Seeing is believing

1. Seeing is believing IMD09120: Collaborative Media Brian Davison 2011/12

2. Seeing is believing Video telephony Teamworking video studies Problems with video communication Shared surfaces

3. Video telephony: Origins • Picturephone the first video-telephone developed by AT&T labs • First prototype 1956 - working at 1fps • But it wasn’t liked. Too bulky, the controls too unfriendly, and the picture too small. • Commercial Picturephone service debuted in downtown Pittsburgh in 1970 • AT&T expected 1m+ users by 1980

4. Hydra (1992) Sellen et al. (1992)

5. State-of-the-art

6. Video to support collaboration • Tang & Isaacs (1993) • Distributed group of 4/5 software developers • individual offices on two sites • 3 weeks - phone, email, video conferencing rooms • 7 weeks - desktop conferencing with video • 4 weeks - desktop conferencing without video

7. Findings ... • Video encouraged more desktop conferencing • liked despite poor picture quality, but audio quality is crucial • Conferencing reduced the volume of email • Key finding: although video may not have a direct effect on quality of end-product, it significantly enhances teamwork

8. Matarazzo and Sellen (2000) • 4 x 2 x 2 factorial design • Task type • Four different activities were used • eg. logical problems, creative tasks, negotiation • Quality • Narrow • Broadband • Groupsize • Point to point • Point to multi-cast

9. Findings • Subjects rated the poorer video quality higher than the good quality! • Subjects complete the tasks quicker with poorer video vs. better quality • Explanation in terms of a ‘distraction’ effect • The benefit of VT is sharing information about the workspace and sharing faces

10. Proxemics • Personal space (Hall, 1959, 1966) • Proxemic rules govern • The amount of physical distance acceptable in everyday relationships & situations • Conversely, may affect how we characterise interactions within different zones of personal space

11. Close encounters in the lift • Imagine that you are in a lift in a large office building in the UK. All the other occupants are unknown to you. • What are the rules are for standing in the lift? Where do people stand when there are only two or three people? What happens when a fourth person enters. • How would you feel if there were two people on the lift and a third person entered and stood right next to you? • What happens when the lift becomes more crowded and there are now four or more people? • How close will people stand? What is allowed to "touch?“ • What do people look at in a crowded lift? • When is it permissible to talk to the other people?

12. Lift etiquette 1 (US & W. Europe) • If there are only two or three people in the lift, each person usually leans against the walls. If a fourth person boards the lift, the four corners are normally occupied. • A breach of personal space. We would feel very uncomfortable and move or get out of the lift at the next stop. • When there are more than four people in a lift, the occupants follow a complex set of rules. Everyone turns to face the door. Hands, handbags, and briefcases hang down in front of the body. People usually scrunch up, rounding their shoulders, so that they take up as little space as possible.

13. Lift etiquette 2 • People don’t touch each other in any way unless the lift becomes very crowded, and then they only touch at the shoulders or upper arms. If you see an overcrowded lift, you will probably choose to wait for the next one. • Everyone usually looks at the floor indicator located above the door. • It is unusual for strangers to speak to each other in an lift unless they are sharing some kind of similar experience. (Such as a conference) People who do know each other will usually speak softly. When a group of people enter the lift and do not follow these rules, other occupants usually feel very uncomfortable.

14. Zones of personal space (US) 45cm 0.5 – 1.2m 1.2 – 3.5m 3.5 – 7.5m Gorzynski et al. 2009

15. If space norms are violated • We shift position • Decrease eye contact • Change orientation • Decrease duration of responses • Fewer ‘affiliative’ responses But some evidence that • Spend more time in the situation • Perceive other person as warmer • Perceive other person as more persuasive

16. The Halo B2B Studio Gorzynski et al. 2009

17. Group VC problems • Magnification constancy • Images from multiple sites must show participants in a size consistent for them being at one location • Eye height • Participants should be shown at a position correct for their relative seating • Foreground and table height • Objects common to the work should be maintained across all sites • Background consistency • Backgrounds should be consistent across all sites

18. Problems cont. • Distortion reduction • Efforts should be made to eliminate reproduction distortions such as tilted tables and wall seams • Eye contact and gesture awareness • Audio and video acquisition must be aligned with reproduction promoting consistent eye contact across the panorama and spatial alignment between audio and video signals • Spatial audio • Knowing not just what is said, but also who is saying it and the relative position of the speaker helps participants direct their gaze appropriately

19. Tele-immersion Ebara & Shibata, 2010

20. Barnard, May and Salber (1996) • Experimentally examined the claims that desktop VT can enhance / improve cooperation • Argue that the fundamental rationale for VT “is that people can converse as if they were physically co-present, with the technology becoming transparent”, p.38

21. Linguistic issues • Reference • The linguistic act of identifying a physical object, person, etc • Deixis • The linguistic phenomenon of referring to the local environment with reference to the speaker

22. Tasks • Subjects were asked to look at a computer screen that displayed a ‘drawing window’ (shared with a colleague) and a VT window • Asked to move figures around on the drawing screen • The 2d screen was flat; the ‘3d’ screen used perspective • 24 subjects were assigned to these conditions • Example: • “move the square to the right of the diamond” • Data collection • whether an error was made in placing objects • the delay in pressing <OK>

23. Results • Poorest results in the f2f configuration which, of course, the standard in industry • Authors suggest that we may have to learn to speak differently in such situations • May require people to suppress gesture • Unrealistic conclusions

24. Shared surfaces • The work of Ishii - eg. ClearBoard • Lab based prototypes - not commercialised / not in use outwith the lab

25. Clearboard architecture

26. Short break

27. Tabletop collaboration Yamashita et al. 2011

28. The ICE lab • C78 • Friday 1300 & 1330