Table of Contents




• Introduction
  • Analytical Overview
• Traditional Challenges in Multimedia Editing
• Prototypes and Other Developments in Multimedia Editing Systems
  • Levels-of-Edit Method
  • Cut-and-Paste Graphical Editor
  • Syntax-Directed Editor
  • MediaMosaic
  • SILK
• Conclusions
  • Successes of Current Designs
  • Direction for Future Work
  • Implications for Collaborative Multimedia Editing
• References

Introduction

There have been several applications and designs developed to assist collaborative groups in the area of on-line text editing. However, the area that is equally important, but not yet thoroughly addressed, is that of on-line visual or graphics editing. Several designers have attempted to develop systems that address this editing gap; some have used text editors as springboards for visual editor designs, while others have developed completely new and innovative systems. The ultimate goal is to create a truly multimedia editing environment that serves both the textual and graphical elements of collaborative work.
 
 

Analytical Overview

This paper will discuss the studies and efforts of these designers in the development of on-line visual editing tools. It will also address the challenges presented by visual editing, which serve as the primary causes for the present lack of a workable, integrated solution. Finally, this paper will evaluate the current success and future direction and application of such editing tools, as well as their implication in collaborative design and authoring.
 
 

Traditional Challenges in Multimedia Editing

A review of several technical articles regarding visual editing indicates that several challenges exist in the arena of multimedia editing. These challenges include the following:

• Visual illiteracy. Traditionally, most editing systems and practices focus on text rather than on visual elements. As a result, there is a general lack of expertise in visual communication. Dukay et al. found that "In the technical communication field, editors who are verbally literate outnumber those who are visually literate" (Dukay 135). As discussed in the next section, the challenge faced by most modern design teams . teams of one or two people . is a lack of time or "visual literacy" to ensure that the visual communication is as strong as the textual communication.
• Lack of standardization. No two editors edit materials . whether textual or graphical . in the same way (Plotnik 11).
• Principle of least effort. Zipf. s principle states that "humans tend to adopt solutions to problems that require minimal effort" (Zipf 36). When given the choice between adapting existing software application skills to a task and learning a new and complicated software application for that task, users will opt for the easier tool (Citrin 105).
• Resistance to change. Many users are reluctant to convert to electronic editing of documents because of the impression, whether perceived or actual, that the electronic counterparts to manual "pencil and paper" editing are inferior and unfamiliar. Lin notes that "Comparing paper writing with computer editing, we think that the main resistance in using computer editors for collaboration lies in the lack of free-form markup functions on displayed documents" (Lin 137).
• Functional opacity. A corollary to the "resistance to change" challenge is the "gulf of execution" between how a designer thinks and how the computer translates that intention. Landay, et al. comment that "Traditional user interface tools force designers to bridge the gap between how they think about a design and the detailed specification they must create to allow the tool to reflect a specialization of that design" (Landay 45). An example of this is forcing a designer to use an intermediary device, such as a mouse or digitizing tablet, to "sketch" preliminary design ideas on the computer. Why would a designer opt for the clumsiness of manipulating an intermediary device, when he or she can simply use pencil and paper?

 

 

Prototypes and Other Developments in Multimedia Editing Systems

Levels-of-Edit Method

Kristin Dukay, Patricia Locke and Charles Tyrone developed their Levels-of-Edit Method after recognizing the evolution of design teams from groups of many to groups of very few . and in most cases today, to "groups" of one. The figure below illustrates this evolution of the one-person design team:

To compensate for the lack of several layers of independent review, companies such as Hewlett Packard and SAP developed levels of edit for performing quality control reviews of their printed products. Hewlett Packard. s editorial system comprises two levels:

• Developmental edit, which evaluates the design in terms of policy (objectives of and audience for product), content (design and organization) and language (grammar, spelling, etc.).
• Copy edit, which includes reviews of language (a second grammar/spelling check), style (conformity to the company. s style guide) and proofreading (to ensure that all revisions have been incorporated from the last version). (Dukay 135)

 

 

• Proofreading and format.
• Completeness and consistency.
• Comprehensiveness.
• Test of the document with the product.
• Technical review. (Dukay 135)

 

 

But as mentioned earlier in this paper, the challenge faced by most modern design teams . teams of one or two people . is a lack of time or visual literacy to ensure that the visual communication is as strong as the textual communication. Dukay. s Levels-of-Edit Method attempts to resolve at least a portion of this challenge, by providing the designer with checklists for evaluating that visual communication. Building upon the work of companies like Hewlett Packard and SAP, Dukay developed three levels of visual edit:

• Developmental edit, which addresses "organization, style, tone, choice of media."
• Content edit, which evaluates "clarity, completeness, technical accuracy, readability."
• Copy edit, which measures "correctness, consistency." (Dukay 136)

 

 

Dukay, et al. focus primarily on establishing guidelines for editors to evaluate multimedia content. They attempt to offer some commonalties of judgment to overcome the reality that no two editors edit in the same manner (Plotnik 11). They also aid the modern graphics team of one person assigned the multiple tasks of designer, editor, and reviewer by providing third-party criteria for evaluation. The challenge still remains of how to edit this multimedia content on-line, in a collaborative environment.
 
 

Cut-and-Paste Graphical Editor

Wayne Citrin, Daniel Brodsky and Jeffrey McWhirter confront the mechanics of multimedia editing, rather than Dukay. s approach of setting up reviewer. s guidelines. Citrin, et al. developed a method to assist designers in editing graphics efficiently: the Cut and Paste Method.

Citrin, et al. based their method on G.K. Zipf. s Principle of Least Effort, which states that "humans tend to adopt solutions to problems that require minimal effort" (Zipf 36). They maintained that when given the choice between adapting existing software application skills to a task and learning a new and complicated software application for that task, users would opt for the easier tool (Citrin 105).

In traditional graphic editing software applications, such as MacDraw or PowerPoint, a designer wishing to remove certain objects or elements from his "diagram" would select those items, and then press "Delete" or "Cut"; those selected items would then disappear, while the unselected items would remain unaffected. If the designer wants to fill in the gaps left by those removed items . for example, close corners or rejoin curves . he must perform several mouse drags/clicks and/or keystrokes to do so. In contrast, in traditional text editing applications such as WordPerfect or Microsoft Word, the "Cut" function not only removes the selected text, but it also closes the gap in the text area where those characters appeared, without requiring the user to perform additional keystrokes (Citrin 105).

In developing a method combining graphical editing with the Principle of Least Effort, Citrin, et al. evaluated several alternate approaches, including Hudson. s gravity fields, or snap-dragging; Von Känel. s semantic nets; and Arefi, et al.. s syntax-based editors. Citrin, et al. dismissed the first two approaches as far too restrictive and non-robust, and only loosely based their approach on Arefi. s syntax method (which is discussed in the next section, entitled "Syntax-Directed Editor"). Instead, Citrin, et al. looked to the Escalante system as the basis for their approach (Citrin 107).

The Escalante system is based on the visual language environment, rather than on a particular graphic (McWhirter 53). Its main advantage, other than not being tied to one particular graphical structure, is that it requires "a minimal amount of manual programming" (Citrin 107). Escalante is composed of two main elements, or modules:

• Base language module, which contains most of the language-specific functionality; and
• Base editor module, which is a rich system offering a variety of interaction styles, and which the designer can adapt to support either application-specific or language-specific tasks. (Citrin 107)

 

 

The second major feature of the Escalante system is the flowchart editor. The underlying functionality of this component is reminiscent of Von Känel. s semantic nets, in that the cut function retains the relationships between the elements that have been removed and those that remain; if the user pastes those cut elements back into the design, the semantic relationships are re-established. The figure below presents an example of how Escalante. s cut-and-paste function retains the semantic relationships between elements of a flowchart:

As the above figure illustrates, Escalante retains the semantic relationships that node B had with nodes C and D; so when the user pasted node B back into the design . this time beneath node E instead of above it . the system remembered those relationships and adjusted nodes C and D accordingly.

Citrin, et al.. s Escalante system certainly takes a step forward in the challenge to minimize effort on the part of the designer. The memory function of Escalante reduces the number of steps the user must take in order to re-establish semantic relationships between design elements in flowcharts. The obvious disadvantage to this automated function is that if the designer wants to change the relationships between nodes in his design . for example by cutting and pasting one node to another location . this task involves more keystrokes than a traditional cut-and-paste tool, such as in PowerPoint. Another disadvantage observed by the authors themselves is the programming time required: although the basic language editor in the Escalante system requires little manual programming, "specification of the behavior of the flowchart editor required over 200 lines of new code" (Citrin 111). This programming burden, unforeseen by Citrin, et al., certainly contradicts Zipf. s least effort principle.
 
 

Syntax-Directed Editor

Farahangiz Arefi, Charles E. Hughes, and David A. Workman concur with the other authors discussed in this paper in the belief that insufficient editing tools exist for non-text elements of multimedia environments. The premise for their work is that software applications cannot be edited with text editors, because programs are not text; they are merely represented textually. Therefore, in order to edit these programs, designers require editing tools that "view programs as hierarchical collections of programming language constructs" (Arefi 349). To accomplish this goal, Arefi, et al. developed a Syntax-Directed Editor, because they maintain that "syntax-directed, language-sensitive or structured editors, have knowledge of the underlying programming language constructs" (Notkin 18).

The Syntax-Directed Editor is similar in construct to Citrin, et al.. s Cut and Paste Method, in that it is "a cut-and-paste scheme based on syntactically correct sequences of editing operations" (Citrin 107). At the core of this scheme is the use of templates. "Templates depict the structure of the programming construct being represented and contain placeholders at positions where user-insertions are allowed" (Arefi 349). The benefit of using templates in syntax-directed editors over traditional text editors is three-fold:

• Fewer keystrokes = error reduction. Since the template provides an existing framework, users merely insert text where prompted, so there are fewer opportunities for typing mistakes.
• No syntax errors. Since the template automatically generates the program, there is no need for users to verify the accuracy of the syntax.
• Contextual compatibility. Since the editor can be used across various programs, it uses language consistent with that program. s existing vocabulary. (Arefi 349)

 

 

To address this disadvantage, Arefi, et al. took syntactic-directed editors one step further: visual language. Now, the user, or programmer, manipulates visual representations of a program . through flowcharts or other schematic diagrams . while the program generates the code, represented textually, in the background. This approach is reminiscent of the relatively new program, Macromedia Dreamweaver, which is a visually based HTML editor; designers who prefer to manipulate objects rather than recall strict lines of HTML code can do so, while the system automatically writes the HTML code in the background. The advantage to a visually based syntactic-directed editor is that it allows users the flexibility to carry out a multi-step editing task without having the editor disallow it because the first step removes a critical word. The value of this feature is that it reminds earlier syntactic-directed editors of the fundamental fact that programs are not text; they are merely represented textually.
 
 

MediaMosaic

The added challenge in the modern-day production environment is that graphics are not just stand-alone or inserted into printed text documents. Today. s documents are truly multimedia in that they often combine more than one form of communication . including text and graphics, drawings and photographs, audio and video. In addition, documents are no longer limited to the print media; they can be electronic as well.

Because of the virtually limitless forms of document elements, and of applications used to create them, today. s multimedia environments present two primary challenges:

• The file sizes of the multimedia products are orders of magnitude larger than ever before, raising concerns over storage space and display rates; and
• No mechanisms exist to edit multimedia documents created by multiple applications. (Lin 135)

 

 

MediaMosaic is based on the use of virtual screens. Users can view all or portions of a multimedia document; scan all elements throughout a document that are similar in structure, e.g. all images or video clips; and resize or reposition the virtual windows to fill all or only a part of their window (Lin 136-7).

Although some might question how the functionality of MediaMosaic differs from that of annotation tools in word processing programs . such as "Track Changes" in Microsoft Word . the key advantage to MediaMosaic is that it provides users with two modes of editing: general mode and comment mode. In the general mode, users can edit text directly; this is the feature that is most similar to Word. s "Track Changes." However, the added value of MediaMosaic is the comment mode, which allows users to annotate documents with editorial comments; this mode is attractive to those users who have been resistant to computer editing because of the comparative ease of hardcopy markup editing.

The MediaMosaic system offers the following advantageous features:

• Aids collaborative editing. Because the system enables live editing . i.e. edits made to the document within the virtual screen are duplicated in the original document . it retains version control and prevents other editors from reviewing obsolete text.
• Conserves storage space. Since the virtual screens are basically sharing information with the source document(s), rather than creating a duplicate document on which users add comments, it requires virtually no additional storage space.
• Enables review in context. Since users can resize and reposition the virtual screens, and can have multiple windows open simultaneously, they can see the consequence of their edits or comments in the context of the original document.
• Provides a familiar mode of markup editing. The comment mode within MediaMosaic more closely resembles the users. mental model of annotation, because it enables them to add comments the same way they would if they were marking up a printed version.
• Enhances ease of learning through consistent editing tools. Since the system provides its own editing tools and commands that are independent of any particular applications used to create the original document, users can easily and quickly learn how to use those tools to edit multimedia documents, because those tools do not change from document to document.

 

 

SILK

James Landay and Brad Meyers agree with Lin. s assessment that users resist computer editors because of their inability to permit free-hand editing of documents (Lin 137). Their solution to this challenge was to develop an interface that made it as easy to create free-form sketches as with pencil and paper. Their design, called SILK (or Sketching Interfaces Like Krazy), provides added value over the traditional pencil-and-paper method: it streamlines the step of transferring draft sketches to electronic format (Landay 44).

It is a widely held belief that designers should sketch out preliminary ideas for interfaces on paper, and work them through before transferring them to computer design applications. Similarly, many designers recommend prototyping draft interfaces in black-and-white, with placeholders for graphics and icons. The reasoning behind this is that, in this preliminary brainstorming stage, formatting issues, such as fonts and color, will distract designers if the tools to address these issues are available to them (Landay 43).

SILK does not offer these advanced formatting features to users in the brainstorming stage. Instead, it provides the same environment as pencil and paper, through the use of an electronic stylus, for designers to "sketch" their initial ideas quickly. However, perhaps the greatest value of the SILK system is its high degree of normative visioning. Not only does its simple sketching interface enable to designer to focus on rapid prototyping, but as the design project evolves, the tools provided by SILK evolve so that it supports the entire design life cycle, from brainstorming through prototyping to programming and testing (Landay 44-5). The figure below depicts the value of SILK as a robust system:
 
 

SILK offers the following added benefits:

• History. SILK retains earlier versions of prototype sketches, so users do not need to "reinvent the wheel" or start over with a blank sheet of paper if an evolved draft leads to a dead end.
• Seamless editor. Users can annotate and revise sketches, through the same markup behavior they would use on paper.
• Comprehensible interface metaphor. The designer sketches and annotates using a stylus, which functions like a pen or pencil; this feature eliminates the clumsiness of manipulating an intermediary device, such as a mouse or digitizing tablet.
• Transparency. SILK allows designers to use simple gestures to complete and refine their sketches; therefore, the interface is unintrusive.
• Reduction of effort. Because the preliminary sketches can be produced electronically, SILK saves the designer the step of transferring pencil sketches to the computer.
• Portability. Because brainstorming sketches are produced electronically, they can be transported to remote members of a collaborative team, e.g. via e-mail or posting on the Internet. (Landay 44, 46)

 

 

Conclusions

Successes of Current Designs

Earlier in this paper, several challenges to multimedia editing were identified:

• Visual illiteracy
• Lack of standardization
• Principle of least effort
• Resistance to change
• Functional opacity
• Addressing Visual Illiteracy

 

 

• Addressing Lack of Standardization
• In addition, the checklists offered by Dukay, et al. propose a first step in standardizing visual editing guidelines. They present a visual style guide of sorts, which can be used from product to product. They fortify the cohesion of the designer. s overall product by asking him questions to ensure that the visual components reinforce the message that the text conveys, rather than distracting the reader, viewer or consumer with unnecessary noise. These checklists can be used to validate a designer. s print layout, multimedia design, web site, interactive system, advertisement, or any other design endeavor that seeks to integrate text and graphics.
• Addressing Principle of Least Effort

 

 

Arefi, et al.. s work with Syntactic-Directed Editors has also addressed the design challenge of minimizing effort. By building upon the earlier efforts of text-based syntactic-directed editors, Arefi, et al. have evolved this concept to allow the designers to focus on what concerns them most . the design . by providing them with a system that worries about the background programming for them.

• Addressing Resistance to Change

 

 

• Addressing Functional Opacity

 

 

Direction for Future Work

Each of the systems evaluated provides positive steps toward richer, more robust systems for creating, standardizing, refining and/or collaborating on multimedia designs. However, they are still evolving, and as such have opened up paths for future development efforts. Dukay, et al. acknowledge that their checklists are not the definitive style guidelines for multimedia designs; rather, they "illustrate a method for editing" (Dukay 136). Additional editing models could include those focusing on magazines, books, and film, for example. While Dukay, et al. have made strides in assisting designers in the self-evaluation of their work, additional research should be conducted into "applying visual communication to technical documentation" (Dukay 136).

Moreover, in terms of individual design efforts such as flowcharts, certain stylistic and syntactic rules apply for creating them. However, no automation exists in current design applications for these rules. Therefore, this is an area of evolution for design packages, which corresponds to Zipf. s Principle of Least Effort: automate as many steps as possible in order to maximize the consistency and efficiency of the designer. s task (Citrin 111).

Even the seemingly rich MediaMosaic does not represent a fully evolved system. Lin acknowledges that the system presently lacks "a mechanism to print the multimedia document and there is no convenient way to instruct all editors to perform a save operation" (Lin 140). In addition, the markup editing functionality should continue to be refined. The system currently only contains free-form markup capability; drawing tools could be enhanced to enable more precise editing of graphics (Lin 140).

As should be apparent from the systems evaluated in this paper, there are many tools designed to assist designers in the creation and refinement of multimedia products; however, there are very few that reliably support collaboration in this regard. Lin. s MediaMosaic and Landay, et al.. s SILK are certainly positive steps in this direction, but there is a long development road ahead toward the ultimate destination of true collaborative multimedia design, and toward "intelligent assistance to the design process" (Miller 159).

Implications for Collaborative Multimedia Editing

Landay, et al. set an ambitious course for the future of collaborative multimedia editing: "We envision a future in which most of the user interface code will be generated by user interface designers using tools like SILK rather than by programmers writing the code" (Landay 52). Products like Macromedia Dreamweaver bear out this prediction: rather than forcing designers to be programmers, Dreamweaver frees the designers to concentrate on the design, while it writes the HTML code for them. Other products such as Digital Juice for PowerPoint . which provides presentation designers with a rich selection of backgrounds, animations, and images . facilitate the design process by automating frequently used processes. These developments in system design also provide users with enhanced templates and designs so that they are not starting with a blank slate, but rather using advanced design ideas as springboards for even better products.

References