Advertisement

Partitioning open-plan workspaces via augmented reality

  • Hyelip LeeEmail author
  • Seungwoo Je
  • Rachel Kim
  • Himanshu Verma
  • Hamed Alavi
  • Andrea Bianchi
Original Article

Abstract

Open-plan workspaces are becoming common because of their compact footprint, economic advantages, and capacity for fostering communication. However, users of open-plan workspaces often report a high level of distraction, undermining their performance especially on individual cognitive tasks. Existing common solutions require recurrent physical changes, which are neither practical for companies and employees nor desired by interior architects. In this paper, we examine the use of augmented reality (AR) midair pervasive displays and visual separators to address the problem of visual distractions in open-plan workspaces. While past applications of AR in workspaces mostly focused on content creation and manipulation, we use AR to superimpose visual barriers—what we refer to as virtual partitions. To evaluate the impact of virtual partitioning on the occupants’ cognitive performance, we conducted two user studies with a total of 48 participants. The design of assessed virtual partitions was informed by interviews that we conducted with 11 professional space designers. The analysis of collected data suggests that virtual partitions can reduce visual distractions and enable users to personalize the visual attributes of their space leading to an improved experience of shared workspaces.

Keywords

Human–building interaction (HBI) Spatial transformation Augmented reality (AR) Midair pervasive displays Virtual partition Open-plan workspaces 

Notes

Supplementary material

ESM 1

(MP4 137,113 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Adamczyk PD, Bailey BP (2004) If not now, when?: the effects of interruption at different moments within task execution. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 271–278Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alavi HS, Churchill E, Kirk D, Nembrini J, Lalanne D (2016a) Deconstructing human-building interaction. Interactions 23(6):60–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alavi HD, Lalanne S, Nembrini J, Churchill E, Kirk D, Moncur W (2016b) Future of human-building interaction. In: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems (CHI EA ‘16). ACM, NewYork, NY, USA, pp 3408–3414Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Allen TJ, Gerstberger PG (1973) A field experiment to improve communications in a product engineering department: the nonterritorial office. Hum Factors 15(5):487–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Amores J, Lanier J (2017) HoloARt: painting with holograms in mixed reality. In: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI conference extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 421–424Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Foxlin Architect (2013) Echo-29 interactive wedding hall. http://foxlin.com/portfolio_item/eco-29-interactive-wedding-hall. Accessed Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bier HH (2014) Robotic building(s). Next Generation Building 1(1):83–92Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Broadbent DE, Cooper PF, FitzGerald P, Parkes KR (1982) The cognitive failures questionnaire (CFQ) and its correlates. Br J Clin Psychol 21(1):1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Burkus D (2016) Under new management: how leading organizations are upending business as usual. Houghton Mifflin HarcourGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Candido C, Zhang J, Kim J, de Dear R, Thomas LE, Strapasson P, Joko C (2016) Impact of workspace layout on occupant satisfaction, perceived health and productivity. In: Proceedings of 9th Windsor conference: making comfort relevant Network for Comfort and Energy Use in BuildingsGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chamberlain A, Crabtree A, Rodden T, Jones M, Rogers Y (2012) Research in the wild: understanding ‘in the wild’ approaches to design and development. In: Proceedings of the designing interactive systems conference. ACM, pp 795–796Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Corsi P (1972) Memory and the medial temporal region of the brain. Dissertation, McGill University, Montreal, QBGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Canada Safety Council (2018) Office noise and acoustics https://canadasafetycouncil.org/office-noise-and-acoustics/ Accessed Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Korte E, Kuijt-Evers L, Vink P (2007) Effects of the office environment on health and productivity: auditory and visual distraction. In: International conference on ergonomics and health aspects of work with computers. Springer, Berlin, pp 26–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ens B, Hincapié-Ramos JD, Irani P (2014a) Ethereal planes: a design framework for 2D information space in 3D mixed reality environments. In: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM symposium on spatial user interaction. ACM, pp 2–12Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ens B, Ofek E, Bruce N, Irani P (2015) Spatial constancy of surface-embedded layouts across multiple environments. In: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM symposium on spatial user interaction. ACM, pp 65–68Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ens B, Finnegan R, Irani P (2014b) The personal cockpit: a spatial interface for effective task switching on head-worn displays. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 3171–3180Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fatah gen Schieck A, Penn A, Mottram C, Strothmann A, Ohlenburg J, Broll W, Aish F (2004). Interactive space generation through play: exploring form creation and the role of simulation on the design table.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fiorentino M, de Amicis R, Monno G, Stork A (2002) Space design: a mixed reality workspace for aesthetic industrial design. In: Proceedings of the 1st international symposium on mixed and augmented reality. IEEE Computer Society, p 86Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Forster S, Lavie N (2009) Harnessing the wandering mind: the role of perceptual load. Cognition 111(3):345–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Grønbæk JE, Korsgaard H, Petersen MG, Birk MH, Krogh PG (2017) Proxemic transitions: designing shape-changing furniture for informal meetings. In: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 7029–7041Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hoendervanger JG, De Been I, Van Yperen NW, Mobach MP, Albers CJ (2016) Flexibility in use: switching behaviour and satisfaction in activity-based work environments. Journal of Corporate Real Estate 18(1):48–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kaufman L (2014) Google got it wrong. The open-office trend is destroying the workplace. Wash Post 30 https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/30/google-got-it-wrong-the-open-office-trend-is-destroying-the-workplace/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.fdf934b8bd74. Accessed
  24. 24.
    Kessels RP, van Zandvoort MJ, Postman A, Kapelle LJ, de Hand EH (2000) The Corsi block-tapping task: standardization and normative data. Appl Neuropsychol 7(4):252–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kim J, De Dear R (2013) Work space satisfaction: the privacy communication trade-off in open-plan offices. J Environ Psychol 36(2013):18–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kleitman N (1982) Basic rest-activity cycle—22 years later. Journal of Sleep Research & Sleep Medicine 5(4):311–317Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Konnikova M (2014) The open office trap. The New Yorker https://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/the-open-office-trap. Accessed
  28. 28.
    Koizumi N (2017) Sunny day display: mid-air image formed by solar light. In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM international conference on interactive surfaces and spaces. ACM, pp 126–131Google Scholar
  29. 29.
  30. 30.
    Kwoka M, Johnson J, Houayek H, Dunlap I, Walker ID, Green KE (2008) The AWE wall: a smart reconfigurable robotic surface. pp14–14Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lee H, Kim Y, Kim M (2013) Come on in!: a strategic way to intend approachability to a space by using motions of a robotic partition. In: RO-MAN, vol 2013. IEEE, pp 441–446Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lee JH, An SG, Kim Y, Bae SH (2018) Projective windows: bringing windows in space to the fingertip. In: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, p 218Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Liebl A, Haller J, Jödicke B, Baumgartner H, Schlittmeier S, Hellbrück J (2012) Combined effects of acoustic and visual distraction on cognitive performance and well-being. Appl Ergon 43(2):424–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lindlbauer D, Wilson AD (2018) Remixed reality: manipulating space and time in augmented reality. In: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, p 129Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Maglio PP, Campbell CS (2000) Tradeoffs in displaying peripheral information. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 241–248Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Malkawi AM, Srinivasan RS (2005) A new paradigm for human-building interaction: the use of CFD and augmented reality. Autom Constr 14(1):71–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Meagher M, Huang J, Gerber D (2007) Revisiting the open plan: ceilings and furniture as display surfaces for building information. In: Information visualization, 2007. IV '07. 11th international conference. IEEE, pp 601–606Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Mueller ST, Piper BJ (2014) The psychology experiment building language (PEBL) and PEBL test battery. J Neurosci Methods 222:250–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Nicholls AP, Parmentier FB, Jones DM, Tremblay S (2005) Visual distraction and visuo-spatial memory: a sandwich effect. Memory 13(3–4):357–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Olwal A, DiVerdi S, Candussi N, Rakkolainen I, Hollerer T (2006) An immaterial, dual-sided display system with 3d interaction. In: IEEE virtual reality conference, pp 279–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Palvalin M, van der Voordt T, Jylhä T (2017) The impact of workplaces and self-management practices on the productivity of knowledge workers. J Facil Manag 15(4):423–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Raskar R, Welch G, Cutts M, Lake A, Stesin L, Fuchs H (1998) The office of the future: a unified approach to image-based modeling and spatially immersive displays. In: Proceedings of the 25th annual conference on computer graphics and interactive techniques. ACM, pp 179–188Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Orr WC, Hoffman HJ, Hegge FW (1974) Ultradian rhythms in extended performance. Aviat Space Environ Med 45:995–1000Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Orr WC, Hoffman HJ, Hegge FW (1976) The assessment of time-dependent changes in human performance. Chronobiologia 3:293–309Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Schnädelbach H (2010) Adaptive architecture—a conceptual framework. In: Media city: interaction of architecture, media and social phenomena, Weimar, pp 523–556Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Shellenbarger S (2017) Why you cannot concentrate at work. The Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-you-cant-concentrate-at-work-1494342840. Accessed Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Schneegass S, Alt F, Scheible J, Schmidt A (2014) Midair displays: concept and first experiences with free-floating pervasive displays. In: Proceedings of The International Symposium on Pervasive Displays. ACM, p 27Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Stahl B, Marentakis G (2017) Does serial memory of locations benefit from spatially congruent audiovisual stimuli? Investigating the effect of adding spatial sound to visuospatial sequences. In: Proceedings of the 19th ACM international conference on multimodal interaction. ACM, pp 326–330Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Streitz NA, Tandler P, Müller-Tomfelde C, Konomi SI (2001) Roomware: towards the next generation of human-computer interaction based on an integrated design of real and virtual worlds. In: Human-computer interaction in the new millennium. Addison Wesley, pp 551–576Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Takashima K, Oyama T, Asari Y, Sharlin E, Greenberg S, Kitamura Y (2016) Study and design of a shape-shifting wall display. In: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM conference on designing interactive systems. ACM, pp 796–806Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Tokuda Y, Norasikin MA, Subramanian S, Martinez Plasencia D (2017) MistForm: adaptive shape changing fog screens. In: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 4383–4395Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Usoh M, Slater M, Vassilev TI (1996) Collaborative geometrical modeling in immersive virtual environments. In: Virtual environments and scientific visualization ’96. Springer, Vienna, pp 111–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Vogel D, Balakrishnan R (2004) Interactive public ambient displays: transitioning from implicit to explicit, public to personal, interaction with multiple users. In: Proceedings of the 17th annual ACM symposium on user interface software and technology. ACM, pp 137–146Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Vovk A, Wild F, Guest W, Kuula T (2018) Simulator sickness in augmented reality training using the Microsoft HoloLens. In: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, p 209Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Wisneski C, Ishii H, Dahley A, Gorbet M, Brave S, Ullmer B, Yarin P (1998) Ambient displays: turning architectural space into an interface between people and digital information. In: International workshop on cooperative buildings. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 22–32Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Zhao M, Lee L, Soman D (2012) Crossing the virtual boundary: the effect of task-irrelevant environmental cues on task implementation. Psychol Sci 23(10):1200–1207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Zhao N, Azaria A, Paradiso JA (2017) Mediated atmospheres: a multimodal mediated work environment. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies, 1(2): pp.31Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Industrial DesignKAISTDaejeonRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.School of DesignCMU (Carnegie Mellon University)PittsburghUSA
  3. 3.LEARN CenterSwiss Federal Institute of Technology (EPFL)LausanneSwitzerland
  4. 4.Human-IST InstituteUniversity of FribourgFribourgSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations