Inquiry Project 3, Continued

By Sharon Kerr for EAD 806

Face-to-face Interaction

• Both of us were in Abu Dhabi working in the study of my house

First Attempt: First Layer

First Attempt: Reinforced Sides

First Attempt: Balloon Cushion

First Attempt: The drop

Second Attempt: The Outer Layer

Second Attempt: Inner Layer Added

Second Attempt: The Drop

Third Attempt: Overall View

Third Attempt: Reinforced Cushion

Third Attempt: The Drop

In Person Intervals between speakers (SKerr)

0

1

2

3

4

5

1 16 31 46 61 76 91 106 121 136 151 166

Number of intervals

Tim

e o

f in

terv

als

(min

.sec

)

Conclusions: Flow

• Energy was highest and most even in the synchronous chat.

• Energy was lowest and most difficult to sustain in the asynchronous chat.

• Energy ebbed after the second unsuccessful attempt in the face-to-face interaction, but returned to a high level after we had a snack

Conclusions: Tempo and Rhythm

• The tempo and rhythm of the asynchronous chat were the slowest and most deliberate

• The tempo and rhythm of the synchronous chat and the in person work were surprisingly similar. Rhythm and Tempo were rapid during planning, slowed during building, and increased during reflection. This cycle repeated.

Conclusions: Quality of Interactions, Asynchronous Chat

• Quality of the writing was highest in the asynchronous chat. Each of us posted logical paragraphs and included thoughtful questions, but we felt as though we were working in isolation.

Conclusions: Quality of Interactions, Synchronous Chat

• Written posts were clear and brief

• We only interacted visually when we shared photos in the end

• During the building phases, we felt as though we were working on our own

• We did not modify Jamie’s design, but simply tried to replicate it

Conclusions: Quality of Interactions, face-to-face

• The quality of the spoken interactions (analogous to the writing) was often low in the face-to-face work, but because of the combination with kinesthetic and visual communication our ideas genuinely developed and we made more innovations and design changes. Face-to-face work also required the most patience, since we had to share the structure.

Overall Conclusions

• All of the means of collaboration worked to some degree

• The asset of synchronous and asynchronous chats is that you can collaborate with people who are very far away

• You also get to do everything yourself during the building phase

Overall Conclusions

• However, the face-to-face problem solving involved much more genuine collaboration and a greater variety of innovations

• It seems this was because visual, kinesthetic, and audible clues were simultaneously available

• This method was also the most emotionally challenging one, since it required patience