A Communicative Framework for a Transformational
Interaction Space
Nathaniel Savery
University of Colorado at Boulder University of Colorado at Boulder
saveryn@colorado.edu
ABSTRACT
We approach synchronous collaboration via an object-
oriented multi-user programming environment where
objects are open, relational, and require attention in order to
persist. We propose an immersive interaction environment
that accommodates both natural language and object
scripting to enable end-user co-development of object and
relationship representations across time and space into
‘situations’ that are both the structure for, and outcome of,
an ongoing open-ended collaborative process.
Author Keywords
attention, co-creation, communication studies,
communication theory, coorientation, indeterminacy,
participation, transformational interaction.
ACM Classification Keywords
H.5.3 Information interfaces and presentation (e.g., HCI):
Group and Organization Interfaces – Collaborative
computing, Computer-supported cooperative work.
General Terms
Design, Human Factors, Theory
INTRODUCTION
Communication studies and CSCW share a common
interest in human interaction. Both hold interaction as
diverse and complex, and both develop resources for
responding to the fundamental uncertainty intrinsic of all
interaction. In order to do this, recent communication
theory moves beyond models of communication as
reciprocal transmission of messages to consider the
entanglement between context, language, action, and the
design of our material world [7]. In CSCW, similar
discussion has focused on issues such as supporting
dynamic interaction types [1, 2] and ephemerality and
prototypicality in collaboration systems [4].
Communicative action does not just occur ‘in’ a context;
rather, it acts to define that context as well. Context in this
sense includes the perceived relationships, roles, history,
and goals enacted among participants, We accept, with
Dourish [5], that salient aspects of the context for any
situated action cannot be systematically and completely
Copyright is held by the author/owner(s).
CSCW 2010, February 6–10, 2010, Savannah, Georgia, USA.
ACM 978-1-60558-795-0/10/02.
Michele H. Jackson
jackson@colorado.edu
represented, defined a priori, or considered stable and
unchanging. Given this, we are called to refocus our design
practice to acknowledge a fundamental dynamism and
indeterminacy when we consider theorizing interaction and
its relation to context.
We assume that participants in interaction are inescapably
interdependent in some way, each with a unique and
irreducible conscious and unconscious sense of reality. That
is, we are inextricably bound to one another when we are
co-present, meaning that we are embedded in responsive
relationships and we cannot ‘not communicate’. Because
we possess incomplete knowledge about other participants
and about environmental factors, any aspect of our
relationship to the situation is subject to transformation
through the act of communicating. Furthermore, we cannot
fully predict whether and how our own actions might
change the interaction, although we often attempt to do so.
Finally, as interactions occur in time, change is an
inescapable element of the environment, preventing any
complete stabilization of a relationship and giving all
meaning a certain ‘provisionality’ and open-endedness.
How might we design a communication environment that
reflects these particular transformational characteristics of
communication? CSCW scholars have been pursuing some
of these questions, and provide us some starting points [3,
6]. As one example, the participatory, design-in-use
perspective offers a rich overlap with the domain of
communication studies.
We use the concept of coorientation to emphasize the
coordination of participants’ attention and their
interdependence, (though not necessarily agreement)
concerning the salient aspects of the interaction. Precisely
by simulating and enforcing an environment characterized
by interdependence, incompleteness, and ongoing change
can the possibility be created for supporting dynamic, yet
still effective and goal-directed, collaborative interaction.
DESIGN PRINCIPLES
Deriving from the above, the following are general design
principles for a transformational interaction space:
1. Objects are not predefined as content or as context. An
object’s type is defined by users during interaction.
2. Objects are created and modified as a function of users
‘paying attention to them’.
3. Objects exist always ‘in relation to’ at least one other
object. Such relations are created by users, who must
explicitly articulate at least one relationship. All users are
aware of the relationships and may respond.
4. Objects exist in time, requiring ongoing acknowledgment
via attention to remain ‘present’ in an interaction. By
default, objects dissipate or degrade if they do not receive
sufficient ongoing attention. The level of attention required
may vary. Some objects may be provisionally ‘stabilized’,
such that they persist without user attention.
5. Anything created in an interaction is open and may be
extended, or duplicated and repurposed by other users.
6. Different versions of any object may be retained, and
made accessible to any user (insofar as they comply to the
previous principles). Thus, although attempts to create a
shared understanding of context may at times require users
to choose among incommensurable interpretations, users
may also ignore this challenge as long as they can find
ways to sustain the interaction.
SYSTEM MECHANISMS
Working from these principles, we propose an interaction
design environment grounded in a set of mechanisms that
preserve the emergent and transformational character of
interaction. Values for parameters are set at the outset of an
interaction, and then may be reconfigured by users during
the interaction itself.
1. Object-creation mechanism whereby user-specified
objects are automatically populated with properties defining
their (a) placement in time, (b) relative ‘salience’ to the
interaction (as initial level of attention), and (c) current
relationships to other objects and users.
2. Relationship-enforcement mechanisms that calculate
interdependencies and generate response structures that
request input from other users as appropriate. These
mechanisms then modify the attributes of all relevant
objects according to those responses.
3. Temporal accounting whereby an algorithm
systematically modifies (updates) time-related properties of
objects at varying intervals. Thus objects become
vulnerable to change processes that the system initiates,
including degradation of objects.
4. Attention-awareness mechanisms that provide dynamic
display reconfiguration based on object attributes of
‘salience’. In addition to reading and responding to
attention cues in real-time, an algorithm would reconfigure
the visual characteristics of pre-existing objects based on
their attributes of attention to enforce time based change
and degradation.
Requiring users to negotiate directly with one another to
configure and re-configure the parameters of their
engagement encourages users toward thoughtful, mutually-
beneficial interpretations of situations. These
interpretations could be exported as objects to further
interactions, creating a history of ongoing collaboration and
shared meaning.
DISCUSSION
In an important sense, interactions do not occur in isolation.
They take place within streams of ongoing relationships,
collaborations, and perceptions. Interacting individuals
simultaneously engage in multiple, perhaps conflicting,
processes that reflect diverse perspectives and styles. The
body of interactions taking place within this system may
accumulate into a jumble of context-specific configurations,
with an ecology of collaboration emerging as succeeding
interactions adapt to (and transform) changing
environmental conditions. The provisionality of functional
specifications and requirement that users co-invest in their
stabilization invites ongoing redesign toward increasingly
robust, context-relevant design.
We should also expect that the underlying assumptions of
openness and shared responsibility will have material and
observable consequences for the quality of the interaction
over time. The indeterminacy of meaning is ‘generative’
here in the sense that it promotes reflection, in considering
the nature of a situation and one’s participation in it. Users
engage with both the pre-existing constraints on the
interaction and the future possibilities toward which the
current state of the interaction is oriented. Holding users
explicitly accountable to one another and to the inexorable
movement of time, the system keeps reflexivity grounded in
the eternal present, focused on ‘moving the situation
forward’ in relevant ways, rather than ‘just talking about it’.
REFERENCES
1. J. Bardram, “Designing for the dynamics of cooperative
work activities,” Proc. of the 1998 ACM Conf. on
CSCW, Seattle: ACM, 1998, pp. 89-98.
2. A. Bernstein, “How can cooperative work tools support
dynamic group process?” Proc. of the 2000 ACM Conf
on CSCW, Philadelphia: ACM, 2000, pp. 279-288.
3. S. Bødker, “When second wave HCI meets third wave
challenges,” Proc. of the 4th Nordic Conf. on HCI, Oslo:
ACM, 2006, pp. 1-8.
4. S. Bødker and E. Christiansen, “Designing for
ephemerality and prototypicality,” Proc. of the 5th Conf.
on Designing Interactive Systems, Cambridge ACM,
2004, pp. 255-260.
5. P. Dourish, “What we talk about when we talk about
context,” Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, vol. 8,
Feb. 2004, pp. 19-30.
6. P. Sengers and B. Gaver, “Staying open to
interpretation: engaging multiple meanings in design
and evaluation,” Proc. of the 6th Conf on Designing
Interactive Systems, University Park: ACM, 2006, pp.
99-108.
7. J.R. Taylor, D.C. Groleau, L. Heaton, and E. Van Every,
The Computerization of Work, Thousand Oaks; Sage,
2000.