Computer-Mediated Communication Hyperpersonal Effect and Visual/Aural interfaces for CMC

Hyperpersonal communication Receivers overattribute from limited cues Assume similarity based on group affiliation Senders maintain tight control over cues Selective self-presentation — Little “given off” in text CMC Bottom line: Exceptionally favorable perception in the face of limited information Filling in the blanks optimistically. “How senders select, receivers magnify, channels promote, and feedback increases enhanced and selective communication behaviors in CMC. Online communicators may exploit the capabilities of text-based, nonvisual interaction to form levels of affinity that would be unexpected in parallel offline interactions.” Other early ideas: Social Presence (more cues = more presence) Social Information Processing (SIP) affiliation motives induce impressions; users adapt efforts to present and acquire social info based on available medium. It takes time, so CMC is slow. 9/11/2018 Computer-Mediated Communication

Computer-Mediated Communication “ The sensorial parsimony of plain text tends to entice users into engaging their imaginations to fill in missing details while, comparatively speaking, the richness of stimuli in fancy [systems] has an opposite tendency, pushing users’ imaginations into a more passive role. — Curtis (1992) ” 9/11/2018 Computer-Mediated Communication

Computer-Mediated Communication Long-term, no photos Social affinity Long-term, photos Short-term, photos Supported for intimacy/affection and social attractiveness, but not physical attractiveness. Short-term, no photos 9/11/2018 Computer-Mediated Communication

Computer-Mediated Communication “ The study of CMC effects is not best served by blanket statements about technology main effects on social, psychological, and interpersonal processes, nor by proclamations that online relationships are less rewarding than FTF ones. Rather, qualities of CMC are … more often the product of interesting and predictable interactions of several mutual influences than main effects of media. — Walther et al. (2001) ” 9/11/2018 Computer-Mediated Communication

Computer-Mediated Communication Faces 9/11/2018 Computer-Mediated Communication

Computer-Mediated Communication What are faces good for? Conveying, among other things: Individual identity Social identity Expression Gaze By means of: Structure Dynamics Decorations Source: galante.com Structure: head shape, size/placement of features, lines/texture of skin, color/quantity of hair: inferences about personality, race, gender, age. Dynamics: gaze direction, pupil dilation Decoration: Fashion, group affiliation, social status 9/11/2018 Computer-Mediated Communication

Computer-Mediated Communication Ekman (1999) Ekman, Friesen, & Ellsworth (1972) (and many others) Basic emotions Anger Disgust Fear Joy Sadness Surprise Characteristics of basic emotions 1. Distinctive universal signals 2. Distinctive physiology 3. Automatic appraisal 4. Distinctive universals in antecedent events 5. Distinctive appearance developmentally 6. Presence in other primates 7. Quick onset 8. Brief duration 9. Unbidden occurrence 10. Distinctive thoughts, memories images 11. Distinctive subjective experience 9/11/2018 Computer-Mediated Communication

Computer-Mediated Communication Facial muscles Action units Facial action coding system (Ekman & Friesen originally) From top to bottom: Inner Brow Raiser, Outer Brow Raiser, Brow Lowerer, Cheek Raiser, Upper Lid Raiser, Lid Tightener, Nose Wrinkler The goal was to create a reliable means for skilled human scorers to determine the category or categories in which to fit each facial behavior. 9/11/2018 Computer-Mediated Communication

Computer-Mediated Communication 9/11/2018 Computer-Mediated Communication

Computer-Mediated Communication Representing the face:  “Being close may be worse.” 9/11/2018 Computer-Mediated Communication

Computer-Mediated Communication Ever-2 Muse by Korean Institute of Industrial Technology — entertainer robot 9/11/2018 Computer-Mediated Communication

Computer-Mediated Communication The “Uncanny Valley” 9/11/2018 Computer-Mediated Communication

Computer-Mediated Communication Alex Smolen’s comment: facial recognition of social primates “Thatcher illusion” : local changes in facial features are hardly noticeable when face is inverted. What might this tell us? 9/11/2018 Computer-Mediated Communication

Designing with faces and bodies We read meaning in lots of things, but especially human forms! There is no such thing as neutral. If you’re going to use faces (or anything socially salient) in a design, consider: Appropriate semantics Appropriate precision One of largest problems in digital reproduction is believability and context. Prototypes of facial expressions are routinely noticed as unbelievable when applied to situations. 9/11/2018 Computer-Mediated Communication

Computer-Mediated Communication Avatars: if minimal info is provided, a minimal message should be sent. Too complex a message based on the receipt of too little information. (Click “smile” – but what kind of smile? Directed at whom? Etc) 9/11/2018 Computer-Mediated Communication

Computer-Mediated Communication 9/11/2018 Computer-Mediated Communication

Computer-Mediated Communication Eyes 9/11/2018 Computer-Mediated Communication

Computer-Mediated Communication From: “Unique morphology of the human eye and its adaptive meaning: comparative studies on external morphology of the primate eye” WHR: width to height ratio of eye outline SSI: exposed sclera size index Kobayashi & Kohshima 2001 9/11/2018 Computer-Mediated Communication

Computer-Mediated Communication (1) the exposed white sclera is void of any pigmentation, (2) humans possess the largest ratio of exposed sclera in the eye outline, and (3) the eye outline is extraordinarily elongated in the horizontal direction. Eye of nonhuman primates is an adaptation to camouflage the gaze direction against other individuals and/or predators. The white sclera of the human eye is an adaptation to enhance the gaze signal. 9/11/2018 Computer-Mediated Communication Kobayashi & Kohshima 2001

Computer-Mediated Communication Video conferencing 9/11/2018 Computer-Mediated Communication

The gaze angle problem, or… Why so glum? Video conferencing — the level of realism allows slight deviations from expectations to have serious consequences. (sort of like uncanny valley) Source: http://staffx.webstore.ntu.edu.sg/personal/astjcham/Web/Research/percepter.htm 9/11/2018 Computer-Mediated Communication

Computer-Mediated Communication Donath: speakers look at listeners 30-40% of the time, listeners at speakers 60-70% of the time. Gaze may be used to indicate agreement or attempt to gain a turn. Averted gaze: concentration, or lack of attention. Source: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7126627.html 9/11/2018 Computer-Mediated Communication

Computer-Mediated Communication Yang & Zhang 2004 9/11/2018 Computer-Mediated Communication

Computer-Mediated Communication Source: D. Nguyen 9/11/2018 Computer-Mediated Communication

Computer-Mediated Communication Cameras Projectors MultiView Display Source: D. Nguyen 9/11/2018 Computer-Mediated Communication

Visual social interfaces 9/11/2018 Computer-Mediated Communication

Computer-Mediated Communication Babble social proxy Babble developed by Tom Erickson, late 1990’s Position of individuals marked as circles, layout denoted activity. 9/11/2018 Computer-Mediated Communication

Computer-Mediated Communication Social translucence: To design digital systems that support coherent behavior by making participants and their activities visible to one another (Erickson and Kellogg) Visibility: make social information apparent Awareness: knowing based on what you see Accountability: knowing that I know you know Why? To recreate a “social physics.” Why not “social transparency”? Tom Erickson and Wendy Kellogg:"design digital systems that support coherent behavior by making participants and their activities visible to one another" Tension between privacy and visibility. The need to allow for interpretation of ambiguous information, and to allow for deception. How do systems promote social norms? Should they? This is ultimately a design decision that must be made in context. The *physical and social physics* that we take for granted in the offline world have to be *explicitly implemented* online, and the grand scope and details of that implementation have profound implications for how users can interact in the space. Translucence vs transparency: the need for plausible deniability. The need to feign attention, e.g., by clicking the babble proxy. 9/11/2018 Computer-Mediated Communication

Computer-Mediated Communication Chat Circles 2 9/11/2018 Computer-Mediated Communication

Auditory interfaces (We have no “earlids”) Hearing speech can interfere with other kinds of processing. What about peripheral awareness? Data “auralization”? 9/11/2018 Computer-Mediated Communication

Computer-Mediated Communication Talking in Circles 9/11/2018 Computer-Mediated Communication

Designing visual social interfaces Create affordances with social translucence Use rich media deliberately, when warranted Represent humans and their faces carefully Be ambiguous: users can interpret just fine Reflect users’ actions back to them Let the big picture emerge from details Consider whether customization is worth it A bit of a cheat sheet, drawing on Erickson, Erickson & Kellogg, Donath, and a few extra thoughts… 9/11/2018 Computer-Mediated Communication