Informal Communication and the IRC Plus Webcam System

Transcription

1 Some Experiences with IRC, Webcams, and a Virtual Environment as Means for Informal Communication Theme: Collaborative Work and Education Lothar Mühlbach, Roland Buß, and Detlef Runde Heinrich-Hertz-Institut für Nachrichtentechnik Berlin GmbH (HHI) Einsteinufer 37, D Berlin, Germany, Phone: , Fax: , muehlb@hhi.de Abstract Within the framework of an exploratory Human Factors study three systems were examined in terms of their usefulness and usability for informal communication of distributed work groups: An Internet Relay Chat (IRC) system, an IRC system supplemented by Webcam pictures (i.e. periodically updated still pictures on a Web page), and a virtual environment system. Results showed, among other things, that IRC supports text based informal communication in an easy and straightforward manner. Shortcomings of IRC are problems with synchronising the textual speech acts and difficulties with finding out whether another user is willing to communicate. The latter problem was solved at least partially by the IRC plus Webcams system: Users could assess the availability of their potential interlocutors to a far better extent. The Human Factors test of the virtual environment system showed, that the graphical capabilities of the system are suitable for conveying mimic and body language signals, at least in principle. Key words: informal communication, telework, tele co-operation, IRC, Webcams, virtual environment 1. Introduction By "informal communication" we mean a kind of communication that is spontaneous, often coincidental and "impromptu" [see also 1, 2]. It happens on office floors, in the course of coffee breaks of a congress, etc. Various studies have shown that informal communication is crucial for creative work groups, such as Research and Technological Development teams. This applies not only to the well-being of the group but also to its efficiency and productivity [3]. Considering this, several attempts have been made to develop telecommunications systems that support informal communication. Among those are the VideoWindow [4], the Cruiser [5], the Polyscope system [6], the Electronic Agora [7], the FreeWalk system [8], the Piazza [2], and various others. Whereas the benefits of such systems are generally acknowledged by their users, 1

2 problems have occurred related to privacy issues, disturbances at work, and a lack of control. A feature that allows to check without disturbing, whether the remote colleague is willing to begin an encounter seems to be essential but is often missing. Generally speaking, most of the systems have not been able to transfer the subtle (mainly nonverbal) communication signals that are common in face-to-face communication. Videocommunications however, which have the potential of conveying such a kind of signals, have turned out to cause resistance of potential teleworkers, due to fears of violating privacy (see below). Considering this, we did Human Factors research aiming at establishing a basis for teleco-operation systems that enable informal communication between the members of distributed work groups similar to face-to-face encounters without violating teleworkers privacy sphere. 2. Method Within the framework of an exploratory study we examined three systems in terms of their usefulness and usability for informal communication of distributed work groups: an Internet Relay Chat (IRC) system an IRC plus Webcams system, i.e. an IRC system combined with a Web page showing still pictures of the work group members taken by Webcams (the pictures were refreshed every 10 seconds) a virtual environment system, which provided a virtual office environment in which the work group members were represented by avatars. The systems were tested by a project group (five to six people from the Human Factors department) in their every day work for around four weeks each. Data were collected by means of log files of system use, protocol sheets, questionnaires, interviews, and group discussions. Prior to the system tests we did an interview study that among other things aimed at analysing and modelling the stages and signals of informal face-to-face meetings. 3. Interview Study 19 interviews were conducted with people from different working areas [for details see 3]. Among other things, the interview questions referred to occasions, locations, duration, benefits, and disadvantages of informal communication under non-mediated conditions. One question was on whether the interviewees could imagine informal communication by means of videocommunications. The interviews were carried out at the interviewees' (non-telework) place of work. The study confirmed our expectation that informal communication is considered important or even indispensable within the context of work. Besides improving the social climate at work and the subjective well-being of employees in general, various specific positive functions of informal communication were mentioned by our interviewees. Amongst the most crucial conditions for informal communication to take place are confidentiality and privacy. The occurrence of informal communication strongly relies 2

3 on the awareness of the willingness of potential communicators to talk. Although informal communication usually occurs spontaneously and coincidentally, there are also occasions where people seem to "provoke coincidence". Some of our interviewees told us that they sometimes cruised along the floor or appeared at common places (e.g. a tea room) because they were chasing for an informal chat. Being asked about the role of videocommunications as a means for informal telecommunications, the majority of our interviewees (who were, however, not very experienced in videoconferencing or videotelephony) could hardly imagine to communicate informally by means of videocommunications. The main reservations stemmed from concerns regarding privacy and confidentiality. 4. A three Stages Model of Informal Communication The analysis and consolidation of the results of the interview study, together with some findings in the literature [1, 4, 9], led to the following model of informal communication stages: Exploration Stage In this stage people try to discover if a potential interlocutor is available for communication. If he or she is not, they try to estimate, when it might be wise to start a next attempt. Negotiation Stage People signalise the communication request to the desired partner using mainly nonverbal signals, such as physical approach, special gestures, eye contact, etc. Depending on the reaction of the potential interlocutor the third stage will be started or the communication request will be cancelled. "Actual" Communication Stage: Here the actual communication takes place using verbal and non-verbal signals. But also aspects of the first two stages are still valid: During the communication, partners continuously check the willingness of their interlocutors for a further communication. For closing the communication people use the same subtle mechanisms as at the beginning of a conversation. 5. A Field Trial with an Internet Relay Chat System An IRC text chat system was tested in a four-weeks field trail by five people from the Human Factors department of the HHI. The appearance of a person in the chat channel/room signalised the readiness for informal communications, at least in principle. The communication was restricted to textual conversation. Contributions were visible to all participants in the chat channel. Additionally, the system provided the possibility to establish private communications between two IRC channel attendees. The system was used for spontaneous inquiries to a particular team members or to a group of team members (e.g. seeking help in case of computer problems) 3

4 brainstorming and discussing urgent problems dissemination of news and information scheduling ad hoc meetings. It turned out that IRC supported text based informal communication in an easy and straightforward manner. Shortcomings of IRC were problems with synchronising the textual speech acts, insufficiencies with conveying signals that are usually conveyed non-verbally, and difficulties with finding out whether another user is actually ready to communicate. As an example, one could not know whether the other participants were looking at the screen, doing separate work, or even have disappeared from their computers. 6. A Field Trial with an IRC plus Webcams System In a second step, a component that displayed periodically captured still images of the working places of each project group member was added to the IRC system. In order to accomplish this, a small camera was installed on the top of the monitor of each potential interlocutor. The still images captured by those cameras were transferred to a server. A special server software, developed by HHI, checked for new images of the participants in predefined time intervals (every 10 seconds) and integrated them into an HTML document. Any interlocutor who had activated his/her own camera, had access to this document by an ordinary web browser. Fig. 1:Shot of a project group member's screen during the IRC plus Webcams trial (IRC on the left, WWW page showing still images on the right) Fig. 1 shows a screenshot of a communication situation using the IRC plus Webcams system. The main part of the screen is covered by the IRC windows (on the left). The upper part of it provides status information from the IRC server. Below you can see two 4

5 communication channel windows: the lowest is a public channel with five participants, who are just communicating, the other channel is idle at the moment. At the right side of the screen you can see a Web browser window showing still images of all participants of the ongoing communication who have switched on their cameras. The still images of the interlocutors were expected to facilitate stage 1 of the Three Stages Model (see Section 4) because participants could get further information about the others: who is at his/her place of work, who is busy with a telephone call, etc. The system was tested in a field trial lasting for a period of four weeks time. Six people took part. The trial consisted of two phases: a) The test subjects used the system for two weeks in order to experience whether it was suitable for informal communication or not. They decided by their own if and when to use the IRC part alone or the combination of IRC plus the Webcam component. b) During the third week of the trial, the Webcam system was not available, and during the last week even the IRC system was shut off, so that no mediated communication was supported any longer ("withdrawal stage"). The main results of this field trial can be summarized as follows: The participants were on IRC during 80% of their work time. This shows the importance of being able to communicate informally at work. The Webcams were activated during 70% of the participants' work time. The participants used the still images as intended mainly to gain information about the readiness and willingness of potential communicators to talk (stage 1 of the Three Stages Model, see above). They made less mistakes concerning this assessment than in the IRC-only trial. The symmetry of communication (you can see the images of the others only if you make your own image available) was rated as being very important for the confidence in the system. Without being able to communicate via IRC (at the end of the trial), test subjects had the impression of being less informed and more isolated. They missed the opportunity to ask spontaneous questions or to forward brief information. 7. A Field Trial with a Virtual Environment System Considering the shortcomings of the systems described above, the Human Factors test of the virtual environment system focussed on the system's suitability for enabling the use of the subtle non-verbal signals that are common in the exploration and negotiating stages of informal communication (see Section 4). As the virtual environment system the Roomancer TM system was used 1. This system was originally designed for entertainment purposes. As far as possible, Roomancer TM was 1 We explored various virtual environmental systems in terms of their suitability for our field trial (The Palace, Microsoft V-Chat, Sony Community Place, Blaxxun, etc.). Roomancer seemed to be superior, due to its graphical features and its possibilities to easily design a customised virtual environment. 5

6 adapted to working situations for this study. Each participant was represented by an avatar (see Fig. 2). Avatars in the Roomancer TM system are able to move freely in a three-dimensional space. Therefore it was possible to signalise communication desires and the willingness to communicate by means of "physical" distance (i.e. the distance of avatars). Additional features of the avatars are mimic and body language expressions and the ability to interact with objects and other avatars in the virtual space. The animation of avatars is comparatively smooth. Fig. 2: Screenshot of a working situation in the virtual environment The test showed that the graphical capabilities of the system are suitable for conveying mimic and body language signals, at least in principle. As an example, it was possible to signalise a high degree of communication readiness by placing the avatar into a rest area of the virtual office. When two people were involved in a private talk a low degree of willingness to begin an encounter with another person was signalled by the graphical representation (see Fig. 2, in the foreground). However, it turned out that the avatars should be able to show more detailed and a larger number of non-verbal signals. In particular, they should be able to show those signals that are relevant in a working environment. 6

7 In the context of informal communication, one of the main disadvantages of Roomancer TM was the amount of attention participants had to spend on the system. During their every day work, participants often kept the system running in the background while performing tasks with other programs. Therefore, it happened more often than with the IRC system (see above), where a beep alerted users if a contribution occurred, that textual communications were missed. This contributed to the result that the virtual environmental system was assessed inferior to the IRC system in terms of usability. It also turned out that for sensing presence in a virtual environment an important issue is the possibility of choosing an avatar from a large pre-defined set or creating an own, special one. This seems to have a large influence on how users feel represented in the virtual environment as well as on the manner other users react on them. In conclusion it can be said that virtual environments have the potential to support informal communication, especially in the exploration and negotiation stage. In addition, they combine a high degree of telepresence with the protection of teleworkers' privacy. For a higher suitability and usability of virtual environments in a working context virtual environments systems should meet the requirements of working situations in a more proper way. 8. Conclusions and Outlook Our studies have shown that informal communication is very important in the context of work and, hence, that telecommunication systems for tele co-operation and telework should consider it. As a general conclusion, one can expect systems that support informal communication to enhance user satisfaction and the efficiency of work. It turned out that the issues of privacy and confidentiality play a crucial role in the willingness of potential users to communicate informally via telecommunication systems. If users have the feeling that privacy and security are not guaranteed the uptake of those systems will be poor. Considering this, such systems should come with features that enable the user to determine the level of "openness" and to check who is monitoring his/her conversation. IRC supports text based informal communication in an easy and straightforward manner. Important features are private DCC chats and a beep that alert users when a contribution occurs and IRC is running in the background. Shortcomings of IRC are problems with synchronising the textual speech acts, insufficiencies with conveying signals that are usually conveyed non-verbally (such as mimic signals), and difficulties with finding out whether another user is actually ready to communicate (or if he or she has disappeared from the computer). The latter problem was solved at least partially by the IRC plus Webcam system: Users could assess the availability of their potential interlocutors to a sufficient extent. Moreover, the system contributed to the users' feeling of group cohesion. The Human Factors test of the virtual environment system focussed on the system's suitability for enabling the use of the subtle non-verbal signals that are common in the initiating stage of informal communication. The test showed, that the graphical capabilities of the system are suitable for conveying mimic and body language signals, 7

8 at least in principle. However, it turned out that the avatars should be able to show more detailed and a larger number of non-verbal signals. In particular, they should be able to show those signals that are relevant in a working environment. Due to navigation difficulties and other problems the usability of the tested system was too low to consider it useful for distributed work groups. Within the framework of a just started new research and development project ("a communication platform for informal and computer supported communication for telework and tele co-operation") the HHI is studying those issues. 9. Acknowledgements The studies presented in this paper were funded by the German Ministry for Education, Science, Research, and Technology (BMBF) and the Federal State of Berlin. The authors are responsible for the content of this paper. 10. References [1] Kraut, R. E.; Fish, R. S.; Root, R. W.; & Chalfonte, B. L.: Informal Communication in Organizations: Form, Functions, and Technology. In: S. Oskamp and S. Spacapan (eds.): Human Reactions to Technology. The Claremont Symposium on Applied Social Psychology. Beverly Hills, CA 1990, Sage Publications. [2] Isaacs, E. A.; Tang, J. C.; & Morris, T.: Piazza: A Desktop Environment Supporting Impromptu and Planned Interactions. Proc. of the ACM 1996 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Boston USA. [3] Suwita, A.; Mühlbach, L.: Videocommunications as a Medium for Informal Communication? Proc. of the 16 th International Symposium on Human Factors in Telecommunications. Oslo, Norway. May 12-16, [4] Fish, R. S.; Kraut, R. E.; Root, R. W.; & Rice, R. E.: Evaluating Video as a Technology for Informal Communication. CHI '92, Proc. of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 3-7 May 1992, Monterey, CA. [5] Root, W. R.: Design of a Multi-Media Vehicle for Social Browsing. Proc. of the Conference on Computer-Supported Co-operative Work September 1988, Portland, OR. [6] Borning, A. & Travers, M.: Two approaches to Casual Interaction over Computer and Video Networks. CHI '91, Conference Proceedings. [7] Travis, D.: Teleproxemics: Ubiquitous Displays for Videoconferencing. SID 95 DIGEST. [8] Nakanishi, H.; Yoshida, C.; Nishimura, T.; & Ishida, T.: FreeWalk: Supporting Casual Meetings in a Network. Proc. of the ACM 1996 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Boston USA. [9] Goffman, E.: Behavior in public places. Glencoe, Ill: The Free Press,