Preben Holst Mogensen

Collaborative augmented reality environments: integrating VR, working materials, and distributed work spaces

In this work, we present a new method for displaying stereo scenes, which speeds up the rendering time of complex geometry. We first discuss a scene splitting strategy, allowing us to partition objects to the distant background or the near foreground. Furthermore, wededuce a computation rule for positioning a cutting plane in the scene.

Spaces of practice

This paper compares the properties of physical and digital workspaces in the context of a prototype of a collaborative virtual environment that has been developed with reference to work in design professions and concentrates on the organisation of work materials. Spatial properties are analysed tn terms of the sociality of workspace use. Digital spaces can be engineered to mimic or to transcend various constraints and affordances of physical workspaces, and they can be given parallel, folded and tunnelled properties. We examine the consequences these have for the readiness-to-hand, intelligibility, and accountability of the resulting workspaces. We address means of interacting with these extended environments. Using case study scenarios, we demonstrate how ethnographic analysis and participatory design have informed the architecture, features and development of the system.

The manufaktur: supporting work practice in (landscape) architecture

We describe fieldwork with (landscape) architects in which we identify key features of their work settings. We analyse the ways in which materials, many of them graphic and visual, are assembled, arranged and manipulated as an integral aspect of their work. We describe an early prototype of a 3D environment to provide a digitallyenhanced work setting, the organisation of which will emerge from use by practitioners. Picture a practice of architects in their design studio. There are several interconnected largish rooms, each with two or three desks, each of these with a workstation. Some desks are sparse and tidy, perhaps with a single printed plan. Others are a seeming jumble of disparate materials – plans, sketches, notes, photographs, documents, books, samples. On a large display table there is a more ‘staged’ setting of material on show – inspirational objects, art and design books and magazines open at particular pages, drawings of a recent project. On another table is a large physical model of a current project – a cinema complex – and lying next to it an endoscope with which internal views can be obtained. On shelves are models from other projects and on one wall a library of reference materials. The walls too are used as an exhibition space and decorated with plans and photographs of previous work. Most of the desks are occupied and often work proceeds quietly with little movement, to be interrupted by bursts of activity. This reflects the character of the architects’ work. On the one hand it involves a smaller number of quite large projects, each of which lasts for months if not years. On the other hand the office puts in many tenders for competitions for which a design proposal has to be prepared quickly under high pressure. Communication with external consultants is interwoven with planning in an ongoing process. These interactions take place in different forms: asking for ad-hoc advice on the phone, exchanging faxes and files, or meetings. Our other user partners are a practice of landscape architects. Their offices are very similar in their mix of tools, materials and activities, though the practice has fewer people and the space is more compressed. There is a more continuous movement of people around the space, combining and recombining in different patterns and with a steady flow of conversation. This also reflects the character of the work. In comparison with the architects, the landscape architects typically work on a larger number of simultaneous projects which are smaller in scale and shorter in duration (though sometimes with a long hiatus during which work is suspended). There is correspondingly a less stable division of labour and more frenetic switching between jobs. How – if at all – should this work be provided with better computer support? In part, of course, that is a matter of providing better versions of the computerbased tools which are already in daily use: specific tools such as CAD packages and graphics tablets, and general tools such as spreadsheets, email, browsers, printers. But it is also a matter of trying through computer support to enhance the environment within which work can take place, and which is different than just the sum of these tools. Fuzzy concepts and rich visions: the Gasometer Study We have therefore been studying the character of this work environment, and we have given particular attention to how it is constituted by the deployment of the materials which are in use. One example undertaken by the one of our user partners is the Gasometer Study, which is an urban planning study that covers a large, partly derelict area bordering the highway to Vienna Airport, including four huge and striking brick-built gasometers dating from the end of the last century. It is connected to a series of architecturally prestigious revitalization projects, among them the conversion into apartments of the gasometers themselves, an entertainment center (Pleasure Dome, another of the office’s projects), and the extension of a metro line into the area. Two people from the architectural practice are collaborating on this project with an external consultant, under the direction of the principal architect. Their approach to urban planning is to create a relational field with places of different qualities, and to define a set of principles on which further building projects will be based, rather than planning the area in detail. While the relational field is created by combining different methods (grid, vistas, zoning), the spatial qualities are largely described through metaphors and images. The planning process is guided by a series of ‘concept sheets’ produced by the principal architect, usually in intense conversations with other members of the team. These sheets are not just lists of what to do and what to clarify, but complex visualizations of methods and open questions. They often include small sketches, arrows, references to material to look for or people to contact. Sometimes they appear on photocopies of a plan or a sketch. This concept sheet (left; one of almost 20) specifies some of the main elements of the planning process – methods, spatial categories, and representational techniques. It was produced in the very first planning session and has since been annotated from time to time. The team’s task is to translate these concept sheets into a design which will be described through a variety of representations – different types of plans, a model, text, photographs, association images. A crucial aspect of this work is to be able to work with ‘fuzzy concepts’ and to maintain things at different stages of incompletion. In the following transcript the principal architect is discussing how to represent the separation of and fluent transitions between residential and industrial/trade areas: “... there are a number of things we can indicate in this area, there is this wall which can be animated, developed, similar to the wall in Austria Email (a previous project), where we also have such an in-between zone, where these areas for trades, meeting places, greenhouses, ..., here one should draft a structure, as a placeholder for what might be there, a phase-plan, this is also something which we still need to, this story with this in-between space, we could mark this symbolically in the plan ...” (13/1/99). This passage shows how topics are addressed and ‘encircled’, often taking the team through the entire area or object being planned, since each topic has ramifications for others. While some aspects are discussed in detail and fixed, others are left entirely open. The conversations unfold through addressing particular issues, trying to clarify the facts, generating and testing preliminary ideas or solutions, and deciding how to proceed further. The openness of this process is captured by the notion of ‘a placeholder for what might be there’ (Tellioglu et al., 1998). It stands for something which is in formation and may only be defined on a conceptual and metaphorical level. Placeholders may range from very small things (e.g. a missing parameter in a product specification) to large ones (the detailed design of the in-between space mentioned in the excerpt). Talking through a topic is intermingled with the handling of a variety of materials – plans, drawings, sketches, faxes, letters, images, photographs. Their assemblage is expressive of the way the design problem is addressed and solved. One of the first steps taken in the Gasometer Study was to structure the whole area by constructing a series of visual lines representing vistas and openings from different places to particular points or places beyond. This also creates a particular silhouette as seen from a distance. From these visual relations a ‘grid’ or ‘relational field’ is constructed which can be filled with places of different qualities (Lainer & Wagner, 1998). For developing this structure a series of photographs was taken from different viewpoints (above). While working on the area plan, the architects use them as visual instantiations of the lines to be constructed: “... on the first day, when you look from Baumgasse, you see how the gasometers disappear under the Tangente (a main highway), and then appear again, the whole air space, and then there near the Arena, this box covers them again. You can see this in the section plan, how dominant this is, ... , these are the ‘visual relations’” (15/12/98). Fitting this structure onto the existing one of buildings and roads requires a high level of fuzziness. Details have to be ignored in order to highlight the main structural qualities of the design, as in this excerpt where the two junior architects are discussing how to visualize structure: “... maybe in this case it is better to leave out these differences of structure, and just to highlight the paths, to do this a bit differently, in a much more abstract way, not like the one I just started to draft, these zones, this doesn’t tell us much” (24/11/98). A central task in this project is to define places within this structured urban space with specific spatial categories and qualities – among others ‘activity space’, ‘art space’, ‘row’, ‘display case’, ‘bridge as skywalk’. Much time is spent within the team clarifying these concepts which are encircled by using metaphors, producing sketches, and searching for association images. Going back to the conversation about in-between spaces, this time between Pleasure Dome and Gasometer: “... this cross-section through the ‘art space’ on the one hand means that there is this wall of the Pleasure Dome which is defined as a wall which is drenched with colour and light and has a certain visual transparency, and on the other hand the base of the gasometers, which are covered with green plants and represent a harsh image of nature. Then the question is, what do we do with this in-between space ... we might emphasize this transition zone of the base, that we say, there is this dip where natu

When and How (Not) to Trust It? Supporting Virtual Emergency Teamwork

In this article we use the formative evaluation of a prototype ‘assembly’ of pervasive computing technologies to specify design implications for emergency virtual teamwork tools. The prototype assembly, called “Overview”, was implemented in collaboration with police, fire and medical emergency services as part of the real life event management during the Tall Ships’ Races 2007 in Denmark. We describe how the emergency teams used the technologies for collaboration between distributed colleagues, to produce shared situation awareness, to manage efforts and resources and respond to minor emergencies. Trust in technology is a key need virtual teams identify in their endeavours to dovetail innovative technologies into emergency work. We show how practices of working up trust are supported by the PalCom open architecture (which was used to build Overview), and delineate design guidelines to enable the productive integration of pervasive computing.

CSCW challenges in large-scale technical projects—a case study

This paper investigates CSCW aspects of large-scale technical projects based on a case study of a specific Danish engineering company and uncovers challenges to CSCW applications in this setting. The company is responsible for management and supervision of one of the worlds largest tunnelhidge construction projects. Our primary aim is to determine requirements on CSCW as they unfold in this concrete setting as opposed to survey and laboratory investigations. The requirements provide feedback to product development both on specific functionality and as a long term vision for CSCW in such settings. The initial qualitative analysis identitled a number of bottlenecks in daily work, where support for cooperation is needed. Examples of bottlenecks are: sharing materials, issuing tasks, and keeping track of task status. Grounded in the analysis, cooperative design workshops based on scenarios of future work situations were established to investigate the potential of different CSCW technologies in this setting. In the workshops, mock-ups and prototypes were used to support end-users in assessing CSCW technologies based on concrete, hands-on experiences. The workshops uncovered several challenges. First, support for sharing materials would require a huge body of diverse materials to be integrated, for example into a hypermedia network. Second, daily work tasks are event driven and plans change too rapidly for people to register them on a computer. Finally, tasks are closely coupled to materials being processed thus a coordination tool should integrate facilities for managing materials.

Making the future palpable: notes from a major incidents future laboratory

In this paper, we describe experiences from a future laboratory. Future laboratories allow users to experiment with prototypes of future technologies in as realistic conditions as possible. We have devised this method because, to realise the potential of advanced ubiquitous computing technologies, it is essential to anticipate and design for future practices, but for prospective users, it is often difficult to imagine and articulate future practices and provide design specifications. However, they readily invent new ways of working in engagement with new technologies and, by facilitating the realistic use of prototype technologies in future laboratories, designers and users can define and study both the opportunities and constraints for design. We present 11 scenes from a major incidents future laboratory held in September 2005. Many raise tough questions rather than provide quick answers. In addition, many also bring desirable and realisable sociotechnical futures into relief, illustrating the value of the future laboratory approach.

Participatory realisation?: PD in a complex, large-scale, and commercial context

The main contribution of this paper is its attempt at formulating principles and insights pertaining to Participatory Design in realisation, and doing so within a large-scale, complex, and commercial context. It explores the concepts of Communities of Practice, Legitimate Peripheral Learning, and Boundary Objects both to unfold the activities in the project and to be used forward-looking as means to foster constructive workshops in settings with very heterogeneous groups. Furthermore, it emphasises the mutual learning taking place among and between the various practices, and provides concrete examples of ways to handle that the project is part of a larger and continuously changing context.

Spatial computing and spatial practices

The gathering momentum behind the research agendas of pervasive, ubiquitous and ambient computing, set in motion by Mark Weiser (1991), offer dramatic opportunities for information systems design. They raise the possibility of “putting computation where it belongs” by exploding computing power out of conventional machines and interfaces, and embedding it in myriad large and small communicating devices and everyday objects. Exciting though these developments are, however, they remain “just technology” unless they can be successfully married to things that people really need and want to do. In addressing the “disappearing computer” we have, therefore, carried over from previous research an interdisciplinary perspective, and a focus on the sociality of action (Suchman 1987).