Welcome, Computer! How Do Participants Introduce a Collaborative Application During Face-to-Face Interaction?

During cooperative interaction, participants introduce materials, artefacts, and other individuals into the ongoing interaction. Depending on how this introduction unfolds, the participants may embrace the new element in an easy way or not. If the new element is a collaborative application of interactive software designed to support the interaction, it may or may not improve the collaboration because of how it was introduced. Therefore, understanding and designing the initial interaction is key for unleashing the positive impact of collaborative systems. The literature has identified the fact that humans employ a specific range of behaviors when introducing an element into an ongoing interaction. Those introduction rituals are determined by whether the new element is a human or a material artefact. Introduction rituals involving interactive elements are still underexplored: How do participants introduce and initiate interaction with them? This manuscript explores the introduction behaviors emerging when an augmented-reality collaborative application is being introduced into a financial advisory service. It shows that the participants employ a wider range of introduction rituals during the introduction of this application than they do when they introduce a brochure. Notably, many of the observed behaviors resemble familiar opening rituals typically used when introducing and greeting humans. This supports the computers-are-social-actors argument and provides evidence that introducing a collaborative application has a social rather than a material character.

[1]  E. Schegloff Sequencing in Conversational Openings , 1968 .

[2]  William W. Gaver What should we expect from research through design? , 2012, CHI.

[3]  Jürgen Steimle Pen-and-Paper User Interfaces - Integrating Printed and Digital Documents , 2012, Human-Computer Interaction Series.

[4]  David Landsbergen,et al.  Screen level bureaucracy: Databases as public records , 2004, Gov. Inf. Q..

[5]  L. Mondada Greetings as a device to find out and establish the language of service encounters in multilingual settings , 2017 .

[6]  Gerhard Schwabe,et al.  How IT-Artifacts Disturb Advice Giving -- Insights from Analyzing Implicit Communication , 2016, 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS).

[7]  Lorenza Mondada,et al.  Video analysis and the temporality of inscriptions within social interaction: the case of architects at work , 2012 .

[8]  Christian Heath,et al.  Tasks-in-interaction: paper and screen based documentation in collaborative activity , 1992, CSCW '92.

[9]  Kai Zheng,et al.  Developing an evidence base of best practices for integrating computerized systems into the exam room: a systematic review , 2017, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[10]  M. Stubbe,et al.  Talking with the alien: interaction with computers in the GP consultation. , 2013, Australian journal of primary health.

[11]  Roel Vertegaal,et al.  Organic user interfaces: designing computers in any way, shape, or form , 2007, CACM.

[12]  K. Mortensen,et al.  Moving into interaction—Social practices for initiating encounters at a help desk , 2014 .

[13]  Christopher Pearce,et al.  Computers, Patients, and Doctors—Theoretical and Practical Perspectives , 2017 .

[14]  T. M. Ciolek,et al.  Environment and the Spatial Arrangement of Conversational Encounters , 1980 .

[15]  Steven E. Clayman Dimensions of Institutional Talk , 2010 .

[16]  Muriel Zimmerman,et al.  Design Research Through Practice: From the Lab, Field, and Showroom , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication.

[17]  A. Als,et al.  The desk-top computer as a magic box: patterns of behaviour connected with the desk-top computer; GPs' and patients' perceptions. , 1997, Family practice.

[18]  Nikolaus F. Troje,et al.  Paper windows: interaction techniques for digital paper , 2005, CHI.

[19]  Clifford Nass,et al.  The media equation - how people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places , 1996 .

[20]  Christopher Pearce,et al.  The patient and the computer in the primary care consultation , 2011, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[21]  Danielle Pillet-Shore Making Way and Making Sense: Including Newcomers in Interaction , 2010 .

[22]  Søren Kristiansen,et al.  Goffman's Sociology of Everyday Life Interaction , 2015 .

[23]  Christian Heath,et al.  Swiping paper: the second hand, mundane artifacts, gesture and collaboration , 2010, Personal and Ubiquitous Computing.

[24]  Kimmo Svinhufvud Nodding and note-taking: Multimodal analysis of writing and nodding in student counseling interaction , 2016 .

[25]  Ronald Azuma,et al.  A Survey of Augmented Reality , 1997, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[26]  Sanna Vehviläinen,et al.  Papers, documents, and the opening of an academic supervision encounter , 2013 .

[27]  S. Nettleton,et al.  Conceptualising 'materialities of care': making visible mundane material culture in health and social care contexts. , 2018, Sociology of health & illness.

[28]  John Zimmerman,et al.  Research Through Design in HCI , 2014, Ways of Knowing in HCI.

[29]  Danielle Pillet-Shore Doing Introductions: The Work Involved in Meeting Someone New , 2011 .

[30]  Merran Toerien,et al.  Using electronic patient records in practice: A focused review of the evidence of risks to the clinical interaction , 2013, Seizure.

[31]  Sarvapali D. Ramchurn,et al.  Energy advisors at work: charity work practices to support people in fuel poverty , 2014, UbiComp.

[32]  Mathias Broth,et al.  Walking away: The embodied achievement of activity closings in mobile interaction , 2013 .

[33]  Mark Billinghurst,et al.  A Survey of Augmented Reality , 2015, Found. Trends Hum. Comput. Interact..

[34]  C. Goodwin Action and embodiment within situated human interaction , 2000 .

[35]  Hiroshi Ishii,et al.  The tangible user interface and its evolution , 2008, CACM.

[36]  Mary Beth Rosson,et al.  Usability Engineering: Scenario-based Development of Human-Computer Interaction , 2001 .

[37]  John Zimmerman,et al.  Research through design as a method for interaction design research in HCI , 2007, CHI.

[38]  Paul Dourish,et al.  Where the action is , 2001 .

[39]  Hideaki Kuzuoka,et al.  “The first five seconds”: Contingent stepwise entry into an interaction as a means to secure sustained engagement in HRI , 2009, RO-MAN 2009 - The 18th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication.

[40]  Jürgen Steimle Designing pen-and-paper user interfaces for interaction with documents , 2009, Tangible and Embedded Interaction.

[41]  L. Mondada Emergent focused interactions in public places: A systematic analysis of the multimodal achievement of a common interactional space , 2009 .

[42]  Christopher Pearce,et al.  Computers in the new consultation: within the first minute. , 2008, Family practice.

[43]  Ramesh Raskar,et al.  Modern approaches to augmented reality: introduction to current approaches , 2006, SIGGRAPH Courses.

[44]  K. Mortensen,et al.  Embodying the institution: object manipulation in developing interaction in study counselling meetings , 2014 .

[45]  B. J. Fogg,et al.  Can computers be teammates? , 1996, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[46]  Gerhard Schwabe,et al.  Why do you ask all those questions? Supporting client profiling in financial service encounters , 2017, HICSS.

[47]  Gerhard Schwabe,et al.  Paper Practices in Institutional Talk: How Financial Advisors Impress their Clients , 2017, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[48]  Oren Zuckerman,et al.  To TUI or not to TUI: Evaluating performance and preference in tangible vs. graphical user interfaces , 2013, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[49]  Bertrand Schneider,et al.  3D Tangibles Facilitate Joint Visual Attention in Dyads , 2015, CSCL.

[50]  Mattias Arvola,et al.  Shades of Use: The Dynamics of Interaction Design for Sociable Use , 2005 .

[51]  J. Loomis,et al.  Interpersonal Distance in Immersive Virtual Environments , 2003, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[52]  Helmut Jungermann,et al.  Advice giving and taking , 1999, Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences. 1999. HICSS-32. Abstracts and CD-ROM of Full Papers.

[53]  Esa Lehtinen,et al.  Initiating activity shifts through use of appraisal forms as material objects during performance appraisal interviews , 2014 .

[54]  E. Goffman Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-To-Face Behavior , 1967 .

[55]  David Westerman,et al.  Initial expectations, interactions, and beyond with social robots , 2019, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[56]  L. Mondada,et al.  Interweaving Objects, Gestures, and Talk in Context , 2008 .

[57]  Gerhard Schwabe,et al.  Tuning in to More Interactivity – Learning from IT Support for Advisory Service Encounters , 2017 .

[58]  Mary Beth Rosson,et al.  Usability Engineering in Practice , 2002 .

[59]  Steven E. Clayman,et al.  Talk in Action , 2010 .

[60]  G. Jefferson Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction , 2004 .

[61]  Sebastian Wrede,et al.  How to Open an Interaction Between Robot and Museum Visitor? Strategies to Establish a Focused Encounter in HRI , 2017, 2017 12th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI.

[62]  Danielle Pillet-Shore How to Begin , 2018, Messy Minimalism.

[63]  Simon de Lusignan,et al.  Getting Seamless Care Right from the Beginning - Integrating Computers into the Human Interaction , 2010, EFMI-STC.

[64]  A. Broderick,et al.  Role theory, role management and service performance , 1998 .

[65]  R. Frankel,et al.  How to Integrate the Electronic Health Record and Patient-Centered Communication Into the Medical Visit: A Skills-Based Approach , 2013, Teaching and learning in medicine.

[66]  dicky djatnika ustama PERANAN PENDIDIKAN DALAM PENGENTASAN KEMISKINAN , 2010 .

[67]  Pierre Dillenbourg,et al.  Designing augmented reality for the classroom , 2013, Comput. Educ..