designing digital environments for art education/exploration

Designing Digital Environments for ArtEducation/Exploration

Slavko MilekicAssociate Professor of Cognitive Science & Digital Design, The University of the Arts, Philadelphia, PA 19102.E-mail: [email protected]

Although art appreciation/exploration is essentially a pri-vate experience, it cannot exist outside of a social context.Digital environments offer great potential for the enhance-ment of collaborative aspects of both art creation and artexploration. However, the current notion of a digital envi-ronment is vague, and most often associated with thetraditional concepts of computer use. Thus, the goal of thisarticle is twofold: (a) to present an analysis of the charac-teristics of digital environments, and (b) to suggest theirpotential uses in the building of collaborative pedagogicalprocedures for the digital medium.

Introduction

The goal of this article is to examine the role of digitaltechnology in the context of Art Education/Exploration,although the presented analysis could be generalized toalmost any interaction that involves humans and the digitalmedium. I will argue that the present state of affairs in thedevelopment of digital devices is technology focused,which makes the development of human-centered applica-tions harder, and in some cases, impossible. For this reasonI will also argue that there is a need for a conceptual changein the way we design and view digital devices. To facilitatethis, I will suggest the use of the term “digital environment”to denote digital devices that go beyond the traditionalcharacteristics of a personal computer.

Why Are Computers Not Built for Humans?

To make a claim that computers are not built for humansmay seem a paradox today, when an office or a school isunimaginable without computers, but the current state ofaffairs just reflects how well we have been trained. Thepersonal computer has been around for 20 years, and inthese 2 decades the basic design has practically not changed.A typical computer still consists of a keyboard with somekind of display that is meant to reside on one’s desk (or lap),regardless of the fact that it can be (and is) used for suchdiverse tasks as voice recognition, painting, or finding one’sexact position in a remote area. Donald Norman (Norman,

1998) describes this situation as the first cycle of introduc-tion of a new technology where, in its early stages, theemphasis is on functionality. At this stage, the technology isdriven by so-called early adopters—enthusiasts who arewilling to invest considerable time and energy into learninghow to use the new technology, as long as they perceive thatit meets some of their needs. Once they have mastered theuse of new technology, the focus of early adopters is onincreasing its functionality. To meet this desire (and toincrease their profit margins) companies invest in techno-logical improvements. This is nowhere more evident than inthe computer industry—there is a frenzied race for ever-faster processors, more memory, larger hard drives, biggermonitors. Often these features do not address any of theuser’s real needs, but in the world of well-trained technol-ogy consumers they are the most common reasons affectingcomputer purchases. The development of software mirrorsthe hardware trends—the software applications are gettinglarger and larger to utilize greater processor speeds andlarger amounts of memory. The number of “features” ofsoftware packages is dramatically growing, exceeding theuser’s capacity to even remember all of them. For example,the word processor I am currently using has well over 1,000commands, of which I probably use only a dozen or so!

For certain subpopulations of potential computer users,the situation is even harder. These include the technologi-cally naive (those millions who do not make a distinctionbetween Windows and Mac OS), preliterate children, andthe growing population of elderly. Analyzing the problemsthese populations have in using computers often clearlydemonstrates the areas that need to be addressed in a hu-man-centered design. For the purposes of this article I willoften use examples of the relationship of digital technolo-gies with children as consumers. This relationship mostclearly depicts the general trends in the development ofdigital devices for two reasons: (1) in targeting children asa consumer population, one has to address obvious limita-tions this population has in terms of physical size, cognitiveability, literacy level, attention span, hand-eye coordination,etc.; and (2) children are also the most adaptable and fast-learning consumer population, which can be easily© 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE. 51(1):49–56, 2000 CCC 0002-8231/00/010049-08

“trained” to accommodate for different shortcomings of theoffered technology.

It is illustrative to see how the industry has responded tothe characteristics of this population. It is evident that theleast effort was made to change the physical characteristicsof the hardware, although it is obvious how inadequate theyare for this population. Following the analogy with toys asminiaturized adult tools and appliances, the most consistentindustry effort in adapting computers to the needs of chil-dren was in changing their size. As reported by Goodman(1998), the next logical step was to shrink the desks com-puters are on, and miniaturized wood-and-steel computerworkstations can already be purchased for your 4-year old’s“office”! (http://www.tuffyland.com/tuffy_comp.htm; H.Wilson Company, 1999). To reduce the cognitive complex-ity and allow more efficient use of the computer keyboardfor preschoolers the advertised child-friendly keyboard iscolor coded (keys that should be pressed with the left handare one color, the ones for the right hand a different one).The keyboard is advertised not only as child-friendly butalso as parent-friendly presumably because nothing on thekeyboard was really changed, so there is no need for parentsto switch to the “adult” keyboard when they want to use thecomputer! (Fig. 1).

Changes in size to make things child-friendly also can goin the opposite direction. Microsoft has put out a gianttrackball that should be easier to manipulate by youngchildren compared to the average-sized one. All these “so-lutions” are not inherently bad—if one thinks that a childneeds to sit at a desk while using a computer, then it isdefinitely better if the chair and the desk are appropriatelysized. The problem is that all these solutions are solutionsfor the wrong kind of question—they are trying to make theexistingtechnology more palatable to different users, ratherthan changingthe technology to meet diverse needs. Thisview is so entrenched that the idea that it is necessary totrain the users so they can use the technology is becomingwidely accepted as a universal solution.

Although software designed for children has made giantprogress in recent years, most children’s software still tendsto be “adapted” for children in a similar way. It is often

oversimplified, with an abundance of animated objects andcartoonish characters. Computer games tend to promote“blind action” of the type “shoot anything that moves” or“click on everything.” They have a true addictive qualitysimilar to psychological conditioning experiments. What isamazing is that these “adaptations” seem to work! Childrenare happy to have access to computers, and are willing tocompensate for numerous shortcomings of the technology.Actually, they are capable of “adapting” to the existingtechnology much faster than adults. This fact is then used bythe industry as a proof that the technology really does notneed to be changed—even a child can use it!

The problem is that, even among children, it is a certainself-selected group that is willing to adapt to the technologyas it is presented to them. And once this group has masteredthe ways of communicating with this technology, they willno longer be interested in modifying these aspects of it—their main desire will be to get better technology: fasterprocessors (for smoother animation), larger amounts ofRAM (for full screen video), bigger hard drives (for storingvideo and audio clips). Which leaves the rest of the popu-lation behind.

However, in the maturation cycle of any technology atime comes when further technological improvements be-come irrelevant. For example, one seldom buys a car todayfor the ultimate speed it can develop, but rather because ofthe comfort it offers, gas/mileage ratio, color, status, etc. Itseems that the computer industry is rapidly reaching thepoint where the existing processor speeds will be able tohandle most complex tasks like continuous speech recogni-tion and full screen digital video. Increasing processor speedbeyond this point will have little visible effect, so the focusof consumers (and the industry) is bound to shift to otherfactors like ease and versatility of use. It is also at this pointin time that one may leave the traditional idea of a computerand make conjectures about the future.

Towards Digital Environments

Here I would like to leave behind the traditional notionof a computer because of the conceptual baggage it car-ries—a square box on a desk used for data storage andmanipulation. I suggest the introduction of another generalconcept, the one of adigital environment.What are digitalenvironments? Thedigital in digital environments should beself-explanatory—they are digital because they use digitallystored and represented information. They areenvironmentsbecause they should be able to offer experiences that comeclose to real-world experiences in terms of richness ofstimulation, manipulability, and possibility of creative ex-pression. The main purpose of digital environments is not tosimulate the real world (although simulations play an im-portant role in digital environments) but to create a mediumthat will afford different kinds of unique interactions. Forexample, in this environment one would be able to create,but also to uncreate, that is, go back in time, or try outdifferent outcomes before choosing one.

FIG. 1. KidBoard, a color-coded computer keyboard for children. Keysthat should be pressed with the left hand are colored differently than theright-hand ones. Moreover, each key also has a tiny picture of an objectwhose name begins with that letter (a—apple, etc.). Reproduced withpermission from http://www.webchild.com/kidboard.htm (DataWeb, Inc.,1999).

50 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE—January 1, 2000

Here I would like to draw a distinction between othertrends in the development of digital devices and the conceptof digital environment. The most common name to describemodern digital devices that include PDAs like Palm Pilot,electronic organizers, digital cameras, and MIDI music in-struments is “information appliances” (Norman, 1998). Themost important characteristic of these appliances is theirability to share information. With their specialization forcertain tasks, portability, and simplicity of use, the infor-mation appliances radically departed from the traditionalconcept of a personal computer. However, I still think thereis a need for a digital device that would serve as a general-purpose medium for social interactions and knowledgebuilding and exchange—the digital environment. To clarifythe differences between traditional PCs, digital environ-ments, and information appliances, I have provided a com-parative table of their characteristics (Table 1).

In today’s dynamic computer market one can see someof these changes happening, although they tend to occur inan isolated fashion and most often are not followed byconcurrent changes in other domains that would make themtruly functional. The most common changes are visible inthe design of portable computers, which by definition,should allow easy changes in location. So far, the change inlocation seems to be focused on different parts of the humanbody—thus, the proliferation of laptops, palmtops, and handhelds. Some newer models also provide support for a num-ber of different input devices (Fig. 2).

However, although these changes are definitely going inthe right direction, they are not accompanied by other ad-

aptations that are necessary to make them really useable.For example, the units that boast a touch-sensitive screen asan alternative input channel still have the same graphicaluser interface (GUI) tailored for a mouse-driven cursor.Trying to use the same interface with one’s finger is, in thebest case, uncomfortable, and in the worst case, impossible.

Digital environments are much better suited for activity-and inquiry-based pedagogical activities than traditionalcomputers. Some of these advantages are simply the con-sequence of the changes in shape and location.

The main characteristic of digital environments is thatthey are capable of simultaneous multiuser input that allowsthem to support a variety of social interactions, and to addthe social dimension to digitally supported education. Also,note the change of term “input devices” to “interactiondevices.” The term “input devices” is a misleading residualfrom the times when humans were only inputting data intocomputers. In the prehistory of computers the action of datainputting (using “punch cards”) was both physically andchronologically separated from data processing. However,in modern computers, the gap between inputting the dataand interacting with them does not exist anymore. Mostinteractions with computers today are performed in “realtime,” which has a profound impact on interface design. Forthis reason, I will take Baber’s suggestion (Baber, 1997) andadopt the term “interaction devices” instead of “input de-vices.” As Baber points out, the change in the term calls fora change in how these devices are viewed in the field ofhuman–computer interaction. The best level of descriptionfor interaction devices is in terms of goal-directed and

TABLE 1. Comparison of characteristics between traditional PCs, digital environments, and information appliances

Traditional PCs Digital environments Information appliances

Personally oriented general use socially oriented general use specialized, task specificTend to be very complex to operate easy to use simple to operateTraditional input devices: keyboard,

mousesupport variety ofinteractiondevices specialized input channel and device

Tend to be physically larger, hard tomove

smaller than computers and portable tend to be small and portable

Traditional shape free shape task customized shape and sizeLarger processing and storage capacity larger processing and storage capacity smaller processing and storage capacitySingle-user input support simultaneous multiuser interactions primary single input and user/operatorUser unaware user aware—presence, intent, emotion user unaware, unless this is a part of the taskUser interface consistent over applications user interface adapts to interaction device, user,

and applicationsingle, task-specific user interface

FIG. 2. The Clio PC companion from Vadem illustrates the movement towards flexible digital environments, both in terms of support for a variety ofinteraction devices (keyboard, pen, finger, voice), but also in allowing quick transformations in physical shape and orientation—from traditionalnotebookstyle to writing pad or presentation easel. (Reproduced with permission from http://www.vadem.com; Vadem, Inc, 1999.)

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE—January 1, 2000 51

contextual human action where these devices are mediatorsof human behavior. In the next section I will provide ex-amples and suggestions for the use of digital environmentsin art education and exploration.

Digital Environments for Art Exploration

Three years ago (Milekic, 1997a), in discussing how tomake virtual museums child-friendly, I argued that for thetransition from computers to digital environments to occurchanges were necessary in three areas: (a) location andshape of digital devices, (b) input/interaction devices, and(c) content structure.

In brief, the main points were that for computers to bereally child-friendly they would have to migrate from desksto the floor (changing their shape and display orientation inthe process), the interaction devices should support moreintuitive and direct interactions with digital information(speech recognition, touchscreen), and the content structureshould be adapted to the changes in modes of interaction.

If the display is positioned vertically orin front of theuser (Fig. 3), it impairs direct communication between twoor more users. Flipping the orientation of the display intothe horizontal plane, it becomes a part of thecommon space(Fig. 4) that can support a variety of interactions betweenthe users. In Figure 3, a student project exploring the ap-plications of KiddyFace technology (Milekic, 1997b) con-sisted of a touch-sensitive display embedded in a child-sizedtable (Milekic, Goodman, Benjamin, Sullivan, Newman, &Irons, 1998). The setup promoted collaborative activitiesnot only through its orientation, but also with speciallydesigned software that allowed the users to accomplishcertain tasks much easier if they collaborated, that is, carriedout simultaneously certain actions on the screen with acommon goal in mind.

The creation of a common shared space is especiallysignificant for the building of environments that supportcollaborative learning in young children. Despite the abun-dance of computer applications that support collaborativeefforts of adults (“groupware”) and studies investigatingcomputer supported collaborative learning in a classroom

setting (CSCL—for a representative sample, see edited vol-ume by Koschman, 1996), there has been very little researchon digital support for collaborative activities of young chil-dren. The main reason for this seems to be a widely sharedimpression that young children are “egocentric,” and unableto engage in truly collaborative activities. However, in arecent article, Crook points out (Crook, 1998) to youngchildren’s interest in establishing mutual knowledge andjoint reference as an early form of collaborative activity.Thus, he argues, the problem is not the inability of youngchildren to engage in computer-supported collaborative ac-tivities, but rather, the lack of material context that wouldsupport it.

Another problem that is becoming apparent with theincreased use of the Internet is the vastness of “digitalspaces.” This is nowhere more evident than in the area of arteducation—the number of available digitized reproductionsof works of art is approaching a million. Current “browsing”applications are ill-suited for meaningful navigation of thesespaces. Their navigational mechanisms are abstract, andthey offer little or no possibility of interacting with theworks of art. In the sections that follow I will provideexamples of how a touchscreen-based digital environmentcan be used to explore both conceptually and experientiallycomplex spaces.

A number of studies have indicated that touchscreensoffer the most direct and intuitive way of interacting withdigitally presented information (Sears & Shneiderman,1991). However, they never gained popularity with personalcomputers, presumably because they were never accompa-nied by software specifically designed to support this kindof interaction. In fact, failure of touchscreens to gain pop-ularity illustrates how changes in one domain of digitalenvironments (like the change in interaction device) have tobe accompanied by adequate changes in other domains(software interface design) to be practically usable. A dra-matic example of misunderstanding of this principle isprovided by some touchscreen manufacturers who bundlewith their product a software application that allows theusers to “type” on the screen. It is a picture of a regularkeyboard where actions of different keys can be elicited bytouching the “keys” on the screen. Although this application

FIG. 4. Examples of different display orientation.

FIG. 3. Examples of different display orientation.


can be useful in certain situations for (slow) alphanumericinput, displayed on the screen of a typical computer it canonly illustrate inferiority of a touchscreen as an interactiondevice. Which is exactly the opposite of the intended effect.

The problem with the above example is that one inter-action device (the touchscreen) is used to mimic another one(the keyboard), although they differ substantially in the typeof information they can transmit most efficiently. Thekeyboard is ideally suited for the transmission of alphanu-meric information, by way of numerous electromechanicalswitches. It does not register the coordinates on the screennor how hard the user is pressing the keys. The touchscreen,on the other hand, registers primarilywhere the usertouched the screen, the path of the finger touching thescreen, and where the finger was lifted off. Thus, the userinterface for an application using a touchscreen as a primaryinteraction device should rely more on interpretation of theuser’smovements, rather than on activation of certain switchlocations (buttons). This is true even for alphanumeric inputusing a touchscreen: it is incomparably more efficient to usehandwriting (movement) recognition with a touchscreen,than to tap with a stylus or a finger on the picture of akeyboard. An efficient and simple alphanumeric input usinga touchscreen can also be achieved using stylized letter-likemovements, as exemplified by the Graffiti input used by thepopular pocket digital organizer, Palm Pilot.

An example of a touchscreen-specific interaction mech-anism would be the introduction of the “throwing” action.The throwing occurs when a selected (touched) object isdragged rapidly across the screen and then released (fingeris lifted from the screen) (Fig. 5). For throwing to occur, acertain threshold value of the movement speed needs to beexceeded. The threshold is expressed as a linear distance(number of pixels) covered per unit of time (milliseconds).This value can be fine tuned so that the throwing occursonly when the user really intends to throw away the objects,

and does not interfere with the selection and movement ofobjects at a “normal” pace.

It seems that there is no need to explain the action ofthrowing to young children. Observations of young childreninteracting with the KiddyFace environment at the Hamp-shire College Children’s Center indicate that even childrenyounger than 3 years of age spontaneously discover thethrowing action while exploring the environment on theirown. Very soon they discover an efficient way of throwing,using a short and quick “flicking” motion. Interestinglyenough, even after very short exposure to this way ofinteraction (it was available in only 2 out of 10 presentedmodules), children generalized the expectation for this kindof behavior to other objects, and tried to elicit it even inmodules that did not support it. It is possible that theattractiveness of this kind of interaction comes from the factthat a very small investment yields a substantial result,similar to the delight that very young children find inrepeatedly throwing various objects from their crib.

Object “throwing” can be used to achieve a variety ofexploratory and navigational goals without marked in-creases in cognitive complexity of visual interface design.In the module depicted above, different abstract face parts(vegetables) when “thrown away” from the screen are re-placed by a randomly chosen item from a database contain-ing objects of the same kind. Even with a relatively smallnumber of objects in individual databases the number ofdistinctly different patterns (faces) that can be created isvery large. Using this approach in another project (build-a-face), the children were free to manipulate face parts withcharacteristics belonging to different age, gender, race, andculture groups.

An example of an interface design that uses the throwingaction both for exploration of objects and navigation indigital space is the “Throwing Gallery,” also a part of theKiddyFace installation (see Fig. 7). The goal of this modulewas to make parts of the collection of the Speed Art Mu-seum in Louisville, KY, accessible to even the youngestaudiences. Physically, the installation consisted of a (hid-den) computer with a large touch-sensitive monitor. Themonitor was encased in such a way that the children werepresented with an interactive touch-sensitive surface facingupward at a 60-degree angle. The display was at a comfort-able height for a standing child or a sitting adult. A supportfor leaning on or sitting was provided through a large,moveable, “bean-bag” arm that could be positioned at var-ious distances from the display (see Fig. 6).

The challenge for interface design was to provide a wayto allow the children to browse the “virtual gallery,” whichcontained a large number of digitized representations of theworks of art. The pedagogical goal was not just to exposethe children to the representations of artworks but also toconvey some educational information, both at the level ofindividual works and at the level of art as an inherentlyhuman activity. The goal on the level of interface designwas to provide an environment with minimal demands interms of cognitive complexity and eye–hand coordinationrequirements necessary for navigation. To allow a child to

FIG. 5. Illustration of throwing action in the “Veggie Face” module fromthe KiddyFace installation at the Speed Art Museum, Louisville, KY(Milekic, 1997).


focus undistracted on a single work of art, at any given timethere was only one image on the screen, represented in thelargest format possible.

The main mode of exploring this digital gallery was byusing the throwing action (although it was also possible tomove and reposition an image on the screen without throw-ing it away). The child could “throw” an image in anydirection—left, right, up, or down. The “thrown” imagewould continue moving in the direction of the throw, even-tually leaving the screen. At the moment at which the“thrown” image disappeared from the screen, a new imagewould appear, moving from the opposite edge of the screentowards its center, where it would settle. With the newimage in the center of the display a short voiceover (in achild’s voice) would draw attention to different aspects ofthe represented work of art. This interface was especiallyadvantageous for use with children because: (1) it uses asimple, natural gesture for exploration and navigation; (2) itallowed experiential mapping of the “digital space” to thechild’s own activity; and (3) it makes it possible for theeducators to convey additional (meta)information by map-ping different categories of the presented material onto thefour “throwing” directions.

Throwing action, which in the case of touchscreen-me-diated action may be better described as “pushing away,” isa symbolic (semantic) gesture. Although very young chil-dren perform it with less precision and using a whole-armmovement, they are capable of performing this action.Moreover, in the touchscreen-mediated throwing the differ-ences in throwing styles between immature and mature“throwers” are ironed out. A wide, clumsy movement or the

elegant wrist “fling” will produce the same effect on thescreen.

The fact that the throwing action has a definite direction(as opposed to clicking on a button) allows creation ofsequences that are meaningfully related to the child’s activ-ity. Thus, by throwing the images from the virtual gallery inone direction, the child will be able to explore this part ofdigital space in a sequential fashion, comparable to explor-ing real space by walking in one direction. Consequently,reversing the direction would allow the child to “go back,”that is, explore the objects that he/she manipulated before.

By making objects (paintings) also “throwable” in up/down directions, it is possible to create a navigational spacethat will reflect the categories signified by the objects. In theabove illustration (Fig. 7), the objects are the paintings inthe museum gallery classified into child-friendly categories,like “faces,” “flowers,” “outdoors.” “Throwing” an object tothe right or left lets the child explore objects belonging toone category, while throwing it up or down brings about anew category. In the example depicted above, throwing anobject left or right explores the category of “flowers;”throwing it up switches the category to “faces” (portraits),and throwing it down brings the category “animals” (notdepicted in the illustration). The possibility of mapping“categorical” spaces onto the experiential “navigational”space of a child allows educators to expose the children todifferent kinds of meta-knowledge; for example, classifica-tion of paintings based on technique (oil, aquarelle,gouache), style (cubist, impressionist, baroque), etc.

Directional mapping also can be used for other purposes;for example, for switching between different levels of com-plexity. In this case “horizontal” navigation would corre-spond to a certain complexity level that could be increasedby going “up” or decreased by going “down.” Interestinglyenough, interactions via object throwing can be easilyported over even to the traditional systems that use thecomputer mouse as an interaction device. Although there isan increase in complexity because of the necessity to mapthe mouse movements onto the cursor movement, it is stillan easy, intuitive way of navigating through digital spaces.

FIG. 7. The “Throwing Gallery” module from the KiddyFace installationat the Speed Art Museum, Louisville, KY (Milekic, 1997b).

FIG. 6. KiddyFace: a touchscreen-based interactive installation at theSpeed Art Museum (Louisville, KY).


With the increased use of the World Wide Web, this kind ofinterface may prove to be significantly easier to use even foradults.

There is a growing consensus among human/computerinteraction (HCI) researchers that the description of inter-action between humans and computers in terms of action ismore adequate than the description in terms of informationprocessing. Touchscreen-based environments offer the mostdirect interaction with digital representations through users’actions.

Long before they are capable of understanding it, chil-dren are capable of acting within and upon their environ-ment. In his recent monograph on action as a integralcomponent of cognition Andy Clark writes:

Cognitive development, it is concluded, cannot be usefullytreated in isolation from issues concerning the child’s phys-ical embedding in, and interactions with, the world. A betterimage of child cognition (indeed ofall cognition) depictsperception, action, and thought as bound together in avariety of complex and interpenetrating ways. (Clark, 1997,p. 37, italics in original)

Clark uses the example of a puzzle assembly task. A pos-sible approach would be to look at each piece and figure outwhere its place would be. However, both children and adultsoften use the strategy of “trying out” the fit of variouspieces, and rotating the pieces themselves rather than tryingto perform the same operation mentally. Note that the touch-enabled computer display allows for this kind of interactionto occur in a natural way (one could do the same by usingthe mouse, but the necessary mapping of mouse-to-cursoractions makes it harder for young children).

However, assembling a complex puzzle (like the HenryMoore sculpture from the Speed Art Museum, Fig. 8) wouldbe still extremely hard to solve for a 2.5-year-old even withextensive manipulation, and will often lead to frustrationand abandonment of the task. This is a situation wheredigital environments can provide “environmental” clues thatwould bring about the ability to solve this task even in the

population of young children. An example would be the“receptive target” feature, as implemented in the KiddyFaceenvironment: the final position of each puzzle piece corre-sponds to an invisible “target area.” When a child tries tofind the correct place for a puzzle piece using a finger (Fig.9) (or the whole hand; Fig. 10) to drag the piece across thescreen, if it happens to reach the target area it will automat-ically snap into the proper place, as if pulled by an invisiblemagnet. Note that by increasing the size of the target area(“tolerance level”) the task can be made accessible even tovery young children, or children with problems in eye–handcoordination. Currently, a prototype of an environment thatwould be able to adapt itself dynamically to the registeredability of the user is being developed for use in rehabilita-tion of children with different cognitive and motor disabil-ities (Lukic, Milekic, Cordic, Milacic, & Sazdanovic, 1999;Milekic, Ispanovic–Radojkovic, Krstic, & Car, 1997).

The described procedure may not seem that differentfrom similar applications played on traditional PCs, but theability to react to simultaneous input of multiple users iswhat makes these environments truly social, and allowssupport for collaborative relationships such as mentoring orgroup knowledge building.

FIG. 8. Module “From parts to whole” from the KiddyFace installation atthe Speed Art Museum, Louisville, KY.

FIG. 9. Peer mentoring is a common way of transferring informationamong children, and group discovery is possible only if the environmentallows simultaneous actions of group members.

FIG. 10. Peer mentoring is a common way of transferring informationamong children, and group discovery is possible only if the environmentallows simultaneous actions of group members.


The flexibility of digital representations and the hands-onquality of digital environments allows exploration of worksof art to an extent that was never possible before. Theprocess of art creation can also be described as a process ofselection. The artist is making choices all along the path ofcreation. Using the example of an oil painting, we can saythat an artist starts by choosing the topic, choosing themedium (oil pigments), and making a decision about thestyle of the execution. Finer grained choices follow—thechoice of the relationship of depicted entities (composition),the choice of individual pigments (colors), their use, juxta-position, etc. Describing art in these terms may seem like anirrelevant exercise in logic because it is precisely theuniqueness of the artist’s choices that makes his/her art art.However, because of the ease with which these representa-tions can be transferred, modified, and cloned in the digitalmedium, emphasizing the selection aspects of the art cre-ation process can provide us with a more practical level ofdescription of art-related educational activities in this me-dium. Not only can one zoom in on the finest details of adigital representation, but it is also possible to manipulatesome of the very parameters the artist played with whilecreating the work. In digital environments, it is possible toallow the user to play with the composition of a painting,with light, and even execution style. A possibility of record-ing the stages of creation of a modern work of art offers yetanother unique exploratory technique specific to the digitalmedium. A suggestion of a possible museum setup, whichwould allow both adults and children to explore art in anage-appropriate manner, is depicted in Fig. 11.

Conclusion

The development of digital environments is seen as thenext step in the evolution of traditional computers. In con-trast to information appliances, digital environments aregeneral-purpose devices. Their main characteristic is sup-port for simultaneous multiple-user interactions. This makesthem an invaluable tool for social and collaborative activi-ties. The ease with which a user can manipulate visuallyrepresented information in these environments makes themparticularly suitable for art education/exploration.

Acknowledgments

Parts of this paper were presented at the “Museums andthe Web ’99: an international conference,” March 11–14,1999, New Orleans.

References

Baber, C. (1997). Beyond the desktop: Designing and using interactiondevices. New York: Academic Press.

Clark, A. (1997). Being there: Putting brain, body, and world togetheragain, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Crook, C. (1998). Children as computer users: The case of collaborativelearning. In Computers & Education, (Vol. 30, No 3/4, pp. 237–247).London: Elsevier Science Ltd.

DataWeb, Inc. (1999). kidBoard: Computer keyboard for children, con-sulted January 25, 1999. http://www.webchild.com/kidboard.htm.

Goodman, B. (1998). Child-friendly collaborative digital environments.Unpublished BA Thesis, Hampshire College.

H. Wilson Company. (1999). Tuffy Plastic Computer Workstations, con-sulted January 25, 1999. http://www.tuffyland.com/tuffy_comp.htm.

Koschman, T. (1996). CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging para-digm. New Jersey: LEA.

Lukic, D., Milekic, S., Cordic, A., Selakovic, M., & Milacic, I. (1999–2000). Using touchscreen-based computer applications in rehabilitationof autistic children. Soros Foundation/Foundation for an Open Societyresearch grant.

Milekic, S. (1997a). Virtual museums: How to make digital informationchild-friendly. In Bearman, D., & Trant, J. (Eds.), Museums and theweb: Selected papers from museums and the web’97 (pp. 271–276).Pittsburgh, PA: Archives and Museum Informatics.

Milekic, S. (1997b). KiddyFace, an interactive touchscreen-based installa-tion at the Speed Art Museum. Louisville, KY.

Milekic, S., Goodman, B., Benjamin, Z.A., Sullivan, K., Newman, J., &Irons, N. (1998). Innovative Interfaces: Project presentations at theSmithsonian Institution, 2nd Annual NCIIA National Conference,March 13–15, Washington, DC.

Milekic, S., Ispanovic–Radojkovic, V., Krstic, N., & Car, M. (1997–99).Neuropsychological diagnosis, assessment and rehabilitation of youngchildren with traumatic brain injury (TBI) using touchscreen-basedcomputer applications. Soros Foundation/Foundation for an Open Soci-ety grant research.

Norman, D. (1998). The invisible computer. Cambridge: MIT Press.Sears, A., & Shneiderman, B. (1991). High precision touchscreens: Design

strategies and comparisons with a mouse. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34, 593–613.

Vadem, Inc. (1999). Clio, PC Companion, consulted January 24, 1999.http://www.vadem.com.

FIG. 11. An example of a possible museum setting that would allowsimultaneous exploration of the same work of art on two different levels.


designing digital environments for art education/exploration

Documents