An evaluation of coordination techniques for protecting objects and territories in tabletop groupware

Abstract

Indirect input techniques allow users to quickly access all parts of tabletop workspaces without the need for physical access; however, indirect techniques restrict the available social cues that are seen on direct touch tables. This reduced awareness results in impoverished coordination; for example, the number of conflicts might increase since users are more likely to interact with objects that another person is planning to use. Conflicts may also arise because indirect techniques reduce territorial behavior, expanding the interaction space of each collaborator. In this paper, we introduce three new tabletop coordination techniques designed to reduce conflicts arising from indirect input, while still allowing users the flexibility of distant object control. Two techniques were designed to promote territoriality and to allow users to protect objects when they work near their personal areas, and the third technique lets users set their protection levels dynamically. We present the results of an evaluation, which shows that people prefer techniques that automatically provide protection for personal territories, and that these techniques also increase territorial behavior.

Supporting Social Protocols in Tabletop Interaction through Visual Cues

“…As in previous work [6] on coordination techniques on tabletop groupware we showed that a controlled experiment in the form of a game can show effects of coordination techniques. The usage of a game supports the immediate involvement of the participants in the experiment in opposite to a more abstract task.…”

How do interactive tabletop systems influence collaboration?

“…Cao, Wilson, Balakrishnan, Hinckley, & Hudson, 2008;Hilliges, Baur, & Butz, 2007;Jiang, Wigdor, Forlines, & Shen, 2008;Mazalek, Reynolds, & Davenport, 2007;Pinelle, Stach, & Gutwin, 2008;Rick & Rogers, 2008) and comparisons between several design solutions (see e.g. Block, Gutwin, Haller, Gellersen, & Billinghurst, 2008;Jun, Pinelle, Gutwin, & Subramanian, 2008;Marsfhall, Hornecker, Morris, Dalton, & Rogers, 2008;Pinelle, Barjawi, Nacenta, & Mandryk, 2009;Ringel Morris, Cassanego et al, 2006;Ringel Morris, Paepcke, Winograd, & Stamberger, 2006). Tabletop paradigm evaluation: In this last category we include studies comparing the realization of the same activity on a tabletop system and on a given control condition (e.g.…”

Dynamic Strategies of Conflict Resolution on Human Perception of Equality within Multi-user Collaborative Virtual Environments

“…Nevertheless, the 'social protocols' are in general useless due to the overhead of imposing the rules and cause dissatisfaction among the users [5]. Many studies have employed the strategies of conflict avoidance in applications of multi-touch tabletops and large tiled-displays [3] [4] [6] [7].…”