Wiberg M. - The Interaction Society[c] Practice, Theories and Supportive Technologies (2005)(en)

274 Nilsson, Nuldén & Olsson

spectators are not at the critical spots and they thereby miss event information. To deal with this, some spectators bring radio receivers; this of course only when the event is radio broadcasted. With this background the following research question is to be further elaborated in this chapter: What are the contextual requirements for the design of spectator information support at distributed events?

Field studies of the three events were conducted. The collected data were analyzed in relation to related research. Drawing upon these findings, three maincontextualrequirementsareoutlined.Further,basedontherequirements, the main challenges concerning the support of spectators are discussed. Followingthis,suggestionsandimplicationsfordesigntomeetthesechallenges are presented.

The remainder of the chapter is structured as follows: The first section reviews and applies two perspectives on context as a theoretical background. The second section describes the methods applied in this research. Next we report onthefieldwork.Wethenturntoananalysis,whichdiscussesourfindingsfrom the three studies, before the chapter concludes and outlines future work.

The Understanding and Use of Context

The literature provides a number of ways of understanding and studying context, with perspectives departing from the interplay between individuals, organizations,andenvironments,andhowtheseaspectsinfluencethedesignof technology and its use. Regardless of which starting point, particular circumstances and aspects within the context of interest have direct influence on how IT is used or can be used. Some approaches to context have viewed and analyzed it in terms of describing the interplay between individuals and the surrounding organizational structure, some has put the emphasis on what role technology can play to accommodate and facilitate interaction with regard to the surrounding environment, i.e., context-aware computing. Burrell (2000) propose a model of context-aware computing with social navigation. This is used to make earlier user experiences visible to add relevance to physical space and tasks. Schilit (1994) provides a set of important aspects regarding context: where you are, whom you are with, and what resources are nearby. In addition, a model of context-aware software dimensions is presented (Schilit, 1994). Abowd & Dey (2000) claim that users should not be confronted with

Copyright © 2005, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.

Spectator Information Support 275

expressing all the information relevant to a given situation. Further, they claim thatitislikelythatuserscannotformulatewhichinformationisrelevant.Instead, thecontext-awareapplicationshouldcollectcontextualinformationand,based on choices made by the designer, the application should provide relevant information to the user.

“Context is any information that can be used to characterize the situation of an entity. An entity is a person, or object that is considered relevant to the interaction between a user and an application, including the user and applications themselves” (Abowd & Dey, 2000, p.3).

Pascoe (1998) describes a set of context-aware capabilities to be able to describe context-awareness independently of functionality or interface. The capabilities emphasize on how to strengthen the link between contextual data and the resulting behavior and execution of applications.

“Context is a subjective concept that is defined by the entity that perceives it. For example, one entity may conceive of its context as location whereas another may view it from a temporal perspective. It could also be a more ethereal construct, e.g. the emotional state of a person. Therefore, context could be generally described as the subset of physical and conceptual states of interest to a particular entity” (Pascoe, 1998).

These definitions are useful on a general level. To a large extent these views on context put the emphasis on how to make technology feature a sense of context in its operation and execution. In this research we are interested in understanding distributed events as a phenomenon, i.e., its basic structure and execution. Moreover, the interest also concerns the fundamental behavioral patterns among the spectators, such as norms, needs and general practice. With this as background we have chosen to apply two different perspectives on context in order to shed light on these two instances of the events. First, Formative Context (Ciborra & Lanzara, 1994) is used to support our understanding of distributed events and its fundamental properties. Secondly, the Situated Action approach (Suchman, 1987) is applied to elucidate the practice and behavior of the actors, i.e., the spectators in situ. The two general constructs

Copyright © 2005, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.

276 Nilsson, Nuldén & Olsson

of the views on context have been used as a lens to guide our general understanding of empirical phenomena and to shed additional light upon derived findings. The approaches towards context will be described in more detail below.

Ciborra & Lanzara (1994) describe context from an organizational perspective. They introduce the notion of formative context in order to interpret empirical findings from a study of a software development company. They arguethat:

“The outcome of a formative context in a work setting is a texture of routines, roles and tasks that come to possess an ‘aura of naturalness’ for those who daily execute the routines in that context” (Ciborra & Lanzara, 1994, p. 70).

The daily work practice, established in the organization and between individuals, preserves and maintains the formative context, enacted by the actors. They also claim that the “aura of naturalness” is often conceived as inescapable. However, the formative context is under a negotiated evolvement:

“Formative contexts show a pasted-up nature, and a makeshift one, where old and new routines are tested, discarded, retrieved, collated, and combined along a main stream of sense” (Ciborra & Lanzara, 1994, p. 71).

And, as organizations are confronted with new major tasks, for which new organizational structures are formed, the formative context is actively developed to better accommodate the challenges brought by new projects:

“…when developing a system like the software factory, the object of design and construction – be it deliberate or unintended – does not only consist of new organizational routines, programs, procedures, databases and flows but, more importantly, of a new formative context” (Ciborra & Lanzara, 1994, p. 71).

The concept of context is here used in its transactional meaning, enacted in a situationofaction,whereformativecontextsareexpressionsofsocialcognition

Copyright © 2005, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.

Spectator Information Support 277

that transcends the individual (Ciborra & Lanzara, 1994). The meaning of context herein stems from the cyclic flow from established norms and values of practice to how new tasks and challenges imply changes to the formative context, thus having direct influence on how work is coordinated and conducted. The social and organizational impact on the formative context can thus maintain, reinforce or alter it in various ways.

Another view on context has been made by Suchman (1987) and her Situated Actionapproach.Suchmanisprimarilyconcernedwiththeinteractionbetween people and systems that are based on some notion of anticipating the users’ needs and how they go about deciding what to do, i.e., trying to understand the user’s goal to take the appropriate action. Further, Suchman discusses the cognitive science perspective, i.e., the planning model, which suggests that human action inevitably stems from some kind of predefined plan. Thus, systems that are intended to accommodate this perspective are designed to identify these plans to act and interact in a purposeful way. Suchman (1987) provides insights from a study of such a system, which indicate weaknesses of this approach when human action tends to deviate from the implemented plan in the system (Suchman, 1987, pp. 121-170).

“The coherence of situated action is tied in essential ways not to individual predispositions or conventional rules but to local interactions contingent on the actor’s particular circumstances” (Suchman, 1987, pp. 27-28).

This implies that circumstances, as Suchman (1987) puts it, or context specific aspects in a particular situation, vary on the situation at hand and in ways that are difficult to predict. In addition, these circumstances can be constituted by either social or material aspects. She further argues:

“In fact, because the relation of the intent to accomplish some goal to the actual course of situated action is enormously contingent, a statement of intent generally says very little about the action that follows. It is precisely because our plans are inherently vague – because we can state our intentions without having to describe the actual course that our actions will take – that an intentional vocabulary is so useful for our everyday affairs” (Suchman, 1987, p. 38).

Copyright © 2005, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.

278 Nilsson, Nuldén & Olsson

Due to the unpredictability of the chosen course of action, the underlying intent and so on, there is no recognition algorithm to identify or anticipate behavior without considering the prevalent context.

The two different perspectives on context concerning actors, action and interaction provide us with a general tool to interpret and analyze our data. These interpretations along with some theoretical considerations are presented at the end of our discussion. Next, the methods applied in this research are described.

Research Approach

Field studies are common in IT research. It has to a large extent been applied in the field of computer supported cooperative work (cf., Belotti & Bly, 1996; Hughes, Randall, & Shapiro, 1992; Hughes, King, Rodden, & Andersen, 1994) to inform the design and implementation of systems that support the sociality of work, complex actions and interactions. It has also commonly been used in previous work within interactive systems and human computer interaction ethnomethodologically inspired studies to guide the design of systems. To a large extent the focus of this approach has been on work related settings (e.g., Belotti & Bly, 1996; Belotti & Smith, 2000), but the scope has been broadened to also concern situations outside the workplace (e.g., O’Brien, Rodden, Rouncefield, & Hughes, 1999).

This research has conducted three ethnographically inspired field studies to explore three different distributed events. The distributed events studied are relatively short and last for around three days, which makes a longer study in theauthenticsettingimpossible.Therefore,itisratherchallengingtoinvestigate highly dynamic contexts during such a short span of time. However, this research does not attempt to conduct a deeper analysis of distributed events as such; rather our leading objective is to acquire a general understanding of how this type of event actually takes place and the fundamental aspects of its actors in situ, namely the spectators. This corresponds to a basic understanding of the context and its actors to provide inspiration and pointers for design. These aspects are constituted by spatial, temporal and social parameters that play a significant role in shaping the context of where things take place, thus being relevant for designing novel concepts.

Copyright © 2005, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.

Spectator Information Support 279

Data Collection and Analysis

The two main methods that have been used for data collection are observations conducted at each event and interviews of spectators in each study. The underlyingintentionwithobservationaldatawastocapturethespatialbehavior of spectators while experiencing the events, and also to see how they interacted with existing information support. Interviews were conducted to collect spectator opinions concerning what matters, what is considered as problematic, and how they go about doing the things they do. These two methods served as supplementing for each other in order to shed light on spectator practice. In addition to field notes and interview data, we used a video camera, providing two hours of live footage. This was used to complement the main methods in terms of providing a general view on the different settings were people interacted with both each other and artifacts. The observations were conducted without the consent from the spectators. However, the crowded places where the events took place are considered public. Therefore, we do not see any ethical issues with the research conducted.

Around a total of 40 hours of observations in the field were recorded by taking field notes, which later were categorized and analyzed. In the study of the Swedish Rally, two pairs of researchers conducted the observations at different locations, whereas in the Roskilde and Swedish Match Cup studies, one researcher was present. The field data was broken down and categorized into smaller units relevant for the purpose of this research, i.e., contextual requirements put on design of novel IT support. The categories were created by indentifying relevant topics concerning spectator activity.

Fifteen spectators were interviewed at the end of the Rally event, using openended questions and lasting approximately 45 minutes. In the Swedish Match Cup and the Roskilde Festival case, our goal was to interview the spectators during the event, involving approximately the same number of people as of the Rally. All interviewees were spectators that attended the event for its whole duration. The interviews were transcribed and analyzed in order to capture underlying patterns. The data was also repeatedly examined to categorize these patterns.

The combination of observational and interview data enabled us to capture a general description of spectator behavior and the interplay within the context itself in order to investigate the contextual requirements. The two different concepts on context, i.e., formative context and situated action were used as

Copyright © 2005, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.

280 Nilsson, Nuldén & Olsson

supporting mindsets to guide the analysis further. This part of the analysis is further elaborated in the final subsection of our discussion (theoretical considerations). Next we report on the fieldwork.

Empirical Results

This section presents the results from fieldwork. The main findings consist of three main contextual requirements that concern the design challenges of spectator support at distributed events:

•Technology should be a supplement to the event.

•Technology should support spectator mobility.

•Technology should provide situated content.

First, the studies suggest that event information serves as a supplement to the event experience, the primary focus lies on the live action in situ. Secondly, the eventsaredividedinseveralpartsheldatdifferentlocations,requiringmobility from the spectators. Thirdly, the spectators face many different situations depending on where they currently are located, with whom they are with, and the situation at hand of the event.

These three main requirements were derived from the fieldwork. The set of requirements are put into context by using excerpts³ from each study. There is one major study of the Swedish International Rally, and two smaller studies of the Roskilde Festival and the Swedish Match Cup. The majority of the field data was collected in the Rally study, which involved four researchers during the whole event, whereas the two other studies involved one researcher. Each event is introduced with a general description followed by elaborations on the set of requirements.

The Swedish Rally

This is an annual event in Sweden. It is part of the World Championship, which also includes the Safari Rally in Kenya and the Monte Carlo Rally. The threeday event attracts close to half a million spectators every year. The Rally covers

Copyright © 2005, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.

Spectator Information Support 281

an area of around 8,000 square miles. It is covered by the Swedish national public radio (SR) through radio broadcasts, digital radio broadcast and the Internet. The event takes place in vast woodland during mid-winter in Sweden. The competitors race against the clock on narrow roads in the woods at extreme speeds, struggling with gravel and snow to keep the vehicle on the road. This event attracts enthusiasts that have no problems of enduring the darkness and the cold. The event consists of several special stages and the only way for spectators to alter their position during a stage is to walk. The spectators wander around during the race to vary their view. Besides watching the rally, people engage in discussions about the competition, to socialize and interact.

Most spectators travel for hours to reach their favorite spots during the rally. The rally consists of 17 special stages, which are held at different locations within the area. During each stage, the spectators are scattered from the starting point all the way to the finish line, surrounding the roadway. Race officials are placed in a chain throughout the course equipped with whistles. When one official picks up the colleague’s signal nearby he looks for the approaching car, whichisannouncedbythewhistletone.Whentheofficialgetsvisualcontacthe blows the whistle to alert people in the vicinity including the next official in the chain, whom repeats the same action and so on. Hearing the signals the spectators take a few steps back, standing clear from the approaching car.

Supplement to the Event

Onsite spectators attend the Rally to experience it live in action. Coming into close contact with the racing competitors is a thrilling experience. Event information on the other hand becomes of secondary interest; it is a supplement to the event experience. Access to event information, such as race times, schedules and overall standings, enables the spectators to get an overview of how the event evolves. It also helps them to sort out on what to direct their attention. However, spectators engage in other activities inparallel to watching the races, for instance social interaction with other people. The excerpt below illustrates how event information can come into conflict with spectators’ attention and thus cause interruptions in sessions of social interaction.

Greg standing at the start of stage five: I find the radio broadcasts very useful, it gives a strong feeling of presence and you can bring the

Copyright © 2005, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.

282 Nilsson, Nuldén & Olsson

radio with you everywhere. However, it is often hard to hear what they are talking about because of all the background noise from the cars and the people around you. It is difficult to know when important information is about to be announced when you are focusing on something completely different, for instance talking to a friend next to you. When it does, you are often unprepared since it isn’t always your primary concern.

Cheering fellow spectators and loud noise from passing competitors makes the broadcast incoherent for the spectators listening to the reports. The result is losingimportantpartsofinformationsincethechanceofreportsbeingrepeated later is negligible. The portable radio follows the spectators everywhere but they have little chance of knowing when the broadcast covers important information.Theirattentionisalsosomewhatdividedsincetheyengageinsocial interactionbesideswatchingtheraceandpickingupeventinformationfromthe broadcast.

Spectator Mobility

When the spectators arrive at the course, the first thing to do is to find a place that offers a good visual view of the rally. The start and finish line are the two main hot spots attracting a large crowd. Those who wish to receive information from the organizers in situ prefer these two places since loudspeakers keep them informed. Many spectators find positions throughout the stages to be more exciting in terms of watching competitors approach at a distance and dart by at high speeds. As a result they locate themselves at the side of the road (see Figure 1B).

Figure 1, Location B provides limited access to information updates about the race, compared to the start and finish line areas. The spectators have to rely on the radio broadcast while being mobile. During each stage the spectators continuously wander along the course to alter their position. The excerpt below illustratesthissituation.

Sara at one of the parking lots after the race: I was at the race together with my dad and he didn’t have a radio, so each time they said something important, I had to tell him what was going on. This was also troublesome since you aren’t really always in each other’s

Copyright © 2005, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.

Spectator Information Support 283

exact proximity. If you aren’t equipped with a radio receiver, you have no clue on what’s going on. Mostly we were located throughout the stages, besides the broadcast there wasn’t much information to go on.

Figure 1. Sketch model describing the distributed spectator locations from A, the starting point, B, throughout the stage and C, at the finishing line

Copyright © 2005, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.