Coye Cheshire & Andrew Fiore // Computer-Mediated Communication Media Richness and Visual Interfaces 15 February 2012

Projects and Assignment #1  Assignment 1 is a short 2-3 page description of your group project idea and the division of labor within the group.  Due Feb. 22 at beginning of class (one assignment per group, 2 printed copies)  Groups will be signing up for a meeting with us to discuss the project the following Wednesday.  2/15/121Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication

Theories of mediated communication 2/15/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication2

Cues Filtered Out 2/15/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication3 unsealedprophecy.wordpress.com  Social presence: Lower bandwidth  Less warm, others seem less salient  Lack of non-verbal cues — disinhibition and hostility (e.g., flaming) Is this the experience of online interaction?

Social Identity/Deindividuation Theory (Cues About Us, Not You or Me) Visual anonymity  “deindividuation”  salience to group identity “Overinterpreting” based on limited info could lead to greater social attraction based on in-group status, stereotyping. 2/15/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication4

2/15/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication5 [C]apacity to facilitate the formation of shared meaning within a given time interval. “ ” — Dennis & Kinney Media richness —

2/15/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication6 A plausible ranking? Face-to-face Synchronous video Synchronous audio / asynch. video Synchronous text / asynch. audio Asynchronous text Richer Leaner

2/15/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication7 Rich Elements of richness  Multiplicity of cues (bandwidth)  Immediacy of feedback  Use of natural language  Personal focus

2/15/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication8 Lean Elements of richness  Multiplicity of cues (bandwidth)  Immediacy of feedback  Use of natural language  Personal focus

Channel: conduit for a particular type of info, e.g., for voice or text Cue: “any feature of the world, animate or inanimate, that can be used... as a guide to future action” (Donath 2007) — i.e., informative, not necessarily intentional Signal: a cue meant to indicate an otherwise hidden quality Channel Cue Signal Channels, cues, and signals 2/15/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication9

2/15/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication10 Some types of social cues Textual  Production cost to encode meaning equivalent to FTF in text Verbal Beyond FTF? Non-verbal

2/15/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication11 Feedback Type of feedback  Acknowledgment — understanding  Repair — correction or clarification  Proxy — completion Immediacy of feedback  Concurrent: synchronous nods, mm-hmms  a.k.a. backchannel  Sequential: brief interjection

Media choice vs. use (Cues to Choose By) What medium would you choose for a given task? vs. What medium “performs” best?  Media Richness (the theory) originally examined media choice and use in organizations. Claim: Managers should choose medium based on task to be effective. More ambiguous tasks need richer medium. But when might we want a “less rich” medium? 2/15/1212Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication

2/15/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication13 Media choice vs. media use Types of tasks  “Uncertain” — missing information  “Equivocal” — ambiguous interpretations “Best” medium for an (un)equivocal task  What do managers choose?  What do they say they would choose?  What yields the best performance? P.S.: What is “best performance”?

2/15/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication14 Dennis & Kinney hypotheses  H1a: Performance improves as multiplicity of cues increases …  H1b: … more for more equivocal tasks.  H2a: Performance improves as immediacy of feedback increases …  H2b: … more for more equivocal tasks.

Dennis & Kinney experiment Tasks  Low-equivocality: SAT-type questions  High-equivocality: College admissions Media 2/15/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication15 Cues: LowCues: High Feedback: Delayed Text chat (turn-based) Video (half-duplex) Feedback: Immediate Text chat (live typing) Video (full-duplex)

2/15/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication16 Mean decision time (D&K) High cues (AV)Low cues (CMC) TaskImmed.DelayedImmed.Delayed Low equiv High equiv

2/15/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication17 — Clark & Brennan (1991)

Social Information Processing (Cues Filtered In) Walther (1992) re-examined early CMC research: “Given sufficient time and message exchanges for interpersonal impression formation and relationship development to accrue, and all other things being equal, relational [quality] in later periods of CMC and F2F communication will be the same.”  Users compensate for attributes of CMC (e.g., emoticons to replace non-verbal affective displays) 2/15/1218Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication

Hyperpersonal communication (Cues Bent and Twisted) Contributing factors:  Selective self-presentation  Shared group membership  Channel effects  Feedback effects Bottom line: Perceptions more extremely positive (or negative) than FTF in the face of limited information 2/15/1219Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication

2/15/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication20 The sensorial parsimony of plain text tends to entice users into engaging their imaginations to fill in missing details while, comparatively speaking, the richness of stimuli in fancy [systems] has an opposite tendency, pushing users’ imaginations into a more passive role. — Curtis (1992) “ ”

Walther, Slovacek, & Tidwell /15/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication21

2/15/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication22 Long-term, no photos Short-term, photos Long-term, photos Short-term, no photos Social attraction

2/15/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication23 Farnham & Riegelsberger 2004 Text profiles Photo profiles Gaming partner preference (1 = Don’t want to play with, 7 = Want to play with) Count

2/15/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication24 The study of CMC effects is not best served by blanket statements about technology main effects on social, psychological, and interpersonal processes, nor by proclamations that online relationships are less rewarding than FTF ones. Rather, qualities of CMC are … more often the product of interesting and predictable interactions of several mutual influences than main effects of media. — Walther et al. (2001) “ ”

Abstract visual interfaces 2/15/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication25

2/15/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication26 Social translucence  Visibility: make social information apparent  Awareness: knowing based on what you see  Accountability: knowing that I know you know  Why? To recreate a “social physics.”  Why not “social transparency”?

2/15/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication27

2/15/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication28 “[T]ranslucence … stands in for the notion that, in the physical world, cues are differentially propagated through space — something which, as social creatures, we understand and make use of in governing our interactions. Thus, we know that those across the room may see we are talking, but will be unable to hear what we say; and we adjust our interactions to take advantage of this.” — Erickson et al.

2/15/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication29

2/15/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication30 Babble social proxy “provide cues about the presence and activity of those in the current conversation”

“Socially useful ambiguity”  Pretending to pay attention, e.g., clicking the Babble proxy to feign attention to the conversation  Plausible deniability: consider the fallibility of cell phones, /spam filtering, etc. — tech. limitations, not design decisions, but the social utility of these devices would change without them. 2/15/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication31

Lecture proxy 2/15/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication32

Auction proxy 2/15/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication33

Waiting-in-line proxy 2/15/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication34

2/15/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication35 Chat Circles 2

The Chat Circles avatar  Vaguely humanoid form, but stylized, not realistic — no faces!  Words centered in/around the form — ties words to identity, “face”  2D location allows proximity  Size tied to length of utterance 2/15/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication36

Temporality and spatiality  Utterances vanish after a few seconds  Hearing range: can see only nearby utterances  What is the real-world effect mimicked here? 2/15/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication37

Movement  Rhythm of conversation: growing and shrinking circles set the pace  Proximity: friendliness, intimacy, or aggression  Expressivity: fidgeting, dancing, leading, following, playing 2/15/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication38

Traces  Movement traces  Speech traces  Visual indicator of social history of the chat space 2/15/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication39

History 2/15/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication40

Faces 2/15/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication41

2/15/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication42 What are faces good for? Conveying, among other things:  Social presence  Individual identity  Social identity  Emotion  Gaze By means of:  Structure  Dynamics  Decorations Source: galante.com

2/15/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication43 Characteristics of basic emotions 1. Distinctive universal signals 2. Distinctive physiology 3. Automatic appraisal 4. Distinctive universals in antecedent events 5. Distinctive appearance developmentally 6. Presence in other primates 7. Quick onset 8. Brief duration 9. Unbidden occurrence 10. Distinctive thoughts, memories images 11. Distinctive subjective experience Basic emotions Anger Disgust Fear Joy Sadness Surprise Contempt Ekman (1999) Ekman, Friesen, & Ellsworth (1972) (and many others)

2/15/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication44 Action unitsFacial muscles

Facial expressions: Emotions revealed 2/15/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication45

2/15/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication46 Representing the face: “Being close may be worse.”

2/15/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication47

2/15/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication48

2/15/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication49

The Uncanny Valley 2/15/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication50

2/15/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication51 “being there” vs. “beyond being there”

2/15/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication52 Chernoff faces

2/15/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication53 The New York Times and Prof. Steve C. Wang

2/15/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication54

2/15/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication55 Indeed, the 2007 managerial statistics, as presented in an annual register published by the baseball analyst Bill James, are a relatively dull grid of digits. But the facial maps make comparisons much easier to grasp. The St. Louis Cardinals’ Tony La Russa, known as a constant tinkerer, had his National League-leading 150 different batting orders (in 162 games) translate into an elongated head and wider eyes. By contrast, the Philadelphia Phillies’ Charlie Manuel — who said this spring that he used far fewer lineups because he preferred to “get into a routine and stay with it” — had a much squatter face and dots for eyes. — The New York Times

2/15/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication56 Designing with faces and bodies We read meaning in lots of things, but especially human forms!  There is no such thing as neutral.

2/15/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication57

2/15/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication58

Faces in interfaces 2/15/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication59

Chit Chat Club 2/15/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication60 (Karahalios and Dobson)

Chit Chat Club 2/15/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication61

Second Life facial expressions 2/15/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication62

Second Life expression plug-in 2/15/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication63

Facial Expression Analysis 2/15/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication64 (Mateos:

Eyes 2/15/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication65

2/15/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication66 Kobayashi & Kohshima 2001

2/15/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication67 Kobayashi & Kohshima 2001

Video chat 2/15/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication68

2/15/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication69 The gaze angle problem, or… Source: Why so glum?

2/15/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication70 Source:

2/15/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication71 Yang & Zhang 2004

2/15/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication72 Source: D. Nguyen

2/15/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication73 Cameras Projectors MultiView Display Source: D. Nguyen

Lag, lip synch, social judgments  When audio precedes video by 5 video fields, viewers evaluate people on television more negatively (e.g. less interesting, more unpleasant, less influential, more agitated, less successful).  Audio-video asynchrony has no effect on viewer's memory for audio information.  Viewers can accurately tell when a television segment is in perfect synch, and when it is 5 fields out of synch. Viewers cannot accurately tell the same segments are 2.5 fields out of synch.  Even though detection is low when asynchrony is moderate (2.5 fields), viewer evaluations are still affected. 2/15/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication74 (Reeves and Voelker 1993)

2/15/12Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication75 For next Wednesday… Visualizations and Visual Interfaces  Monmonier, M. (1996) Chapters 3 and 10. In How to Lie with Maps. Chicago, Ill.: University Of Chicago Press.  Erickson, T. (2003) Designing visualizations of social activity: six claims. In Extended abstracts of ACM Computer-Human Interaction.  Donath, J. (2011) Visualizing Conversation.  Narayan, S., Cheshire, C. (2010) Not too long to read: The tldr Interface for Exploring and Navigating Large-Scale Discussion Spaces. In Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. (HICSS). Computer Society Press. Remember to write your review!