Re: Equal Opportunities: Do Shareable Interfaces Promote More Group Participation Than Single User Displays?

Summary

This paper investigated the viability of using shareable interfaces—that are designed for more than one user to interact with— which can facilitate more equitable participation in co-located group settings compared with single user displays. The authors developed a conceptual framework that characterizes what they referred to as Shared Information Spaces (SISs), in terms of how they constrain and invite participation using different entry points. They also conducted an experiment which compared three different SISs: a physical-digital set-up (least constrained), a multitouch tabletop (medium), and a laptop display (most constrained).

Discussion

The aim of this research was to investigate how groups use different kinds of shareable interfaces when collaborating on a task. This objective, in many ways, is similar to the other co-located groupware technologies e.g., multitouch tabletops. Nonetheless, the researchers tried to operationalize the context of their research through the concept of entry points: the layout of the physical room (e.g., use of tables, walls), the display interfaces, the input devices, and the type of physical or digital information to be interacted with. This concept emphasizes the role of size, position, direction of the displays in the placement of input devices, and how these factors could be configured to reduce barriers and to encourage participation. According to the authors, a main finding of the research was that the physical–digital condition, that is, the one designed with the most tangible and accessible entry points, invited an evenly distributed participation in terms of verbal contributions. The tabletop condition was shown to have the most equitable collaboration in terms of physical interaction with the digital information on display. On the other, the control condition provoked the most utterances.

The findings of this research are indeed pointing in a similar direction as related developments in Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, emphasizing the importance of entry points; how many entry points to provide and in what form? As is the case when designing any interface, what type of task, and in what context? It remains to be seen how far the use of these concepts and metaphors will actually carry. In the end, these are empirical questions that have to be answered by future research.