Experimental Comparison of Multimodal Meeting Browsers (original) (raw)

Meeting browsers and meeting assistants: a review

The previous chapter (Chapter 11) explained how user requirements directed our development of meeting support technology, more specifically meeting browsers and assistants. Chapters 3 to 9 discussed the enabling components, i.e. the multimodal signal processing necessary to build meeting support technology. In the following, we will present an overview of the meeting browsers and assistants developed both in AMI and related projects, as well as outside this consortium.

Accessing multimodal meeting data: Systems, problems and possibilities

Machine Learning for Multimodal Interaction, 2005

As the amount of multimodal meetings data being recorded increases, so does the need for sophisticated mechanisms for accessing this data. This process is complicated by the different informational needs of users, as well as the range of data collected from meetings. This paper examines the current state of the art in meeting browsers. We examine both systems specifically designed for browsing multimodal meetings data and those designed to browse data collected from different environments, for example broadcast news and lectures. As a result of this analysis, we highlight potential directions for future research -semantic access, filtered presentation, limited display environments, browser evaluation and user requirements capture.

The IM2 multimodal meeting browser family

Interactive Multimodal Information Management Tech. Report, Margtiny, Switzerland, 2005

The aim of this report is to describe the browsers that have been developed by various groups within the IM2 1 project, highlighting goals, design methodologies, key functionalities and evaluation methods used by each. The paper concludes with a tabular overview of the media, input and output modalities and special functionalities handled by each browser, as well as providing specific contact points and references.

Archivus: A system for accessing the content of recorded multimodal meetings

2005

This paper describes a multimodal dialogue driven system, ARCHIVUS, that allows users to access and retrieve the content of recorded and annotated multimodal meetings. We describe (1) a novel approach taken in designing the system given the relative inapplicability of standard user requirements elicitation methodologies, (2) the components of ARCHIVUS, and (3) the methodologies that we plan to use to evaluate the system.

Archivus: A multimodal system for multimedia meeting browsing and retrieval

Proceedings of the …, 2006

This paper presents Archivus, a multimodal language-enabled meeting browsing and retrieval system. The prototype is in an early stage of development, and we are currently exploring the role of natural language for interacting in this relatively unfamiliar and complex domain. We briefly describe the design and implementation status of the system, and then focus on how this system is used to elicit useful data for supporting hypotheses about multimodal interaction in the domain of meeting retrieval and for developing NLP modules for this specific domain.

A team collaboration space supporting capture and access of virtual meetings

2001

In this paper, we address the design issues of a collaborative workspace system, called TeamSpace, that supports geographically distributed teams by managing shared work processes and maintaining shared artifacts in a project. TeamSpace attempts to integrate both synchronous and asynchronous types of team interaction into a task-oriented environment. Since meetings are an integral part of teamwork, our current work focuses on supporting virtual meetings as part of a larger collaborative work process. We present an initial TeamSpace prototype that supports asynchronous meeting management seamlessly integrated with capture and access of synchronous distributed meetings. The captured synchronous data is integrated with other related information in TeamSpace, enabling users to efficiently gain knowledge of both current and past team activities.

A Cooperative Visual Hypermedia Approach to Planning and Conducting Virtual Meetings

Most distributed meeting support systems focus on meeting management and audio/video communication mechanisms. They provide little support for a flexible meeting process and a shared information space with structure-rich visual artifacts. In this work, a cooperative visual hypermedia system is developed to provide visual hypermedia artifacts for team members to manipulate in a distributed meeting. The visual hypermedia system is a hypermedia-based drawing system that integrates visual hypermedia artifacts and structures found in multiple hypertext domains. In addition, the visual hypermedia is integrated with process support for flexible meeting control and for easy setup of audio/video and application sharing communication channels. A use cases is presented, which shows that using the cooperative visual hypermedia, distributed teams can perform many kinds of meetings, in the meantime, enjoying dedicated support for the planning, control, information management, and follow-up activi...

Why Do Users Like Video? Studies of Multimedia-Supported Collaboration

Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 1992

Three studies of collaborative activity were conducted as part of research in developing multimedia technology to support collaboration. One study surveyed users' opinions of their use of video conference rooms. Users indicated that the availability of the video conference rooms was too limited, audio quality needed improvement, and a shared drawing space was needed. A second study analyzed videotapes of a work group when meeting face-to-face, video conferencing, and phone conferencing. The analyses found that the noticeable audio delay in video conferencing made it difficult for the participants to manage turn-taking and coordinate eye glances. In the third study, a distributed team was observed under three conditions: using their existing collaboration tools, adding a desktop conferencing prototype (audio, video, and shared drawing tool), and subtracting the video capability from the prototype. Qualitative and quantitative data were collected by videotaping the team, interviewing the team members individually, and recording their usage of the phone, electronic mail, face-to-face meetings, and desktop conferencing. The team's use of the desktop conferencing prototype dropped significantly when the video capability was removed. Analysis of the videotape data showed how the video channel was used to help mediate their interaction and convey visual information. Desktop conferencing apparently reduced e-mail usage and was perceived to reduce the number of shorter, two-person, face-to-face meetings.

Lessons Learned from the Use of Interactive Workspaces for Student Team Design Project Meetings

2008

industry. This paper provides a quick overview of the laboratory within the wider context of interactive collaborative workspaces. It identifies opportunities to enhance information communication, and group decision-making offered by the laboratory, and focuses on lessons learned to date from its use. The paper reports on a survey conducted among senior year undergraduate students who used the environment over the course of three months for their senior design project meetings. A questionnaire was administered to those students to investigate the relative impact of the environment upon the effectiveness of their meetings and decisions, the issues and processes where the environment was more or less useful, and the relative value and usefulness of the environment for the team's needs. Students found the laboratory to be conducive to learning and collaboration. The environment was effective in preventing loss of information, and information representation. It increased participation, and encouraged decision-making by consensus. Students found it useful in explaining and presenting information to others, and in promoting greater understanding among members of the team. They also felt that the technology was easy to use and operate, requiring minimal external assistance. Nevertheless, they were not always sure about how available technology could be used to improve their work. The environment also seemed less effective in improving work productivity and decision-making. There was less agreement on the speed with which meetings progressed, and the extent to which meeting agendas were followed. It was also less effective in facilitating the access, retrieval and capture of information. The environment was more prohibitive in terms of individual expression. It was also less useful in generating and developing new information and in predicting the impact of changes on interim decisions. While results might vary from one user group to another and from one meeting scenario to another, it is imperative that additional tools and techniques are provided to address those imperfections for that particular group of users and that particular meeting purpose.