We conducted a study comparing avatar conferencing with video and audio conferencing for work scenarios. We studied nine four-person teams using a within-subjects design that measured users' perceptions and preferences across the conferencing conditions. Video was rated highest in all measures. Avatar and Audio were rated similarly, except for sociability, where Avatar was rated higher than Audio, and realism, where Avatar was rated lower than Audio. While users appreciated how avatar conferencing brought them together in a common virtual space, they found the cartoon avatars to be inappropriate for a professional discussion. As a result, participants preferred Video the most and Avatar the least for a business meeting. Lower ratings for the avatar condition were partly due to users' frustrations when the avatar system did not track them perfectly. When assuming a "perfect" system, preference for Avatar increased significantly while preference for Audio and Video remained unchanged.

This paper describes results from a large-scale survey to explore users' comfort with different styles of avatars for workplace communication. Thirty-one avatars were evaluated based on users' ratings along several dimensions and grouped into five different clusters. The highest rated cluster was the set of formal, realistic avatars that users did not feel were creepy. These avatars were ranked comparatively with webcam photos, and users felt that they would be appropriate for work. Our results also revealed that realism is nuanced, as avatars in another cluster were also rated high on realism, but were felt to be inappropriate for work. Finally, this work also demonstrates that people are more particular concerning which type of avatar they are represented by, compared to ones they interact with.