320 likes | 519 Views
Visual Awareness in Shared Workspaces. Presentation by Marc Leonard. Topics. Workspace Awareness Creating Visual Workspace Awareness Evaluation Framework for Visual Workspace Awareness. Topics. Workspace Awareness Creating Visual Workspace Awareness
E N D
Visual Awareness in Shared Workspaces Presentation by Marc Leonard
Topics • Workspace Awareness • Creating Visual Workspace Awareness • Evaluation Framework for Visual Workspace Awareness
Topics • Workspace Awareness • Creating Visual Workspace Awareness • Evaluation Framework for Visual Workspace Awareness
Workspace Awareness • Up-to-the-moment information about what is happening in the shared workspace • Gathered in face-to-face settings without direct attention • Leads participants toward further collaboration in the shared effort
Conceptual Framework for WA Interpret perceptual information Environment Perform task, modifying shared environment Gather perceptual information Determine what to look for next Knowledge Exploration Action Determine what to do/what can be done
Video ClipExcerpt fromJohn Tang et al.,Observations on the Use of Shared Drawing Spaces
Topics • Workspace Awareness • Creating Visual Workspace Awareness • Evaluation Framework for Visual Workspace Awareness
Creating Visual Workspace Awareness • Inherently difficult due to the amount of information required • Close attention needs to be paid to collection and distribution of WA information • Attempt to maximize natural WA information gathering techniques
Obstacles for Visual Workspace Awareness in Groupware • Lack of a physical presence • Limited view and presentation space • Interconnectivity issues
Techniques for supporting WA in Groupware • Embodiment (e.g. Telepointers) • Perceivable actions (e.g. Action Indicators) • Overviews (e.g. Radar view) • Detail views (e.g. WYSIWID view) • Detail-in-context views (e.g. Fisheye view)
Techniques for supporting WA in Groupware: Telepointers Gizmo Node 1 Node 2 Spike
Techniques for supporting WA in Groupware: Telepointers • Form of Embodiment • Gives participants a sense of: IDENTITY, LOCATION, ACTIONS, ACTIVITY LEVEL • Usually extended to give semantic information regarding what tool is being used (OBJECTS, INTENTIONS)
Techniques for supporting WA in Groupware: Action Indicators Node 1 Deleting!!! Node 2
Techniques for supporting WA in Groupware: Action Indicators • Implementation of Perceivable actions • Makes the unperceivable, perceivable • Eg. Delete key, Menu actions • Gives users cues about what is happening in the workspace, providing: ACTIONS, CHANGES, IDENTITY(when paired with telepointers/view rectangles)
Techniques for supporting WA in Groupware: Radar views • Form of Overview • Scaled down view of global workspace • View rectangles used to give awareness of other participants, telepointers provide fine-grained awareness of other’s location • Provides: IDENTITY, LOCATION, INTENTIONS, EXTENTS, SPHERE OF INFLUENCE, ACTIVITY LEVEL
Techniques for supporting WA in Groupware: WYSIWID views • Form of Detail view • Provides a detailed view of the area surrounding another user’s cursor • Hard to determine where other’s locations if no prior knowledge of the global context is provided • Provides: LOCATION, ACTIONS, ACTIVITY LEVEL, CHANGES, INTENTIONS, EXTENTS
Techniques for supporting WA in Groupware: Fisheye views • Form of Detail-in-Context view • Provides local detail and global context in continuous seamless presentation space • Distortions caused can lead to misinterpretations of the workspace data • Provides: LOCATION, ACTIONS, OBJECTS, EXTENTS
Video ClipGreenberg and Gutwin,Focus and Awareness in Groupware
Topics • Workspace Awareness • Creating Visual Workspace Awareness • Evaluation Framework for Visual Workspace Awareness
Evaluation Framework for Workspace Awareness • Cannot apply standard evaluation frameworks for applications as in HCI • Need a low cost method to determine usability problems in groupware applications • Baker, Greenberg and Gutwin propose a Heuristic Framework for evaluating groupware applications
Heuristic Evaluation Framework for Groupware applications • Based on Nielsen’s Heuristic Evaluation • Uses heuristics (rules) based on the Mechanics of Collaboration • Allows for low cost evaluation • Helps determine usability problems early in the development process
Heuristic 2:Provide the means for intentional and appropriate gestural communication • Allow for users to be able to gesture • Needed because 35% of all actions in collaboration are gesturing actions • Types of gestures: • Illustration • Emblems • Deictic references • Typical groupware support: Telepointers, avatars, video links
Heuristic 4:Provide consequential communication of shared artifacts (I.e. action feedthrough) • “unintentional” information given by artifacts in the workspace • Includes information such as who is manipulating the artifacts • Typical groupware support: action and process feedthrough, action indicators
Heuristic 6:Management of tightly and loosely-coupled collaboration • Coupling describes the degree to which people are working or able to work together • Loosely-coupled describes individuals working alone on a specific task • Tightly-coupled describes individuals working together on a specific task • Fluid movement between loosely and tightly-coupled interactions should be provided • Typical groupware support: Overviews, Detail views, Detail-in-Context views
Heuristic 7:Allow people to coordinate their actions • Allow for users to be able to work together without doing rework or valueless work • People are very good at social coordination, so the application should not enforce a coordination structure • Typical groupware support: Overviews, telepointers, view rectangles
Visual Workspace Awareness: Summary • People are information gatherers • WA guides collaborations • Providing WA in groupware is difficult • Various techniques and widgets exist • Combinations of those will provide an entire WA • HE states rules for GW to provide WA based on how people collaborate