10.1145/2254556.2254663acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesaviConference Proceedings
research-article

Evaluation of a multimodal video annotator for contemporary dance

ABSTRACT

This paper discusses the evaluation of a video annotator that supports multimodal annotation and is applied to contemporary dance as a creation tool. The Creation-Tool was conceived and designed to assist the creative processes of choreographers and dance performers, functioning as a digital notebook for personal annotations. The prototype, developed for Tablet PCs, allows video annotation in real-time, using a live video stream, or postevent, using a pre-recorded video stream. The tool also allows different video annotation modalities, such as annotation marks, text, audio, ink strokes and hyperlinks. In addition, the system enables different modes of annotation and video visualization. The development followed an iterative design process involving two choreographers, and a usability study was carried out, involving international dance performers participating in a contemporary dance "residence - workshop".

References

  1. Bargeron, D., Gupta, A., Grudin, J., and Sanocki, E. 1999. Annotations for streaming video on the Web: system design and usage studies. Comput. Netw. 31, 11--16 (May 1999), 1139--1153. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1389-1286(99)00058-4 Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Benedek, J. and Miner, T. 2002. Measuring Desirability: New methods for evaluating desirability in a usability lab setting. In Proceedings of UPA Usability Professional Association Conference, Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Brandl, P., Forlines, C., Wigdor, D., Haller, M., and Shen, C. 2008. Combining and measuring the benefits of bimanual pen and direct-touch interaction on horizontal interfaces. In Proceedings of the working conference on Advanced visual interfaces (AVI '08). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 154--161. DOI=http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1385569.1385595 Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Bulterman, D. 2004.Animating peer-level annotations within web-based multimedia. In EuroGraphics Multimedia Workshop (2004), Euro-graphics Association, 49--57. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Cabral, D. and Correia, N. 2009. Pen-Based Video Annotations: A Proposal and a Prototype for Tablet PCs. In Proceedings of the 12th IFIP TC 13 International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Part II (INTERACT '09). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 17--20. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-03658-3_5 Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Cabral, D., Valente, J., Silva, J., Aragão, U., Fernandes, C. And Correia, N. 2011. A Creation-Tool for Contemporary Dance using Multimodal Video Annotation. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM international conference on Multimedia (MM '11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 905--908. DOI=http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2072298.2071899 Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Cattelan, R. G., Teixeira, C., Goularte, R., and Pimentel, M. C. 2008. Watch-and-comment as a paradigm toward ubiquitous interactive video editing. ACM Trans. Multimedia Comput. Commun. Appl. 4, 4, Article 28 (November 2008), 24 pages. DOI=http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1412196.1412201 Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Cherry, G., Fournier, J., and Stevens, R. 2003. Using a digital video annotation tool to teach dance composition. Interactive Multimedia Electronic Journal of Computer-Enhanced LearningGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Correia, N. and Chambel, T. 1999. Active video watching using annotation. In Proceedings of the seventh ACM international conference on Multimedia (Part 2) (MULTIMEDIA '99). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 151--154. DOI=http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/319878.319919 Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Fernandes, C. and Jürgens, S. 2009. Transdisciplinary research bridging cognitive linguistics and digital performance: from multimodal corpora to choreographic knowledge-bases. In Performing Technology: User Content and the New Digital Media. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, 19--33.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Goularte, R., Camacho-Guerrero, J. A., Inacio Jr., V. R., Cattelan, R. G., and Pimentel, M. da G. C. 2004. M4Note: A Multimodal Tool for Multimedia Annotations. In Proceedings of the WebMedia & LA-Web 2004 Joint Conference 10th Brazilian Symposium on Multimedia and the Web 2nd Latin American Web Congress (LA-WEBMEDIA'04). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, 142--149. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Hinckley, K., Yatani, K., Pahud, M., Coddington, N., Rodenhouse, J., Wilson, A., Benko, H. and Buxton, B. 2010. Pen + touch = new tools. In Proceedings of the 23nd annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology (UIST '10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 27--36. DOI=http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1866029.1866036 Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Johnson, M. 1987. The body in the mind. Chicago University Press, Chicago, IL, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Kannan, R., Andres, F., and Guetl, C. 2010. DanVideo: an MPEG-7 authoring and retrieval system for dance videos. Multimedia Tools Appl. 46, 2--3 (January 2010), 545--572. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11042-009-0388-3 Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Kipp, M. 2008. Spatiotemporal Coding in ANVIL. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC-08)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago University Press, Chicago, IL, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Lakoff, G. and Johnson M. 1999. Philosophy in the flesh. Basic Books, New York, NY, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Li, Y., Hinckley, K., Guan, Z., and Landay, J. A. 2005. Experimental analysis of mode switching techniques in pen-based user interfaces. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (CHI '05). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 461--470. DOI=http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1054972.1055036 Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Mackay, W. E. 1989. EVA: an experimental video annotator for symbolic analysis of video data. SIGCHI Bull. 21, 2 (October 1989), 68--71. DOI=http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/70609.70617 Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Sellen, A. J. and Harper, R. H. R. 2003. The Myth of the Paperless Office. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Singh, V., Latulipe, C., Carroll, E., and Lottridge, D. 2011. The choreographer's notebook: a video annotation system for dancers and choreographers. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM conference on Creativity and cognition (C&C '11), ACM, New York, NY, USA, 197--206. DOI=http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2069618.2069653 Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Stevens, C. and McKechnie, S. 2005. Minds and motion: dynamical systems in choreography, creativity, and dance. In Birringer J, Fenger J (Eds.). Tanz im Kopf: Yearbook 15 of the German Dance Research Society.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Evaluation of a multimodal video annotator for contemporary dance

            Comments

            Login options

            Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

            Sign in

            PDF Format

            View or Download as a PDF file.

            PDF

            eReader

            View online with eReader.

            eReader
            About Cookies On This Site

            We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

            Learn more

            Got it!