See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221516235

Arrange-A-Space: tabletop interfaces and gender collaboration.

Conference Paper January 2011

DOI: 10.1145/1979742.1979797 Source: DBLP

CITATIONS READS

0 28

5 authors, including:

Ammar Halabi Shaowen Bardzell

Universit de Fribourg Indiana University Bloomington
15 PUBLICATIONS 10 CITATIONS 96 PUBLICATIONS 764 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ammar Halabi on 02 December 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue
are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
CHI 2011 Work-in-Progress May 712, 2011 Vancouver, BC, Canada

Arrange-A-Space: Tabletop Interfaces

and Gender Collaboration

Daniel Richert Matt Edwards Abstract

School of Informatics and
Computing
Indiana University
Bloomington, Indiana 47406 USA
drichert@indiana.edu
Ammar Halabi
School of Informatics and
Computing
Indiana University
Bloomington, Indiana 47406 USA
ahalabi@indiana.edu
School of Informatics and
Computing
Indiana University
Bloomington, Indiana 47406 USA
matdedwa@indiana.edu
Shaowen Bardzell
School of Informatics and
Computing
Indiana University
Bloomington, Indiana 47406 USA
selu@indiana.edu
Collaborative technologies, such as shared tabletop
interfaces, are becoming increasingly pervasive.
Meanwhile, social dynamics have long been a major
area of inquiry in HCI and CSCW. With a few notable
exceptions, little has been done that addresses the
roles gender identities play in shaping collaborative
work. In this paper, we make the case for a deeper
consideration of gender in our field through a study
that investigates issues surrounding gendered
collaboration around a tabletop interface. We report our
findings and conclude with recommendations for future
work in this area.

Anna Eaglin Keywords

School of Informatics and Tabletop Interfaces, Gender, CSCW, Collaboration
Computing
Indiana University ACM Classification Keywords
Bloomington, Indiana 47406 USA H5.m. Information interfaces and presentation:
ameaglin@indiana.edu Miscellaneous.

General Terms
Design, theory
Copyright is held by the author/owner(s).
CHI 2011, May 712, 2011, Vancouver, BC, Canada. Introduction
ACM 978-1-4503-0268-5/11/05. Tabletop interfaces bring down the barrier between
input and display, and between individual and

1495
 CHI 2011 Work-in-Progress
Figure 1. Participants collaborating on the
tabletop.
collaborative work [13]. This opens up the space for a
plethora of novel applications and forms of interactions.
For example, Rogers et al. also discussed organization
and communication through gesturing [12].
In research on shared tabletop interfaces that support
collaboration, it is suggested that people find it easier
to alleviate domination, coordinate, organize, and
communicate around shared tabletop surfaces due to
sharing visual perspective and resources [6, 12, 3].
Additionally, Rogers alluded to the fact that much
tabletop research is focused on novel applications and
forms of interaction, and that collaboration and social
dynamics among groups are also significant issues that
need to be addressed [14]. On that front, Stahl
attempted to understand the potential of shared
groupware by studying social group interaction and
called for a new science of group interaction [16]. Our
study falls in the same realm, in the sense that it
addresses social influences of gender that contributes
to the nature of collaboration. This overarching goal
majorly guided our subsequent choices regarding the
design of our task and experiment. As collaborative
technologies become more pervasive, exploring issues
of gendered interactions can help us avoid biases and
inform the design of future collaborative technology.
Gender and Design
The research on gender and interaction design has
been an important topic in HCI [2, 4, 11]. Gender is an
emergent feature of social situations, not a result of
any biologically determining factor. It is the activity
of managing situated conduct in light of normative
conceptions of attitudes and activities appropriate for
one's sex category. Gender activities emerge from and
bolster claims to membership in a sex category" [17].
May 712, 2011 Vancouver, BC, Canada
Regardless of biological sex, gender is emergent and
can be a personal choice. There is a documented
gender divide in the way people use the internet [10],
search the web [9], adopt new software [6], and even
in the way technology is viewed [7]. These studies
illustrate the importance of being cognizant of gendered
differences. It is also important that we, as designers,
are aware of gender when asking whose interests our
designs are serving [1]. In line with these studies, we
wish to carry these efforts further by researching
gender differences on a collaborative tabletop interface.
Concept Design and User Research
It was important to eliminate factors that would
detrimentally affect a successful collaboration in order
to be able to focus on gender differences. Successful
collaboration is influenced by proximity (the physical
space between two people where they can interact
socially), homophily (the similarities between people
such as gender, age, and education), and familiarity
(how well people know each other). This is based on
Kiesler and Cummings, whose research predicts greater
strength of a current collaboration among those who
have worked together before [8]. By eliminating these
factors, we could observe patterns that may be
understood as gendered after appearing over several
sessions. To that end, we recruited participants at the
university who have prior experience working together.
In order to ensure our participants would be highly
engaged in the task, we created Arrange-A-Space, an
interior design application that would allow participants
to create the interior of a new building that was
currently being commissioned [Figure 2]. This new
building was highly anticipated by the students, and the
committee in charge of it was including student
1496
 CHI 2011 Work-in-Progress
Figure 2: The Arrange-A-Space application.
1
feedback. It was inferred that the results of the testing
would be given to those in charge of the new space,
therefore establishing motivation to complete the task
in a way participants considered successful. While the
task is engaging, it does not define clear user roles and
allows for each participant to equally interact. Thus, it
provides a suitable platform for our purposes. We built
the application using the DiamondSpin1 Java toolkit and
conducted the user study on the Mitsubishi
DiamondTouch Table.
Twelve participants were recruited and grouped into six
groups of two. We organized two pairs of each gender
combination (Male/Female, Female/Female, and
Male/Male). We sought this initial configuration in order
to provide enough data to start our analysis of
differences and similarities across same-gender and
mixed-gender collaborations, while still limiting the
scope to the role of gender to personal interaction in
micro-group collaboration [16]. We assigned each pair
of participants the task of using the Arrange-A-Space
application to design the interior of the new space.
Participants were given a budget and could purchase
items to furnish and decorate the space collaboratively.
All tasks needed to be completed within 20 minutes.
A pre-test survey was given to participants to collect
self-identified gender for subsequent data analysis. All
study sessions were recorded to capture subtle facial
expressions and body language as participants worked
on the tasks together. Additionally, we also recorded all
tabletop gestures for further analysis. Participants were
interviewed separately after the completion of the tasks
to understand their perceptions of their experiences.
http://diamondspin.free.fr/
May 712, 2011 Vancouver, BC, Canada
By synthesizing our qualitative and quantitative data,
we uncovered patterns across the dyads, which we
interpreted as related to dominance, negotiation,
planning, and sharing. Dominance here refers to the
person who influences the course and outcome of the
task the most, whether verbally or non-verbally.
Negotiation refers to participants discussing adding,
deleting, and placing items, as well as the overall
purpose of the task. Planning is the predetermined
rationalization of how the task will be carried out.
Sharing occurred when participants utilized each others
items and menus, as well how they interacted in the
communal space. These patterns were based on data
gathered from actions and communication between
participants. Actions are defined as the addition,
removal, or manipulation of an item on the tabletop.
Non-tabletop actions are verbal and non-verbal
communication that unfolded between participants.
Findings
The data in the table [Figure 3] was generated by the
software as the participants interacted with the
DiamondTouch table. The software was programmed to
track each time a participant performed an action. The
table is a summary of all the actions taken for each
group and overall. The total number of actions by each
gender is approximately the same with males
performing 48% and females at 52%. The Male/Male
dyads performed more actions (56.5%) than the
Female/Female (43.5%).This is compared to the
Male/Female Dyads, in which the females performed
65.7% of the actions. This data, combined with a
synthesis of our observations, served as the basis for
our findings.
1497
 CHI 2011 Work-in-Progress
Figure 3: Overall data as reported by the
application. It shows the total actions taken
by the participants.
Male/Female Dyads
In both of the Male/Female groups each dyad began
the task with an overall plan. Once agreed upon, each
member would work individually. They would narrate
their actions whenever they generated a new item, or
moved and arranged an existing one; for example, I
am putting a chair over here. We also found that the
female in each group was more concerned with
resources and constraints (such as time, money, cost,
etc.) than her male counterpart. Each group also
tended to negotiate when the task was completed.
When one member would suggest it was finished, the
other would suggest changes. There was no observably
dominant participant, but each was equally active in the
completion of the task. From our quantitative data we
found that in each group the females generated more
actions than the male participants, but this did not
necessarily correspond to dominant behavior.
Female/Female Dyads
In the groups where two females participated together,
both groups began the task with an explicitly agreed-
upon plan. This verbalization continued throughout the
entire task, with almost every decision discussed and
negotiated. Each group was concerned with alignment
and arrangement, and the details of each artifact that
was placed upon the workspace. The Female/Female
groups also spoke of the workspace and the task as a
joint venture. When making decisions, they would often
refer to themselves as we, and would move and
delete each others generated artifacts. We did not find
this in any of our other tested groups. Similar to the
Male/Female sessions, they negotiated when the task
was completed. In each of the Female/Female groups,
there was one person who was more observably
dominant. This was in conflict with our quantitative
May 712, 2011 Vancouver, BC, Canada
data, where dominance did not correspond to the
number of actions taken. Some participants, observed
to be the more dominant, actually performed fewer
actions on the table.
Male/Male Dyads
In the Male/Male groups, each team asked numerous
questions regarding the technology of the tabletop and
the software. Each group did not have an initial plan
when they began the task, and order emerged
throughout the process of each member working
individually. Unlike the two previous couplings, the
Male/Male groups did not negotiate when the task was
completed. Unlike all other groups, both dyads finished
before the 20 minute time period was complete. When
one person suggested it was finished, the other agreed.
Similar to the Female/Female groups, one participant
tended to dominate the task and its outcome.
Discussion
Our observations included information on collaboration
and sharing, negotiation, planning, and domination
among participants. Almost consistently in all sessions
females tended to reach out to items generated by
other members and considered resources on the table
to be shared and configurable, while males showed
little negotiation through manipulation of others items.
In the female dyads we observed much less distinct
organization of personal territories, and more shared
ownership of digital items [15].
As for planning and action to accomplish the task, our
female participants tended to explicitly question and
state requirements, resources, restrictions, and plan for
action. Our male participants proceeded with using the
tool and negotiating only later, giving their approach a
1498
CHI 2011 Work-in-Progress
much more emergent nature. Surprisingly, the outcome
of all dyads was similar (i.e. came out with similar
designs for the space), and we aim to investigate whether
these observations hold true for future sessions, and why
would apparently different approaches lead to similar
results. One initial speculation is that the same level of
coordination and communication happens in different
groups while taking different forms, including verbal,
gestural and contextual communication (one that
depends on present context and shared environment) as
exemplified by [12]. This supports the emergence of
improvised communication styles within groups towards
the construction of a common understanding of the
current and desired states.
Our experiments also uncovered dynamics related to
dominance. We observed that dominance does not
necessarily correlate to actions made on the tabletop, but
rather it socially unfolds through discussion and
negotiation between participants. While we learned that
dominance is not a singular concept (participants have
different and dynamic ways to deliver their contributions),
we observed more dominance issues in the collaborations
between participants of the same gender. Supported by
participants statements in the interviews, we infer that
since people are aware of gender discrepancies that exist
in society, they are more consciously aware of their
actions when working with members of the opposite
gender. This is reduced when working with members of
the same gender, as issues of power in regards to gender
are not in play. What we refer to here is that it is not only
the individuals perception of their own gender identity
and roles that influence collaboration, but also their
perceptions and conceptions of the identity and roles of
their collaborators.
May 712, 2011 Vancouver, BC, Canada
Conclusion
Our research so far has concluded various observations
and qualified for future questions. We have shown our
initial findings related to dominance, negotiation,
planning, and sharing. These categorizations serve as
interesting dimensions on which to base our
subsequent efforts. We aim to carry out further
sessions to check the validity and interpret the
influence of these factors mentioned on gender and
collaboration. We specifically seek to be aware of other
cultural and social factors to accentuate the role of
gender. Finally, we aim to translate this understanding
into a group of considerations and guidelines for
designing tabletop interfaces.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank all of our participants for taking
part in our study.
References
1. Bardzell, S. Feminist HCI: Taking stock and outlining
an agenda for design. Proc. of CHI2010, 1301-
1310.
2. Cassell, J., & Jenkins, H. Chess for girls? Feminism
and computer games. In J. A. Cassell & H. Jenkins
(eds.), From Barbie to Mortal Kombat: Gender and
Computer Games. The MIT Press, Cambridge,
USA,1998, 2-45.
3. Church, T., Hazlewood, W., and Rogers, Y. Around
the table: Studies in co-located collaboration. In
Adjunct Proceedings of the 4th International
Conference on Pervasive Computing. Vol. 207,
Austrian Computer Society (OCG): Vienna, 2006.
[mov]
4. Green, E., Owen, J., and Pain, D. Gendered by
Design? Information technology and office systems.
Taylor & Francis, London, 1993.
1499
CHI 2011 Work-in-Progress
5. Hartzel, K. How self-efficacy and gender issues
affect software adoption and use. CACM,46(9),
2003, 167-171
6. Hornecker, E., Marshall, P., Dalton, N.S., and
Rogers, Y. Collaboration and interference:
awareness with mice or touch input. Proceedings of
the 2008 ACM conference on Computer supported
cooperative work, ACM (2008), 167176.
7. Kelan. TOOLS AND TOYS : Communicating gendered
positions towards technology. Info., Comm. & Soc.
(2007) vol. 10 (3) pp. 358-383
8. Kiesler and Cummings. What do we know about
proximity and distance in work groups? A legacy of
research. Distributed work (2002) vol. 1 pp. 57-80
9. Large, A., Beheshti, J., and Rahman, T. Gender
differences in collaborative Web searching behavior.
IP&M, 38 (2002), 427-443.
10. Liff, S., and Shepherd, A. An evolving gender digital
divide? Oxford Internet Institute, Internet Issue
Brief No. 2, July, 2004.
11. Rode, J. and Bdker, S. Considering gender in
ECSCW. ECSCW 2009 workshop (2009).
12. Rogers, Y., Hazlewood, W., Blevis, E., and Lim, Y.
Finger talk: collaborative decision-making using talk
and fingertip interaction around a tabletop display.
CHI '04 extended abstracts on Human factors in
computing systems, ACM (2004), 12711274.
May 712, 2011 Vancouver, BC, Canada
13. Rogers, Y., Lim, Y., and Hazlewood, W.R. Extending
Tabletops to Support Flexible Collaborative
Interactions. Proceedings of the First IEEE
International Workshop on Horizontal Interactive
Human-Computer Systems, IEEE Computer Society
(2006), 7178.
14. Rogers, Y. and Rodden, T. Configuring spaces and
surfaces to support collaborative interactions. In O'
Hara, K., Perry, M., Churchill, E. and Russell, D.
(eds.) Public and Situated Displays. Kluwer
Publishers (2004), 45--79.
15. Scott, S.D., Sheelagh, M., Carpendale, T., and
Inkpen, K.M. Territoriality in collaborative tabletop
workspaces. Proceedings of the 2004 ACM
conference on Computer supported cooperative
work, ACM (2004), 294303.
16. Stahl, G. For a science of group interaction.
Proceedings of the ACM 2009 international
conference on Supporting group work, ACM (2009),
129138.
17. West. C. and Zimmerman, D. H. (1987): Doing
Gender, Gender & Society, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 125-
151.
1500