Do Tablets R eally S upport D iscussion?:
Comparison between Paper, Tablet, and Laptop PC U sed as D iscussion T ools
Kentaro Takano
Fuji Xerox Co.,Ltd.
Graduate School of Information Systems,
The University of Electro- Communications
1-5-1 Chofugaoka, Chofu, Tokyo 182-8585, JAPAN TEL: +81-42-443-5686
[email protected]
Hirohito Shibata and Kengo Omura
Fuji Xerox Co.,Ltd.
430 Sakai, Nakai-machi, Ashigarakami-gun, Kanagawa 259-0157, JAPAN.
TEL: +81-45-755-{8598; 8569}
{hirohito.shibata;
kengo.omura}@fujixerox.co.jp
Junko Ichino, Tomonori, Hashiyama and Shun’ichi
Tano
Graduate School of Information Systems,
The University of Electro- Communications 1-5-1 Chofugaoka, Chofu, Tokyo
182-8585, JAPAN TEL: +81-42-443-{5674; 5669;
5665}
{ichino; hashiyama; tano}
@is.uec.ac.jp
ABSTRACT
Touch-based tablet devices are starting to be used frequently in meetings and places of discussion.
However, are tablets really ideal as discussion tools? Or do they actually obstruct communication? To answer these questions, this paper quantitatively compares discussion processes involving paper, an iPad2, and a laptop PC. We performed an experiment where 12 groups of two participants each (24 participants in total) worked collaboratively by referring to documents and using paper, an iPad2, or a laptop PC as presentation media. We observed verbal and non-verbal interaction between participants. First, we investigated the total amount of speech between two participants and found they spoke more when using paper than when using the electronic media. Next, we observed that participants used more demonstrative pronouns when using paper than when using the iPad2 but used more demonstrative pronouns when using the iPad2 than when using the laptop PC.
Also, they made more eye contact when using paper than when using the other media. These results suggest that tablets may not currently be the best media to use when ideas should be actively exchanged, sensitivity is required toward other participants in the discussion, or work progress needs to be shared.
Author Keywords
Paper, Tablet device, Reading to support discussion.
ACM Classification Keywords
H5.m. Information interfaces and presentation (e.g.,
HCI): Miscellaneous.
INTRODUCTION
This paper describes an experimental study in reading for discussion. The study compared the process of discussion by referring to documents on paper, tablet devices (hereinafter, tablets), and laptop PCs.
Various experiments have compared the reading speed and visual and physical fatigue of reading text on paper and electronic media (Dillon, 1992; Gould et al., 1987a;
Gould et al., 1987b; Isono et al., 2005; Mills and Weldon, 1987; Muter and Maurutto, 1991; Nielsen, 2010; Shibata and Omura, 2010; Shibata and Omura, 2011; Shibata and Omura, 2012; Takano et al., 2012). In general, research shows that the difference in display quality between the media does not significantly affect reading speed or eyestrain, but the ability to move paper documents and the ease in going back and forth between pages positively affects reading speed.
These studies have explained how comfortably one person can read, but they have not dealt with collaborative work situations or analyzed the effects of paper or electronic media when several people refer to documents for collaborative discussion.
However, there are many cases in the real world where several people read the same document in meetings and conferences. According to Adler et al.’s (Adler et al., 1998) observation of 15 knowledge workers, reading during a discussion was the third most frequent type of reading (22% of all reading) after reading for cross- referencing and reading to answer questions.
Previous studies describe how the act of referring to paper documents can effectively support a conversation based on the observation of various work processes (Luff and Heath, 1998; Sellen and Harper, 2001). For example, doctors prefer to position medical charts so they can look
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part 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. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee.
OZCHI’12, November 26–30, 2012, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Copyright 2012 ACM 978-1-4503-1438-1/12/11…$10.00.
at the patient’s face and the chart at the same time when asking questions, and place the chart so that the patients can see it when the doctor explains their condition to them. In contrast, it is not easy to change the position and location of PC screens, and this makes it difficult to use a PC the same way as paper. In addition, a study shows that police prefer to use paper notebooks instead of laptop PCs to take notes when interviewing victims. This is because the role of the police is not only to collect information from the victims but also to console them. To do so, it is important for them to be able to look at the victims’ face and behavior in order to understand their feelings and to make victims feel that what they say is being heeded.
However, compared with paper notebooks, a laptop PC is much more complicated to handle, which constricts the police in collecting information as well as preventing them from looking at the victim. Furthermore, they have to interrupt the victim to input all the information. On the other hand, it is easier to take notes on paper, so they can collect information easily while being more sensitive to the victim’s feelings. These studies suggest that the usability of paper can support conversation by enabling someone to pay attention to another person’s expressions.
However, these studies were qualitatively performed on the basis of observation, and their results have not been discussed on the basis of quantitative data.
Also, these studies have been performed by comparing paper and PCs, but not tablets. Compared to PCs, tablets are easier to move and position in order to show documents to other people. Furthermore, unlike PC screens, tablets are mostly read by laying them flat, not vertically. Also, a study showed that people tend to point at the screen while talking more often when it is laid flat than when the screen is standing vertically (Inkpen et al., 2005). This can be a factor affecting the process of collaborative discussions, but the differences between tablets and paper in reading during discussions have not been compared up to now.
On the other hand, tablets have started being used frequently in meetings and places of discussion. For example, many applications and tools have been developed for tablets to support meetings, sales, and business negotiations, such as tools to create presentations utilizing videos to appeal to customers, accessing the latest information, and creating estimates on the fly. All these actions can be performed with a PC, but tablets are more attractive because touch panel interfaces are more intuitive than a mouse or keyboard. Furthermore, tablets are lighter to carry around than PCs, and users can easily show the screen to other people.
However, are tablets really ideal as discussion tools? Or do they actually obstruct communication? To answer these questions, this paper quantitatively compares the affects in the process and output of discussions when paper, tablets, and PCs are used to read documents in a setting that requires discussion.
PURPOSE AND HYPOTHESIS Purpose
As mentioned in the previous section, reading in a business situation is relevant to collaborative discussion.
A certain document is sometimes discussed while being projected, but two workers sometimes bring documents printed out on paper and discuss them in a quick meeting or debriefing (Belloti and Bly, 1996; Luff and Heath, 1998). Although participants in a meeting share the same document, they often refer to their own personal documents. This paper analyzes the latter situation.
Problems that are dealt with in a discussion can be divided into two. One is a problem with a unique answer (well-posed problem), and the other is a problem without a unique answer (ill-posed problem). Since most discussions that we have in our daily work do not have a correct answer, such as planning a project or coming up with a product design, this paper deals with these ill- posed problems.
As mentioned before, there are three problems when using a PC in a discussion. First, selecting and inputting information is more difficult on a PC than on paper, and it hampers the conversation (Sellen and Harper, 2001).
Second, it is difficult to move and reposition a PC screen to show the document to other people (Luff and Heath, 1998). Third, the difficulty of entering and selecting information on a PC forces people to concentrate on the screen, making it harder to look at the other person (Sellen and Harper). Moreover, the difficulty of looking at other people is also due to the inflexibility of moving the screen, unlike paper, to a better position that enables them to see the document and the person at the same time (Luff and Heath).
These problems with PCs have the following effects in discussions. First, due to the interruption in the conversation, they cause longer silences and make lively discussion difficult. We hypothesize that this causes fewer things to be said in a discussion.
Second, less frequent sharing of documents makes it difficult to point out at what each person is looking and to have a smooth discussion. Kraut et al. (Kraut et al., 2003) states that the more a task is shared visually, the more demonstrative pronouns are used in the conversation, which makes the discussion effective. From this, we hypothesize that the frequency with which demonstrative pronouns are used in the discussion will be affected.
Last, we think that the difficulty of looking at people while talking can affect the number of times people make eye contact. Researches in social psychology suggest the importance of making eye contact in discussions, because the more one person looks at the other, the better the impression the other person will have of his/her discussion partner (Cook, 1970). Also, eye contact is very functional in social interaction: it expresses intentions and feelings effectively (Kendon, 1967). It is also suggested that the ability to sustain human relations in a discussion dealing with ill-posed problems can significantly affect the participants’ satisfaction with the discussion (Suzuki and Muramoto, 2009). We hypothesize that the ability to
look at people in the face will affect the amount of eye contact, which in turn affects how people consider others.
In this paper, we will investigate whether these three aspects are better on tablets than PCs and compare discussion processes that use paper, iPads, and PCs.
Hypotheses
This experiment contains the following six hypotheses.
Hypothesis 1: There will be less conversation when tablets or PCs are used instead of paper.
A previous experiment showed that reading documents with several pages was easier on paper than on tablets and PCs (Takano et al., 2012). In addition, the cognitive load is heavier for typing than writing (Hamzah et al., 2006), and adding notes on a document is easier on paper. Also, notes can be written and text can be underlined on documents on tablets by touching the screen, but haptic feedback is lower on touch screens than on paper, and there is also some latency in the display of the notes.
Reading while discussing requires reading, talking, and listening at the same time, so we think that media usability, or the lack of, can affect the mental burden of an individual more than when tasks are done individually.
Therefore, we hypothesize that the act of controlling tablets and PCs can interrupt the conversation more often than using paper and decrease the amount of conversation as a result.
Hypothesis 2: There will be more conversation when tablets are used instead of PCs.
This is because a touch panel is more intuitive than a mouse and a keyboard, which indirectly control the document. Therefore, we hypothesize that the conversation is interrupted less frequently when a tablet is used, resulting in more conversation.
Hypothesis 3: More demonstrative pronouns will be used in the discussion when paper is used instead of tablets or PCs.
Generally, paper documents used in meetings weigh less than PCs or tablets, and we think that people will move paper more than the other media. Furthermore, as mentioned before, it is easier to refer back and forth between pages and add notes on paper, enabling the reader to notice the other person more. This will help increase the opportunity to show your progress to the other person and vice versa, so demonstrative pronouns will be more frequently used when paper is used instead of tablets and PCs.
Hypothesis 4: More demonstrative pronouns will be used in the discussion when tablets are used rather than PCs.
This is because it is easier to show your document to another person on a tablet than a PC. Also, there is a study suggesting that it is easier to tell what the other person is doing when a touch panel is used due to the usage of fingers and hands than when a mouse is used (Hornecker et al., 2008). Furthermore, demonstrative pronouns are used when a person points at an object (Gutwin and Greenberg, 2000), and there are studies that show that people point at the screen more when it is laid horizontally than when it is standing vertically (Inkpen et
al., 2005; Morris et al., 2007). Therefore, since it is easier to share the work progress with other people when using tablets rather than PCs, we hypothesize that demonstrative pronouns will be used more frequently.
Hypothesis 5: Eye contact will be more frequent when paper is used instead of tablet devices or PCs.
Paper weighs less than tablets and PCs, so it is easy to lift paper to a height at which it can be read and still be able to see the face of the other party. Also, as mentioned before, it is easier to go back and forth between pages, take notes, and move to a position where the face of the other party can be seen. Therefore, it makes it easier to be sensitive to the other party, resulting in more frequent eye contact than when tablets or PCs are used.
Hypothesis 6: Eye contact will be more frequent when tables are used rather than PCs.
As mentioned before, a touch panel is more intuitive than a mouse and keyboard. Furthermore, a tablet can be held more easily than a PC. It can be held to a position where the face of the other person is easy to look at, and the intuitive usability can be less distracting for the user, helping them pay attention to the other person. Therefore, there is more eye contact than when a PC is used.
METHOD
Design and subjects. The experimental design was a within-subjects design where the factors were different types of media (paper, iPad, and PC). All groups (2 people per group) did the task three times, each time with a different type of media. Each group member used the same media during a given task. The orders of the media and documents in the series of the subjects’ trials were counterbalanced to cancel the overall effects of the trial order.
This study had 24 participants (12 male, 12 female), all native Japanese speakers between the ages of 20-38 (avg.
28.5). They all had had more than three years of experience in using computers, corrective eyesight more than 14/20, and each group consisted of two people who knew each other before this study.
Materials. Documents used for the experiment were excerpts from a guidebook on Italy for three different cities: Venice, Milan, and Florence. Each excerpt was 19 to 24 pages long and included a two-page map and information on various sightseeing spots and restaurants in each city.
Task. The task was to plan a trip using the guidebook excerpts and was designed as a typical ill-posed problem.
The start and end point, budget, and time span were given as preconditions, and each group had to plan a day-trip to which both group members agreed. The details were as follows.
First, the following three factors needed to be decided in planning the trip.
1. Which sightseeing spots to go to based on the guidebook and how long you are going to stay there.
2. Which restaurant to go to for lunch based on the guidebook, and how much you are going to spend
for the meal, and how long you are going to stay there.
3. Which route to take to go to the sightseeing spots and restaurant.
The following are restrictions on making the plan.
You cannot exceed your budget (100€ per person).
You have to come back to the start point at a certain time (Leave a designated location at 10am and return to the same location between 4:45pm and 5:15pm).
You cannot visit a sightseeing spot or restaurant outside of business hours.
Travel by foot only.
To follow these restrictions, the following information needed to be referred to in the guidebook.
Business hours of sightseeing spots and restaurants.
Entrance fees for sightseeing spots.
Price of a meal at a restaurant (minimum/maximum price of a meal is listed).
Scale of map (to make a rough estimate of travel time).
At the beginning of the experiment, we gave this information to the participants and explained that, “We want you to plan a day-trip based on this guidebook.
Your interests may differ, so please do not plan a trip based on only one person’s interests but make it satisfying for both of you.”
These rules and directions were printed out and given to the participants so they could refer to them during the task.
The time limit for each task was 25 minutes, and each task ended when the time limit came or when the task was completed. Participants were asked to complete the task within the time limit and were notified when there were 10 minutes and 5 minutes left.
Experimental Condition. The following three types of displaying media were used:
Paper: Document was printed in color on A5 paper on both sides and was stapled at the top and bottom left corners of the pages.
Tablet (iPad): Apple iPad2 Wi-Fi 16G model
PC: HP ProBook4515S
Each group members was given their own paper, tablet, and PC to work with. A scanned PDF of a guidebook was used for all conditions, and the data was scanned at a resolution of 600dpi. The scanned PDF was then printed out for the paper condition. For the PC condition, Windows XP was used for the operating system, and Foxit J-Reader Plus 5.0 software was used so that text input, freehand annotations, and bookmark functions could be used. For the iPad condition, an application called iAnnotatePDF was used for the text input, freehand annotation function, and bookmark functions. Figure 1 shows how the tasks were done.
(a) Paper (b) iPad (c) PC
Figure 1. Photos showing (a) Paper, (b) iPad and (c) PC condition
Procedure. Reading in any posture and positioning the media any way were allowed for all media conditions.
Also, to create a situation similar to real life, no limitations were added to what could be done to the document. For example, notes and bookmarks could be added in all conditions (post-its were allowed to be used in the paper condition). Furthermore, in the paper condition, documents could be bent, folded, and disassembled, and zooming-in and zooming-out of the documents were allowed for the iPad and PC conditions.
In the experiment, the chairs were initially located on the opposite corners of the same side of a table, as often seen in meetings held in coffee spaces.
Also, each medium was placed so that it would be in front of the participants when they sat in the chairs. However, participants were allowed to move the media and to move their chairs to wherever they wanted after the experiment started.
On the table were pieces of paper and writing utensils with which to take notes. Participants were asked to write out their day-trip plan on a piece of paper. One person was pre-selected to explain the trip they had planned after each task.
Before the participants started each task with a certain media, they were given a short practice session in order to become used to the task and the software used in the experiment.
After each task, the participants were asked to answer a questionnaire concerning the discussions and then interviewed about the details of their answers to the questionnaire and whether they noticed anything during the task.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Task performance
Before looking at the differences in the discussion processes, we compared the output of the discussion. We scored the output of the discussion by the degree of attainment (if the group was able to create an 7-hour plan for 10am to 5pm, it scored 100), and one-way within- subject analysis of variance was performed for each media, and there were no significant differences between them [p>.1] (Results for paper, iPad, and PC, were 87.8, 82.6, and 75.3, respectively). Also, of the final 12 plans for each medium that were completed in this experiment, the number of plans that contained mistakes such as exceeding the budget, entering a store outside business hours for paper, iPad, and PC were 4, 3, and 3, respectively.
There are a few differences in the degree of attainment and accuracy of the results between the different media.
Total speaking time
The total time for which people spoke (amount of speech) was measured by subtracting the time both participants were silent from the total task time. The silences were identified visibly by looking at audio waveforms using Windows Movie Maker (Microsoft Corp.). Figure 2 shows the percentage of the task time for which people spoke. The error bars represent the standard error of the mean (same for all other graphs).
60.0 62.0 64.0 66.0 68.0 70.0 72.0 74.0 76.0 78.0 80.0
Paper iPad PC
The percentage of task time for which people spoke(%) 0～～
Figure 2. The percentage of task time for which people spoke.
A one-way within-subject analysis of variance was performed on the percentage of the task time for which people spoke and revealed significant differences among the used medium [F(2, 22)=7.7, p<.01]. According to multiple comparisons using the LSD method, the percentage of the task time for which people spoke was significantly higher in the paper condition than in the other conditions [p<.01] and the iPad condition and the PC condition did not significantly differ [p>.1].
Two things can be said from the above result. First, the percentages of people speaking out of the total task time are smaller for the iPad and PC than paper. This supports the first hypothesis that there would be less conversation when tablets and PCs were used instead of paper.
Second, there were no significant differences in the amount of conversation when an iPad or PC was used.
This does not support our second hypothesis that there would be more conversation when tablets were used rather than PCs.
Contrary to our hypothesis, there was no significant difference in the amount of conversation in iPad and PC conditions. This was because there was not much difference in the usability of the note taking functions and page changing functions of the iPad and PC, and interruptions in the conversation due to difficulty in usability were about the same.
In fact, it was difficult to go back and forth between pages on both the iPad and PC, so measures were taken by participants to decrease this action. In this task, it was necessary to go back and forth between the map page and the pages that explained the sightseeing spots and the restaurants. For example, if you find a place you want to visit in the sightseeing spots list, then you go to the map page to find its location and then go back to the
sightseeing spots list to check the entrance fee and business hours. To prevent this, there were groups that put the iPads and PCs side by side, left the map on one device, and used the other to look at the sightseeing spots and restaurants as in Figure 3. Later in the interview, the participants commented that “it was a hassle to go back and flick the pages to the map each time (on the iPad)”,
“ (Going back and forth between pages) was difficult. In the latter half of the time, we didn’t change the PC screen from the map page; we looked at the other PC for the other information”. Participants were able to omit this process of going back and forth from the map and information pages. However, there were comments that this decreased the effectiveness and freedom of looking up information; for example, “When one device was fixed on the map page, we needed to look around using the other device, which was time consuming and a little frustrating”.
On the other hand, when asked why they did not use the same method on paper, one participant said, “I looked it up myself because it was easy to go back to the other pages”. Also, when asked why, the participant answered,
“I’d remember that the restaurant page was in the back, so I could flip to it intuitively,” suggesting that they had a rough idea of where to flip to and could find that page rather quickly. Also, to go to the page quickly, many participants would put a finger on the page so that they could open it immediately. When this was mentioned to the participants, one commented “Oh. Maybe I had been doing that,” implying that it was done automatically, not purposefully. In this way, paper was not only fast to handle but also required very low cognitive resources.
This could be why conversation was not obstructed during the task.
(a) iPad (b) PC
Figure 3. Participants using one device to display the map and the other to display information of the sightseeing spots
and restaurants. (a) on iPad (b) on PC Use of demonstrative pronouns
The usage of demonstrative pronouns was compared to investigate how much the participants were able to share the points of discussion. Demonstrative pronouns such as
“here” and “there” can be used frequently in communication when a person knows what exactly the other is talking about. Figure 4 shows the number of demonstrative pronouns used in a minute.
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Paper iPad PC
Use of deictic proununs (times/min)
Figure 4. Use of demonstrative pronouns per minute A one-way within-subject analysis of variance was performed on the use of demonstrative pronouns per minute and revealed significant differences among the used media [F(2, 22)=17.9, p<.01]. According to multiple comparison using the LSD method, demonstrative pronouns were used more in the paper condition than in the other conditions [p<.05] and used more in the iPad condition than in the PC condition [p<.05].
Demonstrative pronouns were used most frequently with paper and least frequently with PCs. This supports our third and fourth hypotheses.
The results above show that participants could discuss and share points about what they were reading and their work progressed best when using paper, second best when using iPads, and worst when using PCs. Even in the follow-up questionnaire, participants commented that it was easier to know what their partner was reading when using paper than an iPad, and easier on an iPad than a PC.
In our hypothesis, we thought that people would share their work progress more on paper because it is lighter than an iPad or a PC, and they would move paper more often to show it to their partners. Indeed, paper was moved more frequently than an iPad or PC [p<.05]． (Results for paper, iPad, and PC were 0.23, 0.07, 0.05 movements per minute, respectively)．
In contrast, there were no significant differences in the frequencies in moving iPads and PCs to show partners documents [p>.1]. Still, we could observe the added effort required to share information when using a PC instead of an iPad. For example, unlike when paper or an iPad was used, a participant would occasionally stand up to move to look at his/her partner’s PC screen. Also, we observed the participants making big gestures when using a PC. For example, as seen in Figure 5, to confirm that they were both talking about a counter-clockwise route, a participant would make a big counter-clockwise hand gesture in front of the PC screen, saying, “go to this place, and then go this way…” In the interview after the task, the reason for the big gesture was, “(Unlike when we used paper or iPads) my partner could not see the (PC) screen even if I pointed it out saying, ‘here, here’”. This suggests that the PC screen was in a position that made it hard to see where the other person was pointing so participants needed to make big gestures.
Figure 5. Participants making big gestures when using PC In this way, the position when reading a document and the difference in the ease of moving the device affects the sharing of work progress, resulting in the differences in the frequency with which demonstrative pronouns were used.
Eye contact
Whether or not participants made eye contact was determined by visibly confirming when the participants looked at each other’s faces. Figure 6 compares the number of times eye contact was made per minute.
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16
Paper iPad PC
Eye contact (times/min)
Figure 6. Eye contact per minute
A one-way within-subject analysis of variance was performed on the amount of eye contact per minute and revealed significant differences among the media used [F(2, 22)=3.5, p<.05]. According to multiple comparisons using the LSD method, the amount of eye contact was significantly greater in the paper condition than in the other conditions [p<.05], and there were no significant differences between the iPad and PC conditions [p>.1].
Two things can be said from the results above. First, frequency of eye contact was 48.4% lower with the iPad and 55.4% lower with the PC than with paper. This supports our fifth hypothesis that eye contact would be more frequent when paper was used rather than tablets or PCs.
Second, there was no significant difference in the frequency of eye contact between the iPad and PC. This does not support our sixth hypothesis that eye contact would be more frequent when tablets were used rather than PCs．
Contrary to our hypothesis, there was no significant difference between the frequency in eye contact between iPads and PCs. The reason for this was because participants were too engaged in using the iPad to look at their partner. In fact, we observed scenes where participants using the iPad prioritized completing a task rather than conversing with their partner. Also, in the
follow-up interview, there was a report saying, “I got caught up in operating the iPad and PC. I was more focused on the discussion when using paper.” We think that people were more distracted when operating the iPad and PC than using paper, which resulted in less eye contact to try to convey their opinion or understand their partner’s points.
Also, contrary to our expectations, participants barely lifted the iPad to make it easier to view both the document and their partner. In only 2.2% of the total task time did at least one person lift the iPad, which was less than a tenth of the time participants held paper up. This may also be the reason the frequency of eye contact did not significantly differ when the iPad and PC were used but was high for paper.
Furthermore, we observed that even when a participant asked their partner’s opinion, there were times when they would continue to pay attention to the screen rather than their partner when using the iPad, whereas eye contact would be made when using paper. As you can see in Figure 7, when using paper, a participant would show the document to their partner, point at the restaurant saying,
“Doesn’t this restaurant look good?” and look up from the document to hear the response of their partner.
Figure 7. Eye contact was made when asking for partner’s opinion about their proposal in Paper condition In contrast, eye contact was not made when using an iPad even in similar situations. In Figure 8, a participant asked the partner, “Isn’t here pretty?” and the partner would look at the screen. At this time, the person who asked the question did not look at the partner, but continued to adjust the picture by enlarging it or moving the position.
We think that the participant was too focused on operating the iPad and was not paying attention to the partner’s response.
Figure 8. Eye contact was not made when asking for partner’s opinion about their proposal in iPad condition GENERAL DISCUSSION
Previous studies suggested that conversations can be interrupted and eye contact and sharing work progress are more difficult when using PCs than paper. The purpose of this experiment was to investigate whether these factors are better when tablets are used instead of PCs and
compare discussion processes when paper, iPads, or PCs are used.
As a result, there was more conversation and more frequent eye contact when paper was used than when an iPad or PC was used, and the iPad and PC did not significantly differ. In addition, demonstrative pronouns were most frequently used with paper, second most frequently used with an iPad and least frequently used with a PC. This shows that work progress was shared more during a discussion when iPads were used rather than PCs. However, the frequency of sharing, the amount of active conversation, and the frequency of making eye contact were not as high as with paper.
According to the observation of the discussion processes and follow-up interviews, we considered the reasons for the differences in each factor among the media. First, we thought that the differences in the amount of conversation were because of the conversation being hampered more in iPad and PC conditions than the paper condition due to the difficulty in going back and forth between pages and taking notes. Next, we considered that the differences in usage of demonstrative pronouns were because it is more difficult to show someone the screen and point at certain things on an iPad and PC compared with paper, which made it difficult to share work progress with the other group member. Lastly, we considered the reasons eye contact was most frequent when paper was used to be that paper was easier than iPads and PCs to hold up to a position where the face could be seen and concentrating on what the other person was doing was easier because paper was not as distracting to handle as with the other media.
On the basis of these results, we came up with the following three factors that could help with selecting the appropriate media during discussion and how tablets could be better utilized.
Can tablets replace paper in discussion?
Currently, tablets are being tested in various conversational situations as replacements for paper. This is because using electronic devices instead of paper can hopefully reduce printing costs and prevent potential information leakages by, for example, someone leaving behind a document. According to our experiment, we observed that demonstrative pronouns were more frequently used when tablets were used instead of PCs, which suggests that participants were able to share their work progress more with tablets than with PCs. However, there was still less conversation, less demonstrative pronoun usage, and less eye contact than when paper was used.
Considering these points, we believe that tablets may not currently be the best medium to use when ideas should be actively exchanged or work progress should be shared.
This does not mean that tablets should not be used at all, but one needs to be aware of their effect and changes they could cause if used during discussions. It should especially be noted that eye contact was half as frequent as when paper was used. This needs to be acknowledged for situations where sensitivity is required, such as
counseling sessions and important business meetings, where replacing paper may have negative effects.
How light should tablets be used in discussions?
Paper is easy to move to share the document with another person. We think that this encourages sharing work progress during a discussion.
On the other hand, tablets were not moved to share information with partners as much, presumably because tablets are heavier than paper. In the follow-up interview, one of the participants said, “It was a weight issue (that made it difficult to share documents on the iPad)”, which suggested that weight of the media was a factor that affected sharing. In fact, tablet devices were held up for reading, but the screen was rarely shown to the other member while it was held.
So, how light should tablet devices be for use in discussion? The following can be inferred from our observation. With paper, it was not held only in both hands, but it was frequently held with one hand and pointed at with the other hand to show their partner a certain section of the document. Therefore, the critical weight it needs to be to be held with one hand needs to be investigated.
Toward paper-like interaction
Paper is handled in many ways that electronic media are not. For example, to share the document more effectively, participants not only moved documents to a location and position where it was easy for the partner to look at, but in some cases, they would rip out a section of a document as in Figure 9. This group had removed the map page from the document in order for them to both make notes on the same map.
Figure 9. Disassembled document to share
For all types of media, participants would point at their partner’s document, but for paper, as in Figure 10, participants would write notes on or flip the pages of their partner’s document. It can be faster to share your ideas with someone when you write them on their document, and writing all notes on the same document could also make it easier to share information. Also, information on a different page can be confirmed faster by flipping the pages of the other person’s document, and the topic of discussion can be changed immediately.
(a) Taking notes on partner’s document
(b) Flipping pages of partner’s document
Figure 10. Handling partner’s document
We think that analyzing the behavior of how paper is handled, but not electronic media, can reveal the benefits of paper as well as to help improve electronic media.
For example, we think that it is beneficial for tablets to have multiple screens that can be separated. There have been proposals for multiple-, separable-screen tablets (Chen et al., 2008; Hinckley et al., 2009). With multiple screens, one could display separate pages on each screen to reduce the number of times users go back and forth between the pages, and when separated, it could be used by several people to take notes, just as they can with paper. Furthermore, we observed that when paper was separated, the person handling it brought it close to him/herself when writing or reading it, so in a discussion, tablets need to be moved easily.
In addition, for other people to make notes and flip pages easily on a tablet, the operation occurring on the screen needs to be intuitive. For example, writing and changing pages on iPad were both done by sliding the finger on the screen, but the only difference between those two operations was which mode the iPad was in. This means that when a finger slid across the screen, if it was in the notes mode, a line would be drawn, and if not, the page would move. However, we observed instances where participants forgot in which mode they were, and mistakenly wrote on the document instead of changing the page as intended. It is even more difficult to identify in which mode other people’s documents are, causing one to hesitate to use other people’s iPads. In fact, even when a participant pointed at a partner’s iPad, they did not try to touch it. Thus, we infer that if the touchscreen were more intuitive, it would encourage people to handle other people’s document. For example, if a pen were used as a writing device, and writing on a document were limited to the pen just as paper is, people may try to write on their partner’s document more often.
We, therefore, think that it would be effective to determine what kinds of behavior can be seen with paper but not on electronic devices and discuss the functions and reasons behind this behavior to improve electronic devices. We will continue to extract people’s behavior when handling documents with various media to reveal its nature.
CONCLUSION
In this paper, we compared tablets with paper and PCs to evaluate their usability as a reading device to support discussions frequently held in business. As a result, demonstrative pronouns were used more frequently when
tablets were used instead of PCs, which suggests that work progress was shared more efficiently during the discussion when tablet devices were used. However, there was less conversation, less demonstrative pronoun usage, and less frequent eye contact than when paper was used.
Currently, tablets are being considered to replace paper in various situations that require conversation. However, on the basis of our observation, it is more difficult to have a lively exchange of opinions, effective discussion, or a conversation while being considerate to other people.
Therefore, we think that using tablets in discussions instead of paper may cause negative effects.
On the basis of our observation, we infer that operability of flipping through pages and taking notes and the ease of moving the device influenced the results. We will continue to extract and categorize the various behavior associated with the usage of paper to analyze how much a certain behavior is seen in various circumstances. By doing so, we will be able to use quantitative data to discuss further which operations are definitive factors that support discussions.
TRADEMARKS
Microsoft and Windows are trademarks or registered trademarks of Microsoft Corporation
iPad is a trademark or registered trademark of Apple Inc.
Wi-Fi is trademark or registered trademark of Wi-Fi Alliance
All brand names and product names are trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective
companies REFERENCES
Adler, A., Gujar, A., Harrison, B., O'Hara, K. and Sellen, A. A diary study of work-related reading: design implications for digital reading devices. In Proc. CHI 1998, ACM Press (1998), 241-248.
Belloti, V. and Bly, S. Walking Away from the Desktop Computer: Distributed Collaboration and Mobility in a Product Design Team. In Proc. CSCW 1996, ACM Press (1996), 209-218.
Chen, N., Guimbretiere, F., Dixon, M., Lewis, C. and Agrawala, M. Navigation Techniques for Dual-Display E-Book Readers. In Proc. CHI 2008, ACM Press (2008), 1779-1788.
Cook, M. Experiments on Orientation and Proxemics.
Human Relations, 23, 1 (1970), 61-76.
Dillon, A. Reading from paper versus screens: A critical review of the empirical literature. Ergonomics, 35, 10 (1992), 1297-1326.
Gould, J.D., Alfaro, L., Barnes, V., Finn, R., Haupt, B.
and Minuto, A. Reading from CRT displays can be as fast as reading from paper. Human Factors, 29, 5 (1987), 497-517.
Gould, J.D., Alfaro, L., Barnes, V., Finn, R., Grischkowsky, N. and Minuto, A. Reading is slower from CRT displays than from paper: Attempts to
isolate a single-variable explanation. Human Factors, 29, 3 (1987), 269-299.
Gutwin, C. and Greenberg, S. The mechanics of collaboration: Developing low cost usability evaluation methods for shared workspaces. In Proc. IEEE International Workshop on Enabling Technologies:
Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprises (2000).
Hamzah, M.D., Tano, S., Iwata, M. and Hashiyama, T.
Effectiveness of annotating by hand for non- alphabetical languages. In Proc. CHI 2006, ACM Press (2006), 841-850.
Hinckley, H., Dixon, M., Sarin, R., Guimbretiere, F. and Balakrishnan, R. Codex: a dual screen tablet computer.
In Proc. CHI 2009, ACM Press (2009), 1933-1942.
Hornecker, E., Marshall, P., Dalton, N.S. and Rogers, Y.
Collaboration and interference: awareness with mice or touch input. In Proc. CSCW 2008, ACM Press (2008), 167-176.
Inkpen, K., Hawkey, K., Kellar, M., Mandryk, R., Parker, K., Reilly, D., Scott, S. and Whalen, T. Exploring display factors that influence co-located collaboration:
angle, size, number, and user arrangement. In Proc.
HCI international (2005).
Isono, H., Takahashi, S., Takiguchi, Y. and Yamada, C.
Measurement of Visual Fatigue from Reading on Electronic Paper. The Journal of the Institute of Image Information and Television Engineers, 59, 3 (2005), 403-406. [in Japanese].
Kendon, A. Some functions of gaze-direction in social interaction. Acta Psychologica, 26 (1967), 22-63.
Kraut, R.E., Fussell, S.R. and Siegel, J. Visual information as a conversational resource in collaborative physical tasks. Human–Computer Interaction, 18 (2003), 13–49.
Luff, P. and Heath, C. Mobility in collaboration. In Proc.
CSCW 1998, ACM Press (1998), 305-314.
Mills, C.B. and Weldon L.J. Reading text from computer screens. ACM Computing Surveys, 19, 4 (1987), 329- 357.
Morris, R.M., Brush, A.J. and Meyers, R.B. Reading Revisited: Evaluating the Usability of Digital Display Surfaces for Active Reading Tasks. In Proc. IEEE Tabletop, 11 (2007), 79-86.
Muter, P. and Maurutto, P. Reading and skimming from computer screens and books: The paperless office revisited?. Behaviour and Information Technology, 10, 4 (1991), 257-266.
Nielsen, J. iPad and Kindle reading speeds. (2010).
[http://www.useit.com/alertbox/ipad-kindle- reading.html]
Sellen, A.J. and Harper, R.J. The myth of the paperless office. The MIT Press. (2001).
Shibata, H. and Omura, K. Effects of paper in moving and arranging documents: A comparison between
paper and electronic media in cross-reference reading for multiple documents. The Journal of Human Interface Society, 12, 3(2010), 301-311. [in Japanese]
Shibata, H. and Omura, K. Effects of paper on page turning: Comparison of paper and electronic media in reading documents with endnotes. In Proc. HCI international (2011).
Shibata, H. and Omura, K. Comparing paper books and electronic media in reading to answer questions. In
Proc. International conference on Digital Printing Technologies (2012).
Suzuki, S. and Muramoto, T. Factors related to members' satisfactions with collaborative problem solving. The Journal of Japanese Cognitive Science Society, 1 (2009), 39-50. [in Japanese].
Takano, K., Shibata, H. and Omura, K. Evaluation of electronic reading devices focusing on turning pages.
The Journal of the Human Interface Society, 14, 1 (2012), 89-100. [in Japanese].