Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Eye Contact Will Influence Man-Machine Interaction

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the no-one-talk-to-me-or-look-at-me dept.

atari_kid writes "ScienceDaily is running a story about a researcher findings on the importance of eye contact in group communications. More importantly, the findings show how the amount of eye contact one receives in a group will effect the number of turns one can take in a discussion. What is interesting about the study his how it will effect the design of the future communication devices, like for example: 'Collaborative Virtual Environments (CVEs) which support communication between people and machines.' The research findings will be also used to facilitate user interactions with devices like PDA's and cell phones. I wonder if the findings could explain why the 'beautiful people' have such influence on the mass media."

5 of 99 comments (clear)

  1. No kidding... by gr8_phk · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "The amount of eye contact you recieve" reflects the amount of interest other people have in YOU. Obviously if the group is more willing to look at you they'll let you participate more. I wonder how much eye contact these guys get from women.

    Anyone who's read "how to win friends and infulence people" know you score points by paying attention - making eye contact is the first step in that.

    I can't say it loud enough: DUH!!

  2. Duh. by Omkar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    News flash: Eye contact is important to communication. The more you look at someone, the better you'll communicate. Why did someone waste time and money analyzing this? A better idea: analyze vision processes in a human/comp. two way communication experiment to better design man/machine interfaces.

    Eye Contact will influence Man-machine interaction...lol, that should be obvious to the meanest intelligence.

  3. 'Beautiful people' do NOT have influence! by RealityProphet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't know how CowboyNeal could even infer that from the article, but its wrong anyway! Beautiful people do not have any influence with the mass media. Famous people, on the other hand, might. I would not include Barbra Streisand, or Arnold Schwarzenegger in my list of beautiful people, but when they say something, the media listens. And the media listens, because, like it or not, the mass population wants to hear what they say. If people didn't want to know, the media would stop broadcasting it.

    1. Re:'Beautiful people' do NOT have influence! by kfg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Notice that the words 'beautiful people' were enclosed in these things ''. That's because the words are not to be interpreted literally.

      "Beautiful People" are not necessarily "attractive people."

      BS is, in fact, a prime example of that. She is the nearly the perfect example of what a 'beautiful person' is, even though she has a face a horse couldn't love, even if it were her mother.

      The term 'beautiful people' is what is know as an *idiom.* An idiom is a word or phrase who's meaning is not literal. Idiom's make translation from one language to another a hellish undertaking at times and explains some of the more bizarre behaviours of the fish.

      As it happens fame is one of the things that might make one 'beautiful' . . . no matter one's looks. Financial status, jetsetting, aquaintences, where you summer and a number of other factors go into making one 'beautiful.'

      Oh, and clothes of course. 'Beautiful people' wholeheartedly believe the maxim "Clothes make the man." If your clothes are beautiful *you* are beautiful.

      At the opposite extreme, and relying on a fictional charecter ( but real person )Kelly Bundy was hot, sexy and otherwise extremely attractive. Kelly Bundy was not a 'beautiful person.' Kelly Bundy was a tramp. Kelly Bundy would not be allowed to serve a beautiful person tea. . . unless maybe she were wearing Gucci.

      KFG

  4. big deal by g4dget · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Yes, eye contact is important in human-to-human interactions--that's been known scientifically for decades, and anecdotally for millennia. It's also been known that eye contact, as well a facial expressions, are very important in video conferencing, and furthermore, that they suffer greatly if there is any appreciable delay.

    The notion, however, that human computer interaction becomes better by mimicking human to human interaction seems ridiculous. Computers are tools. I no more want to engage in social eye contact with a computer than I want to with my drill, my car, or my vacuum cleaner.

    Eye contact is used to regulate attention in social situations--a precious commodity among humans. But when it comes to tools and appliances, I expect them to pay full attention to me all the time, but to respond only when spoken to. None of that involves eye contact.