Skip to main content
Log in

Why do users like video?

Studies of multimedia-supported collaboration

  • Published:
Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Three studies of collaborative activity were conducted as part of research in developing multimedia technology to support collaboration. One study surveyed users' opinions of their use of video conference rooms. Users indicated that the availability of the video conference rooms was too limited, audio quality needed improvement, and a shared drawing space was needed. A second study analyzed videotapes of a work group when meeting face-to-face, video conferencing, and phone conferencing. The analyses found that the noticeable audio delay in video conferencing made it difficult for the participants to manage turn-taking and coordinate eye glances. In the third study, a distributed team was observed under three conditions: using their existing collaboration tools, adding a desktop conferencing prototype (audio, video, and shared drawing tool), and subtracting the video capability from the prototype. Qualitative and quantitative data were collected by videotaping the team, interviewing the team members individually, and recording their usage of the phone, electronic mail, face-to-face meetings, and desktop conferencing. The team's use of the desktop conferencing prototype dropped significantly when the video capability was removed. Analysis of the videotape data showed how the video channel was used to help mediate their interaction and convey visual information. Desktop conferencing apparently reduced e-mail usage and was perceived to reduce the number of shorter, two-person, face-to-face meetings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Buxton, Bill and Tom Moran. 1990. EuroPARC's Integrated Interactive Intermedia Facility (IIIF): Early Experiences. InMulti-User Interfaces and Applications, eds. S. Gibbs, and A. A. Verrijn-Stuart, 11–34. Amsterdam, Elsevier Science Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bly, Sara A. 1988. A Use of Drawing Surfaces in Different Collaborative Settings. InProceedings of the Conference of Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, 250–256. Portland, OR, USA.

  • Bly, Sara A., Steve R. Harrison and Susan Irwin. 1993. Media spaces: Bringing People Together in a Video, Audio, and Computing Environment.Communications of the ACM 35 (1): 28–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conrath, David W., Earl V. Dunn, William G. Bloor and Barbara Tranquada. 1977. A Clinical Evaluation of Four Alternative Telemedicine Systems.Behavioral Science 22: 12–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Egido, Carmen. 1990. Teleconferencing as a Technology to Support Cooperative Work: Its Possibilities and Limitatins. InTeamwork: Social and Technological Foundations of Cooperative Work, eds. Jolene Galegher, Robert E. Kraut and Carmen Egido, 351–371, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falk, Howard. 1973. Picturephone and Beyond.IEEE Spectrum: 45–49.

  • Fish, Robert S., Robert E. Kraut, Robert W. Root and Ronald E. Rice. 1992. Evaluating Video as a Technology for Informal Communication. InProceedings of the Conference on Computer Human Interaction (CHI) '92, 37–48. Monterey, CA, USA.

  • Francik, Ellen, Susan Ehrlich Rudman, Donna Cooper and Stephen Levine. 1991. Putting Innovation to Work: Adoption Strategies for Multimedia Communication Systems.Communications of the ACM 34 (12): 53–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gale, Stephen. 1990. Human Aspects of Interactive Multimedia Communication.Interacting with Computers 2 (2): 175–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gale, Stephen. 1992. Desktop Video Conferencing: Technical Advances and Evaluation Issues.Computer Communications 15 (2): 517–526.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heath, Christian and Paul Luff. 1991. Disembodied Conduct: Communication Through Video in a Multi-media Office Environment. InProceedings of the Conference on Computer Human Interaction (CH) '91, 99–103. New Orleans, LA, USA.

  • Isaacs, Ellen, A. and John C. Tang. 1993. What Video Can and Can't Do for Collaboration: A Case Study. InProceedings of the ACM Multimedia '93 Conference. Anaheim, CA (in press).

  • Ishii, Hiroshi and Minoru Kobayashi. 1992. ClearBoard: A Seamless Medium for Shared Drawing and Conversation with Eye Contact. InProceedings of the Conference on Computer Human Interaction (CHI) '92, 525–532. Monterey, CA, USA.

  • Kendon, Adam. 1986. Current Issues in the Study of Gesture. InThe Biological Foundations of Gestures: Motor and Semiotic Aspects, eds. Jean-Luc Nespoulous, Paul Perron and Andre Roch Lecours, 23–47. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krauss, Robert M., Connie M. Garlock, Peter D. Bricker and Lee E. McMahon. 1977. The Role of Audible and Visible Back-Channel Responses in Interpersonal Communication.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 35 (7): 523–529.

    Google Scholar 

  • Masaki, Shigeki, Naobumi Kanemaki, Hiroya Tanigawa, Hideya Ichihara and Kazunori Shimamura. 1991. Personal Multimedia-multipoint Teleconference System for Broadband ISDN. InHigh Speed Networking. III, eds. O. Spaniol and A. Danthine, 215–230. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minneman, Scott L. and Sara A. Bly. 1991. Managing a Trois: A Study of a Multi-user Drawing Tool in Distributed Design Work. InProceedings of the Conference on Computer Human Interaction (CHI) '91, 217–224. New Orleans, LA, USA.

  • Ochsman, Robert B. and Alphonse Chapanis. 1974. The Effects of 10 Communication Modes on the Behavior of Teams During Co-operative Problem-solving.International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 6:579–619.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, Margrethe H. and Sara A. Bly 1991. The Portland Experience: A Report on a Distributed Research Group.International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 34 (2): 211–228. Reprinted: InComputer-supported Cooperative Work and Groupware, ed. Saul Greenberg, 81–98. London Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearl, Amy. 1992.System Support for Integrated Desktop Video Conferencing, Sun Microsystems Laboratories Inc. Technical Report TR-92-4. Mountain View, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Root, Robert W. 1988. Design of a Multi-Media Vehicle for Social Browsing. InProceedings of the Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, 25–38. Portland, OR, USA.

  • Sacks, H., E. Schegloff and G. Jefferson, 1974. A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-taking for Conversation.Language 50: 696–735.

    Google Scholar 

  • Short, John, Ederyn Williams and Bruce Christie, 1976.The Social Psychology of Telecommunications London: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, Randall B., Tim O'Shea, Claire O'Malley, Eileen Scanlon and Josie Taylor. 1989. Preliminary Experiments with a Distributed, Multi-media, Problem Solving Environment. InProceedings of the First European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work: EC-CSCW '89, 19–34. London, UK. Reprinted: 1991. InStudies in Computer Supported Cooperative Work: Theory Practice and Design, eds. J. Bowers and S. Benford. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers.

  • Stefik, Mark, Gregg Foster, Daniel G. Bobrow, Kenneth Kahn, Stan Lanning and Lucy Suchman, 1987. Beyond the Chalkboard: Computer Support for Collaboration and Problem Solving in Meetings.Communications of the ACM 30 (1): 32–47. Reprinted: 1988. InComputer-Supported Cooperative Work: A Book of Readings, ed. Irene Greif, 335–366. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tang, John C. 1991. Findings from Observational Studies of Collaborative Work.International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 34(2): 143–160. Reprinted: 1991. InComputer-supported Cooperative Work and Groupware, ed. Saul Greenberg, 11–28. London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tang, John. 1991. Involving Social Scientists in the Design of New Technology. InTaking Software Design Seriously: Practical Techniques for Human-Computer Interaction Design, ed. John Karat, 115–126. Boston: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tang, John C. and Scott L. Minneman 1991. VideoDraw: A Video Interface for Collaborative Drawing.ACM Transactions on Information Systems 9(2): 170–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tatar, Deborah. 1989. Using Video-Based Observations to Shape the Design of a New Technology.SIGGHI Bulletin 21(2): 108–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watabe, Kazuo, Shiro Sakata, Kazutoshi Maeno, Hideyuki Fukuoka and Toyoko Ohmori. 1990. Distributed Multiparty Desktop Conferencing System: MERMAID. InProceedings of the Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, 27–38. Los Angeles, CA, USA.

  • Wilkes-Gibbs, Deanna. 1986.Collaborative Processes of Language Use in Conversation, Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.

  • Williams, Ederyn. 1977. Experimental Comparisons of Face-to-Face and Mediated Communication: A Review.Psychological Bulletin 84(5): 963–976.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tang, J.C., Isaacs, E. Why do users like video?. Comput Supported Coop Work 1, 163–196 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00752437

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00752437

Keywords

Navigation