HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION
SECOND EDITION
HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION
SECOND EDITION
As we have indicated, the differences between groups mean that some configuration by the group is essential. That is, shared editors require some form of local structuring. However, that does not mean that there will be no problems. Participants will point at the screen with their fingers when in different rooms, and use indexical expressions when they are in separate screen mode. The more their sense of engagement, that is the more they feel as if they are working together, the more likely they are to revert to natural forms of expression. We cannot prevent this entirely; as we saw, mistakes can happen in 'real life' too.
Again, there are loose connections between the two levels of sharing. For example, it makes little sense to have a single insertion point but different views. However, one document annotation system has separate insertion points but a shared view. Any user can choose to scroll the view of the document, but it then scrolls for all users. To make matters worse, the other users' insertion points stay at the same point on the screen as the document moves. So if they are typing when the screen is scrolled, their characters appear all over the document! It is a testimony to the power of social protocols that this system is not only used successfully, but also enjoyed.
Finally, imagine a complex structured object, such as a hypertext, or a shared file system. What happens if someone moves a portion of the hypertext tree while you are editing a node in it? This is similar to the problems of shared text, but the nature of text makes it easier for social protocols to operate. Furthermore, it is even harder to make sense of multiple structural updates than textual ones.
Long-term gazing into one another's eyes is usually reserved for lovers. However, normal conversation uses eye contact extensively, if not as intently. Our eyes tell us whether our colleague is listening or not, they can convey interest, confusion or boredom. Sporadic direct eye contact (both looking at one another's eyes) is important in establishing a sense of engagement and social presence. People who look away when you look at them may seem shifty and appear to be hiding something. Furthermore relative frequency of eye contact and who 'gives way' from direct eye contact is closely linked to authority and power.
Despite these problems with direct eye contact, many signals can be easily read through a video channel. You can see whether your colleague looks quizzical or bored, confused or excited. This involves not just the eyes, but the whole facial expression, and these are apparent even on poor-quality video or very small (pocket-TV-sized) monitors. Experiments have shown that remotely working participants experience a greater sense of social presence if video is used in addition to an audio link.
To be relevant an utterance should further the current topic. This is because our partner is expecting an utterance in this context and any sudden shift in our topic focus will make it more difficult for our partner to make sense of the utterance. Such shifts happen in a conversation, but require less ambiguous utterances (as the common ground for that particular utterance is lower).
People tend to use stronger language in email than in face-to-face conversation, for example they are more likely to be highly and emotively critical. On the other hand, they are less likely to get emotionally charged themselves. These apparently contradictory findings make sense when you take into account the lack of implicit affective communication. The participants have to put this explicitly into their messages - thus accounting for their stronger language. On the other hand, they are emotionally 'distanced' by the text from their conversants and have the conversation spread out over time. In addition, they do not have to express their affective state by acting emotionally. Together these factors contribute to a more heated conversation by calmer conversants!
The term pace is being used in a precise sense above. Imagine a message being composed and sent, the recipient reading (or hearing) the message and then composing and sending a reply. The pace of the conversation is the rate of such a sequence of connected messages and replies. Clearly as the pace of a conversation reduces, there is a tendency for the granularity to increase. To get the same information across, you must send more per message. However, it is not as easy as that. We have seen the importance of feedback from listener to speaker in clarifying meaning and negotiating common ground. Even most monologues are interactive in the sense that the speaker is constantly looking for cues of comprehension in the listener. Reducing the pace of a conversation reduces its interactivity.
The storekeeper always used to understate stock levels slightly in order to keep an emergency supply, or sometimes inflate the quoted levels when a delivery was due from a reliable supplier. Also requests for stock information allowed the storekeeper to keep track of future demands and hence plan future orders. The storekeeper has now lost a sense of control and important sources of information. The sales
The physical layout of an organization often reflects the formal hierarchy: each department is on a different floor, with sections working in the same area of an office. If someone from sales wants to talk to someone from marketing then one of them must walk to the other's office. The contact can be monitored by their respective supervisors. Furthermore, the physical proximity of colleagues can foster a sense of departmental loyalty. An email system has no such barriers; it is as easy to 'chat' to someone in another department as in your own. This challenges the mediating and controlling role of the line managers.
processed in 0.003 seconds
|
| |
|
HCI Book 3rd Edition || old HCI 2e home page || search
|
|
| feedback to feedback@hcibook.com | hosted by hiraeth mixed media |
|
| |