Interaction Evaluation for Human-Computer Co-creativity: A Case Study

Interaction design has been suggested as a framework for evaluating computational creativity by Bown (2014). Yet few practical accounts on using an Interaction Design based evaluation strategy in Computational Creativity Contexts have been reported in the literature. This study paper describes the evaluation process and results of a human-computer co-creative poetry writing tool intended for children in a school context. We specifically focus on one formative evaluation case utilizing Interaction Design evaluation methods, offering a suggestion on how to conduct Interaction Design based evaluation in a computational creativity context, as well as, report the results of the evaluation itself. The evaluation process is considered from the perspective of a computational creativity researcher and we focus on challenges and benefits of the interaction design evaluation approach within a computational creativity project context.

[1]  Thecla Schiphorst,et al.  Scuddle: Generating Movement Catalysts for Computer-Aided Choreography , 2011, ICCC.

[2]  Koichi Hori,et al.  A system to support long-term creative thinking in daily life and its evaluation , 2002, Creativity & Cognition.

[3]  Jeffrey Dean,et al.  Efficient Estimation of Word Representations in Vector Space , 2013, ICLR.

[4]  R LewisJames Sample sizes for usability tests , 2006 .

[5]  Anna Kantosalo,et al.  Let's play the feedback game , 2014, NordiCHI.

[6]  Anna Jordanous,et al.  Stepping Back to Progress Forwards: Setting Standards for Meta-Evaluation of Computational Creativity , 2014, ICCC.

[7]  J. Read,et al.  Endurability, Engagement and Expectations: Measuring Children’s Fun , 2002 .

[8]  Rachel Benedyk,et al.  A comparison of usability evaluation methods for child participants in a school setting , 2007, IDC.

[9]  Austin Henderson,et al.  Interaction design: beyond human-computer interaction , 2002, UBIQ.

[10]  Erin A. Carroll Convergence of self-report and physiological responses for evaluating creativity support tools , 2011, C&C '11.

[11]  Hannu Toivonen,et al.  Corpus-Based Generation of Content and Form in Poetry , 2012, ICCC.

[12]  Kimiko Ryokai,et al.  Children's storytelling and programming with robotic characters , 2009, C&C '09.

[13]  Robert C. Williges,et al.  Criteria For Evaluating Usability Evaluation Methods , 2001, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[14]  Eamonn O'Neill,et al.  Tool support for creativity using externalizations , 2007, C&C '07.

[15]  Simon Colton,et al.  Computational Creativity: The Final Frontier? , 2012, ECAI.

[16]  Nathan Sorenson,et al.  Adaptation of an Autonomous Creative Evolutionary System for Real-World Design Application Based on Creative Cognition , 2013, ICCC.

[17]  Antonios Liapis,et al.  Mixed-initiative co-creativity , 2014, FDG.

[18]  Hannu Toivonen,et al.  From Isolation to Involvement: Adapting Machine Creativity Software to Support Human-Computer Co-Creation , 2014, ICCC.

[19]  Celine Latulipe,et al.  The choreographer's notebook: a video annotation system for dancers and choreographers , 2011, C&C '11.

[20]  James R. Lewis,et al.  Sample sizes for usability tests: mostly math, not magic , 2006, INTR.

[21]  Anna Jordanous,et al.  A Standardised Procedure for Evaluating Creative Systems: Computational Creativity Evaluation Based on What it is to be Creative , 2012, Cognitive Computation.

[22]  Perttu Hämäläinen,et al.  Using peer tutoring in evaluating the usability of a physically interactive computer game with children , 2003, Interact. Comput..

[23]  Oliver Bown,et al.  Empirically Grounding the Evaluation of Creative Systems: Incorporating Interaction Design , 2014, ICCC.

[24]  Ruli Manurung,et al.  Evaluating the STANDUP Pun Generating Software with Children with Cerebral Palsy , 2009, TACC.

[25]  Ernest A. Edmonds,et al.  Amplifying reflective thinking in musical performance , 2005, C&C '05.

[26]  Janet C. Read,et al.  All work and no play: Measuring fun, usability, and learning in software for children , 2006, Comput. Educ..

[27]  Elizabeth D. Mynatt,et al.  Variation in element and action: supporting simultaneous development of alternative solutions , 2004, CHI.

[28]  Kirsten Risden,et al.  Guidelines for usability testing with children , 1997, INTR.