Beyond Presentation: Shared Slideware Control as a Resource for Collocated Collaboration

References

• Alac, M. (2008). Working with brain scans: Digital images and gestural interaction in fMRI laboratory. Social Studies of Science, 38(4), 483–508. doi:10.1177/0306312708089715
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Altman, I. (1976). A conceptual analysis. Environment and Behavior, 8(1), 7–29. doi:10.1177/001391657600800102
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arminen, I. (2005). Institutional interaction: Studies of talk at work. Aldershot, United Kingdom: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Atkinson, J. M., & Drew, P. (1979). Order in court: The organisation of verbal interaction in judicial settings. Atlantic Highlands, NJ, USA: Humanities Press.
   Google Scholar
• Begeman, M., Cook, P., Ellis, C., Graf, M., Rein, G., & Smith, T. (1986). Project Nick: Meetings augmentation and analysis. Proceedings of the CSCW 1986 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. New York: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Bekker, M. M., Olson, J. S., & Olson, G. M. (1995). Analysis of gestures in face-to-face design teams provides guidance for how to use groupware in design. Proceedings of the DIS 1995 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems. New York: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Berg, M. (1998). The politics of technology: On bringing social theory into technological design. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 23(4), 456–490. doi:10.1177/016224399802300406
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bly, S. A. (1988). A use of drawing surfaces in different collaborative settings. Proceedings of the CSCW 1988 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. New York: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Bly, S. A., & Minneman, S. L. (1990). Commune: A shared drawing surface. ACM SIGOIS Bulletin, 11(2–3), 184–192. doi:10.1145/91478
   Google Scholar
• Bostrom, R. P., & Anson, R. (1992). The face-to-face electronic meeting: A tutorial. In R. P. Bostrom, R. T. Watson, & S. T. Kinney (Eds.), Computer augmented teamwork. A Guided tour. New York, NY, USA: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
   Google Scholar
• Bostrom, R. P., Anson, R., & Clawson, V. K. (1993). Group facilitation and group support systems. Group Support Systems: New Perspectives, 8, 146–168.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Branigan, H. P., Pickering, M. J., McLean, J. F., & Cleland, A. A. (2007). Syntactic alignment and participant role in dialogue. Cognition, 104(2), 163–197. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2006.05.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bumiller, E. (2010). We have met the enemy and he is PowerPoint. New York Times, 26. Retrieved December 9, 2016 from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/27/world/27powerpoint.html
   Google Scholar
• Cappella, J. N., Siegman, A. W., & Feldstein, S. (1985). Controlling the floor in conversation. In A. W. Siegman & S. Feldstein (Eds.), Multichannel integrations of nonverbal behavior (pp. 69–103). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Chattopadhyay, D., O’Hara, K., Rintel, S., & Rädle, R. (2016). Office Social: Presentation interactivity for nearby devices. Proceedings of the CHI 2016 Conference on Human Factors in Computer Systems. New York: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Chiu, P., Kapuskar, A., Reitmeier, S., & Wilcox, L. (1999). NoteLook: Taking notes in meetings with digital video and ink. Proceedings of the ACM International 1999 Conference on Multimedia. New York: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Collins, J. (2004). Education techniques for lifelong learning. Radiographics, 24(4), 1185–1192. doi:10.1148/rg.244035179
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Conroy, J., & Sundstrom, E. (1977). Territorial dominance in a dyadic conversation as a function of similarity of opinion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(8), 570–576. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.35.8.570
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cruickshank, L., Tsekleves, E., Whitham, R., Hill, A., & Kondo, K. (2007). Making interactive TV easier to use: Interface design for a second screen approach. The Design Journal, 10(3), 41–53. doi:10.2752/146069207789271920
   Google Scholar
• Doumont, J. L. (2005). The cognitive style of PowerPoint: Slides are not all evil. Technical Communication, 52(1), 64–70.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dourish, P. (2001). Where the action is. Cambridge Mass: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Drew, P. (1992). Asymmetries of knowledge in conversational interactions. In I. Markova & K. Foppa (Eds.), Asymmetries in dialogue (pp. 29–48). Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, UK: Harvester/Wheatsheaf.
   Google Scholar
• Edelsky, C. (1981). Who’s got the floor? Language in Society, 10(3), 383–421. doi:10.1017/S004740450000885X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellis, C. A., Gibbs, S. J., & Rein, G. (1991). Groupware: Some issues and experiences. Communications of the ACM, 34(1), 39–58. doi:10.1145/99977.99987
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evenium ConnexMe. Retrieved September 30, 2017 from http://evenium.com/c/connexme.
   Google Scholar
• Freeman’s FXP Touch. Retrieved September 30, 2017 from http://freemanxp.com/fxptouch/Last
   Google Scholar
• Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, UK: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gaver, W. W., Beaver, J., & Benford, S. (2003). Ambiguity as a resource for design. Proceedings of the CHI 2003 Conference on Human Factors in Computer Systems. New York: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Geyer, F., & Reiterer, H. (2012). Toward mixed-media design studios. Interactions, 19(2), 54–59. doi:10.1145/2090150
   Google Scholar
• Glock, F. (2009). Aspects of language use in design conversation. CoDesign, 5(1), 5–19. doi:10.1080/15710880802492870
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goffman, E. (1964). The neglected situation. American Anthropologist, 66(6), pt. II: 133–136. doi:10.1525/aa.1964.66.suppl_3.02a00090
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional Vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606–633. doi:10.1525/aa.1994.96.issue-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. (2000). Practices of seeing: Visual analysis: An ethnomethodological approach. In T. Van Leeuwen & C. Jewit (Eds.), Handbook of visual analysis (pp. 157–182). London, UK: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. (2003). Pointing as situated practice. In S. Kita (Ed.), Pointing: Where language, culture and cognition meet (pp. 217–241). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Gutwin, C., & Greenberg, S. (2002). A descriptive framework of workspace awareness for real-time groupware. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 11(3), 411–446. doi:10.1023/A:1021271517844
   Google Scholar
• Harper, R., & Sellen, A. (2000). The role of paper in the knowledge economy. In PIRA international yearbook 2000. Leatherhead: Smithers Pira, 278–80. https://www.smitherspira.com/about-us/experts
   Google Scholar
• Harrison, S., Sengers, P., & Tatar, D. (2011). Making epistemological trouble: Third-paradigm HCI as successor science. Interacting with Computers, 23(5), 385–392. doi:10.1016/j.intcom.2011.03.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartswood, M., Procter, R., Rouncefield, M., & Slack, R. (2003). Making a case in medical work: Implications for the electronic medical record. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 12(3), 241–266. doi:10.1023/A:1025055829026
   Google Scholar
• Heath, C. (1981). The opening sequence in doctor-patient interaction. Medical Work: Realities and Routines, 71, 90.
   Google Scholar
• Heath, C., & Luff, P. (1991). Collaborative activity and technological design: Task coordination in London Underground control rooms. Proceedings of the ECSCW 1991 European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work. Netherlands: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Heath, C., & Luff, P. (1992). Media space and communicative asymmetries: Preliminary observations of video-mediated interaction. Human–Computer Interaction, 7(3), 315–346. doi:10.1207/s15327051hci0703_3
   Google Scholar
• Heath, C., & Luff, P. (2000). Technology in action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (1998). Conversation analysis and institutional talk. In R. Sanders & K. Fitch (Eds.), Handbook of language and social interaction (pp. 3–146). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Hewitt, C. (1986). Offices are open systems. Transactions on Information Systems, 4(3), 271–287. doi:10.1145/214427.214432
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hollan, J., Hutchins, E., & Kirsh, D. (2000). Distributed cognition: Toward a new foundation for human-computer interaction research. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 7(2), 174–196. doi:10.1145/353485.353487
   Google Scholar
• Hoover, S., & Rinderle, J. (1991). Models and abstractions in design. Design Studies, 12(4), 237–245. doi:10.1016/0142-694X(91)90039-Y
   Google Scholar
• Hornecker, E. (2008). “I don’t understand it either, but it is cool”-visitor interactions with a multi-touch table in a museum. Proceedings of the 2008 Conference on Tabletops-Horizontal Interactive Displays. IEEE
   Google Scholar
• Irvine, J. T. (1996). Shadow conversations: The indeterminacy of participant roles. In M. Silverstein & G. Urban (Eds.), Natural histories of discourse (pp. 131–159). Chicago, IL, USA: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jay, A. (1976). How to run a meeting. Harvard Business Review, 54(2), 43–57.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jefferson, G. (2004). A sketch of some orderly aspects of overlap in natural conversation. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 43–59). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. [1975].
   Google Scholar
• Jonson, B. (2005). Design ideation: The conceptual sketch in the digital age. Design Studies, 26(6), 613–624. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2005.03.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kendon, A. (1990). Conducting interaction. London, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kernbach, S., Bresciani, S., & Eppler, M. J. (2015). Slip-sliding-away: A review of the literature on the constraining qualities of PowerPoint. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 78(3), 292–313. doi:10.1177/2329490615595499
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khan, A., Matejka, J., Fitzmaurice, G., Kurtenbach, G., Burtnyk, N., & Buxton, B. (2009). Toward the digital design studio: Large display explorations. Human–Computer Interaction, 24(1–2), 9–47. doi:10.1080/07370020902819932
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirstein, C., & Muller, H. (1998). Interaction with a projection screen using a camera-tracked laser pointer. Proceedings of the 1998 Conference on Multimedia Modeling. Lausanne: IEEE.
   Google Scholar
• Knoblauch, H. (2008). The performance of knowledge: Pointing and knowledge in PowerPoint presentations. Cultural Sociology, 2(1), 75–97. doi:10.1177/1749975507086275
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Land, S., (2015). What the rise of the freelance economy means for the future of work. Retrieved September 30, 2017 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/susan-lund/freelance-economy-future-work_b_8420866.html
   Google Scholar
• Leonardi, P. M., & Barley, S. R. (2010). What’s under construction here? Social action, materiality, and power in constructivist studies of technology and organizing. Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 1–51. doi:10.1080/19416521003654160
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lerner, G. (1989). Notes on overlap management in conversation: The case of delayed completion. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 53, 167–177. doi:10.1080/10570318909374298
   Google Scholar
• Lerner, G. H. (Ed.). (2004). Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Lovelace, E. A., & Southall, S. D. (1983). Memory for words in prose and their locations on the page. Memory & Cognition, 11(5), 429–434. doi:10.3758/BF03196979
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luck, R. (2009). ‘Does this compromise your design?’ Interactionally producing a design concept in talk. CoDesign, 5(1), 21–34. doi:10.1080/15710880802492896
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luck, R. (2012). ‘Doing designing’: On the practical analysis of design in practice. Design Studies, 33(6), 521–529. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2012.11.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luff, P., & Heath, C. (1998). Mobility in collaboration. Proceedings of the CSCW 1998 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. New York: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Luff, P., Heath, C., & Greatbatch, D. (1992). Tasks-in-interaction: Paper and screen based documentation in collaborative activity. Proceedings of the CSCW 1992 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. New York: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Luff, P., Jirotka, M., Yamashita, N., Kuzuoka, H., Heath, C., & Eden, G. (2013). Embedded interaction: The accomplishment of actions in everyday and video-mediated environments. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 20(1), 6. doi:10.1145/2442106.2442112
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lynch, M., & Woolgar, S. (1990). Representation in scientific practice. Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA: MIT press.
   Google Scholar
• Matthews, B., & Heinemann, T. (2012). Analysing conversation: Studying design as social action. Design Studies, 33(6), 649–672. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2012.06.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDonnell, J. (2009). Collaborative negotiation in design: A study of design conversations between architect and building users. CoDesign, 5(1), 35–50. doi:10.1080/15710880802492862
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McHoul, A. (1978). The organization of turns at formal talk in the classroom. Language in Society, 7(2), 183–213. doi:10.1017/S0047404500005522
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MeetingPulse. Retrieved September 30, 2017 from http://www.meetingpulse.net/Last.
   Google Scholar
• Mentis, H. M., O’Hara, K., Sellen, A., & Trivedi, R. (2012). Interaction proxemics and image use in neurosurgery. Proceedings of the CHI 2012 Conference on Human Factors in Computer Systems. New York: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Meyers, B. E. (1991). Target illuminators and systems employing same (U.S. Patent No. 5,056,097). Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
   Google Scholar
• Microsoft, PowerPoint. Retrieved September 30, 2017 from https://www.office.com/
   Google Scholar
• Microsoft’s Bing Pulse. Retrieved September 30, 2017 from https://www.microsoft.com/pulse/Last .
   Google Scholar
• Mondada, L. (2006). Video recording as the reflexive preservation and configuration of phenomenal features for analysis. In H. Knoblauch, J. Raab, H.-G. Soeffner, & B. Schnettler (Eds.), Video Analysis (pp. 51–68). Bern, Switzerland: Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Moraveji, N., Kim, T., Ge, J., Pawar, U. S., Mulcahy, K., & Inkpen, K. (2008). Mischief: Supporting remote teaching in developing regions. Proceedings of the CHI 2008 Conference on Human Factors in Computer Systems. New York: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Müller-Tomfelde, C., & O’Hara, K. (2010). Horizontal interactive surfaces in distributed assemblies. Proceedings of the 2010 Conference on Tabletops-Horizontal Interactive Displays. London: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Myers, B. A. (2001). Using handhelds and PCs together. Communications of the ACM, 44(11), 34–41. doi:10.1145/384150.384159
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myers, B. A., Nichols, J., Wobbrock, J. O., & Miller, R. C. (2004). Taking handheld devices to the next level. Computer, 37(12), 36–43. doi:10.1109/MC.2004.258
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myers, B. A., Peck, C. H., Nichols, J., Kong, D., & Miller, R. (2001). Interacting at a distance using semantic snarfing. Proceedings of the UbiComp 2001 Conference on Ubiquitous Computing. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Nunamaker, J. F., Dennis, A. R., Valacich, J. S., Vogel, D., & George, J. F. (1991). Electronic meeting systems. Communications of the ACM, 34(7), 40–61. doi:10.1145/105783.105793
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Hara, K., Gonzalez, G., Penney, G., Sellen, A., Corish, R., Mentis, H., … Carrell, T. (2014). Interactional order and constructed ways of seeing with touchless imaging systems in surgery. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 23(3), 299–337. doi:10.1007/s10606-014-9203-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Hara, K., Helmes, J., Sellen, A., Harper, R., Ten Bhömer, M., & van den Hoven, E. (2012). Food for talk: Phototalk in the context of sharing a meal. Human–Computer Interaction, 27(1–2), 124–150.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Hara, K., Perry, M., Churchill, E., & Russell, D. (Eds.). (2003). Public and situated displays: Social and interactional aspects of shared display technologies. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• O’Hara, K., Taylor, A., Newman, W., & Sellen, A. J. (2002). Understanding the materiality of writing from multiple sources. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 56(3), 269–305. doi:10.1006/ijhc.2001.0525
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oak, A. (2011). What can talk tell us about design? Analyzing conversation to understand practice. Design Studies, 32(3), 211–234. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2010.11.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Office Remote. Microsoft. (2013). Retrieved December 9, 2016 from https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/project/office-remote/Last
   Google Scholar
• Olsen, Jr, D. R., & Nielsen, T. (2001). Laser pointer interaction. Proceedings of the 2001 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computer Systems. New York: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Olson, G. M., & Olson, J. S. (2000). Distance matters. Human-Computer Interaction, 15(2), 139–178. doi:10.1207/S15327051HCI1523_4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palen, L., & Dourish, P. (2003). Unpacking privacy for a networked world. Proceedings of the 2003 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computer Systems. New York: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Palmer, M. T. (1989). Controlling conversations: Turns, topics and interpersonal control. Communications Monographs, 56(1), 1–18. doi:10.1080/03637758909390246
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parker, I. (2001). Absolute PowerPoint. The New Yorker. Retrieved December 9, 2016 from http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2001/05/28/absolute-powerpoint
   Google Scholar
• Perry, M., O’Hara, K., Sellen, A., Brown, B., & Harper, R. (2001). Dealing with mobility: Understanding access anytime, anywhere. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 8(4), 323–347. doi:10.1145/504704.504707
   Google Scholar
• Pinelle, D., Gutwin, C., & Greenberg, S. (2003). Task analysis for groupware usability evaluation: Modeling shared-workspace tasks with the mechanics of collaboration. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 10(4), 281–311. doi:10.1145/966930
   Google Scholar
• Richardson, J., Dillon, A., McKnight, C., & Saadat-Samardi, M. (1988). The manipulation of screen presented text: Experimental investigation of an interface incorporating a “movement grammar” (Technical Report LUT-HUSAT-M—431). Loughborough, UK: Loughborough University of Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Rith, C., & Dubberly, H. (2007). Why Horst W. J. Rittel Matters. Design Issues, 23(1), 72–91. doi:10.1162/desi.2007.23.1.72
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Science, 4, 155–169. doi:10.1007/BF01405730
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rogers, Y., Lim, Y. K., Hazlewood, W. R., & Marshall, P. (2009). Equal opportunities: Do shareable interfaces promote more group participation than single user displays? Human–Computer Interaction, 24(1–2), 79–116. doi:10.1080/07370020902739379
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rogers, Y., & Lindley, S. (2004). Collaborating around vertical and horizontal large interactive displays: Which way is best? Interacting with Computers, 16(6), 1133–1152. doi:10.1016/j.intcom.2004.07.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roschelle, J. (2003). Keynote paper: Unlocking the learning value of wireless mobile devices. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(3), 260–272. doi:10.1046/j.0266-4909.2003.00028.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sacks, H. (1967). The search for help: No one to turn to ( Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California, Berkeley, California, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735. doi:10.1353/lan.1974.0010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1992). Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation. American Journal of Sociology, 97(5), 1295–1345. doi:10.1086/229903
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (2000). Overlapping talk and the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language in Society, 29(1), 1–63. doi:10.1017/S0047404500001019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (2002). Accounts of conduct in interaction: Interruption, overlap, and turn-taking. In H. B. Kaplan & J. H. Turner (Eds.), Handbook of sociological theory (pp. 287–321). Plenum, New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361–382. doi:10.1353/lan.1977.0041
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmidt, K., & Bannon, L. (1992). Taking CSCW seriously. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 1(1), 7–40. doi:10.1007/BF00752449
   Google Scholar
• Sellen, A. J., & Harper, R. H. (2002). The myth of the paperless office. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
   Google Scholar
• Shriberg, E., Stolcke, A., & Baron, D. (2001). Observations on overlap: Findings and implications for automatic processing of multi-party conversation. Proceedings of the 2001 EUROSPEECH Conference on Speech Communication and Technology. Aalborg, Denmark: Aalborg University.
   Google Scholar
• Simone, C., & Schmidt, K. (1993). Computational Mechanisms of Interaction for CSCW (7–40. ESPRIT Report, COMIC Deliverable 3.1).
   Google Scholar
• Spinelli, G., & O’Hara, K. (2001). Observing high performance team work: How space and information artefacts structure team problem solving, communication and fluid movement from individual to collaborative work (Technical Report). Appliance Studio, UK.
   Google Scholar
• Spinelli, G., Perry, M., & O’Hara, K. (2005). Understanding complex cognitive systems: The role of space in the organisation of collaborative work. Cognition, Technology & Work, 7(2), 111–118. doi:10.1007/s10111-005-0180-8
   Google Scholar
• Tang, A., Tory, M., Po, B., Neumann, P., & Carpendale, S. (2006). Collaborative coupling over tabletop displays. Proceedings of the CHI 2006 Conference on Human Factors in Computer Systems. New York: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Toong, H. M., & Gupta, A. (1984). A new direction in personal computer software. Proceedings of the IEEE, 72(3), 377–388. doi:10.1109/PROC.1984.12868
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tufte, E. R. (2003a). The cognitive style of PowerPoint. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tufte, E. R. (2003b). PowerPoint is evil. WIRED Magazine. Retrieved December 9, 2016 from http://www.wired.com/2003/09/ppt2/
   Google Scholar
• van der Lugt, R. (2005). How sketching can affect the idea generation process in design group meetings. Design Studies, 26(2), 101–122. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2004.08.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whittaker, S. (2003). Things to talk about when talking about things. Human-Computer Interaction, 18, 149–170. doi:10.1207/S15327051HCI1812_6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whittaker, S., & Schwarz, H. (1995). Back to the future: Pen and paper technology supports complex group coordination. Proceedings of the CHI 1995 Conference on Human Factors in Computer Systems. New York: ACM.
   Google Scholar