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 behaviour or 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 the usability of programming languages. – Relates usability factors to properties of the notation or user interface (UI). 16 cognitive dimensions. Criteria for dimensions: – orthogonality, granularity, polarity, applicability Offers a broad yet deep analysis tool.

5. DIMENSION CRITERIA 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.  multi-faceted  dependencies / trade-offs  sometimes value-laden  new dimensions possible

6. DIMENSIONS OF MUSIC NOTATION 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 http://research.nashnet.co.uk

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 compare elements within the music?”

9. DIMENSION: HIDDEN DEPENDENCIES “How explicit are the relationships between related elements in the notation?”

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

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

12. DIMENSION: PROGRESSIVE EVALUATION “How easy is it to stop and check your progress during editing?” (“Audibility” / “Liveness”) (see Nash & Blackwell, 2011)

13. DIMENSION: PROVISIONALITY “Is it possible to sketch things out and play with ideas without being too precise about the exact result?”

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

15. DIMENSION: PREMATURE COMMITMENT “Do edits have to be performed in a prescribed order, requiring you to plan or think ahead?”

16. DIMENSION: CONSISTENCY “Where aspects of the notation mean similar things, is the similarity clear in 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 make annoying nistakes?” m

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

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

21. DIMENSION: ABSTRACTION MANAGEMENT “How can the notation be customised, adapted, or used beyond its intended use?”

22. DIMENSION: VIRTUOSITY / LEARNABILITY “How easy is it to master the notation? Where is the respective threshold for 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 / taxonomy during research 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 to components of flow (c.f. Csikszentmihalyi). – Enables correlation and multiple-regression analysis between notation properties and flow experiences.

25. DIMENSIONAL PROFILES

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

27. FLOW IN NOTATION USE 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. (n = 423, see Nash, 2011)

28. FUTURE DIRECTIONS Development and adaptation of dimensions for musical contexts. Further use and development of practical methodologies. – Applying existing techniques to other 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 Questions / Discussion(chris.nash@uwe.ac.uk) http://research.nashnet.co.uk