Exploring the Effects of Level of Control in the Initialization of Shared Whiteboarding Sessions in Collaborative Augmented Reality

TL;DR

This paper investigates how different initialization controls for a shared AR whiteboard affect remote dyadic collaboration. It compares Manual, Discrete Choice, and Automatic initializations, implemented via VR prototypes with three environments and six data sets, and evaluated through affinity diagramming tasks. Findings indicate a general preference for user control, though automatic initialization is appreciated when the algorithm reliably matches user expectations; results inform design strategies that blend intelligent suggestions with manual override. The work highlights practical implications for AR collaboration systems, emphasizing awareness, data visibility, and flexible initialization to reduce setup friction in industrial contexts.

Abstract

Augmented Reality (AR) collaboration can benefit from a shared 2D surface, such as a whiteboard. However, many features of each collaborators physical environment must be considered in order to determine the best placement and shape of the shared surface. We explored the effects of three methods for beginning a collaborative whiteboarding session with varying levels of user control: MANUAL, DISCRETE CHOICE, and AUTOMATIC by conducting a simulated AR study within Virtual Reality (VR). In the MANUAL method, users draw their own surfaces directly in the environment until they agree on the placement; in the DISCRETE CHOICE method, the system provides three options for whiteboard size and location; and in the AUTOMATIC method, the system automatically creates a whiteboard that fits within each collaborators environment. We evaluate these three conditions in a study in which two collaborators used each method to begin collaboration sessions. After establishing a session, the users worked together to complete an affinity diagramming task using the shared whiteboard. We found that the majority of participants preferred to have direct control during the initialization of a new collaboration session, despite the additional workload induced by the Manual method.

Figures (8)

• Figure 1: The process that users follow in the Manual condition. A.) User 1 and User 2 each create a whiteboard in their physical environment. B.) Users 1 and 2 are shown the "Overlap" (Represented as the green outline) between their two whiteboards. C.) User 1 alters the size of their whiteboard. The overlap is updated accordingly. D.) Both users confirm the whiteboard and begin collaborating with the same shared whiteboard.
• Figure 2: An example of C-SAW (Specifically, C-SAW working with the Discrete Choice technique) being applied to two collaborator's respective environments. The collaborators are offered three whiteboard suggestions that fit the constraints of both environments (Shown as the red, green, and blue numbered rectangles).
• Figure 3: User 1 pointing their laser pointer at the whiteboard in their environment (Left). User 1's laser pointer's position reflected on User 2's whiteboard (Right).
• Figure 4: A top-down view of each of the three study environments. A.) Office - B.) Kitchen - C.) Bedroom
• Figure 5: An affinity diagramming task in progress.