social perspectives on hcii: aka social mini. course overview goals – broad introduction to social...
TRANSCRIPT
Social Perspectives on HCII:aka social mini
Course Overview
• Goals– Broad introduction to social perspectives on HCI &
Information Systems• CSCW, Small groups, IT & Organization, Online communities
– Reading intensive • 42 articles• ~ 1000 pages
– History of the field(s)• Classic articles• Important perspectives• Sampling of important topics• Less emphasis on cutting edge research
Orientation
• Syllabus & topics• Course requirements
– 6 readings/week– Lead class session– Lit review– Wikipedia improvement– Final exam
• Discussion abt class structure– More integrative discussion of papers– 2 student/presenters pre class session
Media Richness: Key Take-aways
• Technology isn’t just hardware & bits• Concept of ‘fit’ between technological
attributes and X (e.g., communication) needs• What makes good theory• Along the way:
– Understanding & evaluating media richness theory– Understanding & evaluating Clark’s collaborative
language model
Media Richness
• 40 year research tradition on the value of communication modalities on communication success. E.g., – Human Factors tradition:
• Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. New York: Wiley.
• Chapanis, A. (1975). Interactive human communication. Scientific American, 232, 36-42.
– Organizational behavior tradition:• Van de Ven, A., Delbecq, A., & Koenig, R. (1976). Determinants of coordination
modes within organizations. American Sociological Review, 41, 322-338.
• Katz, R., & Tushman, M. (1979). Communication patterns, project performance, and task characteristics: An empirical evaluation and integration in an R&D setting. Organizational behavior and human performance, 23(2), 139-162.
• Daft, R., & Lengel, R. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554-571.
Cisco Telepresence Application
• Will this technology improve distributed work?• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akzNWS5dygQ&feature=related
• Multiple 2-person referential communication tasks
• E.g., Find nearest MD on map• E.g., Build trash cart
• Common results: • Voice speeds solutions
compared to typing• Faster times• More turns• More words
• Visual channel doesn't help (in a talking head set-up)
Solution time0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Face to face
Voice
Writing
Typing
Solution time0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
VoiceVoice+videoWritingWriting+videoTypingTyping+video
(fm Chapanis, 1972)
Referential Communication Results
Why doesn’t “talking-heads" video improve referential communication?
• Most of the content is in the words• Gestures may be pre-verbal, rather
than illustration• For emotion, video and audio channel
can be redundant• Rich media may be useful for handling
ambiguous and conflictful topics• E.g., Images change lie-detection,
but help liar over the lie-detectorSeeing your partner doesn'timprove ability to communicate about objects in the world:
Human Factors Tradition
• Main effect predictions:– Humans evolved with Face-to-Face
communication– Deviations from Face-to-Face lead to worse
communication performance
Fit
Fit
Organizational information processing requirements from goals, environment, technology and size.
Organizational effectiveness
Information processing capacity of structural design choices (vertical & horizontal linkages, departmental groupings, types of communication)
Fit btw Technology & Need
Fit (Tushman)
Tushman: Fit between task and peer-to-peer communication
• Departments are more successful when their style of communication matches their task & interdependence
Research
0 4 8 12 16 20
Predicting "richer" communica-tion
Low Perform
Ratio peer-to-peer communication to managerial communication
Hi
Low
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Low PerformHigh Perform
Ratio peer-to-peer communication to manage-rial communication
Inte
rdep
ende
nce
Uncertainty vs Equivocality
• What’s the difference?• Will same type of technology for coordination
aid them both?
Uncertainty vs Equivocality
• Uncertainty=Information deficit between information is needed to perform tasks and information that is available– Based on features of the task
– On information in hand
• Equivocality=Ambiguity or existence of multiple & conflicting interpretations of an organizational situation
Media Richness Theory in a Nutshell:Fit btw structure & needs
How do you evaluate media richness theory?
• Conceptually: – Is the uncertainty/equivocality distinction valid?– Is the concept of richness well specified?– Is the theory connecting equivocality and media
well defined? E.g., What is the mechanism?
• Empirically: Do predictions about choice and effectiveness hold?
One Test• Lab experiment varying equivocality & media richness
– Equivocality: • High equivocality : Undergrad admissions problem,
witharguments about weighting SATs,
GPA, extracurricular activities, jobs,
residency, etc.• Low equivocality: SAT problem solving questions
– Richness:• Immediate feedback: Full duplex vs. half-duplex
audio/video Chat vs. email
• Multiplicity of cues: Full duplex audio/video vs. chat Half-duplex audio/video vs. email
– Outcomes: Time, Consensus, Decision quality, SatisfactionDennis, A. R., & Kinney, S. T. (1998). Testing media richness theory in the new media: The effects of cues, feedback, and task equivocality. Information Systems Research, 9(3), 256-274.
Results
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Lo Equiv Hi Equiv
Tim
e to
co
mp
lete
tas
k
Fewer cues
Multi-cue
• Faster with– Multiple cues– Interactivity
• Contingency effects– No effects on decision quality– No effects on consensus– No effects on communication
satisfaction– Interaction between
multiplicity of cues & equivocality on completion time, but inconsistent with theory
• Multiple cues improves performance most for SAT task, not admissions task
Media richness X Task equivocality
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Lo Equiv Hi Equiv
Tim
e to
co
mp
lete
tas
k
Non-interactive
Interactive
Clark’s Theory of Cooperative Language Use to Explain Media Effects
Clark’s Theory of Common Ground
• Interpersonal communication is more efficient when people share greater common ground
• Mutual knowledge, beliefs, goals, attitudes that people know that they share
• Grounding = The interactive process by which communicators exchange evidence about what they do or do not understand over the course of a conversation, as they accrue common ground.
– Presentation phase: Speaker presents utterance to addressee
– Acceptance phase: Addressee accepts utterance by providing evidence of understanding
• People ground utterances to extent necessary “for current purposes”
• Principle of least collaborative effort - provide the minimum necessary for successful grounding
Grounding in a Bicycle Repair Task
A: Next you have to put the clamp on.B: The clamp?A: Yeah, see those pieces over there?B: Yeah.A: It’s the long one.B: Ok I got it.
Mutual Knowledge or Common Ground
• Communication rests on mutual knowledge or common ground: – The knowledge the parties to a communication hold in
common and know they have in common• Speakers as hypothesis testers.
– “If I say ‘X’, will listener understand ‘X’?”– “If I say ‘Did you see the game?’ will listener understand
‘Did you see Sunday’s AFC Championship football game?’”
• Speaker does hypothesis testing at two points:– Presentation phase — “What should I say?”– Acceptance phase — “Did the listener understand what
I meant or should I elaborate?”
Name these objects
A B
100%: Circle 70%: Star30%: Adjective Star
Name these objects
A B C
80%: Circle20%: White Circle
60%: Star40%: Adjective Star
0%: Star100%: Adjective Star
• Speakers take into account what they expect their partners to know– Name objects to distinguish among similar objects
which a listener (a) has in mind and (b) is likely to confuse
Referential communication task• One person (the director) tells another (the worker) in what
order to place these Tangram figures• Observer notes what the team does to improve over time
– How did the pair coordinate naming conventions?– How did the director know if the worker understood a direction?
• Up to four trials, with four figures per trial
• Communicators come to agree on a pair-specific description of objects
• With a new partner, words per object returns to close to original level
Partners are learning
What evidence do people use for grounding?
• Personal knowledge• Group membership• Linguistic co-presence• Explicit feedback• Physical co-presence
Stimuli for Expert vs. Novice Study
1 2 3 4 5 6
• Task: Order postcards of NYC landmarks
•Experts: New Yorkers
•Novices: Mid-westerns & others
• Experts talking to experts are more efficient than novices talking to novices
• Work with resources at hand
•Mixed pairs learn from each other
•Novices learn to use names
•Experts learn to use descriptions
•But adjustments are incomplete
Partners can partially accommodate to differences in others knowledge
Role of technology
Applying Grounding Theory To Technology
• Clark & Brennan (1991): “People should ground with those techniques available in a medium that lead to the least collaborative effort.”
• Hypothesis: Objective characteristics of different communication media change the costs of conversational grounding and strategies for doing so.
• Some key types of costs:– Production/Reception costs: costs of producing/receiving messages– Start-up costs: costs of initiating conversation– Asynchrony costs: costs of timing utterances– Speaker change costs: costs of turn-taking– Repair costs: costs of correcting misunderstandings
• Should allow us to predict in advance what features new technologies should have to meet different collaborative purposes
Affordances of Communication Media(Clark & Brennan, 1991)
Co-PresenceParticipants share physical environment, including a view of what each other is doing and looking at
VisibilityParticipants can see one another but not what each is doing or looking at
Audibility Participants can hear one another
CotemporalityMessages are received close to the time that they are produced, permitting fine-grained interactivity
SimultaneityMultiple participants can send/receive messages at the same time, allowing backchannel communication
SequentialityParticipants take turns in an orderly fashion in a single conversation
Reviewability Messages do not fade over time
Revisability Messages can be revised before being sent
Affordances of Conventional Media
Affordance Face-to-Face
Video Conf. Phone Email
Copresence ++ ? -- --
Visibility ++ + -- --
Audibility ++ ++ ++ --
Cotemporality ++ + ++ --
Simultaneity ++ + ++ --
Sequentiality ++ ++ ++ --
Reviewability -- -- -- ++
Revisability -- -- -- ++
Exactly how conversationalist achieve common ground depends up the details of the technology available
• formulation• production• reception• understanding• start-up• delay• asynchrony• speaker change• display• fault• repair
• co-presence• visibility• audibility• co-temporality (no lag)• simultaneity (full duplex)• sequentiality• reviewability• revisability
Features of communication setting
Needs for & costs of
Change
Technology changes strategies and costs of grounding
Exploring the Role of Shared Visual Information
• What features of physical space influence its value?– Fidelity of views– Hypotheses: Delay, rotation & host of other factors that
make views dissimilar will degrade collaborative performance
• When is shared visual context most important?– Visual complexity– Hypothesis: When task is complex enough that language
itself is insufficient to efficiently describe events
Cooperative Jigsaw Puzzle Task
• Helper has picture of target and gives instructions to worker, who moves pieces to match target
• Subjects communicate via audio & shared computer screens
TargetShared view
Work area Staging area
ManipulationsTask complexity
Visual fidelity– None: Audio only– Partial
• Shared screen with a 3-second delay• Shared screen with rotation
– Immediate: Shared screens with no delay & no rotation– Field of view: From identical to none
Simple Complex
Primary colors Tartan plaids
Static colors Changing colors
Pieces abutted Pieces overlapped
Experimental ManipulationsFidelity of the Visual Space
• Immediate• Delayed (3 seconds)• None
• Other studies– Rotation of the spatial perspectives– Discontinuous, “push to see” images
Visual difficulty:• Static vs. Dynamic Tasks
• Other studies– Spatially easy vs. difficult puzzles– Easy versus difficult to name objects – Same vs. different visual perspective
Immediate condition
No SVS condition
Summary of Multiple Experiments
• Task performance– Shared visual space improved task performance
(speed & accuracy) in all experiments– Improved performance most for visually complex
tasks
• Shifted conversational strategies– Shared visual space improved improved efficiency of
reference (e.g., words/reference)– Lack of shared visual space forced many workarounds
Two Distinct Coordination Processesfor Joint Action
• Situational awareness: – In a changing environment, parties need to understand
current state of task vis-à-vis goals in order to plan next action
• Conversational grounding:– When using language to coordinate action, pair needs to
understand what a communication partner understands now to assess success of last utterance & to plan new ones
• Is this distinction theoretically important?• Do the data support the distinction?
Visual Feedback Most Helpful with Linguistically Complex Tasks
Grounding vs Situational Awareness
Difficultygrounding
DifficultySA
EasySA
Easygrounding
Influence of Visual Alignment on Deistic Reference & Task Alignment
Spatial references Task references
Influence of Field of View on Deistic Reference & Task Alignment
Spatial references Task references