Hesitation, Choice and Platform Constraints: A Reflection on Audiovisual Essay Practice Based on Interactive Video

Video

Introduction

This project analyses how 'choice', 'hesitation' and 'constraint' interact within narrative design, formal selection and platform architecture, centring on interactive narrative video in the form of an audio-visual essay. Unlike treating interactivity as a simple tool to enhance narrative experience, this research considers it a field where power and agency are continually constructed and constrained.

This project transforms the creative process itself into its primary object of analysis. Narrative deletions, temporal choices, and platform migrations within production are not merely technical or aesthetic decisions, but reveal broader questions: who controls the rhythm, how choices are guided, and how limitations shape meaning-making.

Within this context, hesitation occurs not only in the viewer's act of watching and selecting, but equally in the creator's negotiation with narrative complexity and platform mechanisms.

Part One: Narrative Design: Constructing and Reducing Storylines

In the project's early stages, I drafted four storylines, each reflecting life's choices at different stages: childhood memories of drawing, selecting a seat at school, deciding whether to study abroad after university entrance exams, and choosing between rest or continued thinking when fatigued during study. These respectively reflected: maintaining personal style, integrating into the collective, seeking new opportunities, and managing anxiety when facing difficulties.

However, during actual production, I ultimately removed the fourth storyline about choosing between rest or continued study after fatigue. This decision resulted from both practical production constraints and careful consideration of the viewing experience and cognitive load. As Murray (1997) noted, interactive elements do not inherently guarantee deeper immersion; excessive narrative branches may instead induce confusion and fatigue. Interactive storytelling does not follow a 'more complex, better' principle, as excessive choice diminishes narrative focus.

From a production standpoint, each additional storyline exponentially expands the number of choice paths and possible endings. This means not only constructing a more intricate narrative tree structure but also investing significantly more time in logical structuring and visual presentation. Aarseth (1997) posited that ergodic texts demand 'non-trivial effort' from both users and creators. Within this project's timeframe, such effort gradually became unsustainable.

Therefore, the reduction of storylines was not a passive compromise but a conscious narrative design strategy. By limiting the narrative scale, this work attempts to balance complexity with perceptibility, emphasising the quality rather than the quantity of interactive experience. This allows audiences to focus more intently on the emotions and reflections arising from the choices themselves.

Part Two: Form Selection: Interactive Video, Hesitation and Time

I chose interactive video as the primary form for this work because life experience consists of countless choices. Unlike linear narratives, interactive formats place viewers in an active position, continually inviting them to become 'decision-makers' throughout the viewing process. However, this project does not treat interactivity as a gamification mechanism, but rather as a reflection and simulation of real-world decisional experiences.

In the specific design, I have not set explicit time limits for viewers' choices. This 'no countdown' approach is purposeful, aiming to preserve space for hesitation and pause. Salen and Zimmerman (2004), exploring 'meaningful play', note that the significance of interaction stems not solely from the action itself, but from the clearly perceived relationship between action and consequence.

In this work, removing time constraints liberates choice from the pressure of rushed completion, enabling the audience to fully perceive potential consequences before acting. Thus, hesitation becomes a crucial stage in generating interactive meaning, rather than an interval to be compressed or eliminated. The audience's pause between two options transforms selection from a functional click into a psychological and emotional experience. As Marks (2000) emphasises, meaning does not invariably derive from narrative outcomes themselves, but frequently emerges from bodily perception and emotional engagement.

Consequently, this project conceives interaction as a process rather than a result. The significance of choice lies not in the eventual conclusion reached, but in the period preceding selection, filled with uncertainty and tension.

Part Three: Choosing a Production Platform and the Critical Significance of 'Failure'

For production tools, I initially employed Stornaway to construct the interactive framework. However, the free version of this platform permits a maximum of ten story islands, which proved unable to support the multi-branch narrative structure I had designed. Under these constraints, I attempted to achieve transitions between videos through game logic. However, during repeated experimentation, the system evolved from initially 'always jumping to the same video regardless of choice' to becoming entirely unable to complete any transitions.

After a week of persistent debugging, I came to realise the issue did not stem from narrative logic errors. Instead, it was an inherent limitation of the platform's infrastructure. Nieborg and Poell (2018) note that within platform-based cultural production environments, creative possibilities are profoundly shaped by economic models and technical architectures. The subscription mechanism in this project directly intervened in the narrative structure, rendering certain choices technically 'impossible'.

Based on this realisation, I ultimately chose to produce the work on the open platform BiliBili. In contrast, BiliBili imposes no limits on the number of interactive junctions, allowing me greater freedom to implement the jump logic between videos and fully realise the original narrative structure. This platform change further reveals how platform structures intervene in agency at different levels. For audiences, choices are often preset and guided through interface design. For creators, the realisability of narrative structures is similarly constrained by platform rules and economic thresholds. While occupying different positions, both engage in negotiation with platform mechanisms at their respective levels.

In this sense, the 'failures' within the production process are not concealed but transformed into an experience of analytical value. It reveals that interactivity is not merely an expression of creative intent, but remains inherently situated within the negotiation of technology, institutional frameworks, and platform power.

Conclusion

By tracing narrative reductions, formal choices and platform constraints, this project shows that interactivity is not confined to the audience's viewing experience but extends throughout the creative process. Hesitation belongs equally to both the audience and the creator. Employing the format of audiovisual essays, this project reveals the negotiation processes typically hidden behind technology and procedures. Consequently, delays, failures, and limitations are no longer viewed as problems to be overcome. Instead, they become crucial entry points for understanding interactive design and contemporary media structures.