Physical attributes of multi-touch tables support collaboration 5

Figure 2.1: Microsoft Surface Multi-touch table. Source: [5]

When I talk about multi-touch tech-nology, its important to state that I am actually talking about multi-touch tables and similar objects in size and form where multiple users can interact with the device simultaneously (See fig-ure 2.1). Many different commercial and customized multi-touch tables fit-ting this description have become avail-able over the past few years. Devices such as the “Diamond Touch” by Di-etz & Leigh [6], “Microsoft Surface” [5]

and the “Reactable” by Jorda are some examples of this. Even though a

vari-ety of touch table interfaces have been made, the question is how they support 5

learning through collaboration is still of interest. One way in which they might provide a collaborative space is related to their physical attributes and that would be the place to start.

Many may think that multi-touch technology such as a multi-touch table would easily enable people to interact and collaborate better on certain tasks; in many cases this statement is considered to be true. The claim is that these interfaces provide more opportunities for flexible forms of collaboration compared to single user PCs and mouse input, through allowing co-located users to interact smoothly and simultaneously with digital content [7]. In addition to this it is claimed that the lightweight and parallel action of touching, the mobility of users, and the increased ability for natural expressions of behavior such as gesture and posture extend the possibilities for communication and collaboration. User studies have shown how groups of people new to multi-touch tables find enjoyment in sharing and assembling sets of digital images for variety of collaborative tasks [8], [9].

If we look closer at the picture displayed in figure 2.1 we might agree that the table itself looks appealing. It is also shown that young students are drawn to its surface, where work and play come together in hands-on, collaborative activities.

[10] If we were to compare a multi-touch table to single touch devices, or single-user environments such as tablets, phones or PCs, just enabling more single-users to participate simultaneously would most likely improve collaboration. Harris et al.

[11] did a study on how children would collaborate solving a task on a single-touch device versus a multi-touch device. In groups of three, they collaborated on a planning task in which they designed a seating plan for their classroom. Harris et al. [11] found out that the technology itself did not have any impact on the frequency or equity of interactions, but that it did influence the nature in which the children collaborated on the task. On the single-touch device the children talked more about turn-taking whereas on the multi-touch device they talked more about the task at hand. These results indicate that multi-touch tabletops enhance the quality of collaboration between the participants, as it makes the boundaries between humans and technology less visible. The participants focus more on the task at hand rather than limitations of the technology they are using.

With reference to the research done by Harris et al. [11] we know that multi-touch technology in terms of relatively large touch-sensitive devices enables people to interact and collaborate more easily, but its also important to acknowledge that different hardware design-choices have an impact on how the participants interact and whether it improves or impair collaboration. In Cul´en et al. [12], [12] argue somewhat differently that what I would expect. Collecting images and writing

stories has been tested with eight children of age 10, and it was found that the children preferred PC with a keyboard and mouse. Some of the reasons for that, the authors argue, may be that the children were familiar with PCs and knew how to find pictures easily. Another factor may be that they thought that multi-touch technology was not mature enough and found it to be too slow to write on, see figure 2.2.

Figure 2.2: The children telling stories on the multitouch and on the laptop.

Photo: Cul´en. [12]

Scott et al. [9] wrote a paper in 2003 focusing on developing a set of guidelines for co-located collaborative work on table top displays. Even though this article is somewhat outdated, I feel that many of these guidelines still apply to the multi-touch technology we use today. Here are the guidelines I still think apply when arguing for the support of collaboration around a multi-touch table.

1. Support interpersonal interaction

The system has to support interpersonal interaction and communication be-tween the users. It is crucial that the technology used do not set any technical boundaries in terms of the communication process needed to complete a spe-cific task. The system cant be designed in a way that requires the users to have any previous technical experience.

Is this something a multi-touch table can provide? If we look back at the observations done by Harris et al. [11] regarding a single-touch device versus a multi-touch device, the multi-touch device clearly provided a technology that the users became a part of. The observations done did not indicate any technical boundaries impairing collaboration between the users; instead it provided a context that enhanced collaboration around the table making the technology invisible and a part of the users as a whole. The users could freely interact and cooperate amongst each other without having to think

about inevitable technological constraints that may or may not interfer with their task at hand.

2. Consideration of the appropriate arrangements for users

The application has to set a final maximum number of users participating at the same time. It is important that the users have their own and fixed loca-tions around the table, so that no unnecessary interruploca-tions will take place.

”There are many factors that can influence the peoples preferred locations, which in turn can influence the interpersonal interaction within the group“

[9]. ”Physical properties of the table such as size or shape can influence seating positions“ [9]. As we can see, the possibility to have fixed locations around the table as well as a table that have the appropriate physical prop-erties is important to improve collaboration between users. A multi-touch table both have the form, size and height to support a variety of different users making it easy to collaborate. A maximum number of participants should be decided on the basis of these attributes, this is important to pre-vent too many participants at the same time, spoiling the ability to cooperate and collaborate on the task at hand.

3. Support simultaneous user actions

It is important that the system as a whole supports simultaneous user ac-tions. ”Teamwork is often comprised of a variety of collaboration styles, including working in parallel, working sequentially on tightly coupled ac-tivities, working independently and working under assumes roles, such as director and actor“ [9]. ”On systems that dont support this kind of con-currency, the users have difficulties working independently. This is because they constantly have to monitor the other collaborators in order to know when the system is ready for them to use“ [9]. When we talk about the system as a whole, we mean both software and hardware. There is no use for software that supports simultaneous user actions, if the hardware doesnt.

Multi-touch technology is designed for this exact purpose. It can identify multiple users using multiple touch-points simultaneously. This proves that a multi-touch table is well suited to function as a device that supports many different types of collaboration styles. Again, this is another indication that a multi-touch table support collaboration between the participants, because it enables the participants to collaborate in so many different ways.

In addition to the guidelines described by Scott et al. [9] we have to look at other aspects of what encapsulates a multi-touch table. Multi-touch tables can come

in many different shapes and sizes, but some supports collaboration better than others. A paper by B [13] takes on and explains a variety of different attributes regarding multi-touch devices that are important to think about in terms of collab-oration. As a first he emphasizes that size matters. ”Size largely determines what muscle groups are used, how many fingers/hands can be active on the surface, and what types of gestures are suited for the device.“ [13] What this means is that the larger a multi-touch device is, the more it supports collaboration. It enables more people to interact with it at the same time and with gestures other than one point touching. It enables people to take advantage of the space available, and use gestures that make use of a bigger part of the surfaces total space. A multi-touch table can come in many different sizes, but the overall size is large enough to prove Bill Buxtons point that size really matters. Another important aspect is vertical vs. horizontal displays. Own observations indicate that vertically mounted dis-plays contributes towards a more freely interaction between participants. This means that people move more between and around each other to reach other parts of the display, resulting in more confusion and a higher number of conflicts. This again results in a decreased ability to collaborate. On the other hand utilizing a horizontal display with some kind of fixed locations proves to be a lot better.

People have their own personal positions around the table and have no use of moving around it. This makes the collaboration function more smoothly and are only interrupted by a scenario where two or more participants reaches for the same screen-object.

Summary

Even though there is a lack of articles taking on the questions about which hard-ware design-choices or physical attributes that support collaboration, this liter-ature survey has tried to present the most important guidelines found. Based on previous research as well as own experience and observations we can now try to draw a conclusion. Does the majority of multi-touch tables posses the right physical attributes in order to support collaboration? A multi-touch table should posses a height that makes it fit most people standing up. It should also have a relatively large size, so that two or more people can fit around it simultaneously.

For most people a normal sized multi-touch table would support this, but this is not the case when talking about children. The table would have to be adjusted in order to fit the average height of the people participating. This means that an average multi-touch table would have to be adjusted down in terms of height to make it support collaboration between children as it does for adults. A multi-touch

table should also be easy to use; the participants should not need any previous knowledge to the technology or the table. It should also support multiple people interacting with it simultaneously, but there is also important that a predefined maximum number of participants are allowed. This is also controlled by the phys-ical size and form of the table. The table should be displayed horizontally and not be tilted in any way. If the participants have fixed locations in addition to this, there will be a minimum number of conflicts between them.

2.1.2 Guidelines for designing multi-touch applications for collaboration

As argued for in section 2.1, multi-touch technology and a multi-touch table in particular may have the right combination of physical attributes to support collab-oration between users exceptionally well. Now, I will expand the scope and bring multi-touch game-based applications into an educational setting. I will look fur-ther into how multi-touch applications used in an educational setting can probide support for collaobrative learning.

As of now, the introduction of new technologies into an educational setting has rarely lived up to the expectations in terms of benefits for learning [14]. Over-generalization and over-expectation within CSCL (Computer supported collab-orative learning) research as described by Dillenbourg and Evans [15] is two of the reasons why. ”Over-generalization results from attributing the learning effects demonstrated in a specific instance of a technology to the entire technology, while over-expectation results from the enthusiasm triggered by any novel technology“

[15]. Through Cubans research [16] we see that, historically, many waves of new technology have passed through schools and classrooms, none leaving a lasting ef-fect. Computers have been found to be unused or underused in most schools [17].

Factors contributing to this situation are many and well researched. About the tablet, Cuban [16] says: There is very little evidence that kids learn more, faster or better using these machines. iPads are marvelous tools to engage kids, but the novelty effect wears off and you get into hard-core issues of teaching and learning.

Cul´en and Gasparini [18] claim that the children like cool technology. Multi-touch tables are considered to be cool new technology. Even though there has been lit-tle conclusive evidence of impact on measured learning outcomes, there are still technological characteristics, coupled with the coolness factor and pedagogical possibilities that make multi-touch the right tool in the attempt to increase the likelihood of improved learning outcomes, and in this case collaborative learning.

Dillenbourg and Evans [15] emphasizes that tabletop displays (multi-touch tables) have a specific educational flavor. By this they mean that these tabletop environ-ments are designed especially for co-located teamwork and collaboration, opposed to most CSCL environments which are designed for on-line activity. On-line func-tionality may be integrated in tabletop displays as well, but it generally enriches the face to face activity rather than the central activity. Also, studies by Johnson and D.W. [19] on cooperative learning suggest that a large majority of students learn more effectively when they work cooperatively. ”Multi-user environments are said to provide a natural interaction in supporting collaboration, compared to individual and none collocated technologies“ [7]. Yuill and Rogers [7] identifies three mechanisms accounting for the success of such interfaces, and they emphasize that these mechanisms is crucial when talking about behavior that underlie inter-actions of users doing collaborative tasks. The three mechanisms are; ”Awareness of others“, ”Control of action“, ”Availability of information“.

”Awareness of others means the extent to which people, when they interact with new user interfaces that involve seeing, touching, and gesturing, have ongoing awareness of the actions, intentions, emotions, and other mental states of other interactants“ [7]. Recent research indicates that multi-user touch surfaces enhance awareness compared to other input devices. Ha et al. [20] demonstrated that participants have better awareness of others actions with touch rather than with a mouse as the input device. Hornecker et al. [21] showed that awareness of others activity was increased in the touch condition, when comparing mouse and touch input for collaboration on a planning task.

”Control of action refers to the ways in which users can effect changes in actions within the system and hence decisions within the group“ [7]. Rogers et al. [22]

showed us the multiple ways in which the participants could have control, using the idea of multiple entry points that gave all participants opportunities for control by different means.

”Availability of information is what information is on hand in the background to influence users awareness and control“ [7]. The difference between availability of information and awareness is that availability concerns information relevant to the task that is accessible for all explicitly and over time, whereas awareness involves the ongoing, moment-to-moment, generally implicit cues we use in all interactions.

[7] Availability of background information is particularly relevant for multi-user interfaces because of the opportunities these technologies give for harvesting and displaying information about the state of play over time and the history of the

interactions [7]. Rick et al. [23] designed Digitile, a tile-pattern application for the Diamond Touch (a multi-touch tabletop), to provide a running history of previous states. This enabled users to return easily to a previous state of the design.

Regardless of which of these three mechanisms we consider, the degree of constraint or freedom provided for each of them is an important aspect to consider when designing for smooth collaboration. Constraints, like awareness and control is not good or bad in itself, but sometimes removing constraints, such as turn-taking can cause discomfort for the users. [7]. Some multi-touch applications may benefit from these constraints, while other may not. The designer needs to understand how constraints affect natural human-human interactions, and how these can be used to support smooth collaboration in a given context.

Some researchers have already done work indicating that multi-touch tabletops have an increased effectiveness on learning outcomes compared to traditional learn-ing tools or ways of learnlearn-ing. Higgins et al. [14] did a study trylearn-ing to find notable differences in learning outcomes regarding the solving of a mystery task on touch versus paper based interaction. He found that the groups using the multi-touch device developed a joint understanding of the problem a lot faster than the group working with the paper based condition. He also discovered that the multi-touch group engaged more in interactive discussion than the others. Similar, Piper and Hollan [24] did a study on two groups of students studying for the same exam, one using a multi-touch device and the other using paper. They found that the students using the multi-touch device were more likely to attempt problems, and also try to solve these problems more times before looking at the answers in the back of the book. This suggests that including a tabletop application in study sessions may be proven useful! Another type of software that has been developed for the purpose of collaborative learning is the Reflect table by Bachour et al. [25].

This table is supposed to support collaboration by providing feedback and mon-itoring the collaborative process. With color-coded circles it displays how much each participant has talked during the session or how much a particular topic has been discussed. ”This tool, which is based upon the premise that equitable partic-ipation is important aims to increase particpartic-ipation by increasing awareness of this feature of collaboration. [14]. The results indicate that participants that usually dont talk that much talk more and participants that usually talk a lot decrease their overall participation to a more average level. This suggests that reflective tools on a multi-touch tabletop can support a collaborative learning process, re-sulting in more participation in a collaborative session.

In addition to the collaborative tasks mentioned above, digital collaborative games are introduced as a possible path to follow when striving for improved learning outcomes and a successful collaborative environment, especially amongst children.

“Digital tabletops offer unique opportunities to facilitate collaborative learning interactions in formal spaces” [2]. “Educational games, if done well, promise to couple the intrinsic appeal of strategic play with a learning process. The potential

“Digital tabletops offer unique opportunities to facilitate collaborative learning interactions in formal spaces” [2]. “Educational games, if done well, promise to couple the intrinsic appeal of strategic play with a learning process. The potential