skip to main content
10.1145/2531602.2531691acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescscwConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Support for deictic pointing in CVEs: still fragmented after all these years'

Published:15 February 2014Publication History

ABSTRACT

Pointing gestures -- particularly deictic references -- are ubiquitous in face-to-face communication. However, deictic pointing can be much more difficult in collaborative virtual environments (CVEs) than in everyday life -- early studies found that the 'fragmentation' caused by the environment greatly complicated object-based communication. In the fifteen years since these studies appeared, the technologies used in CVEs have improved substantially, and several techniques for improving pointing have been proposed or implemented. What these advances mean for the problems of fragmentation and deictic gesture, however, is not clear. To find out, we conducted a new observational study of deictic pointing in a CVE with several techniques that may reduce fragmentation: extra-wide and third-person views, precise control over an avatar's pointing arm, and visual enhancements such as object highlighting and laser pointing. Our study shows that although pointing has come a long way, problems of fragmentation still occur, and that visual and view enhancements can cause new problems for collaboration, even as they solve others. In addition, the visibility of a gesture's preparatory actions remained important to study participants, even when pointing was augmented. These results provide a richer understanding of the subtlety in avatar-based deictic communication, and of the ways that this critical communication mechanism can be better supported in CVEs.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

cscw0490-file3.m4v

m4v

19.5 MB

References

  1. Bekker, M., Olson, J., Olson, G. Analysis of gestures in face-to-face design teams provides guidance for how to use groupware in design. Proc. DIS, 1995, 157--166. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Benford, S., Bowers, J., Fahlén, L.E., Greenhalgh, C., Snowdon, D. User embodiment in collaborative virtual environments. Proc. CHI, 1995, 242--249. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Bowers, J., Pycock, J., O'Brien, J. Talk and embodiment in CVEs. Proc. CHI, 1996, 58--65. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Ducheneaut, N., Wen, M.-H., Yee, N., Wadley, G. Body and mind: a study of avatar personalization in three virtual worlds. Proc. CHI, 2009, 1151--1160. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Fraser, M., Benford, S., Hindmarsh, J., Heath, C. Supporting awareness and interaction through collaborative virtual interfaces. Proc. UIST 1999, 27--36. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Fraser, M., Benford, S. Interaction effects of virtual structures. Proc. CVE, 2002, 128--134. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Goodwin, C., Goodwin, M. Seeing as a situated activity: Formulating planes. In Y. Engeström and D. Middleton, eds., Cognition and Communication at Work. Cambridge University Press, 1996, 61--95.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Goodwin, C. Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. J. Prag. 32, 10, 2000, 1489--1522.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Goodwin, C. Pointing as situated practice. In S. Kita, ed., Pointing: Where language, culture and cognition meet. Psychology Press, 2003, 217--241.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Greenberg, S., Gutwin, C., Roseman, M. Semantic telepointers for groupware. Proc. OzCHI, 1996, 54--61. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Gutwin, C., Penner, R. Improving interpretation of remote gestures with telepointer traces. Proc. CSCW, 2002, 49--57. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Heath, C., Hindmarsh, J. Configuring Action in Objects: From Mutual Space to Media Space. Mind, Culture, and Activity 7, 1, 2000, 81--104.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Hindmarsh, J., Fraser, M., Heath, C., Benford, S., and Greenhalgh, C. Fragmented interaction: establishing mutual orientation in virtual environments. Proc. CSCW, 1998, 217--226. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Hindmarsh, J., Fraser, M., Heath, C., Benford, S., Object-focused interaction in collaborative virtual environments. ToCHI 7, 4, 2000, 477--509. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Hindmarsh, J., Heath, C. Embodied reference: A study of deixis in workplace interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 32, 12, 2000, 1855--1878.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Kirk, D., Rodden, T., Fraser, D.S. Turn it this way: grounding collaborative action with remote gestures. Proc. CHI, 2007, 1039--1048. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Krauss, R.M., Fussell, S.R. Mutual knowledge and communicative effectiveness. In Intellectual teamwork: social and technological foundations of cooperative work. L. Erlbaum Associates Inc., 1990, 111--145. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Luff, P., Heath, C., Kuzuoka, H., Yamazaki, K., Yamashita, J. Handling documents and discriminating objects in hybrid spaces. Proc. CHI, 2006, 561--570. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Luff, P., Yamashita, N., Kuzuoka, H., Heath, C. Hands on hitchcock: embodied reference to a moving scene. Proc. CHI, 2011, 43--52. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. McNeill, D. Hand and mind. Univ. Chicago. 1992.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Moore, R.J., Ducheneaut, N., Nickell, E. Doing Virtually Nothing: Awareness and Accountability in Massively Multiplayer Online Worlds. Proc. CSCW, 2007, 265--305. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Tang, J.C. Findings from observational studies of collaborative work. In International Journal of Man Machine Studies. Academic Press Ltd., 1991, 11--28. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Tang, J.C., Minneman, S. VideoWhiteboard: video shadows to support remote collaboration. Proc. CHI, 1991, 315--322. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Wong, N., Gutwin, C. Where are you pointing? the accuracy of deictic pointing in CVEs. Proc. CHI, 2010, 1029--1038. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Wong, N. and Gutwin, C. Controlling an Avatar's Pointing Gestures in Desktop Collaborative Virtual Environments. Proc. Group, 2012, 21--30. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Support for deictic pointing in CVEs: still fragmented after all these years'

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CSCW '14: Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work & social computing
      February 2014
      1600 pages
      ISBN:9781450325400
      DOI:10.1145/2531602

      Copyright © 2014 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 15 February 2014

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      CSCW '14 Paper Acceptance Rate134of497submissions,27%Overall Acceptance Rate2,235of8,521submissions,26%

      Upcoming Conference

      CSCW '24

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader