Constraints and End User Development 1

An Exploration of Constraints and End User Development in Environments for Creative

Tasks

Tim Coughlan & Peter Johnson

HCI Group, Department of Computer Science, University of Bath

Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank the Engineering and Physical Sciences

Research Council U.K. for funding this research, and the participants who gave their time to

evaluate the system.

Contact: T. Coughlan, timcoughlan99@gmail.com

Cite as: Coughlan, T., & Johnson, P. (2008). An exploration of constraints and end user

development in environments for creative tasks. Intl. Journal of Human–Computer

Interaction, 24(5), 444-459.

 Constraints and End User Development 2

Abstract

Creative tasks are performed within constraining structures. However, the exploration

and development of these structures is central to the creative process. This paper summarises

research on the role of constraint in creative tasks, defines the role of constraint development

in a model of the creative process and classifies types of constraint in order to inform the

design of environments for creative tasks. We explore links between constraint development

and end user development in software environments through analysis of the design and use of

Music Builder, a prototype for the user development of musical instruments in a collaborative

composition environment. Conclusions include the value of scaffolding as a metaphor in

design, the utility of collaborative constraint development to negotiation and coordination

and the value of sharing structures in collaborative development.

 Constraints and End User Development 3

An Exploration of Constraints and End User Development in Environments for Creative

Tasks

Creativity has been studied across a wide range of disciplines, leading to a detailed

understanding of the processes involved from multiple perspectives. Our aim is to take what

is appropriate from this body of knowledge and translate it into useful information for the

design of interactive systems. Therefore we need to understand how people interact with the

environment and each other in creative tasks. Creative work can be understood inclusively as

a tension between divergent and convergent thinking (Baer, 2003), an iterative process of

ideation, representation and evaluation (Coughlan & Johnson, 2006), and as occurring where

challenging problems are matched to skills and motivation (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996).

Additionally the interaction of individuals in a society develops structures through which

creativity occurs and shapes the evaluation of creative outputs (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996).

Throughout these perspectives, a ubiquitous property of creative work is that constraining

motivations, tools and conceptual structures are necessary to direct and support creative

activities, but that the ongoing questioning and development of these structures is central to

the process.

Across domains, creative work occurs within various structures, from a physical

instrument, to a software environment, to a language developed to formalise specific

concepts. It is however essential to supporting and promoting creative thought that

practitioners have the ability to explore and modify aspects of these structures. The novelty

required in a creative output commonly arises through the use of novel variations or

combinations of concepts and tools, compelling creators to explore paths less followed. We

argue that computer-based environments for creative tasks both constrain the creative process

in new ways and provide new possibilities for creators to work with constraints, particularly
 Constraints and End User Development 4

through the notion of end user development. To move from theoretical understanding to

practical design knowledge we analyse the design and use of a system for the user

development of musical instruments.

The atomic elements of creative work are ideas – a thought or suggestion of a possible

course of action. The nature of an idea is domain-specific, as are the forms through which it

is represented (Coughlan & Johnson, 2006). Ideas do not occur in a vacuum, but exist with

reference to specific situations, knowledge and stimuli, and in response to problems we are

motivated to explore. Finding these problems of interest is key, whilst problem solving is ill

structured, because the path to a suitable solution is not clear as the task is performed.

Spatial metaphors have been used to represent the creative process from this

perspective. Creators approach a new task with a wide, unexplored solution space, forming a

vast array of possible actions (Boden, 1991). Decisions are made to place boundaries within

this space or choose areas to explore. A minimalist overview of a creative process would

begin with initial exploration of some of a vast range of possible actions – perhaps by making

rough sketches, brainstorming, or exploring musical possibilities through playing an

instrument. The space of possibilities diminishes in scope as choices are made to keep or

discard ideas and concepts that have emerged – for example if a particular musical phrase or

subject matter is identified as valuable, subsequent ideation and evaluation will take it in to

account. In reality there can be a great deal of deviation and reversal as creative practitioners

develop and reflect on the intended outcome at various levels.

Constraints in Creative Work

Research has highlighted the centrality of constraints to creative processes across

creative domains: Scientific theories are created as possible solutions within a set of observed
 Constraints and End User Development 5

constraints. Designers are generally presented with initial constraints required of any

solution, such as health and safety laws or limited budgets. Artistic work is perhaps less

constrained by external prescription, but in its place practitioners enforce constraints to focus

their activity, for example by concentrating on a single subject matter or restricting the

materials with which they work. Stokes argues that useful constraints preclude conformist,

tried and tested responses and promote novelty. Successful creators generate novel, valuable

products by finding or developing demanding task and subject constraints that partially

define an overall goal of interest (Stokes, 2006).

In design, constraints are commonly identified as a basis for bounding the design

space in which solutions must fit. A range of constraints from cost or available materials to

the functions required of the design can be identified and used to frame the process.

Chandrasekaran notes that “all design can be thought of as constraint satisfaction” but in

design tasks of any complexity the space satisfying constraints that can be formally defined

remains large, with many ‘correct’ solutions (Chandrasekaran, 1990).

Pérez y Pérez and Sharples classify constraints in creative writing either as external

factors - tools and resources existing in the world, or mental constraints that reflect

requirements for content or rhetorical issues of how best to compose for the audience.

Writing involves periods of engagement and reflection. Engagement entails realising ideas

that are expected to comply with constraints. Constraints “drive the production of material

during engagement”, but writers also enter periods of reflection when they run low on ideas

or feel compelled to depart from current constraints due to divergent thinking (Pérez y Pérez

& Sharples, 2001). In modelling the process of musical composition, Pearce and Wiggins

identify three types of constraints on the composer: Internal - the requirement to fit with

existing ideas in the composition, external - the limitations on what it is possible to create,
 Constraints and End User Development 6

given current skills, tools and knowledge, and stylistic - constraints relating to the intended

outcomes and genre (Pearce & Wiggins, 2002).

Although some form of collaboration is inherent to most creative work, collaborative

constraint development is little understood. Collaborative creativity is also poorly served by

existing computer environments; for example there is a stark contrast in the musical domain

between the highly collaborative nature of most musical endeavours and the single user

design of the vast majority of music software (Coughlan & Johnson, 2006). Therefore this

research explores the role of constraint development in mediating creative collaboration.

A Model of Constraint Development in the Creative Process

Combining existing creativity research with analysis of our previous observational

studies (Coughlan & Johnson, 2006), we have developed and refined a descriptive model of

the creative process. Creative work is defined as a cyclical, iterative process of ideation – the

generation and representation of novel thoughts - and evaluation – reflection on the value of

generated ideas. These cycles are interspersed by periods of constraint development, a sub-

process that considers the fit of existing constraints, how new constraints could affect the

outcome and then implements changes to the constraint structure. The model has been

developed to aid general understanding of creativity support needs and to define the role of

constraint development.

Forms of Constraint

Our model defines three forms of constraint from the perspective of designing

technological support. Tangibility is the essence of the external constraints of Pearce &

Wiggins and the task constraints of Stokes. We therefore define tangible constraints as
 Constraints and End User Development 7

properties in the virtual or physical environment that have defined qualities and limitations,

such as a painter’s palette or the range of a piano. Subject and goal constraints in Stokes’s

definition are, like Pearce & Wiggins’s stylistic constraints and Pérez y Pérez & Sharples

mental constraints, conceptual notions that have no defined form. We therefore define

conceptual constraints as those constraints that exist in the minds of practitioners, such as

aiming to create a painting in an impressionist style. Finally, Pearce & Wiggins’s notion of

internal constraints highlights an essential factor in the process of composing creative

solutions and should be central to the development of support environments. Examples of

internal constraints include a drumbeat that a collaborating musician should play to, or a

figure in a painting that additional features must fit around.

In addition to considering forms of constraint, the model considers that at some level

constraints are either malleable or static. In any creative process there will be supporting

tangible and conceptual structures that remain static and provide the basis from which

malleable constraints are built – for example a writer might only use the English language, or

a musician only a specific software environment. By considering the static constraints in any

given situation, we can differentiate and analyse the areas in which practitioners consciously

explore constraints, and the underlying structures used to frame this exploration.
 Constraints and End User Development 8

Figure 1: Model of Constraint Development in the Creative Process

Explanation of Process

A cycle begins either with an initial development of constraints or exploratory

ideation in the existing constraint structure. Each phase of ideation is informed by the current

conceptual and internal constraints, and bound by the enforced tangible constraints. Tangible

constraints and ideas are evaluated with reference to conceptual goal constraints, leading to

decisions on whether to retain an idea – in which case it becomes an internal constraint, and

also whether to maintain or transform current constraints. While constraints are maintained,

cycles of ideation and evaluation form the basis of the creative process. If a decision to

develop constraints is taken, conceptual constraints may be reconsidered, or tangible

constraints modified where possible. A cycle of ideation and evaluation then tests the validity

of the new constraints.

For example, musicians may begin composing by choosing instruments, a scale, key

and / or a theme. Next they perform ideation within this space, for example through

exploratory play. They evaluate what they play with respect to aesthetic sensibilities and
 Constraints and End User Development 9

conceptual goals, and use this to consider whether to retain played ideas in the composition,

and whether to modify or add to the constraints they have built. They may later find and

retain a specific musical phrase and build the rest of the composition around it, using the

inherent internal constraints to reduce the solution space.

Constraint and End User Development in Creative Interaction Design

Constraints form an important conceptual lens through which to view the design of

environments for creative tasks. Environments that are open to manipulation through end user

development mirror the creative mind by allowing users to question and explore boundaries

(Smith, 1993). The virtual can be far more malleable than the physical environment, as our

prototype study highlights. However limitations can form useful points of reference, setting

fixed structures within which creative work occurs and is understood. The computer

“enhances freedom for exploration, but also contains within it the potential tyranny of

continual choice” (Haworth, Coldwell, Gollifer, Kemp, Faure-Walker & Pengelly, 2005).

Conversely, well-designed software environments can aid the development and use of

constraints by promoting reflection and ensuring that constraints are satisfied. Candy notes

that a tool for scientific visualisation “presents the existing constraints, the human revises

them and the resources of both are employed in the process of considering and negotiating

plausible revisions” (Candy, 1997).

The interface defines a tangible constraint structure that is to some degree comparable

to the physical constraints of a non-computerised environment, as the properties of the

interface define the scope of possible actions. Our theoretical understanding suggests that it

should aid users to be aware of the tangible constraints imposed upon them and be
 Constraints and End User Development 10

empowered to apply and manipulate them where feasible. The structures provided to

manipulate the environment then define the static constraints on the user.

It is also common for environments for creative tasks to support the capture and

representation of ideas. Across domains, composition requires an understanding of the

internal constraints inherent in the combination of ideas expected to form the outcome. As the

computer understands elements of user’s ideas in more detail, it becomes more of a partner in

the process by providing useful feedback and a powerful interface for manipulation, but this

requires a formal structure that enforces specific processes and restricts possible forms of

representation. Environments for musical composition in particular provide only a fixed set

of unambiguous representations through which users can define, evaluate and combine ideas,

allowing the computer to interpret them and produce music. In contrast, composition with

paper and standard instruments supports ambiguous representation and an ad-hoc process of

formalisation as musicians interpret, play and develop compositions based on the

representations (Coughlan & Johnson, 2006).

In summation we argue that relationships between designers and users need

reassessment in light of two issues. Firstly computers structure creative processes to a far

greater extent than other tools and demand greater formality from users. Secondly, computers

can conceivably empower users to explore constraints, and to develop and exchange not only

ideas, but also structures for creativity. There is great value in the artist / technologist

collaboration (Edmonds, Weakley, Candy, Fell, Knott & Pauletto, 2005), as creative

practitioners can be stifled in explorations of technology by a lack of technical skill. Beyond

these fruitful situations, can we free end users to develop and manipulate interfaces for

creativity without extensive technical expertise? The prototype study and analysis presented

here is used to explore this question and consider the value of this concept to users.
 Constraints and End User Development 11

Music Builder: User Development of Instruments for Collaborative Composition

A prototype system was designed to ground our theoretical work and identify

practical issues with constraint in user development environments. We focused on three

design aims:

1. Provide a support environment for collaborative musical composition.

2. Be inclusive through flexibility. Support individual needs in a collaborative context,

and the development of shared representations of ideas and constraints.

3. Encourage the development of constraining structures as a central part of the creative

process, without forcing users to become developers

Music Builder supports the user development of musical instruments in a networked

environment for collaborative composition. Tablet computers form a flexible physical

platform with which to create music through screen-based instruments, and hold some

appealing qualities as a musical interface: Interaction using a pen is less restrictive than with

a mouse or track pad, and the direct mapping between the elements displayed on screen and

the pen supports hand-eye coordination.

 Constraints and End User Development 12

Figure 2: Playing a Music Builder Client

Music Builder consists of three spaces corresponding to elements of the model

presented. The three spaces are designed to support fluid movement between creating

instruments, playing music and developing compositions. In the build space shown in figure

3, users can develop their own instruments in order to manipulate tangible constraints. These

instruments can then be used to play and record musical ideas in the play space, shown in

figure 4. Recordings made in the play space can then be replayed, combined and manipulated

collaboratively in the composition space shown in figure 5. This supports the evaluation of

ideas, reflection upon internal constraints and composition development.

 Constraints and End User Development 13

Figure 3: Build Space

Figure 4: Play Space

 Constraints and End User Development 14

Figure 5: Composition Space

The underlying structure of the building interface focuses on the essential properties

of musical instruments, defined as a means of gesture-based input mapped to a sonic output

(Hunt, Wanderley & Kirk, 2000). Instruments are developed by adding interaction shapes to

a free-form space, and defining how interactions with each shape (such as pressing, holding

or dragging) map to output values for sonic properties such as pitch, volume or voice. Users

link shapes to sound sources, which receive output values from the shapes, add these values

to their initial settings and produce sound. Figure 6 depicts shapes and sound sources linked

to form an instrument. To support informal representation, users can also draw anywhere on

the screen, using the space as a sketchpad.

 Constraints and End User Development 15

Figure 6: Sound Sources and Interaction Shapes combined to form instruments

Scaffolding

In designing a system through which users can create instruments, a trade off is

apparent: Complex environments usually involves a considerable learning process and rarely

support immediate engagement with ideas, while simplification enforces additional static

constraints on possible actions, for example by limiting the range of functions and options

available. We wished to reduce constraints without creating difficulties for new users. To

achieve this the metaphor of scaffolding was considered in the design.

In educational research scaffolding is an accepted practice where teachers create a

supporting environment for a student to learn through action, with structure provided but

removed as students develop the skills required to work independently (Wood & Wood,

1996). We consider this notion important to support for constraint development, aiming to

provide an initial level of constraint that is supportive of immediate action, but open to

manipulation and removal by users at will.

The scaffolding in the prototype takes the form of seven template instruments,

provided to engage users immediately and to make visible some of the possibilities of

instrument building. These represent a cross-section of possible interaction styles and sounds,
 Constraints and End User Development 16

including a drum kit, a piano and a Theremin style instrument where the pitch and volume

vary with proximity of the pen to a shape.

Collaborative Composition Using Music Builder

The system allows users to record instrument play individually or simultaneously

from both machines. This allows users to collaborate in a variety of ways, for example by

developing ideas individually then sharing them, or by jamming together and recording the

outcome. To support composition using these recordings, the prototype provides a shared,

networked space, based on the Sonic Sketchpad software developed and evaluated previously

(Coughlan & Johnson, 2006). This version employs the same notion of a library of recordings

and a paper-like space for composition where users can freely manipulate, arrange and link

recordings and add annotations, avoiding excess constraints on the representation of ideas.

Observational Studies of Music Builder Use

After an initial pilot study and work to address the basic usability issues identified

through this, 12 participants took part in the main study in 6 collaborating pairs. Musical

experience was varied, in keeping with our notion of support for a wide range of users.
 Constraints and End User Development 17

Participants included a pianist with 17 years of musical experience, a guitarist and a drummer

both having over 10 years of experience and a computer musician with 4 years of experience

using the software environments Cubase and Reason. At the other extreme, several of the

participants had only limited musical education, mainly from school lessons. Collaborators

were in some cases unknown to each other, but were generally friends who took part

together.

The studies took place in a usability lab, where screen-capture devices and cameras

provided a video record. The software logged actions to provide an accurate picture of user’s

interaction with Music Builder. Participants filled in questionnaires after each session and a

final exit questionnaire.

As one of our aims was to explore requirements for the design of systems to support

collaborative constraint development, we used the evaluations of the system to examine the

utility of shared visual and physical space to collaboration. Participants used the system

under the following three conditions in a within participants design:

1: Users co-located in the same physical space

2: A partition separating users, with a display repeating their collaborator’s screen

3: Users either side of a partition without shared screens

Participants could talk freely and hear output from the same set of speakers across the

conditions. A written tutorial was provided walking users through the features of the

environment. Participants were then asked to use the environment to produce a short

composition they were happy with under each condition, with the system wiped and restarted

after each composition was finished. No time limits were applied.

 Constraints and End User Development 18

Analysis

In analysing use of the prototype, we wanted to learn if, why and how musicians

would develop instruments in order to understand how interaction with these constraints

occurred. We looked for evidence supporting the validity of a user development approach

and issues relating to this, and the utility of the scaffolding and screen sharing. A further aim

was to relate our model to observations of interaction between creators and a software

environment.

Users spent between one and a half and three hours creating the three compositions.

In many cases users were still exploring new and interesting ways to interact with sound

throughout this time, and opinions of the instrument development concept were generally

very positive, particularly amongst participants with a previous interest in computer music.

Development of Constraints

Of the 12 participants, 8 made use of instrument building in at least one of the

conditions, while the remaining 4 used the template instruments throughout. As each

participant used the system 3 times, there were a total of 36 sessions. Each session was

categorised in to one of 4 use types based on system logs:

• Multiple Instrument Edits – Users cycled between instrument development and play /

composition

• Multiple Templates – Users changed templates between periods of play and

composition but did not develop instruments

• Single Instrument Builder – Users developed an instrument initially which they used

to play / compose without further editing

• Single Template – A single template was used throughout the session

 Constraints and End User Development 19

Figure 7: Frequency of Use Type By Session

The statistics presented in figure 7 provide evidence of user interest in the

development of instruments, and also that development commonly occurs cyclically and in

tandem with composition. Instrument development occurred in the majority of sessions, and

in almost all of these cases instruments and musical ideas were developed in cycles.

Participants used the ability to develop tangible constraints that defined conceptual

structures. A common example being the rearrangement and removal of notes on an

instrument, either to constrain play to a specific scale, or alternatively to constrain the

instrument to allow only the notes in a musical phrase to be played. The ability to manipulate

instruments also supported user innovation to overcome difficulties in achieving complex

goals. An experienced drummer linked shapes to multiple drum Sound Sources, enabling him

to play two or more drums with each tap. Through this he developed complex drum patterns,

overcoming the limiting effect of single-handed input.

Scaffolding

In 30 of the sessions the participant’s first action was to load a template instrument,

while in the remaining 6 sessions it was to build an instrument on a blank canvas. We learnt

through our observations that scaffolding fulfilled multiple user needs, providing a starting

point for instrument development, a basis for exploring the possibilities that exist in the

environment and an immediate ‘pick up and play’ structure. Users generally focused on

manipulating sonic constraints such as the range of notes or voices, rather than exploring the

various forms of interaction available, and the templates provided an existing structure for

interaction from which these sonic properties could be quickly modified and tested.
 Constraints and End User Development 20

Collaborative Development of Instruments

Instrument development can be seen as a design task to develop a structure from

which a creative output can emerge. The design of each other’s instruments was a common

theme of the dialogue between collaborators. Instrument design not only affects the group’s

musical capabilities, it provides a platform through which roles are coordinated and

intentions are explained. Qualitative analysis of approaches to development suggests that

sharing tangible constraints was a successful strategy for coordinating collaborative play.

Extended discussions of tonal properties and instrument structure were common. In one

session a user asked if he could pass his instrument over to his collaborator. Unfortunately

this was not supported here, but could provide an interesting extension. In the short-term, the

collaborative development of instruments with shared constraints provides a basis through

which collaborators negotiate conceptual and tangible constraints for the intended

composition. Further to this, instruments could evolve as tangible constraint structures passed

over networks as formal social constructions for musical creativity.

The excerpt below gives an example of collaborative development behaviour. By

describing the instrument as it is built and identifying a shared concept to realise, the

collaborators produce complementary instruments through which coordinated ideation is

effectively constrained:

P1 and P2 discuss how to proceed

P2: “Ah, shall I make a jazz scale keyboard?”
P1: “Yeah go on then”
P2: “Do you know jazz scale?”
P1: “Um, not really, tell me the notes”
P2: “OK hang on I’ll load up the piano and…”
P1 and P2 both load the piano template
P2: “That’s A, D, C… so we need to get rid of that one”
P2 removes several keys from the piano, P1 looks at the shared screen and
removes the same keys
P2: (looks at P1s actions on the shared screen) “Yeah, look at the screen, you
can see what I’m doing”
P1 plays the new keyboard, P2 puts the notes in order across the screen, P1
copies this action.
P2: “I think we need two octaves of these (keys)”
P1 and P2 add a second set of keys an octave higher.
 Constraints and End User Development 21

Three reasons for the success of this behaviour are suggested here: Firstly the

externalisation of constraints focuses effort on working within those constraints, rather than

developing ideas solely through conceptual notions which collaborators may define

differently. Secondly enforced, shared constraints make a collaborator’s actions more

predictable and provide a form of awareness information, narrowing the possible actions a

collaborator could take and increasing the likelihood of coherent collaborative play. Finally,

by restricting the instrument to notes that fit within a structure such as a scale, there is no

longer the need to use cognitive resources to evaluate whether the desired constraint is being

fulfilled, as it is impossible for it not to be so. These resources can instead be used to evaluate

the validity of ideas in terms of conceptual constraints, to attend to a collaborator or to

generate further ideas.

The excerpt also shows the value of shared visibility as a basis for explanation of

concepts. Collaborative developers used the shared screen when provided as a means to

understand each other’s instruments, and questionnaire responses provided further evidence

for the value of being able to view and compare instrument development. Further support for

this process could focus on allowing collaborators to better ‘read’ their collaborator’s

instrument by making more details of instrument properties visible.

Conclusions

In this research we have highlighted the suitability of end user development to

environments for creative tasks. Supporting the development of tangible constraints has
 Constraints and End User Development 22

several important benefits: Analysis of the observations suggested that a strategy of

collaborative instrument development promotes awareness and synergy and provides a

structure within which successful collaborative play was significantly easier. When possible,

the movement from conceptual constraints towards tangible structures promotes the

formalisation and evaluation of concepts as individuals and between collaborators. Creative

tasks involve the realisation of ideas fulfilling a set of constraints that often begin as

ambiguous or intangible concepts. The user development of the environment can support the

representation of these and allow new forms of reflection.

Additionally, these systems can reduce the constraining influence of the designer on

the user by supporting the modification of the environment. There were multiple occasions

where users created instruments with properties that we as designers would never have

considered ourselves, providing a valuable source of innovation and a reduction of barriers to

realising ideas.

In conclusion we present the following requirements in designing support for creative

end user development:

Provide scaffolding to support the immediate use and exploration of the environment

Creativity support environments need structure, but structure that can be pulled apart

by users at will. However the consistent availability of initial structures to adopt and explore

provided inspiration and was preferred to building from a blank screen. The ‘tyranny of

choice’ arises through a lack of available structure, and making tangible constraints in the

environment flexible may compound these problems. This was not apparent with Music

Builder because the templates offered the required initial structure.

 Constraints and End User Development 23

Support the sharing of developed structures and the visibility of actions in constraint

development.

The shared screen afforded users the ability to see collaborator’s actions, aiding the

communication of tangible constraints, however alternative designs for these interactions

may be more appropriate. The possibilities for sharing a single space are interesting, but

could be detrimental to the independence of users. Passing instruments or other constraining

structures between collaborators and across networks could provide a better model for user

development in creative tasks. Developed instruments form important representations of

user’s intentions, so the ability to read properties of each other’s instrument and gesture

towards elements in the space is key to communication.

Support fluid movement between ideation, tangible constraint development and evaluation.

Constraint development does not occur only as an initial stage of the creative process.

It is in general a reaction to the evaluation of represented ideas. As such environments should

fluidly integrate the representation of ideas and of constraints and allow users to explore the

interdependence of the two. Music Builder provides an example of the rich design space for

software integrating the representation of ideas with the development of constraints to

support both engagement and reflection in creative tasks.

 Constraints and End User Development 24

References

Baer, J., (2003) Evaluative Thinking, Creativity, and Task Specificity, In M. A. Runco

(Ed.), Critical Creative Processes. Hampton Press, USA. pp. 129-151.

Boden, M. A., (1991) The Creative Mind: Myths and Mechanisms. Basic Books.

Candy, L., (1997) Computers and Creativity Support: Knowledge, Visualisation and

Collaboration, Knowledge-based systems, vol. 10, Elsevier. pp. 3-13.

Chandrasekaran, B., (1990) Design problem solving: a task analysis. AI magazine,

Winter 1990, Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence. pp. 59-73.

Coughlan, T. & Johnson, P., (2006) Interaction in Creative Tasks: Ideation,

Representation and Evaluation in Composition, Proceedings of the SIGCHI

conference on Human Factors in computing systems, pp. 531-540.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., (1996) Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and

Invention. Harper Collins.

Edmonds, E. A., Weakley, A., Candy, L., Fell, M., Knott, R. & Pauletto, S., (2005) The

Studio as Laboratory: Combining Creative Practice and Digital Technology Research,

International Journal of Human-Computer Studies vol. 63 issue 4-5, Elsevier. pp.

452-481.
 Constraints and End User Development 25

Haworth, J., Coldwell, P., Gollifer, S., Kemp, T., Faure-Walker, J. & Pengelly, J., (2005)

Freedom and Constraint in the Creative Process in Digital Fine Art: An AHRB

Invited Workshop, Proceedings of Creativity & Cognition 2005, ACM Press.

Hunt A., Wanderley, M. M. & Kirk, R., (2000) Towards a Model for Instrument Mapping

in Expert Musical Interaction, Proceedings of International Computer Music

Conference 2000, pp. 209-212.

Pearce, M. T. & Wiggins, G. A., (2002) Aspects of a Cognitive Theory of Creativity in

Musical Composition, Proceedings of ECAI'02 Workshop on Creative Systems.

Pérez y Pérez, R. & Sharples, M., (2001) MEXICA: A Computer Model of a Cognitive

Account of Creative Writing, Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial

Intelligence, vol. 13, issue 2,. pp. 119-139.

Smith, D. C., (1993) Pygmalion: An Executable Electronic Blackboard, In A. Cypher

(ed.), Watch What I Do: Programming By Demonstration. MIT Press. pp. 19-47

Stokes, P. D., (2006) Creativity from Constraints: The Psychology of Breakthrough,

Springer Press.

Wood, D. & Wood, H., (1996) Vygotsky, Tutoring and Learning, Oxford Review of

Education Vol. 22, No. 1. Carfax.

 Constraints and End User Development 26

Figure 1: Model
 Constraints and End User Development 27

Figure 2: Playing a Music Builder Client

 Constraints and End User Development 28

Figure 3: Build Space

 Constraints and End User Development 29

Figure 4: Play Space

 Constraints and End User Development 30

Figure 5: Composition Space

 Constraints and End User Development 31

Figure 6: Sound Sources and Interaction Shapes

 Constraints and End User Development 32

Figure 7: Frequency of Use Type by Session