Three Dimensions of a Multimedia Application.

Introduction.

In this module you are asked to look at and assess multimedia artifacts; you are also asked to develop (in outline) some multimedia artifacts. There are quite close links between these processes. In particular, the last stage in multimedia development is evaluation - taking an honest look at your work and pinpointing its strengths and weaknesses. These notes are intended to give you a framework for such evaluative thinking.

A key problem which confronts you as a multimedia critic, as a multimedia designer, - and, incidentally, for us as assessors of your work - is how your work is to be justified and evaluated; a process known in the worlds of art, literature and the media as 'criticism'. What counts as good multimedia design isn't just an arbitrary matter of individual subjective choice, but neither is there any simplistic metric which can be laid over a piece of work before pronouncing it 'good' or 'bad'. This document sets out a strategy for criticising, justifying and assessing a multimedia product which will, hopefully, stand you in good stead as both a designer and critic of multimedia artifacts. The leading principle is a discursive one: that a multimedia design must be judged as being of good quality if there is a rational, articulated justification for it. This applies to both the work which you look at and the work which you produce.  In short, your work will be considered favourably if it can be shown to be the outcome of a well thought-out design and implementation process. As a creative student you have a complete freedom to articulate your own justifications: as long as they can survive questioning then they may be considered to be valid.

This process is, of course, that which is at work in any creative (fine art, photography, literature, etc.). or humanistic (history, geography, sociology, politics, etc.) discipline. A piece of work is judged favourably, in the long run, if it can survive a historical process of explanation and criticism. Unfortunately, we can't wait for history to judge your work, we have to produce a mark for it in the here and now - so you will have to speak up for your own conceptions, rather than let posterity do it for you.
 

The Structure of the Process of Criticism.

A piece of multimedia may be judged along many dimensions; however, for the purposes of simplicity, we will gather these together into just three main headings:

• Technical criticism. A multimedia artifact can be criticised on its technical merits - so you should be able to justify the various technical design decisions and trade-offs which the designer has made.
• Cognitive criticism. A multimedia artifact can be criticised on whether it communicates effectively with its audience - so you should be able to justify the communicative strategy which underlies the work.
• Aesthetic criticism. A multimedia artifact can be criticised on whether it has artistic or creative merits - so you should be able to justify the artistic (in its extended sense which covers image, sound and the literary quality of the text) choices which the designer has made.

These dimensions are not, of course, simply separable; there are many complex interactions between them (e.g. you use a technical means to realise an aesthetic goal), and they are separated by grey areas rather than sharp boundaries (e.g. is a clearly-written text a literary, creative achievement, or an example of a good cognitive strategy?). This should be borne in mind during the following discussion.

This three-dimensional breakdown of the qualities of a multimedia artifact can also be used as a stimulus to design thinking. Take the initial development task that you have been given. After you have given some consideration to the problem, and you have some design ideas in your mind, sharpen these ideas up by asking yourself questions corresponding to each of these dimensions. What packages will I need to construct the application? What is the application trying to communicate, and to whom? What will I do to give the application expressive power, the power to move or excite people? Write down your ideas and ambitions under the headings 'technical', 'cognitive' and 'aesthetic'.

Perhaps surprisingly, we can lay down a bare template for criticism and justification which is useful in each of these dimensions. The terms within it have to be subtly reinterpreted in each dimension. Here it is in its 'critical' mode, simply 'turn it round' to make a framework for justification:

• Describe. The process of criticism begins with describing what is there, identifying the artifact and its components. Also a description of the context of production and use of the artifact.
• Interpret. The artifact and its components are there for a reason, so say what their significance is both individually and as a whole.
• Evaluate. Construct a set of criteria appropriate for judging the kind of artifact currently being criticised. Use the results of the first two processes as the basis for an overall evaluation, judging whether the artifact succeeds or fails against the chosen criteria. Score each against each of the criteria and aggregate - this might be done on a either a quantitative or qualitative basis.
• Theorise. Any process of criticism takes place against a theoretical background - this gives a set of terms and ideas which give shape to the process of criticism.

We will use this template in each of the three dimensions below.

Technical Criticism.

There is another facet of criticising and justifying technical design decisions which is derived from programming, and other forms of complex symbolic activity. Programmers, at least those of a mathematical bent, speak of the elegance of code; meaning that the code is compact and expresses its function clearly. A principle which is often invoked is that of Occam's razor: entities should not be multiplied more than necessary - in other words, express your algorithm or data structure using the smallest set of constructs which will do the job. In less rarefied terms, this leads to the idea that every piece of technical support should be used efficiently and neatly: this could range from ensuring that the scripting in a Flash or Director animation is well-structured, to ensuring that you have chosen the appropriate colour depth and compression for an image which is intended for use on a web page.

We can revisit the criticism template in a technical context:

• Describe. Identify and describe the technical components of the artifact. Be precise about the technical details. Break the artifact down into its components and describe how they have been assembled. It may not always be possible to complete this breakdown if implementation details are hidden; however, each component which is accessible should be explored. Try and describe the implementation technologies and techniques; and the technologies on which the artifact is being used.
• Interpret. Try and account for the details which you have uncovered. Why have these choices been made? How do the components work together? You are trying to reconstruct the rational process which led the designers to their choices of component and overall architecture.
• Evaluate. Identify a set of criteria which seem appropriate to judging the quality of construction of the class of artifacts being considered. Score the artifact against these criteria on a point by point basis. Aggregate into an overall score.
• Theorise. The theory appropriate to technical criticism is provided by the principles behind hardware and software design, and those of transmission, storage and display. These principles have to be supplemented by a working knowledge of high quality implementations in accordance with these principles (a knowledge of 'best practice').

There should be no illusions about how difficult such criticisms are to construct. A knowledgeable technical criticism of any multimedia artifact is the province of a specialist.

For our initial development exercise the technological side is fairly restricted. Our available 'armoury' is: web pages constructed in Dreamweaver, a small Flash animation, text, images and perhaps some sound files. Think about the opportunities the story presents for the use of these technical resources.

Cognitive Criticism.

Every piece of multimedia exists to represent something; that something may be an extended body of knowledge (e.g., a piece of educational multimedia, an on-line museum, etc.), or it may be a terse and abstract message (e.g., a piece of multimedia art, a piece of advertising, etc.). Every representation presupposes some idea of what it is to know something, and how people 'read' a given medium. Evaluation of the quality of a multimedia representation will take place against such a background; similarly your task in giving a cognitive justification for your work is to make clear the view of knowledge and communication which underlies your work. It will be important to match this view with the subject-matter and goals of your multimedia presentation.

Since you are trying to carry out a 'cognitive' criticism or justification, it might seem that the most appropriate theoretical response is to reach for the rather mechanistic form of psychology which underlies the 'scientific' study of human-computer interfaces - that of 'cognitive science' or 'cognitive psychology'. The model of the human mind which is used here is that of the computer: the human being is said to perceive, process and store information analogously to a computer; so the qualities which we look for in a good representation are those which allow it to be processed clearly and efficiently. Whilst this may be an appropriate response, especially if you are producing mainstream educational multimedia, it certainly isn't the only one. Such a view of the human mind would be almost useless as a guide for a film-maker or a novelist; and it would hardly support a fruitful approach to film or literary criticism. A model of cognition more appropriate for such domains recognises that human beings are immersed in a developing cultural and historical stream, and that films and novels help them to make sense of their position in culture and history, by observation and the making of connections. Film and literary criticism are based on a broader view of human nature. Multimedia is perched interestingly between the world of the computer and the world of more traditional forms of representation; which means that you have to be very clear about the perspective from which we are conducting our cognitive criticisms or justifications.

The same pattern of  criticism can be used, and adapted to the cognitive content of a multimedia artifact:

• Describe. Identify the bare content of the artifact: the things which are being said or shown. Describe the overall structure and organisation into which the content has been placed. Describe the circumstances of production and reception of the artifact.
• Interpret. Give an account of why the content and organisation described has been chosen; the higher level 'concept' which seems to be at work in the design of the artifact.
• Evaluate. Identify a set of criteria which seem to be appropriate for judging artifacts of the type being considered - these are likely to include such factors as the kind of knowledge represented, the intended audience, the way in which the audience is being addressed, etc. Score the artifact against these criteria on a point by point basis and aggregate.
• Theorise. As indicated above, a range of theories of knowing and understanding might be chosen to provide a theoretical background - adopt a mechanistic model for such domains as instructional multimedia and factual reference material; broaden out into more humanistic models for higher-level educational material and multimedia with a broader cultural remit.

Your first development exercise is based on a story written with considerable craft and skill. It has a well-structured narrative that perfectly fits the short story format. When we move to the realm of multimedia we have to come up with a similarly well-structured application, so that our user gets a sense of flow and unity, and our story remains comprehensible. The various pieces of our application (images, sounds, text, etc. distributed over several screens) have to fit together and communicate our message. Think about what is involved in the shift from text to multimedia. What structural problems do we have to solve?

Aesthetic Criticism.

This dimension is the most difficult to reduce to a recipe; but the general pattern of criticism which has been adopted in this guide has, in fact, been drawn from a book on photographic criticism (Barrett 1996, Criticizing Photographs, Mayfield) - itself based on approaches to literary criticism. These notes give a brief introduction to some of the points made by Barrett. In the criticism of an art work our mantra of 'describe, interpret, evaluate, theorise' should be recognised for what it is: a set of signposts which we use as a guide, but often difficult to separate in any subtle process of criticism. They are used as prompts for a process of exploration and argument. Our signposts are a way of trying to bracket, and distance ourselves, from our subjective responses. A way of giving substance to two very useful questions: 'why would I have done that if I had done it?' and' what would I like about that if I liked it?' Our critical process can be put in similarly blunt terms:

• describe - 'what is here?'
• interpret - 'what does it mean?'
• evaluate - 'how might we judge it?'
• theorise - 'what theoretical background(s) seem relevant?'

However, it is useful to put more flesh on these bare bones:

Describe.

Data gathering, a listing of facts. These facts might be internal (those which we can glean by looking at the artifact) or external (those which we can glean by looking at the circumstances of production or reception). It is useful to identify:

• subject matter - analyse content (see the 'cognitive dimension' above)
• form - how the subject matter is presented in each medium
• medium - what media are being used
• style - influences on each medium, identified by time period, main source or school, place

Interpret.

Account for all the features described and posit meaningful relations between those features described - say why the features are there and why they occur together. This may involve going beyond that which is physically present, and determining what is implied by the described features. This interpretation will be determined by both the artifact, and its circumstances of production and reception.

Interpretation and theorising are linked intimately; any systematic interpretation is guided by theory.

Evaluate

Making a summative judgement about quality. A judgement is a statement, and it has be to be justified; this justification has to be rooted in a clear process of:

• appraisal, placing on some 'good - bad' scale
• based on reasons
• founded on criteria

The criteria will take all the pressure here, and they can't be arbitrary ... they will be rooted in experience, tradition and theory. Different critics will probably adopt very different sets of criteria - this doesn't mean that criticism is, at root, subjective; rather it means that its objectivity is incomplete and subject to endless revision.

Theorise.

Identify some overarching framework which makes sense of the tradition in which the artifact is being produced; which says what that activity is and why human beings do it. Such a conception will filter down into description, interpretation and evaluation.

As you will appreciate from the complexity of this process, justifying your own work is a very difficult matter. It is made easier by working within an identifiable tradition and style which carries with it a framework for justification.

Your initial development task is to produce a multimedia version of a classic ghost story, written in the early 20th century. Such ghost stories have been the subject of innumerable film and tv adaptations, and a definite style has emerged. One might sum this up as: shadows, night and fog; wood-panelled studies and leather-bound books; lonely stations, eerie train whistles and the hiss of steam; tweed-clad and cloaked figures; etc. Think about the way in which you might reproduce the aesthetic of these adaptations, or perhaps come up with an exciting and similarly-unified alternative.