1 / 9

Tabletop Briefing

Tabletop Briefing. Enabling effective briefings with Direct-Touch Tabletops. 2006-12-12 :: CS376 Project Presentation Håvard Sjøvoll (sjovoll@stanford.edu). Motivation. Petroleum Industry Demand for overall understanding of complex problems, tasks and situations Integrated Operations

bill
Télécharger la présentation

Tabletop Briefing

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Tabletop Briefing Enabling effective briefings with Direct-Touch Tabletops 2006-12-12 :: CS376 Project Presentation Håvard Sjøvoll (sjovoll@stanford.edu)

  2. Motivation • Petroleum Industry • Demand for overall understanding of complex problems, tasks and situations • Integrated Operations • Concurrent Design • Direct-Touch Tabletops • Promising technology • Enables rapid get-togethers • Positive influence on working styles and group dynamics1 • Avoids passivity: Short distance to content, direct manipulation • Can serve as external cognitive medium1 • Research areas: guidelines, UI, interaction teqhniques, usability 1Shen, C. et.al, Informing the Design of Direct-Touch Tabletops (2006) [ Motivation ] Hypothesis Method Results Conclusion

  3. Hypothesis • Co-located briefingsusing direct-touch tabletops are more effective, collaborative and engagingthan projection-based briefings. > effective collaborative engaging direct-touch tabletop projection-based Motivation [ Hypothesis ] Method Results Conclusion

  4. Method • Prototype of briefing-tool supporting both form-factors • Drag / rotate / sketch • Briefing: Wet-towing and installation of subsea templates • Within subject • Alternating order • 18 participants • Questionnaire Tabletop Wall-projection Motivation Hypothesis [ Method ] Results Conclusion

  5. Results p = 0.77 p = 0.11 p = 0.0004 p = 0.0008 Motivation Hypothesis Method [ Results ] Conclusion

  6. Results • Form-factor preference • TableTop: 75% • Irrelevance • Order of briefings • Placement around table • Previous experiences • Briefings • Direct-Touch Tabletop • Possible ”error” • Simplicity of briefieng Form-factor preference Motivation Hypothesis Method [ Results ] Conclusion

  7. Results • ”I preferred the touchtable. Even though I didn’t participate in the briefing, there was the possibility of being able to interact with the board and that led me to be more attentive.” • ”The projector-based briefing made me feel less involved” • ”I preferred the projector because the information was facing me and I didn’t have to do anything but listen” Motivation Hypothesis Method [ Results ] Conclusion

  8. Conclusions - TableTop Briefing • Equally or moreeffective, collaborative and engaging • Case-specific results • Prevents passivity • Enables two-way communication • Questions • Discussions • Future work: Problem solving • A preferred alternative, not a solution Motivation Hypothesis Method Results [ Conclusion ]

  9. Questions Thank you for your attention 2006-12-12 :: CS376 Project Presentation Håvard Sjøvoll (sjovoll@stanford.edu)

More Related