The Usage of Referential Communication and Its Motivation
on a Shared Drawing Space
Seungwon Yang
Computer Science
Virginia Tech
Blacksburg, VA 24060
seungwon@vt.edu
Yoon Suk Lee
Hyun Seung Yoo
Industrial and Systems Engineering Industrial and Systems Engineering
Virginia Tech
Virginia Tech
Blacksburg, VA 24060
Blacksburg, VA 24060
yoonlee@vt.edu
hyun@vt.edu
ABSTRACT
METHODOLOGY
We examined the use of referential communication in a
simultaneous shared drawing space between a group of
drawers and a guesser. The drawers’ task was to
collaboratively sketch a picture that illustrates a given word,
so that a guesser can verbalize the word based on the picture.
The verbal communication from the drawers to the guesser
was restricted to promote the visual communication through
the shared drawing space. The sequence of verbal
interactions and drawings were recorded and mapped out on
a timeline for analyses. The referential information was
identified and categorized. The motivations of referential
communication were discussed.
We implemented a shared drawing space using Java and
IBM TSpaces on tablet PCs [3, 4]. Sixteen participants (5
males and 11 females) were recruited (4 groups of 4 people),
who were undergraduate students at Virginia Tech. Each
group completed ten sessions, including two practice
sessions. As illustrated in Figure 1, three drawers visually
expressed a given word on the shared drawing space. The
guesser verbalized the word by watching the drawings from
the shared drawing space on her own tablet PC and from the
drawers’ gestural and facial expression through one-way
mirror. Drawers could also freely discuss and strategize,
since the guesser could not hear their conversation. The
drawers could hear the guesser’s response. The interactions
of the drawers and their sketches were recorded, using a Flip
video, three webcams and Camtasia Studio 6.0. The final
drawings for all sessions were also captured.
Author Keywords
CSCW, referential communication, shared
auditory/visual information channels, tablet PC
drawing,
ACM Classification Keywords
J.4. Computer Applications: Social and Behavioral Sciences
- sociology.
General Terms
Design, Experimentation, Human Factors
INTRODUCTION
We report our preliminary results specifically focused on the
usage of referential information on a shared drawing space.
The significance of referential communication for effective
communication has been empirically demonstrated and tested
[1, 2]. However, interaction style and information type may
vary depending on tasks and available communication
technology. These variations require more empirical findings
about how people communicate in different settings. The
experiment was conducted in a unique setting, which
emphasized the shared drawing space as a primary
communication medium. To promote the use of shared
drawing space, facial, gestural, and auditory communications
were partially allowed. The findings can be used to develop
suggestions
specifically
focused
on
referential
communication on a shared drawing space.
Figure 1. Experimental setting
ANALYSIS
The investigators identified the referential information from
the final drawings as depicted in Figure 2 (e.g., an arrow, ‘OX’ marks). The behavior of drawers, their drawings, verbal
communications, and the verbal reactions from the guesser
were visualized in a timeline (Figure 3). This was to
understand the contexts associated with the use of referential
communications.
Copyright is held by the author/owner(s).
CSCW 2010, February 6–10, 2010, Savannah, Georgia, USA.
ACM 978-1-60558-795-0/10/02.
493
• [(De)select entity] As soon as the word ‘3 Dimension’
was posted, a team member drew a rectangle and a cube.
Then she marked the rectangle with ‘X’ and enclosed the
cube with a circle. After trying a couple of words, the
guesser said ‘3 Dimension’ (Figure 4-d).
• [Indicate progress] The given phrase was ‘slow motion’.
The team began by writing ‘2 words’ on the screen,
meaning that the answer had two words. After seeing a
turtle, the guesser mentioned a series of incorrect answers
such as, ‘turtle’, ‘tortoise’, and ‘sea turtle’. When the
guesser finally answered ‘slow’ the drawers added a
check mark in front of the number ‘1’ to indicate that the
guesser answered the first word correctly (Figure 4-f).
Figure 2. Final drawing for ‘slow motion’.
Figure 4. Various types of referential information.
Referential communication played an important role in
directing the guesser’s attention, indicating progress, and
(de)selecting entity to support effective communication via
shared drawing space. However, one interesting observation
was that the drawers could not effectively use referential
communication to refer to what the guesser had previously
mentioned.
Figure 3. Excerpt of a timeline. A ‘turtle’ was used to
describe ‘slow motion’. The numbers denote the sequence of
interactions from 6 to 14.
PRELIMINARY RESULTS
The identified referential communications were collected
from the screen captures and categorized into two groups:
• By visual property: circle, arrow, underline, O-X,
check mark, use of color and combinations of those.
•
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Special thanks go to Dr. Deborah G. Tatar for her valuable
advice, James Dustin for device support, and Dr. Scott
McCrikard for allowing us to use the facility.
By usage: direct attention, (de)select entity, and indicate
progress.
REFERENCES
1. Cherubini, M., & Dillenbourg, P. 2007. The effects of
explicit referencing in distance problem solving over
shared maps. In proceedings of the GROUP ’07.
Circles (Figure 4-a), arrows (Figure 4-b), underlines (Figure
4-e) and combinations (Figure 4-c) were mostly used to
direct the guesser’s attention to a specific entity. O-X was
used to indicate a specific entity among others (Figure 4-d).
When the answer was a two-word phrase, one team used a
check mark extensively to inform that the guesser answered
the first word correctly (Figure 4-f). The following
descriptions elaborate the context of the use of referential
information.
• [Direct attention] The team was trying to visually
express ‘blind date’. The drawers drew a face with eyes
marked with ‘X’ trying to express ‘blindness’. When the
guesser mentioned ‘dead’, a drawer immediately added
several arrows around the eyes to indicate that the
answer was associated with eyes (Figure 4-b).
2. Kraut, R., Fussell, S., & Siegel, J. Situational awareness
and conversational grounding in collaborative bicycle
repair. Human Computer Interaction Institute. Carnegie
Mellon University.
3. Wyckoff, P., McLaughry, S., Lehman, T., Ford, D. 1998.
TSpaces, IBM Syst. J. 37, 3 454-474.
4. IBM. TSpaces: Intelligent Connectionware. Retrieved
from http://www.almaden.ibm.com/cs/TSpaces
494