Evaluating the effectiveness of height visualizations for improving gestural communication at distributed tabletops
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In co-located collaboration, people use the space above the table for deictic gestures, and height is an important part of these gestures. However, when collaborators work at distributed tables, we know little about how to convey information about gesture height. A few visualizations have been proposed, but these have not been evaluated in detail. To better understand how remote embodiments can show gesture height, we developed several visualizations and evaluated them in three studies. First, we show that touch visualizations significantly improve people's accuracy in identifying the type and target of a gesture. Second, we show that visualizations of height above the table help to convey gesture qualities such as confidence, emphasis, and specificity. Third, we show that people quickly make use of height visualizations in realistic collaborative tasks, and that height-enhanced embodiments are strongly preferred. Our work illustrates several designs for effective visualization of height, and provides the first comprehensive evidence of the value of height information as a way to improve gestural communication in distributed tabletop groupware.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 | 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 it