Reading Responses: Proximity with Large Public Displays

Proximity Factor: Impact of Distance on Co-Located Collaboration (Hawkey et al., 2005)

This paper studies the effect of distance to a public display. Two specific distances are studied: within arm's reach of a display and at 10 feet away. A map planning task is used for the study.

I found this paper to be very experimental and overly experimental. It is experimental in that the design is inspired by research in the social sciences where specific conditions are given to a participant under controlled conditions. On the other hand, the experiment had been designed with sufficient confounds that make the results less informative. For example, "If users divide their attention between the two displays, their individual and collaborative interactions may suffer" (page 38). There are three conditions with one display and only one condition with two displays. I would expect one of each condition to study this phenomenon.

Another result of the study is "communication was easier when participants were close together. Several instances of “communication breakdown” were observed in the near/far condition." What we don't get from the study are the subtle visual cues and gestures that encompass the implicit communication. Behavioural postures and hand cues could have a meaning that is not reported. This phenomenon is not attributed to being close or far from a display; rather, this is a description of working together versus working remotely.

Another dimension of the study that is not described is the size of the displays that they were using. When in the near condition, they used a large surface. When in the far condition, they used two separate displays (if provided with one). The confounds that arose from the different sizes were not reported, but it is an area for pursuing further research.


Enticing People to Interact with Large Public Displays in Public Spaces (Brignull & Rogers)

This paper suggests that a public display can encourage social interaction. A public display is shown in a social event (e.g., book party, student orientation) where people do not know each other. The information is presented as a means of capturing attention and encouraging socialization. People add information on a computer that is placed several feet from the display.

They found that self-consciousness and social embarrassment were barriers to use. Despite including features to allow pseudo-identity to be displayed, people did not want to try the system because other people would watch them use the computer to add content. This phenomenon was also reported by Churchill et al. (2007). A means of anonymity around the computer, interestingly, was achieved with a larger crowd. When there were more people around it, less people would actually see who was using the computer. Then, people would feel somewhat more comfortable in adding content.

The authors claim that people met others when a crowd formed around the display. It so happens that the display acted as a form of triangulation according to Whyte. Triangulation is something that is the focus of attention. People would have socialized just the same if there was some interesting videos being shown on the display, not because there was user-driven content shown on the display.

There were three proxemic zones defined in the paper -- peripheral awareness activities (not looking), focal awareness activities (looking), and direct interaction activities (adding to). These zones are conceptual zones, not physical distances, but there is a strong correlation between the two. For example, if I am adding to a display, I am also nearby the display. The conceptual zones in this paper correspond closely to the distance zones described by Vogel and Balakrishnan (UIST 2004).

Churchill, E. F. and Nelson, L. D., Interactive Community Bulletin Boards as Conversational Hubs and Sites for Playful Visual Repartee, Eighth Annual Workshop and Minitrack on Persistent Conversation, Hawaii International Conference on Systems Science (HICSS), January 2007. PDF

Shadow Reaching: A New Perspective on Interaction for Large Public Displays (Shoemaker et al., 2007)

This paper suggests that a user can interact with a complete surface by using his/her shadow to "reach" areas that cannot be physically touched. There is a match between what a person can see and do: when stepping back, the user is able to see and interact with more of the display. This contrasts to existing systems where the user has to see less in order to interact (i.e., step closer). In relationship to proximity-based interaction, the proxemic zone of "within arm's reach" is no longer a restriction for enabling interactivity. A shadow also has the benefit in that multiple people will not collide when using an interactive surface, which can be a problem with existing multi-touch multi-user surfaces.