Remote Proxemics

  • Maurício SousaEmail author
  • Daniel Mendes
  • Daniel Medeiros
  • Alfredo Ferreira
  • João Madeiras Pereira
  • Joaquim Jorge


Virtual meetings have become increasingly common with modern video-conference and collaborative software. While they allow obvious savings in time and resources, current technologies add unproductive layers of protocol to the flow of communication between participants, rendering the interactions far from seamless. In this work we describe in detail Remote Proxemics, an extension of proxemics aimed at bringing the syntax of co-located proximal interactions to virtual meetings. We also describe the role of Eery Space as a shared virtual locus that results from merging multiple remote areas, where meeting participants’ are located side-by-side as if they shared the same physical location. Thus rendering Remote Proxemics possible. Results from user evaluation on the proposed presence awareness techniques suggest that our approach is effective at enhancing mutual awareness between participants and sufficient to initiate proximal exchanges regardless of their geolocation, while promoting smooth interactions between local and remote people alike.


Augmented Reality Virtual Meetings Presence Collaboration 



This work was partially supported by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) through the projects TECTON-3D (PTDC/EEI-SII/3154/2012), CEDAR (PTDC/EIA-EIA/116070/2009), and by national funds through FCT with reference UID/CEC/50021/2013. Daniel Medeiros would like to thank CAPES Foundation, Ministry of Education of Brazil for the scholarship grant (reference 9040/13-7).


  1. 1.
    Apperley M, McLeod L, Masoodian M, Paine L, Phillips M, Rogers B, Thomson K (2003) Use of video shadow for small group interaction awareness on a large interactive display surface. In: Proceedings of AUIC ’03Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ballendat T, Marquardt N, Greenberg S (2010) Proxemic interaction: designing for a proximity and orientation-aware environment. In: ACM ITS. ACM, pp 121–130Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Basu A, Raij A, Johnsen K (2012) Ubiquitous collaborative activity virtual environments. In: Proceedings of CSCW’12Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beck S, Kunert A, Kulik A, Froehlich B (2013) Immersive group-to-group telepresence. IEEE Trans Vis Comput GraphGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Benko H, Jota R, Wilson A (2012) Miragetable: freehand interaction on a projected augmented reality tabletop. In: Proceedings of CHI ’12Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Buxton W (1992) Telepresence: Integrating shared task and person spaces. Proc Graph Interface 92:123–129Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Buxton W (1997) Living in augmented reality: ubiquitous media and reactive environments. Video Mediated Communication. pp 363–384Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Buxton WA, Sellen AJ, Sheasby MC (1997) Interfaces for multiparty videoconferences. Video-mediated Communication, pp 385–400Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cohen M, Dillman KR, MacLeod H, Hunter S, Tang A (2014) Onespace: shared visual scenes for active freeplay. In: Proceedings of CHI ’14Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Erickson T, Kellogg WA (2000) Social translucence: an approach to designing systems that support social processes. ACM TOCHIGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Greenberg S, Marquardt N, Ballendat T, Diaz-Marino R, Wang M (2011) Proxemic interactions: The new ubicomp? Interactions 18(1):42–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gustafson S, Baudisch P, Gutwin C, Irani P (2008) Wedge: clutter-free visualization of off-screen locations. In: Proceedings of CHI ’08Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gutwin C, Greenberg S (2002) A descriptive framework of workspace awareness for real-time groupware. CSCWGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hall ET (1966) The hidden dimension. DoubledayGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hinckle K (2003) Synchronous gestures for multiple persons and computers. In: ACM UIST. ACM, pp 149–158Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ishii H, Kobayashi M (1992) Clearboard: a seamless medium for shared drawing and conversation with eye contact. In: CHI. ACM, pp 525–532Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ju W, Lee BA, Klemmer SR (2008) Range: exploring implicit interaction through electronic whiteboard design. In: Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work. ACM, pp 17–26Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kendon A (1990) Conducting interaction: patterns of behavior in focused encounters, vol 7. CUP ArchiveGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kortuem G, Kray C, Gellersen H (2005) Sensing and visualizing spatial relations of mobile devices. In: UIST. ACM, pp 93–102Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kunz A, Nescher T, Kuchler M (2010) Collaboard: a novel interactive electronic whiteboard for remote collaboration with people on content. In: 2010 International Conference on Cyberworlds (CW). IEEE, pp 430–437Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Marquardt N, Ballendat N, Boring S, Greenberg S, Hinckley K (2012) Gradual engagement: facilitating information exchange between digital devices as a function of proximity. In: Proceedings of ITS ’12Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Marquardt N, Hinckley K, Greenberg S (2012) Cross-device interaction via micro-mobility and f-formations. In: Proceedings of UIST ’12Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Morikawa O, Maesako T (1998) Hypermirror: toward pleasant-to-use video mediated communication system. In: CSCW. ACM, pp 149–158Google Scholar
  24. 24.
  25. 25.
    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 SIGGRAPH ’98Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Reeves B, Nass C (1996) The media equation: how people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Cambridge Univ PressGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Roussel N, Evans H, Hansen H (2004) Proximity as an interface for video communication. MultiMedia, IEEE 11(3):12–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sommer R (2002) Personal space in a digital age. In: Handbook of environmental psychology, pp 647–660Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sousa M, Mendes D, Ferreira A, Pereira JA, Jorge J (2015) Eery space: facilitating virtual meetings through remote proxemics. In: Human-Computer Interaction–INTERACT 2015. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sousa M, Mendes D, Ferreira A, Pereira JM, Jorge J (2015) Human-Computer Interaction—INTERACT 2015: 15th IFIP TC 13 international conference, Bamberg, Germany, 14–18 Sept 2015, Proceedings, Part III, chapter eery space: facilitating virtual meetings through remote proxemics. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 622–629Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tanner P, Shah V (2010) Improving remote collaboration through side-by-side telepresence. In: CHI’10 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 3493–3498Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Vogel D, Balakrishnan R (2004) Interactive public ambient displays: transitioning from implicit to explicit, public to personal, interaction with multiple users. In: UIST. ACM, pp 137–146Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wilson AD, Benko H (2014) Crossmotion: fusing device and image motion for user identification, tracking and device association. In: ICMI, ICMI ’14, New York, NY, USA. ACM, pp 216–223Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wolff R, Roberts DJ, Steed A, Otto O (2007) A review of telecollaboration technologies with respect to closely coupled collaboration. Int J Comput Appl Technol 29(1):11–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maurício Sousa
    • 1
    Email author
  • Daniel Mendes
    • 1
  • Daniel Medeiros
    • 1
  • Alfredo Ferreira
    • 1
  • João Madeiras Pereira
    • 1
  • Joaquim Jorge
    • 1
  1. 1.INESC-ID/Tcnico Lisboa/University of LisbonLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations