Successes and Failures in Co-Present Situations

Abstract

Virtual environments systems based on immersive projection technologies (IPTs) offer users the possibility of collaborating intuitively in a 3D environment. While considerable work has been done to examine interaction in desktop-based collaborative virtual environments (CVEs), there are currently no studies for collaborative interaction using IPTs.The aim of this paper is to examine how immersive technologies support interaction and to compare this to the experience with desktop systems. A study of collaboration is presented where two partners worked together using networked IPT environments. The data collected included observations, analysis of video and audio recordings, questionnaires and debriefing interviews from both IPT sites. This paper focuses on the successes and failures in collaboration through detailed examination of particular incidents during the interaction. We compare these successes and failures with the findings of a study by Hindmarsh, Fraser, Heath, & Benford (Computer Supported Collaborative Work, CSCW'98, 1998, pp. 217-226) that examined object-focused interaction on a desktop-based CVE system.Our findings identify situations where interaction is better supported with the IPT system than the desktop system, and situations where interaction is not as well supported. We also present examples of how social interaction is critical to seamless collaboration.

The Usability of Collaborative Virtual Environments and Methods for the Analysis of Interaction

“…One departure point for the development of this analysis method is that interaction in CVEs is often fragmented interaction (Hindmarsh, Fraser, Heath, Benford, & Greenhalgh, 1998); that is, collaboration is frequently interrupted by lack of awareness of what the other person is doing, by insufficient feedback to one's action from the other person(s), and especially by difficulty in seeing what the other is seeing (see also Hindmarsh, Fraser, Heath, & Benford, 2002). Another background is the fact that the ways in which interaction is made difficult in collaborative desktop environments should not necessarily apply to immersive environments-because here users have a better view of the other person, of how they react to one's movements, and a better field of view for seeing what the other person is seeing (Heldal, Steed, Spante, Schroeder, Bengtsson, & Partanen, 2005).…”

Eye-tracking for avatar eye-gaze and interactional analysis in immersive collaborative virtual environments

“…desktop) CVE systems could be alleviated by ICVEs due to intuitive body tracking and the larger field-of-view [12]. Later studies have shown this to be the case, but there are still problems due to the representation of avatars: in particular, gaze is identified as an important cue not captured or transmitted faithfully by the medium [11]. Figure 1 illustrates the ability for unconstrained movement in a shared virtual space while maintaining meaningful gaze as supported by EyeCVE.…”

Exploring the Relationship Between Distributed Training, Integrated Learning Environments, and Immersive Training Environments

“…Results indicated that distance judgments after using the virtual reality system was short compared to real life training. e) Heldal, Steed, Spante, & Schroeder (2005): An exploratory study was performed where 6 pairs of participants were asked to use a virtual environment. Each member of a pair was in a different location.…”