Current Type Purposes
peripheral browsing through information
gaining an overview of information searching for certain information stream-shaped collecting information
structuring information (by time) putting information in a certain order sharing information (public territory)
pool-shaped collecting information
categorizing information
personal storage territory (Phase 2) group territory (Phase 3)
Table 7.2:Purposes of Interface Currents.
eral Currents cannot be assigned to one particular type of territory. They seem to be a mix of both, personal storage and public territory.
As Phase 2 revealed, pool- and stream-shaped Currents support collecting pictures. Pool- shaped Current are appropriate for loosely categorizing information while stream-shaped Currents, in contrast, have a more structured character so that they can serve as a con- tainer in the workspace where information can be arranged in order, for instance, by time.
These findings provide answers to the questionsQ1 andQ3 (see Section 3.2). However,
it has to be considered that they are not generalizable to tasks of different character. This issue is discussed in more detail in Section 7.3. Before that, however, the findings of the second study task are discussed.
7.2 Findings from Task 2—Setting Up a Workspace
Based on Currents
During the second task of the study, groups were ask to design a workspace based on Currents (see Section 5.3.2). They were given three different Interface Folders filled with pictures and word tags, as well as buttons for creating different types of Currents. Some groups created three different Interface Currents first and connected each of these Currents with the Interface Folders in the workspace in order to get an overview of the amount and content of information. After that, they started to arrange the Currents in the desired way. Other groups created one single Current first, connected it with a Folder, and arranged it before continuing with the next Current and Folder. During these
Chapter 7 Findings
activities, participants worked together very closely. Phases of individual work occurred rarely and only when participants were forced to do so because it was not possible to work together on the same Interface Current (see Section 6.1.4).
The results of the second task are shown in Figure 7.20. There are some similarities in the workspace designs that emerged from the different groups. Four out of six groups used three Currents to structure the workspace. In general, the results can be classified into two groups: workspaces that are based on concentric, peripheral Interface Cur- rents as defined by Group 1 and 6 (see Figure 7.20(a) and 7.20(d)), and workspaces that contain three parallel Interface Currents stretched from one side of the table to the other as defined by Group 4, 7, and 8 (see Figure 7.20(b), 7.20(e), and 7.20(f)). Only the workspace setup of one group does not really fit in one of these two categories. Group 5 sorted the pictures of the two Interface Folders containing pictures onto one sin- gle stream-shaped Current and arranged this Current together with a Current containing the word tags concentrically in the workspace (see Figure 7.20(c)).
It is very likely that the similar design of workspaces has a technical reason. Due to the prototypical realization of the concept of Interface Folders, only one Current at a time can be connected to an Interface Folder (see Section 4.3.2). In addition, it was not possi- ble to mix the content of two Folders or, respectively, Currents automatically. Since three different Folders were provided to participants, most groups decided to just establish one Interface Current for each Folder in the workspace. It was the easiest and fastest way to solve the task. However, it can be assumed that groups would have decreased the number of Currents if it had been easier to mix the content of different Folders because several participants asked for this possibility. Furthermore, after finishing the task, many groups noticed that they provided no or only little amount of space for collecting informa- tion items. Group 4, in particular, restructured the workspace after this was questioned by the experimenter. While they first had installed two large pool-shaped Currents sur- rounded by a peripheral Current containing word tags (see Figure 7.21), they shrank all Currents and positioned them adjacent to each other, very similar to Group 7 (see Figure 7.20(b) and 7.20(e)).
With regard to this, Group 5, again, was an exception. They established an extra (empty) pool-shaped Current in the workspace for collecting pictures. Since they installed only two Currents, their workspace provided enough amount of space for accumulating infor- mation items.
Except for Group 5, groups mostly had the first phase of the Task 1 in mind when they were structuring the workspace. They tried to install the Currents so that users could easily browse through information. This could be a reason, why most groups used stream-shaped Currents rather than pool-shaped Currents. Only Group 1, 4, and 5 used pool-shaped Currents at all. In fact, as explained above, the pool-shaped Current that Group 5 installed was an empty Current meant as a container for collecting images. Fur- thermore, Group 1 stated that they installed the pool-shaped Current more for aesthetic rather than practical reasons. Thus, it can be concluded that only one single group in-
7.2 Findings from Task 2—Setting Up a Workspace Based on Currents
(a) Group 1. (b) Group 4.
(c) Group 5. (d) Group 6.
(e) Group 7. (f) Group 8.
Chapter 7 Findings
Figure 7.21:First result of Group 4.
tentionally decided to use pool-shaped Currents for browsing through information. This conclusion confirms the findings of Task 1 that revealed that stream-shaped Currents were perceived as better ordered and structured than pool-shaped Currents (see Sec- tion 7.1.2). For this reason, they are more appropriate for browsing through and getting a general idea of unfamiliar information.
The second task of the study also revealed very clearly what types of Currents partici- pants really found useful during Task 1. During Task 2, all groups established at least one Current in the workspace that can be assigned to the class of peripheral Currents. Since all groups had experienced the peripheral Current during the first task it can be strongly assumed that even the groups that did not use additional Currents for collecting pictures perceived at least this type of Interface Current as supporting and, thus, used it during the second task. Groups also tried to establish magnification areas on the periph- eral Currents. However, due to the usability issues described in Section 6.1.3, they often were not able to realize this satisfactory.
The following section concludes this chapter with a summary of the results that arose from the study.