested in engaging with feminine stereotypes, and striving for anonymity.

Zeisel

2007-04-17T16:19:00.000-07:00

The two chapters link together ways to study environments and the relationships people have with them--how to analyze what people do to the spaces they occupy and how they act within those contexts. This is harder than it seems: we may be skilled observers, but "that observing behavior seems so easy and obvious can present problems." Among other things, Zeisel acknowledges the psychology of the observer, makes you think about how you think, and how you insert yourself into a research environment even as you study it. Research on these terms requires a kind of methodological grace. I mean that as an observer there is a sort of balance to strive for, or even the need to not strive for immediate answers. Assumptions and premature analysis will throw readings off kilter. Breaking down what you are doing and why you are doing it yields clearer research methods and results, and thus better data. (His recommendations are completely pragmatic, but there's something rather meta about observing yourself in the process of observing). The structured procedures he enumerates are intended to correct the potential for misreading by maintaining an "ability to be surprised" --a way of seeing as well as a way of doing.
While some of the technology and references might seem a little dated, I don't think that really impacts the value of his method s overall. Even the discussion of stickball, which might seem quaint, is important in thinking about people interacting with their environment. The methods of observation he suggests seem basic to any of our projects, especially since many of us are new to this (though I might skip keeping a drawing on top of my notes--I'm not sure the innocent art student ruse will fly any more). I like his suggestions about calibrating the perspectives of a team, getting sensitized together to an environment by working with a similar location in advance, rather like we did last weekend. Along with the spatial focus of investigating (which seems relevant to wayfinding), I liked his discussion of using a "dynamic" method to look at the patterns of activity in a location. This idea of iterative, ongoing processes seems like it would be useful in thinking about how people familiarize themselves with and navigate new spaces, whether virtual or real world.

sunday at the park

2007-04-15T21:21:00.000-07:00

Before our meeting at the Olympic Sculpture Park today, though I didn't initially plan on it, I ended up practicing some Lynch-style observing. From First Hill and through downtown, cutting gradually northwest through Belltown-- I like being downtown early, and midmorning on a chilly Sunday it was quiet of traffic and pedestrians. I found it more difficult than I expected to observe without "analyzing in the field." I also discovered that I have a poorer memory than I thought, and that my notes need to be less cryptic. In future I might try a digital recorder--I won't look any stranger talking to myself occasionally than folks with bluetooth earpieces. Unlike the park, Belltown is layered with human traces. It has cluttered alleys (dumpsters, an abandoned red living room set, barred/boarded windows at the backs, eye-level graffitti). Older buildings have been adapted to uses other than the original, showing layers of changes, other buildings differ radically in style from the older neighborhood. Despite the development, it does not seem visibly geared to practical needs. There are few local amenities for residents-post offices or postbox, drugstore, few places to buy food besides restaurants. Like the Boston walkers, I barely noticed signage except in that I was searching for Broad St--something I didn't realize until after the fact.

Coming down the hill from Belltown is like sneaking up behind the park--and helps keep it connected with its urban context even as the sky, water and mountains open up ahead. After walking around we talked about how the park's landscape encapsulates Seattle in its context and use of elements. It retains an urban and industrial feel while maintaining boundaries--trains running through it while we walked, views of barges and cranes and businesses, large contemporary buildings on three sides, its proximity to downtown and the piers. Like the Amsterdam culture park it is a brownfield reclamation project, and it seems generally to express something very "Seattle," just as the other park is supposed to be a microcosm of its city. It has some things in common with it in terms of purpose and use, users, and conceptual design. It would be a good place to formulate questions, practice data gathering both in the park and in the city around it, preliminary work such as Zeisel suggests, and analyze behavior in context based on his central questions.

The contrast between the urban and park environments is strong. The architecture seems intended to minimize human impact, in order to retain a quasi-museum feel. It is full of explicit and implicit guidance for visitors: I had wayfinding on my mind, so I noticed signage, landmarks and directional clues in the landscape. The path's angled design tacitly encourages you to keep moving from one landmark to the next, rather than standing still for too long (though that may also have been the weather). There is no way to wander in a circle or to get lost, to go any way but linear switchback of the "Z," though there are "softer" paths leading off the main gravel to a couple of exhibits. It was hard to see how people might be impacting the environment--they were encouraged not to. Official signs sent messages to stay off the grass, not touch the art, and not pick the plantings, acknowledging ways people (especially newcomers) might impact if permitted. I saw one person violating the rule with her dog, but everyone else seemed compliant--no shortcuts between the angles, walking off the paths or climbing on the low walls. There were quasi-designated rest points marked by moveable orange chairs (reminiscent of the Calder), in groups of varying size so you could pause to look at the vista or sculptures. They made me think of the Zeisel article a bit: did people use them, feel free to adapt them to their purposes--were they arranged in any planned fashion by staff? The park's boundaries are interesting: on the north it is marked by changes in shape--the waterfront path becomes curvy, everything seems shaggier, even the breeze is less sharp.

I noticed groups (no one appeared to be alone), families with children, people with dogs, people with dogs and children, runners, cafe workers, musicians (in the ampitheatre), security guards on bikes. People walked slowly, generally sticking together. We talked about the issue of wheelchair and visually disabled access, and about who doesn't seem to be using the park (though I'd need to return, and to ask people). I wondered about some of the folks I saw on the way through Belltown, who appeared to be possibly homeless but who had a sort of ownership of the environment. I wondered how welcome they would be, or if people tried to sleep there (it would be difficult)--that seemed to be another boundary worth investigating.

It was sometimes hard not to focus on the art at the expense of the other things going on. We noted that walking through the park started to change how you looked things outside it--industrial elements seemed like features connected to the exhibits, external elements seemed more deliberate than usual. It was hard to guess whether a tent of driftwood was created by visitors or planned. It might also reflect the park's success in integrating--the Calder sculpture picks up the orange cranes to the SW and the ship anchored offshore. A little boy ran past me shouting "Look at the boat! I bet it's a sculpture too!" He said it better than I could.

links

2007-04-10T23:45:00.000-07:00

I'll annotate these later, but here's some fun stuff I've been looking at--

Mapping the City –a current exhibit at Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam
[from program notes: "The show includes the work of Stanley Brouwn, a conceptual artist:"Starting in 1962, Brouwn started asking random passers-by for directions in getting from point A to point B. He gave each route that people drew for him the title This way Brouwn."
and from gallery notes: “In one of his first publications, 100 this-way-brouwn problems for computer IBM 360 model 95, brouwn lists this way brouwn questions to be posed to a computer beginning with: "show brouwn the way in all cities, villages, etc. on earth from point x to all other points in that cities, villages etc. Too complex for even a computer to solve, this list of questions is designed to reveal the infinitely complex possibilities implicit in the idea of a this way brouwn.”
Christine Burgin Gallery

Intelligent environments, etc: Smartspace

This is what it sounds like: Geospatial Semantic Web Blog

Images of Westerpark and other work of Kathryn Gustafson-flickr pool

Three articles on Westergasfabriek/renewal

An overview of some wayfinding literature:
Wayfinding in the Real and Virtual World
from Conroy, R (2001) Spatial Navigation in Immersive Environments (dissertation)

More to come. . .

more ideas

2007-04-09T12:42:00.000-07:00

a) I would like to work with Mark and Ray and whoever else is interested in wayfinding and navigation, as well as anyone interested in the Westergasfabriek.

b) Though I have a general focus--wayfinding in Westergasfabriek--I’m still feeling rather tentative about the specific research questions I want to ask. I need more time to process what I’ve been reading, a chance to do more background research in the field and on the park. (This was the problem I ran into with my other research ideas and I’d like to avoid making the same errors here).

Exploring wayfinding in this location would be a practical way to explore several issues--one
broad question might be, how do guests "learn" the park? Other general questions might be to look at “real world” wayfinding in the city in comparison with the park (what might that say about the relationship between the two?), or relatedly the difference between orienting to the familiar vs the unfamiliar. It also has the advantage of being a contained location for research, and it seems like a ready made environment for these questions because it is presumably designed to make people feel oriented, even at home. It would feature deliberately placed signage, landmarks, structures in addition to the more implicit features of its architecture. ( It might also be interesting to see if there are differences between a user’s wayfinding strategy and what they actually do in navigating, what happens as a result--maybe seeing how iterative a process it can be?)

I’m generally intrigued by how people navigate information both virtually and in the real world, especially how they make sense of it in any new environment. I also share Ray’s interest in research which might be applied to making the virtual world more navigable for underserved populations or groups with special needs—I think we tend to take for granted ease of use, not to mention ease of access. These are subjects I came to the iSchool hoping to investigate, but I haven’t had a chance to explore at all yet.

c) This falls into the category of academic research with all the bells and whistles. I think we’ll need to be able to talk to people at length about what they are thinking, document behavior, and will probably need the flexibility of being able to adjust plans on the ground.

d) I don’t know enough yet about the park to guess at how practical and productive site it will be--the logistics of working there are unclear. (Though obviously we can do a lot of research in advance, perhaps look at Gustafson’s work here). I think finding research subjects to work with might be more difficult than it seems, and that the review might be a challenge. I am sure other challenges will present themselves. . .

ideas?

2007-04-01T19:52:00.000-07:00

A couple of ideas:
Idea#1: Westergasfabriek as a research environment:
Articles which criticize the gentrification connected with creating Westergasfabriek touch on issues of exclusion and tolerance in Dutch culture. Critics see disregard for lower-income people as part of a larger abandonment of liberal values, driven partly by profit motives and conservative influences. If the Westergasfabriek is a microcosm of Amsterdam, what does it reflect about the city's identity, social attitudes and class and racial dynamics? The park uses marketing based partly on an image of inclusion--but who exactly is the "you" in the "you are welcome" of its website? Who is displaced and tacitly excluded by the park--who is not welcome? It might be possible to look at different groups connected with the park, or focus on one group's experience (eg squatters, workers, local residents), and focus a wide range of questions on their perceptions of and interactions with the park. It might also be possible to think about how information sharing is used to create social connections and social space among different groups. Research grounds could include the park itself and its users, employees, and neighbors; it would be ideal to locate people who do not use the park as well . It would be useful to look at the recent history and demographics of the area, and possibly consult social service agencies. It might be possible to obtain background information on the park 's development from the architect's office, which is handily located in Seattle.

[Along these lines, squatting as an issue of pragmatic tolerance could be a rich question in its own right. It is tied up with urban reclamation-- squatters settle unused or unwanted properties which they are forced off of make way for grand projects. It is legal [read: tolerated] in the Netherlands, though last year there was a controversial move to outlaw the practice--which was defeated.]

Idea #2: "Messy shapes of knowledge" :
I'm interested in virtual wayfinding, ethnography, and information sharing--though my questions are fuzzy--and I wonder if it might be possible to use these as ways to look at phenomena like social bookmarking. Martin Dodge has written about online social mapping, and Anne Beaulieu of VKS has analyzed ethnography of hyperlinking. Would it be possible to do an ethnographic reading of social bookmarking? Would looking at practices of sharing and organizing found information (or not doing these things) say anything about these groups? Does tagging support interdisciplinary sharing? Does bookmarking function like a type of mapmaking, in that you track your route and leave markers for others? How do those maps work, what shapes do they take? How do people use them? Social bookmarking is often idealized: what are the costs/benefits (practical, social, etc) of using these systems, whether for organization or retrieval? On the question of research grounds these are fun, obvious questions, but this topic could be very diffuse. The most practical approach might be looking at one site (such as CiteULike), or perhaps studying how it is used by a defined group of people such as a department.