Researching collocated mediated interaction
In a classical 1991 article Ellis et al. classify collaborative software software to four groups: same time ā same place; same time ā different place; different time ā different place and different place ā different time. This space-time āmatrix has motivated researchers to classify systems. The different time ā different place is the prime example of these systems, including Wikis, shared document editing. Similarly, systems that connect us synchronously over distances, such as chats or telepresence systems are commonly used. However, computing is used also when people are in the same place. Most prominent example of collocated systems is on large surfaces used for interactive systems, followed by various means of mediated audience engagement, such as clickers or backchannels.
This was rather long introduction to say I attended a workshop on collocated interaction at CSCW 2016. The workshop was rather traditional academic workshop: set of presentations, some Post-it⢠sorting of random comments written during the presentations and finally a design work. For me the most interesting phase was the sorting exercise, as the presentations demonstrated variety of collocated interaction.
However, the variety and the Post-it exercise demonstrated the challenge: what are common aspects of our work? In my group we tried to layout notes around the axis of āsocialā and ātechnicalā in lack of better terms for them and omitting few particular domain categories, like games. And the more we worked on it, the less sense it made. The presentations were like a set of orthogonal vectors and presenting the ideas in set of clusters seemed too challenging task for us. The solution we started to speak about but had not time to execute it was to consider the space as a matrix instead of set of clusters.
However, what are the dimensions for such matrix? We considered different application domains (education, presentation support, ā¦), but after reconsidering this, the major challenge is the unlimited number of use context. I want the matrix to have clear boundaries. Instead we may focus on the role of technologies in the collocated situation. For example, Reevesās et al. (2005) explored technologies in performances based on the interaction style and impact of the interaction. In similar manner, I think we should ask what is the role of technology in the collocated interaction. We can consider the opportunities as
replacing interaction, when the computer-mediated environment is the only venue where interaction takes place.
supplementing interaction, when the computer-mediated environment is used together with face-to-face interaction. I also assume we can further separate at least two types of supplementary interaction: in Type I the computer-mediated channel can be considered as the primary means for communication and in Type II the face-to-face environment is considered as the primary means of communication (e.g. Rekimoto et al., 1998)
supporting interaction, when the face-to-face interaction is the means of communication, but the computer-environment supports this interaction, for example through measuring each participantsā contributions (e.g. Kim et al., 2008) or adapting the participation environment based on the activities (e.g., Andolina et al. 2015)
Above we discussed what I consider to be more the technical dimension, the other natural dimensions may be the social settings in the role. Sadly, Iām less familiar with sociology and thus this dimension may require significant work in the future. For now, I consider the interesting aspect being the expected distribution of power in the interaction situation. Again we can separate three cases
where participants are assumed to be equal and no leadership positions are assigned
where a single participant is a leader and has control over the situations
where a group of participants have a leadership position but they share (and therefore, need to coordinate) the control over the situation
This work is still rather draft and requires much more definitions and clarity over the terms. Furthermore, an event may have several collocated interaction contexts at the same time, each of them presenting one particular configuration. For example, if the presenter shows some slides and discusses of them, that is single-leader supported interaction. In the same classrooms can use Whatsapp to discuss, which may be equal replaced interaction. They coexist and hopefully do not collide.
However, one primarily question with such framework is āso what?ā What additional value can be extracted from classifying collocated interaction in this typology? Iām not yet ready to argue this is my final answer, but rather a working fix. First, different contexts may limit the opportunities for technical designs. Tools suitable for supplementary interaction, like backchannels, may not work when the need is to support interaction as the supplementary tools are too expressive for supportive interaction. Tools aimed to replace interaction may need to support better emotional expressions than tools which only supplement interaction. Similarly the power dimension has direct implications to system design (i.e. is there a need for control interface), but more clearly I would argue that the system success criteria and social theories should emerge from this dimension.