skip to main content
10.1145/1531674.1531712acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesgroupConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Image, appearance and vanity in the use of media spaces and video conference systems

Published:10 May 2009Publication History

ABSTRACT

Media spaces and videoconference systems are beneficial for connecting separated co-workers and providing rich contextual information. However, image sharing communication tools may also touch on sensitive spots of the human psyche related to personal, perceived image issues (e.g., appearance, self-image, self-presentation and vanity). We conducted two user studies to examine the impact of self-image concerns on the use of media spaces and videoconference systems. Our results suggest that personal, perceived image concerns have a considerable impact on the comfort level of users and may hinder effective communication [8]. We also found that image filtering techniques can help users feel more comfortable. Our results revealed that distortion filters, which are frequently cited to help preserve privacy, do not tend to be the ones preferred by users. Instead, users seemed to favor filters that make subtle changes to their appearance, or, in some instances, they preferred to use a surrogate instead.

References

  1. Agarwala, A., Hertzmann, A., Salesin, D., and Seitz, S. Keyframe-based tracking for rotoscoping and animation. Proceedings of ACM SIGGRAPH 2004, 584--591, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Baecker, R. M., Harrison, S., Buxton, B., Poltrock, S. and Churchill, E. F. Media spaces: past visions, current realities, future promise. Proceedings of ACM CHI 2008, 2245--2248, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Bellotti, V. Design for privacy in multimedia computing and communications environments, Technology and privacy: The new landscape, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Bellotti, V. and Sellen A., Design for privacy in ubiquitous computing environment, Proceedings of ECSCW 1993, 77--92, 1993. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Boyle, M. J. Privacy in video media spaces. PhD. Thesis. Computer Science, University of Calgary, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Boyle, M., Edwards, C. and Greenberg, S. The effects of filtered video on awareness and privacy. Proceedings of ACM CSCW 2000, 1--10, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Boyle, M. and Greenberg, S. The language of privacy: Learning from video media space analysis and design. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 12(2):328--370, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Campbell, J. Media richness, communication apprehension and participation in group videoconferencing. Journal of Information, Information Technology, and Organizations, 1, 87--96, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Crowley, J. L., Coutaz, J., and Berard, F. Things that see: Machine perception for human computer interaction, Communications of the ACM, 43(3), 54--64, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Dourish, P. and Bly S. Portholes: Supporting awareness in a distributed work group. Proceedings of CHI 1992, 541--547, 1992. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Ellison, N., Heino, R., and Gibbs, J. Managing impression online: Self-presentation processes in the online dating environment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11, 415--441, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Fish, R.S., Kraut, R.E., Rice, R.E., and Root, R.W., Evaluating video as a technology for information communication. Proceedings of ACM CHI 1992, 37--48, 1992. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Fish, R.S., Kraut, R.E., and Chalfonte, B.L. The VideoWindow system in informal communication. Proceedings of ACM CSCW 1990, 1--11, 1990. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Gangestad, S. W., and Synder, M. Self-monitoring: Appraisal and reappraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 530--555, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Gaver, W.W., Moran, T.P., MacLean, A., Lovstrand, L., Dourish, P., Carter, K., and Buxton, W. Realizing a Video Environment: EuroPARC's RAVE System. Proceedings of CHI 1992, 27--35, 1992. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Goffman, E. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Doubleday Anchor Books, Garden City, New York, 1959.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Greenberg, S. and Kuzuoka, H. Using Digital but Physical Surrogates to Mediate Awareness, Communication and Privacy in Media Spaces. Personal Technologies, 4(1), 182--198, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Hawkey, K. and Inkpen, K. Privacy gradients: Exploring ways to manage incidental information during co-located collaboration. Proceedings of CHI 2005, 1431--1434, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Hinds, P. J. The cognitive and interpersonal costs of video. Media Psychology, 1, 283--311, 1999.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Hudson, S., and Smith, I., Techniques for addressing fundamental privacy and disruption tradeoffs in awareness support systems, Proceedings of CSCW 1996, 248--257, 1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Kimmerle, J., Cress, U. Group awareness and self-presentation in computer-supported information exchange. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 3(1), 85--97, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Logitech Video-effects. disponible on-line at: http://www.logitech.com/index.cfm/webcam_communications/video_software_services/video_effects/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Mantei, M., Backer, R.M., Sellen, A., Buxton, W., Milligan, T. and Wellman B. Experiences in the use of a Media Space. Proceedings of CHI 1991, 203--208, 1991. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Neustaedter, C., Greenberg, S. and Boyle, M. Blur. Filtration fails to preserve privacy for home-based video conferencing. ACM Transactions on Computer Human Interactions, 13(1), 1--36, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Noll, A. M. Anatomy of a failure: Picturephone revisited. Telecommunications Policy, 16, 307--316, 1992.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Palen, L. and Dourish, P. Unpacking "privacy" for a networked world. Proceedings of CHI 2003, ACM Press, 29--136, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Patil, S., and Kobsa, A. Privacy in collaboration: Managing impression. Proceedings of Online Communities and Social Computing, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Scott, C.R. and Timmerman, C.E. Relating computer, communication, and computer-mediated communication apprehensions to new communication technology use in the workplace. Communication Research, 32, 683--725, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Storck, J., and Sproull, L. Through a glass darkly: What do people learn in videoconferences? Human Communication Research, 22, 197--219, 1995.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Vasalou, A., Joinson, A. N. and Pitt, J. Constructing my online self: avatars that increase self-focused attention. Proceedings of ACM CHI 2007, 445--448, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Vasalou, A., and Pitt, J. Using avatars for increasing self-awareness in CMC. Proceedings of Reinventing trust, collaboration, and compliance in social systems CHI 2006 Workshop, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Walther, J. B., Slovacek, C., and Tidwell, L. C. Is a picture worth a thousand words? Photographic images in long term and short term virtual teams. Communication Research, 28, 105--134, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Williams, E. Teleconferencing: social and psychological factors. Journal of Communication, 28, 125--131, 1978.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Wolfe, R. N., Lennox, R. D., and Cutler, B. L. Getting along and getting ahead: Empirical support for a theory of protective and acquisitive self-presentation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 356--361, 1986.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Zhang, C., Rui, Y., and He, L. Lightweight background blurring for video conferencing applications. Proceedings of ICIP 2006, 481--484, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Zhao, Q. A., and Stasko, J. Evaluating image filtering based techniques in media space applications. Proceedings of ACM CSCW 1998, 11--18, 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Image, appearance and vanity in the use of media spaces and video conference systems

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          GROUP '09: Proceedings of the 2009 ACM International Conference on Supporting Group Work
          May 2009
          412 pages
          ISBN:9781605585000
          DOI:10.1145/1531674

          Copyright © 2009 ACM

          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. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 10 May 2009

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          GROUP '09 Paper Acceptance Rate40of110submissions,36%Overall Acceptance Rate125of405submissions,31%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader