Online Academic Event Interaction Platform: Case Studies in ThreeJapanese Domestic Conferences
Takeshi Kurata1*, Ryosuke Ichikari1, Nami Iino1,2, Yoshiyuki Kobayashi1, Koichiro Eto1,
Takuichi Nishimura13
1 Human Extension Research Center, National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST)
2 Informatics Principles Research System, National Institute of Informatics
3 Transformative Knowledge Management Research Area, Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology* Corresponding Author: t.kurata@aist.go.jp
Abstract
Due to the COVID-19 crisis, many collaborative activities including academic events have been held online. The purposeof this study is to contribute to serviceology by summarizing the findings on online academic events and the online
interaction platforms (OIPs) as their service encounters. In this paper, we first outline how each OIP, such as Zoom, oVice,and Slack, was chosen in three online academic events, which we actually operated, in terms of the interaction manner of
each session. After reporting on the OIP log analysis and questionnaires, we discuss the comparison between on-site venues
and the OIPs as well as the usage barriers and social acceptance of the OIPs. The findings include (1) the functions that
OIPs should provide especially in peripheral states of interaction process, such as "seeping-out" of the lively atmosphere,"looking around and listening in" in poster sessions, and "spontaneous interaction among participants," have more thanminor impacts on the evaluation of OIPs, (2) the degree of acceptance of OIPs depends on the balance of various factors
such as usage barriers, maturity, familiarity, accessibility, and risks, in addition to the various values provided forsynchronous and asynchronous interactions, etc.
Keywords
Online academic event, Online interaction platform, Post-COVID society, Case study
Note: This article is English translation of an article [29] in Japanese Journal of Serviceology by the author
themselves, with the permission of the Society for Serviceology (https://doi.org/10.24464/jjs.6.2_1).
1 INTRODUCTION.
The introduction of online interactive platforms (hereafter,OIP) for telework and online meeting has rapidly advanced
due to the impact of the COVID-19 crisis, and the state of
telework in the post-COVID society has been actively
discussed [1]. A questionnaire survey has been conducted
to understand the current status of telework and online
meeting as a basis for such discussions [2]. The survey(4,343 respondents) showed that the frequency of teleworkand online meeting increased with the COVID-19 crisis andthat satisfaction was generally high, while the following
two issues were suggested regarding OIP.

required while building up knowledge and skills related
to OIPs, etc.).
On the OIP, interactions for collaboration take place. Here,collaboration is "the creation of new value through thecollaboration of multiple people, which is impossible orextremely difficult for one person to achieve alone" [3]. In
the general hierarchical model of collaboration shown in
the upper left of Figure 1 [4], co-presence, which is "a statein which multiple people can recognize each other's state,"is the basis of the model, and awareness regarding people
and places/spaces (situations/atmospheres) is made possible
through co-presence. Furthermore, co-presence andawareness enable and promote sharing and collaboration.
OIP supports co-presence and collaboration insynchronous/asynchronous distributed environments among
the four types of environments as shown in the lower left of
Figure 1 [4]. In this study, we assume that issues (1) and (2)related to OIP and the general hierarchical model ofcollaboration are related as shown in Figure 1. Based onthat, we will proceed with each discussion under theassumption that issues (1) and (2) are common issues
related to co-presence in collaboration in asynchronous/asynchronous distributed environment,(1) Compared to on-site (actual workplace), OIP does notprovide enough functions and values for interaction (e.g.,
the agenda is narrowed down, chit-chat is not allowed,
topics are not expanded, it is difficult to build new
relationships, it is difficult to foster creativity that comesfrom human interaction, and it is difficult to grasp theoverall atmosphere of the place).
(2) Although the use of OIP has been promoted bynecessity, problems related to barriers to its use andsocial acceptance exist to a non-negligible degree (e.g.,
meetings do not proceed smoothly due to OIP
malfunctions, preparation in advance and ingenuity are1

Table 1. OIPs used for each event and their purpose of use.
Event title, Event period,
Participation fee

HARCS2020 (HARCS)
2020/11/20 (One day), Free
One-to-Many
Cat-T

Many-to-Many
Cat-I

Types and number ofsessions

7 Invited lectures
1 Panel discussion[Single session]

46 Posters[Single session]

Online interactive platform (OIP)

Interaction mode
Session category

Synchronous
distributed
environment

Zoom

oVice
Asynchronous
distributed
environment

Slack

Web siteMany-to-Many
Cat-I

One-to-Many
Cat-T

8 Invited lectures
55 Oral presentations
69 Interactive presentations
1 Panel discussion[Single session][Parallel session: Max 2]

Invited lecture,
Oral presentation, Q&A,
Invited lecture, Q&A,
Short video streaming
Panel discussion
Panel discussion,[Webinar]Award ceremony[Webinar][Meeting]
N/A

Instruction, Q&A,
Chit-chat[Four floors]

Instruction, Q&A (including after-session),
Instant material provision, Announcement

The 9th Annual Japanese Conference of Society for
Serviceology (JCSFS)
2021/3/9-10 (Two days), Paid

HCG Symposium 2020 (HCGS)
2020/12/15-17 (Three days), Paid

N/A

Cat-S
Socialgathering

N/A

N/A

Instruction, Q&A,
Chit-chat, Short video[One floor]

Pleasant chat,Award
ceremony[One floor]

Instruction, Q&A (including after-session),
Instant material provision

Many-to-Many
Cat-I
Cat-S

One-to-Many
Cat-T
5 Invited lectures
32 Oral presentations[Parallel session: Max 3]

27 Posters[Single session]

Invited lecture,
Oral presentation, Q&A, Instruction, Q&AAward ceremony[Break-out room][Meeting]

N/A

N/A

SocialgatheringN/A

Pleasant
chat[One floor]

N/A

Announcement, Material provision, Program
Announcement, Material provision, Program publication,
Announcement, Material provision, Program publication, Registration
publication, Registration
Registrationeach session category of each event; Section 3 reports thedescriptive statistics of the usage log of each OIP; Section 4reports the results of the questionnaire conducted with theparticipants and Cat-I presenters (Note: the usage log
records and questionnaires for each OIP were conducted in
HARCS and HCGS, but not in JCSFS, because JCSFS used
only Zoom as the OIP for synchronous interaction and did
not employ any OIP for asynchronous interaction for thereasons described later.) In sections 5 and 6, we compare
on-site venues and OIPs, discuss usage barriers and social
acceptance of OIPs, and finally summarize the findings insection 7.

awareness and sharing through that, and implementation of
OIPs.
The authors of this paper have been involved in theplanning and operation of any or all of the following threeacademic events, all of which were held online due to the
COVID-19 crisis: "Symposium of Human Augmentation
Research Center 2020 (HARCS)" [5], "HCG Symposium
2020 (HCGS) organized by the Human Communication
Group of the IEICE" [6], and "The 9th Annual Japanese
Conference of Society for Serviceology (JCSFS) " [7].
Thus, we treat academic events as specific cases ofinteraction for collaboration and compare OIPs with on-site
events based on subjective and objective data obtained ateach event and our experience. In addition, we practically
discuss the issues related to the usage barriers and social
acceptance of OIPs, respectively, and summarize ourfindings on OIPs as service encounter [8] for online
academic events. In this way, we contribute toserviceology.
Section 2 describes the structure of the interaction process
and outlines the process of OIP selection and adoption for

2 SESSION CATEGORY AND OIP
In this study, sessions of academic events are classified into
the following three categories.
Session Category T [Cat-T] (Talk): Sessions in which asmall number of speakers or presenters take the stage to
give presentations, such as invited lectures, panel
discussions, and oral presentations, and engage ininteraction (one-to-many interaction) with a large
audience in a question-and-answer session.
Session Category I [Cat-I] (Interaction): Sessions inwhich a large number of presenters and a large number ofaudience members are dispersed and engaged ininteraction (many-to-many interaction), such as poster
presentations and interactive presentations.
Session Category S [Cat-S] (Social): Similar to Cat-I,social sessions such as social gathering, reception, andbanquets for many-to-many interaction
Table 1 summarizes the OIPs adopted for each session
category of each event and their applications. The following
subsections outline the process of OIP selection andadoption for each session category, based on the structureof the interaction process.
2.1 Interaction process at academic events
The interaction process at an on-site venue consists ofseveral states. In this study, we categorize the interaction
process into the states (a) through (f) shown in Table 2 andproceed with the discussion.

Figure 1. General hierarchical model of collaboration andissues of OIPs.
2

Table 2. Each state of interaction process and session
category.
State ofinteraction process

Core state or Peripheral state?
Cat-T
Cat-I
Cat-S
One-to-Many Many-to-Many Many-to-Many

Whose behavoir?
Participant Presenter(a) Grasping the degree of liveliness

Peripheral Peripheral Peripheral✓(b) Look around and listen

Peripheral Peripheral Peripheral✓(d) Presentation/Explanation(e) Question and Answer(f) Interaction among participants✓

Peripheral

✓

Core

Core

✓

Core

Core

(c) Calling out

Peripheral Peripheral✓
Core

HARCS selected the Zoom webinar because it is easy tocontrol cameras and microphones even with a large numberof participants. The program was organized as a single
session, and the same webinar URL was used throughout
the day. For questions and discussions, we asked
participants to use the Q&A function of the Zoom webinar
or to post their questions to each session channel on Slack,and the management staffs aggregated questions on Zoom
into Slack, which is described later in section 2.5 [11]. In
some cases, the chairperson selected a question and read itout, and the speaker answered it orally, while in other cases,
the speaker or his/her representative wrote the answer inSlack at a later date.
For both HCGS and JCSFS, Zoom meetings were chosenbecause the number of participants was not as large as for
HARCS, and it was assumed that many participants werefamiliar with online meeting. The program for both events
consisted of single sessions for invited lectures and parallelsessions for oral presentations. Virtual meeting rooms were
set up to simulate the on-site venue, such as Rooms A, B,
and C, and the meeting URL for each room was usedthroughout the day. In HCGS, the URL of each room was
not changed for three days. In JCSFS, the meeting URL
was changed for each day because there was a one-day
ticket.
The question-and-answer in HCGS was based on the same
operation as in HARCS, but the actual operation was left tothe discretion of each chairperson. In JCSFS, a combinationof Zoom meeting chat, hand-raising, and microphone (oralstatements) was used for question-and-answer at thediscretion of each chairperson.

✓✓

Figure 2. States of the interaction process in Cat-I(a) "Grasping the degree of liveliness" is a state ofperceiving the overall situation and atmosphere of a place.
A crowded place may be easy to enter, while someone may
feel more relaxed if the place is quiet.
(b) "Look around and listen" is a state in which participants
collect information about presentations and discussions
from a distance before deciding whether or not to startinteracting with a presenter. In the case of Cat-T, it may be
a case of deciding which room to choose in a parallelsession. In the case of on-site Cat-I and Cat-S, the typicaldistance is the far phase of social distance (2 to 3.5 meters),
according to the classification of interpersonal distance [9].
(c) "Calling out" is a state in which the presenter calls out tothe participants as a trigger to start a presentation or
explanation. These (a), (b) and (c) are called the peripheral
states of interaction. In this study, the state in whichmaterials for awareness of the number of people involved,
the content of the interaction, and the atmosphere of
excitement are obtained from outside the place where theinteraction is in the core states described later, or thesematerials themselves are called "seeping-out". States (a)and (b) are also states in which the seeping-out is sensed
and collected.
(d) "Presentation/Explanation" and (e) "Question andAnswer" are literally the core states of the interaction, i.e.,the state of presentation, explanation, or question andanswer in Cat-T and Cat-I.
(f) "Interaction among participants" is a peripheral state in
the Cat-T and Cat-I, but a core state in Cat-S. For example,
there are cases in which participants discuss somepresentation in Cat-T and Cat-I in the passage without thepresenter. Figure 2 illustrates each state of the interaction
process, using Cat-I as an example.

2.3 Session Category I and OIP
For HARCS and HCGS, we decided to use a 2-D virtual
space dialog service as an OIP which supports co-presence
for many-to-many synchronous interactions in Cat-I,
focusing on reproducing functions and values in each of thestates (a), (b), and (f) provided in the actual
poster/interactive presentation venue, rather than on the
degree of penetration and stability of the service.
We compared candidates such as "Remo," "SpatialChat,"and "Gather," and adopted "oVice," which has just started
service in August 2020 [12][13][14][15] because of thefollowing reasons: freedom of spatial movement andplacement of participants, conversation control by distance
between users (e.g., conversation is possible just by
approaching), high-quality audio and video, full support forparticipants in Japanese, and cost.
Accessibility for visually impaired people and participants
who have difficulty with detailed 2D operations wasanother reason for adopting oVice. In the virtual spaceinteraction service, each state of the interaction process
shown in Table 2 and Figure 2 is realized based on thepositional relationship and distance of participants andpresenters.
This can be a cause of reduced accessibility. For example,
operations such as spatial navigation tend to rely on visual
information and require detailed operations such as pointing
to a specific local area on the screen. oVice is no exception
but provides an alternative method of issuing a URL
containing coordinates (x, y) in the virtual space. This
enables direct access to the destination, so we decided topost the URL including the coordinates in Slack and on thewebsite.

2.2 Session Category T and OIP
As an OIP to support co-presence in one-to-manysynchronous interactions of Cat-T, we adopted "Zoom",which has become popular as an OIP and is expected towork stably, for all events [10].
3For HARCS, oVice was configured with four floors, withthe research themes divided into seven categories andposter presenters distributed among them (Figure 3), while
HCGS was configured with one floor (Figure 4, top),according to the expected number of participants (Table 3).
In both symposia, a short video of each presentation wasprovided to facilitate understanding of the contents of many
presentations, and to make participants spend more time forsynchronous discussions, as in a flipped classroom, rather
than one-way explanations from the presenters.
For HARCS, the videos were distributed via Zoom webinar
for participants who had difficulty using oVice. For HCGS,
the videos were distributed via oVice and YouTube, and the
URL of the videos was also announced on Slack [16].
JCSFS also considered adopting oVice or Remo, but wefinally adopted Zoom's breakout room function. Thisfunction allows participants to interact with each other inmultiple breakout rooms (in the example shown in Figure 5,each breakout room corresponds to each of 14 poster
presentations). In the past, the host could only assign eachparticipant to each breakout room or Zoom automaticallyassigned them in a random manner, but in September 2020,
this function was updated to allow each participant to selectbreakout rooms of their choice. There were more than fivemonths between this update and JCSFS (March 2021), so
each participant was expected to have installed a breakout
room-compatible version of the application. In addition,
Cat-T and Cat-I can be held using only Zoom, which many
JCSFS participants from academia and industry areaccustomed to using. These are the reason why JCSFS
adopted Zoom.

Figure 3. HARCS: Floor configuration with four floors in
Cat-I (Max: 200 participants/floor, Comfortable: 35-50
participants/floor.)

2.4 Session Category S and OIP
Cat-S, so-called "social events," were held in HCGS andJCSFS, and the social gatherings in HCGS are shown in
Figure 4 below. At the on-site social gatherings, theparticipants repeatedly met and parted in a bottom-up
manner, sometimes in one-on-one conversations, andsometimes in group discussions in a spontaneous,
distributed, and cooperative manner. In order to naturally
support such state transitions (a), (b), and (f), oVice is
employed for Cat-S in HCGS and JCSFS.

Figure 4. HCGS: Floor configuration with one floor.

2.5 OIP and website for asynchronous interaction
It was anticipated that it would be difficult to foster
interaction networks among participants using only thecurrent OIP-based synchronous interaction. Therefore,
HARCS and HCGS employed the business chat tool
"Slack" to support asynchronous interactions, which
included posting of questions and answers during eachsession, aggregation of questions and answers posted on
Zoom, questions and answers after the session and after thedate of the event, immediate provision of materials(presentation slides, videos, etc.), and various
announcements.
Websites were used for each event to provide informationon the event, the venue (URL and how to use each OIP),
and to distribute materials such as presentation slides andproceedings. In addition, for HCGS, "Peatix" was used forparticipation registration and an in-house system was used
for presentation registration, while "Confit" was used for
JCSFS to registration of both participation and presentationand to distribute materials [17][18].

Figure 5. JCSFS: Zoom's breakout rooms used in Cat-I.

4

Table 3. The number of participants.
HARCS# of registrats# ofparticipants

HCGS

JCSFS

700

162

201

Cat-T
Cat-I

518
214

150
125

No data
No data

Cat-S

N/A

25

31

Cat-T

346

53

89

139

61

No data

N/A

25

31

# of maxsimultaneous Cat-I
participants Cat-S

Here, active users refer to users who viewed or posted
messages in Slack on the relevant date. The display period
for HARCS shown in Figure 8 was from November 9,
2020, the day before opening to the public, to December 18,
2020, when there was practically no more use of thesystem. Similarly, the display period for HCGS shown in
Figure 9 was from November 30, 2020 to April 10, 2021.

Table 4. Participation rates.
HARCS HCGS JCSFS
Cat-T

74

93 No data

Cat-I

31

77 No data

Cat-S

N/A

15

15

Ratio of # of simultaneous

Cat-T

49

33

44

participants to # of

Cat-I

20

38 No dataregistrants (%)

Cat-S

N/A

15

Cat-I

41

83 No data

Cat-S

N/A

17 No data

Ratio of # of participants to# of registrants (%)

Ratio of # of participants to# of participants in Cat-T(%)

Figure 6. HARCS: Time trend of usage ratio from the
beginning to the end when the final number of registrants(700) is set as 100%. (9:30-18:00)

15

3 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF OIP LOG
This section reports descriptive statistics on the usage log ofeach OIP recorded in HARCS and HCGS. The "number ofregistrants" and "number of participants" for each event,which were determined from registration information,
usage log, and some visual observation, are shown in Table
3. Based on this table, "the ratio of the number ofparticipants to the number of registrants," "the ratio of thenumber of simultaneous participants in a category to thenumber of registrants," and "the ratio of the number ofparticipants in Cat-I and Cat-S respectively to the numberof participants in Cat-T, which tends to attract many
participants such as invited talks" were calculated (Table 4).
Figures 6 and 7 show the usage trends of Zoom and oVice.
Figure 6 shows the time trend of the usage ratio from the
beginning to the end of HARCS when the final number ofregistrants (700) is set as 100%. The results show amonotonic decrease in the number of users over time.
Figure 7 shows the percentage of users during the threedays of HCGS when the final number of registrants (162)
was set as 100%.
In HARCS, since Zoom and oVice were used together in
Cat-I, we also checked the usage status of each OIP.
Although the accounts of each OIP were not linked, and thesimilarity of the account names was used to calculate theusage rate, 65% of the participants used oVice, and theremaining 35% used only Zoom webinars, which provided
short videos of poster presentations (Note: The results of
the questionnaire were 78% and 22%, respectively).
We graphically described Slack usage trends as in Figures 8
and 9. To do so, the ratio of the number of registered Slackusers from the invitation URL to the final number ofregistrants, the ratio of the number of active users to thenumber of registered users on the date of the event, and theratio of the number of posted messages to the number ofmessages posted on the date of the event were calculated
respectively for each day.

Figure 7. HCGS: Percentage of users for three days when
the final number of registrants (162) was set as 100%.
(2020/12/15-2020/12-17)

Figure 8. HARCS: Time trend of usage ratio (%)(2020/11/9-2020/12/18)

Figure 9. HCGS: Time trend of usage ratio (%)(2020/11/30-2021/4/10)
5

Table 5. The number of respondents and response rate.
Perticipants

Cat-I presenters

HARCS HCGS

Resistrants

HARCS HCGS
700

162

Presenters

45

68# of respondents

130

40

# of respondents

28

31

Response rate (%)

19

25

Response rate (%)

62

46

Figure 11. Participants: Evaluation of each session. (%)

Figure 12. Participants: Barriers to using each OIP. (%)(Multiple responses allowed)

Figure 10. Industry distribution of the affiliations ofrespondents. (E.E.C.: Except Elsewhere Classified)"Evaluation of oVice operation during presentation,"
respectively.
The presenters were also asked to respond to aquestionnaire regarding their interaction experience, and theaverage number of participants per hour was calculated. In
HARCS, the average number of participants who
approached a presenter was about 2.9 persons/hour during a
two-hour session. Out of these, presenters explained to 2.0
participants/hour and received questions from 1.8
participants/hour. In HCGS, during sessions lasting from 1
hour 15 minutes to 1 hour 40 minutes, the average numberof participants who approached a presenter was about 4.2
persons/hour. Out of these, presenters explained to 3.6
participants/hour and received questions from 3.0
persons/hour (Note: The maximum of the answer options
was "10 or more", and the average was calculated taking
the maximum as 10, so the actual number is expected to behigher than the above.)

4 QUESTIONNAIRE
After each HARCS and HCGS meeting, a questionnaire
was sent to the participants and to the presenters in Cat-I(Note: those questionnaires were subject to ethical review
by AIST). The number of respondents and response rate areshown in Table 5, and only responses from respondents
who gave their consent were regarded as valid ones. Google
Forms was used to collect the questionnaires, but
respondents who had difficulty using it were supported bye-mail [19].
Figure 10 shows the industry distribution of the affiliationsof the participant respondents for each symposium
according to the Japan Standard Industrial Classification[20]. 60% of the participants in HARCS came from theprivate sector, including manufacturing, service, andinformation and communications industries, especially with
32% from the manufacturing industry. The remaining 40%
came from universities and research institutes. In HCGS,
63% were from universities and research institutes.
Figures 11 and 12 show the results of the participants'
responses to the questions "Evaluation of each session" and"Barriers to using each OIP," respectively. Tables 6 and 7
summarize and categorize the open-ended comments fromparticipants and Cat-I presenters, respectively. Figure 13
shows the participants' "behaviors related to question-andanswer in Cat-T."
In Cat-I, questionnaires were administered not only toparticipants but also to presenters. Figure 14 shows theparticipants' responses to the question-and-answer "Actions
and evaluations during participation in Cat-I," and Figures
15 and 16 show the presenters' responses to the questionand-answer "Impression of presentation at oVice" and5 DISCUSSIONS FOR ON-SITE VENUES VS. OIP
In this and the next sections, based on the usage log andquestionnaires, we discuss the comparison between on-sitevenues and OIPs, asynchronous participation, operationalcosts, usage barriers and social acceptance, accessibility,
combined use of multiple OIPs, participation rates, andother issues. In addition, some discussions based on theknowledge obtained through the operation of JCSFS, which
did not conduct detailed analysis of the usage log andquestionnaire survey, are also included.

6

Figure 13. Participants: Behaviors related to question-andanswer in Cat-T. (%) (Multiple responses allowed)
Figure 16. Cat-I presenters: Evaluation on oVice operation
for presentation in Cat-I. (%) (Multiple responses allowed)
At a typical on-site venue, immediately after a lecture by aninvited speaker (states (d) and (e), which are the core statesof the interaction), participants may form a queue toexchange opinions and business cards with the speaker (astate similar to state (e) in Cat-I occurs). By being in thevicinity, i.e., in state (a), one may sense the "seeping-out"of the direction of each participant's interest (theatmosphere of excitement in each research field) and gain
"awareness". Discussions were held at the beginning of theplanning of HARCS to provide value through such
"seeping-out" and to utilize OIPs for this purpose.
Interactions between speakers/presenters and participants inboth HARCS and HCGS were conducted in Slack, but they
were mainly questions and answers about the content of thelectures/presentations, and more general interactions suchas greetings and self-introductions were not seen very often.
It is possible that these conversations were conductedbehind the scenes via direct messages (DM), in which casethe "awareness" of "seeping-out" described above would
not have occurred. However, because of the complex
operations required to stand in a queue and interact with aspeaker when one's turn comes, we gave up replicating sucha process, which resulting in "seeping-out" could not berealized.

Figure 14. Participants: Behaviors and evaluations during
participation in Cat-I. (%) (Multiple responses allowed)

5.2 Comparison of on-site venues and oVice in
Category I
The highest percentage of "very good (better than
expected)" was found in Cat-I (oVice) for both HARCS and
HCGS in the evaluations from the participant respondents
for each session (Figure 11). One of the main reasons forthis may be that oVice was able to provide a series offunctions for each of the states (a) through (f) of theinteraction process in Cat-I shown in Table 2 and Figure 2.
Related to this, in the behaviors and evaluations during
participation in Cat-I (Figure 14), the following evaluations
were obtained: "It was good to be able to look around likein actual Cat-I" (HARCS: 53%, HCGS: 76%), and "It wasgood to talk with people other than presenters" (HARCS:
12%, HCGS: 39%). These evaluations corresponded toeach of the states (a), (b), and (f).
In the impressions of the Cat-I presenters on theirexperience with oVice (Figure 15), the use of oVice seemed
to be accepted since only 0% and 13% of HARCS and

Figure 15. Cat-I presenters: Impressions of the Cat-I
presentation with oVice. (%) (Multiple responses allowed)
5.1 Comparison of On-Site Venues and OIP in
Cat-T
In the evaluation of each session by the participant
respondents (Figure 11), Cat-T (Zoom) had the highest
percentage of "normal" or higher in both HARCS and
HCGS. Although it should be considered that the content ofeach lecture and oral presentation was evaluated primarily,
it can also be considered that Zoom did not interfere withthe evaluation of the content as an OIP with a highpenetration rate and stability.
7

Table 6. Comment summary from participants.
Category

Comment
I didn't know how to register.
I didn't know how to participate.
Although the schedule was not convenient, I was able
to participate partially.

Held online

HARCS HCGS
1
1
2

Good to participate without travel time or travel

4

expense restrictions.
Difficulty in maintaining focus (not being able to feel4

the atmosphere at the vanue, being interrupted atwork.)
Request for distribution of missed presentations
Asynchronous
participation(Network connection was unstable, wishing to lookback)
I could not attend the event and only checked thepresentation materials.
I liked the use of multiple OIPs.
Use of multiple OIPs is cumbersome.
Good decision to use the new OIPs (oVice, Slack).

Multiple OIPs

I wanted opportunities to learn how to use each OIP.
I couldn't use anything but Zoom because of theorganization's rules.

4
2
1
1

Glad I got to experience it for the first time.
Easy to use.
It was fun.

oViceTools similar to real-world session Cat-I
There were problems with microphones, network
connections, etc.

1

1
4
1
1
1

I wanted the format of presentation materials to be
Cat-I operation

1

1

Did not want to use Peatix because it was right after
the information leak incident.

In addition, many respondents answered that "the skill oftalking to participants was similar to that of the on-sitevenue," (HARCS: 54%, HCGS: 35%), indicating that theinteraction process at oVice was similar to that at on-sitevenues.
Thus, oVice (2-D virtual space interaction service)provided functions for each state that constituted theinteraction process on the participant and presenter sides,
and these functions were well received. However, thefeedback obtained from each event also mentioned someside effects, such as " since a bird's-eye view is provided
instead of a first-person perspective, the popularity or
unpopularity of each presentation is emphasized too muchcompared to the on-site venue.
The short video of each presentation in Cat-I received acertain level of evaluation, as shown in Figure 11. On theother hand, 20% of HARCS participants responded thatthey did not participate in oVice because they were able tograsp the contents through the short video streaming at
Zoom (Figure 14), which can be interpreted as "I was able
to grasp the contents through the short video streaming, so I
did not participate in the interaction in Cat-I." Theprovision of short videos to facilitate time for synchronousinteraction may have ironically created a segment ofparticipants who did not engage in synchronous interaction.
In a study of face-to-face interaction in softwaredevelopment projects, which is a type of collaboration [21],the authors succeeded in quantitatively showing thatmanagers and developers with high performance(intellectual productivity) have more interaction, that theamount of interaction increases when unplanned eventsoccur, and that changing discussion partners within a shortperiod of time strengthens the unity of the interaction
network.
At on-site venues in Cat-I and Cat-S, unscheduled eventsare likely to occur depending on the interaction partners andsurrounding circumstances, and often function to facilitatechanging the discussion partners in a short period of time. If
each participant's intellectual productivity is enhanced bysuch a function, it is suggested that the OIP for Cat-I or
Cat-S should also provide a function that comprehensively
supports each of the states (a) through (f), as oVice does.

# of comments

1

1
1
1

consistent with poster format (some presenterspresented in oral format)

1

Announcements to the entire floor were annoying.

Table 7. Comment summary from Cat-I presenters.
Category

Comment
Good because it was close to reality. (Better thanZoom, etc., Not as complicated as VR, Could see how
participants were moving around)# of comments
HARCS HCGS
5

1

The room was divided into 4 floors and theoViceparticipants were dispersed. One large floor would
have been better. It might have been different if other3

floors could have been monitored.
Need to get used to it.
(Maybe we should have had a pre-event to get used to
it)

1

2

1

1

1

1

5.3 Comparison of On-site Venues and Zoom in
Cat-I
In JCSFS, Zoom's breakout room function was selected as
for Cat-I, partly from the viewpoint of usage barriers,
including "familiarity" as described in section 2.3. States(a), (d), and (e) are provided as breakout room functions.
State (b) is also possible, but it is necessary to clearly enter
each breakout room (small room). As for the state (f), it ispossible to prepare many small rooms for chatting, but it isnecessary to find a small room available for chatting andthen build a consensus to enter the room, making theoriginal casual chatting practically impossible. Although
JCSFS did not conducted a questionnaire survey, thefeedbacks such as "It takes courage to enter a breakout
room when there is no one in the room except thepresenter" and "It is difficult for participants to chat witheach other" were actually obtained at the reception held atoVice.
In another online academic event, "Interaction 2020"(March 9-11, 2020), where many Zoom meetings wereprepared and used just as breakout rooms, the same
feedback as in HARCS/HCGS/JCSFS was obtained from

Wanted to explain to participants while looking at theirfaces (Many people left the camera off because theyneeded to turn it off to move around; it was more
Differencesfrom onsite

important to be able to understand their reactions in
Cat-I than in Cat-T).
Need more appealing content and presentation, as
participants are more likely to do "nibbling-like"participation (if they are not interested, they will leave
quickly).

Cat-I

Making the short video in advance was a hassle.

operation Announcements to the entire floor were annoying.

1
1

HCGS respondents, respectively, said that they preferredconventional teleconferencing systems such as Zoom. The
following results may also contribute to the acceptance ofoVice: "Being able to grasp how crowded each presentationwas" (HARCS: 57%, HCGS: 55%), "Being able to grasp
the interaction among participants" (HARCS: 32%, HCGS:52%), and "Being able to introduce participants to others(expanding the circle of communication)" (HARCS: 29%,
HCGS: 23%) also contributed to the acceptance of oVice.
8because there was a possibility to get answers in Slack evenafter the presentation" (HARCS: 9%, HCGS: 43%) and "Iread other people's questions and answers in Slack after thepresentation" (HARCS: 25%, HCGS: 60%). In fact, theusage log (Figures 8 and 9) confirms that active users
responded to each posting after the event date such asprovision of materials, answers to questions at a later date,and posting of the survey request for this paper, suggestingthat Slack's asynchronous interaction support functioned
effectively.
From the comments obtained from the participantquestionnaire (Table 6) and inquiries to JCSFS, it was
confirmed that there are requests for the distribution of
missed lectures and oral presentations in Cat-T. The firstthing that should be done by the organizer side for such
post-event distribution is to organize the rights related tocopyrights and portrait rights. For this purpose, it isnecessary to proceed with the transfer of rights andlicensing of use, as well as to clarify which side is
responsible for each right, the organizer or the presenter[24]. In HARCS/HCGS/JCSFS, it was not possible torealize the post-event distribution due to the lack of time toprepare for the above legal issues.
In the case of YouTube, there are menus to set the visibility
and period of publication, and a legal-tech mechanism toautomatically check copyrights and portrait rights. If OIP
recording and streaming functions such as Zoom are
equipped with these features, it will be easier to introduce
post-event distribution services.
One of the invited speakers was unable to be available atshort notice, and the talk was pre-recorded and streamed via
Zoom during the session, and the post-event distribution
was available on Slack until the day after the session. In
addition, a spontaneous question-and-answer session wasseen to continue on Slack for about a week after thatsession. Considering such actual cases of asynchronous
participation and the aforementioned requests for postevent distribution, as well as the ephemeral nature of Zoom
chats, it is highly worthwhile to further develop amechanism to support asynchronous participation,
including asynchronous interactions.

the participants: (1) it took courage to enter a room with noone but the presenter, (2) it was difficult to introduce one
person to another person they knew, and (3) a segment ofparticipants watched only the "introduction of the compiled
presentations" and did not interact with individual
presenters [22].
As mentioned in the previous subsection, oVice, a spatial
OIP, was able to support each of the states (a) through (f) of
the interaction process, so (1) was not a major problem for
HARCS and HCGS, and (2) was not necessarily the casefor HARCS and HCGS since there were participants who
expanded the circle of interaction.
Regarding (3), although Interaction 2020 broadcasted eachpresentation live, while HARCS and HCGS distributed
short videos, they were similar in that such a "compiled
introductionofpresentations"wasconducted
simultaneously at the time when many-to-manysynchronous interaction should have taken place. In HCGS,
short video streaming and each interactive presentation
were made on the same oVice, allowing the participants tomove back-and-forth between them instantly in the virtual
space. In addition, the video distribution was also available
on Slack even before the start of Cat-I. This difference may
have made the problem (3) less noticeable in HCGS.
5.4 Category S and OIP
In online academic events, Cat-S, which includes
receptions, is also a category with as many or more
problems as Cat-I. In other online academic events, such as
Robomech 2020 (May 27-30, 2020), the reception wascancelled in the first place [23]. In Interaction 2020, a
reception was held via Zoom, but it was reported that thereception was not developed in a distributed andcooperative manner because it was not possible to handle
meeting and parting in a continuous manner like oVice.
HCGS and JCSFS held a reception at oVice. Although we
did not conduct a questionnaire survey on Cat-S, we havethe impression that it was generally well received. In
HCGS, a unique spatial interaction trial was conducted inwhich participants expressed their intentions by movingaround, as shown in the lower right of Figure 4, which
warmed up the atmosphere. In the first author's subjective
view, the sense of participation and belonging to the place
was augmented. At the JCSFS reception, the participants
were naturally divided into several groups, and someparticipants called out to those who had no one to talk to.
Some participants even said, "The organizers should haveused oVice for Cat-I.
Compared to HARCS, which was the earliest of the three
events that we were involved in organizing, Robomech2020 was held about six months earlier and Interaction
2020 about eight months earlier. The OIPs themselves andtheir functionality options increased during that time due tothe COVID-19 crisis, and the degree of familiarity of eachparticipant with online academic events also increased
rapidly. Each of the events that we managed benefited fromthese developments.

5.6 On-site/online hosting operating costs
The human and financial costs of on-site and online eventsfor HARCS and HCGS were compared with those of theprevious year's on-site events. Note that the scale of events(number of days, number of participants, and number ofpresentations) for both HARCS and HCGS in FY 2019 andFY 2020 were similar, and preparations for FY 2020 weremade with reference to the previous year, so nonormalization was performed for comparison purposes.
First, a comparison of the number of operating staffs on thedays of the event shows that HARCS was able to hold theevent online with about 41% of the number of staffs in theprevious year, and HCGS was able to hold the event online
with about 71% of the number of staffs. Next, a comparisonof expenditures shows that HARCS and HCGS were able toreduce their expenditures to about 19% and 25% of theprevious year's on-site costs, respectively.
In the case of online events, duties of the registration deskon the days of the event are eliminated, and there is neither
physical preparation of handouts nor venue organization.
Moreover, OIPs are much less expensive than on-site venue
fees.

5.5 Asynchronous interaction, asynchronous
participation and OIP
As shown in Table 1, Zoom and oVice were employed forsynchronous interaction, while Slack was employed as an
OIP to support asynchronous interaction. Regarding the
behaviors related to question-and-answer in Cat-T (Figure13), we obtained answers as follows: "I asked questions
9

HARCS and HCGS have considered the use of a 3-D
spatial interaction (VR: Virtual Reality) service, but
decided against it due to concerns that the usage barriers
would become too high. Based on the above discussion, thiswas the right decision at this moment.

Table 8. HARCS: (3) they were unable to use oVice andSlack because of their organization's rules and regulations.
Rate within the respondents
who selected Item (3) (%)(cf.) Rate in thewhole respondants

Industrial Classification
E  MANUFACTURING
G  INFORMATION AND
COMMUNICATIONSS  GOVERNMENT E.E.C.

oVice

6.2 Social acceptance of OIP
Regarding the oVice operation for presentation in Cat-I(Figure 16), many respondents answered that there were no
problems (HARCS: 61%, HCGS: 55%), but there were also
many who answered that they "lacked practice" (HARCS:
25%, HCGS: 29%) or "had some dissatisfaction with thefunctions. Insufficient practice is generally a matter of"familiarity," but in this case, many of the problems were
attributable to the "maturity of the system." Specifically,
even in cases where the system could not be used well due
to "lack of maturity of the system" such as problems withoVice or Web browsers or inconsistencies in UI (userinterface), the presenters regarded it as a problem of"familiarity". This was often observed through rehearsals
and technical support during the events.
In any case, responses such as "there was not enoughexplanation in advance from the organizer" (Figure 16) and"I wanted opportunities to learn how to use each OIP"
(Tables 6 and 7) suggested the need for rehearsals andtutorial sessions. However, since these were actuallyconducted at each event, the content and quantity of thesesessions need to be reconsidered.
Not only oVice, but many of the new spatial OIPs areprovided as Web apps, which often have limited
functionality and operability compared to stand-alone apps.
Although this may be a reason for dissatisfaction with thefunctionality (lack of system maturity), Web applications
are easier to control than stand-alone applications from theperspective of the standardization of IT security
authentication mentioned above, and the application
development itself is also easier with Web applications. It isdifficult to say which solution is the best.
If the only criteria for selecting OIPs are whether theparticipants are familiar with using them and whether they
are mature and has sufficient operational history against IT
security risks, it may cause giving up thinking about thevarious issues mentioned so far. In addition to familiarity,
maturity, and various risks, the balance of each factor suchas the value of the provided functions discussed in section 5
influences the degree of social acceptance [25], or at least
the degree of acceptance by the participants of each event,which may affect the degree of satisfaction andconvincingness. The balance of the above factors canchange rapidly when triggered by a major incident or an
epidemic, so the organizers of online academic events are
required to have a comprehensive view. Note that the agesof the participants of the reception held at oVice in HCGS
and JCSFS ranged from 20s to 70s, and each generation
accepted it. This was impressive to the authors.

(%)

Slack
71

83

32

14

17

7

14

0

8

6 DISCUSSIONS OF USAGE BARRIERS AND
SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE OF OIPS
6.1 Usage barriers of OIPs
In the case of online events, unlike on-site events, usagebarriers at each OIP create problems that prevent
participation. As shown in Figure 12, there were few
problems with Zoom, as it is quite widely used (however,many organizations prohibited Zoom use in the first half of2020, mainly for IT security issues). On the other hand, thenumber of participant respondents who were unable to use
oVice and Slack amounted to around 30% in HARCS (Inthe case of HCGS, it was 3%). In addition to Item (1)usability and Item (2) computing/communication
environment, about 10% of the respondents selected Item
(3) “unable to use oVice and Slack because of theirorganization's rules and regulations.”
Noting that the industry composition of the participant
respondents differed between HARCS and HCGS as shownin Figure 10, we checked the industry of the respondents
who selected Item (3) (Table 8). As a result, we found thatthe manufacturing and information and communicationindustries accounted for 70-80% and 14-17%, respectively,of the respondents who selected Item (3), while the
manufacturing and information and communicationindustries accounted for 32% and 7%, respectively, of thetotal HARCS respondents,
No respondents selected Item (3), even though the
manufacturing and information and telecommunicationsindustries accounted for 10% and 15%, respectively, of thetotal HCGS respondents. Therefore, it is difficult to make ageneralization, but it is likely that organizations in theseindustries have strict IT security management based on thepast OIP use. In fact, in JCSFS held three months after
HCGS, it was confirmed that some participants could notuse oVice or Slack due to their organization's rules, and it
should be considered that the barrier as in Item (3) will not
be resolved in the short term. This may be seen as a factor
of barriers to entry for new service businesses with little
operational history, not limited to oVice and Slack.
For example, standardization of authentication forcommunication and data management, etc., according to theconfidentiality level of synchronous and asynchronousinteractions, would at least facilitate lowering the new entry
and usage barriers for IT security. In addition, by making
the participation fee free of charge and adding holidays tothe dates of the conference, it may be possible to lower thebarrier as in Item (3) by making it easier to participate froman individual standpoint without being bound by theorganization to which one belongs.

6.3 Accessibility of OIP
As described in section 2.3, oVice was adopted inconsideration of accessibility for participants such as thevisually impaired. This enabled a blind presenter who
participated in Cat-I of HARCS and HCGS respectively toappear at the assigned location, and in HCGS, the presenter
also participated in the reception.
The international conference Electroceramics XVII, where
Gather was adopted, reported that it worked well in Cat-I,10although there were some system and service maturity
issues [26]. However, accessibility was not mentioned. On
the
other
hand,
the
international
conference
Ubicomp/ISWC 2020, which also adopted Gather, reported
to AccessSIGCH and SIGCHI that "accessibility for people
with audiovisual disabilities is poor and we recommend notusing Gather until that problem is resolved" [27].
From the perspective of social acceptance described in theprevious section, accessibility of OIPs must be emphasized
more and more in the future. Technologically, it is expectedthat it will become easier to adopt not only 2-D spatial
interaction services but also 3-D VR spatial interaction
services, which will increase the degree of freedom in
spatial design and the complexity of operations. Although
this might make it more difficult to ensure accessibility,
such future services are expected to enable virtual spatial
mobility support such as automated driving and finegrained accessibility support through multimodal interfaces.
6.4 Multiple OIP use
As shown in Table 1, in the three events in which we wereinvolved in the operation, multiple OIPs were combined tosupport one-to-many and many-to-many interactions inboth synchronous and asynchronous ways. As shown in thecomments in Table 6 and Figure 12, while we received
constructive evaluations, we also received evaluations that
it was troublesome to use, that it was usable although there
were problems, and that it was unusable due to problems. In
Robomech 2020, Zoom webinars were used in Cat-T,
Facebook in Cat-I [28], and other different OIPs were also
used together. Just as in our events, it was evaluated that itwas cumbersome to use and that there were problems inusing the system.
In exchange for the cumbersome use, Robomech 2020
made the decision to "use multiple OIPs in anticipation ofprivate companies that do not allow the employees to usesome specific OIPs". From Figure 12 and Table 8, it is fair
to assume that the use of multiple OIPs was a reasonabledecision in HARCS from this perspective. However, theprobability that no problem occurs in the multiple OIP caseis the product of the probability that no problem occurs ineach OIP, so the probability of no problem occurring islower in the multiple OIP case than in the single OIP case.
Responses that there were problems using OIPs may also be
related to this aspect.
At Robomech 2020, some participants were reluctant toprovide their personal information to Facebook. In addition,some participants hesitated to use Peatix, which was used
for registration in HCGS, due to an information leakage
incident that occurred before the event (Note: no problem
occurred in HCGS) (Table 6). Needless to cite these cases,
special consideration should be given to how personal
information is handled at each OIP.

Figure 17. Summary of relationship between recommended
services (functions), effects, and issues for the service
elements expected in online academic events and the OIPs.
The above trend is likely to be observed regardless ofwhether the event is online or not. On the other hand, we
confirmed, as a phenomenon peculiar to online events, thatthe "ratio of the largest number of simultaneous participants
to the number of registrants" is low despite the fact that
HCGS required the registration fee. It means that many
participants attended only some of specific sessions. Since
participants can participate without having to spend money
for transportation, lodging, and travel time, the total cost ofparticipation can be kept low even if they pay for theregistration. This could be a factor in not raising awarenessof the "wastefulness" or "Mottai-nai" of the participation
fee, even if they do not participate.
In Cat-T, the "ratio of the largest number of simultaneousparticipants to the number of registrants" was lower at
HCGS than at HARCS. If there is a relationship between
the length of the event and the dispersion of participants in
Cat-T, the program structure should take this into account.
In any case, the ratios on simultaneous participants
described above were not high in both events, and it is fairto say that there was "nibbling-like" participation, which is

6.5 Participation rates for online academic events
Finally, although not directly related to the OIP itself, we
discuss the participation rate of online academic events.
First, as for the ratio of the number of participants to thenumber of registrants shown in Table 4, it was higher at
HCGS, where the registration fee was charged, than at
HARCS, where the registration fee was free, for both Cat-T
and Cat-I. This ratio is expected to be higher in proportion
to the fee.

11

meetings (virtual offices), including remote group work insoftware development projects as described in section 5.2,
university laboratories (virtual labs), group training,
exhibitions, and remote local community activities. Futureissues include verification of their feasibility, elaboration offindings, and design of OIPs based on the findings.
Although remote international conferences are also
academic events, it is necessary to further investigate how
to overcome time differences in terms of interaction andcollaboration in synchronous/asynchronous distributed
environments.

often seen in other online events. Several respondents
commented that it was difficult for them to maintain theirconcentration, including being interrupted at work (Table6), suggesting that there are two types of nibbling-likeparticipation: intentional and unavoidable.
As shown in Figure 6, the number of HARCS participants
peaked in the morning and monotonically declined, and it
was not possible to retain the participants until Cat-I in theevening. In spite of the fact that oVice was set up with four
floors in consideration of the large number of preregistrants, the atmosphere was quiet depending on thefloor and time because of the small number of participantsin Cat-I.
In the virtual space, it would have been possible to create a"closer atmosphere" that was not possible in the real space
during the COVID-19 crisis, but it was regrettable that itwas not possible to do so. The number of participants
should have been more accurately estimated at the time ofpre-registration by asking the number of participants ineach session category, so that the spatial configuration
could be considered without relying solely on experienceand intuition.
The phenomenon of fewer participants in the afternoon thanin the morning was also observed in HCGS on both the firstand second days (Figure 7). On the other hand, the closing
session had the largest number of participants on the final
day. This may be because the award ceremony was held in
the closing session, where the winners were announced forthe first time. It is obvious that such “superior content"
increases the willingness to participate, but it wasreconfirmed that it is indeed an important factor.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We would like to thank all those who responded to thesurvey and those who were involved in the management of
HARCS, HCGS, and JCSFS. I would also like to thank theeditors and reviewers of Japanese Journal of Serviceology
for their helpful comments and suggestions.
REFERENCES
1. Watanabe, K. et al. (2020). Augmented Telework and its Prospects,
Human Augmentation Research Center, AIST,
https://unit.aist.go.jp/harc/telework.html, accessed on June 24, 2021.
(Written in Japanese)
2. Okada, M. et al. (2020). Preliminary results of a survey on changes inin-company communication due to telework, Graduate School ofComprehensive Human Sciences, University of Tsukuba.
http://www.human.tsukuba.ac.jp/counseling/center/teleworksurveyrep
ort/, accessed on June 24, 2021. (Written in Japanese)
3. Matsushita, A. and Okada, K. (1995). Collaboration andCommunication, Kyoritsu Shuppan, Distributed Cooperative Media
Series, Vol. 3. (Written in Japanese)
4. Okada, K. (2007). Collaboration in Information Sharing Space, JPSJMagazine, Vol. 48, No. 2, pp. 123-127. (Written in Japanese)
5. Kurata, T., Ichikari, R., Iino, N., Kobayashi, Y., Eto, K., Nishimura T.
(2021). Discussion on Lecture-Poster-Question Platform for Online
Symposium: HARCS2020 as a case, The 9th National Convention of
the Japan Society for Service Research, P-2-10. (Written in Japanese)
6. Kaneko, H. et al. (2020). HCG Symposium 2020, https://www.hcgieice.org/hcg-symposium/2020/, accessed on May 11, 2021. (Written
in Japanese)
7. Mochimaru, M. (2021). The 9th Annual Domestic Conference ofSociety for Serviceology, Web Magazine, The Japan Society for
Service Research. (Written in Japanese)
8. Voorhees, C. M., Fombelle, P. W., Gregoire, Y., Bone, S., Gustafsson,
A., Sousa, R., Walkowiak, T. (2017). Service encounters, experiences
and the customer journey: defining the field and a call to expand ourlens, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 79, pp. 269-280.
9. Hall, T. Edward (1969). The Hidden Dimension, A Doubleday anchor
book, A609, Doubleday.
10. Zoom (2013). https://zoom.us/, accessed on May 11, 2021.
11. Slack (2013). https://slack.com/, accessed on May 11, 2021.
12. Remo (2019). https://remo.co/, accessed on May 11, 2021.
13. SpatialChat (2020). https://spatial.chat/, accessed on May 11, 2021.
14. Gather (2020). https://gather.town/, accessed on May 11, 2021.
15. oVice (2020). https://ovice.in/, accessed on May 11, 2021.
16. YouTube (2005). https://www.youtube.com/, accessed on May 11,
2021.
17. Peatix (2011). https://peatix.com/, accessed on May 11, 2021. (Written
in Japanese)
18. Confit (2010). https://about-confit.atlas.jp/, accessed on May 11, 2021.
(Written in Japanese)
19. Google (2008). Google Forms. https://docs.google.com/forms/,
accessed on May 11, 2021.
20. Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (2013). Japan
Standard Industrial Classification, Available at:https://www.soumu.go.jp/english/dgpp_ss/seido/sangyo/san13-3.htm,
accessed on July 3, 2022.

6.6 Contributions to Serviceology
The contribution of this study to serviceology is thefindings organized in the previous section and thediscussion in this section. Figure 17 summarizes thefindings as a diagram of the relationship between
recommended services (functions), effects, and issues forthe service elements which are expected in online academic
events and the OIPs as their service encounters. It isdifficult to prove that the assumption made in section 1 arevalid. However, the fact that this summary is based on
discussions of online academic events with respect to eachof the issues identified in teleworking and online meetingssurveys demonstrates the validity of this assumption.
7 CONCLUSION
In this paper, firstly, the history of adoption of OIPs that
supportco-presenceandcollaborationinsynchronous/asynchronous distributed environments inacademic events, a kind of collaboration (Figure 1), isoutlined for each session category. Next, descriptive
statistics of the usage log of each OIP for HARCS and
HCGS, and the results of the questionnaire for participantsand Cat-I presenters were reported. Then, the comparison
between on-site venues and OIPs, and the usage barriers
and social acceptance of OIPs were discussed, including theexperience of JCSFS management. In particular, the stateclassification of the interaction process (Table 2) was used
for discussion in each session category (T, I, S).
The findings summarized in Figure 17 in this study may be
applicable to collaboration in synchronous/asynchronous
distributed environments different from academic events.
For example, it may be assumed to be telework and online
1221. Ara, K., Akitomi, T., Sato, N., Takahashi, K., Maeda, H., Yano, K.,
Yanagisawa, M. (2012). Integrating Wearable Sensor Technology into
the Project-management Process, Journal of Information Processing,Vol.20, No.2, pp.406-418.
22. Hasegawa S., Shizuki B., Kosaka T. (2021). Behind the Scenes ofInteraction 2020 Online and what We See from there, Transactions ofInformation Processing Society of Japan, Vol.62, No.1, 3-11. (Written
in Japanese)
23. Fukui, Rui and Tetsuyo Watanabe (2021). A trial of a poster-based
online academic conference using Facebook as a platform (Validationof Robomech 2020), Transactions of the Japan Society of MechanicalEngineers, Vol. 87, No. 895. (Written in Japanese)
24. The Institute of Electronics, Information and Communication
Engineers (2020). Consent Form for Lecture Delivery,
https://www.ieice.org/jpn_r/assets/pdf/kitei/lecture-consent-form.pdf,
accessed on May 11, 2021. (Written in Japanese)
25. Kanzaki, Nobutsugu (2020). A Conceptual Analysis of Social
Acceptance: for AI Ethics, Proceedings of the Japanese National

Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 4N2OS26a05. (Written in
Japanese)
26. Koruza, J., Klein, A., Huart, V., Bagnoli, J. (2021). Electroceramics
XVII - The 2020 virtual conference experience at TU Darmstadt,
Open Ceramics 6, 100114.
27. Ubicomp (2020). ACCESSIBILITY STATEMENT,
https://www.ubicomp.org/ubicomp2020/accessibility/statement/, ,accessed on May 11, 2021.
28. Facebook (2004). https://www.facebook.com/, accessed on May 11,
2021.
29. Kurata, T., Ichikari, R., Iino, N., Kobayashi, Y., Eto, K., Nishimura T.
(2022). Online Academic Event Interaction Platform: Case Discussionof HARCS, HCG Symposium, and Japanese Conference of Society
for Serviceology, Japanese Journal of Serviceology, Vol.6, No.2,
pp.1-12, https://doi.org/10.24464/jjs.6.2_1 (Written in Japanese)13