AI & SOCIETY

, Volume 17, Issue 3–4, pp 322–339 | Cite as

Knowledge in co-action: social intelligence in collaborative design activity

Original Article

Abstract

Skilled cooperative action means being able to understand the communicative situation and know how and when to respond appropriately for the purpose at hand. This skill is of the performance of knowledge in co-action and is a form of social intelligence for sustainable interaction. Social intelligence, here, denotes the ability of actors and agents to manage their relationships with each other. Within an environment we have people, tools, artefacts and technologies that we engage with. Let us consider all of these as dynamic representations of knowledge. When this knowledge becomes enacted, i.e., when we understand how to use it to communicate effectively, such that it becomes invisible to us, it becomes knowledge in co-action. A challenge of social intelligence design is to create mediating interfaces that can become invisible to us, i.e., as an extension of ourselves. In this paper, we present a study of the way people use surfaces that afford graphical interaction, in collaborative design tasks, in order to inform the design of intelligent user interfaces. This is a descriptive study rather than a usability study, to explore how size, orientation and horizontal and vertical positioning, influences the functionality of the surface in a collaborative setting.

Keywords

Coordinated autonomy Graphical interaction Knowledge in co-action Parallel coordinated moves Social intelligence 

References

  1. Allwood J, Nivre J and Ahlsen E (1991) On the semantics and pragmatics of linguistic feedback. Gothenburg Papers. Theoretical Linguistics, 64Google Scholar
  2. Bateson G (1955) The Message. ‘This is the Play’. In: B Schaffner (ed) Group Processes. Vol. II. New York: MacyGoogle Scholar
  3. Bavelas JB (1994) Gestures as part of speech: methodological implications. Res Lang Soc Inter 27(3):201–221Google Scholar
  4. Birdwhistle RL (1970) Kinesics and context. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, PAGoogle Scholar
  5. Borchers J, Gill S and To T (2002) Multiple large-scale displays for collocated team work: study and recommendations. Technical Report. Stanford UniversityGoogle Scholar
  6. Clark HH, Schaefer EF (1989) Contributing to discourse. Cog Sci 13:259–294Google Scholar
  7. Everitt KM, Klemmer SR, Lee R, Landay JA (2003) Two Worlds Apart: Bridging the Gap Between Physical and Virtual Media for Distributed Design Collaboration. Proceedings of CHI 2003, ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing SystemsGoogle Scholar
  8. Gill SP (2002) The parallel coordinated move: case of a conceptual drawing task. Published Working Paper: CKIR, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  9. Gill SP, Kawamori M, Katagiri Y and Shimojima A (2000). The role of body moves in dialogue. RASK 12:89–114Google Scholar
  10. Gregory R (1963) Recovery from blindness. A case study. Experimental Psychology Society Monograph No 2Google Scholar
  11. Guimbretiere F, Stone M, Winograd T (2001) Stick it on the wall: a metaphor for interaction with large displays. Submitted to Computer Graphics (SIGGRAPH 2001 Proceedings)Google Scholar
  12. Reiner M (1999) Conceptual Construction of Fields with a Tactile Interface. Interactive Learning Environments 6 (X), 1–25Google Scholar
  13. Reiner M and Gilbert J (in press) The Symbiotic Roles of Empirical Experimentation and Thought Experimentation in the Learning of Physics. International Journal of Science EducationGoogle Scholar
  14. Scheflen AE (1975) How behaviour means. Anchor Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Winograd T and Flores F (1986) Understanding Computers and Cognition. A New Foundation for Design. Norwood NJ, Ablex CorporationGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI)Stanford UniversityUSA
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceETH ZentrumSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations