Found 11 total tags.
Every work in Related Works sits in exactly one of four groups. The division is not about what a work looks like but about which conversation made it and judges it — who the maker was answering to, and therefore what kind of evidence the work can be used as.
Several works could plausibly sit in two groups, and the forced choice is the point: it makes explicit a judgement that would otherwise stay vague. Where the call was close it is stated on the group’s own page.
38 items with this tag. Showing first 10 tags.
Works whose makers are composers, and whose medium is a rule set: a page of written instructions, or a piece of software the players run while they perform. What is fixed is what each player is allowed to do and what they must wait for; what comes out is not. They are read here for what the rules require of the people performing them — who has to hear whom, who is allowed to decide, and what a player cannot do alone.
The group runs from 2015 to 2025. An earlier version of it, assembled on 2026-09-21, held five historical scores instead — Cardew’s The Great Learning Paragraph 7 (1968–71), Riley’s In C (1964), Wolff’s For 1, 2 or 3 People (1964), Oliveros’s Sonic Meditations (1971) and Zorn’s Cobra (1984). Those pages are still in the repository with publish: false and can be restored one at a time; the lineage they describe is the one this group continues.
Close calls. Tympanic Touch and Frontier and H3 are games with rules, scoring and, in two cases, software — they sit here rather than under game-studies because their makers are composers and the works are presented and judged as music. Cello Fortress goes the other way: its maker is a game developer, it is shown at game festivals, and it is filed under game-studies even though a cellist is improvising throughout. Sound of Light is filed under music-hci: nothing is composed, and what was built is an instrument for several hands at once.
Works whose makers were thinking about rules and play, and whose arguments are game design arguments. Some are screenless and put bodies in one room; others are commercial video and tabletop games played around a screen or a board. What puts them in one group is that each was designed, reviewed and argued over as a game.
Close calls. Starry Heavens and Interference are gallery installations and could sit under interactive-art. They are here because Eric Zimmerman is a game designer and theorist and both works describe themselves as games — one “a political fable in the form of a game”, the other “a 2-player game” on a steel wall. The frame the makers chose is the frame used here.
12 items with this tag. Showing first 10 tags.
Works made for exhibition and judged by a public. They are design precedents, not academic evidence — none carries a formal user study, and what is known about how people behaved in them comes from the makers’ own accounts.
That is worth stating plainly, because these are the most persuasive works in the collection. They are the ones with the budgets, the photographers and the crowds, and it is easy to let a good photograph stand in for a finding.
Close call. Cave of Sounds also has a NIME 2014 paper and could sit under music-hci. It is here because the page describes the touring installation — Barbican, V&A, Athens, Milan — rather than the paper.
Works built as instruments or musical interfaces and published at NIME, where the argument is about mapping, agency and who can play without training. Because they are papers, they come with method and findings — these are the works usable as academic evidence rather than only as design precedent.
The group spans twenty-two years, from Tooka in 2004 to SampleRate and Projected Geometry in 2026, which makes it the place to look for how the question has moved.
Their figures are reproduced here under the NIME proceedings’ CC BY 4.0 licence, credited per image.
14 items with this tag. Showing first 10 tags.
Every paper in Papers carries exactly one of these. The categories are from Wobbrock & Kientz (2016), Research Contributions in Human-Computer Interaction (doi:10.1145/2907069), with one split and two omissions — the reasoning is on the Papers page.
Sorting by contribution rather than by topic is what makes the list useful: it predicts what a paper can and cannot be asked to do, and it makes an unread category countable.
Papers whose contribution is the thing itself — an installation, an instrument, a system — presented and argued for. Under no obligation to report whether it worked for anyone, which is exactly what the category anticipates before the PDF is open.
Papers that run workshops or build a series and come back with themes, dimensions and implications rather than one artefact.
Not standard terminology. Wobbrock & Kientz file these under Artifact. Separating them is a judgement made here, not a citation to lean on — but the two read completely differently, and holding one to the other’s standard is a misreading.
1 item with this tag.
Papers whose contribution is a procedure — how to collect, how to analyse, what the method can and cannot support. Read for the steps and for the stated limits.
1 item with this tag.
Papers whose contribution is the map: what exists, how it sorts, and what is missing. Read for the classification scheme and the future-work section — the gaps a survey names are the most reusable thing in it.
1 item with this tag.
Papers whose contribution is conceptual — definitions, frameworks, and the relations between them. Read for the definitions and for whether the concepts hold together, not for findings.
1 item with this tag.