The mapping involves the following steps: First, determine the interaction type that is performed on the source view. In the example of Fig. 3, the user has performed a Mark action on his PDA. Next, the system determines the object(s) which are affected by the interaction (in the example, the graphical representation of street#1 has been marked). The system also determines which action on the PC side corresponds best to the action that has been executed on the PDA display (in the example, the appropriate action is named Mark_PC). Finally, the system determines the graphical representation of street#1 on the PC display and applies the action Mark_PC to it. In order to increase and improve the functionality of our current demonstrator we intend to equip the different viewer components with additional interaction facilities, for example, in order to enable zooming and scrolling of displays.
So far, we only conducted some informal usability tests with our demonstrator. Based on these observations, we got a clearer idea on the sort of appropriate information displays and the type of collaboration modes which are likely to support the users in solving their tasks. For example, it tuned out that collaborations without any verbal (or textual) communication channel does not work. On the other hand, the availability of graphical representations -- though being different from each other -- help to facilitate collaborations on localization and route planning tasks. Another observation concerns the way how the users exchange markings among each others. It became apparent that one should prefer a collaboration principle which leaves the decisions to the individual users when and from where they want to "import" other views. Also, it seems not advisable to import markings from several other users at the same time since this can result in confusing displays. Our ongoing evaluation work includes a comparison of the kind of interactions and conversational exchanges that occur when a group of users have to solve a route planning task together in two different settings. In the first setting, the group members will meet physically in a room, while in the second setting the group members are at different locations but will use the system to jointly solve the task.
Dourish P. ( 1998). Introduction: The state of play. Special Issue on Interaction and Collaboration in MUDs. Computer Supported Cooperative Work: The Journal of Collaborative Computing 7( 1-2), 1-7.
Yong C., Buchanan C. ( 1996). Evaluation of Collaborative Classroom Tools: Groupware. CSIS Department, Kennesaw State College. Report available under: http://csis3.kennesaw.edu/~groupwre/index.html