Communication around Interactive Tables Figure 1. Research Framework. Izdihar Jamil Department of Computer Science University of Bristol Bristol BS8 1UB, UK Izdihar.Jamil@bris.ac.uk Abstract Despite technological, interaction and co-located collaboration advances on multi-touch interactive tables there is little or no knowledge of how people communicate around these surfaces. Communication is important as it acts as a tool for human to express themselves. Through communication we are able to share information, ideas and emotions; make decisions and build relationships with people. Communication is a key aspect in our everyday life and therefore it is important to understand how we communicate around technology. My work examines the verbal and non-verbal aspects of communication when a group of people collaborate with each other around interactive tables. Findings from my research will provide the community with a deep and systematic analysis of how communication plays a crucial role in new technology. This will lead to a repertoire of tools for designing and deploying applications on interactive tables that will capture human-technology communication. Copyright is held by the author/owner(s). CHI 29, April 4 9, 29, Boston, MA, USA ACM 978-1-6558-246-7/9/4. Keywords Interactive surface, conversation styles, collaboration ACM Classification Keywords H5.3. Group and Organization Interfaces: Collaborative computing, Computer-supported cooperative work. Introduction Communication is a method of social engagement. It occurs when two or more people exchange either verbal or non-verbal messages while they are collaborating on a shared topic or task [3]. Verbal communication focuses on the spoken aspects of communication such as speech while non-verbal communication describes the delivery method, such as body language [1]. Communication is an important part of our lives. In his book, Gladwall [2] highlighted an example of how technology can prove catastrophic when communication is not considered. Boeing and Airbus design aircrafts to be flown by two people who are treated as equal and have free communication between each other. However, Korean culture teaches people to be highly differential in their treatment of elders which lead to the famous plane crash of Flight 81 in 1997 in Guam. A rigid hierarchical culture caused a weather-based mistake made by the pilot to be ignored by the co-pilot resulting in the plane crashing. This example
2 Figure 2. Screen shot of the task on the interactive surface. Figure 3. Photograph of task on the non-interactive surface. *Jamil, I., Alexander, J., Subramanian, S. and Barnes, S. Talking Teenagers and Tables: Conversation Styles of Teenagers around Interactive and Non- Interactive Surfaces. Under review for CHI 21. accentuates how the mismatch between technology and communication can prove to be fatal. Hence, this research is important as it seeks to understand how technology co-exists with human and highlights important issues concerning the mismatch of communication between technology and human. I am particularly interested in how people communicate while collaborating through their use of interactive tables. Interactive tables are those that offer the users the ability to interact, such as by moving and rotating digital objects. The majority of the surfaces also have multi-touch capabilities. This allows more than one user to participate at a time and eliminates the turn takingprotocol present when using standard desktop computers. Interactive tables hold many advantages including equal touch and control distribution between users. Interactive tables such as the Microsoft Surface, are becoming more accessible to the public. In the future, it is expected that interactive tables will be used in everyday settings. However, little studies have investigated the different aspects of communication using interactive surfaces- my work aims to contribute by filling in this gap. Background The literature reports several reasons for the initiation of communication around interactive surfaces. Kruger et al. [4] recognized that general communication is potentially triggered by the orientation of objects from one user to the other. Rogers et al. [7] noted the use of fingers as a further method of non-verbal communication. Interactive tables have been employed as conversational tool in areas such as education, medical and leisure. For example, Piper and Holland [5] report the use of the surface as a medium to assist medical dialogue between a deaf patient and doctors. In their study, patients and doctors communicate by exchanging spoken words and showing hand gestures. In education, teenagers are seen exchanging words or conversing with each other as they progress through their tasks [6] on interactive tables. Research to Date Figure 1 demonstrates my research framework on verbal and non-verbal communication. To understand how participants communicate around interactive tables, I conducted an observational study that investigates the conversation styles of teenagers around interactive and non-interactive surfaces when performing an identical task*. Teenagers are chosen as the primary participants in this study, as conversations play a crucial role in developing their unique individuality; conversations also act as a bridge that connects them to the outside world [8]. We recruited 43 teenagers from local secondary schools (23 males and 2 females), all aged from 13 to 17 years old. The main objective of this task was for the participants to work together to create a mind map from the set of given elements related to the Plants and Photosynthesis topic (see figures 2 and 3). We used the interactive and non-interactive tables as we believe that it is first important to understand if there exist any differences of conversation styles, and if so, their nature. Our goal is not to pass judgement on one surface over the other but to understand where the differences in verbal communication around these surfaces are. Based on my research framework in Figure 1, this work seeks to examine the following points: 1) What type of
3 Utterances per Minute 3. 15.. G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 G9G1G11G12G13G14 Figure 4. Utterance per minute. Individual Identification 6 3 G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 G9G1G11G12G13G14 Figure 5. Number of individual identifications used. Group Idetification 4 2 G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 G9 G1 G11 G12 G13 G14 Figure 6. Number of group identifications used. conversation styles exist around interactive and noninteractive surfaces? 2) What are the different trends for proposal and response utterances around the two surfaces? 3) Do the participants on the two surfaces identify themselves as individuals or as a group? 4) How are interdependence and instructions displayed around the two surfaces?. Our study shows that teenagers working on interactive table showed a higher number of utterances than those on the non-interactive table (Figure 4). The utterances of interactive table participants contained a greater number of individual identification (Figures 5 and 6) and authoritative identifiers (Figure 8), while the noninteractive table participants showed a greater number of utterances per minute (Figure 4) and responses per minute (Figure 7) especially in the first five minutes of the task. This shows that teenagers working on the interactive and non-interactive tables exhibited different conversation styles. Overall, teenagers working on the interactive surface tended to talk for longer and produced more conversation. This allows more time for latecomers to contribute their ideas and to be part of the decision-making process. The participants perceived themselves more as individuals (Figures 5 and 6), leading to the exhibition of a dominant role during the task (Figure 8). However, over time the authoritative behavior seemed to decrease and provide opportunities for group work to occur. The non-interactive surface promotes a different conversation styles. This style has higher utterances per minute (Figure 4) and it is more intense during the first four minutes of the task. The number of responses is higher (Figure 7) when working with the noninteractive surface, suggesting more participation, collaboration and decision making processes occur. The studies above mentioned communication as the byproducts of their work rather than the primary findings. Proposed Research It is not uncommon for the users of one technology to be of different age groups (children, teenagers, adults) and that they use technology for different purposes (educational, business, personal). Due to this variety of users and applications, it is important to understand the different aspects of human communication using technology. Figure 9 shows my research timeline. From now until April 21, I aim to investigate the functions of conversations during group collaboration using interactive surface. This entails looking at the following points: 1) discourse moves-how participants convey thoughts orally during group collaboration 2) social skills-how participants used conversation to promote social skills. From May 21 till April 211, I plan to create a detailed framework on non-verbal communication and conduct two user studies to investigate this area further. Possible study aspects include non-verbal communication styles (gestures, eye contact, intonations) and functions (acknowledgement, approval, encouragement). See figure 1 for the research framework. As the non-verbal framework is still under the planning stage, attending the Doctoral Consortium will benefit
4 Proposal-Response Uttearnces per mintue 15. 1. 5. Proposal Responses. G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 G9 G1G11G12G13G14 Figure 7. Proposal-Responses Average Utterances per minute. Number of Instruction 9 45 G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 Figure 9. Research Timeline. G8 G9 G1 G11 G12 G13 G14 Figure 8. Number of Utterances for Instructions. me greatly in designing this section. Input from the committee and participants with interdisciplinary background will better shape my work and move forward in the right direction. Following the study of non-verbal communication, I plan to investigate the type of behaviour that people exhibit when working with interactive tables. This will examine: 1) if the behavior is persistent or transient? 2) if the is potentially caused by the new technology factor or is an inherent nature of the technology? Findings from my studies on communication will lead to a list of tools for investigating communication patterns that can be mapped to other new technologies. Goals and Contributions As described earlier, most research on interactive tables reports aspects of communication as a byproduct rather than the main findings. Findings from my research will provide an important understanding of how people collaborate through communication around interactive tables and thus contribute by performing a detailed and systematic analysis that will improve human-computer relationships. By studying this topic, I aim to: 1) create a deep and detailed understanding of the distinctions in communication patterns, 2) create a repertoire of tools for investigating such patterns that can be mapped to other forms of new technology, 3) perform a comparative study with other new technologies and 4) provide the community with design principles and a framework for the development and use of interactive surfaces in general settings. I currently have a paper* under review for CHI 21. I will be presenting my next study by submitting a paper to CHI 211. Acknowledgements I would like to thank my advisor, Dr Sriram Subramanian and the Interaction and Graphics group for their guidance and support. This research is supported by the Government of Malaysia. References [1] Engleberg, I. and Wynn, D. Working in Groups. Communication Principles and Strategies. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2. [2] Gladwell, M. Outliers: The Story of Success. Allen Lane, 28. [3] Hutchby, I. and Wooffitt, R. Conversation Analysis. 28. [4] Kruger, R., Carpendale, S., Scott, S.D., and Greenberg, S. Roles of Orientation in Tabletop Collaboration: Comprehension, Coordination and Communication. In Proc. CSCW 24, ACM Press (24), 51-537. [5] Piper, A.M. and Hollan, J.D. Supporting medical conversations between deaf and hearing individuals with tabletop displays. In Proc. of CSCW 28, ACM Press (28), 147-156. [6] Pontual, T. and Price, S. What have you done! The Role of 'Interference' in Tangible Environment for Supporting Collaborative Learning. In Proc. CSCL 29 (29). [7] Rogers, Y., Hazlewood, W., Blevis, E., and Lim, Y.-K., Finger talk: collaborative decision-making using talk and fingertip interaction around a tabletop display, in CHI '4 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems. 24, ACM: Vienna, Austria.
Benefits of Participation My research is interdisciplinary and attending the CHI Doctoral Consortium will provide me with the opportunity to gain valuable feedback and constructive critique on my work from both the committee and the participating students. Since my framework on the non-verbal communication is still at the early stage of design, knowledge gained from this session will fuel and shape my research into one that is truly inspirational and beneficial to the community. Meeting and discussing my work with people of the highest caliber will also provide me with the extra advantage of having deeper insights and understanding into my topic. My work involves inter-disciplinary research and conducting human behavioural studies. I have established relationships not only with fellow researchers but also with local schools. I worked closely with school teachers and school children. For my study, I managed and organized 7 teenagers during the experiment sessions. I am also familiar with areas involving different domains such as technology, education and communication. Other members in the doctoral consortium will be able to utilize my experience in working with different user communities. Based on my experience and work, I offer very attractive and transferable skills that would be of benefit to other interested participants. 5