system design for the wespace: linking personal …dwigdor/research/jiang_wespace.pdfsystem design...

System Design for the WeSpace: Linking Personal Devices toa Table-Centered Multi-User, Multi-Surface Environment

Hao Jiang 1,2 Daniel Wigdor3 Clifton Forlines4 Chia Shen 1

1Initiative in Innovative Computing at Harvard University 2Tsinghua University3Microsoft Suiface 4Mitsubishi Electric Research Labs

[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Abstract

The WeSpace is a long-term project dedicated tothe creation of environments supporting walk-up andshare collaboration among small groups. The focus ofour system design has been to provide 1) groups withmechanisms to easily share their O}1;'n data and 2)necessary native visual applications suitable on largedisplay environments. Our current prototype systenlincludes both a large high-resolution data lyall and aninteractive table. These are utilized to provide a focalpoint for collaborative interaction with data andapplications.

In this paper, we describe in detail the designsbehind the current prototype system. In particular, wepresent 1) the infrastructure which allows users toconnect and visually share their laptop content on-thefly, and supports the extension of native visualizationapplications, and 2) the table-centric design employedin customized WeSpace applications to support crosssurface interactions. We will also describe elenlents ofour user-centered iterative design process, inparticular the results from a late-stages session whichsaw our astrophysicist participants successfully use theWeSpace to collaborate on their own real researchproblems.

1. Introduction

The amount of data that collaborators are bringingto group meetings to share, explore, and make sense ofis growing exponentially. With this growth, challengesemerge not only in visually presenting large quantitiesof data, but also in enabling collaborative interactionwith this data in a natural and efficient way.

As a potential remedy to these challenges, shareddisplay surfaces in various form factors are becomingcommercially available. These include multimegapixel data walls that offer a large physical display

978-1-4244-2898-4/08/$25.00 © 2008 IEEE

area without compromISIng dots-per-inch (DPI), aswell as multi-user, multi-touch tabletops that enabledirect touch on the display surface and fostercollaboration through a face-to-face setting. Theavailability of these products enables the constructionof collaborative visual exploration spaces. In such aspace, information, from any source or user, can bevisually presented with high fidelity, andsimultaneously and collaboratively explored bymultiple users.

The construction of such a space requires not onlythe careful design of the user interface, but also theengineering of the system architecture. The designermust consider the needs of multiple simultaneous usersand their needs in terms of data transfer, visualization,and communication. The engineer must provide carefulstructural architecture to accommodate massive datatransmission, information visualization, and multipleviews rendering in real time.

The WeSpace is our research into a multi-surfacecollaboration space. Among similar systems, theWeSpace particularly aims at building a general-usetool for workplaces in which visual data from differentsources are rendered simultaneously for exploration.The WeSpace works in a walk-up and share manner:group members simply connect their laptops and startpouring the visualization of their data to the sharedsurfaces. Our current prototype has been successfullyused by a group of astrophysicists in their collaborative

Figure 1. Astrophysicists meeting in the WeSpace.

97

Authorized licensed use limited to: MICROSOFT. Downloaded on January 26, 2009 at 21:03 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

research meetings.The development of the WeSpace has undergone

several iterative cycles as revisions of theinfrastructure design and feedback from user interfacescame in. The challenges we faced in those iterationsmainly focused on 1) the system structural design toaccommodate visual feeds from multiple laptops andhave them updated and rendered on multiple surfacesat real time, and 2) the interaction design for a multiuser application crossing multiple shared surfaces. Weregard the above two issues key to delivering a multiuser system of real use, and believe them common toall multi-user, multi-surface system designers.

The goal of this paper is to describe our experiencebuilding WeSpace and detail the designs we arrived atthat address the challenges of multi-user, multi-surfacecollaborative spaces. It is our hope that our approachwill inform future work on building such systems. Westart with an overview of the WeSpace project,narrating its basic requirements and design iterations.We then describe the infrastructure of the system,followed by the table-centric cross-surface interactiontechniques employed in two native WeSpaceapplications: Layout Manager and LivOlay. We alsoreport results from actual users using the WeSpace onreal research problems.

2. Related Work

Numerous research projects have explored creatingdigital meeting rooms that include shared interactivesurfaces. The Colab [25] system allows teams to worktogether or remotely on multiple desktops and adigitized whiteboard. Dynamo [12] allows users'media to be transferred to a server and presented on theserver's shared display. Streitz et al [20] [26] embeddedcomputers into meeting room furniture, such aswhiteboards (Dyna Wall), tables (InteracTable) andchairs (CommChair). Their work also describedinteraction techniques to support spontaneouscollaboration. Rekimoto and Saitoh' s AugmentedSurfaces [22] interconnects digital devices andphysical objects in the workspace, allowing media datato be drag-and-dropped across surfaces or carried withphysical objects. Shen et aI's UbiTable [23] provided amechanism for the spontaneous, walk-up-and-usesharing of data, such as photos and notes. The iRoom[15] project aimed to investigate and build seamlessinteractive spaces, in which group activities benefitfrom coordinated views on multiple large displays [8].

Redirecting locally running applications to remotedisplays has been shown to keep group members awareof the ongoing activities of their collaborators. ARIS

[2] and SEAPort [3] provide textual and iconicinterfaces respectively to transplant applications toother co-located devices. A selected application willmaintain its current context and continue running on adifferent machine. Multibrowsing [17] allows webpages to be displayed and viewed on multiple displaysin a collaborative way. In another approach, screensharing techniques such as the VNC protocol [21]allow visualizations of native applications to be sharedand even interacted with remotely. Tan et al [28] andWallace et al [30] respectively described their work onshowing multiple remote application images on ashared display. Furthermore, comDesk [18], MightyMouse [5], and IMPROMPTU [4] enable a user to redirect their shared application windows to othercollaboration members' personal displays to be viewedand/or interacted with. IMPROMPTU [4] also supportsshared displays in the collaborative environment. Thekey new features that set the WeSpace apart from theabove systems are the provision of 1) nativeapplications for domain specific group usage inside theWeSpace large display environment, and 2) a sharedmulti-user multi-touch table as a central and visibleinput space for shared group input.

Efficient graphics rendering is also a major concernwhen building user interfaces for shared surfaces.DiamondSpin [24] provides a SDK for buildingcollaborative tabletop applications. DiamondSpinapplication windows have flexible orientations to beviewed from different sides of the table. Isenberg et al[11] presented a buffer framework for renderingmultiple digital artifacts on the screen with highperformance. Tuddenham et aI's T3 framework [29]simplifies rendering on high-resolution tiled displays.

To support interaction with an application thatresides on multiple displays, researchers haveinvestigated mechanisms for moving a pointer aroundthe space. For example, in the iRoom [15] project,Johanson et al used the PointRight [16] technique,allowing a single mouse to navigate across all thedisplay surfaces in the space. User input from akeyboard is then directed to the mouse's focus. Laterwork based on cross-surface movement of a pointermade improvements in maintaining visual continuitywhen a mouse travels across the seam betweendisplays. Nacenta et aI's Perspective Cursor mapsdisplays' 3D positions in the space to the user's 2Dvisual plane [19]. Baudisch et aI's Mouse Ether [1],which leverages the discrepancy between displayDPIs, works similarly.

An interactive tabletop, once introduced into thespace, can be used as a centric control to othersurfaces. Forlines et al [9][10] use direct touch on ahorizontal surface to coordinate views on vertical

98 2008 IEEE International Workshop on Horizontal Interactive Human Computer System (TABLETOP)


displays. The MultiSpace [7] system creates portals onthe table for other devices, so that transferring data to adevice is done by drag-and-drop to the target portal.Wigdor et al [31] added a world-in-miniaturerepresentation to each portal on the table that enableddirect control to layout of peripheral surfaces.

3. The WeSpace: Overview

The WeSpace project originated from our desire todevelop a general tool to support scientists conductingcollaborative research across multiple disciplines. Webegan by seeking out a research group to serve aspartners in our user-centered, participatory designprocess. The target group we chose was theCOordinated Molecular Probe Line ExtinctionThermal Emission Survey of Star Forming Regionsgroup (http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/COMPLETE) atHarvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, knownas the COMPLETE group. The WeSpace is theoutcome of our year-long close collaboration withCOMPLETE group members: from intensiveinterviews, to attending and observing their researchmeetings, to identifying system requirements, toiterative development cycles, to the delivery of theWeSpace system.

Initial interviews with COMPLETE membersrevealed a challenging need for a better collaborationtool to support their work. The highly variableindividual practices of the groups' members makesoftware standardization impossible. In particular, datasources and types examined by the COMPLETE groupvary widely within a project. As a result, the softwaretools employed by group members varies widely, withsome being custom-built, one-of-a-kind solutionspieced together by the team members themselves orother astrophysics practitioners. Collaboration isfurther complicated by the fact that these tools do notconform to any standard form of output.

After the investigation, we sat down with theCOMPLETE members and derived the followingsystem requirements for a collaborative tool that wouldaddress these challenges.

Provide a sharable display: the environmentshould include displays that would sufficiently allowthe researchers to present their work to the group. Thedisplays should ideally function at a high resolution toensure the effect of visualization applications runningon them.

Allow the use of their laptops: because of thenecessities of using different data types and customsoftware and configurations, the collaboration toolmust allow users to run applications from their own

laptops, while visualizing and analyzing the outputrendering on a shared display.

Maintain interactivity of existing applications:the ideal tool would allow data being shown on thelarge display interactively, within the applicationgenerating its view. This allows for a faster iterativeprocess, while maintaining the fidelity of data.

Retain user control over their own data: oncertain occasions such as meeting with people outsidethe research group, the collaborators needs to maintaincontrol over their own data, ensuring that only therenderings they choose are shown, and that proprietaryunderlying data is not shared. Ignoring thisrequirement might limit how well the system wouldgeneralize to other uses.

Support egalitarian and visible input: becauseeach member brings a different expertise to the group,the system should provide group members with equalopportunity of controlling the meetings.

Our first version of the WeSpace was built infulfillment of the above requirements. The system wasdeployed on a single data wall. Users' laptop screenimages, once connected, were shared on the wall. Eachuser had his/her own pointer (distinguished by color)roaming on the wall display, controlled by his/herlaptop mouse. A user's pointer could move into otherusers' desktop windows on the wall, thus gain controlover other laptops. Feedback from COMPLETE groupmembers showed that they had confusion over keepingtrack of each user's pointer and the connectionbetween which mouse was associated with whichpointer. In addition, after working on the existingsystem they brought up new functional requirements tofacilitate visual analysis, such as overlaying differentapplication images. These comments resulted in twoextra system requirements, listed below.

Provide an interactive table: a multi-touchtabletop adds possibilities of simultaneous direct-touchinput from multiple users, and promotes moreegalitarian input to the system. Besides, a user's inputwith their hand on the table is more apparent to othermembers than input with a mouse. This promotes taskawareness among multiple users and reducesconfusion.

Support native applications on the system:different from users' applications on their laptops,native system applications reside and execute on thesystem server. A native application receives input fromall connected laptops, applies visualization functionssuch as overlaying multiple sources, and rendersoutput on the shared surfaces. Supporting such nativeapplications in the system would allow users sharetheir data at the same time, and make sense of them byapplying visualization functions.

2008 IEEE International Workshop on Horizontal Interactive Human Computer System (TABLETOP) 99


The current WeSpace system includes a 10ft by 5ftMitsubishi MegaView data wall with the resolution3072x1536, and a 42-inch DiamondTouch [6] multiuser interactive table with a projected resolution1280x1024, both driven by a 3.2 GHz Windows PC.With a light-weight client installed on the laptop, userssimply walk up to the space, connect to the server, andstart sharing their ongoing applications on the largedisplays. Two WeSpace native applications arecurrently built and installed in the system: LayoutManager and LivOlay. The former provides automaticand customized layout arrangement of mUltiple laptopimages on the shared surface, and the latter allows liveapplications to be visually overlaid.

The WeSpace system has been used several timesby the COMPLETE group to conduct collaborativemeetings on real research topics. Figure 1 shows apicture taken from one of these sessions. We receivedpositive feedback from all group members, andwitnessed tangible outcomes (research proposals)coming from those collaborative sessions, one ofwhich is describe in detail in a later section.

4. The WeSpace: Infrastructure Design

As our goal was to create a collaborative space forusers to walk-up and share their visual data withminimum interruption to their day-to-day scientificpractices, we based the WeSpace on screen sharingtechniques that allow real-time application images tobe sent to a remote computer. Using screen sharingtechniques, any existing application can be shared onthe large display without relinquishing the underlyingdata. In contrast, other sharing models fall short infulfilling some of our system requirements. One ofthose models, for example, relocates an applicationfrom a user's laptop to public surfaces [2][3]. Despitelosing control over proprietary data, relocation everysingle application requires ad hoc installation andconfiguration of that application on the server, makingit impossible to generalize the system to a truly walkup-and-use tool.

The WeSpace Server

Figure 2. The WeSpace infrastructure.

We leverage the standard VNC protocol [21] forscreen sharing, which is widely used and wellimplemented on all major operating systems. Forexample, Mac OS has built-in VNC Sharing Service,and Windows users can also enable the VNC serviceby installing a freeware called RealVNC [21].

Figure 2 shows the infrastructure of the WeSpace.All shared surfaces are driven by a single server.Shared data and control information are transferredbetween the server and laptops via a wireless network.The WeSpace is implemented using Java.

A Light-weight WeSpace Client is installed oneach user's laptop. The WeSpace Client exchangescontrol information with the server and provides aswitch to turn on/off screen sharing service for privacyprotection. By intercepting low-level laptop mouse andkeyboard events, the WeSpace Client is also able todirect user input to the server to control nativeWeSpace Applications on the shared displays. Toconnect to the WeSpace, a user simply launches theclient, types in the server IP address and hits the"Connect" button. A TCP channel for exchangingcontrol information is established between the clientand the server, followed by a VNC connectionbetween the WeSpace server and the VNC Serviceprovider in the user's laptop.

The Communication Layer in the server managesnetwork connections to users' laptops. It creates aninstance for each connected laptop. Each instance inthe communication layer maintains an image buffer forthe client's live screen data, as well as the controlinformation for that client.

WeSpace APls (Application ProgrammingInterfaces) are exposed at the communication layer.Client screen images and other control information areaccessible through those APIs for developingWeSpace native applications. To make it a generaltool, we built the WeSpace with this open structure tosupport collaboration in different visual explorationdomains. Using exposed APIs, WeSpace programmerscan build customized visual applications that fit aparticular domain purpose, and run these applicationsin the space.

WeSpace Native Applications running on theserver collect shared data in image format from allconnected users, apply customized visualizationtechniques, and render the output on the sharedsurfaces in the WeSpace. With the interactivity of themulti-touch tabletop and input from client laptops,WeSpace native applications enable users to exploreand make sense of the collective visual data fromdifferent sources. As of now, two applications havebeen built and installed in the WeSpace: Layout



Manager and LivOlay. Their designs are described inthe next section.

Shared Surfaces in the current WeSpace prototypeinclude a large data wall and a multi-touch tabletop.However, the WeSpace infrastructure allows thenumber and arrangement of display surfaces to beconfigurable to WeSpace application developers.Shared surfaces are rendered by native WeSpaceapplication using JOGL [14], a Java wrapper forOpenGL. With four client laptops connected, ourprototype refreshes at an average rate of 15 frames persecond on both the 4.5-million-pixel data wall and thetabletop.

Although screen-sharing based collaborative spacesexist in other research projects [4][18][30], theWeSpace mainly differs from them in two facets. First,while other systems use mouse as the only inputmechanism to the system, a multi-touch tabletop isintroduced into the WeSpace, which helps to maintainthe focus on the visual data, and better supportawareness and egalitarian input. Second, the WeSpacesupports native visualization applications running onthe shared surfaces, which are extensible to fit specificdomain purposes. Instead of displaying screen imageswithout modification, in WeSpace users' live data goesthrough image processing, and is optimally presentedfor visual exploration and collaboration.

5. The WeSpace: Native Applications

While visually intensive tasks greatly benefit fromphysically large, pixel-rich displays [27], the absenceof effective interaction techniques on the shareddisplays may hinder users from "feeling control overthe data" during the exploration. By having a multitouch tabletop in the WeSpace, we leverage its supportof under-the-finger direct-touch interaction tominimize the diversion of user attention incurred fromgiving input to the system. In addition, an interactivetabletop creates a face-to-face seating arrangement

among users and has better support to egalitarian input,both fostering collaboration productivity.

A table-centric approach is employed in theWeSpace to interact with multi-surface applications:the tabletop serves as the major channel to provideinput to the system, as well as the viewport control toother vertical displays in the space. Specifically, aWeSpace application works in separate views whenusers want to give input on the table while watchingthe visual outcome on the high-resolution data wall.User interface widgets are rendered on the tabletop butnot the wall. Synchronized views between the tableand the data wall are formed when the viewport of thewall needs to be adjusted. The table now has amirrored view of the visualization on the wall withdecreased resolution. Multi-touch gestural input on thetable, such as zooming and panning, alters theviewport on both surfaces.

These concepts embodies in our design of the twoWeSpace native applications: Layout Manager andLivOlay.

5.1. Layout Manager

As many pieces of shared data from all users arebrought up to the collaborative space, only one or afew of them need attention at any moment. LayoutManager allows users to arrange the layout ofconnected laptop screen images on the shared surfaces,both manually and automatically, so that the shareddata that is the current focus of discussion occupies thecentral position and more display area on the data wall.

Each client laptop connected to the space isassigned a display status: important, public, or private.Important and public laptops are both displayed on theshared surfaces, whereas the former are enlarged tohighlight their importance. Private screens indicatetheir owner's desire for privacy, thus will not bedisplayed on the shared surfaces. The default status fora connected laptop is public.

CA) (B) (C)

Figure 3. Automatic layout arrangement in Layout Manager, with four laptops connected. (A) All laptops arein Public status. (B) Two Important laptops and two Public laptops. (C) One Important laptop, two Public

laptops and one Private laptop (hidden).



Figure 4. The transition of views on the data wall in LivOlay, with three applications to be overlapped.(left) Linked view. (center) Transition. (right) Overlapped view.

Layout Manager maintains synchronized viewsbetween the wall and the tabletop: important andpublic screens are displayed with identical layout onboth surfaces. To switch a laptop screen to anotherstatus, any user may tap on the control buttonsrendered next to that screen on the tabletop. Statuscontrols are also provided on each laptop's nativeWeSpace client interface, and can be altered by itsowner.

Layout Manager applies an automatic arrangementwhen a display's status changes: important screens willfill the center space of the shared surfaces, whilepublic ones are set aside (Figure 3). Transitions areanimated to ensure visual fluidity. Users can alsomanually control the size and position of the laptopimages with gestural input performed on the tabletop,similar to [24]. This change in layout is reflected onshared surfaces.

The multi-touch tabletop can also redirect touchinput to individual connected laptops in LayoutManager. Double-tapping a laptop's image on the tablesevers the synchronized view between surfaces: thewall keeps the layout display of multiple screen images,while the table zooms in to a full-screen display of theselected laptop. User actions on the tabletop areinterpreted as mouse input and sent to the client laptop.Exiting the full-screen mode restores the synchronizedview.

5.2. LivOlay

As a complement and a necessary addition to theside-by-side comparison function provided in LayoutManager, we incorporated LivOlay in to the WeSpaceto address the need in visual exploration tasks tooverlay imagery data from different sources. LivOlayworks by users selecting corresponding landmarkpoints in visualizations to be overlaid. With thesecommon points, a transformation is first calculatedthen applied to screen images. The result is that screenimages are distorted, registed, and overlaid. Visualdata to be overlaid in LivOlay are live applicationscreens from connected laptops, which can reflect

users' real-time input. An early version of LivOlaywithout multi-touch table support is presented in [13].

LivOlay in the WeSpace supports multipleapplications from all connected users to be overlaid atthe same time. When LivOlay is launched, all users'desktop images are displayed on the table. Users tap onapplications to select them, selected applications havetheir boundaries acquired and visually highlightedusing the WeSpace API.

LivOlay leverages the pixel-rich data wall as themain surface for displaying the resulting visualizations.To help users analyze applications images bothseparately and in an overlapped stack, LivOlaysupports two display styles on the wall: linked viewand overlapped view.

In the linked view, applications are displayedseparately side-by-side, each application showingregistered points as well as links to correspondingpoints on other application images (Figure 4, left); inthe overlapped view, live application renderings areoverlapped according to the transformation calculatedusing their registration points [13] (Figure 4, right).Toggling between views is achieved by tapping on thebutton rendered on the tabletop, and transitions are

Figure 5. Control Panel in LivOlay. (A) Portal iconto Layout Manager. (B) Portal icon to LivOlay. (C)An application to be overlaid, with registered pointsdisplayed as pins. (D) Wall content switch betweenlinked view and overlapped view. (E) Table contentswitch between control panel and overlapped view.(F,H) Display next/previous application. (G) Slider

for transparency control. (I) Unused pins.



animated (Figure 4, left-to-right).A control panel interface on the interactive

tabletop provides users with control over LivOlay(Figure 5). The application image to be analyzed andoverlapped is displayed in the center area of thecontrol panel. Toolbars are duplicated and positionedalong each edge of the tabletop to support egalitarianinput. Registering and modifying a feature point in oneapplication is achieved by dragging a pin from thetoolbar and dropping it to the target position. A slideris provided to adjust the transparency of thatapplication in the overlapped visualization. Anoverlapped view is also provided on the table, which issynchronized with the overlapped view on the wall.Switching between the control panel and theoverlapped view on the table, as well as between thelinked view and overlapped view on the wall, aretriggered by touching corresponding buttons renderedon the table.

LivOlay also enables users to annotate on the tableusing a stylus. Annotations appear both on the tableand on the wall, and are correctly transformed toregister with each displayed application.

6. Feedback

After the development of the WeSpace, we made itavailable to the COMPLETE group. Three researchersconducted collaborative research sessions in theWeSpace. Two sessions were held, approximately 4hours each, during which they brought in the chartsand data that they were currently working on. We tooknotes of interesting events, video-taped the sessions,and logged input and system events. We also askedmembers of the group to describe their experienceswith the system.

The positive results of these sessions demonstratedthe WeSpace as a useful platform for visualexploration tasks. Conducting these collaborationsessions was extremely beneficial to the users, and totheir delight (and ours) resulted in a new finding thatled to a major research proposal.

Walk-Up and Share & Native Applications:Although two native applications were present in thesystem we tested (Layout Manager and LivOlay), itwas LivOlay which received the most clear andpositive responses from our users: the usefulness ofbeing able to view and overlay data from differentsources and from each user's laptop was clear, as theyspent most of the session working with overlaid data.

Egalitarian Input: Our system recorded thenumber and type of input from each of the threescientists in the collaborative session. We analyzed

these logs to address questions concerning the relativecontribution from each member in terms of controllingthe system, and directing the conversation.

Overall, the relative contribution from the threegroup members (22%, 33%, and 45%) in terms ofnumber of input actions was fairly equal, which standsin contrast to a group's use of a single-user system: asituation in which the group member controlling themouse and keyboard greatly influences the direction ofconversation.

While the overall distribution of input wasrelatively even, the logs also showed that the input tothe system in each short five or ten minute period wasmajorly given by one user. This suggested that thecontrol of the system passed from user to user atdifferent times during the meeting as the threeparticipants took turns directing the conversation,which matches our observations of the meeting that thescientists took turns introducing new data to theconversation with their colleagues reacting to theseadditions.

Tangible Outcomes: The clearest evidence of thesuccess of the WeSpace is the multiple, tangiblescientific outcomes produced during the sessions. Inall, the users reported that the work done during thesessions will enable them to submit a new observingproposal, as well as provide significant content to threescientific ongoing journal papers which otherwisewould not have been made.

7. Conclusion and Future Work

WeSpace provides seamless integration of personaldevices to a table-centered, multi-user, multi-surfaceenvironment, as well as customized visualizationfacilities for visual exploration. In this paper, wepresent the system design of the WeSpace, ourcontributions to the multi-surface collaborative systemcommunity are 1) the system infrastructure whichallows users to connect and visually share their laptopcontent on-the-fly, and supports the extension of nativevisualization applications, and 2) the table-centricdesign employed in customized WeSpace applicationsto support cross-surface interactions.

Future work of this ongoing project includes: a) thedevelopment of WeSpace native applications to fit theparticular requirements of other scientific domains, b)the incorporation of other cross-surface interactionhardware or techniques to the system, and c) a sessionrecording facility, which saves ongoing screen imagesand control information through the session and allowsinteractive retrieval to the session afterwards.



8. Acknowledgements

We deeply thank the COMPLETE group, withoutwhom this research could not have been performed.This research was conducted at Mitsubishi ElectricResearch Labs. Hao Jiang is partially supported by the863 Program, grant number 2006AAOIZ131 and2008AAOIZ132.

9. References

[1] Baudisch, P., Cutrell, E., Hinckley, K., Gruen, R. (2004).Mouse ether: accelerating the acquisition of targets acrossmulti-monitor displays. In Proc. CHI 04, 1379-1382.[2] Biehl, 1. T., Bailey, B. P. (2004). ARIS: an interface forapplication relocation in an interactive space. In Proc. ofGraphics interface 04, 107-116.[3] Biehl, 1. T., Bailey, B. P. (2006). Improving scalabilityand awareness in iconic interfaces for multiple-deviceenvironments. In Proc. AVI 06,91-94.[4] Biehl, 1.T., Baker, W.T., Bailey, B.P., Tan, D.S., Inkpen,K.M., Czerwinski, M. (2008). IMPROMPTU: A NewInteraction Framework for Supporting Collaboration inMultiple Display Environments and Its Field Evaluation forCo-located Software Development. In Proc. CHI 08, 939948.[5] Booth, K.S., Fisher, B.D., Lin, C.J., Argue, R. (2002).The "mighty mouse" multi-screen collaboration tool. InProc. UIST 02, 209-212.[6] Dietz, P., Leigh, D. (2001). DiamondTouch: a multi-usertouch technology. In Proc. UIST 01,219-226.[7] Everitt, K., Shen, C., Ryall, K., Forlines, C. (2006).MultiSpace: Enabling Electronic Document Micro-mobilityin Table-Centric, Multi-Device Environments. In Proc.Tabletop 06, 27-34.[8] Fischer, M., Stone, M., Liston, K., Kunz, 1., Singhal, V.(2002). Multi-stakeholder collaboration: The CIFE iRoom.In Proc. CIB W78 Conference 2002: Distributing Knowledgein Building, 6-13.[9] Forlines, C., Esenther, A., Shen, C., Wigdor, D., Ryall, K.(2006). Multi-user, multi-display interaction with asingleuser, single-display geospatial application. In Proc.UIST 06, 273-276.[10] Forlines, C., Lilien, R. (2008) Adapting a Single-user,Single-display Molecular Visualization Application for Usein a Multi-user, Multi-Display Environment. In Proc. A VI 08.[11] Isenberg, T., Miede, A., Carpendale, S. A bufferframework for supporting responsive interaction ininformation visualization interfaces. (2006). In Proc. Int.Con! Creating, Connecting and Collaborating throughComputing (C5'06), IEEE Computer Society, 262-269.[12] Izadi, S., Brignull, H., Rodden, T., Rogers, Y.,Underwood, M. (2003). Dynamo: a public interactive surfacesupporting the cooperative sharing and exchange of media.InProc. of UIST 03, 159-168.[13] Jiang, H., Wigdor, D., Forlines, C., Borkin, M.,Kauffmann, 1., Shen, C. (2008). LivOlay: Interactive Ad-HocRegistration and Overlapping of Applications for

Collaborative Visual Exploration. In Proc. CHI 08, 13571360.[14] JOGL API. https://jogl.dev.java.net/[15] Johanson, B., Fox. A., Winograd, T. (2002). TheInteractive Workspaces Project: Experiences with UbiquitousComputing Rooms. IEEE Pervasive Computing, v.1, n.2(April 2002),67-74.[16] Johanson, B., Hutchins, G., Winograd, T., Stone, M.(2002). PointRight: experience with flexible input redirectionin interactive workspaces. In Proc. UIST 02,227-234.[17] Johanson, B., Ponnekanti, S., Sengupta, C., Fox, A.(2001). Multibrowsing: Moving Web Content acrossMultiple Displays. In Proc. UbiComp 01, 346-353.[18] Miura, M., Shizuki, B., Tanaka, 1. (2004). comDesk: ACooperative Assistance Tool Based on P2P Techniques. InProc. KES 04, LNAI3214, 883-890,[19] Nacenta, M.A., Sallam, S., Champoux, B., Subramanian,S., Gutwin, C. (2006). Perspective cursor: perspective-basedinteraction for multi-display environments. In Proc. CHI 06,289-298.[20] Prante, T., Streitz, N., Tandler, P. (2004). Roomware:Computers Disappear and Interaction Evolves. Computer 37,12 (Dec. 2004),47-54.[21] ReaIVNC. http://www.realvnc.com/[22] Rekimoto, 1., Saitoh, M. (1999). Augmented surfaces: aspatially continuous work space for hybrid computingenvironments. In Proc. CHI 99, 378-385.[23] Shen, C., Everitt, K.M., Ryall, K. UbiTable: ImpromptuFaceto-Face Collaboration on Horizontal Interactive Surfaces.In Proc. UbiColnp 03, LNCS 2864, 281-288.[24] Shen, C., Vernier, F. D., Forlines, C., and Ringel, M.(2004). DiamondSpin: an extensible toolkit for around-thetable interaction. In Proc. CHI 04, 167-174.[25] Stefik, M., Foster, G., Bobrow, D.G., Kahn, K., Lanning,S., Suchman, L. Beyond the chalkboard: computer supportfor collaboration and problem solving in meetings. Commun.ACM 30, 1 (Jan. 1987),32-47.[26] Streitz, N.A., GeiBler, 1., Holmer, T., Konomi, S.,Mtiller-Tomfelde, C., Reischl, W., Rexroth, P., Seitz, P.,Steinmetz, R. (1999). i-LAND: an interactive landscape forcreativity and innovation. In Proc. CHI 99, 120-127.[27] Tan, D.S., Gergle, D., Scupelli, P., Pausch, R. (2006).Physically large displays improve performance on spatialtasks. ACM Trans. Computer-Hunlan Interaction 13, 1 (Mar.2006),71-99. .[28] Tan, D.S., Meyers, B., Czerwinski, M. (2004). WinCuts:manipulating arbitrary window regions for more effectiveuse of screen space. In CHI ' 04 Extended Abstract;s 15251528.[29] Tuddenham, P., Robinson, P. (2007). T3: RapidPrototyping of High-Resolution and Mixed-PresenceTabletop Applications. In Proc. Tabletop 2007, 11-18.[30] Wallace, G., Li, K. (2007). Virtually Shared Displaysand Input Devices. In Proc. of the 2007 USENIX AnnualTechnical Conference, 375-379.[31] Wigdor, D., Shen, C., Forlines, C., Balakrishnan, R.(2006). Table-centric interactive spaces for real-timecollaboration. In Proc. AVI 06, 103-107.



system design for the wespace: linking personal …dwigdor/research/jiang_wespace.pdfsystem design...

Documents