Exploring How Tangible Tools Enable Collaboration in a Multi-touch Tabletop Game

  • Tess Speelpenning
  • Alissa N. Antle
  • Tanja Doering
  • Elise van den Hoven
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6947)


Digital tabletop surfaces afford multiple user interaction and collaboration. Hybrid tabletops that include both tangible and multi-touch elements are increasingly being deployed in public settings (e.g. Microsoft Surface, reacTable). Designers need to understand how the different characteristics of tangible and multi-touch interface elements affect collaborative activity on tabletops. In this paper, we report on a mixed methods exploratory study of a collaborative tabletop game about sustainable development. We explore the effects of tangible and multi-touch tools on collaborative activity. Forty-five participants, in trios, played the game using both versions of the tools. Our analysis includes quantitative performance measures, qualitative themes and behavioral measures. Findings suggest that both tangible and multi-touch tools enabled effective tool use and that collaborative activity was more influenced by group dynamics than tool modality. However, we observed that the physicality of the tangible tools facilitated individual ownership and announcement of tool use, which in turn supported group and tool awareness.


Tangible interaction collaboration CSCL tabletop gaming multitouch Futura interaction design 


  1. 1.
    Fitzmaurice, G., Ishii, H., Buxton, W.: Bricks: Laying the Foundations for Graspable User Interfaces. In: CHI 1995, Denver, CO, USA, pp. 442–449. ACM Press, New York (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ullmer, B., Ishii, H.: Emerging Frameworks for Tangible User Interfaces. In: Human-Computer Interaction in the New Millenium, pp. 579–601. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kirk, D., Sellen, A., Taylor, S., Villar, N., Izadi, S.: Putting the Physical into the Digital: Issues in Designing Hybrid Interactive Surfaces. In: BSC HCI 2009, Cambridge, UK, pp. 35–44 (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jordà, S., Geiger, G., Alonso, M., Kaltenbrunner, M.: The reacTable: Exploring the Synergy between Live Music Performance and Tabletop Tangible Interfaces. In: TEI 2007, Baton Rouge, LA, USA, pp. 139–146. ACM Press, New York (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Maher, M., Kim, M.: Do Tangible User Interfaces Impact Spatial Cognition in Collaborative Design? In: Luo, Y. (ed.) CDVE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3675, pp. 30–41. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hornecker, E.: A Design Theme for Tangible Interaction: Embodied Facilitation. In: ECSCW 2005, pp. 23–43. Springer, New York (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rogers, Y., Rodden, T.: Configuring Spaces and Surfaces to Support Collaborative Interactions. In: Public and Situated Displays, pp. 45–79. Kluwer Publishers, Dordrecht (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Waldner, M., Hauber, J., Zauner, J., Haller, M., Billinghurst, M.: Tangible Tiles: Design and Evaluation of a Tangible User Interface in a Collaborative Tabletop Setup. In: CHI 2006, Sydney, Australia, pp. 151–158. ACM Press, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Scott, S., Carpendale, S.: Guest Editors’ Introduction: Interacting with Digital Tabletops. In: IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, vol. 7(4), pp. 24–27. IEEE Press, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rekimoto, J., Ullmer, B., Oba, H.: DataTiles: A Modular Platform for Mixed Physical and Graphical Interactions. In: CHI 2001, Seattle, WA, USA, pp. 269–276. ACM Press, New York (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Price, S., Falcao, T., Sheridan, J., Roussos, G.: The Effect of Representation Location on Interaction in a Tangible Learning Environment. In: TEI 2009, pp. 85–92. ACM Press, New York (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Piper, A., O’Brien, E., Morris, M., Winograd, T.: SIDES: A Cooperative Tabletop Computer Game for Social Skills Development. In: CSCW 2006, Banff, Canada, pp. 1–10. ACM Press, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hornecker, E., Buur, J.: Getting a Grip on Tangible Interaction: A Framework on Physical Space and Social Interactions. In: CHI 2006, Montréal, Canada, pp. 437–446. ACM Press, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    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, Fungchal, Portugal, pp. 93–100. ACM Press, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Antle, A.N., Tanenbaum, J., Tanenbaum, K., Bevans, A., Wang, S.: Balancing Act: Enabling Public Engagement with Sustainability Issues through a Multi-Touch Tabletop Collaborative Game. In: Campos, P., et al. (eds.) INTERACT 2011, Part II. LNCS, vol. 6947, pp. 194–211. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Magerkurth, C., Memisoglu, M., Engelke, T., Streiz, N.: Towards the Next Generation of Tabletop Gaming Experiences. In: Proc. of Graphics Interface, Waterloo, Canada, pp. 73–80 (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dang, C.T., Straub, M., André, E.: Hand Distinction for Multi-Touch Tabletop Interaction. In: ITS 2009, Banff, Canada, pp. 101–108 (2009)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Leitner, J., Haller, M., Yun, K., Woo, W., Sugimoto, M., Inami, M., Cheok, A., Been-Lirn, H.: Physical Interfaces for Tabletop Games. Computers in Entertainment, vol. 7(4), pp. 1–21. ACM Press, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lucchi, A., Jermann, P., Zufferey, G., Dillenbourg, P.: An Emperical Evaluation of Touch and Tangible Interfaces for Tabletop Displays. In: TEI 2010, Cambridge, MA, USA, pp. 177–184. ACM Press, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tuddenham, P., Kirk, D., Izadi, S.: Graspables Revisited: Multi-Touch vs. Tangible Input for Tabletop Displays in Acquisition and Manipulation Tasks. In: CHI 2010, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, pp. 2223–2232. ACM Press, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Xie, L., Antle, A.N., Motamedi, N.: Are Tangibles More Fun? Comparing Children’s Enjoyment and Engagement Using Physical, Graphical and Tangible User Interfaces. In: TEI 2008, Bonn, Germany, pp. 191–198. ACM Press, New York (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Antle, A.N.: Exploring How Children Use their Hands to Think: An Embodied Interactional Analysis. Behaviour and Information Technology, (accepted)
  23. 23.
    Wang, S.: Comparing Tangible and Multi-touch Interfaces for a Spatial Problem Solving Task. Masters Thesis. Simon Fraser University, Surrey, BC, Canada (2010), Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rogers, Y., Lim, Y., Hazlewood, W., Marshall, P.: Equal Opportunities: Do Shareable Interfaces Promote More Group Participation Than Single User Displays? Human Computer Interaction 24(1/2), 79–116 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Roschelle, J., Teasley, S.: The Construction of Shared Knowledge in Collaborative Problem Solving. In: CSCL 1995, Berlin, Germany, pp. 69–197 (1995)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Brehmer, B.: Distributed Decision Making: Some Notes on the Literature. In: Rasmussen, J., Brehmer, B., Leplat, J. (eds.) Distributed Decision Making: Cognitive Models for Co-operative Work. John Wiley & Sons, New York (1991)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Suthers, D.: Representational Guidance for Collaborative Learning. Artificial Intelligence in Education, 3–10 (2003)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Clark, H., Brennan, S.: 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, USA (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Duffy, T., Dueber, B., Hawley, C.: Critical Thinking in a Distributed Environment: A Pedagogical Base for the Design of Conferencing Systems. In: Electronic Collaborators: Learner-Centered Technologies for Literacy, Apprenticeship, and Discourse, pp. 51–78. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (1998)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hornecker, E., Marshall, P., Rogers, Y.: Entry and Access - How Shareability Comes About. In: DPPI 2007, Helsinki, Iceland, pp. 328–342 (2007)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Dourish, P., Bellotti, V.: Awareness and Coordination in Shared Workspaces. In: CSCW 1992, Toronto, Canada, pp. 107–114. ACM Press, New York (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hornecker, E., Marshall, P., Sheep Dalton, N., Rogers, Y.: Collaboration and Interference: Awareness with Mice or Touch Input. In: CSCW 2008, San Diego, CA, USA, pp. 167–176. ACM Press, New York (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Fleck, R., Rogers, Y., Yuill, N., Marshall, P., Carr, A., Rick, J.: Actions Speak Loudly with Words: Unpacking Collaboration Around the Table. In: ITS 2009, Banff, Canada, pp. 189–196 (2009)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kaltenbrunner, M.: ReacTIVision and TUIO: A Tangible Tabletop Toolkit. In: ITS 2009, Banff, Canada, pp. 9–16 (2009)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Meerbeek, B., Bingley, P., Rijnen, W., Hoven van den, E.: Pipet: A Design Concept Supporting Photo Sharing. In: NordiCHI 2010, Reykjavik, Iceland (2010)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Thaler, R.: Toward a Positive Theory of Consumer Choice. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 1(1), 39–60 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Beggan, J.: On the Social Nature of Nonsocial Perception: The Mere Ownership Effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 62(2), 229–237 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tess Speelpenning
    • 1
  • Alissa N. Antle
    • 2
  • Tanja Doering
    • 3
  • Elise van den Hoven
    • 1
  1. 1.Eindhoven University of TechnologyThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Simon Fraser UniversitySurreyCanada
  3. 3.University of Duisburg-EssenGermany

Personalised recommendations