Milton Chen
ABSTRACT
We built a videoconference system called the Virtual Auditorium to support dialog-based distance learning. The instructor can see dozens of students on a tiled wall-sized display and establish eye contact with any student. Telephone-quality audio and television-quality video can be streamed using commodity codecs such as wavelet and MPEG-4. Support for stream migration allows a seamless user interface to span the multiple computers driving the display wall..We performed user studies on the auditorium parameters. We found that the optimal display wall size must balance two contradictory requirements: subjects prefer larger videos for seeing facial expressions and smaller videos for seeing everyone without head movement. Ideally, each video should have a field of view that spans 14 degrees, which corresponds to a slightly larger than life-size image. At the very least, each video should have a field of view of 6 degrees. We found that a video window should be less than 2.7 degrees horizontally and 9 degrees vertically from the camera in order to maintain the appearance of eye contact for the remote viewer. In addition, we describe a previously unreported gaze phenomenon: a person's expectation determines his perception of eye contact under ambiguous conditions.
- 1.G. Abowd, C. Atkeson, A. Feinstein, C. Hmelo, R. Kooper, S. Long, N. Sawhney, and M. Tani. Teaching and Learning as Multimedia Authoring: The Classroom 2000 Project. Proceedings of ACM Multimedia, pages 187-198, 1996. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- 2.AccessGrid. http://www-fp.mcs.anl.govlfllaccessgridGoogle Scholar
- 3.M. Argyle and M. Cook. Gaze and Mutual Gaze. Cambridge University Press, 1976.Google Scholar
- 4.J. Bransford, A. Brown, and R. Cocking. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience and School. National Academy Press, 2000.Google Scholar
- 5.W. Buxton. Living in Augmented Reality: Ubiquitous Media and Reactive Environments. Video-Mediated Communication (edited by K. Finn, A. Sellen, and S. Wilbur), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pages 363-384, 1997.Google Scholar
- 6.W. Buxton, A. Sellen, M. Sheasby. Interfaces for Multiparty Videoconferences. Video-Mediated Communication (edited by K. Finn, A. Sellen, and S. Wilbur), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pages 385-400, 1997.Google Scholar
- 7.M. Cline. The Perception of Where a Person is Looking. American Journal of Psychology, pages 41-50, 1967.Google ScholarCross Ref
- 8.P. Dourish and S. Bly. Portholes: Supporting Awareness in a Distributed Work Group. Proceedings of CHI, pages 541-547, 1992. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 9.J. Gibbons, W. Kincheloe, and K. Down. Tutored Videotape Instruction: a New Use of Electronics Media in Education. Science, pages 1139-l 146, 1977.Google Scholar
- 10.J. Gibson and A. Pick. Perception of Another Person's Looking Behavior. American Journal of Psychology, pages 386-394, 1963.Google Scholar
- 11.L. He, E. Sanocki, A. Gupta, and J. Grudin. Auto-Summarization of Audio-Video Presentations. Proceedings of ACM Multimedia, pages 489-498, 1999. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 12.L. He, E. Sanocki, A. Gupta, and J. Grudin. Comparing Presentation Summaries: Slides vs. Reading vs. Listening. Proceedings of CHI, pages 177- 184,200O. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 13.E. Isaacs, T. Morris, T. Rodriguez, and J. Tang. A Comparison of Face-to-face and Distributed Presentations. Proceedings of CHI, pages 354-361, 1995. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 14.E. Isaacs and J. Tang. Studying Video-Based Collaboration in Context: from Small Workgroups to Large Organizations. Video-Mediated Communication, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pages 173-197, 1997.Google Scholar
- 15.H. Ishii and M. Kobayashi. ClearBoard: a Seamless Medium for Shared Drawing and Conversation with Eye Contact. Proceedings of CHI, pages 525-532, 1992. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 16.P. Jackson. The Teacher and The Machine. Horace Mann Lecture, 1967.Google Scholar
- 17.G. Jancke, J. Grudin, and A. Gupta. Presenting to Local and Remote Audiences: Design and Use of the TELEP System. Proceedings of CHI, pages 384-39 1, 2000. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 18.R. Kraut and R. Fish. Prospects for Videotelephony. Video-Mediated Communication (edited by K. Finn, A. Sellen, and S. Wilbur), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pages 541-561, 1997.Google Scholar
- 19.Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Mbone tools. http:Nwww-nrg.ee.lbl.gov/nrg.htmlGoogle Scholar
- 20.B. Johanson, S. Ponnekanti, C. Sengupta, and A. Fox. Multibrowsing: Moving Web Content across Multiple Displays. Proceedings of Ubiquitous Computing Conference, 2001. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 21.S. McCanne, E. Brewer, R. Katz, L. Rowe, E. Amir, Y. Chawathe, A. Coopersmitb, K. Patel, S. Raman, A. Schuett, D. Simpson, A. Swan, T. Tung, D. Wu, and B. Smith. Toward a Common Infrastructure for Multimedia-Networking Middleware. Proceedings of International Workshop on Network and Operating System Support for Digital Audio and Video, 1997.Google ScholarCross Ref
- 22.S. Mukhopadhyay and B. Smith. Passive Capture and Structuring of Lectures. Proceedings of ACM Multimedia, pages 477-487, 1999. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 23.A. Noll. Anatomy of a Failure: PicturePhone Revisited. Telecommunications Policy, pages 307-3 16, 1992.Google ScholarCross Ref
- 24.NSF Workshop on Facial Expression Understanding, 1992. http://mambo.ucsc.edu/psl/nsf.txtGoogle Scholar
- 25.R. Ochsman and A. Chapanis. The Effects of 10 Communication Modes on the Behavior of Teams During Co-operative Problem-Solving. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, pages 579-619, 1974.Google ScholarCross Ref
- 26.K. Okada, F. Maeda, Y. Ichikawaa, and Y. Matsushita. Multiparty Videoconferencing at Virtual Social Distance: MAJIC Design. Proceedings of CSCW, pages 385-393, 1994. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 27.B. Reeves and C. Nass. The Media Equation. Cambridge University Press, 1996.Google ScholarDigital Library
- 28.R. Riez and E. Klemmer. Subjective Evaluation of Delay and Echo Suppressers in Telephone Communication. Bell System Technical Journal, pages 2919-2942, 1963.Google ScholarCross Ref
- 29.L. Rowe. ACM Multimedia Tutorial on Distance Learning, 2000.Google Scholar
- 30.A. Sellen. Remote Conversations: The Effects of Mediating Talk with Technology. Human-Computer Interaction, pages 401-444, 1995. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 31.Stanford Instructional Television Network. http://www-sitn.stanford.eduGoogle Scholar
- 32.R. Stokes. Human Factors and Appearance Design Considerations of the Mod II PicturePhone Station Set. IEEE Transactions on Communication Technology, pages 318-323, 1969Google ScholarCross Ref
- 33.University College London Mbone tools. http://www-mice.cs.ucl.ac.uk/multimedia/softwareGoogle Scholar
- 34.S. White, A. Gupta, J. Grudin, H. Chesley, G. Kimberly, and E. Sanocki. Evolving Use of A System for Education at a Distance. Proceedings of Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2000. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Design of a virtual auditorium
Recommendations
Extending Virtual Reality Display Wall Environments Using Augmented Reality
SUI '19: Symposium on Spatial User InteractionTwo major form factors for virtual reality are head-mounted displays and large display environments such as CAVE®and the LCD-based successor CAVE2®. Each of these has distinct advantages and limitations based on how they’re used. This work explores ...
SleeD: Using a Sleeve Display to Interact with Touch-sensitive Display Walls
ITS '14: Proceedings of the Ninth ACM International Conference on Interactive Tabletops and SurfacesWe present SleeD, a touch-sensitive Sleeve Display that facilitates interaction with multi-touch display walls. Large vertical displays allow multiple users to interact effectively with complex data but are inherently public. Also, they generally cannot ...
Using Personal Devices to Facilitate Multi-user Interaction with Large Display Walls
UIST '15 Adjunct: Adjunct Proceedings of the 28th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software & TechnologyLarge display walls and personal devices such as Smartphones have complementary characteristics. While large displays are well-suited to multi-user interaction (potentially with complex data), they are inherently public and generally cannot present an ...
Comments