Difference between revisions of "ConferencingResearch"

From PublicWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
[http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1460635] Dane Stuckel, Carl Gutwin. '''The effects of local lag on tightly-coupled interaction in distributed groupware'''' CSCW 2008.
 +
 +
Comments: Local lag here means forcing delay on users' actions so that it matches the group (for distributed group work delay due to bandwidth).  Users were better able to manage a sluggish system than remote delay.  Also, an echo effect (where users can see both their immediate actions and the actions as they appear to the group) just adds confusion.  Cite this for justification for local lag setup with Cocomo.
 +
 
[http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1460000/1459431/p539-junuzovic.pdf?key1=1459431&key2=9814376321&coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE&CFID=26174391&CFTOKEN=74063806] Sasa Junuzovic, Rajesh Hegde, Zhengyou Zhang, Philip A. Chou, Zicheng Liu, Cha Zhang. '''Requirements and Recommendations for an Enhanced Meeting Viewing Experience.''' ACM international conference on Multimedia 29 Oct. 2008
 
[http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1460000/1459431/p539-junuzovic.pdf?key1=1459431&key2=9814376321&coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE&CFID=26174391&CFTOKEN=74063806] Sasa Junuzovic, Rajesh Hegde, Zhengyou Zhang, Philip A. Chou, Zicheng Liu, Cha Zhang. '''Requirements and Recommendations for an Enhanced Meeting Viewing Experience.''' ACM international conference on Multimedia 29 Oct. 2008
  
 
Comments: Compared a 2D and 3D interface for conferencing video windows.  Participants could configure, place, and zoom windows.  Knowing who is speaking in a meeting is important.  Automatically rearranging windows to signify importance is disorienting.  2D did better for seeing participant's faces. 3D is better for knowing where participants are looking. 3D not important for seeing transitions.
 
Comments: Compared a 2D and 3D interface for conferencing video windows.  Participants could configure, place, and zoom windows.  Knowing who is speaking in a meeting is important.  Automatically rearranging windows to signify importance is disorienting.  2D did better for seeing participant's faces. 3D is better for knowing where participants are looking. 3D not important for seeing transitions.
  
[http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1357200]  
+
[http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1357200] Jacob T. Biehl, William T. Baker, Brian P. Bailey, Desney S. Tan, Kori M. Inkpen, Mary Czerwinski. '''Impromptu: a new interaction framework for supporting collaboration in multiple display environments and its field evaluation for co-located software development''' CHI 2008.
Jacob T. Biehl, William T. Baker, Brian P. Bailey, Desney S. Tan, Kori M. Inkpen, Mary Czerwinski. '''Impromptu: a new interaction framework for supporting collaboration in multiple display environments and its field evaluation for co-located software development''' CHI 2008.
 
  
 
Comments: Another multi-media conferencing systems, but with software developers working together in the same room.
 
Comments: Another multi-media conferencing systems, but with software developers working together in the same room.

Revision as of 21:35, 13 April 2009

[1] Dane Stuckel, Carl Gutwin. The effects of local lag on tightly-coupled interaction in distributed groupware' CSCW 2008.

Comments: Local lag here means forcing delay on users' actions so that it matches the group (for distributed group work delay due to bandwidth). Users were better able to manage a sluggish system than remote delay. Also, an echo effect (where users can see both their immediate actions and the actions as they appear to the group) just adds confusion. Cite this for justification for local lag setup with Cocomo.

[2] Sasa Junuzovic, Rajesh Hegde, Zhengyou Zhang, Philip A. Chou, Zicheng Liu, Cha Zhang. Requirements and Recommendations for an Enhanced Meeting Viewing Experience. ACM international conference on Multimedia 29 Oct. 2008

Comments: Compared a 2D and 3D interface for conferencing video windows. Participants could configure, place, and zoom windows. Knowing who is speaking in a meeting is important. Automatically rearranging windows to signify importance is disorienting. 2D did better for seeing participant's faces. 3D is better for knowing where participants are looking. 3D not important for seeing transitions.

[3] Jacob T. Biehl, William T. Baker, Brian P. Bailey, Desney S. Tan, Kori M. Inkpen, Mary Czerwinski. Impromptu: a new interaction framework for supporting collaboration in multiple display environments and its field evaluation for co-located software development CHI 2008.

Comments: Another multi-media conferencing systems, but with software developers working together in the same room.

[4] Michael Bianchi. Automatic Video Production of Lectures Using an Intelligent and Aware Environment MUM2004 October 27-29, 2004

Comments: Automatic capture of lectures. May be less relevant as its focused on stage performance and motion-tracking cameras.

He, L. and Zhang, Z. Real-time whiteboard capture and processing using a video camera for teleconferencing, 2005. ICASSP.

Comments: Need to read. Wasn't there something at ASSETS like this?