Post on 13-Jul-2015
Do People Search Collaboratively?
• 3.8 to 1 student-to-computer ratio in U.S. public schools
• 5000 to 3 person-to-computer ratio in U.S. public libraries
• 10 to 1 student-to-computer ratio in developing world schools
3
• YES!
…but current search engines and web browsers do not support collaborative search.
4
Do People Search Collaboratively?
• People• 2 Librarians• 3 Teachers• 2 Developing world researchers
• Questions• Who collaboratively searches the Web?• Why do they collaboratively search?• How do they currently search in co-located settings?
Interview Study
5
Who Collaboratively Searches & Why?
• Youth, Teens & Students
• Seniors & new immigrants
• People in rural regions of the developing world
• Small business employees
• Pedagogical and social value
• Unfamiliarity with technology
• Resource constraints6
• Drivers control input devices
• Observers make suggestions verbally or through gestures
How Do They Collaboratively Search?
7
• Difficulties contributing
• Controlling drivers may ignore observer suggestions
• Demanding observers may make it difficult for drivers to make contributions
8
Limitations
• Pacing problems
• Scrolling too fast or too slow
• Navigating away from a page too quickly
9
Limitations
• Referential difficulties
• Difficulty referring to on-screen content if situated away from the display
10
Limitations
Limitations
• Difficulties contributing
• Pacing problems
• Referential difficulties
• Single-track strategies
• Lack of hands-on learning
• Information loss
12
Design Implications
• Facilitate co-located collaborative search
• Enable distributed control and division of labor
• Encourage collaboration, communication and awareness
• Leverage ubiquitous devices (mice and mobile phones)Related work (Inkpen, 1999; Pawar et al., 2007; Paek et al., 2004;
Ballagas et al., 2005; Mahaney and Pierce, 2003; Han et al., 2000)
13
• CoSearch with multiple mice• Refer to paper
• CoSearch with mobile phones• In this talk
14
CoSearch
• Individual color-coded cursors
• Also helps to
• Refer to on-screen content
• Enable hands-on-learning
16
Distributing Control
Status-quo Limitations CoSearch Features
Difficulties contributing Individual color-coded cursors, Query Queue & query by text messaging, Page Queue
Pacing Problems Viewing Web pages in mobile phones
Referential difficulties Individual cursors controlled by mice or mobile phones
Single-track strategies Viewing Web pages in mobile phones
Lack of hands-on learning Individual input devices (mice and mobile phones)
Information loss Notes regions, summaries
Evaluation Goals
• Assess how well CoSearch enables:
• Distributed control
• Division of labor
• Group communication
• Awareness
22
Participants
• 3 person groups, 12 groups• 21 males, 15 females• 12 - 76 years old• Experienced and non-experienced searchers• Experienced and non-experienced mobile phone users• Friends, siblings, children with parents, adults with
grandparents
23
• Within-subject• 3 conditions: CoSearch, Shared, Parallel
• 2 tasks per condition• One fixed (e.g., “Which state is the birthplace of the
most U.S. Vice Presidents?”)• One group-selected (e.g., planning a trip or group activity)
• Questionnaires, log data, observations 24
Study Design
• Communication• CoSearch and Shared better than Parallel (p<.01)
• Collaboration• CoSearch and Shared better than Parallel (p<.01)
26
Communication & Collaboration
• Communication• CoSearch and Shared better than Parallel (p<.01)
• Collaboration• CoSearch and Shared better than Parallel (p<.01)
• Frustration• Observers more frustrated in Shared than drivers (p<.03)
• Experienced searchers more frustrated in Shared than less experienced (p<.01)
• No differences in CoSearch
27
Reduced Frustration
• Distribution of Control• “Submit search topics without having to yell at the person
on the computer”
• ”Have more of a say in what’s going on on screen”
• “Go at my own pace”
• Division of Labor• “We could search many offshoots of the same topic at
once”
• “Input more ideas on how to find the answer”
28
Control & Division of Labor
• Overall • #1 Favorite: Parallel (15 participants)
• #2 Favorite: CoSearch (11 participants)
• #3 Favorite: Shared (7 participants)
• CoSearch better than Parallel for communication collaboration
• CoSearch intended for resource-constrained environments where Parallel is not feasible
• CoSearch better than Shared for distribution of control, division of labor, and reduced frustration
29
Overall
• Awareness• Shared better than CoSearch and Parallel (p<.04)
• Experienced SMS users more aware of group in CoSearch than less experienced users (p<.02)
• Feelings of being ignored• More so in CoSearch and Parallel than Shared (p<.01)
• Only 55.3% of observer queries were executed by drivers
• Only 10.88% of observer Web pages viewed by group
30
Problems with CoSearch
• Usability
• People able to quickly learn CoSearch
• More-experienced searchers found it easier than less experienced (p<.03)
• Technological Limitations
• Lag in WiFi and Bluetooth
• Small screens and keypads
31
CoSearch Usability
Recap
• Interview Study to learn about status-quo co-located collaborative search practices (Shared & Parallel)
• Developed CoSearch to address limitations of current practices
• Evaluated CoSearch against current practices• CoSearch better than Parallel for communication and
collaboration
• CoSearch better than Shared for reducing frustrations and increasing control and division of labor
• Still room for improvement in CoSearch
32
Conclusion
• Shared-computing still prevalent in many scenarios.
• CoSearch enhances the shared-computing experience by leveraging additional devices in the environment.
33
Thank you!
34
Status-quo Limitations
CoSearch Features
Difficulties contributing
Individual cursors, Query Queue & query by text messaging, Page Queue
Pacing Problems Viewing Web pages in mobile phones
Referential difficulties
Cursors controlled by mice or mobile phones
Single-track strategies
Viewing Web pages in mobile phones
Lack of hands-on learning
Individual input devices (mice and phones)
Information loss Notes regions, summaries