ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Collaboration and interference: awareness with mice or touch input
Full text PdfPdf (2.67 MB)
Source
Computer Supported Cooperative Work archive
Proceedings of the ACM 2008 conference on Computer supported cooperative work table of contents
San Diego, CA, USA
SESSION: Daring displays table of contents
Pages 167-176  
Year of Publication: 2008
ISBN:978-1-60558-007-4
Authors
Eva Hornecker  University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, United Kingdom
Paul Marshall  Open University, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom
Nick Sheep Dalton  Open University, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom
Yvonne Rogers  Open University, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom
Sponsors
ACM: Association for Computing Machinery
SIGCHI: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 51,   Downloads (12 Months): 358,   Citation Count: 6
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1460563.1460589
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

Multi-touch surfaces are becoming increasingly popular. An assumed benefit is that they can facilitate collaborative interactions in co-located groups. In particular, being able to see another's physical actions can enhance awareness, which in turn can support fluid interaction and coordination. However, there is a paucity of empirical evidence or measures to support these claims. We present an analysis of different aspects of awareness in an empirical study that compared two kinds of input: multi-touch and multiple mice. For our analysis, a set of awareness indices was derived from the CSCW and HCI literatures, which measures both the presence and absence of awareness in co-located settings. Our findings indicate higher levels of awareness for the multi-touch condition accompanied by significantly more actions that interfere with each other. A subsequent qualitative analysis shows that the interactions in this condition were more fluid and that interference was quickly resolved. We suggest that it is more important that resources are available to negotiate interference rather than necessarily to attempt to prevent it.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
2
3
4
 
5
Endsley, M. R. Theoretical Underpinnings of Situation Awareness: A critical review. In Endsley, Garland, (eds) Situational Awareness Analysis and Measurement. Mahwah, Lawrence Erlbaum (2000)
6
7
 
8
9
 
10
 
11
 
12
 
13
Harms, C., Biocca, A. F. Internal consistency and reliability of the networked minds social presence measure. In Alcanizm, Rey (Eds.), Seventh Annual International Workshop: Presence 2004
 
14
Heath, C., Luff, P. Collaboration and control: Crisis management and multimedia technology in London Underground control rooms. JCSCW 1 (1992), 69--94
 
15
16
17
 
18
MacMillan, J., Paley, M., Entin, E. Questionnaires for Distributed Assessment of Team Mutual Awareness. In Salas (Ed.) Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomic Methods, Taylor & Francis (2004). 3--32
19
20
21
 
22
 
23
Rogers, Y. Lindley, S. Collaborating around vertical and horizontal displays: which way is best? Interacting With Computers, 16, (2004), 1133--1152
24
25
 
26
 
27
 
28
29
 
30
Shen, C., Everitt, K. M., Ryall, K. UbiTable: Impromptu Face-to-Face Collaboration on Horizontal Interactive Surfaces. Proc. UbiComp'03. (2003), 281--288.
31
 
32
 
33
34
35

CITED BY  6

Collaborative Colleagues:
Eva Hornecker: colleagues
Paul Marshall: colleagues
Nick Sheep Dalton: colleagues
Yvonne Rogers: colleagues