The Effects of View Portals on Performance and Awareness in Co-Located Tabletop Groupware
Pages 195 - 206
Abstract
Tabletop work surfaces have natural advantages for co-located collaboration, but also have physical constraints that can make group work difficult. View portals have been proposed as a way to provide access to other parts of a table surface, and as a way to re-orient content for group members in different locations; however, there is little research on whether portals really do improve group performance, how much they help, and whether they change other aspects of collaboration. We report on two studies that evaluate the effects of portals on group performance and behavior. Our first study showed significant performance advantages for portals: people were able to complete tasks more quickly and with more equal division of labor. Our second study, with a realistic design task, showed that people used portals extensively and saw them as valuable, but that they affected people's ability to maintain awareness, coordinate access to objects, and understand the organization of the workspace. Our work demonstrates benefits and potential drawbacks of portals for tables, and suggests that designers should carefully consider both individual and group needs before implementing these and other tabletop view augmentations.
References
[1]
Abednego, M., Lee, J., Moon, W., Park, J. I-Grabber: expanding physical reach in a large-display tabletop environment through the use of a virtual grabber. Proc. ITS 2009, 61--64.
[2]
Baudisch, P, et al. Drag-and-pop and drag-and-pick: Techniques for accessing remote screen content on touchand pen-operated systems. Proc. INTERACT'03, 57--64.
[3]
Bederson, B., and Hollan, J., Pad++: A Zooming Graphical Interface for Exploring Alternate Interface Physics, Proc. UIST 1994, 17--26.
[4]
Biehl, J. and Bailey, B. ARIS: an interface for application relocation in an interactive space. Proc. Graphics Interface 2004, 107--116.
[5]
Bezerianos, A., Balakrishnan, R., View and Space Management on Large Displays. IEEE CG&A, 25(4), 2005, 34--43.
[6]
Booth, K., Fisher, B., Jui, C., Lin, R., and Argue, R. The mighty mouse multi-screen collaboration tool. Proc. UIST 2002, 209--212.
[7]
Doucette, A., Mandryk, R.L., and Gutwin, C., Sometimes When We Touch: how arm embodiments change reaching and collaboration on digital tables, Proc. CSCW 2013, 193--202.
[8]
Gutwin, C., and Greenberg, S., Design for Individuals, Design for Groups: Tradeoffs between Individual Power and Workspace Awareness, Proc. CSCW 1998, 207--216.
[9]
Ha, V., Inkpen, K.M., Mandryk, R.L., Whalen, T. Direct Intentions: The Effects of Input Devices on Collaboration around a Tabletop Display. Tabletop 2006. 177--184.
[10]
Hornecker, E., Marshall, P., Dalton, N.S., Rogers, Y. Collaboration and interference: awareness with mice or touch input. CSCW 2008. 167--176.
[11]
Karnik, A., Plasencia, D., Mayol-Cuevas, W., and Subramanian, S. PiVOT: personalized view-overlays for tabletops. Proc. UIST 2012, 271--280.
[12]
Khan, A., Fitzmaurice, G., Almeida, D., Burtnyk, N, and Kurtenbach, G., A Remote Control Interface for Large Displays, Proc. UIST 2004, 127--136.
[13]
Koriat, A. and Norman, J. Reading rotated words, J. Experimental Psychology 11(4), 1985, 490--508.
[14]
Kruger, R., Carpendale, S., Scott, S., & Tang, A., Fluid integration of rotation and translation. Proc. CHI 2005.
[15]
Kruger, R., Carpendale, S., Scott, S., & Greenberg, S., How people use orientation on tables: Comprehension, coordination and communication. Proc. Group 2003.
[16]
Lissermann, R., Huber, J., Schmitz, M., Steimle, J., and Mühlhäuser, M. Permulin: mixed-focus collaboration on multi-view tabletops. Proc. CHI 2014, 3191--3200.
[17]
Liu, J., Pinelle, D., Sallam, S., Subramanian, S., and Gutwin, C., TNT: Improved Rotation and Translation on Digital Tables, Proc. Graphics Interface 2006, 25--32.
[18]
Matsushita, M., Iida, M., Ohguro, T., Shirai, Y., Kakehi, Y. Lumisight table: a face-to-face collaboration support system that optimizes direction of projected information to each stakeholder. Proc. CSCW 2004, 274--283.
[19]
Morris, M., Ryall, K., Shen, C., Forlines, C., Vernier, F., Beyond "social protocols": multi-user coordination policies for co-located groupware. CSCW 2004, 262--265.
[20]
Nacenta, M., Aliakseyeu, D., Subramanian, S., and Gutwin, C., A comparison of techniques for multi-display reaching. Proc. CHI 2005, 371--380.
[21]
Nacenta, M.A., Pinelle, D., Stuckel, D., Gutwin, C. The effects of interaction technique on coordination in tabletop groupware. GI 2007. 191--198.
[22]
Nacenta, M.A., Pinelle, D., Gutwin, C., Mandryk, R.L. Individual and Group Support in Tabletop Interaction Techniques. Tabletop 2010, 303--333.
[23]
Parker, J., Mandryk, R., and Inkpen, K., TractorBeam: seamless integration of local and remote pointing for tabletop displays. Proc. Graphics Interface 2005, 33--40.
[24]
Pinelle, D., Nacenta, M., Gutwin, C., Stach, T. The effects of co-present embodiments on awareness and collaboration in tabletop groupware. Proc. GI 2008, 1--8.
[25]
Pinelle, D., Dyck, J., Gutwin, C., and Stach, T. Cutouts: multiple views for tabletop groupware. Technical report HCI-2006-01, available at http://hci.usask.ca.
[26]
Plasencia, D., et al. ReflectoSlates: personal overlays for tabletops combining camera-projector systems and retroreflective materials. Proc. CHI 2014, 2071--2076.
[27]
Plasencia, D., Joyce, E., and Subramanian, S. MisTable: reach-through personal screens for tabletops. Proc. CHI 2014, 3493--3502.
[28]
Ryall, K, Forlines, C., Shen, C., and Ringel Morris, M. Exploring the effects of group size and table size on interactions with tabletop shared-display groupware. Proc. ACM CSCW 2004, 284--293.
[29]
Scott, S., Carpendale, S., Inkpen, K. Territoriality in collaborative tabletop workspaces. CSCW'04. 294--303.
[30]
Shen, C., Hancock, M., Forlines, C., and Vernier, F., CoR2Ds: Context-Rooted Rotatable Draggables for Tabletop Interaction, Proc. CHI 2005, 1781--1784.
[31]
Shen, C., Vernier, F., Forlines, C., and Ringel, M., DiamondSpin: an extensible toolkit for around-the-table interaction, Proc. CHI 2004, 67--174.
[32]
Shoemaker, G., and Inkpen, K. Single display privacyware: augmenting public displays with private information. Proc. CHI 2001, 522--529.
[33]
Stefik, M, Bobrow, Foster, G., Lanning, S., Tatar, D. WYSIWIS revised: Early experiences with multiuser interfaces. ACM TOIS, 5(2), 1987, 147--167.
[34]
Streitz, N., Tandler, P., Muller-Tomfelde, C., Konomi, S. Roomware: Towards the Next Generation of HumanComputer Interaction Based on an Integrated Design of Real and Virtual Worlds. In Human-Computer Interaction in the New Millennium, 2001, 553--578.
[35]
Tan, D., Meyers B., and Czerwinski, M., WinCuts: Manipulating Arbitrary Window Regions for More Effective Use of Screen Space, Proc. CHI 2004, 25--28.
[36]
Tang, A., Tory, M., Po, B., Neumann, P., and Carpendale, S., Collaborative coupling over tabletop displays. Proc. CHI 2006, 1181--1190.
[37]
Tse, E., Histon, J., Scott, S.D., Greenberg, S. Avoiding interference: how people use spatial separation and partitioning in SDG workspaces. CSCW 2004. 252--261.
[38]
Voelker, S., Weiss, M., Wacharamanotham, C., and Borchers, J. Dynamic portals: a lightweight metaphor for fast object transfer on interactive surfaces. Proc. ITS 2011, 158--161.
[39]
Wigdor, D. and Balakrishnan, R. Empirical investigation into the effect of orientation on text readability in tabletop displays. Proc. ECSCW 2005, 205--224.
[40]
Zanella, A., and Greenberg, S. Reducing interference in single display groupware through transparency. Proc. ECSCW 2001, 339--358.
Index Terms
- The Effects of View Portals on Performance and Awareness in Co-Located Tabletop Groupware
Recommendations
A Descriptive Framework of Workspace Awareness for Real-Time Groupware
Supporting awareness of others is an idea that holds promise for improving the usability of real-time distributed groupware. However, there is little principled information available about awareness that can be used by groupware designers. In this ...
Evaluating teamwork support in tabletop groupware applications using collaboration usability analysis
Special Issue: User-centred design and evaluation of ubiquitous groupwareTabletop groupware systems have natural advantages for collaboration, but they present a challenge for application designers because shared work and interaction progress in different ways than in desktop systems. As a result, tabletop systems still have ...
The effects of co-present embodiments on awareness and collaboration in tabletop groupware
GI '08: Proceedings of Graphics Interface 2008Most current tabletop groupware systems use direct touch, where people manipulate objects by touching them with a pen or a fingertip. The use of people's real arms and hands provides obvious awareness information, but workspace access is limited by the ...
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
February 2015
1956 pages
ISBN:9781450329224
DOI:10.1145/2675133
- General Chairs:
- Dan Cosley,
- Andrea Forte,
- Program Chairs:
- Luigina Ciolfi,
- David McDonald
Copyright © 2015 ACM.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].
Sponsors
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 28 February 2015
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
Conference
CSCW '15
Sponsor:
CSCW '15: Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing
March 14 - 18, 2015
BC, Vancouver, Canada
Acceptance Rates
CSCW '15 Paper Acceptance Rate 161 of 575 submissions, 28%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 2,235 of 8,521 submissions, 26%
Upcoming Conference
CSCW '25
- Sponsor:
- sigchi
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 423Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)7
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 11 Dec 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
Cited By
View allView Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in