{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02203856749311295, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.706806282722513, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Open, Complex, Messy…

The production practices of interactive documentaries are very diverse and depend on the software one is using as well as the narrative structure they are trying to produce. Looking at the software Korsakow specific practices can be identified. Some of which are probably afforded by the softwares design and functions – but also by some of the hopes that are built around this software. The hopes for ‘true narration’ and to create stories that let us see ‘more clearly’, as the software’s website itself states. In my research I am aiming to identify and deeply describe the production practices that are enacted with softwares such as Korsakow. Questions like what hopes these practices are directed to, what the promises of the software (and the interactive film in general) is and how they are ultimately enacted are central to this. As well as the question: What does this allow us to find out about visual knowledge-making? And what are the new or more clear ways to represent knowledge in the interactive documentary – and are they even so new and different?