Olika former av samarbete

Transkript

1 Olika former av samarbete Formella mšten: Fšrhandling Utbildning Informationsmšte IdŽgenerering Arbetsmšte Planeringsmšte Informella mšten: Fikapauser Sociala tillstšllningar TillfŠlliga mšten Medier med olika typer av funktionalitet kršvs beroende pœ vilken typ av mštesform samarbetet sker i. Olika typer av samarbeten kršver olika hšg kapacitet hos mediet att fšrmedla rik information.

2 Social presence theory (Short et al, 1976) MŠnniskor upplever att olika medier fšrmedlar nšrvarokšnsla i olika hšg grad. Medier som fšrmedlar hšgre grad av nšrvarokšnsla fšredras vid kšnslomšssigt komplexa aktiviteter.

3 Structural contingency theory (Katz& Tushman, 1978) Ju mer otydlig en uppgift Šr desto rikare medium všljer mšnniskor att kommunicera via dœ de ska samarbeta pœ distans fšr att lšsa den.

4 Media richness theory (Daft, 1986; 1998; Rice, 1993) Vid ostrukturerade uppgifter fšredrar mšnniskor att kommunicera via ett rikt medium fšr att kunna nœ konsensusbeslut genom diskussion. Medier Šr i olika hšg grad rika vad gšller hur rik information de kan fšrmedla.

5 Virtuell nšrvarokšnsla (Witmer & Singer,1998; Slater & Wilbur,1997; Lombard & Ditton,1997; Held & Durlach,1992) En subjektiv kšnsla av att vara fysiskt och mentalt nšrvarande pœ en plats eller i en miljš Šven dœ man befinner sig pœ en annan geografisk plats. Realism, grad av interaktivitet i miljšn Engagemang, miljšns upplevda meningsfullhet KŠnsla av inneslutenhet i mediet

6 Media richness/ Presence face-face (control) video audio text Complexity

7 Intermodal relations The specific characteristics of any particular perceptual task should be considered, in relation to the specific properties of the sensory modality (modalities), that provides information for performance of the task (Heller & Schiff, 1991). The sensory modalities are specialised for different tasks, and that specialisation emerges more strongly as the complexity of the task increases (Freides, 1974).

8 Human senses Vision is generally dominant over both touch and audition for the perception of spatial location. Vision is more effective than touch for perception of shape (Heller & Schiff, 1991). Hearing is more effective than vision for the perception of temporally distributed events. Touch is at least as accurate as vision in the perception of texture.

9 The touch modality Tactile perception is defined as perception mediated solely by variations in cutaneous stimulation (Loomis & Lederman, 1986). Kinesthetic perception is defined as perception,by limb movement alone, of hardness, viscosity and shape. Haptic perception is defined as perception in which both the cutaneous sense and kinesthesis convey significant information about distal objects and events.

10 Haptic interfaces and usability Haptic feedback enhance perceived presence in groups working together mediated by multimedia systems (Ho, C. et al., 1998; Durlach & Slater, 1998). Haptic feedback make interaction faster and more precise (Gupta et al. 1997; Ishii et al, 1994; Hurmuzlu et al., 1998).

11 Eva-Lotta SallnŠs,, Haptic interfaces

12 Eva-Lotta SallnŠs,, Haptic interfaces

13 Haptik škar kšnslan av social nšrvaro (Ho, C. et al., 1998)

14 Collaboration in multimodal environments Experimental study Hypotheses: H1: Haptic force-feedback increases perceived presence H2: Haptic force-feedback increases perceived social presence H3: Haptic force-feedback increases perceived performance H4: Haptic force-feedback improves task performance

15 Experimental design Between group design One independent variable with two conditions, haptic & no haptic. Four dependent variables Sample 28 subjects, 14 pairs One woman & one man in each pair Students from Lund University Eva-Lotta SallnŠs,, 1999.

16 Measured variables 1. Task performance: time to perform tasks 2. Social presence: questionnaire that considers sub-dimensions like, unsociable-sociable, insensitive-sensitive, impersonalpersonal, cold-warm (Short et al., 1976). 3. Virtual presence: questionnaire that considers, control factors, sensory factors, distraction factors and realism factors (Witmer & Singer, 1998). 4. Perceived performance: questionnaire that considers, performance in use of system, learnability, use of specific features.

17 The distributed environments Both conditions: Visual interface Audio connection Lift the objects together Lift objects by themselves Haptic condition: Feel the weight of the objects. Feel the force on objects Feel the other persons marker Hold the other persons marker Feel roof, floor & walls

18 Apparatus Two PHANToM One computer and two computer screens Two telephone headsets

19 Tasks M L START

20 Results Haptic force feedback Time/ task * 5 min 7min Perceived performance ** 5,9 5,0 Virtual presence ** 5,4 4.4 No haptic force feedback Social presence 5,3 4,8 * significant at 95% ** significant at 99%

21 Conclusions Supporting haptic force feedback in a distributed collaborative environment makes manipulation of common objects more efficient. People perceived their performance to be better in the haptic environment. People perceived themselves to be more virtually present in the haptic environment. But people only perceived themselves to be marginally more socially present in the haptic environment.