VideoArms: Embodiments for Mixed Presence Groupware

  • Anthony Tang
  • Carman Neustaedter
  • Saul Greenberg


Mixed presence groupware (MPG) allows collocated and distributed teams to work together on a shared visual workspace. Presence disparity arises in MPG because it is harder to maintain awareness of remote collaborators compared to collocated collaborators. We examine the role of one’s body in collaborative work and how it affects presence disparity, articulating four design implications for embodiments in mixed presence groupware to mitigate the effects of presence disparity: embodiments should provide local feedback; they should visually portray people’s interaction with the work surface using direct input mechanisms; they should display fine-grain movement and postures of hand gestures, and they should be positioned within the workspace. We realize and evaluate these implications with VideoArms, an embodiment technique that captures and reproduces people’s arms as they work over large displays.


consequential communication embodiments distributed groupware gestures mixed presence groupware single display groupware 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Apperley, M., McLeod, L., Masoodian, M., Paine, L., Philips, M., Rogers, B. & Thomson, K. [2003], Use of Video Shadow for Small Group Interaction: Awareness on a Large Interactive Display Surface, in R. Biddle & B. Thomas (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth Australasian User Interface Conference (AUIC 2003), Australian Computer Society, pp.81–90.Google Scholar
  2. Bekker, M. M., Olson, J. S. & Olson, G. M. [1995], Analysis of Gestures in Face-to-face Design Teams Provides Guidance for How to Use Groupware in Design, in G. Olson & S. Schuon (eds.), Proceedings of the Symposium on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods and Techniques (DIS’95), ACM Press, pp. 157–66.Google Scholar
  3. Dix, A., Finlay, J., Abowd, G. & Beale, R. [1998], Human-Computer Interaction, second edition, Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  4. Everitt, K. M., Klemmer, S. R., Lee, R. & Landay, J. A. [2003], Two Worlds Apart: Bridging the Gap Between Physical and Virtual Media for Distributed Design Collaboration, in V. Bellotti, T. Erickson, G. Cockton & P. Korhonen (eds.), Proceedings of SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’03), CHI Letters 5(1), ACM Press, pp.553–60.Google Scholar
  5. Friedland, G., Jantz, K. & Rojas., R. [2005], SIOX: Simple Interactive Object Extraction in Still Images, in S. Kawanda (ed.), Proceedings of the Seventh IEEE International Symposium on Multimedia (ISM’05), IEEE Computer Society Press, pp.253–60.Google Scholar
  6. Gutwin, C. [1997], Workspace Awareness in Real-time Distributed Groupware, PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Calgary.Google Scholar
  7. Gutwin, C. & Greenberg, S. [1998], Effects of Awareness Support on Groupware Usability, in C.-M. Karat, A. Lund, J. Coutaz & J. Karat (eds.), Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’98), ACM Press.Google Scholar
  8. Harrison, S. & Minneman, S. [1994], A Bike in Hand: A Study of 3-D Objects in Design, in K. Dorst, H. Christiaans & N. Cross (eds.), The Delf Protocols Workshop: Analyzing Design Activity, John Wiley & Sons, pp.205–18.Google Scholar
  9. Ishii, H. & Kobayashi, M. [1993], Integration of Interpersonal Space and Shared Workspace: Clearboard Design and Experiments, ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems 11(4), 349–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kirk, D., Crabtree, A. & Rodden, T. [2005], Ways of the Hands, in H. W. Gellersen, K. Schmidt, M. Beaudouin-Lafon & W. Mackay (eds.), Proceedings of ECSCW’05, the 9th European Conference on Computer-supported Cooperative Work, KluwerAcad, pp. 1–21.Google Scholar
  11. Krauss, R., Dushay, R., Chen, Y. & Rauscher, F. [1995], The Communicative Value of Conversational Hand Gestures, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 31(6), 533–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kuzuoka, H., Yamashita, J., Yamazaki, K. & Yamazaki, A. [1999], Agora: A Remote Collaboration System that Enables Mutual Monitoring, in M. E. Atwood (ed.), CHI’99 Extended Abstracts of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM Press, pp.190–1.Google Scholar
  13. Miwa, Y. & Ishibiki, C. [2004], Shadow Communication: System for Embodied Interaction with Remote Partners, in J. Herbsleb & G. Olson (eds.), Proceedings of 2004 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW’04), ACM Press, pp.467–76.Google Scholar
  14. Pinelle, D., Gutwin, C. & Greenberg, S. [2003], Task Analysis for Groupware Usability Evaluation: Modelling Shared-workspace Tasks with the Mechanics of Collaboration, ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 10(4), 281–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Riseborough, M. G. [1981], Physiographic Gestures as Decoding Facilitators: Three Experiments Exploring a Neglected Facet of Communication, Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 5(3), 172–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Robertson, T. [1997], Cooperative Work and Lived Cognition: A Taxonomy of Embodied Actions, in J. Hughes, W. Prinz, T. Rodden & K. Schmidt (eds.), Proceedings of ECSCW’97, the 5th European Conference on Computer-supported Cooperative Work, Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp.205–20.Google Scholar
  17. Rodden, T. [1996], Populating the Application: A Model of Awareness for Cooperative Applications, in M. J. Tauber, B. Nardi & G. C. van der Veer (eds.), Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: Common Ground (CHI’96), ACM Press, pp.88–96.Google Scholar
  18. Roussel, N. [2001], Exploring New Uses of Video with VideoSpace, in M. R. Little & L. Nigay (eds.), Engineering for Human-Computer Interaction: Proceedings of the 8th IFIP International Conference (EHCI 2001), Vol. 2254 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag, pp.73–90.Google Scholar
  19. Segal, L. D. [1995], Designing Team Workstations: The Choreography of Teamwork, in P. Hancock, J. Flach, J. Caird & K. Vicente (eds.), Local Applications of the Ecological Approach to Human-Machine Systems, Vol. 2, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  20. Stotts, D., Smith, J. & Gyllstrom, K. [2004], Support for Distributed Pair Programming in the Transparent Video Facetop, in C. Zannier, H. Erdogmus & L. Lindstrom (eds.), Proceedings of XP Agile Universe 2004, Vol. 3134 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, pp.92–104.Google Scholar
  21. Tang, A., Boyle, M. & Greenberg, S. [2005], Understanding and Mitigating Display and Presence Disparity in Mixed Presence Groupware, Journal of Research and Practice in Information Technology 37(2), 71–88.Google Scholar
  22. Tang, J. C. [1991], Findings from Observational Studies of Collaborative Work, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 34(2), 143–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Tang, J. & Minneman, S. [1991a], Videodraw: A Video Interface for Collaborative Drawing, ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems 9(2), 170–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tang, J. & Minneman, S. [1991b], VideoWhiteboard: Video Shadows to Support Remote Collaboration, in S. P. Robertson, G. M. Olson & J. S. Olson (eds.), Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: Reaching through Technology (CHI’91), ACM Press, pp.315–22.Google Scholar
  25. Wilson, A. [2005], PlayAnywhere: A Compact Tabletop Computer Vision System, in P. Baudisch, M. Czerwinski & D. Olsen (eds.), Proceedings of the 18th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST’05), ACM Press, pp.83–92.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anthony Tang
    • 1
  • Carman Neustaedter
    • 2
  • Saul Greenberg
    • 2
  1. 1.Human Communication Technologies LaboratoryUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  2. 2.Interactions LaboratoryUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations