Tracing Visual Narratives: User-testing Methodology for Developing a Multimedia

Museum Show
Author(s): LOEL KIM
Source: Technical Communication , MAY 2005, Vol. 52, No. 2 (MAY 2005), pp. 121-137
Published by: Society for Technical Communication

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43089193

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/43089193?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Technical Communication

This content downloaded from

145.92.240.2 on Tue, 30 Nov 2021 12:28:44 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 SUMMARY
♦ Reports on the use of visual narrative for user-
testing an interactive museum show
♦ Demonstrates that mapping the audience's
reading of the visual narratives was an effective
testing structure in developing the show

Tracing Visual Narratives:

User-testing Methodology for

Developing a Multimedia
Museum Show
LOEL KIM

INTRODUCTION "customers" - is a complicated prospect since public

spaces are frequented by culturally diverse, multiply-
ican public is increasingly exposed to science educa- educated, -abled and -aged people. Developmental or ed-
tion through other more informal venues. Museums ucational characteristics routinely used to group students in
In top tion ican topaddithetionlithest, butthrough
commerci
publiacl lchiist,ldtocareis tradi
sites,titheme
onal but other increasingly commercial more classroom informal exposed childcare settings, venues. to science sites, the Museums educa- theme Amer- formal educational settings so that appropriate curricula
parks such as the EPCOT Center at Disney World, and even can be developed cannot be controlled to the same extent
casinos are marketing a culture of science and technology in museums. Instead, museum designers must reach audi-
(Errington, Stocklmeyer, and Honeyman 2001). Juggling ences exhibiting multiple levels of reading ability in multi-
the competing demands involved in conveying science ple languages, conceptual sophistication, attention span,
through these informal means poses a unique set of rhe- and common knowledge.
torical challenges (Carliner 2001). Even museums targeting children, in which educa-
Despite the variety of sizes or forms a museum instal- tional purposes are pointed, must concern themselves with
lation or show may take, museum designers would agree making the museum experience larger and more eventful
that the basic objective of such a display is educational - to than learning taking place in a classroom setting. Of
accurately convey a clearly specified body of information course, this is not to say that schools do not try to engage
in the most effective way for its audience. However, prac- students - current pedagogy emphasizes student engage-
tical constraints also shape the design: The installation must ment with lessons through multiple modes of perception,
fall within a budget and hold up to daily, often grinding including experiential activities. But outside the classroom,
use. Unavoidable administrative concerns about atten- the ability to engage a viewer's attention through a mu-
dance and other issues affecting funding motivate museum seum display is especially critical because participation is
designers to seriously consider an installation's entertain- voluntary and each installation competes for attention with
ment factor. The design and content must attract the other activities available in the museum, including other
atten-
tion of visitors - and keep it - long enough to impart displays,
the special shows, and even shopping and eating
intended scientific knowledge. (Mintz 1994).
Museum experts recognize their target audienceClearly,
as a for a production with so many variables to
primarily recreational audience, the same population orchestrate, a successful design follows careful analysis,
choosing among a variety of leisure-time activities, includ-
ing professional sports, movies, family parks, and so on
(Bloom and Powell 1984). However, further targeting a
Manuscript received 7 April 2004; revised 5 December 2004;
specific audience - alternatively identified as "guests" accepted
and12 December 2004.

Volume 52, Number 2, May 2005 • TechnicalCONMUMGATION 1 21

This content downloaded from

145.92.240.2 on Tue, 30 Nov 2021 12:28:44 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Tracing Visual Narratives Kim

development, and testing. This article h

of such a design process for an interac
Gray matters: The brain movie , a colla
Carnegie Mellon University, the Univer
and the Carnegie Science Center. The
primary concern was to convey the sci
in addition, graphic designers and mus
tled with the other features necessary fo
seum show - engaging and keeping th
tion, meeting multi-cultural audience
Based on these learner-audience issues
ing about children's learning and med
1998) and prior experience developi
biology, designers wanted the show to
highly visual. Gray matters used graphic
engage audiences with the science cont
the audience at several points in the s
games to achieve a high entertainment
show, hardware and software alike, was user-tested Figure 1. Gray matters was designed to be displayed on a
planetarium dome, which was a metaphor for the brain
throughout development. Target audience populations
hemisphere. Extending the metaphor, each person in the
were called on at different times to test the understandabil-
audience
ity of the scientific information conveyed through the visual represented an individual neuron.
components, as well as their esthetic quality.
Researchers used paper prototypes or storyboards to
user-test the show's passage about human sight, a section interaction with the show - the actual environment for the
that involved a relatively subtle but critical detail of neuro-experience - the museum's planetarium space. The show
science and animation. During testing, volunteer partici-was projected on the planetarium dome - a map of the
pants viewed the storyboards and then related what the "brain's surface with pulsating neurons," so that the plan-
pictures depicted to them, doing so in the form of telling aetarium auditorium represented the hemisphere of the
story. These accounts were then mapped against thebrain (see Figure 1), and each auditorium seat corre-
show's intended narrative to detect misunderstandings of sponded to a neuron in the brain.
either the images or the content, and to check cohesiveness Some of the show was viewed like a traditional movie,
of the narrative. but parts were interactive, and during those times, each
This method proved an effective means of developing member of the audience took on the role of an individual
the interactive show and also revealed to researchers and neuron in the brain, using a two-button handset to activate
designers the viewers' strategies for following and makingvarious behaviors on the screen. The show's interactive
meaning of a visual narrative. In the following sections,process
the was one of "global behavior emerging from local
decisions" ( Tracking the human brain 2002). Activities
show is described and relevant narrative and usability test-
ing theories discussed. Then test methods and results were
are designed so that individuals, although able to func-
given, and finally, implications for technical communica- tion independently of the others, had to work collectively
tion issues in multimedia are offered. for the interactivities to succeed and thus, replicated the
way the brain actually works: individual neurons must
THE SHOW: GRAY MATTERS work in concert with one another to perform brain func-
Gray matters: The brain moine is a collaborative produc- tions. As individual neurons collectively "give rise to
tion developed by Carnegie Mellon's STUDIO for Creative thought" (p. 2) in an actual human brain, this overarching
design strategy parallels brain activity, and served as a
Inquiry, the joint University of Pittsburgh/Carnegie Mellon
Center for the Neural Basis of Cognition, and the Carnegiemetaphor for participants to understand the brain.
Science Center. The interactive show, which has been Overall, the project's design team intended the show to
viewed now by thousands of people "combineis] immer- accomplish the following:
sive and interactive techniques to create a 'theater of the♦ Communicate scientific information about the human
brain'" (Dannenberg and Fisher 2001). Visual and spatial brain to the public
metaphors were used to convey much of the show's sci-♦ Convey the excitement and importance of contem-
ence, beginning with the audience's initial and enduring porary neuroscience research

1 22 TechnicalCOMMUMCATION • Volume 52, Number 2, May 2005

This content downloaded from

145.92.240.2 on Tue, 30 Nov 2021 12:28:44 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Kim Tracing Visual Narratives

write, summarize, and remember

♦ Enhance the educational process(Graesser 1981;thMa
and Johnson
group-interactive 1977). A narrative structure is believe
technology
♦ Engage the target
reflect moreaudience in deve
closely the way people perceive events as t
presentation occur through their lived experiences (Graesser and
♦ Further interdisciplinary dialog among the arts, sci- 1984). Additionally, the temporal, linear structure of na
ences, and humanities tives allows means for establishing "causal relations a
In addition to theories of metaphor, designers wished states and events in narratives" (Trabasso and van den
to avoid problems arising from language differences by Broek 1985)
relying heavily on visual images to convey the neuro- Studies examining the relationship between environ-
science. Whereas the neuroscientists and educational ex- mental conditions and the physiology of the brain, in par-
perts acknowledged the potential for narrative to meet ticular,
the suggest that cognitive capabilities are not entirely
audience's cognitive needs for understanding information,genetic or "hard-wired" in the brain. Human predisposition
the graphic designers and museum expert particularly for un-
narrative is believed to be at least partly due to encul-
derstood the potential for pictures to successfully deliver
turation - well before children encounter formal schooling
visual narratives. they are exposed to narrative structures through diverse
sources: the retelling of family histories and events, bed-
NARRATIVE KNOWING time storytelling, community socializing, as well as increas-
Narrative structure and function ingly, through television and other media.
In almost any venue we might imagine, telling When stories reading a narrative, experts believe people men-
predominates as a means of sharing experiences tally form anda situation model of the information conveyed by
knowledge. Narrative structure is thought to thebe a basic
text. Typically, readers envision the characters, places,
cognitive means of organizing human experience and mak-
and action as they progress through a narrative. The quality
ing meaning of it. Jerome Bruner (1990, 1991) of theobserved
narrative can be measured by features that support
that narratives impose boundaries on human experience the story of so the information: coherence, completeness of
that it is segmented into temporally meaningfulthe chunks
information,
of causal relationships among narrative com-
information, grounding and giving particular ponents,
shapeand to chronology and contextualization of the
knowledge that may otherwise exist in multiply events under-
(Leinhardt, Stainton, Virji, and Odoroff 1994). In a
stood ways. Aside from studies of narrative as study that manipulated these factors, Voss and colleagues
a cognitive
framework (Beloff 1994; Graesser 1981; Polkinghorne (1999) found that coherence and chronology were crucial
1988), narrative forms have long been studied in other perceptions of narrative quality, whereas,
to participants'
areas, including literature (Nodelman 1988; Witek 1989; or the quantity of evidence given in the
incompleteness
Sillars 1995); art history (Kupfer 1993; Lewis 1999); casesrhetoric
had a lesser effect on the readers. Omission did not
(Voss, Wiley, and Sandak 1999); design (Buchanan, seem to1989);
affect peoples' ratings of narrative quality or their
and computer science (Bers and Cassell 2000; Sengers
subsequent overall ratings of the veracity of the narratives.
2000; Dautenhahn 2001). This finding, of course, might depend on the recipients'
Although the term narrative is often widely abilitiesappliedto tofill in the missing information, a capability that
anything written, narrative has come to be indicates understood prior knowledge of the content. Thus, familiarity
across disciplines as a temporally organized body of theof narrative
infor- itself, or for the context for the story could
mation: play a crucial role in a person's grasp of a narrative in a
♦ Emerging from a context that informs or shapes its given instance.
meaning
♦ Bounded by a beginning point in time, space, or Visual narratives - From text to images
condition Scholarship in visual rhetoric has expanded our notions of
♦ Consisting of a sequence of actions performed by argument beyond that of the word (Buchanan 1989; Hamp-
ton 1990). People across cultures and time have recognized
agents (characters) that move the story toward a cul-
minating point the value of communicating stories through graphics. Art-
♦ Bounded by an ending point that gives closure, de-work as a symbolic means of sharing knowledge and per-
nouement petuating belief has been widely studied by art critics,
Perhaps the first means of sharing stories we theorists,
think of andinhistorians. Biblical parables, mythical tales,
modern western society are those conveyedand historical
through and literary accounts have provided rich
lan-
guage, in writing. When considering information topics for visual narratives throughout the ages, and have
conveyed
through text, psychologists regard a narrativebeen versusexpressed
otherthrough diverse media including painting,
text forms (such as expository format), as tapestries, easier to photography,
read, sculpture, and pottery (Kupfer

Volume 52, Number 2, May 2005 • TechnicalGOAfflRJNCÄTlON 1 23

This content downloaded from

145.92.240.2 on Tue, 30 Nov 2021 12:28:44 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Tracing Visual Narratives Kim

1993; Lewis 1999; phorStansbury-O'Donnel

and associated m
forms of "high" artHurlburt have typically notes the gav
than more common "through forms of . . . sequent
graphica
comic books, illustrated
In offering children's a narrati bo
cently, film, TV,the visual
and elements animated
must form a structure that movescartoo
the
labeled "low" artviewer
(Beloff
along the chronology 1994). Howev
of that narrative. When mov-
both online channels
ing from print and other
production to media
online media, control over the
and video games, narrative
popular is a critical featuregraphical
in interactive storytelling f
written texts as (Pausch, Snoddy, Taylor,
primary Watson, and Haseltine
means for1996). con
literary and cultural values
Research in film media (Chene
has noted the value of a mutually
evolving and
1998). These forms have mutually understood
gained visual lexiconin used insta
examined for their cultural
motion pictures. For example, the contributi
use of sudden close-up
shots indicates a shift
Witek 1989; Mitchell from external action
1994; to a character's
Kress and
Kress 1997, 1999; Manovich
thoughts, 2000).
or flipping calendar pages indicate the passage of
time. As a film unfolds,
Clearly, when compared these visual mechanisms
with text, help the
differences in the ways
signify abstract indirect
concepts that inform, which
the audience's v
narrative. Perhapsattention,
most and moveobviously,
the narrative along. graph
As observed for verbal and
ciently convey a complex visual printed
set of texts, film,
infor
and now in multimedia
Everyone is familiar with research,
thea controlled pathway
adage "
thousand words," more effectively Beloff
and conveys narrative than the user-driven ar
(1994)
interpretations ofmode typical of Web-surfing and hypertext
concepts delivereduser interac-
pared with "words tions (Friedlander 1995;
[that] areRoy 1995).
notFriedlander recom-
only pe
provide closure" mends
and using a"seem
"spine" to interconnect
tothesum multitude of th
information,
The either-or case for scenarios,
text and interactions
or visualscomprising the is
experts in visual museum's
rhetoric information (p. 169).have problem
of visuals over text However,
to although theorists have long and
clearly recognized theeasi
information is potential impact ofdependent
actually technology on communication, the
on spe- a n
related features tocific ways
ensure
in which visual elements
that contributethe
to a user's in
delivers the message that
grasp of a multimedia narrativethe sender
is not completely under-
stood (MacLuhan
these factors include, but and Fiore
are 1967; Innis
not 1972; Haynes
restric 1989;
relationship of theJohnson-Eilola 2001). Multimedia technology
graphic element permits vi- t
language, the ordersual arguments
into which
be instantiated through
it narratives
appear con-
rendering, and the structedcharacteristics
wholly or in part by visual means - animation, and
video, repeating visual
of the person viewing it. patterns (Porter and Sullivan 1994),
Furthermor
graphical icons,
guage simply convey and other symbolic information
different types - even the of
logical pathways
type of information needed supported by hypertext
in the and Web design
mess
anticipates
value of the form. Allen a user's understanding
Hurlburt of the components(1981of
of effective design, "Apoint,
narrative: a starting picture may b
a progression of ideas connected
words, but as through
one witmeaningful relationships, and so on.
pointed Despite sim- 'It
out,
that'" (p. 18). ilarities in structuring narratives in either language or pic-
When tures and
considering a tradition of privileging language
narratives over pictures,
conveyed
bination of both constructing
text and
arguments images,
for online delivery means we must Wil
Indian palm-leaf learn
booksto successfullyandincorporate visual
noted and, even spatial
the
taining a sequence
elements, toofthe verbalideas
text (Friedlander to1995). estab
causal relationships Despite
for the impressive power of multimedia technol- Re
a narrative.
ferences betweenogies text and
- high resolution visual
graphical narra
interfaces, the ability to
although words can handlecreate
a seemingly infinite"a rangestronger
of color, high-fidelity ca
do images," other sound, breathtaking processing speed, vast memory,
components, "such and a
ries of character other
and spectacle,
features that make sophisticated information are
delivery . .
possible - allowing
ous in a picture than in verbalthe capabilities of the technology to
narrative
narrative, the descriptive capacity
drive design of interactive installations is not an effective of
strategy. Most users of interactive
by graphically represented technologies tend to be
characteristi
color and line, which
uninterested in follow
the technology for technology's
their sake andow

124 TechnicalGOMMUNGATION • Volume 52, Number 2, May 2005

This content downloaded from

145.92.240.2 on Tue, 30 Nov 2021 12:28:44 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 instead arethaninterested
50 people over three years and including extensive
in
tion usability testing. The Center for Innovation
(Friedlander 1995; in Learning
lated was charged with probing
research evaluating blocks of the show as they th
graphics, were being developed. Overall objectives
Wright, for the usabil-
Milro
that the ity tests were to ensure the accuracy and
benefits of the content of thedi
ics with show and to gauge audiences'inform
textual liking for and perceptions
pull of the graphic
people in, images and
butinteractive scenarios.
whe The
scenario tested and
concurrently discussed in this report
with thedepicted the t
dropped. way in which images are perceived
Wright by the brain, starting
points
with the eye's
exemplifies the first perceptionproble
of the image, then the
informationtransformation of the image by the retina to
design - electronic
th
using pulses, and finally the
graphics journey of the signal to the part of
effective
is more the brain that registers the image.
appropriate to e
narrowly defined condi
turn, call for more cont
The storyboards
The show's designers worked from an evolving series of
USABILITY storyboards
TESTING - pictures in development that ANDrepresented
User testing neuroscience is
information a in a narrative
widely form. The story-
technical communication (Rubin 1994; Barnum 2002; boards allowed fairly fast visual outlining of the show, and
Nielsen 2003). In multimedia projects, deeply embedded,were used every day to share the "big picture" among the
fundamental problems arising from wrongheaded ap-artists, programmers, and scientists as they worked individ-
proaches and interface architecture can be caught early on, ually and in sub-groups on parts of the project. Storyboards
allowing testing to wield powerful influence on the finalwere first hand-sketched and then, after approval by the
form. Testing early can also save money in wasted labor,group, were further developed on computer. Thirty-three
complicated redesigns, scrapped projects, and so on. of the computer-created storyboards outlining a journey
In testing multimedia and other online interfaces, usabil- into the brain constituted the primary narrative addressed
ity testing experts recommend testing paper prototypes of in this account.
their eventually much higher-technology interfaces as a highly For testing purposes, we followed Friedlander's sug-
effective, inexpensive method of capturing audience feed-gestion for a narrative "spine" (1995) and grouped the
back in the early stages of development (Snyder 2003; Nielsen storyboards into seven sequences of equivalent length that
2003). Testing paper prototypes allows quick, inexpensiveparticipants viewed as sets in order. All sequences con-
trials of initial images, ideas, and sequences of images. De-tained five storyboards except for one. Total length was
spite potential disadvantages of testing a less polished versionbased on research in cognitive psychology that advises
of the design, Nielsen advises that "early beats late by so muchhuman working memory can only handle three to five
that it outweighs the differences in prototype quality" (2003).chunks of information at a time (Broadbent 1975; Baddeley
Paper prototyping methodology also fits in with tradi- 1992; LeCompte 1999).
tional graphic design and film-making practices in which
projects are developed through storyboards - relatively The designers' narrative
quick sketches that capture key moments in a narrativeThe narrative for this part of the show begins at the end
passage (Beyer and Holtzblatt 1998; Hackos and Redishof a group interactivity in which the audience plays
1998). Since the difference in experiencing still images and individual roles as fish and practices "schooling" with
an animated show is similar to the difference between a other fish. The scene moves from a familiar outside
world of fish underwater to the interior, less familiar
series of photographs and a video or film of an event, it is
world of the human brain. While in this world, a se-
reasonable to question whether or not users have problems
quence of neural activities take place, which conclude in the
filling in the gaps in images of a paper prototype. From the
research on usability testing, it appears that people canbrain registering sight, and, finally, the participant is returned
suspend expectations during testing and perform tasks to the outer world. Figure 2 details the designers' narrative.
with little trouble (Nielsen cited in Janisch 2004). Details of the testing methods and results follow.

User testing the show Usability test methods

The process of producing the show was a complex The design of the test was fairly straightforward - 31
and
participants individually viewed then gave their re-
recursive orchestration of resources, involving more

Volume 52, Number 2, May 2005 • TechnicalOOMMUMCA I ION 1 25

This content downloaded from

145.92.240.2 on Tue, 30 Nov 2021 12:28:44 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Tracing Visual Narratives Kim

Sequence Frame Designer Narrative

1 1 School of fish carried over from last interac

2 The audience's attention is focused on a particula

isolated by a spotlight

3 Reflections of I ight from the fish streak toward

4 (Continuation of 3)

5 The light beam from the fish heads toward the

2 6 The light enters the eye

7 The image of the fish carried by the light beam

8 The light passes into the sea of cells which is th

9 The light passes through layers of cells until it r

rods and cones to be processed

1 0 The pathway of cells responsible for the proces

of the cell layers fade to black.

3 11-15 The light processing cells (rods and cones) pe

passed from cell to cell

4 16 The signal passes into the dendritic branche

17 The action potential travels down the cell's axon

18-19 The camera zooms in for a close-up view of t

20 The camera now zooms in toward a single neuro

sequence the audience can see close-up the process
scenario.

5 21 Synchronized pulses of light travel down the dendrites toward the cell body. The potential builds from more and
more synchronized pulses.

22-24 Synchronous activity produces a signal that races from all directions towards the cell body until the cell fires in a
flash of light. The reward is a high-speed virtual roller coaster ride down the axon, combining futuristic computer
graphics and real-time video from many types of roller coasters. Finally the cell body ignites in a blast of energy
which will continue down into the long axon.

25-27 This animation illustrates the interactive neuron experience just described.

6 28 Like many other signals from in the optic nerve we have arrived at the visual cortex.

29 The camera zooms out and we see a dense jungle of neurons located in the visual cortex.

30 As the camera continues its zoom outward, we see that the neural activity is actually located in hot zones
indicated in red rather than everywhere in the visual cortex.

7 31 We continue to zoom out.

32 The camera continues to pull away and we see that the visual cortex with all of its activity is located at the rear of
the brain.

33 And finally, we zoom out further and see the entire brain in the head of an observer who represents the audience.
The observer is looking at the fish swimming in front of them, the same fish that we started with. We see that
visual activity, as measured by such recent instruments as a PET scan or FMRI indicates the location and
intensity of visual activity relative to the rest of the brain. At the conclusion of the ride, we realize that our playful
fish dances were an apt metaphor for cooperation in the cells of the brain. Then we experienced, first hand, a
complex series of reactions required in the cognitive process of vision.

Figure 2. The 33 story boards were the skeleton of the show's narrative that was user-tested.

sponses to thirty-three storyboard images from the We were primarily concerned with the two basic measures:
project. Images were viewed in seven sequences and ♦ Level of understanding of the neuroscience concepts
each participant was asked to "tell a story" about what ♦ Some concepts were descriptive and relatively
they were seeing. Their narratives were compared with static, such as the structure of the eye and its re-
the designers' to see how closely they matched so as to lated components.
gauge viewers' understanding of the scientific concepts ♦ Some concepts were dynamic, such as the firing
covered in the passage, and to pinpoint potential prob- of neurons and the transmittal of a signal from the
lems or gaps in the narrative thread. We also collected eye to the brain.
attitudes about the quality and attractiveness of the im- ♦ Level of understanding of the narrative thread of the
ages. show (coherence)

126 TechnicalCOMMIMCATION • Volume 52, Number 2, May 2005

This content downloaded from

145.92.240.2 on Tue, 30 Nov 2021 12:28:44 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Kim Tracing Visual Narratives

Coherence of the narrative - how well viewers could Participants

follow the narrative - was crucial to the user's abilityFortothis preliminary part of development a non-expert,
understanding the neuroscience concepts. The showadult had audience was tested. Although middle-school aged
children were the primary audience, testing children is
to present the scientific information so that viewers under-
stood where they were in the narrative and could connectalways limited: accessing them is a more complicated
smaller chunks of visual information to each other, procedure
chro- and slower to arrange in compliance with
nologically, to form larger conceptual entities. Becauseinstitutional review board (IRB) procedures. On the
through the show viewers were actually experiencingother the hand, we had immediate access to an adult pop-
ulation, who form part of, if not the primary museum
neuroscience processes, confusion in following the narra-
audience. Thus, we felt initially testing adults of a wide
tive thread meant they were misunderstanding the science.
For this test, designers were particularly concernedrange of ages and levels of education was a reasonable
about the part of the narrative - image 9 in sequence choice
2 for testing at this stage. Middle-school-aged chil-
through image 24 in sequence 5 - representing the recep-dren were brought in for further user-testing this and all
parts
tion of the fish image by the rods and cones in the retina at of the show.
the back of the eye, and the reversed direction of its Approximately two-thirds of the participants were re-
cruited from the Carnegie Mellon campus at large, repre-
transformed impulse, traveling forward then down through
the dendrites and to the axon. The abrupt change of direc-
senting ages from young adults in their 20s to middle- and
tion in images 13 to 15 posed a potential problem in theadults in their 60s. The other one-third of the partic-
older
audience's ability to grasp this scientific knowledge, ipants
espe- came from the Psychology Department, with a ma-
cially since the visual context was unfamiliar. jority identifying themselves as undergraduate students.
Those recruited from the general campus community were
User-testing session paid a small fee for their participation whereas psychology
students received one course credit.
Guidelines for selecting participants, materials, and the setting
were drawn from widely accepted sources on usability testingBecause it was possible some psychology students
would possess neuroscience knowledge well beyond
(Rubin 1994; Dumas and Redish 1999; Barnum 2002; Nielsen
that
2003). Two researchers were present at each test: The first to of the target audience* participants were pre-
screened to ensure they had not taken neuroscience
lead the session and interact with the participant, the second
courses. Later, participants rated themselves on their
to observe and record the participant's responses. Individu-
ally, participants were shown thirty-three images inlevel two of neuroscience knowledge in a follow-up ques-
passes and in the order they were presented in the story- tionnaire (see Appendix A and Table 1). Most people
believed their knowledge levels of the human brain, the
board, but omitting images directly related to the interactive
sections, which were tested separately. In the first pass, human
the eye, and of general biology principles to be
participant looked at the images in sets of approximately slightly
five below average.
Although questionnaire respondents tend to select
pictures each, and was asked at the end of each set to de-
more extreme answers when filling out qualitative survey
scribe the story the pictures told. The participant was allowed
as much time as was necessary to inspect the pictures butitems
only face-to-face rather than by mail (Mangione, Hingson,
and Barrett 1,982), medians and modes for items 1-3 in this
viewed them once in this pass. In a second pass, the partici-
pant was asked to elaborate on specific images or groups survey
of indicate this was not the case.
images that gave problems. This time, the participant was
allowed to look at any image. General procedures
Individual sessions were scheduled for one hour and the
At the end of the session, the participant could voice
confusions, point out particular images, or add to what
same procedures were followed for each (see Figure 4).
they had already said in the two passes. Finally, each
RESULTS
participant rated their knowledge of neuroscience and their
liking for the images. Overall, feedback on the quality of the images from the
verbal responses was positive, engagement was moder-
MATERIALS AND METHODS ately high, and participants were able to follow most of the
narrative, but, as we had feared, they were confused about
Thirty-three individual, full-color storyboards taken from
the recursive activity in the retina.
Gray Matters were printed out to an 8 1/2 X 11 -inch format
and placed in a 3-ring binder in order of appearance (see
Understanding the neuroscience concepts
Figure 3). Storyboard images were inserted in sheet pro-
The quality of information conveyed through the visual
tectors to maintain order, ease viewing, and protect them
from wear. narrative was richly descriptive and coherent for the most

Volume 52, Number 2, May 2005 • TechnicalOOMMUMCATION 1 27

This content downloaded from

145.92.240.2 on Tue, 30 Nov 2021 12:28:44 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Tracing Visual Narratives Kim

Figure 3. The design

show described in this article.

1 28 TechnicalOOiAMJNKA I lON • Volume 52, Number 2, May 2005

This content downloaded from

145.92.240.2 on Tue, 30 Nov 2021 12:28:44 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Kim Tracing Visual Narratives

TABLE 1 . SCIENCE KNOWLEDGE Also, 81% of the participants generally understood that the
SELF-RATINGS brain process involved signals or impulses traveling
through different parts of the eye or brain. Viewers varied
Mean as to what kind of impulses that they thought they were -
Questionnaire Item (median, mode) 24% (6 of 25) called them electro-chemical impulses, 16%
(4 of 25) called them data or information, and 8% (2 of 25)
1. Compared to most people, 2.82 (3, 3) called them energy. Finally, 32% (8 of 25) thought that the
how much do you know impulses were light. Fears that viewers might not detect
about the human brain? some of the key descriptive information were allayed: Over
half of the participants (54.8%) noted the layered or multi-
2. Compared to most people, 2.9 (3, 3) celled organization of the eye, and a significant majority
how much do you know (80.7%) mentioned the visual processing area of the brain
about the human eye? illustrated in the final image.

3. Compared to most people, 2.66 (3, 2) Making sense of visual information

how much do you know Most participants followed the sequence of images in a
about the biology meaningful way, and even when puzzled by unfamiliar
represented in these contextual information, they strove to make a sensible
images? story of what they were seeing. For example, in the first
third of the storyboard sequence shown in Figure 5, the
♦ 1 = nothing , 5 = a lot.
audience saw a group of fish, then an image of a single fish,
then light reflecting from the fish, followed by a human eye
with light reflecting off of the fish.
part. Participants noted in clear detail the colors, shapes, We wondered whether or not the origin and direction
sizes, and textures of the images they saw. of the shaft of light may have been confusing - is the light
beam going from the fish to the eye or coming from the eye
... a blowup streaked out to the fish? Since the source of the light was not shown
. . . faded. and movement was not apparent in one storyboard, view-
. . . several meshes of fibers are all interwoven .... ers might have thought that light was being cast on the fish
. . . strands of blue .... from the eye, instead of what the designers wanted to
. . . light and different textures .... convey - that an image is received by the eye as varying
rays of light reflecting off of the object. And, indeed, images
Participants seemed to grasp the straightforward de- 4 and 5 confused 22.6% of viewers. However, most of these
scriptive information very well, sometimes drawing from confused viewers figured it out eventually.
prior knowledge accurately, but most of the time drawing
from prior knowledge in related areas of science or from Don 't know what the fish are about in the first picture.
contexts that seemed similar. Something to do with how you see the fish - the angle ?

Image is starting to be passed from front of eye to back. Of those who were initially confused, approximately
Possibly at the back of the eye, an exit to the brain .... one-half self-corrected their initial impression as they were
Showing how light is converted to some sort of signal looking at the images.
Also, particularly in the potentially confusing spots, we
observed participants following and articulating the order
When drawing from other knowledge areas, they ap- of the images as they attempted to make meaning in their
narratives:
plied patterns or visual similarities to what they were see-
ing, trying to make sense of it all.
First, a bunch of fish; second, a blowup; third, a projec-
Not sure. Obviously various layers of complex tissues. tion ; fourth, smaller fish; longer projection; fifth, a light
This is the gap between whatever the blue and orange traveling to the eye
[things] are. Energy is transferring over the gap .... First, light/images going to the eye. Then a blowup
Next a wall with vines tangled with a bunch of spikes streaked. Next a wall with vines tangled with a bunch of
sticking out. Next layers of vines .... Roots from a tree. spikes sticking out.

Volume 52, Number 2, May 2005 • TechnicalOOMMUMCA I lON 1 29

This content downloaded from

145.92.240.2 on Tue, 30 Nov 2021 12:28:44 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Tracing Visual Narratives Kim

Phase Activity description

Introduction 1 . Each participant was given a general description of the project:
time: 5 mins. "The pictures you are about to bok at are images taken from a program we're developing on the human
brain. The show will appear at science museums and is intended to be entertaining and informative to
children and adults."
2. Participant was shown materials and the session task was described:
"You are going to look at the images in this binder one at a time, and at a pace comfortable to you. We
will pause every few pictures to ask you what your impressions of the program are at that point."
3. Participant given an opportunity to ask questions:
"Do you have any questions about what you will be seeing, or what you will do?"
Test session FIRST PASS (general impressions):
time: 40 mins. 1 . Beginning with the first storyboard, participant was given time to flip through the images at individual
pace.
NOTE: Although participants were not viewing the program's images onscreen and in a planetarium
setting as they would in its final form, key characteristics of viewing which could affect the audience's
ability to make meaning of the images were replicated as much as possible. The most important
characteristics were: (1) the linear sequence of images appearing in the program, (2) the absence of
narration and text, and (3) the temporal quality of viewing the images~i.e., once participants looked at a
given image, they were not allowed to flip back to look at it again.
2. Throughout the viewing, after every five images the participant was asked:
"What have you just seen?"
"What do you think is going on at this point?"
"Does this make sense to you so far?"
SECOND PASS (specific understanding):
1 . After going through the images once, the participant was asked to go to particular images, or sets of
images, and look at them again. Then, they were asked to describe (1 ) the meaning of the visual
metaphors used in the program (such as the roller coaster image), and (2) the brain processes or
principles represented in the program.:
Roller-coaster metaphor and principle. In «nages #20 through 22 the movement of a neuron's action
potential is superimposed over an image of a roller coaster. We wanted to see whether or not the
metaphorical images clearly conveyed the brain processes.
"What do you think this means?"
"What aspect of the brain or the brain processes do you think this represents?"

Transitions . Since the program designers wanted to rely as much as possible on images to convey their
ideas and the brain science, we were concerned that the images and the ideas they represented were as
cohesively delivered as possible. Certain changes in the direction of the ideas, or complete changes in
topic had to be understood. Participants were shown images before and after a transitional point and
asked:
ř<What do you think is happening here?"
"What is going on from the beginning to the end oř these images?"
At the end of the interviewing session, participants were given the opportunity to make individual
comments and ask questions. They also filled out surveys on the following qualities:
Quality of artwork. Did they like the quality of the images? Did they find the images generally attractive?
Context of main image. Was it dear what they were looking at? Did the perspectives oí the images view
help them to understand where they were and what they were looking at?
Emotional quality. Did the participant find the scenes fun, frightening, familiar, exciting?
Level of engagement. Did the participant engage with the images? Did they find them interesting and
compelling, or were they bored?
Debriefing 1 . Participants were informed about how the feedback would be used to make changes in the program
time: 10 mins. 2. Participants were informed how basic research methods could be used to develop complex
educational products.
Post-session data Narratives were coded for frequency of problem types and features of the visual narrative, and
analysis questionnaire responses were compiled. Results and recommendations were given to the design group.

Figure 4. Test procedures.

Rough transitions and coping with confusion has reached the back of the retina and is converted to
Many participants expressed confusion over the direction
impulses, then travels forward from the rods and cones to
the bipolar and then the ganglion (see Figure 6). Many
the signals traveled from images 9 through 15-when light

1 30 TechnicalOOR^^UNCAl ION • Volume 52, Number 2, May 2005

This content downloaded from

145.92.240.2 on Tue, 30 Nov 2021 12:28:44 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Kim Tracing Visual Narratives

Figure 5- The concept that an object is p

through visuals (storyboards 2-6). Design
on the fish or reflecting from the fish?

Figure 6. Patterns show the initial impu

electrical impulse, and then moving bac

people - 58.1% (18

abrupt of 31)-detected
transitions a c
involving abstract or unfamiliar images
tion of travel, frequently
but fully interfered with the viewer's(15
83.33% understanding.
of 1
confused about However,change.
the participants were often quite inventive when
None of the they encountered images
participants they were unsure of, and
indicated they
they
"backwards" nature of the retina. In critical moments in visual
struggled to describe the unfamiliar with language from
narratives, omissions, abrupt changes, or shifts can cause and knowledge of the familiar, as in these descriptions of
breaches in the participants' ability to follow along. As Pausch the retina (first two) and of the journey of the pulse through
and colleagues (1,996) found in testing a virtual reality narra- the visual cortex (last two).
tive, although people are willing to suspend their usual sense
of reality to become immersed in a technology-supported Next a wall with vines tangled with a bunch of spikes
story, missing or incongruent details necessary for supporting sticking out. Next, layers of vines; spikes starting to be
the created world can impair the illusion. faded. Roots from a tree.
. . . looked like a carrot.
Strategies when lost or confused First one looked like a bunch of sparks.
Abrupt transitions involving familiar images did not neces-
Looked like fiberoptic cable.
sarily confuse people. For example, the sudden shift in
In addition to applying familiar contexts and meaning
scope from a school of fish to one fish in storyboards 1 and
to the unfamiliar, over half (54.8%) of the participants
2 was not confusing to most participants. Most understood
this shift as the zooming in of the camera's eye. noted and followed color and pattern features in develop-
ing their narratives, usually as a means of linking one
storyboard to another.
There was a bunch offish and then a close-up of them.
How a person would see a fish. Zoom in [on] one fish.
. . . not really sure [what that was]; you showed an
As Pausch and colleagues (1996) noted, perhaps obvious the gap between orange and blue . . . something
zooming in is part of a visual lexicon from a movie-sawy transferred over the strands of blue- energy or light-not
culture, particularly in light of the observation that sure
the ....

Volume 52, Number 2, May 2005 • Technical

This content downloaded from

145.92.240.2 on Tue, 30 Nov 2021 12:28:44 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Tracing Visual Narratives Kim

Figure 7. The abrupt change in scope fr

from 17 to 20 interfered with the narrative's coherence.

How the data - the little light things - are transferred most people - 80.7% (25 of 31) - mentioned the "coming
to the big blue thing. full circle" effect the final image had on the narrative aspect
of the sequence of pictures (the final image illustrated the
At other times, viewers were simply trying to make back of the brain, where, up to that point, the processing
sense of unfamiliar images or to note the abrupt change. they had been viewing took place).
When the scope of the camera's "eye" change abruptly, the Most people (80.7%) understood the meaning of the
context changed, interfering with the viewer's ability final
to image:
sense or follow a pattern that would help them make sense
of the images (see Figure 7). In the first image, several meshes of fibers are all inter-
woven - as it zoomed out, it showed it was the gray
First one is a continuation of the last set - overall view. matter of the brain. Fish there all the time because it
But it seems like activity was going right to left and now began and ended with the fish.
flashes between blue and green [going the other direc- You showed where the message went into this network
tion]. of nerve endings and they all lit up like they're working
The energy transferred from teal to yellow, and entered and it all takes place at the back of the brain, where all
a bulbous object in yellow. Once entered, something of this processing takes place. And it gives the orienta-
occurred, I'm not sure what. tion.

In particular, tracking colors became an important is- Quality of artwork

sue when viewers became lost. Color was mentioned in Given the sample of storyboards that they saw in the test,
viewers' narratives primarily during general descriptions
participants claimed that they were moderately likely to
see the show (see item 4 in Table 2) 3.39 out of a
and at points when the viewer was confused, a situation
that usually occurred when the abstractness of thepossible
images 5.0. Although reported and actual behaviors are
increased. known to vary because of social pressure in a testing
situation, we felt that this was useful as an additional
In another problematic transition that participants fre-
quently mentioned, from image 29 to 30, 59.8% of them reading of attitudes since it was in the same direction as
were confused. The camera's eye zooms out from a final other responses. Viewer ratings for the overall quality of
shot of an impulse traveling through the axon to a field ofthe images (item 5) were moderately high, 4.0 4 out of a
terminal buttons. The transition involving abstract images possible 5.0, while the level of engagement in the sto-
elicited twice as many responses of confusion as the one inryboards (item 8) was slightly less positive, 3.69 out of a
which familiar images were shown. possible 5.0. These were seen as good ratings since
Other patterns - perceived movement and directionmany or of the respondents regularly encountered sophis-
placement of objects in the storyboard - were brought in ticated
as computer graphics while surfing the Web or
other patterns to match when viewers "lost their place"playing
in video games.
following color, shape, or texture patterns. Ratings for item 8 would likely have been higher had
In the final one-third of the images (when the impulse viewers seen the animated version (in fact, later follow-up
travels from the soma to the axon terminals), most people testing did show high levels of engagement in the show) or
had they not been confused by the recursive action in the
said little beyond expressing a general sense that they were
continuing to zoom in or that the signal was continuing toretina. This item's measure probably overlapped with that
travel as it had been. Many people - 59.8% (17of 31)-were of item 7, which probed emotional responses to the story-
confused by the abrupt transition between the final shot boards,
of and was an open-ended question in the interview.
the interior of the axon and the zoomed-out image of the Responses were coded by two researchers along the fol-
multiple axon terminals (images 29 and 30). However, lowing scale:

1 32 TechnicalCOMAUNGAHON • Volume 52, Number 2, May 2005

This content downloaded from

145.92.240.2 on Tue, 30 Nov 2021 12:28:44 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Kim Tracing
1. Strongly all negative, critical
TABLE 2â QUALITY OF ARTWORK
2. Most or all negative or critical, but mo
3. Neutral, indifferent, not positive or neg
4. Most or all positive Questionnaire
but not Item strongly
(median, mode) so
5. All strongly positive, enthusiastic
4. Based on the images you've 3 39 (3, 3)
seen today, how likely would
Raters achieved a high inter-rater
you be to go to this show?
ple of a level 1 rating comment:
. . . very computer
An example of
. . . exciting - lots
Overall, participants gave moderately
8. Level
tional responses to theof engagement: How 3.69 (4, 4)
storyboards,
interesting
5.0. Again, these were considereddid you find the
test was a passive images?
version of the ac
exciting compared
pants played the
CONCLUSION
Our participants were able to recognize and appreciate
descriptive information in the images even if they usually
did not know the precise technical terminology needed to
describe what they were seeing or the activity that they
were experiencing. For example, they were able to appre-
ciate that the retina was multi-layered although most did
not specifically mention it was the retina that they were
looking at. In terms of the scientific information the design-
ers wanted to impart, this result could be viewed as only
partially successful.
Technical language allows people to grasp and man-
age more precise understandings of science and to pass it
on or recognize it when encountering it in another
source - in their textbooks at school or other popular ven-
ues such as magazines, TV shows, and so on. The show's
designers understood that achieving a complete delivery of
information would require a combination of language and
visuals. This realization ultimately shaped the design of the
show to incorporate a verbal narrative with the visual one,
a specific narrative thread, and an animated character to
direct the flow of the narrative from one to another part of
the show. They also expected, however, that the ability to
name the parts could be picked up elsewhere - in a sup-
plemental classroom lesson or text, or in other parts of the
movie before or after the interaction. In fact, classroom
materials were developed to support attendance at this
show. As a supplementary source of information, however,
this part of the show provided experiential knowledge of a
brain function for the audience, and an exciting sensory
experience that made the science lively and real.
This content downloaded from
145.92.240.2 on Tue, 30 Nov 2021 12:28:44 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Visual Narratives
Mean
reliab
5. Overall, how do you find the 4.04 (4, 4)
"animate-y"; sterile ..
quality of the images?
a 5 rating comment:
7. Emotional quality: Do you find 3. 52 (4, 4)
of
the scenes fun, frightening,
action; very "sci-fi". .
familiar, exciting?
3.
good
with other tests dur
♦ Quality: 1 = bad, 5 = excellent; level of engagement with the
interactive parts.
images: 1 = boring, 5 = completely captured my attention.
This usability test provided valuable information that
shaped much of the show, particularly in developing
coherence in the visual sequencing of the passage. Al-
though an acceptable practice, paper prototyping of an
animated show has definite limitations. We suspect that
some transitions, direction problems at the local level,
and overall emotional response may have been affected
by the lack of movement that would be conveyed by the
animation. Transitions that may have been rough but
were made clear in later images may have suffered
because the viewers pored over some of the images. The
pace in the animated show would, of course, be the
same for each viewer and in some cases would quickly
provide context for a transition that might seem puzzling
without the animation.
Following the direction of the impulses was sometimes a
problem when participants were tracking the impulse from one
still image to another, particularly in the middle section, the most
abstract part of the show. They were quite adept at remembering
the position of the impulse from one frame to another, remem-
bering the colors and highlighted areas of the ganglion and other
cell parts, and then combining those observations in an attempt
to figure out the direction of movement.
This is a particularly valuable finding for multimedia
developers, particularly in helping them understand how
viewers may make sense of narrative knowledge if the text
does not inform them, as in the case of an international
audience. Although participants had particular problems
Volume 52, Number 2, May 2005 • TechnicalOOAAAJMCATlON 1 33
 Tracing Visual Narratives Kim

with abrupt shiftsA. in

Wilkes.
theNew York, NY: Wiley, abstract
most pp. 3-18.
abrupt visual shifts can create excite
sense of speed or Beloff,jarring
of H. 1994. Reading visual rhetoric: The psychology
movement.
advise visual
eliminating allimages. The psychologist
abrupt 7:495-49.
changes.
when and where to insert them should be careful choices
Bers, M. U., and J. Cassell. 2000. Children as designers
for which the level of abstractness, patterns, and other
visual characteristics should be considered. interactive storytellers. In Human cognition and social
Developers of visual narratives must also keep in mind agent technology , ed. Kerstin Dartenhahn. Amsterdam
that culture shapes the reading of graphic images. Instant Netherlands: John Benjamins, pp. 61-83.
global as well as local dissemination of information made
possible through the Web has had a significant impact Beyer,
on H., and K. Holtzblatt. 1998. Contextual design:
audience analysis concerns, and this, in turn, has prodded Defining customer-centered systems. San Francisco, C
awareness that communications must reach international Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
audiences. Increasing the use of graphics seems to offer
freedom from complications due to language differences; Bloom, J., and E. A. Powell. 1984. Museums fora new
however, experts advise against a naive view of graphics century:
as A report of the commission on museums for
a universally "read" system of symbols (Horton 1993). Cul- century. Washington, DC: American Association of
ture contributes to complicated relationships between Museums. au-
diences and graphic texts, complications that can affect the
range of document or interface design decisions, from Bolter, J. D. 1998. Hypertext and the question of visual
placement of images on the viewing plane to selectionliteracy. of In Handbook of literacy and technology , ed. David
the images. Reinking and others. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
The observations in this study are specific to this Associates, pp. 3-13.
project as is appropriate for usability testing. However,
many of the observations noted here suggest potentially Bruner, J. 1990. Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
fruitful areas for further research. In particular, prior cog- University Press.
nitive research on pattern matching applies here and might
warrant further testing in a multimedia environment. Visual
narrative could possibly convey information that is less inquiry 18(1):1-21.
culture- or language-bound, and thus studies of intercul-
tural graphics use will also prove useful in the future. TC Buchanan, Richard. 1989. Declaration b
argument, and demonstration in desig
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS discourse: History , theory, criticism , e
The Gray matters interactive show was developed Chicago,
with con- IL: University of Chicago Pre
tributions from the Association of Science and Technology
Centers, joint University of Pittsburgh/Carnegie Carliner,
Mellon Cen-S. 2001 . Modeling information
ter for the Neural Basis of Cognition, Carnegie Mellon space: Lessons learned from museum e
Uni-
versity (STUDIO for Creative Inquiry, College ofTechnical communication 48:66-81.
Fine Arts,
Center for Innovation in Learning, School of Computer Sci-
ence, College of Humanities and Social Sciences), Cheney, the Car-
Lynne V. 1988. Humanities in America: A report to
negie Science Center, the Pittsburgh Supercomputing the president,
Cen-the congress, and the American people.
ter, and the I Have a Dream Foundation of Pittsburgh. Washington, DC: National Endowment for the Humanities.
Primary funding was provided by National Science Founda-
tion Grant #ESI-9705491. Dannenberg, R., and R. Fisher. 2001. An audience-interactive
multimedia production on the brain. Proceedings of the
REFERENCES Symposium for Arts and Technology.
Barnum, Carol M. 2002. Usability testing and research. http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~rbd/subjbib2.html
New http://www2.
York, NY: Longman. cs.cmu.edu/%7Erbd/subjbib2.html

Baddeley, A. 1992. Working memory. Science 255:556-559.

Dautenhahn, K. 2001 . The narrative intelligence hypothesis:
In search of the transactional format of narratives in
Broadbent, D. E. 1975. The magic number sevenhumans
after and other social animals. Cognitive Technology
fifteen
years. In Studies in long-term memory, ed. A. 2001, ed. M. and
Kennedy Beynon, C.L. Nehaniv, and K. Dautenhahn.

1 34 TechnicalCOR^^UMCAHON • Volume 52, Number 2, May 2005

This content downloaded from

145.92.240.2 on Tue, 30 Nov 2021 12:28:44 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Kim Tracing Visual Narratives

Berlin and 682-693.

Heidelberg, Germany: Sprin
266.
Hurlburt, A. 1981. The design concept. New York, NY:
Dumas, J. S., and J. C. Redish. 1999. A practical guide to Watson-Guptill Publications.
usability testing, rev. ed. Exeter, UK and Portland, OR:
Intellect Books. Innis, H. A. 1972. Empire and communication , rev. by M. Q.
Innis. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.
Errington, S., B. Honeyman, and S. M. Stocklmeyer. 2001.
Using museums to popularise science and technology. Janisch, T. 2004. How good does your Web site look on
London, UK: Commonwealth Secretariat. paper? http://www.iconinteractive.com/read_more. php?id=
25andmode= lowcarb.
Friedlander, L. 1995. Spaces of experience on designing
multimedia applications. In Contextual media: Multimedia
Johnson-Eilola, J. 2001. Little machines: Understanding
and interpretation , ed. Edward Barrett and Marie users understanding interfaces. ACM journal of computer
Redmond. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 163-174. documentation 25:1 19-1 27.

Goldman-Segal, R. 1998. Points of viewing children's Kress, G. 1997. Before writing: Rethinking the paths to
thinking: A digital ethnographer's journey. Mahwah, NJ: literacy. London, UK: Routledge.
Lawrence Erlbaum.

Graesser, A. C. 1981. Prose comprehension beyond the of communication in the context of the turn to the visual. In
word. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. Passions , pedagogies, and 21st century technologies, ed.

Graesser, A. C., ad J. R. Riha. 1984. An application of

multiple regression techniques to sentence reading times.
grammar of visual design. New Yo
In New methods in comprehension research, ed. D. Kieras
and M. Just Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum pp. 183-218.
Kupfer, M. A. 1993. Romanesque wa
France: The politics of narrative. N
Gurak, L. 1991. Evaluating the use of metaphor in software
University Press.
interface design: A rhetorical approach. Proceedings of the
International Professional Communication Conference. LeCompte, D. 1999. Seven, plus or m
Piscataway, NJ: IEEE, pp. 267-271. to bear: Three (or fewer) is the rea
Proceedings of the Human Factors
Society. Santa Monica, CA: Huma
Hackos, J. T., and J. C. Redish. 1998. User and task analysis for
interface design. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Ergonomics Society, pp. 289-292.

Hampton, R. E. 1990. The rhetorical and metaphorical nature

Leinhardt, G., C. Stainton, S. M. Vir
of graphics and visual schemata. Rhetoric Society quarterly
Learning to reason in history: Mind
20:347-356. In Cognitive and instructional proc
social sciences, ed. M. Carretero and J. Voss. Hillsdale,
Hawisher, G. E., and C. L. Seife. Urbana, IL: National Council
NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 131-158.
of Teachers of English, pp. 66-88.
Lewis, S. 1999. The rhetoric of power in the Bayeux tapestry.
Haynes, W. L. 1989. Shifting media, shifting paradigms, and UK and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Cambridge,
the growing utility of narrative as metaphor.
Communication studies 40:109-126. Mangione, T. W., R. W. Hingson, and J. Barrett. 1982.
Collecting sensitive data: A comparison of three survey
Henderson, K. 1998. On line and on paper: Visual strategies. Sociological methods and research 10:337-346.
representations , visual culture and computer graphics in
design engineering. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. MacLuhan, M., and Q. Fiore. 1967. The medium is the
message. New York, NY: Bantam Books.
Horton, W. 1993. The almost universal language: Graphics
for international documents. Technical communication 40: Mandler, J. M., and N. S. Johnson. 19 77. Remembrance of

Volume 52, Number 2, May 2005 • TechnicalCOMMIJNCÄIlON 1 35

This content downloaded from

145.92.240.2 on Tue, 30 Nov 2021 12:28:44 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Tracing Visual Narratives Kim

things parsed: Storypp. 1-26.structure and recall

psychology 9:111-151.
Sillars, S. 1995. Visualisation in popular fiction, 1860-1960:
Manovich, L. 2000. Graphic
Languagenarratives, fictional images.
of London,
new UK andmed
New
Press. York, NY: Routledge.

Mintz, A. 1994. That's edutainment! When the interests of Snyder, C. 2003. Paper prototyping: Fast and easy way to
museums and the entertainment industry converge. design and refine user interfaces. San Diego, CA: Morgan
Museum news 73(6):32-35. Kaufmann Publishers.

Mitchell, W. J. T. 1994. Picture theory: Essays on verbal andStansbury-O'Donnell, M. 1999. Pictorial narrative in ancient
visual representation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Greek art. Cambridge, UK and New York, NY: Cambridge
Press. University Press.

Trabasso, T., P. van den Broek, and S. Suh. 1989. Logical

Nielsen, J. 2003. Paper prototyping: Getting user data before
you code. Alertbox. necessity and transitivity of causal relations in stories.
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20030414.html. Discourse processes 12:1-25.

Nodelman, P. 1988. Words about pictures: The narrative art Tracking the human brain. 2002. Pittsburgh, PA: Studio for
of children's picture books. Athens, Greece: University of Creative Inquiry, Carnegie Mellon University.
Athens Press. http://occipita.cfa.cmu.edu/brain.

Pausch, R. J., Snoddy, R. Taylor, S. Watson, and E. Voss, J. F., J. Wiley, and R. Sandak. 1999. On the use of
Haseltine. 1996. Disney's Aladdin: First steps toward narrative as argument. InA/arraf/Ve comprehension,
causality,
storytelling in virtual reality. ACM SIGGRAPH Proceedings , and coherence: Essays in honor of Tom
New York, NY: ACM, pp. 193-203. Trabasso , ed. S. R. Goldman, A. C. Graesser, and P. van
den Broek. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 235-252.
Polkinghorne, D. 1988. Narrative knowing and the humanhttp://emedia.netlibrary.com/reader/reader.asp?product_id=
sciences. Albany, NY: State University of NY Press. 24296

Porter, J. E., and P. A. Sullivan. 1994. Repetition and the

Williams, J. G. 1996. The Two-headed deer. Berkeley, CA:
rhetoric of visual design. In Repetition in discourse: University of California Press. http://www.netLibrary.com/
Interdisciplinary perspectives, vol. 2, ed. Barbara ebook_info.asp?product_ id = 1 01 30andpiclist = 1 9799,
Johnstone. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 114-129. 20772,21300,39801

Roy, M. 1995. How to do things without words: The Witek, J. 1989. Comic books as history: The narrative art of
Jack Jackson, Art Spiegel man, and Harvey Pekar. Jackson,
multicultural promise of multimedia. In Contextual media:
Multimedia and interpretation , ed. Edward Barrett and MS: University Press of Mississippl.
Marie Redmond. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 53-62.
Wright, P. November 1998. Designing information-supported
performance: The scope for graphics. ACM journal of
Rubin, J. 1994. Handbook of usability testing: How to plan,
design and conduct effective tests. New York, NY: John computer documentation 22(4):3-1 0.
Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Wright, P., R. Milroy, and A. Lickorish. 1999. Static and
Sengers, P. 2000. Narrative intelligence. In Human cognition
animated graphics in learning from interactive texts.
and social agent technology, ed. Kerstin Dautenhahn. European journal of psychology of education 12:
Amsterdam, Netherlands and Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins,203-224.

1 36 TechnicalOOMMUMCATlON • Volume 52, Number 2, May 2005

This content downloaded from

145.92.240.2 on Tue, 30 Nov 2021 12:28:44 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Kim Tracing Visual Narratives

APPENDIX A: POST-TEST QUEST

1 . Compared to most people, how much do you k

nothing a little average a lot expert

1 2 3 4 5

2. Compared to most p

nothing a little average a lot expert

1 2 3 4 5

3. Compared to most p

nothing a little average a lot expert

1 2 3 4 5

4. "Based on the image

notatali a little moderately very 100%

likely bit likely likely likely
1 2 3 4 5

5. Overall, how do yo

bad not great average pretty good excellent

1 2 3 4 5

6. Context of images: I
or does it confuse you

7. Emotional quality: D

8. Level of engagemen

completely
captured my highly moderately a little bit completely
attention interesting interesting interesting boring
1 2 3 4 5

Figure A1. This po

LOEL at teaches
KIM the FedE
of of
University Rhetori
Mem
tors Research
involved in H
the
ous for
online patient
settings.
taking loelkim@
her and m
colle

Volume 52,

This content downloaded from

145.92.240.2 on Tue, 30 Nov 2021 12:28:44 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms