Remote Collaboration Support on Physical Tasks: Exploring Handheld and Hands-free Setups
Collaborative work involving teams and individuals distributed across the globe is an inevitable trend. Because of that, the expertise is getting increasingly distributed and we have seen a growing need for technologies to support remote collaboration. Despite this need, the differences of technologies used to support remote collaboration are unknown, especially considering different kinds of physical tasks, such as analytical tasks and construction tasks. In order to better understand their impact on collaborative behaviors, perceptions, and performance, we conducted a lab setting study to evaluate two different arrangements of technology: a handheld model and a hands-free model. These models were compared for both, analytical and construction tasks. Our results suggest us that hands-free setting is more suitable for analytical tasks, while the handheld setting is more suitable for construction tasks. These differences among technological setups for remote collaboration on physical tasks motivate additional studies, especially long-term studies in natural settings, which could investigate aspects of collaboration that may not have been explored on our lab setting study.
KeywordsRemote collaboration Handheld Hands-free Physical tasks
Frâncila Weidt Neiva and Wallace Ugulino are partially supported by CAPES. Marcos R.S. Borges is partially supported by grants No. 484030/2013-2, and 308149/2015-7 (CNPq), and grant # E-05/215.285/2015 (FAPERJ). Adriana S. Vivacqua is partially supported by grant No. 309171/2015-6 (CNPQ) and grant # E-26/202.753/2015 (FAPERJ). The authors also thank the participants in the experiment for their patience and cooperation.
- 2.Huang, W., Alem, L.: HandsinAir: a wearable system for remote collaboration on physical tasks. In: Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Computer supported Cooperative Work Companion, pp. 153–156 (2013)Google Scholar
- 3.De Greef, T., Oomes, A.H. Neerincx, M.A.: Distilling support opportunities to improve urban search and rescue missions. In: International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 703–712 (2009)Google Scholar
- 6.Vartiainen, E., Domova, V., Englund, M.: Expert on wheels: an approach to remote collaboration. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction, pp. 49–54 (2015)Google Scholar
- 7.Johnson, S., Gibson, M., Mutlu, B.: Handheld or hands-free?: remote collaboration via lightweight head-mounted displays and handheld devices. In: Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, pp. 1825–1836 (2015)Google Scholar
- 8.Poelman, R., Akman, O., Lukosch, S. Jonker, P.: As if being there: mediated reality for crime scene investigation. In: Proceedings of the ACM 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, pp. 1267–1276 (2012)Google Scholar
- 10.Rae, I., Mutlu, B., Takayama, L.: Bodies in motion: mobility, presence, and task awareness in telepresence. In: Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 2153–2162 (2014)Google Scholar
- 11.Neiva, F.W., David, J.M.N., Braga, R., Campos, F. and Freitas, V.: PRIME: Pragmatic Interoperability Architecture to Support Collaborative Development of Scientific Workflows. In: Brazilian Symposium on Components, Architectures and Reuse Software (SBCARS), pp. 50–59 (2015)Google Scholar
- 12.Van Solingen, R., Basili, V., Caldiera, G., Rombach, H.D.: Goal Question Metric (GQM) approach. In: Encyclopedia of Software Engineering (2002)Google Scholar
- 13.Laittenberger, O., Dreyer, H.M.: Evaluating the usefulness and the ease of use of a web-based inspection data collection tool. In: Proceedings IEEE Software Metrics Symposium, pp. 122–132 (1998)Google Scholar