Handoff and Deposit: Designing Temporal Coordination in Cross-Device Transfer Techniques for Mixed-Focus Collaboration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When working together, people frequently share information with each other to enable division of labour, assistance, and delegation of responsibility. The literature has explored both synchronous and asynchronous transfer techniques, known as Handoff and Deposit, respectively. However, current cross-device environments tend to only provide a single mechanism. Moreover, we have little understanding of the impact of different techniques on collaborative process. To understand how Handoff and Deposit may be designed to support complex sensemaking tasks, we followed a Research through Design process to iteratively design Handoff and Deposit techniques using paper and digital sketches and high-fidelity prototypes. We consulted the HCI literature to corroborate our findings with studies and descriptions of existing cross-device transfer designs and to understand the potential impact of those designs on mixed-focus collaboration. We learned that as we move away from a restricted physical workspace and leverage the flexibility of digital personal devices, there is a large design space for realizing cross-device transfer. To inform these designs, we provide five design considerations for cross-device transfer techniques: Transfer Acceptance, Action Dependencies, Immediate Usability, Interruption Potential, and Connection Actions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".