Advertisement

Individual and Group Support in Tabletop Interaction Techniques

  • Miguel A. Nacenta
  • David Pinelle
  • Carl Gutwin
  • Regan Mandryk
Chapter
Part of the Human-Computer Interaction Series book series (HCIS)

Abstract

A wide range of interaction techniques have been proposed for digital table systems. These techniques can vary in several ways – for example, some can manipulate objects from afar, whereas others require direct touch; some visually connect the cursor to the position of the user, whereas others simply assign different colours to different users. The differences in the way that these techniques are designed can lead to different experiences for the people around the table – particularly in terms of the support that is provided for either a person’s individual actions or the group’s overall aims. This chapter explores this issue – the ways that the design of an interaction technique can affect individual and group processes – and provides a detailed discussion of the design tradeoffs seen in selecting interaction techniques for tables. To organize the design space, we identify three perspectives (that of the action, the individual, and the group) that highlight different aspects of an interaction technique’s design, and six criteria (performance, power, awareness, coordination, use of space, and preference) that allow assessment of a technique’s support for individual and group concerns. We discuss the ways that different designs affect the six criteria, using empirical evidence from our own and others’ previous experiments. Through this analysis, we demonstrate that different design decisions can have a large impact on people’s experience in a tabletop task, and that designers should assess individual and group needs before selecting interaction techniques for tabletop groupware systems.

Keywords

Design Space Control Policy Interaction Technique Local Space Coordination Policy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Pinelle D, Nacenta M, Gutwin C, Stach T (2008) The effects of co-present embodiments on awareness and collaboration in tabletop groupware. In: Proceedings of graphics interface 2008, Canadian Information Processing Society, Windsor, ON, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dietz P, Leigh D (2001) DiamondTouch: A multi-user touch technology. In: Proceedings of the 14th annual ACM symposium on user interface software and technology, ACM Press, Orlando, FL, pp 219–226, doi: 10.1145/502348.502389Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Parker JK, Mandryk RL, Inkpen KM (2005) TractorBeam: Seamless integration of local and remote pointing for tabletop displays. In: Proceedings of graphics interface 2005, Canadian Human-Computer Communications Society, Victoria, BC, pp 33–40Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nacenta MA, Pinelle D, Stuckel D, Gutwin C (2007) The effects of interaction technique on coordination in tabletop groupware. In: Proceedings of graphics interface 2007, ACM Press, Montréal, QC, pp 191–198, doi: 10.1145/1268517.1268550Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Scott SD, Grant KD, Mandryk RL (2003) System guidelines for co-located, collaborative work on a tabletop display. In: Proceedings of the eighth conference on European conference on computer supported cooperative work, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Helsinki, Finland, pp 159–178Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pinelle D, Barjawi M, Nacenta M, Mandryk R (2009) An evaluation of coordination techniques for protecting objects and territories in tabletop groupware. In: Proceedings of the 27th international conference on human factors in computing systems, ACM Press, Boston, MA, pp 2129–2138, doi: 10.1145/1518701.1519025Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ryall K, Forlines C, Shen C, Morris MR (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, ACM Press, Chicago, IL, pp 284–293, doi: 10.1145/1031607.1031654Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Inkpen K, Hawkey K, Kellar M, Mandryk R, Parker K, Reilly D, Scott S, Whalen T (2005) Exploring display factors that influence co-located collaboration: Angle, size, number, and user arrangement. In: Proceedings of HCI international 2005, Las Vegas, NVGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hascoët M (2003) Throwing models for large displays. In: Proceedings of HCI 2003, British HCI Group, pp 73–77Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Baudisch P, Cutrell E, Robbins D, Czerwinski M, Tandler P, Bederson B, Zierlinger A (2003) Drag-and-pop and drag-and-pick: Techniques for accessing remote screen content on touch-and pen-operated systems. In: Proceedings of interact 2003, vol 3, pp 1–5Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nacenta MA, Aliakseyeu D, Subramanian S, Gutwin C (2005) A comparison of techniques for multi-display reaching. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, ACM Press, Portland, OR, pp 371–380, doi: 10.1145/1054972.1055024Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nacenta MA, Gutwin C, Aliakseyeu D, Subramanian S (2009) There and back again: Cross-display object movement in multi-display environments. Human-Computer Interaction 24(1):170–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ha V, Inkpen K, Mandryk R, Whalen T (2006) Direct intentions: The effects of input devices on collaboration around a tabletop display. In: Horizontal interactive human-computer systems, 2006. TableTop 2006. First IEEE international workshop on, p 8, doi: 10.1109/TABLETOP.2006.10Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gutwin C, Greenberg S (1998) Design for individuals, design for groups: Tradeoffs between power and workspace awareness. In: Proceedings of the 1998 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work, ACM Press, Seattle, Washington, DC, pp 207–216, doi: 10.1145/289444.289495Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Toney AP, Thomas BH (2007) Modeling reach for use in user interface design. In: Proceedings of the eight Australasian conference on user interface, vol 64, Australian Computer Society, Inc., Ballarat, VIC, pp 27–30Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Salvador T, Scholtz J, Larson J (1996) The denver model for groupware design. SIGCHI Bulletin 28(1):52–58, doi: 10.1145/249170.249185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gutwin C, Greenberg S (2002) A descriptive framework of workspace awareness for real-time groupware. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 11(3):411–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schmidt K (2002) The problem with ‘awareness’: Introductory remarks on ‘awareness in CSCW’. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 11(3):285–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Endsley MR (1995) Measurement of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 37(1):65–84, doi: 10.1518/001872095779049499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hornecker E, Marshall P, Dalton NS, Rogers Y (2008) Collaboration and interference: Awareness with mice or touch input. In: Proceedings of the ACM 2008 conference on computer supported cooperative work, ACM Press, San Diego, CA, pp 167–176, doi: 10.1145/1460563.1460589Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Scott SD, Sheelagh M, Carpendale T, Inkpen KM (2004) Territoriality in collaborative tabletop workspaces. In: Proceedings of the 2004 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work, ACM Press, Chicago, IL, pp 294–303, doi: 10.1145/1031607.1031655Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Marshall P, Hornecker E, Morris R, Dalton NS, Rogers Y (2008) When the fingers do the talking: A study of group participation with varying constraints to a tabletop interface. In: Horizontal interactive human computer systems, 2008. TABLETOP 2008. 3rd IEEE international workshop on, pp 33–40, doi: 10.1109/TABLETOP.2008.4660181Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vernier F, Lesh N, Shen C (2002) Visualization techniques for circular tabletop interfaces. In: Proceedings of advanced visual interfaces, ACM Press, 2002, pp 257–263Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wu M, Balakrishnan R (2003) Multi-finger and whole hand gestural interaction techniques for multi-user tabletop displays. In: Proceedings of the 16th annual ACM symposium on user interface software and technology, ACM Press, Vancouver, BC, pp 193–202, doi: 10.1145/964696.964718Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shen C, Everitt K, Ryall K (2003) UbiTable: Impromptu face-to-face collaboration on horizontal interactive surfaces. In: UbiComp 2003: Ubiquitous Computing, pp 281–288Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rekimoto J (1997) Pick-and-drop: A direct manipulation technique for multiple computer environments. In: Proceedings of the 10th annual ACM symposium on user interface software and technology, ACM Press, Banff, AB, pp 31–39, doi: 10.1145/263407.263505Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Swaminathan K, Sato S (1997) Interaction design for large displays. Interactions 4(1):15–24, doi: 10.1145/242388.242395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bezerianos A, Balakrishnan R (2005) The vacuum: Facilitating the manipulation of distant objects. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, ACM Press, Portland, OR, pp 361–370, doi: 10.1145/1054972.1055023Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Brignull H, Izadi S, Fitzpatrick G, Rogers Y, Rodden T (2004) The introduction of a shared interactive surface into a communal space. In: Proceedings of the 2004 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work, ACM Press, Chicago, IL, pp 49–58, doi: 10.1145/1031607.1031616Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rekimoto J, Saitoh M (1999) Augmented surfaces: A spatially continuous work space for hybrid computing environments. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems: The CHI is the limit, ACM Press, Pittsburgh, PA, pp 378–385, doi: 10.1145/302979.303113Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Geißler J (1998) Shuffle, throw or take it! Working efficiently with an interactive wall. In: CHI 98 conference summary on human factors in computing systems, ACM Press, Los Angeles, CA, pp 265–266, doi: 10.1145/286498.286745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Parker J, Mandryk R, Inkpen K (2006) Integrating point and touch for interaction with digital tabletop displays. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 26(5):28–35, doi: 10.1109/MCG.2006.110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Myers BA, Bhatnagar R, Nichols J, Peck CH, Kong D, Miller R, Long AC (2002) Interacting at a distance: Measuring the performance of laser pointers and other devices. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems: Changing our world, changing ourselves, ACM Press, Minneapolis, MN, pp 33–40, doi: 10.1145/503376.503383Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Vogel D, Balakrishnan R (2005) Distant freehand pointing and clicking on very large, high resolution displays. In: Proceedings of the 18th annual ACM symposium on user interface software and technology, ACM Press, Seattle, WA, pp 33–42, doi: 10.1145/1095034.1095041Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Benford S, Bowers J, Fahlén LE, Greenhalgh C, Snowdon D (1995) User embodiment in collaborative virtual environments. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, ACM Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Denver, CO, pp 242–249, doi: 10.1145/223904.223935Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Stach T, Gutwin C, Pinelle D, Irani P (2007) Improving recognition and characterization in groupware with rich embodiments. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, ACM Press, San Jose, CA, pp 11–20, doi: 10.1145/1240624.1240627Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Greenberg S, Gutwin C, Roseman M (1996) Semantic telepointers for groupware. In: Proceedings of sixth Australian conference on computer-human interaction, 1996, pp 54–61, doi: 10.1109/OZCHI.1996.559988Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Pinelle D, Subramanian S, Gutwin C (2006) Designing digital tables for highly integrated collaboration. Technical report. HCI-TR-06-02, Computer Science Department, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, http://hci.usask.ca/publications/view.php?id=34
  39. 39.
    Nacenta MA, Sallam S, Champoux B, Subramanian S, Gutwin C (2006) Perspective cursor: Perspective-based interaction for multi-display environments. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, ACM Press, Montréal, QC, pp 289–298, doi: 10.1145/1124772.1124817Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Tang JC, Minneman S (1991) VideoWhiteboard: Video shadows to support remote collaboration. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems: Reaching through technology, ACM Press, New Orleans, LA, United States, pp 315–322, doi: 10.1145/108844.108932Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Tang A, Tory M, Po B, Neumann P, Carpendale S (2006) Collaborative coupling over tabletop displays. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, ACM Press, Montréal, QC, pp 1181–1190, doi: 10.1145/1124772.1124950Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Tang A, Neustaedter C, Greenberg S (2007) VideoArms: Embodiments for mixed presence groupware. In: People and computers XX, Engage, pp 85–102Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Morris MR, Ryall K, Shen C, Forlines C, Vernier F (2004) Beyond “social protocols”: multi-user coordination policies for co-located groupware. In: Proceedings of the 2004 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work, ACM Press, Chicago, IL, pp 262–265, doi: 10.1145/1031607.1031648Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Forlines C, Wigdor D, Shen C, Balakrishnan R (2007) Direct-touch vs. mouse input for tabletop displays. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, ACM Press, San Jose, California, USA, pp 647–656, doi: 10.1145/1240624.1240726Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Haué J, Dillenbourg P (2009) Do fewer laptops make a better team? In: Interactive artifacts and furniture supporting collaborative work and learning, pp 1–24Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Endsley MR, Kiris EO (1995) Situation awareness global assessment technique (SAGAT) TRACON air traffic control version user guide. Technical report, Texas Tech, Lubbock, TXGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Greenberg S, Marwood D (1994) Real time groupware as a distributed system: Concurrency control and its effect on the interface. In: Proceedings of the 1994 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work, ACM Press, Chapel Hill, NC, pp 207–217, doi: 10.1145/192844.193011Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Müller-Tomfelde C, Schremmer C, Wessels A (2007) Exploratory study on concurrent interaction in co-located collaboration. In: Proceedings of the 19th Australasian conference on computer-human interaction: Entertaining user interfaces, ACM Press, Adelaide, pp 175–178, doi: 10.1145/1324892.1324925Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Miguel A. Nacenta
    • David Pinelle
      • 1
    • Carl Gutwin
      • 2
    • Regan Mandryk
      • 2
    1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada
    2. 2.Medical Imaging, College of MedicineUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatoonCanada

    Personalised recommendations