Storytelling & Conversation to Improve the Fun Factor in Software Applications
This chapter describes the impact of conversation and storytelling as short and medium period factors of user satisfaction, to be used in software applications. The author recommends an orientation of the user interface towards human needs to gain a short-period cycle of user satisfaction. This is achieved in regard to assistance and delegation with a conversational interaction metaphor, described as an explicit and symbolic top-down approach. For the medium-period satisfaction of the user, the author suggests the use of humanlike information structures like stories to access information in a way that is easily understandable for the user. The author suggests a morphological story engine as prototyped within the Geist project. The prototype implementation shows two general points:
First, the usage of literary approaches to interactive storytelling is generally possible. Suspense can be increased by using story models drawn from literary theory. Second, to involve the user in a dramatic story, one has to use humanlike interaction metaphors, like conversation, to focus the human on the story progress, rather than on the interface.
KeywordsAugmented Reality User Satisfaction Virtual Character Digital Storytelling Story Structure
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Braun, N. (2002a). Automated Narration — the Path to Interactive Storytelling, Workshop on Narrative and Interactive Learning Environments, Edinburgh, Scotland.Google Scholar
- Braun, N. (2002b). Symbolic Conversation Modeling Used as Abstract Part of the User Interface, Proccedings of the International Conference in Central Europe on Computer Graphics, Visualization and Computer Vision, WSCG, Czech.Google Scholar
- Braun, N., Schneider, O. and Habinger, G. (2002). Literary Analytical Discussion of Digital Storytelling and Its Relation to Automated Narration, HCI Europe’ 2002, Workshop Understanding User Experience: Literary Analysis meets HCI; London, UK.Google Scholar
- Cassell, J., Bickmore, T.W., Billinghurst, M., Campbell, L., Chang, K., Vilhjalmsson, H. and Yan, H. (1999). Embodiment in Conversational Interfaces: Rea, Proceedings of the CHI’99 Conference on Human Factors in Computing, ACM Press, New York, USA, pp. 520–527.Google Scholar
- Crangle, C., Fagan, E., Lawrence, M., Carlson, R. W., Erlbaum, M. S., Sherertz, D. D. and Tuttle, M.S. (1997). Collaborative Conversational Interfaces, Stanford University, USA.Google Scholar
- Harris, M. D. (1985). Introduction to Natural Language Processing, Reston Publishing Co. Inc.Google Scholar
- Kretschmer, U., Coors, V., Spierling, U., Grasbon, D., Schneider, K., Rojas, I. and Malaka, R. (2001). Meeting the Spirit of History, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Virtual Reality, Archaeology and Cultural Heritage, Greece, pp. 161–172.Google Scholar
- Laurel, B., Bates, J., Strickland, R. and Abbe, D. (1991). Interface and Narrative Arts: Contributions from Narrative, Drama and Film, Proceedings of CHI’ 91, ACM Press, New York, USA, pp. 381–383.Google Scholar
- Mateas, M. (1997). An Oz-Centric Review of Interactive Drama and Believable Agents, CMU-CS-97-156, Carnegie Mellon University, USA.Google Scholar
- Propp, V. (1958). Morphology of the Folktale, in International Journal of American Linguistics, Vol. 24, Nr. 4, Part III, Bloomington, IN.Google Scholar