Designing Multi-User Interfaces for Collaboration

Just as Nicola Yuill and Yvonne Rogers explain in their report, “Mechanisms for Collaboration: A Design and Evaluation Framework for Multi-User Interfaces,” I agree that multi-user interfaces aren’t necessarily ‘natural’ and that in order to design these interfaces for everyday use there must be “constraints on awareness, control, and availability” (Yuill, Rogers 2). By focusing on constraining these design aspects it is possible to make these devices more natural and useful for communication and collaboration. In order to make these devices more natural and useful for communication, it is important to focus on various social aspects that may have an affect on it's users abilities, such as disabled people or young children whose minds are not fully developed. The whole point of Yuill and Rogers’ study is to discover how multi-user interfaces can be designed to better assist people in collaborative work spaces, including people with social constraints. “New multi-user interfaces represent a qualitative shift in supporting collaborative group work: the freedom of input enables gesturing, speaking, and touching. These can all be seen, heard, and experienced by others...” (Yuill, Rogers 4). The fact that multi-user interfaces enable multiple users to have the ability to experience what one person is experiencing, simultaneously, allows it to be a “superior means of collaboration.”

In their report, “Designing Electronic Collaborative Learning Environments,” Paul Kirchner, Jan- Willem Strijbos, Karel Kreijns, and Peter Jelle Beers of Educational Technology Research and Development, all agree that usability must be a central factor when designing these mutli-user interfaces for better use in collaborative settings.  In their terms, “Usability is concerned with whether a system allows for the accomplishment of a set of tasks in an efficient and effective way that satisfies the user” (Ed. Tech 50). In order to make a multi-user interface a successful collaborative tool, this design aspect must involve what Yuill and Rogers discuss in their report: awareness. While focusing on making the device successful in accomplishing tasks in an efficient manner for collaboration, it is important that all users “have an ongoing awareness of the actions, intentions, emotions and other mental states of other interactants” (Yuill, Rogers 6). In their research, Yuill and Rogers show that various users display signs of awareness when using multi-user interfaces. These signs of awareness include: making running commentaries on their own actions, anticipating collisions by adjusting their positions, and sometimes elbowing others out of the way. “These implicit mechanisms of awareness play a central role in supporting collaboration with multi-user interfaces” (Yuill, Rogers 7). All of these signs of awareness play into making the design of these devices more natural for use by multiple people. However, in order to make multi-user interfaces more efficient in collaborative work, there must be a constraint on this aspect; since, too much awareness can cause issues with use.

This need for constraints is also explained in “Designing Electronic Collaborative Learning Environments.” In this report, it is mentioned that “social constraints and conventions.. play a role in collaborative environments” (Ed. Tech 53). Both reports agree that when designing multi-user interfaces there must be a control of action in order to prevent things such as individual domination or the “free rider” effect, which is described as users in a collaborative setting whom invest only a minimum effort into group performances (Ed. Tech. 54). In their report, Yuill and Rogers recognize the benefits of devices that precede multi-user interfaces mentioning that “A mouse can act in some respect like the ‘talking stick’ that some teachers use as a tangible device to support turn-taking in conversation” (Yuill, Rogers 9). They are essentially suggesting design constraints for multi-user interfaces that control the equal distribution of work among groups for the prevention of too much dominance within the group.

Later in their report, Yuill and Rogers discuss the relevancy of the availability of background information within multi-user interfaces. They explain availability as “what information is on hand in the background to influence users’ awareness and control.. it concerns background information relevant to the task that is accessible for all explicitly over time” (Yuill, Rogers 10). Availability of background information is important in multi-user interfaces, specifically for collaborative projects, because it provides a better understanding for all users accomplishing similar tasks. It also enables what is referred to as the process of negotiation, which “starts when a team member makes as yet an unshared knowledge explicit or tangible to others… After one team member has made contribution, others can try to understand it” (Ed. Tech. 61). This exchange and understanding of information is made available by the information a multi-user interface provides. With the availability of background information users are able to feel more natural using these new technologies.

In a blog post on Wired.com titled: “Does Your Tech Make You Feel Superhuman?” Tom Chatfield sees multi-user interfaces as “superhuman” in that it makes users feel a sense of power when using them. In his post, he mentions the use of skeuomorphic interaction design, meaning that "elements of design include structures that serve little or no purpose in the artifact fashioned from the new material but was essential to the object made by the original material” (Chatfield). Although skeuomorphs are unnecessary in designing multi-user interfaces for collaboration, they still allow for a more natural feel to these “superhuman” technologies. Including features such as the use of digital pens and erasers (like in Smart Board designs) in multi-user interface designs can be beneficial in creating awareness for collaborative work on these devices. However, as Yuill and Rogers point out, there must be some sort of level of constraint for these mechanisms and these constraints can arise from various sources, such as physical capabilities or in-capabilities.

So, in designing multi-user interfaces for collaborative work, it is crucial to consider different social aspects that may affect user abilities. Yuill and Rogers believe that in order to successfully design multi-user interfaces it is important to recognize groups with difficulties in collaborative tasks such as, young children learning to collaborate. By studying these groups, discoveries on how to make multi-user interfaces more beneficial in group situations becomes apparent. After studying three different groups, Yuill and Rogers have come up with three different behavioral mechanisms that must be considered in order to create a successful, more ‘natural,’ multi-user interface design. These mechanisms include: “high awareness of others’ actions and intentions, high control over the interface and high availability of background information” (Yuill, Rogers 2). The most crucial aspect in creating successful multi-user interfaces for the use of collaborative work group is the level of constraints put on these mechanisms. The levels of constraints proposed by Yuill and Rogers can be extremely beneficial to new multi-user interfaces and should be considered by the designers of upcoming devices. However, in addition to constraining these proposed mechanisms to benefit collaborative multi-user interfaces, skeuomorphic interactive design elements should also be included in order to create a more ‘natural’ device along with consistent navigational themes that empower its users. 

White Papers: An Accomodated Citizens' Genre

In a report by The National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty and The National Coalition for the Homeless from July 2009 entitled “Homes Not Handcuffs: The Criminalization of Homelessness in U.S. Cities,” a lot of statistical information is provided on how the criminalization of homeless people is a detriment to society as a whole. As opposed to helping these people who are “doing things they need to do to survive,” by providing them with shelter, the government is choosing to enforce more laws that “appear to have the purpose of moving homeless people out of sight, or even out of a given city.” (9). Since this white paper is providing the public with insight on how the government is choosing to treat the issues with homeless people on the streets, it is in turn defining itself as a citizens’ genre while also having explanatory aspects. As the report continues to inform the public on what is going on within their communities, it also provides recommendations on how to potentially resolve the issues presented.

This white paper not only addresses issues of homeless criminalization, it also includes some hefty accommodations for public readership. Sources for this report originate from other complex reports and surveys on the matter. In order for the public to understand this information and why it is important to them, it must be transformed into simpler, more understandable terms. To enable the understanding of this information for the public there must be, as Jeanne Fahnestock states, a shift in genre and rhetorical situation. In her article, “Accommodating Science: The Rhetorical Life of Scientific Facts,” Fahnestock claims that “instead of simply reporting facts for a different audience, scientific accommodations are overwhelmingly epideictic; their main purpose is to celebrate rather than validate… they must be explicit in their claims about the value of the scientific discoveries they pass along.” (Fahnstock 279). So in transforming information for their public audience, The National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty and The National Coalition for the Homeless had to change their rhetorical situation in order to suit their new audience. They do so by not only simplifying their information, but also by applying the information to a situation that suits the citizen genre.

By clearly stating the issues with the criminalization of homeless people and applying simplified statistics that support their claim, this white paper successfully accommodates their material to suit their public audience. The way they intertextually fit their data into their report allows the reader to understand the information provided. By arguing from the stasis of value for the stasis of cause, this report allows for potential change in the future. With the potential for change that this report allows for the public community, it therefore falls under the category of citizens’ genre.

The Struggles of Popularizing Science

            

In order to produce a popularized article on scientific subjects, it is necessary for the information to undergo a rhetorical alteration. In her article, “Accommodating Science: The Rhetorical Life of Scientific Facts,” Jeanne Fahnestock includes multiple examples where original scientific reports undergo numerous alterations in order to become more suitable for the eyes of the general public. Amongst the three interrelated observations Fahnstock makes about her examples, she mentions that there must be a focus on “the genre shift that occurs between, the original presentation of a scientist’s work and its popularization…” (Fahnestock 277). This observation helps to understand how scientific reports must change in order to suit a generalized audience by looking at the genre shift that occurs in the process. When focusing on the genre shift that occurs between the work of a scientist and the accommodated public, it is clear that there is a shift from forensic to epideictic delivery. This shift is due to the fact that scientific accommodations serve to celebrate rather than validate.

Clearly, “Scientific papers are largely concerned with establishing the validity of the observations they report…” (Fahnestock 278), since they are focusing on compiling data for their own discourse community to compare to. However, when accommodating this information for public readership the data must be certain and the significance of the information must be clear. This is one of the main issues of accommodating science, the information from the original scientific reports become glamorized to suit a general audience. In order to keep the general audience pulled in, accommodators must insert uniqueness and rarity into the subjects they are reporting; they search for extremes in order to heighten the significance of its report. (Fahnestock 288). However, “striving for drama causes the genre to shade into the field of poetic or mythic utterance.” (Killingsworth, Palmer 135). So, by glamorizing the information it becomes, in a way, falsified; although the information is there, assumptions are made and conclusions are inferred.

This glamorization correlates with what M. Jimmie Killingsworth and Jacqueline S. Palmer discuss in their book, Ecospeak, specifically in a chapter entitled “Transformations of Scientific Discourse in the News Media.” Killingsworth and Palmer state that “…science must solve human problems and thus transcend its own version of objectivism, its own self-definition, must become engineering if it is worthy of being reported in the press.” (Killingsworth, Palmer 135). So, for a scientific article to even become newsworthy, it would have to solve some sort of issue or spark some sort of interest within the general population. An issue must be resolved within the article since, “…the public as readers would move the information themselves into the higher stases and ask, ‘Why is this happening? Is it good or bad? What should we do about it?’” (Fahenstock 292). The general public wants to know what the exact outcome of the situation is going to be or else readership is lost. Aside from dramatizing information, accommodators are also jumping to conclusions in order to fulfill the general audience’s need to know the outcome of a situation.

In order to accommodate scientific knowledge to the general public, not only does the scientific jargon in the original reports need to be simplified, but there also needs to be a shift in genre. After shifting from forensic to epideictic delivery, the accommodator needs to find a way to make the situation unique; a way to glamorize the information so that it can reach a widespread audience. However, there also needs to be a firm conclusion for the general public to acknowledge, otherwise, interest and significance is lost. Why does accommodating science for the general public have to be such a long process? Why can’t the accommodators just translate scientific jargon into simple dialect for general readers? Why does the accommodator have to include “mythic utterance” as opposed to valid facts in their popularizations?

The Rhetorical Situation of The Future of Reading

In Jonah Lehrer’s article, "The Future of Reading," there seems to be a large concern with the technological advancement of e-readers. While analyzing the rhetorical situation of this article, it is clear that Jonah perceives a flaw with how easy it is to read a text that is perfectly printed on a screen; causing reading to become an unconscious, effortless act. “Meanwhile, unusual sentences with complex clauses and smudged ink tend to require more conscious effort, which leads to more activation in the dorsal pathway. All the extra work – the slight cognitive frisson of having to decipher the words – wakes us up” (Lehrer). The fact that e-readers allow reading to become an unconscious activity is precisely Lehrer’s exigence for writing this article. As the rhetor, however, Lehrer is not the one who originated this discourse. As Keith Grant-Davie explains in his article, "Rhetorical Situations and Their Constituents:" “We can distinguish those who originated the discourse… from those who are hired to shape and deliver the message…” (Grant-Davie 269). This topic has already been largely discussed in the writing community ever since the first Kindle was released; Lehrer is clearly responding to a topic that is already present in his discourse community.

            That being said, Lehrer is not a “creative genius,” he is merely stating his opinion on an already present subject and offering a potential solution to the problem. The fact that Lehrer pieces together fragments of pre-existing texts to build on his own discourse is what makes this article intertextual. As James E. Porter puts it in his article, "Intertextuality and the Discourse Community," “Examining texts ‘intertextually’ means looking for ‘traces,’ the bits and pieces of Text which writers or speakers borrow and sew together to create new discourse” (Porter 34). Although Lehrer’s article is intertextual in Porter’s terms, he still fails to have a consistently strong ethos within his discourse community. The fact that Lehrer has failed to successfully make use of his sources has caused his credibility to drop significantly. This decrease in credibility can be seen as a constraint on his writing since “what we have already written must constrain what we write next” (Grant-Davie 273). However, within the bounds of his article, e-readers may be seen as the constraint to his exigence. Lehrer does recognize “the astonishing potential of digital texts and e-readers. For [him], the most salient fact is this: It’s never been easier to buy books, read books, or read about books you might want to buy” (Lehrer). On the other hand, it is the e-reader that is making the content that we read easy to perceive; Lehrer worries that “before long, we’ll become so used to the mindless clarity of e-ink – to these screens that keep on getting better – that the technology will feedback onto the content, making us less willing to endure harder texts. We’ll forget what it’s like to flex those dorsal muscles, to consciously decipher a literate clause” (Lehrer)  So, since his main concern is losing the ability to read consciously, not just skimming screens, Lehrer’s constraint thus becomes the e-reader itself. It is the e-reader that is enabling people to read quickly and easily; and therefore, unconsciously.

            Although Lehrer uses small amounts of sources to back up his main point, his article seems to be mostly opinion based. By doing so, Lehrer seems to be reaching out to an audience that isn’t necessarily a part of the sci-tech community. He goes off on tangents and inserts little personal tidbits; for example, when discussing the technological advancement of the clarity of screens he says “(I still can’t believe that people watched golf before there were HD screens. Was the ball even visible? For me, the pleasure of televised golf is all about the lush clarity of grass” (Lehrer). This sentence is irrelevant to his article, except that it allows him to connect to his audience on a personal level by reflecting on his personal views of the advancement of screen clarity.

            Even though Lehrer fails to offer a solution to his exigence, he does, however, state his main concerns with the e-reader and uses other sources to try and communicate his concerns with his discourse community. This article allows the audience to weigh the pros and cons of the e-reader as Lehrer discusses the positives and negatives of his situation. Grant-Davie states that “Rhetors may invite audiences to accept new identities for themselves, offering readers a vision not of who they are but of who they could be” (Grant-Davie 271). In this case, Lehrer invites his audience to either share his views or to opinionate against them. Perhaps, while beginning the article, the reader might have been pro e-reader; however, after reading Lehrer’s views and the source from a neuroscientist that he provides, perhaps the reader might have second guessed their decision on the e-reader stance. This is the most important part of a rhetorical situation, the outcome of how the audience perceives it, specifically after being given the information needed to make a decision.