Name
Abstract | ||
|---|---|---|
Multi-display groupware (MDG) systems, which typically comprise both public and personal displays, promise to enhance collaboration, yet little is understood about how they differ in use from single-display groupware (SDG) systems. While research has established the technical feasibility of MDG systems, evaluations have not addressed the question of how users' behave in such environments, how their interface design can impact group behavior, or what advantages they offer for collaboration. This paper presents a user study that investigates the impact of display configuration and software interface design on taskwork and teamwork. Groups of three completed a collaborative optimization task in single- and multi-display environments, under different task interface constraints. Our results suggest that MDG configurations offer advantages for performing individual task duties, whereas SDG conditions offer advantages for coordinating access to shared resources. The results also reveal the importance of ergonomic design considerations when designing co-located groupware systems. |
Year | DOI | Venue |
|---|---|---|
2009 | 10.1007/s00779-009-0241-8 | Personal and Ubiquitous Computing |
Keywords | Field | DocType |
single-display groupware,collaborative optimization task,co-located groupware system,mdg system,mdg configurations offer advantage,interface design,multi-display groupware system,ergonomic design consideration,different task interface constraint,multi-display groupware,groupware multi-display environment evaluation communication efficiency workspace awareness,individual task duty,group behavior,evaluation,groupware | Technical feasibility,Teamwork,Collaborative optimization,Computer science,Collaborative software,Group behavior,Human–computer interaction,Software,Interface design | Journal |
Volume | Issue | ISSN |
13 | 8 | 1617-4917 |
Citations | PageRank | References |
30 | 1.09 | 46 |
Authors | ||
5 | ||
Name | Order | Citations | PageRank |
|---|---|---|---|
| James R. Wallace | 1 | 296 | 23.17 |
| Stacey D. Scott | 2 | 1407 | 92.73 |
| Taryn Stutz | 3 | 30 | 1.09 |
| Tricia Enns | 4 | 30 | 1.09 |
| Kori Inkpen | 5 | 1148 | 130.56 |