Norlaila Hussain
ABSTRACT
In this paper, we describe an analytical framework that was developed based on the distributed cognition approach to enable the evaluation of a collaborative design task around an interactive tabletop. The framework was a theoretical lens to help develop a better understanding on how people collaborate around the tabletop. This theoretical lens was necessary to prevent any preconceived ideas that the researcher may have had from affecting how the work systems would be evaluated in the research. It helped to determine what data was relevant and needed to be collected in order to develop an adequate explanation for the collaborative task observed.
- Blandford, A. and Furniss, D. 2005. DiCoT: a methodology for applying Distributed Cognition to the design of team working systems. Proceeding DSVIS 2005 (LNCS). Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Clark, H. H. 1996. Using language. New York, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Clark, H. H. and Brennan, S. E. 1991. Grounding in Communication. Readings in Groupware and Computer-Supported Cooperative Work: Assisting Human-Human Collaboration. R. M. Baedker. San Francisco, CA, USA, Morgan Kaufmann: 222--233.Google Scholar
- Clegg, C. 1994. Psychology and information technology: the study of cognition in organisations. British Journal of Psychology 85: 449--477.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Cohen, P. R., Coulston, R., et al. 2002. Multimodal interaction during multiparty dialogues: Initial Results. IEEE International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces: 448--452. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Dillenbourg, P. 1996. Some technical implications of the distributed cognition approach on the design of interactive learning. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 7(2): 161--180. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Flor, N. and Hutchins, E. 1992. Analysing distributed cognition in software teams: a case study of team programming during perfective software maintenance. Empirical Studies of Programmers: 4th Workshop. M. R. In Eds. Joenemann-Belliveau, USA: Ablex: 36--64.Google Scholar
- Gutwin, C. and Greenberg, S. 1999. The effects of Workspace Awareness Support on the Usability of Real-Time Distributed Groupware. ACM Transactions on CHI Vol 6(3). Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hussain, N., DeBruijn, O., Hassan, Z. 2005. Using the Framework of Distributed Cognition in the Evaluation of a Collaborative Tool. International Conference on Information Technology in Asia (CITA'05), Sarawak, Malaysia 12--15 December, 2005.Google Scholar
- Halverson, C. A. (1994). Distributed Cognition as a theoretical framework for HCI: don't throw the baby out with the bathwater - the importance of the cursor in air traffic control. COGSCI Tech Report 94--03. San Diego, Department of Cognitive Science, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
- Hammersley, M. and Atkinson, P. 1995. Ethnography: principles in practice., 2nd Edition. Routledge: London.Google Scholar
- Harrison, S. and Minneman, S. 1996. A Bike in Hand. Analysing Design Activity. N. Cross, Christians, H. and Dorst, K. (Eds). Chichester, UK, John Wiley & Sons: 417--436.Google Scholar
- Holland, J., Hutchins, E., et al. 2000. Distributed Cognition: Toward a New Foundation for Human-Computer Interaction Research. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction Vol 7: pp. 174--196 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hoyles, C. and Sutherland, R. 1989. Logo mathematics in the classroom." Routledge.Google Scholar
- Hutchins, E. and Klausen. T. 1991. Distributed cognition in an airline cockpit. Technical Report, UCSD: Distributed Cognition Laboratory.Google Scholar
- Hutchins, E. 1995. Cognition in the Wild. Bradford, MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Larsson, A. 2003. Making Sense of Collaboration: The Challenge of Thinking Together in Global Design Teams. Group'03, Florida, USA. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Morris, M. R. and Winograd, T. 2004. Quantifying Collaboration on Computationally-Enhanced Tables. CSCW 2004 Workshop on Methodologies for Evaluating Collaboration Behaviour in Co-located Environments.Google Scholar
- Nardi, B. 1995. Context and Consciousness. Activity Theory and HCI. M. Cambridge. MA, USA: 7--16. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nardi, B. and Miller, J. R. 1989. "Twinkling lights and nested loops: distributed problem solving and spreadsheet development." International Journal of Man-Machine Systems 34: 161--184. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Norman, D. A. 1993. "Cognition in the head and in the world - an introduction to the special issue on situated action." Cognitive Science 17: 1--6.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Norman, D. 1986. Reflections on cognition and parallel distributed processing. Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition. R. In McClelland, & the PDP Research Group (Eds.). 2, Psychological and Biological models: 531--546. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Perry, M. J. 1997. Distributed Cognition and Computer Supported Collaborative Design: The organisation of work in Construction Engineering. Department of Information Systems and Computing. London, Brunel: 232.Google Scholar
- Rogers, Y. 1993. "Coordinating computer-mediated work." Computer Supported Cooperative Work 1: 295--315.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Rogers, Y. 2004. "Distributed Cognition and Communication." Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (2nd edition).Google Scholar
- Rogers, Y. 1997. A brief introduction to distributed cognition. DOI= http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/users/yvonner/papers/dcog/dcog-brief-intro.pdfGoogle Scholar
- Rumelhart, D. E., McClelland, J. L. et al. 1986. "Schemata and sequential thought processes in PDP models." In McClelland, Rumelhart, & PDP Research Group (Eds.) Parallel distributed processing: explorations in the microstructure of cognition 2(Psychological and biological models): 7--57, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ryall, K., Forlines, C. et al. 2004. Exploring the Effects of Group Size and Table Size on Interactions with Tabletop Shared-Display Groupware. ACM CSCW '04, Chicago, Illinois, USA. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Saad, M. and Maher, M. L. 1996. Shared understanding in computer-supported collaborative design. Computer-Aided Design 28(3): 183--192.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Scott, S. D. 2003. Territory-Based Interaction Techniques for Tabletop Collaboration. Conference Companion of the ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology UIST'03.Google Scholar
- Short, J., Williams, E., et al. 1991. Visual Communication and Social Interaction. Readings in Groupware and Computer-Supported Cooperative Work: Assisting Human-Human Collaboration. R. M. E. Baecker. San Francisco, CA, USA, Morgan Kaufmann: 153--164.Google Scholar
- Strauss, A. 1985. Work and the division of labour. The Sociological Quarterly 26(1): 1--19.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Suchman, L. A. 1987. Plans and situated actions: The problem of human computer interaction. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Tang, J. 1991. Findings from observational studies of collaborative work. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 34(2): 143--160 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Tse, E., Histon, J., et al. 2004. Avoiding Interference: How people use spatial separation and partitioning in SDG Workspaces. SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CSCW'04), Chicago, Illinois, USA. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Wright, P., Fields, B., et al. 2000. Analysing Human-Computer Interaction as Distributed Cognition: The Resources Model. Human-Computer Interaction 15(1): 1--42. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Yelland, N. J. 1995. Logo experiences with young children: Describing performance, problem-solving and social context of learning. Early Child Development and Care 109: 61--74.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Zhang, J. 1997. The nature of external representations in problem solving. Cognitive Science 21(2): 179--217.Google ScholarCross Ref
Index Terms
- An analytical framework for the evaluation of collaborative design around an interactive tabletop
Recommendations
Understanding Collaborative Decision Making Around a Large-Scale Interactive Tabletop
We present findings from an empirical study of how groups of eight users collaborate on a decision-making task around an interactive tabletop. To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine co-located collaboration in larger groups (of 8-12 users) ...
Novel interaction techniques using touch-sensitive tangibles in tabletop environments
ITS '12: Proceedings of the 2012 ACM international conference on Interactive tabletops and surfacesIn this work, we propose techniques for interaction that use a touch-sensitive tangible to assist 3D manipulation in tabletop applications. The objective of this research is to investigate the effectiveness and user satisfaction with this combination ...
3D Tabletop AR: A Comparison of Mid-Air, Touch and Touch+Mid-Air Interaction
AVI '20: Proceedings of the International Conference on Advanced Visual InterfacesThis paper contributes a first comparative study of three techniques for selecting 3D objects anchored to the table in tabletop Augmented Reality (AR). The impetus for this study is that touch interaction makes more sense when the targeted objects are ...
Comments