OVERVIEW

2. OVERVIEW • Framework Overview • From Programming to Music • Dimensions in Detail • Visibility, Progressive Evaluation, Consistency, Viscosity, Abstraction Management, Virtuosity... • Score (including sketches), Max, Sequencer/DAWs • Practical Methodologies • Qualitative and Quantitative Applications • Future Development

3. FROM PROGRAMMING TO MUSIC Notation defines the future behaviouror actions of a system / agent. Formal rules define the scope of creativity. expressive possibilities Format and conventions define which creative expressions are easy (or hard). expressive ‘probabilities’ Different notations suit different uses / users.

4. A USABILITY FRAMEWORK • The Cognitive Dimensions of Notations (Green & Petre, 1996) • Established framework for analysing theusability of programming languages. • Relates usability factors to propertiesof the notation or user interface (UI). • 16 cognitivedimensions. • Criteria for dimensions: • orthogonality, granularity, polarity, applicability • Offers a broad yet deep analysis tool.

5. DIMENSION CRITERIA • multi-faceted • dependencies / trade-offs • sometimes value-laden • new dimensions possible • Granularity • Each dimension is a linear continuum. • Orthogonality • Dimensions are independent of other dimensions. • Polarity • Values are good or bad, depending on context. • Applicability • Some dimensions are more important, depending on interaction scenario / task.

6. DIMENSIONS OF MUSIC NOTATION http://research.nashnet.co.uk Visibility Juxtaposability Hidden Dependencies Viscosity Provisionality Premature Commitment Progressive Evaluation Secondary Notation Hard Mental Operations Abstraction Management Error Proneness Virtuosity Consistency Diffuseness Role Expressiveness Closeness of Mapping

7. DIMENSION: VISIBILITY “How easy is it to view and find elements or parts of the music during editing?”

8. DIMENSION: JUXTAPOSABILITY “How easy is it to compareelements within the music?”

9. DIMENSION: HIDDEN DEPENDENCIES “How explicit are the relationshipsbetweenrelated elements in thenotation?”

10. DIMENSION: HARD MENTAL OPERATIONS “When writing music, are there difficultthings to work out in your head?”

11. DIMENSION: SECONDARY NOTATION “How easy is it to make informalnotes to capture ideas outsidethe formal rules of the notation?”

12. DIMENSION: PROGRESSIVE EVALUATION “How easy is it to stop andcheckyour progress duringediting?” (“Audibility” / “Liveness”) (see Nash &Blackwell, 2011)

13. DIMENSION: PROVISIONALITY “Is it possible to sketch things outand play with ideas without beingtoo precise about the exact result?”

14. DIMENSION: VISCOSITY “Is it easy to go back andmake changes to the music?”

15. DIMENSION: PREMATURE COMMITMENT “Do edits have to be performedin a prescribed order, requiringyou to plan or think ahead?”

16. DIMENSION: CONSISTENCY “Where aspects of the notation meansimilar things, is the similarity clearin the way they appear?”

17. DIMENSION: ROLE EXPRESSIVENESS “Is it easy to see what each part is for,in the overall format of the notation?”

18. DIMENSION: ERROR PRONENESS “How easy is it to makeannoying nistakes?” m

19. DIMENSION: CLOSENESS OF MAPPING “Does the notation match howyou describe the music yourself?”

20. DIMENSION: CONCISENESS / DIFFUSENESS “How concise is the notation? What is the balance betweendetail and overview?”

21. DIMENSION: ABSTRACTION MANAGEMENT “How can the notation becustomised, adapted, or usedbeyond its intended use?”

22. DIMENSION: VIRTUOSITY / LEARNABILITY “How easy is it to master the notation?Where is the respective thresholdfor novices and ceiling for experts?” (see Nash &Blackwell, 2011/14)

23. PRACTICAL METHODOLOGIES • Qualitative Methods • Expert Panel / Internal Discussion • Identify user activities and interaction context. • Assess against a desired dimensional profile. • Establish design maneuvers to modify notation. • User Questionnaires (Blackwell and Green, 2000) • Optimised for end-users. • Use as a general vocabulary / taxonomyduringresearch and development.

24. PRACTICAL METHODOLOGIES • Quantitative Methods • Psychometric-style Surveys(Nash, 2011; with Blackwell, 2012) • Users evaluate statements, corresponding to individual cognitive dimensions on a 5-point Likert Scale, given an interactive system or context. • Integrated with Flow theory • 9 additional statements corresponding tocomponents of flow (c.f. Csikszentmihalyi). • Enables correlation and multiple-regression analysisbetween notation properties and flow experiences.

25. DIMENSIONAL PROFILES

26. DIMENSIONS vs. FLOW (n = 423, see Nash, 2011)

27. FLOW IN NOTATION USE (n = 423, see Nash, 2011) • Visibility • Visual feedback. • Progressive Eval. • Audio feedback / liveness. • Consistency / Virtuosity • Support for learning. • Abstraction Mgt. • High creative ceiling. • Viscosity / Prem. Comm. • Support for sketching. • Role Expressiveness • Low threshold.

28. FUTURE DIRECTIONS • Development and adaptation ofdimensions for musical contexts. • Further use and developmentof practical methodologies. • Applying existing techniques toother music interaction scenarios. • Meta-research / broader findings • Common / Optimal Dimensional Profiles • Online resource site for CDs. • http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~afb21/CognitiveDimensions/

29. MERCI POUR VOTRE ATTENTION http://research.nashnet.co.uk Questions / Discussion (chris.nash@uwe.ac.uk)