I am a member of a group this semester that is developing a website for Study Abroad students in Asia, and specifically, I am in charge of designing the layout. Recently, we have been having meetings fine-tuning the layout of the site, where all four of us are looking at one screen with the layout open (as it hasn't been put online yet.) Commonly, we do experience some setbacks that occur with shared displays.
Firstly, as we have seen in lecture with walls and other shared displays, distant pointing is a common way to distinguish what we mean. Even if the screen of the computer is physically closer than a wall display (if seated), people are still reserved to touching each other's screens. The inaccuracy that comes with pointing, and the need for clarification, was one of the most obvious issues with our shared screen.
In addition, the computer technically belongs to one person, even if the site is a shared project, and the sense that the territory of that display sense belongs to the computer owner only is very strong. It feels more like three people communicating with one operator, than four people working together on the same screen. Another issue with 'territory' was that even if the screen was not too small, all four people had to crowd around the same area to see it at the same time, resulting in some standing, and some sitting. This also restricted both motion and access to the screen.
There were many ways in which this system of work did not facilitate group work for a shared display. As Scott et al. mentions, transitions between activities was not fluid - we had to physically move from standing back to our seats to go from looking to working. Shared access to the physical screen was a problem, as well as the space. Simultaneous user actions were limited to the person with the mouse. At most, one person could be pointing and giving a suggestion while the person at the computer worked. Past that, space was limited.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
At first when you said all of you were looking at one screen to critique the design, the only issue I thought would happen is that not all of you would have a mouse or be able to interact with the design's features. It is interesting how you point out that it was also hard because of where each of you had to sit and that furthermore, there was a territorial issue since the computer did belong to one person. I wonder how the interaction could have been made easier though. Do you think it would have been beneficial to have one person at a time interact with the design and make their critique and then present their findings to everyone else?
ReplyDelete