Response: Beyond “Social Protocols”: Multi-User Coordination Policies for Co-located Groupware

Summary:

This paper primarily discussed the role of social conventions in interaction on shared digital tabletops. The authors observed several interactions on a variety of applications that employed a shared environment. From here, the authors argued that social conventions are almost necessary for design in order to avoid numerous negative social situations. This includes situations where individuals control group context or individuals intentionally (or otherwise) manipulate another users content. To solve these types of situations, the authors devised a coordination policy for conflicts, where conflict type is based on either global (affects the whole application) or whole-element (affects a single object). For each category, they then specify what can or can’t be done by users within a social context.

Response:

While I see the point of this paper, I had very mixed feelings to it. On the one hand, the territoriality aspects of an application are important (as are social protocols), but I think given the nature of how interactive a digital tabletop is, I think perhaps maybe some new protocols should be defined. To me, the point of a digital tabletop is to collaborate and to explore (and that includes all the negative aspects as well). By limiting the freedom, I think the tabletop loses its utility. Overall however, there is some utility in the coordination policy, depending on the circumstances. In an application designed for children, the policies would fail because children need freedom. On the flip side, the policies for a business environment or shared work environment are more fitting.