• Sarah WhatleyEmail author


The introduction sets out the activities that led to the book, including the Error Network project that brought together experts from a range of disciplines to discuss how error, ambiguity, glitch and related concepts influence and inform their own work. The book is informed by the starting place for this network; the relationship between dance and Human–Computer Interaction (HCI); and the creative potential of error in cultural practices. Providing a brief description of the context in which the idea of ‘error’ operates in various fields, the Introduction then gives a short overview of each chapter’s approach to the creative potential of error and/or ambiguity, and how the authors define these terms in the particular context of their own discipline.


Human–Computer Interaction (HCI) Error Ambiguity Network Body 


  1. Benford, Steve, Andy Crabtree, Martin Flintham, Adam Drozd, Rob Anastasi, Mark Paxton, Nick Tandavaniti, Matt Adams, and Ju Row-Farr. 2006. “Can You See Me Now?” ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 13 (1): 100–133.Google Scholar
  2. Birringer, Johannes. 2008. Performance, Technology, and Science. New York: PAJ Publications.Google Scholar
  3. Broadhurst, Susan. 2007. Digital Practices: Aesthetic and Neuroesthetic Approaches to Performance and Technology. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  4. Dourish, Paul. 2001. “Seeking a Foundation for Context-Aware Computing.” Human–Computer Interaction 16 (2–4): 229–241.Google Scholar
  5. Gaver, William W., Jacob Beaver, and Steve Benford. 2003. “Ambiguity as a Resource for Design.” Proceedings of the 2003 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.Google Scholar
  6. Kozel, Susan. 2007. Closer: Performance, Technologies, Phenomenology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Leonardo Books.Google Scholar
  7. ———. 2012. “AffeXity: Performing Affect with Augmented Reality.” The Fibreculture Journal: Exploring Affective Interactions 21: 72–96.Google Scholar
  8. Light, Ann. 2011. “HCI as Heterodoxy: Technologies of Identity and the Queering of Interaction with Computers.” Interacting with Computers 23 (5): 430–438.Google Scholar
  9. Morrison, Andrew, Ragnhild Tronstad, and Einar Sneve Martinussen. 2013. “Design Notes on a Lonely Drone.” Digital Creativity 24 (1): 46–59.Google Scholar
  10. Nash, Adam. 2013. “Affect and the Medium of Digital Data.” The Fibreculture Journal, Exploring Affective Interactions 21: 10–30.Google Scholar
  11. Nunes, Mark, ed. 2011. Error: Glitch, Noise, and Jam in New Media Cultures. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  12. Oulasvirta, Antti, Esko Kurvinen, and Tomi Kankainen. 2003. “Understanding Contexts by Being There: Case Studies in Bodystorming.” Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 7 (2): 125–134.Google Scholar
  13. Popat, Sita. 2001. “Interactive Dance-Making: Online Creative Collaborations.” Digital Creativity 12 (4): 205–214.Google Scholar
  14. Schiphorst, Thecla. 2007. “Really, Really Small: The Palpability of the Invisible.” In Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity & Cognition, 7–16. New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  15. Schleicher, Dennis, Peter Jones, and Oksana Kachur. 2010. “Bodystorming as Embodied Designing.” Interactions: 17 (6): 47–51.Google Scholar
  16. Shedroff, Nathan. 2001. Experience Design 1. Thousand Oaks, CA: New Riders Publishing.Google Scholar
  17. ———. 2009. Design is the Problem: The Future of Design Must Be Sustainable. New York: Rosenfeld Media.Google Scholar
  18. Whatley, Sarah. 2012 “The Poetics of Motion Capture and Visualization Techniques: The Differences Between Watching real and Virtual Dancing Bodies.” In Kinesthetic Empathy in Creative and Cultural Practices, edited by Dee Reynolds and Matthew Reason. 263–280. Bristol: Intellect Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Dance Research, Coventry UniversityCoventryUK

Personalised recommendations