We present a taxonomy for the design of workplace “break” spaces. The taxonomy can be used to identify aspects of current spaces that are either successful or problematic. From this analysis, we demonstrate how the taxonomy can be used to identify opportunities for computer mediated augmentation of spaces, and how such designs can be validated against this taxonomy

André, Paul

Chapman, Martin

Frazer, Alex

Hargood, Charlie

Hayton, Alex

Hooper, Clare

Martinez, Kirk

schraefel, m.c.

Willingham, Gavin

English

Southampton (e-Prints Soton)

BCS HCI 2006: Engage! Rules of Engagement:  design attributes for social interactions Paul André, Martin Chapman, Alex Frazer, Charles Hargood, Alex Hayton, Clare Hooper, Gavin Willingham, Kirk Martinez,  m.c. schraefel1 Electronics and Computer Science University of Southampton Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK 1mc+6012@ecs.soton.ac.uk We present a  taxonomy for  the design of workplace “break” spaces. The taxonomy can be used  to identify  aspects  of  current  spaces  that  are  either  successful  or  problematic.  From  this  analysis,  we demonstrate  how  the  taxonomy  can  be  used  to  identify  opportunities  for  computer  mediated augmentation of spaces, and how such designs can be validated against this taxonomy. Keywords: Taxonomy, communal spaces, design review, social interaction, social space, engagement 1. INTRODUCTION In  this  paper,  we  consider  the  design  attributes  necessary  for  computer-mediated  support  of  effective  social-presence  interactions  between  work  activities.  This  interest  has  been  motivated  by  a  fire  which  destroyed  our School's  coffee  room,  a  key  social  space  for  over  3001  academics,  support  staff,  postgraduate  students  and researchers who used it daily. The coffee room was a well-used place for a variety of social interactions, from impromptu meetings with colleagues from different groups, to simply seeing who is about while getting a coffee. Because of this loss, we have had a unique opportunity to look comparatively at the specific attributes for effective socialisation in spaces designated  to support these  activities.  Since the coffee room burnt down, our entrance foyer, recently refurbished, has been used as one substitute, but has not been nearly as successful as a social space. Likewise, hallway kitchenettes have been utilised by many people, but mostly for quickly grabbing a coffee, not  for  taking  breaks  with  others.  The  goal  of  our  work  has  been  two-fold:  first,  to  investigate  the  specific differences between these three places to understand why one worked well (many people participated) and the others  less  well  (many  people  who  used  the  old  space  do  not  use  the  new  spaces;  nor  have  they  invented alternative/replacement practices), and second, since we cannot in the near term generate new physical space, to see how these differences may be addressed by digital rather than physical solutions. Our approach is informed by Dix’s  Christmas  Crackers  work  [1],  in  which  he  “deconstructs”  both  the  physical  and  affective  properties  of Christmas crackers in order to see how these attributes might be translated from a physical to a digital experience. By carrying out such an analysis of the coffee room, in combination with ethnographic studies of the alternative spaces, we developed a taxonomy of practical and affective attributes such spaces seem to need to support to be successful. We then use this taxonomy to propose three candidate digital artefacts: KitchenSync, tableTOP and EC-Chess, to reintroduce some of the practical and affective affordances that have been lost.  2. RELATED WORK Herbsleb et al. examine the role of contextual awareness [2], informal communication [3] and tools such as instant messaging  (IM)  [4]  for  distributed  work.  Their  analysis  shows  that  co-location  is  critical  to  teamwork.  Informal communications are thought to be highly effective in the work environment, yet tools such as IM tend to be rejected [4]: many workers associate typing at a computer, for communication or other purposes, with work, yet perceive informal face-to-face communications as desirable. Indeed, it has been suggested that 25% - 70% of people's work time is spent in face-to-face interaction (variations due to job type) [5]. It has also been suggested that chance meetings trigger useful conversation [6]: other works have tried to simulate this over a distance [7, 8].  A number of systems with the purpose of indicating presence are proposed by Hindus et al., including InTouch, and the Intentional Presence Lamp [9]. These systems use combinations of light, sound and imagery to indicate one user's presence to another. Other systems [10] have used different indicators, such as avatars, names, or photos. Greenberg and Rounding present The Notification Collage [11], supporting conversation through the use of “Sticky Notes”.  The  universal  visibility  of  these  notes  on  communal  displays  encourages  new  users  to  join  in,  after                                                           1 http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/news/fast-facts.php Rules of Engagement: design attributes for social interactions BCS HCI 2006: Engage!  2 “overhearing” publicly visible conversations. The notes' persistence allows asynchronous conversations  to take place between users. However, as the collage elements are universally accessible, it was possible for them to be moved or hidden  entirely by new  elements, causing  users to “miss” their  messages.  Privacy issues were also uncovered  with  the  system's  video  capture  functionality,  where  users  could  potentially  be  filmed  against  their knowledge. Although some interesting work has been done in supporting social interactions [12], less work has been  done  on  supporting  the  social  engagement  between  work  activities,  such  as  during  coffee  breaks.  One approach, using video for co-presence across group kitchens [13], was largely a failure due to privacy concerns. Privacy was also a concern in Fish et al.'s VideoWindow system [14] and the Montage system [15] by Tang et al. 3. METHODOLOGY With the aim of comparing and contrasting the coffee room and substitute spaces, we set out to identify, in each space, the activities and use of the space, and how they are afforded. We undertook this elicitation by conducting a series of observations of the foyer and interviews about all three spaces. 3.1 Observations Based on local knowledge and preliminary observations, we identified the main stakeholders for the coffee room: lecturers, researchers, postgraduates, staff, and undergraduates. We focused our observations on how and when these groups made use of the foyer. Three investigators observed the foyer at various times over the course of several weeks, totalling 14 half-hour observation periods. To determine times for observation, we made use of existing presence data.  This presence information correlated with knowledge of  designated activities  that  were scheduled during the week, such as student interview times, seminars and transitions between classes. 3.2 Interviews  We conducted twenty-four structured interviews across stakeholder groups. The consensus was that, to those that used  it,  the  coffee  room  was  missed.  The  reasons  varied  depending  on  the  stakeholders’  use  of  the  space: lecturers  missed  the  opportunity  to  socialise  with  postgraduates  and  researchers;  postgraduates  missed  the change of atmosphere afforded by a dedicated coffee space; undergraduates, who previously used the space for project meetings, missed the availability of such a venue. All parties except undergraduates, possibly due to their less  frequent  use  of  the  space,  felt  that  chance  meetings  and  awareness  of  other  department  members  were important activities that had been lost. In addition to what was missed from the coffee room, negative opinions of the  foyer  were  also  highlighted:  the  coffee  available  from  the  foyer  was  unanimously  derided  and  senior stakeholders - particularly lecturers - felt that the foyer was not a private enough space to discuss certain topics.  4. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS From analysis of the interviews and observations, we derived seven categories that recurred across participant communities. In Table 1, we present a preliminary taxonomy of (1) the values, and (2) three examples of how these values map to the three physical spaces: the original coffee room, the foyer and hallway kitchenettes. By mapping these spaces to the taxonomy, the table demonstrates how these values may enable a way to interpret why one physical design works better than another, and also highlight design opportunities for where virtual intervention may be able to address reduced values. Values are grouped into two categories: artefact and activity. Artefacts are attributes of the space itself, while activities are interactions supported by the space. The degree to which the space supports these values is represented in the colour coding: strong (green), mediocre (yellow) or poor (red).  4.1 Description of values Artefact values. A lure can be a compound artefact such as the presence of both good coffee and colleagues. Environment is the design of the break space. Awareness of others is a boundary value between an artefact and an activity: while presence is a mental rather than physical artefact, to determine presence, one has to act. Activity  values.  The  activity  of  breaking  away  from  work,  which  means  changing  location  and  task,  was  a recurrent value that emerged in interviews. Serendipitous meetings, semi-planned meetings and socialising were all seen as critical activities to be supported for effective coffee break interactions. 5. DESIGN METHOD In the following section we present three examples of using our taxonomy with Dix’s Christmas Cracker design method [1] to map affective attributes and physical affordances of an actual artefact to its virtual counterpart. In our case, rather than design a replacement artefact, we present supplemental ones to address missing physical values with virtual artefacts designed to add these values to the space. 5.1 KitchenSync – Values addressed: awareness, engagement, lure Rules of Engagement: design attributes for social interactions BCS HCI 2006: Engage!  3 An interactive screen is placed in each kitchenette, which shows who is currently using, and who has used the kitchenette in the last ten minutes. People can monitor this activity from their office, or from other kitchenettes. Presence may potentially be detected by attaching cheap RFID tags to a mug, which also allows people to opt in or out of the system by their choice of mug.   Affordance   Value Coffee room  Foyer  Kitchenette Lure (enticing factor) Good coffee and contact with colleagues, proximity Poor quality coffee Good coffee, microwave, proximity Environment Enclosed, purpose designed, social space, windows, multiple tables Clinical, waiting room feel. Office work (reception) nearby. Transient. Small, no windows, just a place to make coffee Artefact Awareness of others, presence Achieved by looking round space, or asking who has been here Good awareness, but too transient Too small to socialise in, can’t walk through it Taking a break (change of location & activity) Away from offices, different setup Too professional, feels like still in work Limited space; standing room only Engagement (unplanned) Forced to walk past tables to coffee, through-traffic People pass through, but often coming to/leaving work Too small to socialise in, no through-traffic Semi-planned meetings Table arrangement provides focus. Cannot book the room. Area is often empty, perceived space for only one group Limited space for meetings Activity Socialising Many tables, suitable for different groups to meet Perceived space for only one group Limited space for socialising TABLE 1: Mapping values against affordances of social spaces  Awareness  -  The  system  provides  lightweight,  non-intrusive  awareness  of  others’  presence.  Semi-planned meetings  are  afforded  by  the  ability  to  choose  to  respond  to  people’s  presence  by  physically  going  to  the kitchenette to  meet.  Serendipitous engagement  is enabled by persons noticing  the presence of  a colleague in another kitchenette, and signalling their interest in meeting the colleague through a lightweight mechanism such as touching the colleague's avatar on the screen. This last feature might only be available to kitchenette users. By offering  this  asynchronous  communication,  initiated  virtually,  the  system  facilitates  the  kind  of  chance  physical meetings previously valued. 5.2 tableTOP (tableToOccupyPeople) / EC-Chess –  Values addressed: awareness, engagement, environment, break, socialising, lure An interactive table-top system is proposed for the foyer, offering virtual awareness from the KitchenSync system, as well as virtual postcards for others to read, perhaps leaving their topics of discussion for viewing or for adding their own comments. The table also provides games such as chess, sudoku, or Go. Awareness.  Due  to  the  transient  nature  of  the  foyer  space,  people  are  rarely  present  for  very  long,  making  it unlikely that they will remember others who were previously in the space. By recording this information in the table and relaying it back, the levels of awareness afforded by the more social situation in the coffee room is recaptured.  Engagement. A person can leave postcards for others, which are shown automatically when this person’s presence is detected (possibly by their RFID mug). The recipient can leave subsequent messages in reply, providing an opportunity for asynchronous conversation, or use the notes to share information with anyone who sits at the table. The games can be offered in an ‘open’ style, where anyone present can take the next move, regardless of whose game turn it is. By detecting who takes each move, a play history can be displayed, encouraging users to ask Rules of Engagement: design attributes for social interactions BCS HCI 2006: Engage!  4 others why the moves were made, or offer suggestions for alternative future strategies, aiming to recapture the serendipitous conversations found in the coffee room. The system could also be used to record private games. The number of wins and losses could be recorded, pairing up users of similar skill in future matches. Again, this could encourage spontaneous conversation between people, re-affording the kind of spontaneous engagement currently missing from the building's interim recreational space. Environment / Break from work. Our application of the taxonomy shows the foyer is an unwelcoming space. We postulate that by providing awareness, engagement by messages and games we will improve the environment (socialising it by introducing ludic [16] qualities), but also potentially improving the lure, where the system itself becomes a reason to go to the foyer and hang out. 5.3 Generalisation We have shown that the values in the taxonomy are useful both for understanding the strengths and weaknesses of a space, and for designing solutions to address the weaknesses and enhance the strengths. Our application of the taxonomy demonstrates its generalisability for assessing coffee break spaces. 6. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK By comparing and contrasting the loss of an effective social space with substitutes we have developed a taxonomy of seven key values for break spaces. The taxonomy provides a framework for the analysis of physical spaces in terms of their affordances for social interaction. This analysis highlights strengths and weaknesses which can be used to inform design requirements. We have demonstrated how this assessment can be used in the design of digital systems to augment these spaces to better support the rich social activities that occur during coffee breaks.  We are currently prototyping  the  design  ideas  presented. We are  interested in looking at how  many identified weaknesses need to be addressed, or strengths augmented, in order for a proposed virtual system to improve human engagement in a break space. We are also interested in testing how the taxonomy may translate, or need to be extended, to support analysis and design of other spaces for social interaction, from pubs to parks. REFERENCES [1] Dix, A. (2000) Deconstructing Experience - pulling crackers apart. In Funology: From Usability to Enjoyment. M. Blythe, K. Overbeeke, A. Monk and P. Wright (eds.) Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer. [2] Espinosa, J., Slaughter, S., Herbsleb, J. (2002), Shared Mental Models, Familiarity and Coordination: A Multi-Method Study of Distributed Software Teams, 23rd International Conference on Information Systems 425 – 433, Barcelona. [3] Herbsleb J., Grinter R., (1999), Splitting the Organization and Integrating the Code: Conway's Law Revisited, 85-95, In Proceedings of ICSE 1999 LA, CA. [4] Herbsleb, J., Mockus, A., Finholt, T., & Grinter, R., (2001), An empirical study of global software development: distance and speed, International Conference on Software Engineering, 81 – 90, Toronto. [5] Whittaker, S., Frohlich, D., & Daly-Jones, O.,(1994), Informal workplace communication: What is it like and how might we support it? In Proceedings of CHI '94, 130-137, ACM Press. [6] Jeffrey P., (2000), Forum Contact Space: Serendipity in the Workspace, 331 - 332, In Proc. CHI 2000, ACM. [7] Isaacs, E.A., Tang, J.C., & Morris, T. (1996), Piazza: A desktop environment supporting impromptu and planned interactions. In Proceedings of CHI '96, 315;-324. [8] Zhao Q. A., Stasko J. T., (2000), What's Happening? The Community Awareness Application, Proceedings of CHI 2000 254 - 254, ACM. [9] Hindus, D. et al., (2001), Casablanca: Designing Social Communication Devices for the Home. Proc. SIGCHI Conference on Human factors in Computing Systems. [10]  Leigh,  J.,  Johnson,  A.E.,  (1996),  Supporting  Transcontinental  Collaborative  Work  in  Persistent  Virtual Environments. In Computer Graphics and Applications, IEEE. [11] Greenberg, S., Rounding, M., (2001), The Notification Collage: Posting Information to Public and Personal Displays. Proc. ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. [12] O'Hara, K., Perry, M., Churchill, E. and Russell, D. (eds.). (2003) Public and Situated Displays - Social and Interactional Aspects of Shared Display Technologies. Kluwer Academic Publisher, London. [13] Jancke, G. et al., (2001), Linking Public Spaces: Technical and Social Issues. In Proceedings of CHI 2001, Vol. 3, Issue 1  [14] Fish, R. S. et al., (1990), The VideoWindow System in Informal Communication. Proc. ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work. [15] Tang, J. C. et al., (1994), Supporting Distributed Groups with a Montage of Lightweight Interactions. Proc. ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work. [16] Gaver, W. (2002) "Designing for Homo Ludens," in i3 Magazine. 

An empirical study of global software development: distance and speed,

Casablanca: Designing Social Communication Devices for the Home.

Deconstructing Experience - pulling crackers apart. In Funology: From Usability to Enjoyment.

Designing for Homo Ludens,&quot;

Forum Contact Space: Serendipity

Linking Public Spaces: Technical and Social Issues.

O.,(1994), Informal workplace communication: What is it like and how might we support it?

Piazza: A desktop environment supporting impromptu and planned interactions.

Shared Mental Models, Familiarity and Coordination: A MultiMethod Study

Splitting the Organization and Integrating the Code: Conway's Law Revisited, 85-95,

Supporting Distributed Groups with a Montage of Lightweight Interactions.

Supporting Transcontinental Collaborative Work in Persistent Virtual Environments. In Computer Graphics and Applications,

The Notification Collage: Posting Information to Public and Personal Displays.

The VideoWindow System in Informal Communication.

What's Happening? The Community Awareness Application,

Rules of Engagement: design attributes for social interactions

Rules of Engagement: design attributes for social interactions

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Southampton (e-Prints Soton)