Degrees of engagement in interactive workspaces

  • Renate Fruchter
Part of the Human-Computer Interaction Series book series (HCIS)


This paper presents a new perspective of the impact of collaboration technology on the degrees of engagement and specific interaction zones in interactive workspaces. The study is at the intersection of the design of physical work spaces, i.e., bricks, rich electronic content such as video, audio, sketching, CAD, i.e., bits, and new ways people behave in communicative events, i.e., interaction. The study presents: (1) an innovative multi-modal collaboration technology, called RECALL (patented by Stanford University), that supports the seamless, real-time capture of concept generation during project brainstorming and project review sessions, (2) the deployment of RECALL in an interactive workspace that supports real project review sessions, called FISHBOWL, and (3) the observations of the impact of RECALL and the interactive workspace on degrees of engagement and interaction zones as it is deployed in the specific FISHBOWL sessions.


Collaboration Teamwork Interaction Interactive workspace Multi-modal Multi-media technology Capture Sharing 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Cross N, Christiaans H, Dorst K (1996) Analysing design activity, 1st edn. Wiley, West Sussex, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  2. Cross N, Roozenburg N (1992) Modelling the design process in engineering and architecture. J Eng Des 3(4):325–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Davenport T, Prusak L (1998) Working knowledge: how organizations manage what they know. Boston Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  4. Eastman CM (1969) Cognitive processes and ill-defined problems: a case study from design. In: Walker DE, Norton LM (eds) Proceedings of the international joint conference on arti?cial intelligence (IJCAI’69), Washington, DC, May 1969, pp 675–699Google Scholar
  5. Fruchter R, Yen S (2000) RECALL in action. In: Fruchter R, Roddis K, Pena-Mora F (eds) Proceedings of the ASCE ICCCBE-VIII conference, Stanford, 14–16 August 2000Google Scholar
  6. Fruchter R (1999) Architecture, engineering, construction teamwork: a collaborative design and learning space. J Comput Civil Eng 13(4):261–270CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. Fruchter R (2001) Bricks & bits & interaction. In: Terano T, Nishida T, Namatame A, Ohsawa Y, Tsumoto S, Washio T (eds) Special issue on exploring new frontiers on arti?cial intelligence, Lecture notes on arti?cial intelligence (LNAI) vol 2253. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Goel V (1995) Sketches of thought. MIT Press, Cambridge, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  9. Goldschmidt G (1991) The dialectics of sketching. Creativity Res J 4(2):123–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kosslyn S (1981) The medium and the message in mental imagery: a theory. Psychol Rev 88:46–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lave J, Wenger E (1991) Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  12. Olszweski EJ (1981) The draughtsman’s eye: late renaissance schools and styles. Cleveland Museum of Art, Indiana UniversityGoogle Scholar
  13. Schön DA (1983) The refiective practitioner. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Stiedel RF, Henderson JM (1983) The graphic languages of engineering. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Tversky B (1999) What does drawing reveal about thinking?. In: Gero JS, Tversky B (eds) Proceedings of the conference on visual and spatial reasoning in design, Sydney, AustraliaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Renate Fruchter
    • 1
  1. 1.Project Based Learning Laboratory, Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations