Graphical representation in graphical dialogue

Abstract This paper explores the influence of communicative interaction on the form of graphical representations. A referential communication task is described which involves exclusively graphical dialogue. In this task subjects communicate about pieces of music by drawing. The drawings produced fall into two basic types: Abstract and Figurative. Three hypotheses are developed about the factors influencing the use of these drawing types: efficiency of production, suitability for the task and level of communicative interaction. Experimental evidence is presented which indicates that the drawing types do not differ in the amount of effort required to produce them. The results indicate that (1) Abstract drawings are more effective than Figurative drawings for comparative tasks and (2) a key constraint on their use is level of direct communicative interaction. It is argued that these observations result from differences in the underlying semantic models of music associated with the drawing types and the consequences these differences have for communicative coordination.

[1]  Carol Sacchett.  Drawing in aphasia: moving towards the interactive , 2002, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[2]  Daniel G. Bobrow,et al.  Beyond the chalkboard: computer support for collaboration and problem solving in meetings , 1988, CACM.

[3]  E. Schegloff.  Repair After Next Turn: The Last Structurally Provided Defense of Intersubjectivity in Conversation , 1992, American Journal of Sociology.

[4]  Padraic Monaghan,et al.  Proceedings of the 23rd annual conference of the cognitive science society , 2001 .

[5]  C Sacchett,et al.  Drawing together: evaluation of a therapy programme for severe aphasia. , 1999, International journal of language & communication disorders.

[6]  Alexandra A. Cleland,et al.  Syntactic co-ordination in dialogue , 2000, Cognition.

[7]  Ichiro Umata,et al.  Representational Form and Communicative Use , 2001 .

[8]  Herbert H. Clark,et al.  Coordinating beliefs in conversation , 1992 .

[9]  M. Gernsbacher,et al.  Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society , 1998 .

[10]  S. Bly,et al.  Commune: a shared drawing surface , 1990, COCS '90.

[11]  Saul Greenberg,et al.  GroupWare for Real-Time Drawing: A Designer's Guide , 1995 .

[12]  John Lee,et al.  Conversations with graphics: implications for the design of natural language/graphics interfaces , 1994, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[13]  Philip R. Cohen,et al.  Intentions in Communication. , 1992 .

[14]  Yasuhiro Katagiri,et al.  A Comparison of Graphics and Speech in a Task-Oriented Interactio , 2000, Diagrams.

[15]  Philip R. Cohen,et al.  Referring as a Collaborative Process , 2003 .

[16]  Yvonne Rogers,et al.  External cognition: how do graphical representations work? , 1996, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[17]  J. Lyon.  Drawing: Its value as a communication aid for adults with aphasia , 1995 .

[18]  Jon G. Lyon.  Communicative drawing: An augmentative mode of interaction , 1995 .

[19]  Sara A. Bly,et al.  A use of drawing surfaces in different collaborative settings , 1988, CSCW '88.

[20]  E. Schegloff,et al.  A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation , 1974 .

[21]  John C. Tang,et al.  Videodraw: a video interface for collaborative drawing , 1991, TOIS.

[22]  S. Garrod,et al.  Saying what you mean in dialogue: A study in conceptual and semantic co-ordination , 1987, Cognition.

[23]  Steve Whittaker,et al.  Shared Workspaces: How Do They Work and When Are They Useful? , 1993, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..