Investigating teamwork and taskwork in single- and multi-display groupware systems

  • James R. Wallace
  • Stacey D. Scott
  • Taryn Stutz
  • Tricia Enns
  • Kori Inkpen
Original Article

Abstract

Multi-display groupware (MDG) systems, which typically comprise both public and personal displays, promise to enhance collaboration, yet little is understood about how they differ in use from single-display groupware (SDG) systems. While research has established the technical feasibility of MDG systems, evaluations have not addressed the question of how users’ behave in such environments, how their interface design can impact group behavior, or what advantages they offer for collaboration. This paper presents a user study that investigates the impact of display configuration and software interface design on taskwork and teamwork. Groups of three completed a collaborative optimization task in single- and multi-display environments, under different task interface constraints. Our results suggest that MDG configurations offer advantages for performing individual task duties, whereas SDG conditions offer advantages for coordinating access to shared resources. The results also reveal the importance of ergonomic design considerations when designing co-located groupware systems.

Keywords

Groupware Multi-display environment Evaluation Communication efficiency Workspace awareness 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) for financial support, and the Collaborative Systems Lab at the University of Waterloo and the EDGE lab at Dalhousie University for their help, suggestions and moral support in conducting this work. We would also like to thank Regan Mandryk and Brian Bailey for their invaluable discussions surrounding MDG design and evaluation.

References

  1. 1.
    Baker K, Greenberg S, Gutwin C (2002) Empirical development of a heuristic evaluation methodology for shared workspace groupware. In: Proceedings of the 2002 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work, New Orleans, LA, USA, pp 96–105Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Biehl JT, Bailey BP (2004) ARIS: an interface for application relocation in an interactive space. In: Proceedings of the GI 2004, London, Ontario, Canada, pp 107–116Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Biehl JT, Bailey BP (2006) Improving interfaces for managing applications in multiple-device environments. In: Proceedings of the working conference on advanced visual interfaces, Venezia, Italy, pp 35–42Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Biehl JT et al (2007) FASTDash: a visual dashboard for fostering awareness in software teams. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, San Jose, CA, USA, pp 1313–1322Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Birnholtz JP et al (2007) An exploratory study of input configuration and group process in a negotiation task using a large display. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, San Jose, CA, USA, pp 91–100Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Booth KS et al (2002) The “mighty mouse” multi-screen collaboration tool. In: Proceedings of the UIST 2002, Paris, France, pp 209–212Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clark HH, Brennan SE (1993) grounding in communication: readings in groupware and computer-supported cooperative work: assisting human–human collaboration. Morgan Kaufmann, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Deitz P, Leigh D (2001) DiamondTouch: a multi-user touch technology. In: Proceedings of the UIST’00: ACM symposium on user interface software and technology, San Diego, CA, 5–8 November 2000, pp 219–226Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dix A et al (1998) Human computer interaction. Prentice-Hall, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Forlines C et al (2006) Exploring the effects of group size and display configuration on visual search. In: Proceedings of the 2006 20th anniversary conference on computer supported cooperative work, Banff, AB, Canada, pp 11–20Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gergle D, Kraut RE, Fussell SR (2004) Action as language in a shared visual space. In: Proceedings of the ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work, Chicago, IL, USA, pp 487–496Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gergle D, Kraut RE, Fussell SR (2004) Language efficiency and visual technology: minimizing collaborative effort with visual information. J Lang Soc Psychol 23(4):491–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Greenberg S, Boyle M, Laberge J (1999) PDAs and shared public displays: making personal information public, and public information personal. Pers Ubiquitous Comput 3(1):54–64Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Guimbretière F, Stone M, Winograd T (2001) Fluid interaction with high-resolution wall-size displays. In: Proceedings of the UIST’01: ACM symposium on user interface software and technology, Orlando, FL, 11–14 November 2001, pp 21–30Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gutwin C, Greenberg S (1998) Design for individuals, design for groups: tradeoffs between power and workspace awareness. In: Proceedings of the CSCW 1998, Seattle, WA, USA, pp 207–216Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gutwin C, Greenberg S (1999) The effects of workspace awareness support on the usability of real-time distributed groupware. ACM Trans Comput Hum Interact 6(3):243–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gutwin C, Greenberg S, Roseman, M (1996) Workspace awareness in real-time distributed groupware: framework, widgets, and evaluation. In: Proceedings of the HCI’96: people and computers XI, 20–23 August 1996, London, UK, Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ha V et al (2006) Direct intentions: the effects of input devices on collaboration around a tabletop display. In: Proceedings of the TABLETOP, pp 177–184Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hall ET (1966) The hidden dimension. Anchor Books, Garden CityGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hancock JT, Dunham PJ (2001) Language use in computer-mediated communication: the role of coordination devices. Discourse Processes 31(1):91–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hart SG, Stateland LE (188) Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): results of empirical and theoretical research. Human Mental Workload, pp 139–183Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hawkey K et al (2005) The proximity factor: impact of distance on co-located collaboration. In: Proceedings of the 2005 international ACM SIGGROUP conference on supporting group work, Sanibel Island, FL, USA, pp 31–40Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Huang EM, Mynatt ED (2003) Semi-public displays for small, co-located groups. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USAGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Inkpen KM et al (1999) This is fun! We’re all best friends and we’re all playing: supporting children’s synchronous collaboration. In: Proceedings of the 1999 conference on computer support for collaborative learning, Palo Alto, CA, USA, pp 252–259Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Izadi S et al (2003) Dynamo: a public interactive surface supporting the cooperative sharing and exchange of media. In: Proceedings of the UIST, pp 159–168Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Johanson B et al (2002) PointRight: experience with flexible input redirection in interactive workspaces. In: Proceedings of the UIST 2002, Paris, France, pp 227–234Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Liu C-C, Kao L-C (2005) Handheld devices with large shared-display groupware: tools to facilitate group communication in one-to-one collaborative learning activities. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international workshop on wireless and mobile technologies in education (WMTE ‘05), p 8Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Matsushita M et al (2004) Lumisight table: a face-to-face collaboration support system that optimizes direction of projected information to each stakeholder. In: Proceedings of the CSCW, pp 274–283Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    McGrath J (1984) Groups: interaction and performance. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Myers BA (2000) The pebbles project: using PCs and hand-held computers together. In: Proceedings of the CHI ‘00 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, The Hague, The Netherlands, pp 14–15Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nacenta MA et al (2005) A comparison of techniques for multi-display reaching. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Portland, OR, USA, pp 371–380Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Nacenta MA et al (2007) The effects of interaction technique on coordination in tabletop groupware. In: Proceedings of the GI ‘07, pp 191–198Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Nacenta MA et al (2007) E-conic: a perspective-aware interface for multi-display environments. In: Proceedings of the 20th annual ACM symposium on user interface software and technology, Newport, RI, USA, pp 279–288Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Noble D, Letsky M (2002) Cognitive-based metrics to evaluate collaboration effectiveness. In: Proceedings of the RTO SAS symposium on analysis of the military effectiveness of future C2 concepts and systems. The Hague, The Netherlands, 23–25 April, pp B6-1–B6-18Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Parker JK, Mandryk RL, Inkpen KM (2006) Integrating point and touch for interaction with digital tabletop displays. In: Proceedings in computer graphics and applications, p 28Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Perry MJ (1997) Distributed Cognition and computer supported collaborative design: the organisation of work in construction engineering. PhD thesis, Brunel University, UKGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Pinelle D, Gutwin C (2008) Evaluating teamwork support in tabletop groupware applications using collaboration usability analysis. Pers Ubiquitous Comput 12(3):237–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Pinelle D, Gutwin C (2000) A survey of groupware evaluations. In: Proceedings of the 9th IEEE workshop on enabling technologies—infrastructure for collaborative enterprises, pp 110–115Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Pinelle D, Gutwin C, Greenberg S (2003) Task analysis for groupware usability evaluation: modeling shared workspace tasks with the mechanics of collaboration. ACM Trans Comput Hum Interact 10(4):281–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Pinelle D et al (2008) The effects of co-present embodiments on awareness and collaboration in tabletop groupware. In: Proceedings of the graphics interface pp 1–8Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Piper AM et al (2006) SIDES: a cooperative tabletop computer game for social skills development. CSCW, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ryall K et al (2004) Exploring the effects of group size and table size on interactions with tabletop shared-display groupware. In: Proceedings of the 2004 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work, Chicago, IL, USA, pp 284–293Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sharp H, Rogers Y, Preece J (2007) Interaction design: beyond human–computer interaction. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Shen C, Everitt KM, Ryall K (2003) UbiTable: impromptu face-to-face collaboration on horizontal interactive surfaces. In: Proceedings of UbiComp’03: 5th international conference on ubiquitous computing, Seattle, WA, USA, 12–15 October 2003, pp 281–288Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Shen C et al (2006) Informing the design of direct-touch tabletops. IEEE Comput Graph Appl 26(5):36–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Shoemaker GBD, Inkpen KM (2001) Single display privacyware: augmenting public displays with private information. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Seattle, WA, USA, pp 522–529Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Sommer R (1969) Personal space: the behavior basis of design. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Stewart J, Bederson BB, Druin A (1999) Single display groupware: a model for co-present collaboration. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems: the CHI is the limit, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, pp 286–293Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Sugimoto M, Hosoi K, Hashizume H (2004) Caretta: a system for supporting face-to-face collaboration by integrating personal and shared spaces. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Vienna, Austria, pp 41–48Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Tan DS, Gergle D, Czerwinski M (2005) A job-shop scheduling task for evaluating coordination during computer supported collaboration. Microsoft Research TR-2005-107Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Tan DS et al (2008) Using job-shop scheduling tasks for evaluating collocated collaboration. Pers Ubiquitous Comput 12(3):255–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Tang JC (1991) Findings from observational studies of collaborative work. Int J Man Mach Stud 34:143–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Taylor RM (1990) Situational awareness rating technique (SART): the development of a tool for aircrew systems design. In: Situational awareness in aerospace operations (AGARD-CP-478). NATO-Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Development, Neuilly-Sur-Seine, pp 3/1–3/17Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Tse E, Greenberg S (2004) Rapidly prototyping single display groupware through the SDGToolkit. In: Proceedings of AUIC’04: 5th Australasian user interface conference, Dunedin, New Zealand, 18–22 January 2004, pp 101–110Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Wallace J et al (2006) Swordfish: user tailored workspaces in multi-display environments. In: Proceedings of the. CHI ‘06 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, Montréal, QC, Canada, pp 1487–1492Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Wallace JR, Mandryk RL, Inkpen KM (2008) Comparing content and input redirection in MDEs. In: Proceedings of the CSCW 2008, San Diego, CA, USA, pp 157–166Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Wallace JR, Scott SD (2008) Contextual design considerations for co-located, collaborative tables. In: Proceedings of the IEEE tabletop 2008, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp 57–64Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Wallace JR, Scott SD (2008) Towards contextual design requirements for MDEs. In: Proceedings of the CSCW 2008 workshop: beyond the laboratory: supporting authentic collaboration with multiple displays, San Diego, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Wigdor D et al (2007) Perception of elementary graphical elements in tabletop and multi-surface environments. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, San Jose, CA, USA, pp 473–482Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • James R. Wallace
    • 1
  • Stacey D. Scott
    • 1
  • Taryn Stutz
    • 1
  • Tricia Enns
    • 1
  • Kori Inkpen
    • 2
  1. 1.University of WaterlooWaterlooCanada
  2. 2.Microsoft ResearchRedmondUSA

Personalised recommendations