## 5 Results
### Collaboration Patterns
#### 5.4.1 Collaboration Categories  
Participants in the two paired groups were asked to complete a survey about their perceived level of collaboration right after completing the engagement questionnaire. There were sixteen seven-scale Likert questions focusing on four different categories that could influence the process of participants working together: communication, collaboration,  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Mean** & **N** & **Std. Deviation** & **Std. Error Mean** \\ \hline Singles & 2898.30 & 10 & 1049.579 & 331.906 \\ Shared & 2314.62 & 10 & 328.45 & 103.266 \\ Non-Shared & 2390.50 & 10 & 253.67 & 80.220 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 4: Overall descriptive data time spent on task completion (in seconds).  
Figure 8: Engagement ratings on the 11 categories for Singles, Shared, and Non-Shared groups. Error bar indicates \(\pm\)2 standard errors.  
satisfaction, and comfort [9; 45; 46; 69]. Table 5 shows the questions for each category. This comparison was for assessing how participants conceived their collaboration with shared and non-shared control/view, and when placed at different position arrangements.  
Figure 9 shows the mean ratings for the four categories. As can be observed, although the Shared group gave generally higher ratings than the Non-Shared group, no significance was spotted between the two interaction modes. It is evident that shared control and view fostered greater collaboration, communication, and satisfaction, while comfort did not vary very much. For Question 5 (see Table 4), which was related to task division, the Non-Shared group gave a rating of 4.3 (above neutral), whereas the Shared group gave a rating of 5.3 (above slightly agree). It seemed that shared interaction and view could facilitate task division. We observed that these participants tended to divide up tasks from the beginning, which improved their efficiency and problem solving. For Question 9 (see Table 3), which dealt with the awareness of the partner's actions, the Shared group gave a rating of 6 (Agree), while the Non-Shared group only gave a rating of 4.4 (Slightly Agree).  
Figure 9: Mean ratings for the communication, collaboration, comfort, and satisfaction categories of the collaboration questionnaire. Error bar indicates \(\pm\)2 standard errors.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l} \hline \hline
**Communication** \\ \hline
1. I communicated a lot with my partner. \\
2. Our communication was effective. \\
3. I was able to share my ideas and visualization easily. \\ \hline
**Collaboration** \\ \hline
4. We completed the task together efficiently. \\
5. We divided up tasks between us. \\
6. I felt part of the team. \\
7. I was engaged in the collaboration. \\
8. We worked together all the time. \\
9. I was fully aware of what my partner was doing. \\ \hline
**Satisfaction** \\ \hline
10. I enjoyed the collaboration experience. \\
11. I was satisfied with my contribution to solve the tasks. \\
12. I was satisfied with the application in its assistance to my task solving. \\ \hline
**Comfort** \\ \hline
13. I seldom compromised myself for collaboration. \\
14. I was able to move around freely. \\
15. I felt my partner positioned at a comfortable distance from me. \\
16. I was seldom disturbed by my partner’s actions. \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 5: Questions defined for communication, collaboration, satisfaction, and comfort.  
We also noticed that the pairs who were not acquainted with each other before the experiment talked more in the shared version than those in the non-shared condition. In the words of one participant, shared interaction could \"force\" participants to exchange ideas and work together closely. As a result of this, they had to talk more than those in the Non-Shared group.