Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Course Description
This course is designed as an introduction to emerging trends in interactive non-fiction
storytelling involving user participation, navigation design, and web distribution. Students will also
learn the basics of non-linear storytelling using software for designing web multimedia. Instruction will
include hands-on exercises in navigation design, critical analysis of outstanding interactive web
projects, and readings in the history, aesthetics, and challenges confronting this evolving field.
Course Overview
Interactive non-fiction spans interactive web-documentaries (sometimes referred to as “interactive
factuals”), journalistic multimedia stories, and transmedia projects that live across different media
platforms. In addition, emerging technologies of immersive storytelling – virtual reality, augmented
reality, mixed reality – will be explored as disruptions of conventional 2-D screen technology. In this
new universe, the focus shifts to viewers piecing together stories from non-linear web design. Students
will also learn the basics of non-linear web storytelling using Klynt (or equivalent), a software for
designing web multimedia. Through hands-on exercises and discussions of case studies of outstanding
interactive web projects, VR stories, and transmedia projects, students will be encouraged to explore
the following questions:
• How do these disruptive trends impact the conventional roles in content production (director,
editor, cinematographer, writer)?
• What is the potential for interactive storytelling in creating persuasive and moving content?
• Does non-linear storytelling design allow for deeper exploration of content, and if so, how do
storytellers operate in this limitless space?
• How does the practice of interactive non-fiction build on and depart from traditional non-fiction
for film and television?
1
RTVF Department Goals and Course Objectives
Students will learn the foundations of innovative web-based storytelling using archival video,
photos, graphics, data, and social networks. The following departmental goals and objectives will
be targeted and assessed in this course:
Additional objectives:
• Reflect and write critical analyses of web-docs and commercial interactive projects
• Deepen their understanding of “living history” mode of storytelling whereby storytelling
becomes active, updatable, and user-dependent
• Develop interactive storytelling forms using principles borrowed from design, interaction
studies and user-centric marketing
• Learn from guest lecturers as they discuss their approach to developing, funding, and
distributing interactive stories
• Prepare for professional roles in developing second-screen interactive content for
television and film and for pathways to advanced studies in interactive and immersive
media
2
Course Outcomes
Written Assignments 30 %
(Design and critical analyses of case studies in interactive storytelling)
Midterm and Final Exam 20%
Class Participation 10%
Final Interactive Project 40%
15% (Storyboard/pitch deck for interactive web storytelling)
15 % (User experience and user testing of interactive storytelling)
10% (Iterative re-design of interactive project)
TOTAL.................................................. 100
GRADING: Students will receive timely feedback on projects and assignments submitted, and a grade
for the course at the end of the semester. In this class, grade categories are as follows:
D = barely sufficient to pass the class
C = work done competently and submitted punctually
B = work is outstanding in either form or content, not both
A = work is original & successful in content, where applicable, excellent in craft & technical aspects.
Attendance/Assignment Policy:
Attendance is mandatory, each unexcused absence will result in a deduction of 5 points from
your Class Participation grade. All absences must have a valid excuse.* All lateness to class must
also have an excuse. Excessive lateness will be counted as unexcused absences. All deadlines are
hard deadlines; late work will not be accepted.
*YOU MUST NOTIFY PROFESSOR VIA EMAIL PRIOR TO OR IMMEDIATELY AFTER AN ABSENCE.
These emails will count as an acceptable excuse for the first 2 absences, after that a note is
required. Students are required to be available for production work beyond scheduled class time.
Blackboard Use
Readings, assignments, wiki posts, and other notices will be regularly posted via Blackboard. It is
your responsibility to check the BB site at least twice during the course of the week to look up
assignment deadlines and other dates. A percentage of your class participation grade will
comprise your effort in this regard. Most assignments will be handed in via BB and because they
are timed to disappear after deadlines, it simply won’t be possible for you to post anything late. I
will go over the procedures in class only ONCE. Please take notes, ask questions, and if still
unclear, see me during office hours.
Email
While I understand that electronic communication has come to be the way a lot of work is done, for
certain things, it is best to appear in person and discuss with your professor during office hours.
Between the different classes I teach and my other academic projects and responsibilities, I generate a
considerable volume of email and I often respond to them in order of priority. It is also conceivable that
when one sends an email, one almost expects it to be attended to right away. You are hereby advised
that depending on the urgency of the matter, you should not expect a response to your emails before
24-hours.
3
Statement On University Policy
For specific policy wording relating to the following important matters: Academic Dishonesty;
Student Access Services; Deadlines and Grading Policies; Absences for Religious Observance;
Discrimination, Harassment, Sexual Misconduct; the Center for Academic Excellence, see Hofstra
Policies: Wording for
Syllabuses: https://www.hofstra.edu/about/administration/provost/provost-hofstra-
policies.html .”
4
RTVF 20 COURSE CALENDAR
(SUBJECT TO CHANGE)
Week 2 Critical Analysis#2 – New York Times and National Film Board (Canada)
Feb 4/6 Highrise project;
Reading: Aston et al Chapter 1 and 3 (i-Docs and the documentary
tradition; Co-creation and i-doc)
Week 5 Klynt Tutorial #3 (Timeline and nodal editing) ; Writing for non-linear
Feb 27/Mar 3 storytelling; Pitch Klynt projects
Reading: Aston et al Chapter 6, 7 and 8 (Software as co-creator;
Evaluating users’ experiences)
Spring break – class does not meet during the week of Mar 15-21
Week 7/8 Klynt project – Prep and User testing of initial mock-ups – feedback
Mar 17 - 26 session
6
Web-documentary Portals
MIT Docubase – an interactive curated database of the people, projects, and technologies
transforming documentary in the digital age.
http://docubase.mit.edu/
NFB/interactive – a portal through which to browse all of National Film Board of Canada’s i-docs
projects to date.
http://www.nfb.ca/interactive/
idfa DOCLAB – show-casting the rich international range of webdocs presented at idfa DOCLAB so
far.
http://www.doclab.org/category/projects/
TFI Sandbox – all the projects sustained by the Tribeca Film Insitute
http://sandbox.tribecafilminstitute.org/
XO Labs – blog and site for an international training organization dedicated to developing the
production of crossmedia content and exploring the creative and commercial challenges of
developing digital media. Interactive arm of Sheffield Doc/Fest.
http://www.xolabs.co.uk/
Select Bibliography
7
Almeida, A.; Alvelos, H. (2010), “An Interactive Documentary Manifesto“. In: ICIDS’10.
Proceedings of the Third joint conference on Interactive digital storytelling. Heidelberg: Springer-
Verlag. Berlin. Conference Proceedings, pp 123-128.
Aston, J.; Gaudenzi, S. (2012), “Interactive documentary: setting the field”. In: Studies in
Documentary Film. Vol. 6 Issue 2:
Davenport, G.; Murtaugh, M. (1995), “ConText: Towards the Evolving Documentary”. San
Francisco: ACM Multimedia 95. In: Electronic Proceedings, pp. 5-9:
Dovey, J; Rose, M (2012). “We’re Happy and We Know it: Documentary:Data:Montage”. In:
Studies in Documentary Film. Vol. 6 Issue 2:
Galloway, D.; Mcalpine, Kenneth B.; Harris, P. (2007), “From Michael Moore to JFK Reloaded:
Towards a working model of interactive documentary”. In: Journal of Media Practice, 8(3), pp 325-
339:
Gaudenzi, S. (2013), “The Living Documentary: from representing reality to co-creating reality in
digital interactive documentary.” [Doctoral Thesis]. London: University of Goldsmiths. Centre for
Cultural Studies (CCS):
“i-Docs special edition” (2012). In: Studies in Documentary Film, vol 6 issue 2, edited by Judith
Aston , Jonathan Dovey and Sandra Gaudenzi.
Lietaert, M. (2011), “Webdocs… a survival guide for online filmmakers.” Notsocrazy!. With the
support of Idfa Doclab.
Miles, A (2014), “Materialism and Interactive Documentary” (Pre-print version) In: Studies in
Documentary Film: Vol. 8
Nash, K. (2014) “Strategies of interaction, questions of meaning: an audience study of the NFBs
Bear 71”. In: Studies in Documentary Film. London: Routledge
8
Ursu, M. F.; Zsombori, V.; Wyver, J.; Conrad, L.; Kegel, I.; Williams, D. (2009),“Interactive
Documentaries: A Golden Age”. In: ACM Computers in Entertainment, Vol. 7, No. 3, Article 41,
27pp.