Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2301.07262

Side-by-Side vs Face-to-Face: Evaluating Colocated Collaboration via a Transparent Wall-sized Display

Abstract

Traditional wall-sized displays mostly only support side-by-side co-located collaboration, while transparent displays naturally support face-to-face interaction. Many previous works assume transparent displays support collaboration. Yet it is unknown how exactly its afforded face-to-face interaction can support loose or close collaboration, especially compared to the side-by-side configuration offered by traditional large displays. In this paper, we used an established experimental task that operationalizes different collaboration coupling and layout locality, to compare pairs of participants collaborating side-by-side versus face-to-face in each collaborative situation. We compared quantitative measures and collected interview and observation data to further illustrate and explain our observed user behavior patterns. The results showed that the unique face-to-face collaboration brought by transparent display can result in more efficient task performance, different territorial behavior, and both positive and negative collaborative factors. Our findings provided empirical understanding about the collaborative experience supported by wall-sized transparent displays and shed light on its future design.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Jiangtao Gong, Jingjing Sun, Mengdi Chu, Xiaoye Wang, Minghai Luo, Yi Lu, Liuxin Zhang, Yaqiang Wu, Qianying Wang, Can Liu. 2023-01-18. Side-by-Side vs Face-to-Face: Evaluating Colocated Collaboration via a Transparent Wall-sized Display. https://doi.org/10.1145/3579623

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Are explainable AI (XAI) evaluation strategies aligned? Comparing subjective, objective, and mathematical evaluation measures using saliency maps

The evaluation of explainable AI (XAI) approaches often relies on three families of methods: subjective measures (e.g., questionnaires on trust or satisfaction), objective measures (e.g., task performance metrics), and mathematical metrics (e.g., for faithfulness). Yet, it remains unclear how these families align or diverge in practice. In a{preregistered} between-subjects study (N=166), we use three established saliency map techniques (LIME, Grad-CAM, Guided Backpropagation) as a testbed to examine this issue. We find that each family of methods leads to different conclusions: participants reported no differences in trust or satisfaction, Grad-CAM improved user performance, while mathematical metrics favored Guided Backpropagation. At the same time, mathematical metrics were only partially related to user performance, and these relationships were sometimes counterintuitive. Our findings highlight the methodological importance of comparing subjective, objective, and mathematical approaches when evaluating XAI, illustrating both tensions and aspects that are aligned. We discuss implications for XAI evaluation frameworks.

cs.HC

Mind Your Ps and Qs: Positive Moderation Practice in the Positive Queue

Online communities rely on volunteer moderators to maintain order. Despite their key role, moderators are given a toolbox of punishments and far less support for encouraging contributions they want to see more of. We introduce the Positive Queue as a positive counterpart to Reddit's modqueue: a dedicated space for moderators to discover contributions and behaviors they want to encourage and positively reinforce. With five moderators, four with 6-14 years of experience, we use the Positive Queue to examine how moderators operationalize positive reinforcement. Moderators combined predicted community reception, observed engagement, and their own judgment; used prediction-engagement mismatches to identify overlooked content; and repurposed positive features for punitive and retrospective work. These findings surface tensions around labor, attribution, and community fit. We contribute the Positive Queue as a working system and conceptualize positive moderation as recognition infrastructure that shapes what moderators notice, whose judgment becomes visible, and how recognition reaches contributors.

cs.HC

PILOT: Control Surfaces for Authoring Social Media Feeds

Personalized social media feeds infer preferences from behavior, leaving people little direct control over what they see. Existing controls range from post-level reactions to rules and natural language, but little is known about how people use them together or how added expressiveness changes effort. We built PILOT, a Bluesky feed-authoring system that turns in-feed actions into explicit preferences, deterministic ranking, and inspectable outcomes. A study with seven participants informed an expanded implementation, which we organized into three nested control surfaces that ten participants compared within subjects. Participants assigned controls to distinct jobs: broad controls set direction, in-post actions refined results, and filters removed content. Richer surfaces did not necessarily feel more effortful, and participants' experiences depended more on whether they could verify and repair outcomes. Our findings show that usable feed control requires not simply more controls, but orchestration across mechanisms that support expression, inspection, repair, and episodic use.

cs.HC