Beyond Presentation: Shared Slideware Control as a Resource for Collocated Collaboration
Abstract
Traditional models of slideware assume one presenter controls attention through slide navigation and pointing while a passive audience views the action. This paradigm limits group interactions, curtailing opportunities for attendees to use slides to participate in a collaborative discourse. However, as slideware permeates contexts beyond simple one-to-many presentations, there are growing efforts to shift the dynamics of collocated interactions. Technologies exist to shift the one-to-many information control paradigm to variations that extend functions to multiple attendees. But there is limited detailed research on how to design such multi-person attentional control and facilitate collocated interactions without disrupting existing work practices. We report on a detailed naturalistic case of using presentation in a design meeting, where participants used Office Social, an experimental slideware technology that enabled open access to shared interaction with slides across multiple devices. We explore how the design of Office Social supported informal collaboration. Our video-based analysis reveals how the orderly structures of conversational turn-taking and bodily conduct were used in conjunction with the affordances of the socio-technical ecosystem to organize collective activity. We suggest that supporting collocated interactions should take account of the existing conversational methods for achieving orderly collaboration rather than superimposing prescriptive technological methods of order.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The study took inspiration from conversation analysis to decide what talk should be considered a question.
“we took inspiration from conversation analysis (CA) to decide what talk should be considered as a question [11,54].”
From "Where is history": Toward Designing a Voice Assistant to help Older Adults locate Interface Features quickly (2023) · cites this paper as [11]
Cites
Dilemmas in a general theory of planning
Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973) · Policy Sciences · doi:10.1007/bf01405730 · Cited by 16,338 · cited 1× · see citing works
“In design review meetings, a design solution is created among the participants, “as a product of incessant judgement, subjected to critical argument” (Rittel & Webber, 1973: p. 157).”
BackgroundHollan, J., Hutchins, E., & Kirsh, D. (2000) · ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction · doi:10.1145/353485.353487 · Cited by 2,300 · cited 1× · see citing works
“For instance, to do a tightly coupled collaborative review (Fragment 6, Figure 8), meeting participants created an ad-hoc aggregation of phones, large display, and paper printouts to facilitate distributed cognition (Hollan, Hutchins, & Kirsh, 2000).”
BackgroundWhere the Action Is: The Foundations of Embodied Interaction
Dourish, P. (2001) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.7551/mitpress/7221.001.0001 · Cited by 1,866 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Rather, we need to understand them in terms of the embodied practices of which they are an inherent part (e.g., Dourish, 2001; Heath & Luff, 2000; Goodwin, 1994, 2000; Lynch & Woolgar, 1990; Hartswood, Procter, Rouncefield, & Slack, 2003; Alac, 2008).”
BackgroundAmbiguity as a resource for design
Gaver, W. W., Beaver, J., & Benford, S. (2003) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/642611.642653 · Cited by 1,348 · cited 2× · see citing works
“The on-screen pointer, signifying the deictic reference, however, emphasized an ambiguity of information (Gaver et al., 2003), by not showing the actor, thus forcing participants to mutually make sense of the action and context.”
Background
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Yu, J. E., Parde, N., & Chattopadhyay, D. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3544548.3581447 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Chattopadhyay, D., Salvadori, F., O’Hara, K., & Rintel, S.
- Affiliations
- University of Illinois Chicago (US)
- University of Milan (IT)
- Human Experience & Design, Microsoft Research, Cambridge, UK
- Microsoft Research (United Kingdom) (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Chattopadhyay, Debaleena
- Venue
- Human–Computer Interaction
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2017-11-07
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 5-6
- Pages
- 455-498
- ISSN
- 0737-0024 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-7051
- OpenAlex
- W2761504849
- Cited by
- 7
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 1.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Human-Computer Interaction (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Interactive and Immersive Displays
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
- Keywords
- collocated collaboration, attentional control, multi-device interaction, turn-taking, informal collaboration, design meetings, collective activity
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review