Tuesday, September 9, 2003 Aspects of Pervasive Computing Slide 1 Using Digital but Physical Surrogates to Mediate Awareness, Communication and Privacy in Media Spaces – A Critique Saul Greenberg (Computer Science, University of Calgary, Canada) Hideaki Kuzuoka (Engineering, University of Tsukuba, Japan)

** Slide 1 Their Broad Goals  Leverage “digital but physical” surrogates to… Support the smooth transition from awareness, to casual encounters, to conversation and to work Support the smooth transition from awareness, to casual encounters, to conversation and to work Mitigate privacy and distraction concerns endemic to most awareness systems Mitigate privacy and distraction concerns endemic to most awareness systems

** Slide 1 The Paper’s Goals  Describe the idea of digital but physical surrogates and how they can facilitate casual interaction between intimate collaborators Benefits Benefits Design goals & tradeoffs Design goals & tradeoffs Their own surrogates Their own surrogates Some ‘reasoning’ on their effectiveness Some ‘reasoning’ on their effectiveness System architecture System architecture Usage ‘experiences’ Usage ‘experiences’ Issues and future work Issues and future work

** Slide 1 Casual Interaction  The hypothesis Casual interaction is backbone of everyday coordination and work between co-located team members. Casual interaction is backbone of everyday coordination and work between co-located team members. The glue behind these interactions is informal awareness. The glue behind these interactions is informal awareness. From Kraut et al and Cockburn/GreenbergFrom Kraut et al and Cockburn/Greenberg  The authors wish to facilitate this over a distance (electronically)

** Slide 1 Do they manage it?  Well… they say they do.  But they also say that they only say they do.  Is this enough?  I’m not convinced.

** Slide 1 Eh?  Some Quotes: We contend that surrogates can be designed to satisfy our first goal … by presenting a progression of surrogates that we have built. We contend that surrogates can be designed to satisfy our first goal … by presenting a progression of surrogates that we have built. We contend that surrogates [satisfy our second goal] because they can portray limited and abstracted representations of another’s activities, and because they can present different degrees of salience. We contend that surrogates [satisfy our second goal] because they can portray limited and abstracted representations of another’s activities, and because they can present different degrees of salience.

** Slide 1 More quotes  Our prototypes … have not yet been deployed outside our research group.  [The authors] were in a co-located space...  [The authors] felt that [they] were far more “connected” with one another.  [The authors] feelings of connectivity were attenuated considerably during system down-times.

** Slide 1 What’s Missing?  Evaluations by uninvolved or, at the very least, unbiased users.  But they say this: (another quote) Issue 6. Surrogate-based systems need thorough evaluation. … Issue 6. Surrogate-based systems need thorough evaluation. …  Nevertheless, it is hard to be convinced that any of their goals were achieved.  They didn’t cover the “transition into work” or “casual interaction over a distance” goals.

** Slide 1 They Make an Attempt…  One final experience we should mention is that visitors to our offices found this media space both interesting and natural. They grasped its concept after a brief explanation, and were able to use it immediately.  That’s it.

** Slide 1 Good Bits  Their approach is novel I certainly want to whack surrogates of people I want to talk to on the head with a hammer I certainly want to whack surrogates of people I want to talk to on the head with a hammer  There is a good attempt at addressing privacy and distraction concerns in an automated way No tolerance for webcam voyeurs No tolerance for webcam voyeurs There are still problems though [issues 3 & 1] There are still problems though [issues 3 & 1]  They have also addressed the need for explicit user control But a cloth over the camera and a microphone gain knob could have done the same But a cloth over the camera and a microphone gain knob could have done the same

** Slide 1 More (recognised) Issues  Scalability (issue 4) I have 157 people on my Trillian contact list… I have 157 people on my Trillian contact list… Maybe a dartboard… Maybe a dartboard…  Using surrogates to move from conversation into work (issue 5) À la shared whiteboards À la shared whiteboards  Is the level of privacy reasonable (issue 7) What is the risk of subversion as a surveillance device What is the risk of subversion as a surveillance device Need some safeguards Need some safeguards

** Slide 1 More (unrecongnised) flaws  The iconic indicator They say it was rarely used because other windows obscured it They say it was rarely used because other windows obscured it But they don’t mention any use of popups or tray icons to resolve this. But they don’t mention any use of popups or tray icons to resolve this.  The tables The fact that they are symmetric limits a lot of possible usage scenarios The fact that they are symmetric limits a lot of possible usage scenarios both collaborators need to be ‘available’ before any interaction can occur (this is deliberate, but the occasions might be rare [a hunch])both collaborators need to be ‘available’ before any interaction can occur (this is deliberate, but the occasions might be rare [a hunch]) They don’t even end up using table 2 for their own tests They don’t even end up using table 2 for their own tests Nicer would have been a table showing unbiased user opinions and experiences Nicer would have been a table showing unbiased user opinions and experiences  Many claims aren’t backed up with references/evidence

** Slide 1 Do you think it can work?

** Slide 1 What Have I Missed?  The implementation framework Not worth mentioning Not worth mentioning Belongs in another paper (it’s too big anyway) Belongs in another paper (it’s too big anyway) “phidgets” are necessary abstraction “phidgets” are necessary abstraction  Psychological background The only reference papers from computer science converences The only reference papers from computer science converences  Anything else?

** Slide 1 Summary  Novel and well-written  Recognises most of its own flaws and mentions them under “future work” Motivates a research agenda Motivates a research agenda  Probably should be split into two or more papers  Glaring lack of empirical studies by unbiased participants

** Slide 1 References  Kraut R, Egido C, Galegher J. Patterns of contact and communication in scientific collaboration. ACM: Computer Supported Cooperative Work (1998)  Cockburn A, Greenberg S. Making contact: getting the group communicating with groupware. ACM: Organisational Computing Systems (1993)