Hawkey, K., Kellar, M., Reilly, D., Whalen, T., and Inkpen, K.M.
The proximity factor: impact of distance on co-located collaboration.
Proceedings of the 2005 international ACM SIGGROUP conference on Supporting group work, ACM New York, NY, USA (2005), 31-40.
The proximity factor: impact of distance on co-located collaboration.
Proceedings of the 2005 international ACM SIGGROUP conference on Supporting group work, ACM New York, NY, USA (2005), 31-40.
1. Is the result dependent on the nature of the tasks?
If the task changes, will be result (e.g. "Both near" is the most effective) be consistent?
One counter-example would be finding a location on a map. I assume users will keep a distance from the display to have a holistic view of it.
2. Is the taxonomy reasonable?
Do the authors assume the proximity factor is fixed? I assume users are dynamically interacting with the display, meaning they might be constantly changing the proximity factors (sometimes both far, sometimes far/near and sometimes both near).
3. What's the relationship between interaction with displays and collaboration?
I am a little confused by the object of study. In the abstract, they say "Our results revealed ... and interaction with the display was felt to be more effective when participants were close to the display.", which indicates the measurement of effectiveness and enjoyability focuses on interaction with displays. But the Table 1, which shows statistics about effectiveness and enjoyability states that "in terms of effective and enjoyable collaboration". Does this mean collaborating with the other user? Then is it about display-user interaction or user-user interaction, or user-user-display interaction?
[]
