Isaacs, E.A., Morris, T., Rodriguez, T.K., & Tang, J.C. A comparison of face-to-face and distributed presentations. Proceedings of CHI '95, ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, May 7-11, Denver, CO, 354-361. 1995.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....al. 1996] The result was that there were more extensive multiple threads in computer mediated conversation, but both conversations were similar in content and nature of participation. Issacs studied how a distributed presentation over a computer system called Forum differed from FTF presentation [Isaacs et al. 1995]. The result was that audiences were larger but the quality of interaction was lower over Forum; audiences preferred to watch talks over Forum but speakers preferred to give talks in an FTF setting. Bowers investigated how avatars moves were coordinated with 3.5. Interaction Analysis 73 ....

E. A. Isaacs, T. Morris, T. K. Rodriguez and J. C. Tang, "A Comparison of Face-to-Face and Distributed Presentations," International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI'95), pp. 354--361, 1995.

....also provided access to an on line calendar, e mail and on screen note facility. As with Cruiser, video connections appeared in a small window on the computer screen, rather than on a separate monitor. Researchers found that most glances did not result in interactive communication [Tan94] Issacs [Isa95] reports on their experiences using video in a broadcast setting, as opposed to in a smaller forum with a local audience. They found that the audiences preferred watching the multimedia presentations by speakers in the broadcast setting, while the speakers themselves preferred the intimacy of ....

Isaacs, E., Morris, T., Rodriguez, T. and Tang, J., A comparison of face-to-face and distributed presentations. In Proceedings of Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI '95 (Denver, CO), pages 354--361. ACM Press, New York, 1995.

....possibilities in an online session. Voting can be employed to gather opinions on specific topics. Online feedback allows for an easy, online, continuous rating of lectures. Early experiences with voting features and with the need for additional feedback in online sessions can be found in [8] and [9]. Voting The voting feature in the dlb was developed based on experience with the well known MBone tool MPoll [11] In contrast to MPoll, voting is fully integrated into the dlb. The voting interface allows users to create, delete and answer questions and to display the results of a question. We ....

Isaacs, E. A., Morris, T., Rodriguez, T. K., Tang, J. C., "A Comparison of Face-To-Face and Distributed Presentations", Proc. of CHI'95, 1995.

....coordinates distributed activities via message passing, and manifests control by ephemeral permissions rather than actual locks, allowing control over continuous media flows as well as discrete data. Online group coordination in relation to face to face meetings has been studied by Isaacs et al. [8], showing that greediness for time and bandwidth on behalf of noncooperative users, as well as lack of social cues such as eye contact contribute to coordination problems. While geared toward supporting humans in their interactions, the concept of group coordination also applies to agent based ....

E. A. Isaacs, T. Morris, T. K. Rodriguez, and J. C. Tang. A comparison of face-to-face and distributed presentations. In Proc. ACM CHI, 354--361, Denver, CO, May 1995.

....version of the Stadium Server. By relying on just the rapporteurs to report back to main conference session, an important step towards scaleability is achieved. Within each syndicate, multiple audio conversations are allowed, with a designated person authorising turn taking. Figure 4) [ 7 ] Figure 4: A meeting room setting, either convened as a standalone event, or breaking out from a main Stadium event. A designated moderator controls turn taking. Town meeting: The emphasis in a town meeting is on the exchange of viewpoints, and it is therefore of crucial importance that KMi ....

....discussion groups. What impact might this have on working life Certainly, we hope that it will make a resource, which was previously too hard to provide or re use, much more accessible as a source of expertise. We know from empirical evaluation of the Forum presentation discussion environment [7] that [ 10 ] employees enjoy the convenience of being able to drop in to ongoing events without leaving their offices, and in particular like the ability to fast forward a presentation, break out to check email, and drift back in during the portions of a live session that are expected ....

Isaacs, E.A., Morris, T., Rodriguez, T.K. and Tang, J.C. A Comparison of Face-to-Face and Distributed Presentations. In Proceedings of CHI'95: Conference on Computer-Human Interaction, Denver, CO, 1994, ACM Press: NY, pp. 354-361 [http://www.sun.com/tech/projects/coco/papers/forum-CHI95.html].

....set of users. The RAVE [37] 38] environment augments a traditional mediaspace environment with non speech auditory cues to provide awareness information about current activities. Work at SunSoft includes the lightweight awareness system Montage [110] and the asymmetric conferencing tool Forum [50][51]. Forum, in particular, emphasizes the need for awareness in a range of settings, including the lecturer audience setting addressed by Forum. Other mediaspace like systems include work at the University of Toronto [62] 97] NTT [52] and Georgia Tech [101] 102] Both the sheer volume of prior ....

Isaacs, E.A., Morris, T, Rodriguez, T.K., and Tang, J.C., "A Comparison of Face-to-Face and Distributed Presentations." In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI'95), Denver, CO: ACM, May 7-11, 1995. pp. 354-361.

....smoother interactions. We also learned a great deal about both speakers and audiences experiences (Isaacs, Morris Rodriguez, 1994) After a series of design iterations based on informal testing, we ran a more rigorous test to compare Forum presentations with those given in a local setting (Isaacs, Morris, Rodriguez Tang, 1995). In this study, seven talks were given once over Forum and once in a local setting. The talks ranged in topic and style (e.g. lecture, informal talk, discussion session) For each talk, we videotaped the speaker and an audience member, sent questionnaires to all audience members and the ....

Isaacs, E.A., Morris, T., Rodriguez, T.K., & Tang, J.T. (1995). A Comparison of Face-to-face and Distributed Presentations, Proceedings of the Conference on Computer-Human Interaction, (354-361). Denver: ACM Press.

No context found.

Isaacs, E.A., Morris, T., Rodriguez, T.K., & Tang, J.C. A comparison of face-to-face and distributed presentations. Proceedings of CHI '95, ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, May 7-11, Denver, CO, 354-361. 1995.

No context found.

E. A. Isaacs, T. Morris, T. K. Rodriguez, and J. C. Tang. A comparison of face-to-face and distributed presentations. In Proc. ACM CHI, Denver, CO, May 1995.

No context found.

E.A. Isaacs, T. Morris, T.K. Rodriguez, and J.C. Tang. A comparison of face-to-face and distributed presentations. In Proc. CHI'95, Denver, CO, May 1995. ACM SIGCHI.

No context found.

Isaacs, E.A., Morris, T., Rodriguez, T.K., and Tang, J.C. (1995). A comparison of face-to-face and distributed presentations. Proc. CHI '95, 354-361, ACM.

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC