Blended Spaces for Collaboration

  • David Benyon
  • Oli Mival


In this paper, we reflect on our experiences of designing, developing, implementing and using a number of real world, functional, multi-touch enabled Interactive Collaborative Environments (ICEs). We created an ICE in our university in order to explore issues of interaction design and of user experience in these types of environment. This ICE has been in use for the last 4 years and has been the focus of a number of empirical studies and observations. In addition we have also undertaken considerable consultancy and contract research work for a range of commercial clients as they seek to deliver innovative environments for collaboration that suit their own needs for collaboration. These consultancies have included a mobile collaborative environment for a county police force in California, the redesign of a multinational pharmaceutical company’s meeting rooms, the design of an oil rig control system and an innovation centre for an international call centre. In this paper we aim to distill these experiences and to provide theoretical and practical advice for designers of ICEs. Our theoretical position derives from the application of conceptual integration, to create ‘blended spaces’ — environments where the design of physical and digital spaces are closely integrated. We have also identified five key themes of interaction in ICEs derived from our own observations and those of others who have been looking at collaboration over a number of years. We present these themes as a critical design framework, TACIT, that focuses on Territoriality, Awareness, Control, Interaction and Transitions in ICEs. We then present two case studies of the blended spaces and TACIT framework in use. The paper concludes by looking at the opportunities for creative collaboration that the next generation of interactive blended spaces provides.

Key words

Interaction design Collaboration Multi-touch Multi-surface environment Interactive environments Blended spaces TACIT framework 



Grateful acknowledgements are extended to all those who have worked on and in the ICE.


  1. Ackerman, Mark (2000). The intellectual challenge of CSCW: the gap between social requirements and technical feasibility Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 15, nos. 2–3, pp. 181–205.Google Scholar
  2. Benford, Steve, Gabriella Giannachi, Boriana Kolva and Tom Rodden (2009). From interaction to trajectories: designing coherent journeys through user experiences. In CHI ’09: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM Press, pp. 709–718.Google Scholar
  3. Benford, Steve, Andy Crabtree, Martin Flintham, Chris Greenhalgh, Boriana Koleva, Mat Adams, Nick Tandavanitj, Ju Row Farr, Gabriella Giannachi, and Irma Lindt (2011). Creating the spectacle: Designing interactional trajectories through spectator interfaces. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact, vol. 18, no. 3, July 2011, Article 11.Google Scholar
  4. Benyon, David R. (2012). Presence in Blended Spaces Interacting with Computers vol. 24 no. 4, pp. 219–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benyon, David R. (2014). Spaces of Interaction, Places for Experience. Morgan and Claypool.Google Scholar
  6. Benyon, David R., Oli Mival, and Serkan Ayan, S. (2012). Designing Blended Spaces. In BCS-HCI ’12: Proceedings of the 26th Annual BCS Interaction Specialist Group Conference on People and Computers. Swinton, UK: British Computer Society.Google Scholar
  7. Buxton, Bill (2009). Mediaspace – Meaningspace – Meetingspace. In S. Harrison (ed), Media Spaces: 20+ years of mediated Life. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Dourish, Paul (2001). Where the Action Is. The Foundations of Embodied Interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Fauconnier, Gilles (1997). Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fauconnier, Gilles and Mark Turner (2002). The Way We Think. New York: NY, Basic Books.Google Scholar
  11. Greenberg, Saul (2011). Proxemics Interactions: The New Ubicomp? In Interactions, vol 18, no. 1, January – February, pp. 42–50.Google Scholar
  12. Grudin, Jonathan (1994). Groupware and social dynamics: eight challenges for developers. Communications of the ACM, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 92–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Haller, Michael, Jacob Leitner, Thomas Seifried, James Wallace, Stacey Scot, Christoph Richter, Peter Brandl, Adam Gokcezade, and Seth Hunter, (2010). The NiCE Discussion Room: Integrating Paper and Digital Media to Support Co-Located Group Meetings. In CHI ’10: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM Press, pp 609–618.Google Scholar
  14. Hoshi, Kei and John Waterworth (2009). Tangible Presence in Blended Reality Space. Proceedings of Presence 2009 conference. Available at, retrieved 12 Dec 2014.
  15. Hutchins, Edwin (2005). Material Anchors for Conceptual Blends. Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 37, pp. 1555–1577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Imaz, Manuel and David Benyon, (2007) Designing with Blends. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Jetter, Hans-Christian, Florian Geyer., Tobias Schwarz, and Harald Reiterer (2012). Blended Interaction – Toward a Framework for the Design of Interactive Spaces In Proceedings of Designing Collaborative interactive Spaces. AVI Workshop, Capri, May. Available at retrieved 12 Dec 2014.
  18. Jetter, Hans-Christian, Raimund Dachselt, Harald Reiterer, Aaron Quigley, David Benyon, and Michael Haller (2013). Blended interaction: envisioning future collaborative interactive spaces. In Proceedings CHI EA ’13: CHI ’13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 3271 – 3274. See also retrieved 12 Dec 2014.
  19. Johanson, Brad, Armando Fox, and Terry Winograd (2002). The interactive workspaces project: experiences with ubiquitous computing rooms IEEE Pervasive Computing, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 67–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Markussen, Thomas (2009). Bloody Robots and Emotional Design: How emotional structure my change expectations of use in hospitals. International Journal of Design vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 27–39.Google Scholar
  21. McCullough, Malcolm (2012). Digital Ground. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Mival, Oil and David Benyon (2013) A methodology for designing Blended Spaces. In Proceedings of Blended Spaces for Collaborative Spaces. CHI 2013 Workshop, Paris, May 2013. Available at retrieved 12 Dec 2014.
  23. Mokey, Steven, Alex Nalbandian, and Brian O’Keefe (2013). Location as Interaction: Exploring Blended Spaces in the Global Village. BCS-HCI ’13: Proceedings of the 27th International BCS Human Computer Interaction Conference. Swinton, UK: British Computer Society.Google Scholar
  24. Nunamaker, J. F., Alan Dennis, Joseph Valacich, Douglas Vogel, and Joey George (1991). Electronic meeting systems to support group work. Communications of the ACM, vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 40–61Google Scholar
  25. O’Hara, Kenton, Jesper Kjelsko, and Jeni Paay (2011). Blended Interaction Spaces for Distributed Team Collaboration ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, vol. 18, no. 1, article 3.Google Scholar
  26. O’Keefe, Brian, David Benyon, Gaurav Chandwani, Madhav Menon, and Randy Duke II (2014). A Blended Space for Heritage Storytelling. Proceedings of BCS HCI Conference.Google Scholar
  27. Olsen, Judith and Gary Olsen (2008). Computer Supported Cooperative Work. In J. Jacko (ed.), The Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies and Emerging Applications. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Taylor and Francis. 2nd edition 2008, pp 549–564.Google Scholar
  28. Olsen, Judith and Gary Olsen (2014). How to make distance work work. Interactions, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 29–35.Google Scholar
  29. Peltonen, Peter, Esko Kurvinen, Antti Salovaara, Guilio Jacucci, Tommi Ilmonen, John Evans, Antti Oulasvirta, and Petri Saarikko (2008). “It’s mine, don’t touch”: Interactions at a large multi-touch display in a city center. In CHI ’10: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM Press, pp 1285–1294.Google Scholar
  30. Plaue, Christopher, John Stasko, and Mark Baloga (2009). The conference room as a toolbox: technological and social routines in corporate meeting spaces. In C&T ’09: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on Communities and technologies, pp 95–104.Google Scholar
  31. Rogers, Yvonne and Siân Lindley (2004). Collaborating around vertical and horizontal large interactive displays: Which way is best to meet? Interacting with Computers, vol. 16. no 6. pp. 1133–1152.Google Scholar
  32. Rogers, Yvonne and Tom Rodden (2003). Configuring spaces and surfaces to support collaborative interaction. In, K. O’Hara, ed., Public and situated displays: social and interactional aspects of shared display technologies London, UK: Springer.Google Scholar
  33. Schmidt, Kjeld (2002) The Problem with Awareness. Journal of Computer Supported Cooperative Work, vol. 11, nos. 3–4, pp 285–298.Google Scholar
  34. Schmidt, Kjeld and Liam Bannon (1992). Taking CSCW seriously. Journal of Computer Supported Cooperative Work vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 7–40.Google Scholar
  35. Scott, Stacey and Sheelagh Carpendale (2010). Theory of Tabletop Territoriality. In C. Müller-Tomfelde (Ed.), Tabletops - Horizontal Interactive Displays, London, UK: Springer,, pp. 375–406.Google Scholar
  36. Scott, Stacey, Karen Grant, and Regan Mandryk (2003). System guidelines for co-located, collaborative work on a tabletop display. In ECSCW’03: Proceedings of the eighth conference on European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp.159–178.Google Scholar
  37. Streitz, Norbert, Petra Rexroth, and Torsen Holmer (1997). Does “roomware” matter? Investigating the role of personal and public information devices and their combination in meeting room collaboration. In ECSCW’97: Proceedings of the fifth conference on European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 297–31Google Scholar
  38. Tang, John C. (1991). Findings from observational studies of collaborative work. International Journal of Man–machine Studies, vol. 34, pp. 143–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Turner, Mark (1996) The Literary Mind. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Turner, Mark (2014) retrieved 14 March 2014.
  41. Wang, H-H (2013) A case study on design with conceptual blending. International Journal of Design Creativity, vol. 1, pp. 109–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wigdor, Daniel, Hao Jiang, Clifton Forlines, Michelle Borkin, and Chia Shen (2009). The WeSpace: The Design, Development, and Deployment of a Walk-Up and Share Multi-Surface Visual Collaboration System CHI ’09: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM Press, pp. 1237–1246.Google Scholar
  43. Yuill, Nichola and Yvonne Rogers (2012). Mechanisms for Collaboration: A Design and Evaluation Framework for Multi-User Interfaces. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), vol. 19, no. 1, Article 1.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for interaction DesignEdinburgh Napier UniversityEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations