1. communication and collaboration models
SNS College of Engineering Department of Computer Science and Engineering
communication and collaboration models
1/26/2018
HCI

2. Today’s Lecture Introduction Face-to-face communication Conversation
Grounding
Text-based communication
Group working
1/26/2018
HCI

3. Overview
All computer systems, single user or multi-user, interact with the work-groups and organizations in which they are used.
Need to understand normal human-human communication
face-to-face communication involves eyes, face and body
conversation can be analysed to establish its detailed structure
1/26/2018
HCI

4. Overview
This can then be applied to text-based conversation, which has
Reduced feedback for confirmation
Less context to disambiguate expression
Slower pace of interaction
But is more easily reviewed
Group working is more complex than that of a single person
Influenced by the physical environment
Experiments are more difficult to control and record
Field studies must take into account the social situation
disambiguate =to establish the true meaning of an expression, regulation, or ruling that is confusing or that could be interpreted in more than one way
1/26/2018
HCI

5. Social nature of humans
Humans are inherently social creatures
We live together, work together, learn together, play together, etc.
Therefore, we need to develop interactive systems that support and extend these kinds of social interactions
Communication and collaboration
1/26/2018
HCI

6. Face-to-face communication
Most primitive and most subtle form of communication
Often seen as the paradigm for computer mediated communication
1/26/2018
HCI

7. Face-to-face communication
Transfer effects
Carry expectations into electronic media
People are adaptable
e.g. “the use of ‘over’ for turn-taking when using a walkie-talkie”
But also expect they can use existing norms (e.g. cultural)
1/26/2018
HCI

8. Face-to-face communication
Sometimes with disastrous results
The rules of face-to-face conversation are not conscious, so, when they are broken, we do not always recognize the true problem.
May interpret failure as rudeness of colleague
e.g., Personal space video may destroy mutual impression of distance happily the “glass wall” effect helps
Often the ‘glass wall’ afforded by the video screen makes the precise distance less important, which could have a positive effect during cross-cultural meetings.
1/26/2018
HCI

9. Personal Space
1/26/2018
HCI

10. Eye contact To convey interest and establish social presence
Video may spoil direct eye contact
But poor quality video better than audio only
Establishing context – focus of the conversation
1/26/2018
HCI

11. Gestures and body language
Much of our communication is through our bodies
Gesture (and eye gaze) used for deictic reference
Deictic – “directly pointing out” (oxford dictionary)
Head and shoulders video loses this
So: close focus for eye contact or wide focus for body language?
1/26/2018
HCI

12. Back channels
Alison: do you fancy that film er. . . ‘The green’ um it starts at eight.
Brian: great!
Not just the words!
Back channel responses from Brian at 1 and 2
Quizzical at 1
Affirmative at 2
Back channels include:
Nods and grimaces
Shrugs of the shoulders
Grunts and raised eyebrows
Utterance begins vague then sharpens up just enough
Quizzical =Questioning
Grimaces = Frown
Nod=jiggle
1/26/2018
HCI

13. Back channels II Restricting media restricts back channels
Video … loss of body language
Audio … loss of facial expression
Half Duplex … lose most voice back channel responses
Text Based … nothing left!
Back channels used for turn-taking:
Speaker offers the floor (fraction of a second gap)
Listener requests the floor (facial expression, small noise)
Grunts, ‘um's and ‘ah's, can be used by the:
listener to claim the floor
speaker to hold the floor
But often too quiet for half-duplex channels
Trans-continental conferences - special problems
lag can exceed the turn taking gap
leads to a monologue!
1/26/2018
HCI

14. Basic conversational structure
Alison: Do you fancy that film
Brian: the uh (500 ms) with the black cat –”The Green whatsit”
Alison: yeah, go at uh (looks at watch 1.2 s) twenty to?
Brian: sure
Smallest unit is the utterance
Turn taking … utterances usually alternate
1/26/2018
HCI

15. Basic conversational structure
Simplest structure - adjacency pair
Adjacency pairs may nest;
Brian: Do you want some gateau? (X)
Alison: is it very fattening? (Y)
Brian: yes, very (Y)
Alison: and lots of chocolate? (Z)
Brian: masses (Z)
Alison: I'll have a big slice then. (X)
Structure is: B-x, A-y, B-y, A-z, B-z, A-x
Inner pairs often for clarification
But, simple pairing is not always possible or useful
1/26/2018
HCI

16. Context in conversation
Utterances are highly ambiguous
We use context to disambiguate
Brian: (points) that post is leaning a bit
Alison: that's the one you put in
1/26/2018
HCI

17. Context in conversation
Two types of context:
external context
reference to the environment
e.g., Brian's “that” = the thing pointed to [deictic reference]
internal context
reference to the previous conversation
e.g., Alison's “that” = the last thing spoken of
1/26/2018
HCI

18. Context in conversation
Often contextual utterances involve indexicals:
that, this, he, she, it
These may be used for internal or external context
Also descriptive phrases may be used:
external: “the corner post is leaning a bit”
internal: “the post you mentioned”
1/26/2018
HCI

19. Common Ground Resolving context depends on meaning
participants must share meaning
so must have shared knowledge
Conversation constantly negotiates meaning
process called grounding
Alison: So, you turn right beside the river.
Brian: past the hotel.
Alison: yeah -
Each utterance is assumed to be:
relevant - furthers the current topic
helpful - comprehensible to listener
1/26/2018
HCI

20. Focus and breakdown
Context resolved relative to current dialogue focus
Alison: Oh, look at your roses –
Brian: mmm, but I've had trouble with green fly.
Alison: they're the symbol of the English summer.
Brian: green fly?
Alison: no roses silly!
Tracing topics is one way to analyse conversation.
Alison begins - topic is roses
Brian shifts topic to green fly
Alison misses shift in focus = breakdown
1/26/2018
HCI

21. Focus and breakdown
You can classify utterances by the task they perform in the conversation
Substantive
– directly relevant to the development of the conversation
Annotative
– points of clarification, elaboration etc
Procedural
– talking about the process of collaboration itself
1/26/2018
HCI

22. Focus and breakdown
Alison is giving Brian directions, using a whiteboard
Alison: you go along this road until you get to the river
Brian: do you stop before the river or after you cross it?
Alison: before
Brian: draw the river in blue and the road in black
Alison: So, you turn right beside the river
Brian: past the hotel
Alison: yeah … is there another black pen? This one is running dry.
substantive
annotative
annotative
procedural
substantive
substantive
procedural
NB: The final utterance is “procedural technical” and indicates that the system has become apparent to the participants
1/26/2018
HCI

23. Breakdown Breakdown happens at all levels:
Topic, indexicals, gesture
Breakdowns are frequent, but:
Redundancy makes detection easy (brian cannot interpret “they're the symbol of the english summer”)
People very good at repair (brain and alison quickly restore shared focus)
Electronic media may lose some redundancy = breakdown more severe
1/26/2018
HCI

24. breakdown Alison: Isn’t that beautiful
Points to a large male deer (stag) standing next to a tree
Brian: the symmetry of the branches
He thinks she pointed to the tree
Alison: how some people can dislike them I cannot understand!
Brian: Yes – the park rangers should shoot all those damn deer before they kill the trees off for good!
Alison: (silence)
NOTE: Brian’s reference to symmetrical branches MAY have sounded to Alison like a reference to the stag’s antlers!
1/26/2018
HCI

25. Speech-Act Theory A specific form of conversational analysis
Utterances characterised by what they do, they’re acts
e.g., “I'm hungry”
propositional meaning – hunger
intended effect – “get me some food”
Classic example: “I now pronounce you man & wife”
1/26/2018
HCI

26. Speech-Act Theory Basic conversational acts (illocutionary points):
Promises
Requests
Declarations
Assertions
Counters
Reneges
Withdrawals
1/26/2018
HCI

27. Speech acts need not be spoken
Speech-Act Theory
Speech acts need not be spoken
e.g., silence often interpreted as acceptance
1/26/2018
HCI

28. Speech-Act Theory Generic patterns of acts can be identified:
Conversation for action (CfA)
Seeks to obtain a specific request
Conversation for clarification (CfC)
Usually embedded in CfA - to clarify the requested action
Conversation for possibilities (CfP)
Looking towards future actions
Conversation for Orientation (CfO)
Building a shared understanding
1/26/2018
HCI

29. Conversations for action
Circles represent ‘states’ in the conversation
Arcs represent utterances (speech acts)
Simplest route :
Alison: have you got the market survey on chocolate? [request]
Brian: sure [promise]
Brian: there you are [assert]
Alison: thanks [declare]
More complex routes possible, e.g.,
Alison: have you got – [request]
Brian: I've only got the summary figures [counter]
Alison: that'll do [accept]
1/26/2018
HCI

30. Text based communication
Most common media for asynchronous groupware
exceptions: voice mail, answer phone
Familiar medium, similar to paper letters
but, electronic text may act as speech substitute!
1/26/2018
HCI

31. Text based communication
Types of electronic text:
Discrete: directed messages, no structure
Linear: messages added (in temporal order)
Non-Linear: hypertext linkages
Spatial: two dimensional arrangement
1/26/2018
HCI

32. Text based communication
Most obvious loss, no facial expression or body language
weak back-channels, so it is difficult to convey:
affective state - happy, sad, angry humorous
illocutionary force - urgent, important, deferential
Participants compensate by flaming and smilies ;-)
1/26/2018
HCI

33. Grounding constraints
Establishing common ground depends on grounding constraints
Co-Temporality: - instant feedthrough
Simultaneity: - speaking together
Sequence: - utterances ordered
1/26/2018
HCI

34. Grounding constraints
These constraints are often weaker in text based communication than in face-to-face conversation
e.g., loss of sequence in linear text: network delays or coarse granularity = overlap
1/26/2018
HCI

35. Grounding constraints
Bethan: how many should be in the group?
Rowena: maybe this could be one of the 4 strongest reasons
Rowena: please clarify what you mean
Bethan: I agree
Rowena: hang on
Rowena: Bethan what did you mean?
Message pairs 1&2 and 3&4 composed simultaneously
i.e., lack of common experience
Rowena:
Bethan:
Above shows breakdown of turn-taking result of poor back channels
1/26/2018
HCI

36. Maintaining context Recall context was essential for disambiguation
Text loses external context, hence deixis (cf: deictic) linking to shared objects can help
1. Alison: Brian's got some lovely roses
2. Brian: I'm afraid they're covered in green fly
3. Clarise: I've seen them, they're beautiful
Both (2) and (3) are responses to (1)
but the transcript suggests green fly are beautiful
Hypertext can maintain ‘parallel’ conversations
Deixis=the use of a word or expression such as "he," "that," "now," or "here," whose full meaning depends on the context in which it is
1/26/2018
HCI

37. Pace and Granularity Pace of conversation - the rate of turn taking
face-to-face - every few seconds
telephone - half a minute
- hours or days
face-to-face conversation is highly interactive
If initial utterance is vague feedback gives cues for comprehension
lower pace = less feedback = less interactive
1/26/2018
HCI

38. Pace and Granularity
Coping strategies attempt to increase granularity:
eagerness - looking ahead in the conversation game
Brian: Like a cup of tea? Milk or lemon?
multiplexing - several topics in one utterance
Alison: No thanks. I love your roses.
1/26/2018
HCI

39. The Conversation Game Conversation is like a game
Linear text follows one path through it
Participants choose the path by their utterances
Hypertext can follow several paths at once
1/26/2018
HCI

40. Group dynamics Workgroups constantly change:
in structure
in size
Several groupware systems have explicit roles
But roles depend on context and time
e.g., M.D. down a mine is under the authority of the foreman
e.g., a General can be under a Private during an Int. Briefing
and may not reflect duties
e.g., subject of biography, author, but now writer
1/26/2018
HCI

41. Group dynamics
Social structure may change: democratic, autocratic, and group may fragment into sub-groups
Groupware systems rarely achieve this flexibility
Groups also change in composition
new members must be able to ‘catch up’
1/26/2018
HCI

42. Physical environment
Face-to-face working radically affected by layout of workplace
e.g., meeting rooms:
recessed terminals reduce visual impact
inward facing to encourage eye contact
different social-power positions
Traditional cognitive psychology is all in the head
1/26/2018
HCI

43. Physical environment
Distributed cognition suggests we look to the world
Thinking takes place in interaction with other people and the physical environment
Implications for group work:
importance of mediating representations
group knowledge greater than sum of parts
design focus on external representation
1/26/2018
HCI

44. Summary Face-to-face communication is extremely complex.
People maintain precise distances, which can be disrupted through video links.
At a higher level, the structure of conversation can be seen as a sequence of turns, usually alternating between the participants.
1/26/2018
HCI

45. Summary
Context is important in disambiguating utterances, especially when deictic reference is also used.
Text-based communication loses most of the low-level feedback of face-to-face conversation.
Group dynamics make it very difficult to predict how a particular group will behave.
1/26/2018
HCI