2 ms·

Telepresence is a large subfield within human-computer interaction research; several studies have shown benefits of having this embodiment for both ends [1-3].

Telepresence is a large subfield within human-computer interaction research; several studies have shown benefits of having this embodiment for both ends [1-3]. Intuiting through it, how easy is it to tune out another flat planar video screen versus a tangible physical object moving around in your shared space? [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S107158191500004X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S107158191... [2] https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/2157689.2157699 https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/2157689.2157699 [3] https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/2559636.2559654 https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/2559636.2559654

tdeck 5y ago
I'm skeptical. We used to have Beam telepresence robots in the office when I worked at Square. They were a novelty and people would try them soon after joining, but nobody used them. It was easier and more natural just to use Slack or video chat.
- psychomugs 5y ago
  For now, sure, obviously it'll be more natural to use the mediums that are pervasive on commercially available devices that are backed by several industries-worth of engineers and developers, compared to some systems hacked together by handful of grad students in some lab somewhere or hardware startups in a very nascent stage. Hardware is hard, and these platforms are just beginning to explore the possible application spaces of which there is still a lot of research to be done. My personal view on many of these telepresence platforms is that they're basically roving tablets with limited embodied expressiveness and no manipulation capability, which are whole subfields of research in-and-of themselves, and that addressing these limitations will eke out more value of telepresence robots in the future. The point of research (ideally) shouldn't be an immediate VC-backable commercial application, but rather to explore possible futures viable 5-10+ years down the road.

tdeck 5y ago

I'm skeptical. We used to have Beam telepresence robots in the office when I worked at Square. They were a novelty and people would try them soon after joining, but nobody used them. It was easier and more natural just to use Slack or video chat.

psychomugs 5y ago
For now, sure, obviously it'll be more natural to use the mediums that are pervasive on commercially available devices that are backed by several industries-worth of engineers and developers, compared to some systems hacked together by handful of grad students in some lab somewhere or hardware startups in a very nascent stage. Hardware is hard, and these platforms are just beginning to explore the possible application spaces of which there is still a lot of research to be done. My personal view on many of these telepresence platforms is that they're basically roving tablets with limited embodied expressiveness and no manipulation capability, which are whole subfields of research in-and-of themselves, and that addressing these limitations will eke out more value of telepresence robots in the future. The point of research (ideally) shouldn't be an immediate VC-backable commercial application, but rather to explore possible futures viable 5-10+ years down the road.