The Effects of View Portals on Performance and Awareness in Co-Located Tabletop Groupware
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tabletop work surfaces have natural advantages for co-located collaboration, but also have physical constraints that can make group work difficult. View portals have been proposed as a way to provide access to other parts of a table surface, and as a way to re-orient content for group members in different locations; however, there is little research on whether portals really do improve group performance, how much they help, and whether they change other aspects of collaboration. We report on two studies that evaluate the effects of portals on group performance and behavior. Our first study showed significant performance advantages for portals: people were able to complete tasks more quickly and with more equal division of labor. Our second study, with a realistic design task, showed that people used portals extensively and saw them as valuable, but that they affected people's ability to maintain awareness, coordinate access to objects, and understand the organization of the workspace. Our work demonstrates benefits and potential drawbacks of portals for tables, and suggests that designers should carefully consider both individual and group needs before implementing these and other tabletop view augmentations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".