Hi, I am Jens Emil Grønbæk from Aarhus University,
and this talk is about proxemics and cross-device interaction
The research is done in collaboration with co-authors Mille, Peter, Jo and Marianne from Aarhus University
and Kenton from Microsoft Research.
Designing for flexible use of space is one of the key challenges
when supporting co-located collaborative work
and it is among the core interests in research on cross-device interaction.
Today's mobile devices, for instance, laptops and smartphones,
enable groups of people to arrange in many different configurations around the table.
But they currently also lack support for spontaneous sharing across devices
and this constrains our flexibility in social interaction.
To address this problem, we present a design perspective for supporting flexibility
and we demonstrate it via three prototypes of cross-device interaction
Slam-to-Share for content sharing by slamming the table,
Stick-to-Share for content sharing via interactive stickers,
and finally, Show-to-Share for control sharing by showing QR tags on screens
Several prior systems for cross-device interaction draw upon proxemics for detecting proximity
But we demonstrate a different approach to proxemics – beyond proximity detection
where we specifically focus on key insights in the theory for supporting flexible use of space.
Proxemics theory sensitizes us to the interplay between people and artefacts
and through this lens, we consider not just the technologies themselves
but how they work together with the physical environment to frame social interaction.
I'll first talk about how proxemics has been adopted previously and what is new about our perspective
I'll explain our research approach
and then I'll focus on the design of one prototype, Slam-to-Share
to show that our perspective is operational for design.
We contribute three design sensitivities and I'll focus on how Slam-to-Share addresses each one of them.
As I mentioned earlier, research on cross-device interaction often draws upon proxemics theory.
The theory originates from Edward Hall, and it is the study of how people use space to enact social relations
for instance, through interpersonal distance
It has inspired a framework for ubicomp systems known as Proxemic Interaction
that focuses on detection of spatial relations between people and devices.
Generally, the approach is to enable cross-device interaction by detecting aspects of proximity
such as patterns in distance and orientation.
Often, the systems also rely on fixed external sensing infrastructure.
Now, we argue that proximity detection in this way also constrains flexibility in social interaction.
In contrast, we pose the question:
how can proxemics inform the design of cross-device interaction to support flexible social interaction?
Proxemics theory, in fact, contains important insights when it comes to designing for flexibility.
We highlight three insights that have received less attention
in particular, for the design of cross-device interaction.
These have been identified in the literature, but are also based on the design research we have done.
Our contribution is to highlight these aspects of proxemics as design sensitivites
and demonstrate through proof-of-concept how to operationalize them.
Before explaining the design sensitivities, let me briefly explain our research approach
We have focused on the process of designing, following the tradition of Research-through-Design
where designs are informed by theory and empirical observations.
So a small disclaimer: this is not your traditional "system plus user study".
Instead, we have developed design sensitivities
through the integration of empirical, theoretical and experimental work – in the following way.
We conducted a field study in an open space for student group projects
analyzing their collaboration practices through the perspective of proxemics.
This has informed several design experiments with prototypes of cross-device interaction techniques.
In the paper, each prototype exemplifies how to adopt each of the sensitivities for designing interactions.
But for the talk, I'll focus on Slam-to-Share.
In the paper, we use Edward Hall's terminology of fixed and semifixed features
for describing shared physical space.
For instance, a wall is fixed whereas a table is semifixed because it can be moved.
This distinction is useful in understanding the properties of different artifacts
when it comes to enabling and constraining social interaction.
We can observe, for instance, that the table is a semifixed feature of group work
that has certain consequences for sharing.
The table surface enables placing our laptops on it, like shown here,
but it also constrains how we can view contents together.
For instance, here a student must rotate the laptop away from himself
for the rest of the group to see the screen.
The idea of Slam-to-Share is to exploit the social meaning of the spatial relationship between
people, devices and tables.
Devices running Slam-to-Share jointly detect two consecutive slams on a table surface
and this sets up a digital sharing relationship between the devices.
Let's see it in action.
So in this scenario, Alice, Bob and Eve want to share a slide deck to start collaboratively editing a presentation.
Their individual phones and laptops are connected via their personal user accounts,
but they still need to establish a connection across each others' devices
Alice creates a slide deck,
they all place their phones on the table
and, as you saw, Alice can pound the table twice to establish the connection.
Now they all have access to the same document and can start editing it on their laptops.
Now, this was the basic interaction.
I'll now explain the details in the interaction design to illustrate our design sensitivities.
The first design sensitivity is to incorporate fixed and semifixed features of the environment.
Slam-to-Share incorporates tables in the interaction technique
and this way, the table defines the bounded area for sharing.
The second sensitivity is to enable flexibility in interpersonal distance and orientation.
Notice in this clip how Bob can move away from the group space while his phone has still opted in.
This shows the flexibility of action when the sensing is based on explicit interaction with the devices
and not implicit detection of distance and orientation between people.
Finally, the third sensitivity: support multiple alternative manipulations for the same effect.
Essentially, it means that
a system can enable multiple physical ways of interacting to achieve the same outcome.
Slam-to-Share, for instance, supports two distinct ways for users to opt out of sharing
Bob from the scenario can move between different group tables for sharing
and opting out here is supported simply by picking up the phone from the table.
But you can also opt out by flipping the phone face down.
And supporting these alternative ways of interacting enables users to opt out
while having the flexibility to sit and move in the way that suits them.
So those were the three design sensitivities demonstrated via Slam-to-Share.
In the paper, all three prototypes address each of the design sensitivities.
So as a small appetizer for the paper, here is the argument with Show-to-Share:
it supports control sharing for presentations via QR tags
and changing the size of the QR tag shifts the distance from which it can be scanned.
This supports variability in the socio-spatial configurations of presenters and audiences.
It also supports multiple alternatives by providing different ways of showing the QR tags
depending on whether you want to share only with the co-presenters or with a large audience.
And this leads to my conclusion.
We have shown how to operationalize proxemics beyond proximity detection
While the concept of Proxemic Interaction is focused on detecting spatial relations,
we have demonstrated a different perspective focused on enabling flexible socio-spatial relations.
I've demonstrated our contribution of three design sensitivities via examples from the paper. For instance,
in Slam-to-Share, relations between people's devices are defined by the boundaries of a table.
In this interaction, people can flexibly organize themselves with different distance an orientation
depending on the situation at hand.
And we've seen two examples of how multiple alternatives for the same action
also enables more flexibility in the use of space.
For more details and examples, please read the paper.
Thanks for listening.