Visual and Spatial Communication and Task Organization
using the Visual Knowledge Builder
Frank Shipman, Robert Airhart, Haowei Hsieh, Preetam Maloor, J. Michael Moore, Divya Shah
Department of Computer Science and Center for the Study of Digital Libraries
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX 77843-3112 USA
+1 979 862 3216
[email protected]
ABSTRACT
When people share a workspace, they naturally create visual
structures which organize resources, communicate interpretations,
and coordinate activities. To support this mode of communication
and coordination we have built the Visual Knowledge Builder
(VKB.) VKB supports the incremental visual interpretation of
information. Through the emergence and evolution of visual
languages, communication between VKB users sharing a
workspace grows over time. VKB has been used for two years in
n ote taking, writing, curriculum develo pment, project
management, and conference organization. These tasks include
short- and long-term synchronous and asynchronous activities.
Features such as the recognition of implicit spatial structure and
navigable history facilitate the authoring and comprehension of
shared visual information spaces. VKB has also been used in a
more controlled setting by pairs of people writing a poem with a
constrained vocabulary. This use of VKB has been compared to
the same task using Magnetic Poetry sets to better understand how
the characteristics of the tools and information space impact
collaborative practice.
Categories and Subject Descriptors
H.5.3 Group and Organization Interfaces
General Terms
Design, Experimentation, Human Factors
Keywords
information workspace, visual communication, visual language,
emergent structure, navigable history, spatial parser, collaborative
writing, Magnetic Poetry
1. INTRODUCTION
When people share a workspace, they naturally create visual
structures which organize resources, communicate interpretations,
and coordinate activities. The use of shared visual spaces for
communication is all around us. Index cards on bulletin boards,
papers on desktops, and notes written on whiteboards share the
feature that where the workspace “author” places information will
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for
personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are
not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies
bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise, or
republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior
specific permission and/or a fee.
GROUP '01, Sept. 30-Oct. 3, 2001, Boulder, Colorado, USA.
Copyright 2001 ACM 1-58113-294-8/01/0009…$5.00.
influence the workspace reader ’s interpretation of that
information.
Visual communication is amazingly natural -- indeed, the lack of
perceived effort in generating and comprehending information
spaces leads to their frequently going unnoticed. People unselfcon
sciously organize information that others will use, including piling
papers on desks and arranging information on bulletin boards.
What are the characteristics of this form of communication and
how can it be improved? These are the issues we are investigating
in our work on the Visual Knowledge Builder (VKB).
Many people have recognized the power of visual modes of
communication. From practical examples like Ross Perot’s chartdriven presidential campaign of 1992 to the analysis of effective
visual presentations by Tufte [17], visual communication is
widely used and taught. In computer science, researchers in data
and information visualization and visual programming languages
have adopted the phrase “a picture is worth a 1000 words” [10].
We are interested in person-to-person communication through
visual information spaces. While there is great potential for
automatically-generated information and data visualization, the
task here is quite distinct. The visual information space we are
concerned with is both constructed and interpreted by people.
In this context, visual communication can be differentiated from
written and spoken communication by its non-verbal and
frequently unselfconscious nature, the emergent nature of the
visual languages 1 used, and the lack of prescriptive rules
describing the visualizations.
The next section presents prior and related work. This is followed
by a brief description of the Visual Knowledge Builder, with an
emphasis on the communication-oriented features. After this is a
discussion of experiences with synchronous and asynchronous
uses of VKB for real-world tasks and a study comparing the use of
VKB’s visual workspace to a physical workspace for synchronous
and asynchronous collaboration while writing a poem. We
conclude with a summary of the contributions of this work to our
understanding of visual communication and the design of systems
supporting this communication, and open issues for future work.
2. PRIOR AND RELATED WORK
There has been much interest in how people organize information
in their physical workspace and how this could inform
information systems. Malone’s study of the arrangement of
1. By visual language, we mean the use of visual attributes, such
as color or location, to imply semantics and their composition
into higher-level structures for more complex expressions.
Figure 1: Three collections containing information used during project meetings.
information on desks provides an indication of how different types
of work will lead to information spaces with different
characteristics [5]. Mander and colleagues analyzed how people
used piles of papers and developed a pile-based metaphor for their
interface [6].
A survey of how people arranged information in both physical and
virtual spaces also led to VIKI [16], the precursor to the Visual
Knowledge Builder. This study observed the use of patterns in
visual space to represent information characteristics and
interrelationships. The flexibility of unconstrained visual
expression witnessed in the survey resulted in VIKI emphasizing
flexible visual representations over more formal visual schemas.
Use of VIKI included information sharing [7], authoring
presentations [16], and short-term analysis tasks [8]. These
experiences confirmed the strength of visual workspaces for the
rapid and emergent interpretation of information. They also
pointed out difficulties for longer-term and shared use of
information workspaces. Due to the informal and evolving nature
of the visual representation, there was a lack of consistency in the
semantics of visual properties. Interpretations of the activities of
others were hindered by the exact feature that allowed them: the
use of a hierarchy of spaces for task-based, person-based, and
content-based separation of activity.
Visual information workspaces have a rich history going back to
Wang’s Freestyle [4]. Freestyle provides a distributed visual
workspace for users to collaborate with each other by attaching
multimedia messages to documents. While not supporting much
graphical coding of documents, Freestyle’s thumbnail view
includes indications of activity by including visual annotations.
Data Mountain [13] improves the visual workspace of most visual
interface systems by providing pseudo 3D, a Desktop VR
environment. As with Freestyle, thumbnails of documents are
used for easier recognition. Active page avoidance and audio cues
are also used to help users organize the workspace.
D-Lite [1] is a distributed visual workspace with active
components. The visual workspace is called Workcenter.
Applications or services can be viewed as active components in
the workspace. This visual integration of services is the primary
strength of D-Lite. A well-designed workcenter may even suggest
an appropriate order of activity by using the spatial relationship of
the components.
Presto [2] is an activity-based visual interface mainly designed for
managing documents. Documents in Presto are placeless, unlike
traditional file systems. Documents are located by attributes.
Attribute annotating, grouping, querying, and categorizing are via
direct manipulation on the interface. The design provides a way
for the user to work cooperatively and still maintain privacy.
All of the above mentioned information workspaces take
advantage of human spatial cognition. Our emphasis in the work
on VKB is supporting the incremental visual interpretation of
information. Through the emergence and evolution of visual
languages, communication between VKB users sharing a
workspace grows over time.
3. THE VISUAL KNOWLEDGE BUILDER
VKB’s interface, shown in Figure 1, consists of a two-dimensional
workspace with controls at the top and message bars below. Users
create information objects containing text, attributes and values,
links to files or URLs, and images. These objects are categorized
and interpreted through their placement and the use of visual
attributes, such as border and background color, border width, and
font type, size, and color. Information objects are placed in a
hierarchy of collections -- two dimensional spaces embedded in
the top-level workspace or another collection. Users may navigate
into a collection to see more of its contents. Figure 2 shows the
results of navigating into the “To Do List” collection in Figure 1.
For more information on general VKB functionality see [15].
Figures 1 and 2 show a workspace used for managing a project
with five or more participants at any one time. This space has been
used for over a year in weekly project meetings. Writing tasks and
Figure 2: More information is shown after navigating into the “To Do List” collection.
ideas are placed in the “Paper topics -- areas for work” collection
and system and design tasks are found in the “To Do List”
collection. Over this period of time, dozens of tasks were
identified, given a priority, and placed in the “Done” collection on
the right side of Figure 2.
The second toolbar in Figures 1 and 2 provides access to the
history of the workspace. VKB records all the editing events and
allows users to play this record forwards or backwards, navigate
to specific types of events, or locate the state of the workspace on
a particular date [14]. This history mechanism is similar to
Reeves’ embedded history [11] and Hayashi’s temporallythreaded workspaces [3].
4. EXPERIENCES WITH USE
The Visual Knowledge Builder has been in use for two years.
These uses include note taking, writing, curriculum development,
project management, and conference organization. While the
experiences reported here are reflections of use from members of
the VKB design team, the software is in use for similar tasks
outside of the research group.
4.1 Long-Term Synchronous Use
Figures 1 and 2 show a workspace used during face-to-face
meetings. With more than a year of use, the visual coding for tasks
in this workspace emerged and evolved. Initially, tasks were
simply placed to indicate their priority. Later, border widths were
used to indicate tasks that were partly completed. Then the use of
border widths evolved to include border and background colors to
also indicate type of task and amount of effort that had gone into
the task. Most recently, the border color was revised to represent
which project member was the primary person working on a task.
Since this workspace is only edited during face-to-face meetings,
project members who have been in the project for some time
understand the visualization without difficulty. For new members,
or others not at the earlier meetings, the history enables going
back to the time when a visual change was made so it can be
interpreted within the original context. Also, users may replay the
history to get a sense for the emergence of ideas, concepts, and
related effort over the past 15 months or return to the workspace’s
state at any of the project’s 38 meetings during that period.
Meeting room use of VKB has a number of the same strengths as
reported for Tivoli [9]. The informal nature of the representation
allows the meeting to proceed without emphasis being taken away
from the task of the meeting and put on the task of using the
software application. While questions about the visualization
occasionally occur, the primary role of the workspace has been as
a reminder of the topics and tasks that need to be discussed. The
role of the workspace has become that of an agenda. This is
possible because effort on many individual project tasks takes
place over weeks or months. VKB is of less use in cases where the
meeting agenda is unique.
4.2 Connecting Synchronous to Asynchronous
Activity
Another context in which VKB has proved useful is in cases
where a large number of entities must be categorized. Much like
the invention proposal ranking process described in [9], some
meetings benefit from the generation of an information space prior
to the actual event which focuses discussion and supports decision
making.
One example of this type of use has been the organization of the
ACM Hypertext 2000 Conference program. In between the two
days of the program committee (PC) meeting, the program chair
(first author of this paper) constructed a VKB space containing an
object for each accepted or undecided paper.
This space was used at the second day of the PC meeting to keep
track of which papers were yet to be decided. As papers were
accepted, rejected, or a decision was postponed, they were placed
accordingly. Accepted papers were then assigned border colors
based on their topic area and grouped into potential sessions. This
allowed the program committee to have a visible record of
Figure 3: Organizing papers into conference sessions at and after a program committee meeting.
decisions and a visual representation of the content of the
conference.
After the program committee meeting, the program chair
expanded the resulting space to create sessions including short
papers (which were accepted at a later date) and to construct a
final schedule. Figure 3 shows the accepted full and short papers
being arranged into sessions. While this has similarities to the
invention proposal categorization task, an interesting divergence
is the emergent nature of the visualization in VKB. Where Tivoli’s
domain objects require the categorization to have been determined
prior to visual manipulation, the emerging nature of the visual
representation enabled the support of new tasks as they arose.
5. COMPARISON WITH PHYSICAL
SPACE
Through real-world experiences with VKB like those described
above, we have learned about the emergence and evolution of
visual languages and how visual spaces support collaborative
activity. But how does such an on-line workspace change
collaborative practice when compared to similar physical
workspaces? What characteristics of the tool and media impact
communication between collaborators? To investigate these
issues, we have observed collaborative authoring practices in
VKB and in a similar physical medium.
5.1 Description of Study
The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of the
characteristics of the workspace on collaborative authoring. We
chose the task, constrained vocabulary poetry writing, because of
its engrossing nature and the availability of a physical analogue to
the virtual workspace.
The eight participants (authors) in the study were undergraduate
and graduate students at Texas A&M University. The authors were
divided into four pairs -- two using VKB and two using a
Magnetic Poetry (MP) set. One author pair for each condition
were undergraduates in the Department of English (in particular,
students in the poetry writing class) and the other pair for each
condition were graduate students from the College of Architecture
and Department of Management Information Systems.
The task given to the authors was “to write a poem with the words
provided.” They were instructed the poem could be about any
topic but they should try to make the poem coherent. The word
set, identical in the two cases, was the approximately 450 words
and word parts contained in the Magnetic Poetry Original Edition.
VKB authors were instructed not to create new words for use in
their poems and the software was modified to make it easy to
identify any new visual symbols created. The words were initially
aligned in rows in both of the workspaces. Figure 4 shows the
initial workspace with the Magnetic Poetry set.
Authors were given 90 minutes to write the poem. This time was
divided into four sessions:
an initial 15 minutes to work together (synchronous activity),
30 minutes with first author working alone (asynchronous
activity),
30 minutes with second author working alone (asynchronous
activity), and
15 minutes working together (synchronous activity) to finish
the poem.
These sessions were consecutive, with no time in between.
While the authors could easily communicate and discuss the task
during the beginning and ending sessions, they could not
communicate directly with one another during the other two
sessions. To support asynchronous communication and
coordination, authors were instructed that they could leave text
Figure 5: Completed poem from VKB2 team is in the collection on the right.
messages for their partner or as notes to themselves. In the case of
VKB, this meant creating new information objects. In the case of
Magnetic Poetry, the participants were given Post-It notes and a
pen.
The authors assigned to VKB received a 10 minute training
session where they were guided through a set of actions including
the creation, resizing, movement, and visual manipulation of
symbols and collections. Additionally, they searched for objects
with particular content and moved back and forth in the history of
the workspace.
After completing the task, the authors filled out a questionnaire
about their experience with particular emphasis on their
organization of the task, methods for communication, and
perceived difficulties in coordination. Additionally, digital
photographs of the Magnetic Poetry workspace were taken
between sessions. Similarly, the state of the VKB history was
noted at session breaks.
5.2 Results
Figures 5 through 10 show some of the intermediate and final
workspaces of the study. For the following discussion of results,
the pairs of authors are given identifiers:
VKB1 - undergraduate poetry students using VKB,
VKB2 - graduate Arch/MIS students using VKB,
MP1 - undergraduate poetry students using MP, and
MP2 - graduate Arch/MIS students using MP.
5.2.1 Survey Results
Figure 4: Initial arrangement in Magnetic Poetry
All subjects reported that they were comfortable with using
windows on computers. Three of the four English majors had
Magnetic Poetry sets at home and the fourth had seen it before.
None of the graduate students had seen Magnetic Poetry before.
When asked about the amount of time provided for the task, six of
the eight participants replied that they had “just about enough”
time to complete the task, one (from MP2) reported having “more
Figure 6: The MP1 team used the first 15 minutes to sort words into clusters of specific nouns and pronouns, colors, etc.
t h a n s u ff i c i e n t ” t i m e , a n d o n e ( f r o m V KB 2) r e p o r t e d
“insufficient” time.
When asked what took up the largest amount of time, one MP and
three VKB authors answered along the lines of “looking for the
right word.” Both MP1 authors replied that their time had been
spent “organizing the words” for later use. One MP2 author
replied “formatting sentences with the words chosen.” Also, one
VKB1 author identified the most time-consuming activity as
“trying to arrange the working space for room.”
Two VKB authors and one MP author were “very satisfied” with
the quality of their poem, while the remaining two VKB and three
MP authors replied they were “somewhat satisfied.”
When asked to rate the quality of the collaboration with their
coauthor, both MP1 authors replied “very good”, both MP2
authors replied “good”, both VKB1 authors replied “very good”,
and the VKB2 authors were split with one “very good” and one
“fair”.
5.2.2 Size of Poems
The number of words or word fragments used for the poems
varied from 36 (MP2) to 107 (MP1), with VKB1 and VKB2
using 89 and 71 words/fragments respectively. Not surprisingly,
the students from the poetry class created longer poems. This is
likely due to their prior experience with Magnetic Poetry sets and
their interest and experience in writing poetry.
5.3 Discussion
The differences in the characteristics of the space and visual
features available led to some basic differences in the task and its
performance. How did the differences in tool and media impact
communication between co-authors, intermediate organizations
used by authors, and the resulting structure of the poem?
5.3.1 Differences in Space
One difference between the two workspaces was the amount
visible. For the MP case, the workspace was the backside of a tall
metal bookshelf placed face down on the floor -- there was space
for all the magnets and plenty of extra room to work on the poem.
In the VKB case, the virtual workspace grows as a result of
symbols being moved near the current boundary. The space is
essentially limitless but only a portion of that space is visible at
one time due to the limited resolution of the computer display.
MP authors could view the entire set of words and all of the
structures they had created at once. In contrast, the VKB authors
had to manage problems of scale, since only a subset of their work
and the word set was visible. Both VKB groups used the
collection mechanism to do this, but in decidedly different ways.
VKB1 resized and moved the “Word set” collection around the
top-level space as they worked. VKB2 created additional
collections for their poem and poem fragments which they then
moved around, including within the word set collection. Figure 5
shows VKB2’s final poem in the collection on the right. The
collection on the left (Collection 2357) contains poem fragments
authored but not included in the final poem.
5.3.2 Intermediate Organization
Among the four teams of authors there were a variety of strategies
for organizing selected words that were not yet part of the poem.
In the questionnaire, all the authors mentioned selecting words for
later use as being part of their authoring process. Word were
selected because they were “strong,” “jumped out,” or “matched a
theme.”
The VKB2 team generated poem fragments and then merged
these fragments, without moving many of the other words. Both
VKB1 and MP2 pulled words out and created clusters in the
workspace based on whether the words were thematically related
or could fit together into a phrase. Words were added and removed
from clusters throughout the authoring process.
MP1 decided to separate the words into groups such as
determinants, colors, first-person pronouns, second-person
pronouns, and masculine and feminine nouns and pronouns.
Figure 6 shows their workspace after 15 minutes of working
together. There is no poem or even a topic for the poem (based on
the descriptions of the process in the questionnaires), but the
Figure 7: Notes from first MP1 author to co-author in between their asynchronous sessions.
sorting process was well underway. In general, there was more
intermediate organization by the MP authors than by the VKB
authors.
5.3.3 Communication in the Workspace
All groups left notes in the workspace between the two
asynchronous authoring sessions. For VKB2, there was a simple
“hand off” message:
“yo [Author-name]
tried to do smoethng [sic] with sea.
you better do something Nice now.”
The MP2 authors also left relatively few comments. With one
note left to indicate the first author’s intent about the poem’s topic
since it had not been decided during the initial joint authoring
session:
Figure 8 shows several notes in the VKB1 workspace concerning
the authoring process and goals. There are simple queries: “do you
see ‘that’ anywhere? if so, it goes here.” There are also notes
reflecting on the current state of the poem and suggestions about
how to proceed: “... it is starting to get bitter. See if you can bring
it back. ...”
The asynchronous collaboration midway through the task resulted
in communication through notes by all four groups. The
communication varied from general comments about process and
direction to questions about the availability of specific words or
choices between words. The general comments could be
electronic mail messages in another context but the more specific
comments used their location to efficiently reference parts of the
developing poems. This embedded communication is similar to
that found by Reeves in [12].
5.3.4 Poem Structure
“Started composing about mother’s love / could be interpreted
as nature too.”
The availability of features in the workspace influenced how the
structure of the poems was indicated to the reader.
MP1 and VKB1 authors used notes to indicate their perception of
how the task was proceeding and to suggest specific activities for
the other author. Figure 7 shows the MP1 workspace in between
the asynchronous authoring sessions. Besides the high-level
discussion of the task in the notes on the right, the author has left
two annotations to the poem. The top note indicates that the
second author should look at the second line of the poem. The
second note provides choices between words in particular phrases
that are pointed to by the arrows on the Post-It.
MP2 and VKB2 authors created traditional poems using gaps
between words and line breaks to indicate how the poem should
be read.
In MP1, the authors indicated longer pauses in their poem by
placing upside-down magnets between lines and phrases (see
Figure 9.) The top magnet is placed vertically to separate the title
from the first line of the poem. These separators make certain
lines, such as the “no vision” line in Figure 9, more prominent to
the reader.
Figure 8: Notes between MP1 authors about a decision on a topic and implicit questions about specific word and line choices.
The VKB1 team showed an inclination towards a more non-linear
arrangement of their poem and their workspace. As shown in
Figure 10, the VKB1 authors are using arrangement and color to
indicate how to read the poem. The poem consists of a branching
set of phrases that are to be read in a semi-determined order. Some
words are used in multiple phrases, both to tie the phrases together
and as a way of doing more with the limited set of words
provided. Background and border colors are being used to indicate
which words should be read in multiple phrases. For example, the
word “hair” has a purple background color indicating that it is part
of the phrase “her urge gone and skin hair less” and a thick red
border to indicate it is also part of the short phrase “need bare
hair.” While such an arrangement of words would be possible
using the magnets, the use of color improves the readability of this
poem.
6. CONCLUSIONS
The impact of characteristics of the tool and the workspace on
aspects of collaboration has been explored through a comparison
of using VKB and Magnetic Poetry. In particular, differences in
the size of the workspace, the number of visual attributes that can
be attached to a chunk of information, and the ability to
manipulate multiple pieces of information simultaneously help
determine what intermediate organizations are created, how
communication in the workspace occurs, and the structure of the
result.
Figure 9: Title and starting lines of the MP1 poem. Magnets
turned upside down indicate pauses for the reader.
Shared information workspaces can support both synchronous and
asynchronous collaborations. When working synchronously,
people tend to use implicit visual structure in the workspace and
s p ok e n c o m m u ni c a t i on t o r e s o l v e a n y a mb i g u i t i e s o r
miscommunications in the workspace. During asynchronous use,
Figure 10: The VKB2 poem uses border and background color to identify shared words in branching phrases.
people leave one another more explicit information about how to
interpret the space. Thus, having both implicit and explicit
representations of structure aids workspaces usefulness across
synchronous and asynchronous tasks.
users to work with large amounts of information. Additionally,
indexing and search based on a variety of content, structure, and
visual features will facilitate the use of workspaces like VKB for
even larger data sets.
Asynchronous collaboration through visual representations
requires the collaborators to make sense of one another’s visual
encodings. When a workspace has been in use for a long period,
these visual languages evolve leading to potential
miscommunication. Navigable history allows users to return to the
context of the visual coding events, thus facilitating their
interpretation. In addition, playing through the history of a group
workspace shows the progress of ideas, concepts, and work.
VKB extends prior work in the area of visual information
workspaces, where people both construct and interpret visual
representations of information. Applications including visual
information spaces enable non-verbal communication that has the
potential to reduce the overhead of conducting collaborative work.
Some VKB workspaces have been in use for well over a year.
Besides the substantial evolution of visual representations, this
long-term use creates issues due to the quantity of information in
the workspace and the variety of tasks for which it is used. In
these cases, users have created hierarchies of VKB collections,
dividing the information to make it easier to locate and work with
task-specific information.
Challenges remain for information workspaces. Limitations due to
screen size create extra overhead for users. Collections provide
some assistance but require navigation through a hierarchy.
Hypertext links between elements in the workspace, between
collections, and between workspaces will further the ability of
7. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported in part by grant IIS 9734167 from the
National Science Foundation and by a grant from FX Palo Alto
Laboratory.
8. REFERENCES
[1] Cousins, S. B., Paepcke, A., Winograd, T., Bier, E., and Pier,
K. 1997. The digital library integrated task environment
(DLITE). In Proceedings of ACM Digital Libraries ’97 Conference. ACM, New York, 142-151.
[2] Dourish, P., Edwards, W. K., Lamarca, A., and Salisbury, M.
1999. Presto: An Experimental Architecture for Fluid Interactive Document Spaces. In ACM Transactions on ComputerHuman Interaction, Vol 6, No. 2, June 1999, 133-161.
[3] Hayashi, K., Nomura, T., Hazama, T., Takeoka, M., Hashimoto, S., and Gudmundson, S. Temporally-threaded Workspace:
A Model for Providing Activity-based Perspectives on Document Spaces, Proceedings of ACM Hypertext ‘98 Conference,
1998, pp. 87-96.
[11]Reeves, B. 1993. Supporting Collaborative Design by Embedded Communication and History in Design Artifacts. Ph.D.
Dissertation, Department of Computer Science, University of
Colorado.
[4] Levine, S. R., and Ehrlich S. F. The Freestyle System - A
Design Perspective, Readings in Human-Computer Interaction: Toward the Year 2000, Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, pp. 871-880.
[12]Reeves B. and Shipman, F. “Supporting Communication
Between Designers With Artifact-Centered Evolving Information Spaces”, Proceedings of the 1992 ACM Conference on
Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 1992, pp. 394-401.
[5] Malone, T.W. “How do People Organize their Desks? Implications for the Design of Office Information Systems.” ACM
Transactions on Office Information Systems, 1, 1 (Jan., 1983),
pp. 99-112
[13]Robertson, G., Czerwinski, M., Larson, K., Robbins, D.,
Thiel, D., and van Dantzich, M. 1998. Data Mountain: Using
Spatial Memory for Document Management, In Proc. of ACM
UIST ‘98, ACM, New York, 153-162.
[6] Mander, R., Salomon, G., Wong, Y.Y. “A ‘Pile’ Metaphor for
Supporting Organization of Information.” Proc. of CHI ’92,
(May 3-7, 1992), pp. 627-634.
[14]Shipman F. and Hsieh, H. “Navigable History: A Reader’s
View of Writer’s Time”, New Review of Hypermedia and
Multimedia, to appear in 2001.
[7] Marshall C.C., and Shipman, F.M. 1995. Spatial Hypertext:
Designing for Change. Communications of the ACM, 38, 8
(August 1995), 88-97.
[15]Shipman, F., Hsieh, H., Airhart, R., Maloor, P., Moore, J.M.,
Shah, D. Emergent Structure in Analytic Workspaces: Design
and Use of the Visual Knowledge Builder. To appear in Proceedings of Interact 2001.
[8] Marshall C.C., and Shipman, F.M. 1997. Effects of Hypertext
Technology on the Practice of Information Triage. In Proceedings of ACM Hypertext ‘97 Conference, ACM, New York,
167-176.
[9] Moran, T., Chiu, P., van Melle, W. Pen-based Interaction Techniques for Organizing Material on an Electronic Whiteboard.
In Proceedings of UIST ‘97, October,1997, pp. 45-54.
[16]Shipman, F.M., Marshall, C.C., and Moran, T.P. 1995. Finding
and Using Implicit Structure in Human-Organized Spatial
Layouts of Information. In Proc. of the ACM Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’95), ACM, New
York, 346-353.
[10]P1000 Science and Technology Strategy for Information Visualization, September, 1996.
[17]Tufte, E. Envisioning Information. Graphics Press, Cheshire,
Connecticut, 1990.