Computer-mediated communication (CMC) has been a longstanding focus of study in the fields of HCI and CSCW dating back to the first incarnations of the media space in the early 1980s [4]. Since then, this research sphere has explored many different forms of technology ranging from teleconferencing to email and instant messaging. The early focus of this work was largely workplace-oriented where researchers focused on improving and understanding workplace communication practices. However, over the last decade, there has been an increasing focus on studying computer-mediated communication in the home. In the domestic realm, the goal of computer-mediated communication research is to understand the communication practices of families both within and extending outside of the home as family members seek to communicate, coordinate, and connect with their loved ones and friends. Our focus is on technologies that allow family members to directly connect with one another either synchronously (e.g., video conferencing) or asynchronously (e.g., instant messaging), as opposed to technologies where one broadcasts or shares information with many (e.g., social networking sites). Here research typically aims to support communication between parents, children, grandparents, and close friends. As examples, research in this space has spanned many areas of study including the role of locations within the home [3], distributed-family communication [2,5], organizing systems [16], family awareness [13], video conferencing practices [1,7,9], and mobile media [12]. Similarly, it has seen the design of many new technologies to support family routines, such as Digital Family Portraits [11], the Remote Presence Lamp [17], VideoProbe [6], Home Note [14], and the Family Window [8]. Computer-mediated communication for the home has also now moved out of the research lab and into actual everyday practice. Computing technologies are rapidly changing the way families can communicate, coordinate, and connect with others through readily-available (and often free) applications, such as Google Talk, Skype, or iChat. The accessibility and proliferation of these applications means that family members are increasingly faced with new mechanisms to reach out and connect with their family and friends. For this reason, technology is now rapidly reconfiguring the way we think about and design for domestic spaces. As it does so, researchers now must directly confront issues of family relations and the subtle negotiations that are part of that realm. “Connection” can be emotionally expressive or merely informational. Analytic frameworks as well as technologies developed to support work may not be appropriate for understanding this setting.
[1]
Abigail Sellen,et al.
The myth of the paperless office
,
2001
.
[2]
Xiang Cao,et al.
Understanding family communication across time zones
,
2010,
CSCW '10.
[3]
Carman Neustaedter,et al.
Sharing conversation and sharing life: video conferencing in the home
,
2010,
CHI.
[4]
Elizabeth D. Mynatt,et al.
Digital family portraits: supporting peace of mind for extended family members
,
2001,
CHI.
[5]
Wijnand A. IJsselsteijn,et al.
Connecting the family with awareness systems
,
2007,
Personal and Ubiquitous Computing.
[6]
Alex S. Taylor,et al.
Artful systems in the home
,
2005,
CHI.
[7]
Steve Benford,et al.
Finding a Place for UbiComp in the Home
,
2003,
UbiComp.
[8]
Allison Druin,et al.
Technology probes: inspiring design for and with families
,
2003,
CHI '03.
[9]
Kenton O'Hara,et al.
Media Spaces and Mobile Video Telephony
,
2009,
Media Space 20+ Years of Mediated Life.
[10]
Rich Ling,et al.
Direct and Mediated Interactions in the Maintenance of Social Relationships
,
2000,
HOIT.
[11]
Carman Neustaedter,et al.
The family window: the design and evaluation of a domestic media space
,
2010,
CHI.
[12]
S. Harrison.
Media Space 20+ Years of Mediated Life
,
2009,
Computer Supported Cooperative Work.
[13]
Alex S. Taylor,et al.
HomeNote: supporting situated messaging in the home
,
2006,
CSCW '06.
[14]
Abigail Sellen,et al.
Video-Mediated Communication
,
1997
.
[15]
William W. Gaver,et al.
Feather, Scent, and Shaker: Supporting Simple Intimacy
,
1996
.
[16]
Xiang Cao,et al.
Home video communication: mediating 'closeness'
,
2010,
CSCW '10.
[17]
Morgan G. Ames,et al.
Making love in the network closet: the benefits and work of family videochat
,
2010,
CSCW '10.
[18]
Konrad Tollmar,et al.
Understanding remote presence
,
2002,
NordiCHI '02.
[19]
Debby Hindus,et al.
Casablanca: designing social communication devices for the home
,
2001,
CHI 2001.