English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

ed beyond particular instances, which have the potential to be appropriated by designers and researchers.” resulted in one final collaborative written interpretation. Through these two studies we gained a better understanding of in-situ and ex-situ participation and the notion of PIT. We were able to identify a) challenges that counteract coherent collaborative production of text b) tensions relating to inand exsitu engagement and c) appropriation practices of the technologies deployed in the design experiments. This analysis forms a fundamental basis for the strong design concepts we present in this paper to understand the notion of PIT supporting in-situ and ex-situ collaborative writing. 4. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY The setup in the LAA experiment was limited to one month, which was the duration of the exhibition in the gallery. We thus carried out an in-the-wild study (Brown et al., 2011). We conducted 13 semistructured on-site interviews with 19 visitors (some in pairs). The follow-up design experiment lasted three months. 23 participants, who had an interest in art curation, were invited to use our edeliberation platform. We conducted 23 semistructured interviews. All interviews from both cases were transcribed and then analysed using inductive coding. The initial codes were related to our design ideas, such as collaborative writing, coherent text production, appropriation practices, mobile/e-platform and artwork. What caught our attention when analysing and comparing the interviews were the contradictions, how people talked about writing when being close to or remote from the artwork, how they tackled difficult questions, etc. Accordingly, we took a closer look at the conflicts. 5. FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS 5.1 Short messages vs. coherent text In the LAA set-up, we experienced that people were writing short messages rather than a coherent interpretation as we had anticipated. Firstly, this may have resulted from our design decision of ‘local-write and global-read’ (Bødker et al., 2014), which means that visitors were allowed to edit the text next to the artworks only when being within a distance of 3 meters. When they were outside the gallery, they had read-access only. Secondly, we found that for writing a coherent art interpretation, visitors prefer to be in a relaxed atmosphere (Al Zubaidi et al., 2017). The visitors mentioned they need more time to reflect upon the artwork to write an elaborate text. Thirdly, the technology on site gave rise to conversations and discussions among visitors. Hence, at times the system served as a conversation starter rather than as a collaborative writing tool. Fourthly, we followed an open-design principle, which means that we gave access to a Participatory IT for In-situ and Ex-situ Collaborative Writing in Semi-public Spaces Anna Maria Al Zubaidi-Polli ● Gabriele Anderst-Kotsis 3 format of contributions that was open to being shaped by the audience without previous introduction. The collaborative writing technology offered a blank sheet on which anything could be written. This approach created a number of challenges, for example, that this openness led to contradictory uses. We identified various attempts to share individual thoughts about the artwork that conflicted with each other, so no coherent text could emerge. Rather than write one coherent interpretation, the visitors added comments that resembled guestbook or Facebook entries (Bødker and Polli, 2014). 5.2 In-situ vs. ex-situ writing In the AA study, when writing informative, coherent interpretations, the participants acted collaboratively, as they adapted other interpretations or incorporated others’ ideas into their own texts. The writing practices related to composing a coherent text constitute one group of findings within our analysis. We identified ex-situ situations in which visitors felt sufficiently comfortable to write Wikipedia-style art interpretations. The participants domesticated the technology in various places inside and outside their homes: on the couch, in bed, at the dining table or at the desk, at the office, and while commuting on public transport. Further analysis from the LAA study revealed contradictions regarding the preferred ex-situ situations in which to write the collaborative interpretation: One interviewee mentioned that, she probably would have forgotten on her way home to write an interpretation. Therefore, she would have preferred a ‘cozy place’ in-situ at the art gallery, such as in a café lounge, to reflect on and write her interpretation. Even though most of the interpretations were written in ex-situ situations, this finding indicates the need for a PIT allowing insitu and ex-situ writing to cater to individual preferences. 5.3 Digital vs. face-to-face dialogues A further limitation we identified in the AA design experiment concerns the absence of human assistance. Users need the reassuring feeling that there is help when they require it and the opportunity to ask questions and discuss difficulties, preferably face-to-face. The participants became increasingly frustrated with some unfamiliar and non-intuitive functionalities of our edeliberation platform. Interventions by other participants prevented them from discarding the platform. The participants met on a weekly basis due to their academic background and used these meetings to discuss the open questions. When users do not have the required knowledge to participate constructively in the collaborative activities and no human assistance is provided, this frustration may lead to rejection of a platform. Some of our participants highlighted that they would have preferred closer contact to us researchers and developers of the platform. Although the platform offered a discussion forum, it was rarely used to get in contact with us researchers. The participants had several questions and faced difficulties regarding the platform; nonetheless, the discussion forum remained largely unused. Direct face-to-face contact was preferred to the online discussion forum of the e-deliberation platform. 6. STRONG CONCEPTS FOR PIT In this section, we present six strong concepts that are based on our analysis. First, we present two strong concepts which are derived from our first design exemplar of PIT (Bødker et al., 2014), which is followed by four new strong concepts (see Sections 6.1 to 6.4). These concepts are intended to support the understanding and the design of participatory IT that fosters local and remote participation linked to a semi-public space. In (Bødker et al., 2014), we presented three strong concepts: Local Area networking, hyperlocality and global read/local write. The first two can be adopted, as they support but do not limit to in-situ engagement. Using local area networking as a design concept means creating a digital layer that is tied to the physical space via fixed and/or mobile devices present in the space. With the concept hyperlocality we steer attention towards designing for participation and collaboration that centres on shared, collocated objects, taking into account the immediate physical social environment. Applying these two concepts supports in-situ participation with the possibility for further extension to remote participation. The third concept global read/local write limits participation explicitly to in-situ engagement. We modified this concept to obtain a new strong concept (see Section 6.1). In addition, the AA experiment allowed us to derive three new concepts that directly support ex-situ collaboration (Sections 6.2-6.3). 6.1 Location-agnostic collaborative writing This concept relates to the successful writing of constructive coherent collaborative texts in the AA experiment. We experienced a sustained participation that compares to that Wikipedia affords. People cared much more about their contributions and how they were received and adopted by others. They gained strong ownership of the collaboratively produced text, and therefore they followed up on the collaborative text production and actively participated in the writing process. This concept provides access to those Participatory IT for In-situ and Ex-situ Collaborative Writing in Semi-public Spaces Anna Maria Al Zubaidi-Polli ● Gabriele Anderst-Kotsis 4 present in the space (in situ), to those who read about any changes in the collaboratively written text (ex situ), and to those who actively want to participate in further text production about an artwork located in a semi-public space (both in situ and ex situ). Allowing remote participants to follow up on the collaborative text production and to allow them to write more text, and delete or edit it better sustains participation than limiting access to in-situ participation. With this concept, the power dynamics are balanced between the local and the global level and the people present in the physical space. In summary, using location-agnostic collaborative writing as a design concept means extending access beyond the local reach and removing the restraint of physical presence next to the object under discussion. 6.2 Brainstorm-integrate-merge cycle This concept relates to three relevant activities that had an impact on achieving a consistent written text. In the LAA set-up, the use of personal devices led to individual participation and to writing short snippets of text rather than writing a coherent interpretation. In the AA set-up, we supported engagement to achieve composition of a coherent interpretation through three activities. Initially, the participants brainstormed individually or in groups about possible interpretations. Each of them then drafted one interpretation for the artwork and submitted it to the e-deliberation platform. Subsequently, they read each other’s interpretations, which inspired them to write new interpretations, to integrate ideas or copy lines of text into their own. This cycle of brainstorming, writing and re-writing was repeated four times, thus merging the inter