Open Research OnlineThe Open University’s repository of research publicationsand other research outputs

Designing novel interactional workspaces to supportface to face consultationsConference or Workshop ItemHow to cite:

Rodden, Tom; Rogers, Yvonne; Halloran, John and Taylor, Ian (2003). Designing novel interactional workspacesto support face to face consultations. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in ComputingSystems, 5-10 Oct 2003, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, USA.

For guidance on citations see FAQs.

c© [not recorded]

Version: [not recorded]

Link(s) to article on publisher’s website:http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1145/642611.642623

Copyright and Moral Rights for the articles on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyrightowners. For more information on Open Research Online’s data policy on reuse of materials please consult the policiespage.

oro.open.ac.uk

Designing novel interactional workspaces tosupport face to face consultations

Tom Rodden1, Yvonne Rogers2, John Halloran2, Ian Taylor1

1. The School of Computer Science andInformation Technology

The University of NottinghamJubilee Campus, Wollaton Road

Nottingham NG1 8BBUnited Kingdom

{tar, imt}@nottingham.ac.uk

2. Interact LabSchool of Cognitive and Computing Sciences

University of SussexFalmer

Brighton BN1 9QHUnited Kingdom

{yvonner, johnhall}@cogs.susx.ac.uk

ABSTRACTThis paper describes the design and deployment of a novelinteractional workspace, intended to provide more effectivesupport for face-to-face consultations between two parties.We focus on the initial consultations between customer andagent that take place during the development of complexproducts. Findings from an ethnographic study of theexisting use of technological systems show the interactionduring such consultations to be disjointed and not wellsupported. As an alternative approach, we developed anovel arrangement of multiple displays intended to promoteshoulder-to-shoulder collaboration using a variety ofinterlinked representations and visualizations. The resultinginteractional workspace was used by a travel company aspart of a large international trade show attended by thegeneral public. The many consultations that took placebetween agents and customers were quite different, provingto be more equitable, open, fluid and congenial.

Categories and Subject Descriptors: H.5.2 [InformationInterfaces and Presentation]: User Interfaces —Evaluation/methodology, Prototyping, User-centereddesign; H.5.3 [Information Interfaces and Presentation]:Group and Organization Interfaces — Computer-supportedcooperative work, Synchronous interaction, H.1.2 [Modelsand Principles]: User/Machine Systems — Human factors;General Terms: Design, Experimentation, Human factors;Keywords: Ethnography

INTRODUCTIONWeb-based and e-commerce models of interaction havedominated the ways in which we see technology supportingsales. The most successful of these are those that focus onhigh volume sales, where transactions are short, single-session, straightforward and well understood (e.g. the on-line purchasing of books, flowers, software, cheap flightsand hotel rooms). Interaction has been optimized for

efficient transactions making it relatively simple for thecustomer to make purchases (e.g. the one-clickTM functiondeveloped by Amazon).

The success of these sites is often not reflected by thosethat try to sell high-value, complex products (e.g. hi-fisystems, insurance portfolios, fitted kitchens or digital TVpackages) that are custom-designed and difficult to deliverat first contact: they need to be configured andpersonalized, and this takes a long time, and a multitude ofcareful decisions between competing options.Understandably, customers are very reluctant to purchasesuch products online and instead continue to buy them via a‘bricks-and-mortar’ method; seeking trustworthy personaladvice from, and making their choices together with,another physically present human being.

We take as our starting point the face-to-face consultationcentral to these kinds of sales transactions. To this end, weundertook an ethnographic study of interactions andprocesses involved in current face-to-face salestransactions. We found problems in the way informationalresources were presented and used during the transaction.We also discovered that the physical placement oftechnologies often hindered collaboration. Based on ouranalysis, we (i) designed and built a novel arrangement ofdisplays which, in conjunction with the software wedeveloped, could more effectively integrate the multipleinformation resources used; and (ii) developed variouscomputational tools that would make the transactionprocess more fluid and easy to manage.

In addition to substantially changing the way informationcan be accessed, visualized and interacted with, we alsoexplored how the physical design of a setting could changethe nature of the collaboration between two parties when ina face-to-face setting. We built a customized interactionalworkspace containing shared displays that allowed ‘side-by-side’ and ‘shoulder-to-shoulder’ collaborations [15].

To test the resulting workspace, we placed it in a real-worldcontext, namely, an international travel show, where abroad cross-section of the general public used it incollaboration with different sales agents to undertakepreliminary consultations. We discuss the findings of this

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work forpersonal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copiesare not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and thatcopies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copyotherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists,requires prior specific permission and/or a fee.CHI 2003, April 5–10, 2003, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, USA.Copyright 2003 ACM 1-58113-630-7/03/0004…$5.00.

study in terms of the benefits that can be obtained fromdesigning novel kinds of interactional workspaces. We alsodiscuss how this approach can be used to extend existing e-commerce models.

SUPPORTING FACE TO FACE CONSULTATIONAlthough several significant e-commerce successes havebeen reported in the literature, a number of studies havefound that a large proportion of the general public are stillreluctant to buy products via the web. Various reasons forthis have been put forward, including security and trust [7];the consequences of failure [1] and the difficulty of makingrational, informed choices online without the ability todiscuss it with someone else [12].

The type of product has been suggested as a key-determining factor. Whereas people are willing to buy‘objective’ products online, like books and software, theyfind it much more difficult to make rational, informeddecisions about more ‘subjective’ products (like fashionclothing) that need other’s opinions and approval [12]. Wewould argue that complex products that are usuallydeveloped with a consultant, like a new kitchen or afinancial portfolio, are susceptible to the same types ofresistances. However, crucially, such products requirecollaboration between a salesperson and the customer.

At the same time a number of studies have shown that therole of technology in face-to-face consultations can beproblematic. For example, studies in the banking sector [6]and medical consultation [5] have suggested that thephysical layout of technology can inhibit the interactionsbetween the parties involved. An all too familiar situation isone where the ‘consultant’ (e.g. agent, doctor, receptionist)sits behind one side of a desk, retrieving and displayinginformation on their PC, with the other party marooned onthe other side, staring at the back of the computer. Thearrangement has the effect of restricting access toinformation primarily to the person in front of the computerand in so doing making it difficult for the other person tobecome engaged in the collaboration, even if both partiesare willing [11].

To overcome these problems Luff and Jirotka [8] suggest anumber of design implications for future technologiesbased on how co-located groups use everyday interactionalresources to coordinate their collaborative and socialactivities. The notion of Single Display Groupware (SDG)has also been promoted as a way of designing applicationsto support co-located groups [13]. It proposes developingapplications to appear on a large display which allows morethan one person to interact with them. For example, Streitzconstructed the InteracTable [14] as a shared digital tablefor office workers. More recently, DiamondTouchdeveloped by MERL [2] provides a shared interactivetabletop which can recognize touch input from multipleusers.

Recent studies have also suggested clear benefits of havinginformation appear on more than one display for individualusers [3, 4]. These include helping users to keep track of,

and manage, multiple tasks, for example, placing core taskson a central screen with less important tasks and associatedinformation on peripheral displays. There has been noresearch, however, investigating how co-located groupsmay accrue similar benefits when using multiple interlinkeddisplays to support their collaborative activities.

The goal of our research is to augment face-to-faceconsultations through the development of interactionalworkspaces that combine SDG’s support for cooperationwith the advantages of task demarcation and partitioningenabled by multiple displays.

UNDERSTANDING FACE TO FACE CONSULTATIONSSales-based transactions focus on the creation of complexproducts often over multiple sessions using a diversity ofresources. The specification of the product is central to thetransaction but at the outset neither the customer nor thesalesperson typically has a clear idea of what the customerreally wants, and hence what the outcome might be. Todetermine the nature of the product, much discussion,negotiation and ‘fleshing out’ needs to be carried out,especially early on, and various alternatives have to beweighed up, together with the trade-offs involved inincluding certain options and not others.

Specifying complex products involves the use of a widerange of information resources, including online bookingsystems, brochures, websites and promotional materials, aswell as the knowledge of the salesperson and theexpectations of the customer. These need to be coordinatedfor face-to-face consultations to go smoothly, but this isoften difficult to achieve. Confusion, misunderstanding andthe need for repair work can often arise.

To more fully understand the nature of the problemsinvolved in face-to-face consultations we carried out adetailed six-month ethnography, observing and video-recording a number of different sales-based transactionsthat took place at various travel companies, following thedifferent stages involved in building a round-the-world trip.We also interviewed customers and agents about theirstrategies and the problems they encountered. Here, wepresent some of our key findings of what happens duringthe beginning stages of a transaction, which is where mostproblems arise. We focus on how customer and agentinteract physically during initial face-to-face consultations,and the information representations that are used. A keyproblem we identified was that there is much asymmetrywhich affects the extent to which the two parties caneffectively collaborate.

The asymmetrical nature of supportThe technological set-up in a travel agency is designedprimarily to support the salesperson to do their job, and notthe customer. This asymmetry is manifested in the physicalarrangement of devices and the representations available toeach party.

Physical asymmetryIn all the travel agencies we visited, the PC was positionedin front of the agent, who uses it to do their tasks, like

looking up flight availability or special offers, and filling inbooking forms. The software applications that are used arealso solely aimed at the agent, to enable them to find outabout products (e.g. flights, hotels) and to producebookings. In contrast, the informational resources availableto the customer are primarily paper-based, in the form ofglossy brochures and flyers.

When the customer first enters a travel agency, they have tosit on the opposite side of the agent’s desk, largely unableto see what the agent is doing or what is appearing on theirscreen, unless they peer over or the agent swivels thecomputer monitor around for them to see. The default modeof interaction is for the agent to talk to the customer aroundthe PC monitor and only occasionally turn their screentowards the customer.

Figure 1 The arrangment of technology at a travel agency

Figure 1 shows a common scenario – the agent immersed ina world of information they are querying as part of theconsultation, which the customer cannot see. This has threeeffects:

• The arrangement is socially awkward with the technologysetting up a barrier to collaboration.

• Time is spent when the customer is waiting doingnothing, and is not being communicated with by theagent.

• The agent has to translate everything into a verbal formfor the customer to understand what is going on.

This means that the content of the consultation – a roundthe world trip – is hard to ‘see’: it tends to be somethingimagined on the basis of talk – and of course, the customerhas to remember the information from moment to moment,and with a complex product can easily get lost. This issue iscompounded by the numerous representations used.

Representational asymmetryMuch of the initial transactional process involves accessingand making decisions about certain kinds of information(e.g. flights, hotels, dates, cost) presented as a series ofseparate representations. Some of these, notably brochures,are specifically for customers to use while they work up aninitial plan. Others, including online booking forms andproduct databases, can, in contrast, only be accessed,understood and operated by agents, and must be used totranslate the customer’s ideas into a quote.

What this means in practice, is that much of the interactionthat takes place during a transaction involves translatingrepresentations between the agent and customer. On the onehand, customer-geared representations (e.g. brochureinformation about hotels, dates, prices and restrictions)need to be translated into a form that the agent can workwith when interacting with the various computer-basedsystems, and on the other, system-based representationshave to be translated into a form that customers canunderstand.

Hence, it is not surprising to find the representations thatare created by the agent and customers during thetransaction are also quite different. For example, thecustomer’s way of initially representing their proposed planis chronologically, in terms of when and how long theywant to spend at a place. In contrast, the agent needs torepresent the customer’s plan as an itinerary, which has tobe formatted in terms of ‘product types’, according to theorder different products can be booked (typically flights arebooked first, followed by hotels, followed by other ‘landsales’ like hire cars or tours). This requirement is alwaysimplicit, so customers may, despite writing down a detailedplan, produce something that requires much working up bythe agent.

Design ImplicationsThese observations point to a number of difficulties thatcustomers and agents currently need to contend with. Thedesign of new interactional workspaces could improvethese by:

• Reducing physical asymmetry by configuring theorientation of displays to promote cooperation at the coreof the consultation.

• Reducing representational asymmetry by providingshared informational resources that both customer andagent can refer to and make sense of.

The design would need to promote the joint planning andexploration of the product and support better integration ofthe different representations used by both parties to buildup a product. In so doing, it could open up new possibilitiesfor exploring the creation of a product by providing (i) theability to create and visualize a number of alternativeitineraries and (ii) ways of visually exploring differentproduct possibilities and alternatives within each itinerary.The proposed benefits of our design recommendationsinclude:

• Empowering the customer, by enabling them to take amore active part in the initial stages of planning.

• Reducing social awkwardness, through designing betterphysical and technological arrangements and enhancingcamaraderie between customer and agent.

• Reducing translation costs and, in so doing, the cognitiveeffort required to understand and develop a product.

• Enabling the customer and agent to plan synchronouslyand in a complementary way.

• Providing, through the use of computational offloading[10], a richer, more detailed set of possibilities andpermutations to be explored.

DESIGNING A NEW INTERACTIONAL WORKSPACETo begin with, we considered ways of reducing thephysical asymmetry inherent in the current arrangement oftechnologies. We undertook this through:

1 Altering the physical arrangement of the technology toallow more equitable access to information by bothparties.

2 Providing different seating/standing arrangements toallow the customer and agent to sit or stand side by siderather than opposite each other.

Specifically, we were interested in designing a newworkspace that both parties could use to view displayedinformation together, and to work shoulder-to-shoulder.

Having gone through a few design iterations we decided onan arrangement called the ‘eTable’. This was designed likea console, providing three integrated large flat 21-inchdisplays set at 1280 x 1024 resolution, two horizontal andone vertical, embedded in an oval table 1.5m long and 1mwide (see Figure 2). In earlier studies, we had found thatalthough single horizontal large-screen displays affordimproved collaboration when compared to huddling arounda single workstation, there were problems with size andplacement of windows, which could alter or even overlap.At the same time, shoulder-to-shoulder collaboration wasdifficult because the top of the display was too far awayand at too low a resolution.

We decided that smaller multiple screens with higherresolution would be more readable by a seated group, andthat being able to sit side by side would also supportpassing of input devices thus facilitating interaction by bothusers. At the same time, this decision follows work on useof multiple displays [3], which enables individuals tostructure their work by allocating fixed positions to givendisplays that do not need to be moved in order to beattended to; rather attention is allocated through glancing,which is more seamless and less likely to breakconcentration. Moreover we assumed that the spatiallyfixed presentation of various information representationswould help with ‘dynalinking’, i.e. integration of differentrepresentations [10]. This would allow users to maintain amore complex picture of the connections between thevarious pieces of information than if presented jumbled upin a single window.

Another advantage this arrangement offers over a largesingle-screen display is privacy. The design of the eTableconsole enabled only those seated or standing near it to beable to see the information and itineraries unfold on the twohorizontal displays; an important consideration for use in apublic space.

The version of the eTable shown in Figure 2 was designedas an oval shape, so that when the customer (this can be oneor more) and agent sit in front of it they can more easily seeeach other and make eye contact. Sufficient surface spacewas also provided for a wireless mouse and keyboardtogether with room for placing other materials.

Figure 2 The eTable console with interlinked displays

In conjunction with designing a new physical workspace,we also sought to reduce representational asymmetry bydeveloping information visualizations that were intended tobe easily understandable and used as shared referents byboth parties. They were designed, in addition, to reduce thecognitive effort required when building up a product,including performing various computations (e.g. workingout the cost of adding or subtracting items to/from anitinerary). The intention was to enable the agent andcustomer to more easily and rapidly compare the costs, andother results, of working out different itineraries. We alsodeveloped an interactive planning tool that was highlyvisual and exploited direct manipulation interaction,allowing the agent to build up a product in ways notpossible with existing ‘verbal’ means. In so doing, it washoped that one of the benefits would be to reduce thetranslation costs. The representations used to create anitinerary were designed to be put together in a number ofways, including matching the way the agents were used toworking (via specifying products according to bookingorder) and matching the chronological ordering thatcustomers use when planning.

The interactive representations were designed to bepresented on the different displays of the eTable console, ina contextually ‘dynalinked’ way [9]. For example, theinteractive planner tool is presented on the left hand displayand the effects of making certain choices in terms of timeand cost are shown on the right hand display (see Figure 3overleaf), synchronously updating in appropriate ways.

The interactive planner (screen 1) provides a palette of‘product’ icons (planes, trains, hotels) which can bedragged onto an interactive map (such as Australia, asshown) which is then iteratively built up. For example, ahotel can be placed on a destination and this creates adropdown menu with all the hotels available in thatlocation. Selecting a menu item triggers a relevant pagefrom the online brochure, which appears on screen 3. At thesame time interactive ‘flyouts’ (calendar, room type) popup, overlaying the planner, and providing entry points forselection of various options (e.g. number of nights). After ahotel is specified in terms of the dates, room type andnumber of nights, the visualizations on screen 2 areupdated. A flashing white circle initially pops up on screen2 to attract the attention of the agent and customer to viewthese updates. Other products (flights, tours, car hire) canbe added in the same way.

The two visualizations were designed as ‘computationaloffloaders’: showing dynamically-updated graphicalrepresentations of the amount of budget spent so far and thesegments of the itinerary being built up, using, respectively,a ‘barometer’ representation and a time-line. Thesecomputations require considerable effort to accomplish by ahuman, especially when multiple components are beingadded or subtracted. Instead the visualizations show effectson budget and time, without either the agent or thecustomer having to work it out in their heads or on a bit ofpaper. Furthermore, the agent and customer, at a glance,can see how much is being spent, without ever having toexplicitly refer to it. This can help overcome some of thesocial awkwardness experienced by customers, reducingthe need for them to have to ask ‘how much will that addon?’ or ‘have I gone over my budget yet?’.

DEPLOYING THE SYSTEM IN A REAL-LIFE SETTINGWe wanted to evaluate our system in an authentic setting,where real customers and agents could use it to explore andbuild up potential round the world trips. We were given anopportunity, by the travel company we have been workingclosely with, to try out our new system at a largeinternational travel trade show. The show was based in alarge exhibition center and lasted four days, having athroughput of many thousands of people, drawn from thegeneral public and the travel business. The travel companywas very concerned that our system appear professional ontheir stand and have the right look-and-feel and brandingassociated with the company (a specialist in Australiantravel and purpose-built tours). Hence, we let them set it up.They positioned it on the corner of their stand andembellished it with a large koala bear, piles of their travelbrochures, posters and a vase of flowers. The effect was tomake it an eye-catching showpiece (see Figure 4).

The form of ‘window dressing’ designed by our travelagents proved to be very effective. All manner of peoplewere attracted to the stand, including single businessmen/women, families, young and old people, couples andgroups of friends, and disabled people (e.g. a deaf couple).Over the four days, about 100 different groupings actuallyinteracted with the system alongside a trained sales agent,who assisted them. Sometimes the system was left to rununattended by staff and members of the public triedexperimenting with it by themselves.

The wow factorThe agents were initially trained by us as to how to use thesystem functionality and interact with the differentrepresentations. They quickly saw its potential in thecontext of their work (many not having seen or heard of itbefore); and were especially impressed by the interlinking

Display 1 (Horizontal) : Travel PlannerDisplay 2 (Horizontal) :Budget and TimeLine

Products are assignedto/between locations. (Adrop-down menuappears for detailselection. E.g. hotel,dates and room size.)

Products are selected froma palette of drag-and-drop

icons.

Visualizations areupdated immediately asproduct details areentered. Pulsing white spot

indicates an update.

Display 3 (Vertical) : Brochure

Updates sent according to planner activity

Figure 3 Screen shots of the three displays from the eTable prototype showing the itinerary unfolding

of pages from the online brochures, the visual approach tobuilding up an itinerary using the planner, and being able tosee the results of doing so dynamically appearing on thelinked visualizations.

Figure 4 the eTable in use at a travel trade show

The people who approached the travel company stand wereimmediately drawn to our system. Customers would firstwatch others using it, and then wait to have a gothemselves. There was no need to convince them to use it.The agents would invite them to sit or stand in front of thesystem and then ask them where they would like to go. Theprototype we had running allowed various trips aroundAustralia to be built up, providing plenty of scope forworking out different itineraries. In general, eachperson/group and agent spent between 5 and 10 minutesworking together, although some interactions lasted up to30 minutes. Most were very impressed by the system andseveral rival travel companies came over to see what all thefuss was about. Moreover, many of the interactions resultedin complex itineraries being created and, in some cases,resulted in the passer-by handing over details to make anactual booking and in so doing becoming a customer.

One unexpected outcome was how interacting with thevisual planner brought aspects of the vacation alive –almost like providing a vicarious experience. The agentsoften gestured to parts of the display to describe what couldbe done in a particular place, how enjoyable a givenactivity was, why it was better to travel by train rather thancar for a given stretch and so on. The customer would alsogesture to various parts of the map whilst talking through apossible plan, indicating that they had been there already orthey wanted to go to that part.

Although, the same effect, arguably, could be achievedthrough providing a paper-based map and brochures forboth to refer to, having a dynamic map that could bezoomed in and out of, and an itinerary with costssuperimposed on it, together with showing interlinkedcontextualized brochure pages of activities, provided amore congenial multimedia space, that encouraged bothparties to talk about places in a more experiential way.

Below, we discuss the findings in more detail in relation toour anticipated benefits outlined in the design implications.

Empowering the customerCustomers generally took an active role in specifying thecomponents of an itinerary, suggesting different types ofproducts (e.g. hotels, wine-tasting tours), and wereinterested in seeing how these affected their overall budgetand plan. Conversation flowed freely and the agents oftenresponded to the suggestions and requests put forward bythe customer, reflecting less asymmetry and more sharingin the planning process. The customer frequently gesturedtowards information on the different screens when listeningor talking and on some occasions took hold of the mouse toselect options themselves. For example, a child of six satdown at the console, while his parents looked over hisshoulder. No agent was present and the child started usingit alone, treating it very much like a computer game, tryingto ‘break’ the budget he’d previously set, by configuring aholiday that greatly exceeded it. He then started joining upall the destinations on the map, by placing plane icons oneach of the cities and dragging them to the next city – aplayfulness in interaction we had not expected. During thechild’s play, the parents got drawn into the possibilities oftraveling around Australia to the extent they went off totalk to a sales agent about a possible vacation.

The technology was also empowering in that it could beappropriated by various (potentially excluded) parties tomatch their needs. For example, on discovering that onecouple was deaf, the agent made much more of theinteractive planner and visualizations, gesturing andpointing to the changes on the screen, as if to let therepresentations ‘speak’ for themselves. The couple,meanwhile, nodded and reciprocated in gesturing at thescreens, and even pointed to the mouse when they wishedto interact with the visualizations. Such an ad hoc way ofusing the system provided a novel way of visuallycommunicating.

Reducing social awkwardness and enhancingcamaraderieThe physical design of the console table enabled the agentand customer to sit down and interact together in relativecomfort. Moreover it seemed that our table was able toreduce some of the social awkwardness that arises whentwo strangers first meet. Enabling them to sit side by sidemeant that there was less of an expectation for direct eyecontact. Instead, attention was focused on the displays infront of them. This allowed the two parties to talk aboutwhat was happening on the screens, rather than having tolook directly at each other, which is what often makesstrangers feel uncomfortable. At the same time the sharedrepresentations reduced the need for agents to leavecustomers alone in order to concentrate on screens, to haveto translate what they were doing, and for the customer tohave to ask for clarification – all creators of socialawkwardness. The effect was to create a much morecongenial and less formal set-up than the initial encounterswe had observed that take place in travel agents. Customersseemed to quickly settle down and feel relaxed (asindicated by their body postures and manner of talking).

We also observed evidence of continuous rather thaninterrupted interaction, where both parties played a moreequal role and interaction was more free-flowing. Therewas much joking and high spirits between the two parties,conveying a lightheartedness that helped the two partiescollaborate. When asked afterwards, many of the agentscommented on how much easier they had found it to buildup a rapport with the customer.

Reducing cognitive effortHaving multiple displays helped the parties focus andattend to the information in front of them in appropriateways. The agents rapidly learnt which screens to look atnext (such as looking at screen 3, after making a selectionfor a hotel in the planner pop-up calendar dialog box inscreen 1) and guided the customer in their navigationthrough the displays, through changing their gaze orpointing. The customer also quickly learnt to associate theeffects of carrying out an interaction in one screen withanother, turning their attention to the changes occurring inthe budget and time visualizations following the addition orsubtraction of a component to the planner. The linkedvisualizations and shared representations helped bothparties keep better track of how the product wasdeveloping, through reducing cognitive load [10].

Enabling synchronous and complementary planningCollaboration between agent and customer tended to bevery fluid in nature. While the agent predominantlycontrolled the interaction with the system, the customersoften made suggestions as to what to do next. For example,they might suggest to try another kind of hotel or go on asightseeing tour of Sydney. Hence, there was evidence ofjoint planning, where the person ‘driving’ the system wouldeffectively hand over control of the planning to thecustomer, and then take it back again to show anothersuggestion. Thus the physical design helped reduce thephysical asymmetry we saw in the current arrangement.

Exploring more possibilities and permutationsPreliminary itineraries were in most cases created relativelyquickly and easily. This encouraged the agent and client toexplore a range of possibilities, enabling them to comparehaving different ordering of locations, choice of activitiesand ways of traveling around Australia. Having a rich set ofpossibilities is very useful later in the transaction wheresubstitutions may need to be made because of bookingissues. It also helps the customer make more of an informedchoice.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONSThis paper has shown that the design, development anddeployment of a novel interactional workspace canfacilitate new forms of working between customers andagents in consultation. The workspace is a product of adesign that considers both the physical arrangement of thedisplays and the interactive software. The outcome of doingso makes building up a complex product during face-to-face consultations more effective, enjoyable and equitable.A number of factors may have been responsible for

producing these positive effects, including the sheernovelty of the system. Hence, it is difficult to actuallypinpoint what were the specific causes of our findings, ortheir possible interactions. In general, though, our resultssuggest that two party transactions can be improvedsignificantly by providing alternative workspaces. Inparticular, changing the physical set-up and providingintegrated representations:• Allows people to refer to the same graphical

representations, making it easier for both parties to taketurns in developing a product.

• Couples the creation of a product with the dynamicdisplay of relevant information, enabling the consultationprocess to be more fluid.

• Partitions the information across screens, allowingmultiple parameters and complex relations to be followedand more readily interpreted.

• Provides dynamically linked external representations ofthe dependencies between different parameters, enablinga broad range of alternatives to be explored andcompared.

• Enables different types of information to be mapped toparticular displays helping guide people’s attention towhere to look at a given stage of the consultation.

The net effect is to enable both parties to more effectivelyintegrate the disparate kinds of information andrepresentations needed during planning. In so doing, itallows for more equitable sharing of the work whendeveloping a product, enhanced product specification andimproved cognitive and social aspects of the transaction.

We have shown how substantial improvements can bemade by more effectively supporting the interactions andcollaborations that occur when agents and customers areco-located. How might we extend this practice even further,and consider how we can support collaboration betweencustomer and agent when they are not co-present? Oneapproach is to consider how to develop ‘satellite’workspaces that branch out from the core face-to-facesetting. For example, we are currently developing ways ofsupporting later stages of the transaction, where a customeris able to explore a partially completed set of itineraries inthe comfort of their home with their family or friends.

The distributed architecture we developed to link the co-located screens also allow us to save the itineraries on aserver which can then be accessed via the internet at a latertime. A key design concern is how to map and interlink theinteractive information onto the screens available at aparticular setting for both customer and agent. For example,if a customer has a PDA and a PC available then brochureinformation can be shown on a PDA screen, while theinteractive planner could appear on a PC. If they only havea single PC then a limited view designed for browsing theircurrent itinerary can be provided.

We are currently extending the interactional workspace byproviding additional displays for different purposes. For

example, we have added a large projected display whichmakes a series of associated images and video clips morepublicly available as a means of drawing in new customers.We are also exploring the use of a portable wireless laptopto provide the necessary product specific information formore private perusal by the agent.

Figure 5a Current face-to-face consultation model, wherethe person using the computer has to translate the screen-based information to the other in a verbal form. This cantake much time and effort.

Figure 5b An alternative shared interactional workspace,with multiple linked displays, supporting shoulder-to-shoulder interactions. It provides a shared reference thatcan help reduce social awkwardness and improvecoordination.

Finally, it is worth reflecting that the use of a single display(see Figure 5a) is still very much the predominantinteractional paradigm. Clearly, there are work settingswhere such a ‘restricted’ arrangement is appropriate,especially where the person with access to the computermay need to withhold information from the other person.However, our research has shown that there are other worksettings, where widening the access to information in aworkspace to both parties can substantially improvecollaboration and coordination (see Figure 5b). To this end,we argue that there is considerable scope for developingother kinds of more accessible interactional spaces, usingmultiple linked displays and representations.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThis paper is dedicated to the late Mike Scaife, who wasthe instigator and inspiration behind this research. Theauthors gratefully acknowledge the support of a grant fromthe UK ESRC/EPSRC PACCIT programme. Thanks toBridge the World, especially Jerry Bridge, James Bell andGillian Hughes, for all their help and encouragement. Wealso thank Eric Harris for coordinating the building ofeTable Mark II.

REFERENCES1. Cleary, S. (1999) Speed and excitement draws online

investment. Wall Street Journal (August 19 1999).

2. Dietz, P. & Leigh, D.(2001) DiamondTouch: a multi-user touch technology. In Proc. UIST’01, ACM, 219-226.

3. Grudin, J. (2001) Partitioning digital worlds: focal andperipheral awareness in multiple monitor use. In Proc.CHI 2001, ACM, 458-465.

4. Hascoet, M. & Sacks, F. (2002) Exploring interactionstrategies with Wall-screen. In Proc. IV’02, IEEE, 719-724.

5. Heath, C. & Luff, P. (2000) Technology in Action.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

6. Hughes, J., O’Brien, J., Randall, D., Rodden, T.,Rouncefield, M., Sommerville, I., & Tolmie, P. (1999)Getting to know the ‘customer in the machine’. In ProcGroup 1999, 30-39.

7. Jaarvenpa, S.L., Tractinsky, N., & Vitale, M. (2000)Consumer trust in an internet store. IT and Management1, 1, 45-71.

8. Luff, P. & Jirotka, M. (1998) Interactional resources forthe support of collaborative activities. In Ishida, T. (Ed.)Community, Computing and Support Systems. Springer,249-266.

9. Rogers, Y and. Scaife, M. (1998) How can interactivemultimedia facilitate learning? In Proceedings onMultimedia Interfaces, AAAI. Menlo Park, CA.

10.Scaife, M., and Rogers, Y. (1996) External cognition:how do graphical representations work? InternationalJournal of Human-Computer Studies, 45, 185-213.

11. Scaife, M., Halloran, J., & Rogers, Y.(2002) Let's worktogether: supporting two-party collaborations with newforms of shared interactive representations. In Proc. ofCOOP'2002. IOS Press,123-138.

12.Slyke, C.V., Comunale, C.L., & Belanger, F.(2002)Gender differences in perception of web-basedshopping. Comm. of the ACM, 45 (7), 82-86.

13.Stewart, J., Bederson, B. B., & Druin, A. (1999) Singledisplay groupware: a model for co-presentcollaboration. In Proc. CHI 1999, 286-293.

14.Streitz, N.A., Geißler, J., Holmer, T., Konomi, S.,Müller-Tomfelde, C., Reischl, W., Rexroth, P., Seitz, P.,& Steinmetz, R. (1999) i-LAND: an interactivelandscape for creativity and innovation. In Proc. CHI1999, 120-127.

15.Twidale, M.B. (2000) Interfaces for Supporting Over-The-Shoulder Learning. In M. Benedict (Ed.),Proceedings, HICS 2000: The Fifth Annual Conferenceon Human Interaction with Complex Systems. 33-37.