Partitioning open-plan workspaces via augmented reality

Personal and Ubiquitous Computing (2019)Cite this 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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

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 271–278

  2. 2.

    Alavi HS, Churchill E, Kirk D, Nembrini J, Lalanne D (2016a) Deconstructing human-building interaction. Interactions 23(6):60–62

    Article  Google 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 3408–3414

    Google 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):487–498

    Article  Google 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 421–424

  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):83–92

    Google 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):1–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Burkus D (2016) Under new management: how leading organizations are upending business as usual. Houghton Mifflin Harcour

  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 Buildings

    Google 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 795–796

  12. 12.

    Corsi P (1972) Memory and the medial temporal region of the brain. Dissertation, McGill University, Montreal, QB

    Google 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 26–33

    Google 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 2–12

  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 65–68

  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 3171–3180

  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 86

  20. 20.

    Forster S, Lavie N (2009) Harnessing the wandering mind: the role of perceptual load. Cognition 111(3):345–355

    Article  Google 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 7029–7041

  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):48–62

    Article  Google 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):252–258

    Article  Google 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):18–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Kleitman N (1982) Basic rest-activity cycle—22 years later. Journal of Sleep Research & Sleep Medicine 5(4):311–317

    Google 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 126–131

  29. 29.

    Koolhaas R OMA (2009) Prada Transformer. http://www.prada.com/en/a-future-archive/projects/specials/transformer.html. Accessed

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Kwoka M, Johnson J, Houayek H, Dunlap I, Walker ID, Green KE (2008) The AWE wall: a smart reconfigurable robotic surface. pp14–14

  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 441–446

  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 218

  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):424–434

    Article  Google 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 129

  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 241–248

  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):71–84

    Article  Google 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 601–606

  38. 38.

    Mueller ST, Piper BJ (2014) The psychology experiment building language (PEBL) and PEBL test battery. J Neurosci Methods 222:250–259

    Article  Google 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):357–363

    Article  Google 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 279–280

    Google 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):423–438

    Article  Google 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 179–188

  43. 43.

    Orr WC, Hoffman HJ, Hegge FW (1974) Ultradian rhythms in extended performance. Aviat Space Environ Med 45:995–1000

    Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Orr WC, Hoffman HJ, Hegge FW (1976) The assessment of time-dependent changes in human performance. Chronobiologia 3:293–309

    Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Schnädelbach H (2010) Adaptive architecture—a conceptual framework. In: Media city: interaction of architecture, media and social phenomena, Weimar, pp 523–556

  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

  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 27

  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 326–330

  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 551–576

  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 796–806

  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 4383–4395

  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 111–120

    Google 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 137–146

  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 209

  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 22–32

    Google 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):1200–1207

    Article  Google 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.31

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Industrial Design, KAIST, Daejeon, 34141, Republic of Korea

    Hyelip Lee, Seungwoo Je & Andrea Bianchi

  2. School of Design, CMU (Carnegie Mellon University), 5130 Margaret Morrison St, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA

    Rachel Kim

  3. LEARN Center, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (EPFL), ME B3 465 (Bâtiment ME), Station 9, Lausanne, 1015, Switzerland

    Himanshu Verma

  4. Human-IST Institute, University of Fribourg, A440, Perolles 90, Fribourg, 1700, Switzerland

    Hamed Alavi

Authors
  1. Hyelip Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Seungwoo Je
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rachel Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Himanshu Verma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hamed Alavi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Andrea Bianchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hyelip Lee.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

(MP4 137,113 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lee, H., Je, S., Kim, R. et al. Partitioning open-plan workspaces via augmented reality. Pers Ubiquit Comput (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-019-01306-0

Download citation

Keywords

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