skip to main content
10.1145/2702123.2702506acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Mapping out Work in a Mixed Reality Project Room

Published:18 April 2015Publication History

ABSTRACT

We present results from a study examining how the physical layout of a project room and task affect the cognitive maps acquired of a connected virtual environment during mixed-presence collaboration. Results indicate that a combination of physical layout and task impacts cognitive maps of the virtual space. Participants did not form a strong model of how different physical work regions were situated relative to each other in the virtual world when the tasks performed in each region differed. Egocentric perspectives of multiple displays enforced by different furniture arrangements encouraged cognitive maps of the virtual world that reflected these perspectives, when the displays were used for the same task. These influences competed or coincided with document-based, audiovisual and interface cues, influencing collaboration. We consider the implications of our findings on WYSIWIS mappings between real and virtual for mixed-presence collaboration.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

p887.mp4

mp4

253.3 MB

References

  1. Aliakseyeu, D., Lucero, A., and Martens, J. Users' quest for an optimized representation of a multi-device space. Personal Ubiquitous Comput. 13, 8 (2009), 599--607. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Billinghurst, M., and Weghorst, S. The Use of Sketch Maps to Measure Cognitive Maps of Virtual Environments. In Proceedings of the Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium, (1995), pp 40--47. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Bly, S. A., Harrison, S. R., and Irwin, S. Media spaces: bringing people together in a video, audio, and computing environment. Commun. ACM 36, 1 (Jan. 1993), 28--46 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Buxton, W. Living in Augmented Reality: Ubiquitous Media and Reactive Environments. In Finn, K., Sellen, A. and Wilber, S. (Eds). Video Mediated Communication: 363--384.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Colle, H. A., and Reid, G. B. The room effect: Metric spatial knowledge of local and separated regions. Presence:Teleoper.Virtual Environ.7(2)(1998),116--128. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Dix, A., Friday, A., Rodden, T., Koleva, B., Muller, H., Ranell, C. and Steed, A. Managing multiple spaces. In: Turner, Phil and Davenport, Elisabeth, (eds.) Spaces, Spatiality and Technology. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Golledge, R.G. Methods and Methodological Issues in Environmental Cognition Research. In Environmental Knowing, (Golledge, R.G. and Moore, G.T. Eds.), Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Inc., 1976, pp. 300--313.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Harrison, S. and Dourish. P. Re-place-ing space: the roles of place and space in collaborative systems. CSCW 1996: 67--76. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Hindmarsh, J., Fraser, M., Heath, C., Benford, S., and Greenhalgh, C.. Fragmented interaction: establishing mutual orientation in virtual environments. CSCW 1998: 217--226. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Hommel, B., and Knuf, L. Action related determinants of spatial coding in perception and memory. In Spatial Cognition II, Integrating Abstract Theories, Empirical Studies, Formal Methods, and Practical Applications (2000), Springer-Verlag, pp. 387--398. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Huang, E., Mynatt, E., Trimble, J. Displays in the Wild: Understanding the Dynamics and Evolution of a Display Ecology. Pervasive 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Huang, J. and Waldvogel, M. The swisshouse: an inhabitable interface for connecting nations. DIS 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Hunter, S., Maes, P., Tang, T., Inkpen, K.M. and Hessey, S.M. 2014. WaaZam!: supporting creative play at a distance in customized video environments. CHI 2014: 1197--1206. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Luff, P., Heath, C., Kuzuoka, H., Yamazaki, K. and Yamashita, J. Handling documents and discriminating objects in hybrid spaces. CHI 2006: 561--570. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Mark, D., Freksa, C., Hirtle, S., Lloyd, R., and Tversky, B. Cognitive models of geographic space. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 13, 8 (1999), 747--774.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Newcombe, N. Methods for the Study of Spatial Cognition. In The Development of Spatial Cognition, (Cohen, R. Ed.), Hillsdale, New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1985, pp. 277--300.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Olson, G. M. and Olson, J. S. Distance matters. Hum.Comput. Interact. 15, 2 (Sep. 2000), 139--178. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Reilly, D., Mathiasen, N., Salimian, M., Edwards, W.K., Franz, J. and MacKay, B. (2014) SecSpace: Prototyping Usable Privacy and Security for Mixed Reality Collaborative Environments. EICS 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Reilly, D., Rouzati, H., Wu, A., Brudvik, J., Hwang, J. Y., and Edwards, W. K. TwinSpace: an Infrastructure for Cross-reality Team Spaces. UIST 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Reilly, D., Voida, S., McKeon, M., Le Dantec, C., Edwards, W. K., Mynatt, E. and Mazalek, A. Space Matters: Physical-Digital and Physical-Virtual Codesign in inSpace, IEEE Pervasive Computing 9(3):54--63, Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Stefik, M., Bobrow, D. G., Foster, G., Lanning, S. and Tatar, D.(1987) WYSIWIS revised: early experiences with multiuser interfaces. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 5:2, 147--167. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Streitz, N. A., Geißler, J., and Holmer, T. 1998. Roomware for Cooperative Buildings: Integrated Design of Architectural Spaces and Information Spaces. 1st intl. Workshop on Cooperative Buildings, London, 4--21. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Tang, A., Boyle, M., and Greenberg, S. (2004) Display and presence disparity in Mixed Presence Groupware. OzCHI 2004:73--82. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Teasley, S., Covi, L., Krishnan, M., and Olson, J. (2000) How does radical collocation help a team succeed? CSCW 2000: 339--346 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Tversky, B. (1993) Cognitive maps, cognitive collages, and spatial mental models. In COSIT 1993: pp. 4--24. The columns on the last page should be of approximately equal length. Remove these two lines from your final version.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Mapping out Work in a Mixed Reality Project Room

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        CHI '15: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
        April 2015
        4290 pages
        ISBN:9781450331456
        DOI:10.1145/2702123

        Copyright © 2015 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 18 April 2015

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        CHI '15 Paper Acceptance Rate486of2,120submissions,23%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader