Balancing Act: Enabling Public Engagement with Sustainability Issues through a Multi-touch Tabletop Collaborative Game

  • Alissa N. Antle
  • Joshua Tanenbaum
  • Allen Bevans
  • Katie Seaborn
  • Sijie Wang
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6947)


Despite a long history of using participatory methods to enable public engagement with issues of societal importance, interactive displays have only recently been explored for this purpose. In this paper, we evaluate a tabletop game called Futura, which was designed to engage the public with issues of sustainability. Our design is grounded in prior research on public displays, serious games, and computer supported collaborative learning. We suggest that a role-based, persistent simulation style game implemented on a multi-touch tabletop affords unique opportunities for a walk-up-and-play style of public engagement. We report on a survey-based field study with 90 participants at the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics (Canada). The study demonstrated that small groups of people can be immediately engaged, participate collaboratively, and can master basic awareness outcomes around sustainability issues. However, it is difficult to design feedback that disambiguates between individual and group actions, and shows the temporal trajectory of activity.


Public displays sharable displays digital tabletops interactive surfaces group interaction multi-touch interaction public participation public engagement social issues sustainability collaborative learning serious games simulations 


  1. 1.
    Hornecker, E.: ”I don’t understand it either, but it is cool” - -Visitor interactions with a multi-touch table in a museum. In: Tabletop 2008, pp. 113–120. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Peltonen, P., Kurvinen, E., Salovaara, A., Jacucci, G., Ilmonen, T., Evans, J., Oulasvirta, A., Saarikko, P.: It’s Mine, Don’t Touch!: interactions at a large multi-touch display in a city centre. In: CHI 2008, pp. 1285–1294. ACM Press, New York (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Antle, A.N., Motamedi, N., Tanenbaum, K., Xie, L.: The EventTable technique: Distributed fiducial markers. In: TEI 2009, pp. 307–313. ACM Press, New York (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Antle, A.N., Bevans, A., Tanenbaum, J., Seaborn, K., Wang, S.: Futura: Design for collaborative learning and game play on a multi-touch digital tabletop. In: TEI 2011, pp. 93–100. ACM Press, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Speelpenning, T., Antle, A.N., Doring, T.v.d.H., E.: Exploring how a tangible tool enables collaboration in a multi-touch tabletop game. In: INTERACT (in press, 2011) Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sharp, H., Rogers, Y., Preece, J.: Interaction Design. John Wiley & Sons, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vogel, D., Balakirshnan, R.: Interactive public ambient displays: transitioning from implicit to explicit, public to personal, interaction with multiple users. In: UIST 2004, pp. 137–146. ACM Press, New York (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Huang, E., Mynat, E.: Sharable displays: Semi-public displays for small, co-located groups. In: CHI 2003, pp. 49–56. ACM Press, New York (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Elrod, S., Bruce, R., Gold, R., Goldberg, D., Halasz, F., Janssen, W., Lee, D., McCall, K., Pedersen, E., Pier, K., Tang, J., Welch, B.: Liveboard: a large interactive display supporting group meetings, presentations, and remote collaboration. In: CHI 1992, pp. 599–607. ACM Press, New York (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Russell, D.M., Drews, C., Sue, A.: Social aspects of using large public interactive displays for collaboration. In: Borriello, G., Holmquist, L.E. (eds.) UbiComp 2002. LNCS, vol. 2498, pp. 229–236. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brignull, H., Rogers, Y.: Enticing people to interact with large public displays in public spaces. In: INTERACT, pp. 17–24. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hornecker, E., Marshall, P., Rogers, Y.: From entry to access – How shareability comes about. In: DPPI 2007, pp. 328–342 (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jacucci, G., Morrison, A., Richard, G.T., Kleimola, J., Peltonen, P., Parisi, L., Laitinen, T.: Worlds of information: designing for engagement at a public multi-touch display. In: CHI 2010, pp. 2267–2276. ACM Press, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Forlines, C., Wigdor, D., Shen, C., Balakrishnan, R.: Direct-touch vs. mouse input for tabletop displays. In: CHI 2007, pp. 647–656. ACM Press, New York (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wu, M., Balakrishnan, R.: Multi-finger and whole hand gestural interaction techniques for multi-user tabletop displays. In: UIST, pp. 193–202. ACM Press, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rogers, Y., Hazlewood, W., Blevis, E., Lim, Y.K.: Finger talk: Collaborative decision-making using talk and fingertio interaction. In: CHI 2004, pp. 1271–1274. ACM Press, New York (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Scott, S.D., Carpendale, M.S.T., Inkpen, K.M.: Territoriality in collaborative tabletop workspaces. In: CSCW, pp. 294–303. ACM Press, New York (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kirriemuir, J., McFarlane, A.: Literature Review in Games and Learning. Futurelab (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Van Eck, R.: Digital game-based learning: It’s not just the digital natives who are restless. EDUCAUSE Review 41, 16–30 (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jenkins, H., Hinrichs, R.: Games to Teach Project,
  21. 21.
    Chang, A.Y.: Playing the environment: Games as virtual ecologies. In: DAC 2009 (2009),
  22. 22.
    Rieber, L.P.: Seriously considering play: Designing interactive learning environments based on the blending of microworlds, simulations, and games. Educational Technology Research and Development 44, 43–58 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Treanor, M., Mateas, M.: Newsgames: Procedural rhetoric meets political cartoons. In: DiGRA (2009),
  24. 24.
    Roschelle, J., Teasley, S.: The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In: CSCL, pp. 69–197. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dillenbourg, P.: What do you mean by ”collaborative learning”? In: Dillenbourg, P. (ed.) Collaborative Learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches, pp. 1–16. Elsevier Science, New York (1999)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Piper, A.M., Hollan, J.D.: Tabletop displays for small group study: Affordances of paper and digital materials. In: CHI 2009, pp. 1227–1236. ACM Press, New York (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Clark, H.H., Brennan, S.E.: Grounding in communication. In: Resnick, L.B., Levine, J.M., Teasley, S.D. (eds.) Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, pp. 127–149. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Suthers, D., Hundhausen, C.: An empirical study of the effects of representational guidance on collaborative learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences 12, 183–219 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Duffy, T.M., Dueber, B., Hawley, C.L.: Critical thinking in a distributed environment: A pedagogical base for the design of conferencing systems. In: Bonk, C.J., King, K.S. (eds.) Electronic Collaborators: Learner-centered Technologies for Literacy, Apprenticeship, and Discourse, pp. 51–78. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (1998)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alissa N. Antle
    • 1
  • Joshua Tanenbaum
    • 1
  • Allen Bevans
    • 1
  • Katie Seaborn
    • 1
  • Sijie Wang
    • 1
  1. 1.Simon Fraser UniversitySurreyCanada

Personalised recommendations