The first reading, which is a sort of scene setting moment, is Aston, Judith, and Sandra Gaudenzi. “Interactive Documentary: Setting the Field.” Studies in Documentary Film 6.2 (2012): 125–139.

Something I am often amazed about when I stop to think is how ridiculously cool technology is. Here I am, hitting keys and making letters appear on a screen, and these letters form words and these words form sentences and these sentences have meaning. Not only that, but if I’m messaging someone on Hangouts (yes, I use Google Hangouts), they can be anywhere in the world, but if they have internet and a smartphone or computer, they will almost instantaneously get that message. Or I can click ‘Publish’ and bam. Anyone can read it.

I am a digital native, but sometimes when I stop and think, I get overwhelmed by how awesome things are.

Anyway, this ties in to i-docs because the position the authors take in this article is:

…that any project that starts with an intention to document the ‘real’ and that uses digital interactive technology to realize this intention can be considered an interactive documentary. (pp 125-126)

So that means that Facebook is an i-doc! Tumblr! That weird “will you press the button” thing! (Maybe even things like polls and surveys?)

As they’ve said, the definition above is deliberately broad, but that’s okay, because it means I get to riff off it. From what I’ve read, I think of the i-doc-iest i-doc to be a video in which you have the power to select options, and this leads you down different paths. Two examples that spring to mind: I am applying for grad jobs (which is an arduous process), and IBM has “Day in the Life” type videos, where you select your stream and can then select options at the end of the video which takes you to another video (based on your selection of an option). Another one, which is a bit looser, is reality TV where people can vote for their favourites. I was actually specifically thinking of this show I saw on the internet a while ago, where this guy has his life dictated by popular vote for a number of weeks. The episode ends with a poll, and the option with the most votes is the one the guy has to do (for example, to ask a girl out or not). I can’t remember what it’s called, which is a shame, but that’s the first thing that sprung to mind when I read about i-docs.

Even games can be i-docs, I suppose, as long as they’re factual. One that springs to mind (but might not really be an i-doc) is a game called Ingress, which uses the GPS from your phone to supplement the world around you – there are two factions which are battling, and by completing missions in real life but also through your phone, you help your faction. Cool, and with elements of experiential mode, but perhaps not quite real enough to be an i-doc.

A supplementary reading is Hight, Craig. “The Field of Digital Documentary: A Challenge to Documentary Theorists.” Studies in Documentary Film 2.1 (2008): 3–7. 

This reading was a little easier for me to wrap my head around. Having done Documentary Studies last year, there’s previous learning for me to build on, which is awesome! How great is learning?

This reading had a lot more background on documentary before diving into the i-doc or digital documentary speak. I thought the idea of evolution rather than revolution was interesting. Rather than dropping everything to create an entirely new medium, the rise of digital media has just allowed documentaries to change.