Interactive Web Documentaries: A Case Study of Audience Reception and User Engagement on iOtok

References

• Alkarimeh, B., “User and interactive documentary: An experimental study of user engagement with interactive documentary,” Library and information sciences. Université de Toulon 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Almeida, A., & Alvelos, H. (2010). An interactive documentary manifesto. Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. (Including Subser. Lect. Notes Artif. Intell. Lect. Notes Bioinformatics), 6432(LNCS), 123–128. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16638-9_16
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, C., Heinisch, J. S., Ohly, S., David, K., & Pejovic, V., “The impact of private and work-related smartphone usage on interruptibility,” in Proceedings of the 2019 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing and Proceedings of the 2019 ACM International Symposium on Wearable Computers, United Kingdom, London, 2019, pp. 1058–1063.
   Google Scholar
• APA, Manual of the American Psychological Association. 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., & Fugate, M. (2000). All in a day’s work: Boundaries and micro role transitions. Academy of Management Review, 25(3), 472–491. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2000.3363315
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aston, J., & Gaudenzi, S. (2012). Interactive documentary : Setting the field. Studies in Documentary Film, 6(2), 125–139. https://doi.org/10.1386/sdf.6.2.125_1
   Google Scholar
• Aufderheide, P. (2015). Interactive Documentaries : Navigation and Design. Journal of film and Video, 67(3), 69–78. https://doi.org/10.5406/jfilmvideo.67.3-4.0069
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cumming, G. (2014). The new statistics: Why and how. Psychology of Science, 25(1), 7–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613504966
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Czerwinski, M., Czerwinski, M., Horvitz, E., & Wilhite, S., “A diary study of task switching and interruptions,” in Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, Vienna, Austria, 2004, pp. 175–182.
   Google Scholar
• Docs, H., “2018 Documentary Audience Research,” Canadian International Documentary Festival called Hot Docs, 2018. https://www.hotdocs.ca/i/doc-audiences
   Google Scholar
• Dragicevic, P. (2016). Fair statistical communication in HCI. In Modern Statistical Methods for HCI (pp. 291–330). Cham: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Dubois, F. (2018). Interactivity as a key feature redefining documentary reality Images. The International Journal of European Film, Performing Arts and Audiovisual Communication, 21(30). https://doi.org/10.14746/i.2017.30.03.
   Google Scholar
• Epstein, M., & Knowlton, M., “The promise and realities of creating immersive media projects - Best practises,” Filmmaker Magazine, 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Forceville, C. (2017). Interactive documentary and its limited opportunities to persuade. Discourse, Context Media, 20(3), 218–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2017.06.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galloway, D., McAlpine, K. B., & Harris, P. (2007). From michael moore to JFK reloaded: Towards a working model of interactive documentary. Journal of Media Practice, 8(3), 325–339. https://doi.org/10.1386/jmpr.8.3.325_1
   Google Scholar
• Gaudenzi, S. (2013). The Living Documentary: Fromrepresenting reality to co-creating reality in digital interactive documentary. University of London.
   Google Scholar
• Gifreu-Castells, A., “Proposed methodology for studying and analysing the new documentary forms,” DOC online - Revista Digital de Cinema Documentário, no. 2017S, pp. 6–42, 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Harvey, K. (2012). ‘Walk-In Documentary’: New paradigms for game-based interactive storytelling and experiential conflict mediation. Studies in Documentary Film Experimental Conflict Mediation, 6(2), 189–202. doi:10.1386/sdf.6.2.189_1
   Google Scholar
• Jansen, B. J. (Jim), Understanding User-Web Interactions via Web Analytics, vol. 1, no. 1. 2009. SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Nash, K. (2012a). Modes of interactivity: Analysing the webdoc. Media, Culture and Society, 34(2), 195–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443711430758
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nash, K. (2012b). Goa Hippy Tribe: Theorising documentary content on a social network site. Media International Australia, 142(1), 30–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878X1214200105
   Google Scholar
• Nash, K. (2014a). Clicking on the world: Documentary representation and interactivity. In New Doc. Ecol. Emerg. Platforms, Pract. Discourses (pp. 50–66). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Nash, K. (2014b). Strategies of interaction, questions of meaning: An audience study of the NFBs Bear 71. Studies in Documentary Film, 8(3), 221–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/17503280.2014.958904
   Google Scholar
• Nogueira, P. (2015). Ways of Feeling: audience’s meaning making in interactive documentary through an analysis of Fort McMoney Punctum.. International Journal of Semiotics, 1(1), 79–93. https://doi.org/10.18680/hss.2015.0006
   Google Scholar
• O’Brien, H. L., & Toms, E. G. (2008, April). What is user engagement? A conceptual framework for defining user engagement with technology. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 59(6), 938–955. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20801
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Flynn, S. Documentary’s metamorphic form : Participatory and beyond documentary’s metamorphic form : Webdoc, interactive, transmedia, participatory and beyond. (2012). Studies in Documentary Film, 6(2), 141–157. 19 pag. https://doi.org/10.1386/sdf.6.2.141_1
   Google Scholar
• Pettengil, J., “Bear 71: How Interactivity Affects User Experience In Interactive Documentaries,” Ball State University Library, 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Vázquez-Herrero, J., & Gifreu-Castells, A. (2019). Interactive and transmedia documentary: Production, interface, content and representation. Studies in System, Decision and Control, 154, 113–127. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-91860-0_8
   Google Scholar
• Zamith, R. (2018). Quantified Audiences in News Production: A synthesis and research agenda. Digital Journal, 6(4), 418–435. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2018.1444999
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar