skip to main content
research-article

Joint Action Storyboards: A Framework for Visualizing Communication Grounding Costs

Published:22 April 2021Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Building and maintaining common ground is vital for effective collaboration in CSCW. Moreover, subtle changes in a CSCW user interface can significantly impact grounding and collaborative processes. Yet, researchers and technology designers lack tools to understand how specific user interface designs may hinder or facilitate communication grounding. In this work, we leverage the well-established theory of communication grounding to develop a visual framework, called Joint Action Storyboards (JASs), to analyze and articulate how interaction minutiae impact the costs of communication grounding. JASs can depict an integrated view of mental actions of collaborators, their physical interactions with each other and the CSCW environment, and the corresponding grounding costs incurred. We present the development of JASs and discuss its various benefits for HCI and CSCW research. Through a series of case studies, we demonstrate how JASs provide an analysis tool for researchers and technology designers and serve as a tool to articulate the impact of interaction minutiae on communication grounding.

References

  1. Michael Argyle. 1969. Social Interaction. Methuen, London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Mathilde M. Bekker, Judith S. Olson, and Gary M. Olson. 1995. Analysis of gestures in face-To-face design teams provides guidance for how to use groupware in design. In Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods, and Techniques (DIS '95), ACM, New York, NY, USA, 157--166. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/225434.225452Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Richard E. Boyatzis. 1998. Transforming qualitative information?: thematic analysis and code development. Sage Publications. Retrieved July 3, 2018 from http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1998-08155-000Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Susan E. Brennan and Calion B. Lockridge. 2006. Computer-Mediated Communication: Cognitive Science Approach. In Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics. Elsevier, 775--780. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/b0-08-044854-2/00861-0Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Susan E. Brennan, Klaus Mueller, Greg Zelinsky, I. V. Ramakrishnan, David S. Warren, and Arie Kaufman. 2006. Toward a Multi-Analyst, Collaborative Framework for Visual Analytics. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium On Visual Analytics Science And Technology (VAST '06), IEEE, 129--136. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/VAST.2006.261439Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Susan E. Brennan and Justina O. Ohaeri. 1999. Why do electronic conversations seem less polite? the costs and benefits of hedging. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Work Activities Coordination and Collaboration (WACC '99), ACM, New York, NY, USA, 227--235. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/295665.295942Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Stuart K. Card, Thomas P. Moran, and Allen Newell. 1980. The keystroke-level model for user performance time with interactive systems. Commun. ACM 23, 7 (1980), 396--410. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/358886.358895Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. John M. Carroll, Gregorio Convertino, Mary Beth Rosson, and Craig H. Ganoe. 2008. Toward a conceptual model of common ground in teamwork. In Macrocognition in Teams: Theories and Methodologies. Ashgate Publishing Ltd, 87--105. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315593166-6Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Herbert H Clark. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Herbert H Clark and Susan E Brennan. 1991. Grounding in communication. In Perspectives on socially shared cognition, L B Resnick, J M Levine and S D Teasley (eds.). American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, US, 127--149. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1037/10096-006Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Gregorio Convertino, Helena M. Mentis, Mary Beth Rosson, John M. Carroll, Aleksandra Slavkovic, and Craig H. Ganoe. 2008. Articulating common ground in cooperative work: Content and process. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '08), ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1637--1646. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1357054.1357310Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Gregorio Convertino, Helena M. Mentis, Mary Beth Rosson, Aleksandra Slavkovic, and John M. Carroll. 2009. Supporting content and process common ground in computer-supported teamwork. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human factors in Computing Systems (CHI '09, ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2339--2348. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1518701.1519059Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Alan Dix, Janet Finlay, Gregory Abowd, and Russell Beale. 2004. Human-computer interaction. Pearson Education UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Yrjo? Engestro?m. 1990. Learning, working and imagining?: twelve studies in activity theory. Orienta-Konsultit Oy.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Jean E. Fox Tree and Nathaniel B. Clark. 2013. Communicative Effectiveness of Written Versus Spoken Feedback. Discourse Process. 50, 5 (2013), 339--359. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2013.797241Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Jean E. Fox Tree, Sarah A. Mayer, and Teresa E. Betts. 2011. Grounding in Instant Messaging. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 45, 4 (2011), 455--475. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.45.4.eGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Darren Gergle. 2017. Discourse Processing in Technology-Mediated Environments. In The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Processes. Routledge, 191--221.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Darren Gergle, Robert E. Kraut, and Susan R. Fussell. 2004. Action as language in a shared visual space. In Proceedings of the ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work (CSCW '04), ACM, New York, NY, USA, 487--496. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1031607.1031687Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Darren Gergle, Robert E. Kraut, and Susan R. Fussell. 2004. Language efficiency and visual technology: Minimizing collaborative effort with visual information. J. Lang. Soc. Psychol. 23, 4 (2004), 491--517. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X04269589Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Darren Gergle, Robert Kraut, and Susan Fussell. 2013. Using visual information for grounding and awareness in collaborative tasks. Human--Computer Interact. 28, 1 (2013), 1--39. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2012.678246Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Carl Gutwin and Saul Greenberg. 1998. Design for individuals, design for groups: tradeoffs between power and workspace awareness. In Proceedings of the 1998 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work (CSCW '98), ACM, Seattle, WA, USA, 207--216. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/289444.289495Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Mark S. Hancock, Frédéric D. Vernier, Daniel Wigdor, Sheelagh Carpendale, and Chia Shen. 2006. Rotation and translation mechanisms for tabletop interaction. In Proceedings of the First IEEE International Workshop on Horizontal Interactive Human-Computer Systems (TABLETOP '06), 79--86. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/TABLETOP.2006.26Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Leila Homaeian, Nippun Goyal, James R. Wallace, and Stacey D. Scott. 2018. Group vs Individual: Impact of TOUCH and TILT Cross-Device Interactions on Mixed-Focus Collaboration. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '18), ACM, New York, NY, USA, 73. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173647Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Petra Isenberg, Danyel Fisher, Sharoda A Paul, Meredith Ringel Morris, Kori Inkpen, and Mary Czerwinski. 2012. Co-Located Collaborative Visual Analytics around a Tabletop Display. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 18, 5 (2012), 689--702. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/tvcg.2011.287Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. David Kirk, Tom Rodden, and Danaë Stanton Fraser. 2007. Turn it this way: Grounding collaborative action with remote gestures. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '07), ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1039--1048. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1240624.1240782Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Theodora Koulouri, Stanislao Lauria, and Robert D. Macredie. 2017. The influence of visual feedback and gender dynamics on performance, perception and communication strategies in CSCW. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 97, (2017), 162--181. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2016.09.003Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Robert E. Kraut, Susan R. Fussell, Susan E. Brennan, and Jane Siegel. 2002. Understanding effects of proximity on collaboration: Implications for technologies to support remote collaborative work. In Distributed work. MIT Press, 137--162.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Russell Kruger, Sheelagh Carpendale, Stacey D. Scott, and Saul Greenberg. 2004. Roles of orientation in tabletop collaboration: Comprehension, coordination and communication. Comput. Support. Coop. Work 13, 5--6 (2004), 501--537. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-004-5062-8Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Russell Kruger, Sheelagh Carpendale, Stacey D. Scott, and Anthony Tang. 2005. Fluid integration of rotation and translation. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (CHI '05), ACM, New York, NY, USA, 601. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1054972.1055055Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. John D. Lee, Alex. Kirlik, and Marvin J. Dainoff. 2013. The oxford handbook of cognitive engineering. Oxford University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Nicolai Marquardt, Ken Hinckley, and Saul Greenberg. 2012. Cross-device interaction via micro-mobility and F-formations. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST '12), 13--22. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2380116.2380121Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Bella. Martin and Bruce M. Hanington. 2012. Universal methods of design?: 100 ways to research complex problems, develop innovative ideas, and design effective solutions. Rockport Publishers.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Nora McDonald, Sarita Schoenebeck, and Andrea Forte. 2019. Reliability and Inter-rater Reliability in Qualitative Research. Proc. ACM Human-Computer Interact. 3, CSCW (November 2019), 1--23. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3359174Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Joseph Edward McGrath. 1984. Groups: Interaction and performance. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Eaglewood Cliffs, N.J.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Andrew Monk. 2003. Common Ground in Electronically Mediated Communication: Clark's Theory of Language Use. In HCI Models, Theories, and Frameworks: Toward a Multidisciplinary Science. Elsevier Inc., 265--289. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-155860808-5/50010-1Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Andrew Monk and Leon Watts. 2000. Peripheral participation in video-mediated communication. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 52, 5 (2000), 933--958. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.1999.0359Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Carl E. Nehme, Stacey D. Scott, M. L. Cummings, and Carina Yumi Furusho. 2006. Generating Requirements for Futuristic Hetrogenous Unmanned Systems. Proc. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. Annu. Meet. 50, 3 (October 2006), 235--239. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120605000306Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Thomas Neumayr, Hans Christian Jetter, Mirjam Augstein, Judith Friedl, and Thomas Luger. 2018. Domino: A descriptive framework for hybrid collaboration and coupling styles in partially distributed teams. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 2, CSCW (2018). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3274397Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. David Pinelle, Carl Gutwin, and Saul Greenberg. 2003. Task analysis for groupware usability evaluation: Modeling shared-workspace tasks with the mechanics of collaboration. ACM Trans. Comput. Interact. 10, 4 (2003), 281--311. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/966930.966932Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Jenny Preece, Yvonne Rogers, and Helen Sharp. 2007. Interaction design?: beyond human-computer interaction (2nd ed.). John Wiley.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Andrew D. Rice and Jonathan W. Lartigue. 2014. Touch-level model (TLM): evolving KLM-GOMS for touchscreen and mobile devices. In Proceedings of the ACM Southeast regional conference (ACM SE '14), ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1--6. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2638404.2638532Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Stacey D. Scott, T C Nicholas Graham, James R. Wallace, Mark Hancock, and Miguel Nacenta. 2015. ?Local Remote" Collaboration: Applying Remote Group AwarenessTechniques to Co-Located Settings. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference Companion on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (CSCW '15 companion), ACM, New York, NY, USA, 319--324. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2685553.2685564Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Da Silva, Stacey D. Scott, and M.L. Cummings. 2007. Design Methodology for Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Team Coordination.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Anthony Tang, Melanie Tory, Barry Po, Petra Neumann, and Sheelagh Carpendale. 2006. Collaborative coupling over tabletop displays. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '06), ACM, 1181--1190. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1124772.1124950Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Gerrit C. Van Der Veer, Bert F. Lenting, and Bas A.J. Bergevoet. 1996. GTA: Groupware task analysis - Modeling complexity. Acta Psychol. (Amst). 91, 3 SPEC. ISS. (April 1996), 297--322. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(95)00065-8Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. Daniel Wigdor, Chia Shen, Clifton Forlines, and Ravin Balakrishnan. 2006. Effects of display position and control space orientation on user preference and performance. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '06), 309--318. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1124772.1124819Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Joint Action Storyboards: A Framework for Visualizing Communication Grounding Costs

    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

    Full Access

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader
    About Cookies On This Site

    We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

    Learn more

    Got it!