Using the iCat as Avatar in Remote Meetings
We compared two ways of remote participation in a meeting. One in which a video-connection existed between the remote participant and the collocated participants and one in which the remote participant was represented by an iCat. We asked the participants to rate the conversations on various dimensions. The remote participants tended to prefer the meetings with the iCat whereas the co-located participants preferred the video connection on most dimensions.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 4.Garau, M., Slater, M., Bee, S., Sassa, M.A.: The Impact of eye-gaze on communication using avatars. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 309–316 (2001)Google Scholar
- 5.Goodwin, C.: Conversational organisation, Interaction between Speakers and Hearers. Academic Press, New York (1981)Google Scholar
- 6.Isaacs, E.A., Tang, J.C.: What video can and can’t do for collaborations: a case study. In: Proceedings of the first ACM International Conference on Multimedia, pp. 199–206 (1993)Google Scholar
- 7.Nowak, K., Biocca, F.: The effect of the Agency and Anthropomorphism on Users’ sense of Telepresence, Copresence and Social Presence in Virtual Environments. Presence 12(5) (2003)Google Scholar
- 9.Whittaker, S.: Theories and Methods in Mediated Communication. In: Graesser, A., Gernsbacher, M., Goldman, S. (eds.) The Handbook of Discourse Processes, pp. 243–286. Erlbaum, NJ (2002); Richardson, D.C., Dale, R.: Grounding dialogue: eye movments reveal the coordination of attention during conversation and the effects of common ground, COGSCY 2006 (2006)Google Scholar