skip to main content
10.1145/2628363.2628399acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmobilehciConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

TalkZones: section-based time support for presentations

Published:23 September 2014Publication History

ABSTRACT

Managing time while presenting is challenging, but mobile devices offer both convenience and flexibility in their ability to support the end-to-end process of setting, refining, and following presentation time targets. From an initial HCI-Q study of 20 presenters, we identified the need to set such targets per 'zone' of consecutive slides (rather than per slide or for the whole talk), as well as the need for feedback that accommodates two distinct attitudes to time management. These findings led to the design of TalkZones, a mobile application for timing support. When giving a 20-slide, 6m40s rehearsed but interrupted talk, 12 participants who used TalkZones registered a mean overrun of only 8s, compared with 1m49s for 12 participants who used a regular timer. We observed a similar 2% overrun in our final study of 8 speakers giving rehearsed 30-minute talks in 20 minutes. Overall, we show that TalkZones can encourage presenters to advance slides before it is too late to recover, even under the adverse timing conditions of short and shortened talks.

References

  1. Abela, A. (2008). Advanced Presentations by Design: Creating Communication that Drives Action. Pfeiffer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Ayres, J. (1996). Speech preparation processes and speech apprehension. Communication Education, 45, 228--235.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Atkinson, C. (2005). Beyond bullet points: Using Microsoft PowerPoint to create presentations that inform, motivate, and inspire. Microsoft Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Bailey, B.P., Konstan, J.A., & Carlis, J.V. (2001). The effects of interruptions on task performance, annoyance, and anxiety in the user interface. INTERACT'01, 593--601.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, S.R. (1980). Political subjectivity: Applications of Q Methodology in political science. Yale University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Buehler, R., Griffin, D., & Ross, M. (1994). Exploring the 'planning fallacy': Why people underestimate their task completion times. Journal of personality and social psychology, 67(3), 366--381.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Dempsey, D.J. (2010). Present Your Way to the Top. McGraw Hill.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Duarte, N. (2012). Harvard Business Review Guide to Persuasive Presentations. Harvard Business Review Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Dunne, A. & Raby, F. (2001). Design noir: The secret life of electronic objects. August Media.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Edge, D. Savage, J. & Yatani, K. (2013). HyperSlides: dynamic presentation prototyping. CHI'13, 671--680. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. 1Eisler, H. (1976). Experiments on subjective duration 1868--1975: A collection of power function exponents. Psychological Bulletin, 83(6), 1154--1171.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. FlashQ. http://www.hackert.biz/flashq/home/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Gillie, T., & Broadbent, D. (1989). What makes interruptions disruptive? A study of length, similarity, and complexity. Psychological Research, 50(4), 243--250.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1977). Intuitive prediction: Biases and corrective procedures. TIMS Studies in Management Science, 12, 313--327.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Kreifeldt, J.G., & McCarthy, M.E. (1981). Interruption as a test of the user-computer interface. Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 87--91.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Lichtschlag, L., Hess, T., Karrer, T. & Borchers, J. (2012). Fly: studying recall, macrostructure understanding, and user experience of canvas presentations. CHI'12, 1307--1310. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Mamykina, L., Mynatt, E. & Terry, M.A. (2001). Time Aura: Interfaces for Pacing. CHI'01, 144--151. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Occhialini, V., van Essen, H. & Eggen, B. (2011). Design and Evaluation of an Ambient Display to Support Time Management during Meetings. INTERACT'11, 263--280. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Office Remote. http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/officeremote/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. O'Leary, K., Wobbrock, J.O. & Riskin, E.A. (2013). Q-Methodology as a Research and Design Tool for HCI. CHI'13, 1941--1950. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. 2Pecha Kucha 20x20. http://www.pechakucha.org/faqGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. 2Pousman, Z. & Stasko, J. (2006). A taxonomy of ambient information systems: 4 patterns of design. AVI'06, 67--74. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. PQMethod. http://www.lrz.de/~schmolck/qmethod/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Prezi. http://prezi.comGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Spicer, R., Lin, Y. R., Kelliher, A., Sundaram, H. (2012). NextSlidePlease: Authoring and delivering agile multimedia presentations. TOMCCAP, 8(4). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Tam, D., MacLean, K.E., McGrenere, J. & Kuchenbecker, K.J. (2013). The Design and Field Observation of a Haptic Notification System for Timing Awareness during Oral Presentations. CHI'13, 1689--1698. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Treisman, L. (1985). Preattentive processing in vision. Comp. Vision, Graphics, and Image Proc., 31(2), 156--177. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Trinh, H., Yatani, K. & Edge, D. (2014). PitchPerfect: Integrated Rehearsal Environment for Structured Presentation Preparation. CHI'14. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Warnock, D., McGee-Lennon, M.R., & Brewster, S. (2011). The impact of unwanted multimodal notifications. ICMI'11, 177--184. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Wisneski, C., Ishii, H., Dahley, A., Gorbet, N., Brave, S., Ullmer, B. & Yarin, P. (1998). Ambient Displays: Turning architectural space into an interface between people and digital information. CoBuild, Springer LNCS, 1370. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. 3Zakay, D., & Block, R. A. (1997). Temporal cognition. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 6, 12--16.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. TalkZones: section-based time support for presentations

    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
      MobileHCI '14: Proceedings of the 16th international conference on Human-computer interaction with mobile devices & services
      September 2014
      664 pages
      ISBN:9781450330046
      DOI:10.1145/2628363

      Copyright © 2014 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: 23 September 2014

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      MobileHCI '14 Paper Acceptance Rate35of124submissions,28%Overall Acceptance Rate202of906submissions,22%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader