Communication and information retrieval with a pen-based meeting support tool

Wolf, Catherine G.; Rhyne, James R.; Briggs, Laura K.

doi:10.1145/143457.143539

Cited by 43 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Perennial research has been done to leverage the pen based interaction into interfaces supporting collaboration. For example, NoteLook [2], NotePals [3] and We-Met [34] use stylus over PDA and tablets to enable note taking during meetings, while in NiCE Discussion Room [6] group members can use pen and paper to create and share content. NotePals [3] is a system to share meeting notes among the group using a shared note repository, however the interaction is restricted due to the small size of the PDA screen.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The pen and paper interface in NiCE Discussion Room [6] does not allow multiple users to work simultaneously on a single problem. Wolf et al [34] observed that pen based interfaces are unobtrusive and do not interfere with interpersonal communications during collaboration. This suggests that an obtrusive input device increases the extraneous cognitive load of the user resulting in attentional shift from the collaborative task to the device usage.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Complementarity of input devices to achieve knowledge sharing in meetings

Verma

Roman

Magrelli

et al. 2013

Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In co-located meetings, participants create and share content to establish a common understanding. In this paper, we present a collaborative environment that enables group members to create and share content simultaneously by providing them with different kinds of individual input devices and a shared workspace. We also report on an exploratory study to investigate the influence of the input device used on the shared knowledge produced by the group. The results suggest that driven by the affordances, various input devices complement each other. We thus recommend groups to be equipped with multitude of them to support diverse meeting task demands. Additionally, we observed that groupware usage differs across various phases of the problem-solving activity. This provides implications for the design of collaborative environments to assist each of the respective phases of the task, in order to extend their usefulness for the group.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Complementarity of input devices to achieve knowledge sharing in meetings

Verma

Roman

Magrelli

et al. 2013

Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other capture systems, such as Marquee [Weber andPoon 1994, Filochat [Whittaker et al 1994], We-Met [Wolf and Rhyne 1992], the Audio Notebook [Stifelman 1996;, Dynomite [Wilcox et al 1997], NotePals [Davis et al 1999], and MRAS [White et al 1998], focus on capture for the individual. StuPad ] was the first system to provide mixed public and personal capture.…”

Section: Charting Past Present and Future Research In Ubiquitous Comentioning

confidence: 99%

Charting past, present, and future research in ubiquitous computing

Abowd

Mynatt

2000

ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact.

1,031

440

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The proliferation of computing into the physical world promises more than the ubiquitous availability of computing infrastructure; it suggests new paradigms of interaction inspired by constant access to information and computational capabilities. For the past decade, application-driven research in ubiquitous computing (ubicomp) has pushed three interaction themes: natural interfaces, context-aware applications, and automated capture and access. To chart a course for future research in ubiquitous computing, we review the accomplishments of these efforts and point to remaining research challenges. Research in ubiquitous computing implicitly requires addressing some notion of scale, whether in the number and type of devices, the physical space of distributed computing, or the number of people using a system. We posit a new area of applications research, everyday computing, focussed on scaling interaction with respect to time. Just as pushing the availability of computing away from the traditional desktop fundamentally changes the relationship between humans and computers, providing continuous interaction moves computing from a localized tool to a constant companion. Designing for continuous interaction requires addressing interruption and resumption of interaction, representing passages of time and providing associative storage models. Inherent in all of these interaction themes are difficult issues in the social implications of ubiquitous computing and the challenges of evaluating ubiquitous computing research. Although cumulative experience points to lessons in privacy, security, visibility, and control, there are no simple guidelines for steering research efforts. Akin to any efforts involving new technologies, evaluation strategies form a spectrum from technology feasibility efforts to long-term use studies-but a user-centric perspective is always possible and necessary.

show abstract

“…Although many drawing tools were designed primarily to support the creation of shared images (e.g., architectural diagrams or design sketches), studies of their use have observed the importance of the tools for gestural communication. In We-Met (Wolf, Rhyne, & Briggs, 1992;Wolf & Rhyne, 1993), a pen-based shared drawing tool, 15% of people's speaking turns included gestures. Circles, arrows, and similar marks were used for indicating parts of the shared drawing, and two-way arrows were used to express more complex relationships.…”

Section: Implementing Gesture In Video Systems For Remote Collaborationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gestures Over Video Streams to Support Remote Collaboration on Physical Tasks

Fussell¹,

Setlock²,

Yang³

et al. 2004

Human–Computer Interaction

265

205

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article considers tools to support remote gesture in video systems being used to complete collaborative physical tasks-tasks in which two or more individuals work together manipulating three-dimensional objects in the real world. We first discuss the process of conversational grounding during collaborative physical tasks, particularly the role of two types of gestures in the grounding process: pointing gestures, which are used to refer to task objects and locations, and rep- HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION, 2004, Volume 19, pp. 273-309 Copyright © 2004 resentational gestures, which are used to represent the form of task objects and the nature of actions to be used with those objects. We then consider ways in which both pointing and representational gestures can be instantiated in systems for remote collaboration on physical tasks. We present the results of two studies that use a "surrogate" approach to remote gesture, in which images are intended to express the meaning of gestures through visible embodiments, rather than direct views of the hands. In Study 1, we compare performance with a cursor-based 274 FUSSELL ET AL.

show abstract

Communication and information retrieval with a pen-based meeting support tool

Cited by 43 publications

References 17 publications

Complementarity of input devices to achieve knowledge sharing in meetings

Complementarity of input devices to achieve knowledge sharing in meetings

Charting past, present, and future research in ubiquitous computing

Gestures Over Video Streams to Support Remote Collaboration on Physical Tasks

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About