Keywords

1 Introduction

The conception and the development of audiovisual content, including apps that incorporate video, is changing. The technological convergence is bringing together once distinct areas of knowledge, such as the Human Computer Interaction Studies (HCI, Computer Sciences) and the Audience Studies (Communication Sciences), hence generating a theoretical relation that is not currently contemplated by these fields individually.

The design of interactive computer systems, what was initially focused on the problem, the tasks and the functions, and then has slowly turned to a perspective oriented towards possibilities, significances and emotions, now is considering other human behaviors. As an example, the passive fruition now gains relevance when the final object of the multimedia interactive system is an audiovisual content.

An alike phenomenon can be observed from the perspective of the audiovisual consumption, once the experience of using software interfaces has become as important as the quality of the movie, TV series or online video. A characteristic common to the digital means used for accessing video content is the software-mediated interaction. The digital TV schedule guide, the search for a movie title in an app, the recommendation in a social network, all of them offer the spectator an experience that mixes active attitude (browsing and search for information) and passive fruition (video watching). In other words, the simple act of choosing and watching an audiovisual content can demand each individual to perform different roles, that differ in degrees of greater or minor activity in comparison to the traditional notion of audience of mass media. Hence a review of theories and methods that today support the production of this content, especially in the field of Audience Studies, becomes pertinent.

Bearing this premise in mind, our proposal suggests the emergency of a methodological process that reunites and reformulates some concepts originally from those two fields of study. In summary, we are searching a workflow that allows to: (a) analyze the production conceived upon the utilization of tools both from HCI and Audience Studies; (b) predict and propose applications for such tools, enabled by the technical frame available today. We named this methodological set Audiovisual Design, and its main feature is the planning of audio and video production based on four lines that configure and shape the processes: The Individual, the Motivations, the Experience and the Content.

It must be highlighted that the two words composing the name of this discipline have distinguished connotations in the different knowledge fields. In this paper, the term “Design” is understood in its broader meaning, that is, including the whole process of situation analysis, identification of the problem and the demands, elaboration of the solution forwarding, product synthesis and evaluation of results. Likewise, the word “Audiovisual” contemplates the entire range of products based on audio and video, or that are centrally composed by these two elements.

To illustrated the methodological process of this proposal, we described a graphic workflow to analyze production, interaction and fruition methods in the Audiovisual Design. The workflow meets the analytical requirements for finished works, and offer mechanisms for analyzing and projecting possible and necessary interactions during the conception and development of new products. For that matter, it contemplates five roles an individual can perform: The Audience, the Synthesizer, the Modifier, the Player and the Producer.

Following this introduction, this paper is divided in four other sections. Next Sect. 2 contains a discussion on the communication models and the changes resulting from the use of digital technologies to access and share content. Section 3 describes the proposal of a graphic plan of audiovisual production and fruition workflow, while in Sect. 4 is presented the application of this plan in two examples. Finally, Sect. 5 brings the conclusions of this essay.

2 Communication Models

To understand the communicative acts, the people and the technologies involved in communications, the communicational processes can be organized within models. A communication model is a theoretical scheme to show the main elements, how they relate, and how the information flow is generated. Many books in the literature of communication studies summarize these theories, for example Mattelart and Mattelart [1] and Souza [2]. Traditionally, communication is defined as the transmission of a message or a set of messages from one transmitter (or source) to a receiver. A transmission mean (or channel), connects both.

One of the simplest models is Laswell’s, which considers communication as a linear process: somebody say something to someone, using a given mean, generating an effect. On this case, “somebody says” represents the transmitter of the message and the beginning of the communicational process; “something” is the message, where the content analyses are made; “given mean” stands for the channel connecting the transmitter and the receiver, and can be differentiated between interpersonal or mass communication; “to someone” represents the people affected by the message, the receiver(s); “an effect” is the impact of the message to the receivers, enabling studies on the perception of the message and their significances [1].

A common critic to this model is it doesn’t foresee the return or feedback from the receiver to the transmitter. Thus, there is not a conversation, but a monologue. The Schramm model [2] includes the feedback, enabling an exchange (even if limited) between transmitter and receiver, whose are not anymore completely dissociated. The reaction of the receiver facing the message can add new meanings to the message and, in some cases, start a new communication process. On the edge of this process, the roles of transmitter and receiver are confused and alternate through time.

Other models have been proposed. Mainly, there are small alterations to aggregate other elements as “noise”, “multiple reception” by a large amount of people, different feedback forms and “feedback loops”, sociocultural or cognitive elements [2]. As we can notice, the audience was generally treated as a group of people, be they an undistinctive mass or a segment of a given population. On the other hand, the newer models of communication allow the study of meanings during the fruition process of a media content. In part, this is due to the recognition of people as a group of individuals and of their individualitiesFootnote 1.

According to Hall [3], what has given support to a coherent identity is losing power since the last decades of the 20th Century and the subjects themselves assume different identities in different moments, trying to re-construct a coherent self that is in accordance to each context the person is acting in. With the growth in quantity of communication technologies in the late 1990s, information became itself fragmented, dispersed, although more available and higher in volume. As a result, the contemporary imaginary outlines it is important for people to consume a variety of cultural products and show that they are eclectic, but this variety must be carefully chosen to communicate something about their individuality. In other words, being universal became a value as important as being diversified [4]. The fragment and the bricolage have become necessary in the formation of an individualized self, and it is better in a market logic that these characteristics are also mutable and ephemeral.

We do not want to condemn or praise this generalized feeling, but to point out that it brings up an infinity of connections people can implement between themselves and the world. In the last decades, more than any time before, individuals use the available media – especially the interactive ones – to define their cultural and personal identities, as pointed by Bolter and Grusin [5]. The way people use and interact with the software that make content available became as important as the content itself in the identity formation, consequently making the Human-Computer Interaction part of the communication process.

In this sense, it is fundamental that the conception of media products and their analysis consider the individualities of those who are called the viewers, the users or the audiences. Thus, new models of communication are important to understand how this impact in the media and in the content creation. Jenkins, Ford and Green [6] proposed three simple models to describe the different scenarios of communication today: the communication from one emitter to multiple receivers as Broadcast; the models of online communication as Stickiness, where individuals take the initiative of seeking content; and Spreadable, where content reaches the audiences through the actions of the individuals themselves, mostly using interactive digital tools. We wish now to discuss these three models.

2.1 The Broadcast Model

The broadcast model of audiovisual communication is the most traditional and the one with larger reach. It stands that a transmitter emits a content and the recipients within the transmission range receive it. Approximately from the 1930s on, radio and television consolidated this model around the globe, and it is still the predominant operation pattern for these two means.

A central feature is the concept of audience, which can be treated in a simplified form as ‘the collective term for the “receivers” in the simple sequential model of the mass communication process’ [7, p. 1]. In other words, they are the readers of printed media, the radio listeners and the television spectators.

The origins of the word resume to the arts, like theater and musical performances, and to games and other spectacles, where the audience can be measured by counting the number of attendees. In addition, people’s presence in a performance allows an immediate and complete comprehension of their reaction [7]. Different perceptions of the audience have been proposed with the advent of mass communication means, through which a transmitter sends the content to an unlimited number of receivers.

The then new media, initially newspapers and later radio and television, were different in scale and in operation. First, the reach of radio and television are larger; second, audience and producers turn out to be significantly apart, changing the way the content is generated, as well as how the relation with the public occurs. If previously the physically-present audience allowed a close contact, it does not occur in mass communication, generating an “asymmetry” between the transmission and the reception [8]. The lack of direct contact between transmitter and receivers results in the first role performed by some few companies, and the receivers being every person with access to the communication mean.

While television helped to consolidate this theory due to its centrality in every market where audience is measured, radio and printed media perform only a secondary role, as well as the internet, which audience started being studied in the second half of the 1990s [7,8,9]. Actually, the inclusion of internet leads to some questioning in regard to the term “audience” representing the measurement of visits to websites. Bermejo [8] considers the internet a mass media, thus the use of the word is correct. Other academics like McQuail [7], Bailén [10] and Webster et al. [11], however, believe that does not exist audience in systems where networks offer segmented, on-demand content. These authors stand that audience is a terminology of mass communication, thus being restricted to the unidirectional and asymmetric reception of the informational flow. Mosco and Kaye [12] also assert that the audience represents a power relationship, based on the asymmetry and hierarchy between who produces and who receives the content. Therefore, there is not audience in communication environments that are not based on asymmetry.

Hence the audience is an abstract entity, gauged by statistical samples and quantified in percentage terms. Analysis and interpretation of behaviors generate information about people, grouped in profiles, with no possible individualization.

In interactive systems, on the other hand, we can identify patterns of use resulting from the interaction, participation and collaboration of people through and with computational systems, and quantify access and usage duration in an individualized manner. Martino [13] explains that a digital system can be defined as a limited set of interacting elements, offering the possible options of action in face of a technology. ‘The functioning of any system depends, in great measure, on the interaction between the parts that must know what to do at any time. The information exchange between elements within a system is the driver from which every attitude is organized’ [13, pp. 21–22].

That is, opposed to the mass communication means that distribute content independently of the audience action, the digital interactive systems only allow exchange of information after the user’s interaction. Therefore, we can identify different behaviors towards a technology, for instance the passive fruition held while watching television, listening to radio or attending a movie section, and an active attitude in digital systems. For decades, the Communication Theory have attributed a passive role to the listener and the viewer. Nonetheless, with audiovisual communication systems based on digital technologies, this role today interposes with moments of action or interaction. New features were brought by the aggregation of computational elements to the audiovisual reception, such as interaction through television, program scheduling guides, Smart TVs apps, online research, simultaneous access and use of social networks, and second (or companion) screen consumption.

The audiovisual content, previously accessible only through a TV set or online video repository, converged into consumption formats that combine audio, video, software and interaction interfaces. Inside these digital systems, the audiovisual content fruition is now integrated to, and sometimes dependent of, the interaction and the use of interfaces to input and output data. Then the intersection with the field of Human-Computer Interaction Studies becomes natural. This intersection is not comprehended by the models of communication that tries to explain the diffusion of information from one transmitter to many receivers.

2.2 The Stickiness Model

In addition to the Broadcast, new models of communication were introduced with the dissemination of technologies and the internet access. Content is made available through websites, internet portals and apps, and the individuals have an active attitude to seek information. The content must attract the audiences, involve them, and generate engagement. In other words, audiences must adhere to these contents, in different levels, so they can be considered “successful”. This process is called “Stickiness” in allusion to the terminology used by Gladwell [14] to explain how good content is fixed in the audiences’ minds and produce engagement. Jenkins, Ford and Green [6] expand the perception to the digital commercial environment, stating that Stickiness refers to the centralization of the audiences’ presence in an online place to generate income from advertising and sells. That is, the Stickiness model is based upon the access both to gather audience and to produce some profit, be it financial or not. The moment the content rises the public interest and fixates in people’s minds, the desire for sharing also emerge, what can result in the Spreadable model of communication – discussed in the next subsection.

It is important to highlight that the Stickiness model only works when the content can attract people to the place where it is available. In opposition to the Broadcast model, where the content is transmitted regardless of the number of receivers, the Stickiness model requires an active attitude of the receivers who, in a way, start the communicational process. It is also the actions of each receiver which completes the cycle, enabling a more precise feedback to the producer than the Broadcast model (through the mining of navigation data, for instance). If the receiver stays inactive, the message remains available online and the reception process is not completed, compromising the communication.

Furthermore, the aspect of “quality” must also be considered. In Broadcast model, the quality of the message or of the content are independent from the quantity of receivers. For example, in a TV transmission, the image quality shall be the same for 10 or 10 thousand viewers. Instead, in the Stickiness model many requests to access a given content at the same time may clutter the network traffic, creating a fruition bottleneck, e.g., a low-speedy video server can produce a visualization queue in the viewers’ end. Then, that is another difference between the Broadcast and the Stickiness models, for in the first there is no concern about the quality or the method of access.

The Stickiness model features a series of intersections, allowing us to look at the cultural production from the point of view of the audience or of the content, as well as from the interaction interfaces. We now want to present, grounded on the HCI field, some points related to the design of the interfaces and the part attributed to the individual/user during the conception.

Jenkins, Ford and Green [6] say that a network-connected culture is an important tool for disseminating information, because it brings together technological innovations and cultural and social practices, which engage people to interact with the information available. The word “information” is easily connected to communication or knowledge, but to Martino ‘in the media studies it has a specific meaning, as it can also be understood as any new data that shows up in the system’ [13, p.24]. Every data feeds a system and facilitate the decision-making, be it a human system (brain) or a technological system (associated to computers). Thus, ‘information is a fundamental element for the decision-making. It shows the better situation within a set of possible situations. In simple terms, they transform probabilities in certainties. Then, to process information is to understand its content and take decisions from that’ [13, pp. 24–25].

The Human-Computer Interaction is a central area for the development of systems inside the Stickiness model. One of the main purposes of the disciplines comprised in this field is to support the analysis of systems and people. The comprehension of how the individuals use digital systems increases the possibilities of creating solutions for more efficient computer-mediated interactions, thus providing a more complete experience.

The HCI studies as known today were settled in the middle 1980s, with the increase of the production and types of personal computers and consequent rise on the number of PC users. During the 1990s, this growth became exponential due to the global networks providing a collaborative workflow supported by computers.

The way we use the digital technologies, especially online, has exponentially advanced during the last years. The user interactions are not restricted only to a computer screen. Almost every electronic object carry a computational system and require some level of interaction (from the fridge to the TV set, going through phones, cameras, wearable devices, etc.). Today, a series of devices, further than presenting us information, can also “feel”, that is, can generate responsive interactions that goes beyond the users’ consciousness and make the daily life more comfortable. When this feature is connected through an online system, e.g. in applications of the Internet of Things, the use each individual perform help to consolidate the Stickiness model by bringing it to everyday life.

All these changes have impacted in the concerns and methodologies of the HCI. Formerly seen only as tasks, goals and efficiencies, today those methods encompass experiences and sensations of satisfaction to supply the actual needs of the individuals, making usability a key point of HCI. So, a set of methodologies, process and tools are being developed inside the HCI field, to help the creation of software as well as complex communication systems that interconnect a variety of types of messages exchange.

In the academic field, the HCI Studies comprise the interactions of people with technologies and foresee the possible applications in design. To construct and develop interventions in the systems, as much as to comprehend the technologies to be used in the interactive process, ‘we have to understand the people whom we are designing, why do they want it and how they’ll use’ [15]. In consequence, there are some defenders of a subdivision called “Human-Centered Design” (HCD) in opposition to “User-Centered Design” (UCD), capable of broadening the discussion and work within the HCI studies. Elmansy [16] puts HCD in the center of every process as a way to validate the design of products linked to the “real world”.

If, at one hand, the studies about interaction and usability helped to consolidate the Stickiness model, by making the digital systems easier to use, on the other hand some elements of interaction are incorporated to the Broadcast model. Although there are some similarities between methods from the HCI and the Audience Studies, e.g. the user surveys, both fields still have as challenge the study of interaction interfaces and the development of audiovisual content integrated to the software (the Audiovisual Design).

2.3 The Spreadable Model

Jenkins, Ford and Green [6] consider the Stickiness model driving Web 2.0 insufficient to explain the distribution of messages in the digital universe. There are missing elements that could explain people’s motivation and value generation, leading to an imprecise description of the communicational process regarding content circulation. The authors, then, propose a new model to sum up to the other two: The Spreadable, that is, one in which the media spreads.

In summary, ‘Spreadability’ refers to the technical resources that make it easier to circulate some kinds of content than others, the economic structures that support or restrict circulation, the attributes of a media text that might appeal to a community’s motivation for sharing material, and the social networks that link people through the exchange of meaningful bytes [6, pp. 3–4]. Three characteristics of this model must be highlighted for the purposes of our discussion: the connection between individuals, especially through digital social networks; the dispersed content distribution through a variety of means, resulting in people having different experiences when accessing the content; and the opening of a range of uses by the individuals that were not originally predicted by the producer.

It is noticeable that the spreadable media rely on two complementing poles: the audiences’ individual actions of commenting, sharing and modifying the original content (that is, the engagement); and the producer action in identifying their demands by using the correct set of software. Obviously, there is not a simple recipe to explain how some content can spread easily, except that each person takes a bunch of decisions before get involved to the media content. Emotional, economic and social mechanisms are considered at this moment. It becomes clear that each individual, when engaging to a media content to at least share it, effectively want do communicate something about themselves. That’s why it is so significant the producer think of the user as a human, and the audiences as a collective of individuals with variable preferences, tastes and repertoires.

The cultural fragmentation and the multiple possibilities the individuals possess to construct their selves have become, as mentioned above, elements of distinction. The physical and symbolic products each person can be offered are very diversified. Thus, they can only plan a strategy aiming their individuation through the choice of the products to wear, the brands to convey, the cultural products (movies, music, TV series, comics) to bring to fruition. Also, how and when they choose to use all these materials are relevant and are part of the communication held with others [5]. Two parallel processes take place, especially related to the sharing of content through digital interfaces. First, individuals fulfill “mutable identities” valid while they are connected in a network, more realistic or less realistic towards their true self. Second, the software can read the set of data people share when using digital tools, even without their notice. This creates a suit of interaction possibilities that can be further developed. Moreover, to promote the user’s loyalty to a given system, the answers provided by the system must be relatively coherent with the profiles individuals project about themselves (“relatively” because the technological processes also represent the interests of the corporation collecting the data). Some points must be highlighted. In the first place, the contemporary zeitgeist implies a sensation of autonomy, liberty and individuation, reflecting in the choice of physical and symbolic products, as well as behaviors, the individuals appropriate to themselves, even if any of these materials follows a pattern. Second, the institution of the media as a social and cultural structure resulted in a facilitated circulation of information. People then have a myriad of possibilities to use and construct profiles and personal narratives in their social networks. In conclusion, these individuals expect that the technological mechanisms use their data to give in return processes and applications that valorize the experience, thus opening a new economic field.

The logic of participation determines this new field: a person wants and needs to be part of a group or process, that is, the increased individuality also leads to the necessity of composing new community links. In this regard, the recommendation of a group member has more strength and worth than the mechanisms used in Broadcast to reach the audience [6]. Therefore, a new “moral economy” emerges, and the value attributed by people to the product they consume (such as a video to be watched or a CD to be owned) becomes even more significant than the actual paid price.

We must take in consideration that most part of the material shared through the social networks is audiovisual, commonly derived from productions of the Broadcast system. This type of appropriation, authorized or not by the creators, shows a significant convergence point of the Broadcast, the Stickiness and the Spreadable models. The large-scale distribution of the first feeds the circulation inherent to the other two, in a controlled manner in the Stickiness, and spontaneously in the Spreadable. The key point is that each individual re-signifies the content, and this appropriations and meanings must, directly or indirectly, compose the feedback for the producer regarding its production.

Finally, a great part of the content in the Stickiness and Spreadable models depends on the digital interfaces, which are occupying the space of the traditional media and becoming, themselves, new media. The producers more and more must make use of interaction tools and incorporate them as internal elements of the production, thus changing the experience of audiovisual fruition, keeping some control over the product, and promoting at least a minimum engagement of the public. Of course, because much of people will relate to the content only in a basic level, the incorporation of those tools cannot diminish the quality of the Broadcast product to the eyes of a passive audience. Also, the interfaces must be designed considering not anonymous users, but individuals who, at some point, may desire to use that audiovisual content as reference to compose part of their narratives in the social networks. We propose, then, a graphic workflow that can summarize the different elements of the Audiovisual Design.

3 The Audiovisual Design Workflow

From the intersections between disciplines from the Audience Studies and the HCI Studies, we propose a graphic plan (Fig. 1), in the shape of a workflow, that enables the comprehension of the dynamic flow of the Audiovisual Design methods, considering the different scenarios and roles performed by the individuals.

Fig. 1.
figure 1

Processual flow for audiovisual design

Full size image

First, we must highlight our beliefs that some alterations took place in the hierarchic scales that is normally used to classify producers and audience. The most common graphical representation is a pyramid with producers placed on the top, thus reinforcing the asymmetry of the Broadcast model communication processes. We have used instead the paradigm of “sets”, equal to the mathematical sets of numbers, to show the continent and the contained and then represent the continuity amid the roles. We are not defending that a complete end of the asymmetry has been reached, but we indeed understand the positions are more flexible and variating.

Actually, the proposed arrangement of elements shows that each individual can perform different roles at different moments: (passive) Audience, Synthesizer, Modifier, Player or ProducerFootnote 2. The relations intrinsic to these five roles occur through four lines: Identity, Motivation, Experience and Content.

The first role is the most common, thus inherent to everyone involved in the audiovisual process: The Audience. This basic role denotates low level or absence of interaction, hence the individual shows a passive behavior towards the content, and the interaction with the digital interfaces are limited to searching and playing videos, the subscription to a channel, etc. Also, on this level the content can provoke intimal feelings to the individual, but these emotions remain “private”. Therefore, the relation with the content occurs in the level of personal identification. The audience ratings and the amount of visualizations of the video are what provide some feedback to the Producer, such as data on the Audiences’ preferences in relation to the consumed content. As a result, the level of the information does not allow for an individualized identification, but can guarantee some standardization of future content.

The second role is that of the Synthesizer, as named by Jenkins, Ford and Green [6]. Here each individual presents the necessary competences to compile the contents that praise them, so they can share, comment, classify and recommend. This behavior is one of the main instrument used for shaping an identity in the network, that is, the impression people have they are creating a controllable online profile that fully represents them. These attitudes change the emotional component from the status of “private” to “public”. Nonetheless, this profile is never the pure expression of the individual preferences, it is first a visibility performance in accordance to variable patterns from the social network each person is connected to. The synthesizers’ relation with the content is the engagement, where certain passion invokes a desire to share with others what is of great value to them. Through the synthesizers’ interactions it is possible to measure the level of engagement the audiovisual content incites and, then, to reinforce the aspects that allows the spread of the content.

The third role is the Modifier. The competences required for achieving this role include the domain of software applications (such as image and sound editing) to enable the manipulation of the original content in recreations. The relation with the content goes beyond the engagement and becomes appropriation: The Modifiers assume they have rights over the content they like and implement their impressions. Yet, it is still an expression of feelings and the creation of a network profile equal to those performed by the Synthesizer. Thus, the set of Modifiers is contained within the Synthesizers’.

We divided this role in two main functions, although there can be more. The Improvers appropriate the content to modify some element that dislikes them, or to emphasize a given characteristic they like (technical, from the script, etc.). The Remixers, on their turn, use the content as base for creating something new, like DJs used to do in Hip Hop battles. This includes internet “memes”, videos of commentary about audiovisual content, music videos with movie characters, etc. In consequence, there are a new range of significances attributed to the content that can serve as guidance for the producer in the conception or future audiovisual productions.

The Producer, our fourth role, is represented by those people (or companies) with creative capacity to conceive and design a new product. This production can be inspired in an existing model, but still must be an original creation. This set includes both the creators working for a media corporation and the independent producers, known inside cultural niches or even anonymous. Every Producer is, deliberately, Synthesizer. After all, what is the purpose of producing something and do not share it with others? However, although some people can become Producers by summing up the competences of the Modifiers, this is not a prerogative. Hence the set of Producers and Modifiers are only partially overlapped, as can be seen in Fig. 1. Still, this crossing makes clearer the collaborative production among “common” individuals, and between them and the “official” content producers.

Regarding the content, the producer can use a variety of data from multiple sources, such as audience ratings, fruition models, profiles, modes and strength of engagement, meanings aggregated by people to the modified content, data analysis algorithms, and creation techniques as UCD, HCD and Design Thinking. The acquisition of all this information does not avoid the creative process, since the idea and the production design remain present. Nevertheless, the producers have a possibility to evaluate demands and predict results, directly interfering in the design of the audiovisual product. The set of analyzed information, when added to the creation of content, enables the planning of the content to reach the different roles the individuals can assume. Besides, it is relevant the design takes into account the interfaces to be used by the viewers, regardless of the role they come to assume. Then, it is something common that questions linked to the Utility (perception of value) and Quality (Capacity of use) interfere during the creation process of a content.

About the Audience, for instance, the Producers can base the elaboration upon characteristics of individuals. This spectator that shows little interaction (or interact only with the machines) seeks in the content elements for personal identification, hence the design of the audiovisual product (both the content and the interfaces) must occur on the line of Identity. In the relation of the Producers with the Synthesizers, however, the process must run on the line of Motivation, since the content circulation does not end with the fruition. On the contrary, the circulation rests upon the action of the individuals that, aiming to communicate something about themselves, spread the content. In this case, the Producers must be concerned about making the viewers leave their passivity to express their feelings about the content. The two processes explained in this paragraph are alike to those concerning the intentions of the Modifier towards the Audiences and the Synthesizers.

Likewise, the intentions of the Producers directed to the Modifiers are processed on the line of Experience. Since the Modifiers have competences that enable them to modify the content, the product must be designed to facilitate this kind of manipulation and involvement. Thus, even if it is not a feature of every work, some content is planned to allow appropriation and use by the Modifiers. When the Producers are responsible for those tools, they can keep to themselves some control over the modifications.

Each one of these roles requires the individuals to incorporate some competences, which can be technical, technological, or social. Subsequently, with access to a defined set of tools, the individuals can be enabled as a Synthesizers, other set turns them into Modifiers, etc. A more complete analysis, to be held in a future investigation, must help determine which are the minimum required competences for a person to perform a given role.

A remaining point to complete the description of the proposed workflow is the role of the Player. This role intersects every other one because it refers to the people who, in each level, use the tools provided by the Producers. To conceive the role of the Players and how they react to the content interaction interfaces results in considerations about the different levels of interaction the designed product can allow. For instance, a Player in the set of Audience can basically perform the programmed functions, like in a videogame where the player only follow the rules. When the Player decides to share the achievements or part of the gaming story they are more engaged, they are operating the role of a Synthesizer much alike to those sharing a TV series’ scene.

The role of the Players expects the performance of the totality of activities made available by the Producers during the design, considering inherent limitations. For example, the Player is the one who will better use a tool designed to allow the exploration of an interactive audiovisual content (immersive reality), even if it is offline and the experience remains restricted to the moment of access. Nevertheless, the Player can easily become a Modifier or a Producer, if the Producer who designs the audiovisual content allows the necessary conditions in the product. As consequence, the design towards the Players is also a process on the line of Experience, because these advanced activities will keep them loyal to the content. Players seek challenging contents that make them think of and perform some action, even if isolated from others. Most of the time they can be identified as the “early adopters” or “early users” of a technology, that is, people who assume the risks of using something new and, thus, contribute to its development. By doing so, the Players return the Producers some information about the interactions, which can feed future productions aimed at the other roles.

Finally, the two horizontal arrows composing the workflow indicate the starting points to understand the interaction scenarios, especially within the Spreadable model. HCI Studies offer consistent theories and methods for the Producer or the software developer to design the interaction and the usage. Thus, instruments such as user surveys, formative evaluations of interfaces and usability tests help in the identification of the user demands. The user, although in the center of the software development process, is an abstract individual, commonly identified with archetypes of personas.

On the other hand, the Audience Studies part from the comprehension of behaviors and motivations of the message receivers. The audience analyses, although abstract, generate objective data over actions towards the message. Then, behaviors can be inferred and decision-making processes can be analyzed, even if they are related to a simple change of channel in a TV set during the commercials, or if they are the motivation resulted from the engagement to an online video. The workflow proposed herein contains the intersection of these two fields of study, incorporating elements from the processes of digital systems and interaction interfaces design, as well as analyses over audiovisual content fruition, mixing and alternating the different roles.

4 Examples of Application for the Audiovisual Design Workflow

Per our proposed workflow, the audiovisual design and its economic placement must consider elements such as software development, HCI, data mining in big data environment and the adaptability of the content to a vast array of environments, usage scenarios, screens and markets. To facilitate the comprehension, we present in this essay one real and one projected example about how this workflow is viable in the audiovisual practice.

The real life example is extracted from to the current television and cinematographic productions. Although the movie theater and the broadcast stations remain the ‘first paths’ followed by the distribution of movies and TV Series (except, of course, for productions in the Netflix’s business model), more and more media corporation need to take into account the new reality, that is, the timeshifting, the multiplatform content, and a growing competition with new, different audiovisual producers.

In Brazil, the main TV network (Globo) has been performing tests on this new field, but still in a very limited way. Two digital services gather audiovisual content originally produced by and for the broadcast station, GShow (http://gshow.globo.com) and GloboPlay (https://globoplay.globo.com), operating through websites and mobile apps for Android and iOS. The first is dedicated to expand the company’s entertainment content, offering video series exclusive for web, news about the stations’ main productions, etc. This portal also delivers edited segments of the television shows (specially the comedy ones), and unaired content. GShow is also present in some social networks, like Facebook, and publishes the content trying to achieve some spread and to engage the Audience, which is mainly formed by youngsters already used to the networks and who normally spend a great amount of time in front of the computer screen. GloboPlay, on its turn, contains a collection of shows on-demand, divided into segments that can be accessed and viewed by anyone after the display of some publicity (similar to YouTube’s advertising scheme). Subscribers can watch the integral, ad-free version of the shows, and have access to the live transmission over IP.

The program chosen as an example is a comedy show called “Tá no Ar: A TV na TV” (It’s On Air: The TV on the TV). Its sketches simulate the television programming and its specific genres and language, such as Newscast, telenovelas, advertising spots, music videos, thus performing an acid critics to the entire television and to the public affairs, including the politics. Tá no Ar has short seasons (around 10 episodes) and is on its 4th year. Its increasing popularity is in part due to the actions on the internet. Today, the official Facebook page has around 170 thousand likes; segments of the show shared on the page (some exclusive or unaired) reaches around 100 thousand views in two weeks, and the mouth-to-mouth spread contributed to a growing audience rating year after yearFootnote 3.

It should be stressed that this is a television show planned for a relatively-segmented audience in the Broadcast model (young people that stay awake after 11 pm in weekdays). The criticizing position of the show, however, permitted true humoristic pearls among the sketches, questioning both the political scenario and the population behaviorFootnote 4. This type of content facilitates the engagement of people hitherto divided on their political preferences. The show’s editing – as if an impatient viewer is changing channel all the time – makes each sketch viable to be reused on the website or FacebookFootnote 5. Consequently, the Audience is easily habilitated as Synthesizers, sharing and commenting the content, and those actions become an important feedback to the editorial line of the show.

During the new season, in 2017, Tá no Ar seems to have intensified the tone of the critics and the use of web, distributing memes on social networks (made of extracts from the show) and making available exclusively for GloboPlay subscribers the anticipated launch of the first episodes. On the other hand, the design of the show does not predict tools that could allow a more complete experience of the individual interacting with the production. The broadcaster opted not to use the web tools in their totality. For instance, the content cannot enable people as Modifiers. Most the remixes are made by the Producers, who keep total control over the content itself and over how the content is viewed and enjoyed by the Audience. GShow and GloboPlay’s websites and mobile apps miss usability and present a reasonable amount of issues, impeding the users to a smooth experience while watching the videos. It is very difficult, for instance, to search and find a specific part of a show and share it with other people, as a form of expression of the individual self.

Therefore, the return provided by the content is limited to the concepts of Identification, with the due attribution of value to the show by the individuals, and Motivation, by the controlled use of content made available by the Producers. The Audience engagement is also limited to advertising the show on their social networks, just complementing the announcements made by the TV station itself during the commercial breaks. Globo commits a mistake by not allowing the Audience a stronger engagement with Tá no Ar, then breaking the logic behind the show’s original design of using the internet as support.

GloboPlay’s poor web platform does not have an intuitive flow of use. For instance, the suggestions for a next video to be watched not ever exclude the one just viewed. The algorithm suggests random videos disconnected to the individuals’ preferences and, when this basic feature is considered, the suggestion returns something that has already been watched. Another issue, the search is limited to the name of the show and the broadcasting date. In the case of Tá no Ar, the user have difficulties in searching a sketch using a keyword, since this kind of specific information is not generally added to each piece available. As a result, the search takes more time and, eventually, must be made manually, for the person must open each program tab and look through a long list for the name of the video to share. Even by using a search engine like Google, a crossed search directs the individual back to the GloboPlay portal, and the video platform redirects to the main page, thus having the user go through the longest path to get to the video.

One of the main intentions supporting Tá no Ar is to work with the formats and velocity inherent to the web. Therefore, the Audience would be capable of turning into Modifiers and actually appropriate the content, if the broadcaster did not fear to improve their web platform. From this brief analysis, it is possible to point out the methods inherent to the HCI are missing in the show’s design – ideally conceived to use web resources. The content was planned considering the Audiences, but not how those people would use it. The user who wants a fragmented, on demand fruition has scarce conditions of appropriation and intervention. Furthermore, apart from data such as number of views and shares, a legacy to the audience analysis from the Broadcast model, the incorporation of complex feedbacks of the individuals in future productions has not been planned in the actual design. In consequence, the attribution of value to the content through web interfaces (utility) and the usage capacity (quality) are absent from the design because they were not included during the development.

To present the possibilities opened under the logic the Audiovisual Design, we present now a projected application of the workflow of Fig. 1. As a start, let’s imagine that a company of audiovisual production has decided to offer a web-based, video subscription service. To take a better advantage of the web environment resources and promote this new services, the company wants to offer its subscribers a serial show, in the model of a TV series, but which allows interaction and the construction of the storytelling for and by each subscriber. Nonetheless, the process must not be annoying by demanding too much interactions from the user.

Anyway, the story must allow multiple routes, for example, by emphasizing a given narrative genre as comedy or terror, or a defined character in a plot. In the beginning, the project stays on the common standard for producing audiovisual fictional series, as executed in almost every current TV production: an initial argument is developed into a script, and then into screenplays as the story advances and the audience interacts. Now, let’s imagine that the creation team has established a sufficient quantity of routes, broad enough for matching a varied range of demands. This result is achievable by using digital tools that compile and analyze data from other works, like the algorithms capable of generating a coherent literary text from a set of parameters and a broad database. Then, this creation would be a collaborative work between humans and computers, although supervised by humans. It is nothing more than the creation of different scripts inside the same narrative universe. Today, each sequence of the script leads to another sequence, in a linear construction. In this project, each sequence must be planned to present a coherent continuity within different narrative lines, which increases the complexity of the storytelling and demands a very deep creation process, complemented by the computer.

The next step is the shooting of the sequences. The color correction and the music score must be treated as additional procedures and originate separated data, intrinsic to each narrative line, so they can be processed and added to the final video by the system during the viewer’s fruition.

Part of the design includes knowing the profiles and preferences of the Audience. So, the platform used to provide access to the subscriber must also collect enough information to allow the recognition of some user’s preferences. Just like in Netflix, the users should input data in a form during the first access so the system can add the previous experiences. This questionnaire must be very carefully prepared so the data, when analyzed, can direct the production to a result that each person judges satisfactory. After some time, the reading of each individual’s behavior must be enough to feed the database used by the Producers to design the exclusive productions of this service. Besides, it is possible to apply algorithms to read the social network profiles of the subscribers. There are two possible processes: (a) data mining to outline the Audiences profile, which can aid in the creation of a story with enough elements to correspond the expectations of the possible largest number of subscribers; (b) the creation of narratives responsive to the historicity of each user [17], adaptable by software to each person in a relatively individualized manner to correspond to their preferences, through the choice of elements within an available data set.

During this stage of the design it is observable that the Producer (configured as the creation personnel of this company) must reunite a variety of competences, for instance the research and scripting, common to the TV production, and development and use of software to analyze big data, from the field of Computer Sciences. Moreover, this given production demands a specific competence: the ability to create an interface that aggregates value and usability to the user interaction.

When the individuals have their first contact with the series and know the storyline, the system must invite them to choose the narrative genre each one wants to watch (or the character to be emphasized), or even let the algorithm who has read each user profile decides. From the initial information, the software would start to create a story from fragments of scenes previously available in the database. In other words, the system would be designed to be capable of choosing a sequence of scenes to compose a narrative unity – a chapter – and editing them with the necessary elements (music, noises, colors, etc.) to create the atmospheres expected by each separate individual.

Hitherto we were considering the Player on its most basic level, as part of the Audience. The resulting chapter can, them, generate some level of engagement from the users. If they liked it, each one can share their exclusive content on their social networks, preferable from within the platform, supporting the most basic level of synthetization. At the same time, another tool can collect opinions and supply the information database that serve as guidance for the Producers (and the system) during the design. If different Audiences follow the same path, it is possible to sharp both the definitions of the algorithms and the lines of the script.

Another possibility to this phase is to allow the Audience members to interact with and change the story, habilitating them in the third level, as Modifiers. So, the design of the product must anticipate the possible alterations a user may want to make. An Improver may want to add or delete scenes, change soundtracks, re-edit, etc. A Remixer could create memes or other sharable content, such as music videos, or mix different narrative lines into a new storytelling. The handiness of those tools and of the modifiable content can be predicted in the platform, so the system can collect information about the alterations to supply the Producers. From the observation of the Modifiers’ works shared with the Producers or with other individuals, another important set of data can be acquired: the significations and resignification of the storytelling. Also, the feedback from Modifiers can even help to improve the tools used in the creation of content.

To the most part of the common seriated audiovisual work, the creation process is never completed when people start to watch the productions. Regarding our example, the Producers would use the continuous flow of information to redesign the interaction route and the storytelling continuities, now supported by the users.

An alternative to this example would be the use of a software-generated animation instead of pre-shot live action sequences. The character’s texts and the narrative contexts would be more flexible in a responsive storytelling analyzed and controlled by a computer. Reaching the limit of all these possibilities, it is possible to propose that the machine itself would become the Producer. The analysis of the profile and the actions history of an individual would allow the generation of personalized content, that is, the “generative creation of the storytelling” [17]. The terms “creation” and “authorship” would then be relativized, but this discussion exceeds the scope of this text.

Both examples – the real and the projected – show the recurring need of working the software interfaces the individual will use to access the content, thus being part of the storytelling creation process (even when the audiovisual content produced to the broadcast is transported into the web environment). Likewise, the viewers must be analyzed also as users, altering the way the target audience is defined for an audiovisual product. There is one great difference between the Audience Studies and the HCI Studies during the advent of an audiovisual product. While the first always concerned about the speedy and the instantaneity a content reaches the audience through the Broadcast model, the HCI field, priming for the quality of usage, requires more time of research and development until the definitive application. The projected example showed, however, that this research can be performed concomitantly to the process of realization of the audiovisual work, and to its fruition.

5 Conclusion

This paper proposed a graphic workflow of production, interaction and fruition methods for Audiovisual Design. Different scenarios and roles performed by individuals during the procedures of access, the choice of content, the criterion for sharing, and feedback were considered. The graphic plan is based primarily upon the dynamics inherent to the spread of content, to which there is not anymore a central entity controlling the transmission of messages. The coexistence of this new communication model (the Spreadable) with the Broadcast and the Stickness ones has been contemplated, since different roles inherent to each model can be assumed by one individual during the act of content fruition.

The workflow has two practical applications. First, it offers tools that integrate HCI and Audience Studies to analyze concluded productions. Second, it can be used to predict interactions and propose new products, compatible with the technical and theoretical frames required in modern, attractive content. The set of methodologies used to support this workflow received the name Audiovisual Design, and was assembled around four lines that represent the main concerns a producer should have while designing audiovisual productions: the Individual, the Motivation, the Experience and the Content.

The intersections between the roles of the Audience, the Synthesizer, the Modifier, the Player and the Producer are easily analyzed from the point of view of the technologies and interaction interfaces used by individuals. As a result, usability problems or issues concerning value perception can be identified, generating data for an upgrade of the audiovisual product, from the story script to the interactive software.

The graphical workflow of Audiovisual Design presented in this work was robust enough to analyze two proposed scenarios, one real and one projected. However, more studies must be conducted to identify the key competences required for the individual change from one role to another, and in which contexts they are more relevant. These competences represent a central element to the comprehension of the motivations that lead to moments of passive audience or of an active interaction.

Moreover, the workflow is complex enough to predict applications that use the currently available tools, but it must remain open to incorporate technological changes that can reverse the design flow. Cognitive aspects and reinterpretations on the psychological bases of the HCI and the audience also can impact the flow. This evolution alters mainly the role of the Player, that now partially overlays the other roles. With more interaction tools available and, consequently, more people showing active attitudes towards the audiovisual product, the tendency will be the Player becoming more present and much more relevant during the design.

Finally, the Audiovisual Design as described in this paper will hardly be applied on its full version in the short term, largely due to the production costs and the deficiency of competences among people from every role to use all available tools. To mention some examples, in a country like Brazil a great part of the population still do not use the internet, and the network is important in most of the predictable scenarios. Likewise, the university formation of an audiovisual producer, when incorporates something about the digital systems, barely mentions something other than the basics of the web. Nonetheless, the Audiovisual Design remains a valid methodological set since it allows to think every phase of the design process as an isolated process. Also, it adds elements to the debate about the formation of the professionals who will produce this type of content.