1 / 16

The influence of pane position on CSCW * task performance in joint action perception space

The influence of pane position on CSCW * task performance in joint action perception space. G. Metaxas, B. Metin, E. Pelgrim, J. Schneider, G. Shapiro. *Computer Supported Collaborative Work. Introduction.

luke
Download Presentation

The influence of pane position on CSCW * task performance in joint action perception space

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The influence of pane position on CSCW* task performance in joint action perception space G. Metaxas, B. Metin, E. Pelgrim, J. Schneider, G. Shapiro *Computer Supported Collaborative Work

  2. Introduction • Vertical screen more appropriate for communicating (social interaction; face-to-face communication) • Horizontal screen more appropriate for working space (Meyer, Cohen & Nilsen, 1994; horizontal placement of input devices faster and favoured over vertical placement) *Computer Supported Collaborative Work VIP – USI ‘2004

  3. Problem statement [ What is better for a task that includes both communication and drawing; a horizontal oriented screen or a vertical oriented screen? ] *Computer Supported Collaborative Work VIP – USI ‘2004

  4. Objectives • Main: To compare setting 1 with setting 2 based on the ISO standards (effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction). • Setting 1:Video-conferencing and drawing tool are both projected onto a horizontally placed digital board. Direct manipulation of the drawing tool by a digital pen. • Setting 2:Video-conferencing tool and drawing tool are both presented on a vertical screen, digital pen is used to manipulate the drawing tool. *Computer Supported Collaborative Work VIP – USI ‘2004

  5. Research questions • H0 = There will be no difference in the task performance between Setup 1 and Setup 2. *Computer Supported Collaborative Work VIP – USI ‘2004

  6. Experimental set up VIP system and horizontal set up Vertical set up, camera Remote station *Computer Supported Collaborative Work VIP – USI ‘2004

  7. Sample size • Usable data: 10 subjects • Age 23-36 • Experienced with drawing applications • Students from USI *Computer Supported Collaborative Work VIP – USI ‘2004

  8. Tasks • Video-conference with experimenter • Draw lines between basic geometrical • figures • Digital pen as drawing tool • Within subjects design *Computer Supported Collaborative Work VIP – USI ‘2004

  9. Errors Task figure Correct task execution Error *Computer Supported Collaborative Work VIP – USI ‘2004

  10. Measurements • Dependent variables • Efficiency: Time to complete a task • Effectiveness: Total amount of errors during task • Satisfaction: Ask directly which setting they prefer • Independent variables • Setting *Computer Supported Collaborative Work VIP – USI ‘2004

  11. Analysis • T-test comparing the means of two related samples (the horizontal setting and the vertical setting). • Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test comparing the medians of two related samples (more robust against extreme values). • Check for outliers • An outliers is an observation that has a value which is at least 1.5 * IQD above the third quartile or below the first quartile. p.s More individual variation in condition 2. Median: In condition 1, the horizontal condition, 50% of the participants performed the task in 70.3 or less seconds. Mean: 71.4 seconds. *Computer Supported Collaborative Work VIP – USI ‘2004

  12. Analysis Rough scores Dtime,gem.: On average all participants perform the task in the horizontal setting 33.8 seconds faster than in the vertical setting (rough effect) How big is this effect in proportion to the noise (individual variations)? Cohen’s ddev = 1,99, the error distributions of the two settings are very far apart from each other. All participants made more errors in the vertical condition than in the horizontal condition. Cohen’s dtime = 0,75. The two distributions overlap (but still a big effect) *Computer Supported Collaborative Work VIP – USI ‘2004

  13. Analysis Assume the conditions for the parametric test are met: T-test. *Computer Supported Collaborative Work VIP – USI ‘2004

  14. Analysis • Communication errors • Significantly more errors in the vertical • condition than in the horizontal condition (p < .05). • Satisfaction • Which setting do you prefer? • Half of the participants preferred the horizontal setting; • Two preferred the vertical; • Three had no opinion. *Computer Supported Collaborative Work VIP – USI ‘2004

  15. Problems • Preparing the vertical set up • Calibration of the pen • Counterbalance • Drawing figures *Computer Supported Collaborative Work VIP – USI ‘2004

  16. Conclusion and Discussion • Participants perform better in the horizontal setting than in the vertical setting. • They are faster and make less errors. • Participants make less communication errors in the horizontal setting. • Participants prefer the horizontal setting. • Performance on different device orientations may depend on task • (writing vs. drawing) • Not sure if it can be generalized *Computer Supported Collaborative Work VIP – USI ‘2004

More Related