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.