Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Yuki Sannohe
dblp:68/7010
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2002
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 1Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 1
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Computer graphics and multimedia
1 paper |
Virtual and augmented reality · 100% |
Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Virtual and augmented reality › immersive interaction
co-located collaboration |
0.0 | 1 | 2002 | Communication Behaviors of Co-Located Users in Collaborative AR Interfaces · ISMAR 2002 |
Virtual and augmented reality
immersive interaction |
0.0 | 1 | 2002 | Communication Behaviors of Co-Located Users in Collaborative AR Interfaces · ISMAR 2002 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
target identification task · 0.02d icon design task · 0.0
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2002 | Communication Behaviors of Co-Located Users in Collaborative AR InterfacesabstractWe conducted two experiments comparing communication behaviors of co-located users in collaborative augmented reality (AR) interfaces. In the first experiment, we compared optical, stereo- and mono-video, and immersive head mounted displays (HMDs) using a target identification task. It was found that differences in the real world visibility severely affect communication behaviors. The optical see-through case produced the best results with the least extra communication needed. Generally, the more difficult it was to use non-verbal communication cues, the more people resorted to speech cues to compensate. In the second experiment, we compared three different combinations of task and communication spaces using a 2D icon design task with optical see-through HMDs. It was found that the spatial relationship between the task and communication spaces also severely affected communication behaviors. Placing the task space between the subjects produced the most active behaviors in terms of initiatory body languages and utterances with least miscommunications. Kiyoshi Kiyokawa, Mark Billinghurst, Sean Hayes, Anoop Gupta, Yuki Sannohe, Hirokazu Kato 0001 |
ISMAR | 5 |