When collaborators work on a physical task, seeing a common workspace transforms their language use and reduces their overall collaborative effort. This article shows how visual information can make communication more efficient. In an experiment, dyads collaborated on building a puzzle. They communicated without a shared visual space, using a shared space featuring immediately updated visual information, and using a shared space featuring delayed visual updating. Having the shared visual space helps collaborators understand the current state of their task and enables them to ground their conversations efficiently, as seen in the ways in which participants adapted their discourse processes to their level of shared visual information. These processes are associated with faster and better task performance. Delaying the visual update reduces benefits and degrades performance. The shared visual space is more useful when tasks are visually complex or when participants have no simple vocabulary for describing their environments.
Argyle, M., & Cook, M. (1976). Gaze and mutual gaze. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
2.
Barnard, P., May, J., & Salber, D. (1996). Deixis and points of view in media spaces: An empirical gesture. Behaviour and Information Technology, 15, 37-50.
3.
Boyle, E. A., Anderson, A. H., & Newlands, A. (1994). The effects of visibility on dialogue and performance in a cooperative problem solving task. Language & Speech, 37, 1-20.
4.
Brennan, S. E. (in press). How conversation is shaped by visual and spoken evidence. In J. Trueswell & M. Tanenhaus (Eds.), World situated language use: Psycholinguistic, linguistic and computational perspectives on bridging the product and action traditions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5.
Chapanis, A., Ochsman, R.B., Parrish, R.N.,& Weeks, G.D. (1972). Studies in interactive communication: I. The effects of four communication modes on the behavior of teams during cooperative problem-solving. Human Factors, 14, 487-509.
6.
Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
7.
Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. B. Resnick, R. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127-149). Washington, DC: APA.
8.
Clark, H. H., & Krych, M. A. (2004). Speaking while monitoring addressees for understanding. Journal of Memory & Language, 50, 62-81.
9.
Clark, H. H., & Marshall, C. R. (1981). Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In B. L. Webber, A. K. Joshi, & I. A. Sag (Eds.), Elements of discourse understanding (pp. 10-63). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
10.
Clark, H. H., & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22, 1-39.
11.
Endsley, M. R. (1995). Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors Special Issue: Situation Awareness, 37, 32-64.
12.
Fussell, S. R., Kraut, R. E., & Siegel, J. (2000). Coordination of communication: Effects of shared visual context on collaborative work. Proceedings of the Conference on Computer-Supported Work (CSCW), 2(3), 21-30.
13.
Fussell, S. R., Setlock, L. D., & Kraut, R. E. (2003). Effects of head-mounted and scene-oriented video systems on remote collaboration on physical tasks. Proceedings of the Conference on Computer-Human Interaction (CHI), 5(1), 513-520.
14.
Fussell, S. R., Setlock, L. D., & Parker, E. M. (2003). Where do helpers look? Gaze targets during collaborative physical tasks. Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI) (Extended Abstracts), 5(1), 768-769.
15.
Fussell, S. R., Setlock, L. D., Yang, J., Ou, J., Mauer, E. M., & Kramer, A. (2004). Gestures over video streams to support remote collaboration on physical tasks. Human-Computer Interaction, 19, 273-309.
16.
Gergle, D., Kraut, R. E., & Fussell, S. R. (in press). Action as language in a shared visual space. Proceedings of the Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW). New York: ACM Press.
17.
Gergle, D., Millen, D., Kraut, R., & Fussell, S. (2004). Persistence matters: Making the most of chat in tightly-coupled work. Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI), 6(1), 431-438.
18.
Isaacs, E. A., & Clark, H. H. (1987). References in conversation between experts and novices. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 116, 26-37.
19.
Krauss, R. M., & Bricker, P. D. (1967). Effects of transmission delay on the efficiency of verbal communication. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 41, 286-292.
20.
Kraut, R. E., Fussell, S. R., Brennan, S. E., & Siegel, J. (2002). Understanding effects of proximity on collaboration: Implications for technologies to support remote collaborative work. In P. Hinds & S. Kiesler (Eds.), Distributed work (pp. 137-162). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
21.
Kraut, R. E., Fussell, S. R., & Siegel, J. (2003). Visual information as a conversational resource in collaborative physical tasks. Human Computer Interaction, 18, 13-49.
22.
Kraut, R. E., Gergle, D., & Fussell, S. R. (2002). The use of visual information in shared visual spaces: Informing the development of virtual co-presence. Proceedings of the Conference on Computer-Supported Work (CSCW), 4(3), 31-40.
23.
Nardi, B. A., Schwarz, H., Kuchinsky, A., Leichner, R., Whittaker, S., & Sclabassi, R. (1993). Turning away from talking heads: The use of video-as-data in neurosurgery. In S. Ashlund, K. Mullet, A. Henderson, E. Hollnagel,& T. White (Eds.), Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI) (pp. 327-334). New York: ACM Press.
24.
Schober, M. F. (1993). Spatial perspective-taking in conversation. Cognition, 47, 1-24.
25.
Schober, M. F., & Clark, H. H. (1989). Understanding by addressees and overhearers. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 211-232.
26.
Short, J., Williams, E.,& Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. London: Wiley.
