User embodiment in collaborative virtual environments

Benford, Steve; Bowers, John; Fahlén, Lennart E.; Greenhalgh, Chris; Snowdon, Dave

doi:10.1145/223904.223935

Cited by 277 publications

(136 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

131

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The use of pseudo-humanoid embodiments is chosen, as it make all collaborators understand that a user has human-like capabilities in the VE [Hindmarsh et al 1998]. Avatars can be represented at different levels of realisms from textureless humanoid to realistic male and female avatars [Benford et al 1995] [Garau et al 2003]. In some cases, only some body parts of an avatar can be represented and animated.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Collaborators awareness for user cohabitation in co-located collaborative virtual environments

Lacoche

Pallamin

Boggini

et al. 2017

Proceedings of the 23rd ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a co-located collaborative virtual environment, multiple users share the same physical tracked space and the same virtual workspace. When the virtual workspace is larger than the real workspace, navigation interaction techniques must be deployed to let the users explore the entire virtual environment. When a user navigates in the virtual space while remaining static in the real space, his/her position in the physical workspace and in the virtual workspace are no longer the same. Thus, in the context where each user is immersed in the virtual environment with a Head-Mounted-Display, a user can still perceive where his/her collaborators are in the virtual environment but not where they are in real world. In this paper, we propose and compare three methods to warn users about the position of collaborators in the shared physical workspace to ensure a proper cohabitation and safety of the collaborators. The first one is based on a virtual grid shaped as a cylinder, the second one is based on a ghost representation of the user and the last one displays the physical safe-navigation space on the floor of the virtual environment. We conducted a user-study with two users wearing a Head-Mounted-Display in the context of a collaborative FirstPerson-Shooter game. Our three methods were compared with a condition where the physical tracked space was separated into two zones, one per user, to evaluate the impact of each condition on safety, displacement freedom and global satisfaction of users. Results suggest that the ghost avatar and the cylinder grid can be good alternatives to the separation of the tracked space. CCS CONCEPTS• Human-centered computing → Virtual reality; Collaborative interaction; User studies; KEYWORDSVirtual Reality, Collaborative Virtual Environment Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the owner/author(s). VRST '17, November 8-10, 2017, Gothenburg, Sweden [Fleury et al. 2010] that results from the virtual navigation of both users in the VE. When these two users wear a HMD, they can still perceive each other in the VE but no longer in the real workspace. In that case, we must avoid any possible physical collision between the two users.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Collaborators awareness for user cohabitation in co-located collaborative virtual environments

Lacoche

Pallamin

Boggini

et al. 2017

Proceedings of the 23rd ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Eye contact is one example for an important cue for effective interpersonal communication [23] which is difficult to obtain in VC due to the vertical disparity between the camera mounted on the top of the screen and the position of the other person's eyes on the screen [24,25]. Other nonverbal cues such as body language, interpersonal distance or touch [26,27] as well as subtleties of affect expressions and personality appearances [19] are harder to discern in VC compared to FTFC. In this respect, missing nonverbal cues in VC play an especially important role with regard to social interaction, development of relationships and intimate communication [27].…”

Section: The Influence Of Videoconferencing In (Partially) Distributementioning

confidence: 99%

Computer-Supported Work in Partially Distributed and Co-located Teams: The Influence of Mood Feedback

Sonderegger

Lalanne

Bergholz

et al. 2013

Human-Computer Interaction – INTERACT 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. This article examines the influence of mood feedback on different outcomes of teamwork in two different collaborative work environments. Employing a 2 x 2 between-subjects design, mood feedback (present vs. not present) and communication mode (face-to-face vs. video conferencing) were manipulated experimentally. We used a newly developed collaborative communication environment, called EmotiBoard, which is a large vertical interactive screen, with which team members can interact in a face-to-face discussion or as a spatially distributed team. To support teamwork, this tool provides visual feedback of each team member's emotional state. Thirty-five teams comprising 3 persons each (with a confederate in each team) completed three different tasks, measuring mood, performance, subjective workload, and team satisfaction. Results indicated that the evaluation of the other team members' emotional state was more accurate when the mood feedback was presented. In addition, mood feedback influenced team performance positively in the video conference condition and negatively in the face-to-face condition. Furthermore, participants in the video conference condition were more satisfied after task completion than participants in the face-to-face condition. Findings indicate that the mood feedback tool is helpful for teams to gain a more accurate understanding of team members' emotional states in different work situations.

show abstract

“…In collaborative writing, users' working areas (in a shared document) are often different from their viewing areas [21]. Existing mechanisms such as telepointers, multi-user scrollbars and radar views show users' current viewing areas, but not their working areas.…”

Section: Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As reported by many other researchers, in order to facilitate group collaboration effectively, groupware systems must provide group awareness support [16,19,[21][22][23][24][25][26]. Group awareness is defined as ''an understanding of the activities of others, which provides a context for your own activity'' [22], p. 107.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Using an experimental study to develop group awareness support for real-time distributed collaborative writing

Tran

Raikundalia

Yang

2006

Information and Software Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

User embodiment in collaborative virtual environments

Cited by 277 publications

References 8 publications

Collaborators awareness for user cohabitation in co-located collaborative virtual environments

Collaborators awareness for user cohabitation in co-located collaborative virtual environments

Computer-Supported Work in Partially Distributed and Co-located Teams: The Influence of Mood Feedback

Using an experimental study to develop group awareness support for real-time distributed collaborative writing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About