-
Opportunities and Barriers to Portable Document Scanning
73
© Springer-Verlag London LtdPersonal Technologies (2000)
4:73-85
1. Introduction
Scanners are now one of the most popular add-ondevices sold for
the PC. Second only to the printer,sales reached 14 million units
by 1998 [1], and themarket currently shows no sign of abating.
Despitethis popularity, there has been very little
publishedresearch looking at document scanner use. With afew
notable exceptions, scanning – be it in thehome or the office – has
had little attention. Thisis unfortunate, and not just for the gap
in ourknowledge that it presents. Many discussions ofdocument
technology depend upon a notion ofone’s documents existing
exclusively, or at leastpredominantly, as electronic documents.
Forexample, a recent paper by Buscher et al. describesa system
(called “manufaktur”) where documentsare manipulated and shared in
a virtual envir-onment [2]. There is an implicit assumption
thatdocuments that are only available in paper form(such as books,
magazines and other externallyproduced materials) will be scanned
as a matter ofcommon practice. There is no discussion of
thelaborious, low-status work which is needed toscan in documents.
To reach their full potential,these mixed reality environments or
electronicdocument systems depend upon documentscanning to make
paper documents availableelectronically. These sorts of assumptions
can also
Opportunities and Barriers to PortableDocument Scanning
Barry A. T. Brown1, Abigail J. Sellen1 and Kenton P. O’Hara2
1Hewlett-Packard Research Labs, Bristol, UK; 2Appliance Design
Studio, Bristol, UK
Abstract: While electronic documents are increasingly prevalent
in the workplace there are many texts – such as books, magazines
andletters – which are not easily available in an electronic form.
Since many electronic document systems depend upon documents
existingexclusively, or at least predominantly, in electronic form,
this suggests an opportunity for document scanning technology.
However,conventional scanners are limited by their large size and
relatively cumbersome usage. Using a diary-based methodology, this
study investigatedthe use of a new portable document scanning
technology. In this paper we explore the need for document
scanning, and how this portabledevice was used by our study
participants. Document scanning is shown to be a goal-driven
activity – individuals did not scan just to have anelectronic
version of a document, but to do something with electronic
documents, in particular, distributing documents to others,
archivingdocuments and reusing documents. The small design of this
device also enabled a mode of usage distinct from that of
conventional flatbedscanners. Its size meant that the device was a
personal, rather than shared technology; that it could be easily
stored when not being used; andthat the scanner could be carried to
the materials to be scanned, rather than the materials brought to
the scanner. We discuss this interactionwith the local environment
as a case of “local mobility” – this is less to do with portability
but with how a device’s small size can make it fitbetter into work
environments.
Keywords: Diary studies; Digital documents; Information
appliances; Mobile devices; Paper use; Scanning
be seen in other work involving the use ofdocuments in virtual
environments [3–5].
In our own research group, we were confrontedwith these issues
in relation to our research with anew kind of document scanner, a
handhelddocument scanner known as the “Capshare 920”(Fig. 1). The
Capshare handheld scanner is anuntethered appliance that can be
used to scan andstore 50 A4 or US letter-sized pages. Capshareworks
by tracking the grain of the page as it isdragged over the page in
a “swipe” motion. Thedevice then stitches the page back together
anddisplays it on an LCD screen on the back of thedevice where it
can be viewed before sending it toa PC or printer. Capshare can
scan greyscale orblack and white pages up to flipchart in
size.Capshare’s mobile nature makes it a radicallydifferent sort of
device from existing flatbedscanners. It can be used in situations
where onedoes not have access to a PC or a network, and itcan be
easily carried in a briefcase or bag. Theresearchers who worked on
its design andproduction conceived of it as a “casual
capture”device – one which would be used for the ad hoccapture of
documents in situations outsideconventional office
environments.
Since Capshare is a very different kind ofscanner than
conventional flatbeds, we wereinterested in how its use would be
different. In this
91/brownr3.PM6 23/05/2000, 5:42 pm73
-
1
B. Brown et al.
74
paper, we discuss research which we have donelooking into how
the small size of Capshare hasimplications for its use. The design
of Capshare issuch that in the process of scanning, one takesthe
Capshare to the object to be scanned, ratherthan the other way
round (as with flatbeds).Capshare can also be stored in a desk
drawer oreasily kept on a desktop without taking up muchspace. Its
design also makes it possible to scansurfaces which are pinned to
walls, which are insitu, and which are encountered in an ad hoc
way.These issues are related to the size of the deviceand its
physical mobility, but are not about“mobility” or “portability” in
the way the termsare normally used.
In addition to looking at how Capshare is used,and the
relationship of its use to its size andmobility, we also wanted to
be able to identifypotential user needs which Capshare failed
tosupport, and to discover what the barrierswere to its use. To
accomplish these goals, wedeveloped a methodology involving a
modifieddiary elicitation technique. Diary methods are apopular
data collection technique in sociology,but are still relatively
rare in technology studies.We have been developing our own form of
thismethodology, with some success in the areas ofreading [6],
paper use [7], and the researchbehaviour of library users [8]. The
methodologywe used in this study incorporated digitalcameras as a
tool to log users’ activities, givingus the ability to capture
naturalistic details of workpractice without the large overhead of
anobservational study. In this case, cameras wereused as a diary
tool for the first phase of thestudy to uncover what initial
“needs” participantssaw for a document capture device. This was
followed by a second phase where participantsactually used the
Capshare device. This gave usa view of what individuals desired to
scan, incontrast to what they actually scanned with ournew handheld
scanner.
2. The Literature
Perhaps because it is viewed as a mundanetechnology, scanning
has mostly appearedimplicitly in the literature rather than
beingaddressed as a topic in its own right. It is oftentaken for
granted as a prerequisite and simpleactivity. As we have already
mentioned, many newprototype document systems often assume
thatdocuments will be available on-line, despite thereality that
there is a vast paper legacy that mostorganisations have to deal
with.
Most research involving scanning systems hasavoided discussing
how they are used, or how theyfit into existing practices.
Technical descriptionsof scanning technology are the norm, e.g.
[9–11].This is perhaps acceptable in situations wherescanning is
used in the archiving of large corporaof documents, such as digital
libraries. In thesesettings, archiving and integrating media are
theprimary organisational goals [12]. Issues concerningthe
incorporation of scanning into work practiceare less pressing,
since scanning and maintainingthe scanned archive is the main task
for thoseconcerned. However, these situations represent theminority
of scanning sales. Most scanners arebought for use in different
situations, wherescanning is only one activity amongst many –
thereis little in the literature which deals with the useof
scanners in these complex situations.
One exception can be found in research by Trigget al. [13]. This
paper discusses the use of a scanningsystem by an urban rail
engineering team. Ithighlights in detail the work which is
requiredwhen keeping paper and digital documents, andthe problems
that arise in managing the boundarybetween the two. The engineering
team studiedused the scanning system for archiving reports
anddocuments which were generated by their projectwork. In this
case, the reports were cataloguedwhen they were written, and the
scanningsystem used to archive the documents. Thesedocuments could
then be searched via the web,and printed by team members and other
membersof the organisation.
Much of Trigg et al.’s paper discusses thecategorisation schemes
that were developed by the
Fig. 1. The Hewlett-Packard Capshare 920.
91/brownr3.PM6 23/05/2000, 5:42 pm74
-
Opportunities and Barriers to Portable Document Scanning
75
team, and how they adopted and modifiedstandardised schemes for
use in their ownarchiving. This discussion gives an interesting
viewof archiving practices, and the problems ofmaintaining and
using standardised categor-isations. However, the paper also
addresses howscanning was incorporated into the work practicesof
the team. For various reasons to do with theexperimental nature of
the project, records werealso kept in a paper archive along with
thedigital archive. Keeping the paper and thedigital records in
step proved to be problematicfor staff. Some engineers used the
paper records,and would then annotate, change, or recategorisethem
when needed. These changes would notnormally be transferred over to
the electronic copy,causing problems with mapping between the
digitaland the electronic versions. Scanning in thissetting also
became something of a “chore”, in thatit satisfied no short-term
goals for getting the workdone; instead it was part of maintaining
records sothat files could be found in the future – a longterm
goal. This sort of work is likely to be oflow priority and status.
Indeed, in the situationTrigg et al. investigated, the documents to
bescanned were put into a pile to be fed through bythe group’s
administrator. This paper highlights theutility of scanning to
cross the digital–paperboundary, but also shows some of the
problemswhich arise from the time-consuming nature ofexisting
scanning technology.
3. Method
In this study we wanted to look at scanningpractices across a
diverse range of settings andprofessions, in particular with
reference to how amobile scanning device could be used. It was
notan aim of the study to produce statisticallygeneralisable data.
Instead, we were lookingfor a way of understanding how scanning
fitsinto different occupations and work practices.Moreover, our aim
was to collect in-depth data oneach individual by interviewing them
over thecourse of many consecutive days. Accordingly, wedesigned
and used a three-week-long diary studywith a relatively small
sample of participants. Thisstudy was an attempt to understand both
the newsituations in which a mobile “capture” device suchas
Capshare could be used, and the design barriersto its further
use.
The study was carried out in two parts. The firstpart elicited
document capture requirements by
using a modified diary method. The aim here wasto understand
what possibilities existed for portabledocument capture devices.
The second part of thestudy equipped participants with Capshares,
and asimilar methodology was used to uncover detailsabout the
scanning which they actually did.
3.1. Choice of participants
In choosing our participants, we were particularlyinterested in
settings where there was potentiallyhigh demand for devices such as
Capshare. Thisled us to choose participants who worked in
paper-intensive occupations. Also, perhaps unusually fora study
concerned with mobility, we chose to focuson participants who were
mainly desk-bound ratherthan mobile. Part of our rationale for this
waspractical: we were looking for future markets forthe device and
Capshare had already been wellresearched (internal to HP) in the
context ofmobile professionals. The other reason, however,was that
we were interested, not necessarily inCapshare as a device that was
only used “on themove”, but rather whether the unique,
compactdesign of Capshare might find its place in an
officeenvironment. In other words, we were interestedin whether the
design of Capshare as a mobiledevice would offer different
affordances forscanning in a conventional office setting
thanflatbeds do. The issue of interest, then, was to dowith the
mobility of the device rather than themobility of the people who
used it1.
Eleven participants were chosen in a sample ofpaper-intensive
occupations, covering bothprofessional and administrative jobs
(Table 1). Thescreener we used selected for participants who werePC
users, received or collected information fromdocuments more than 10
times a day, and were attheir desk (or main work site) more than
80% ofthe time.
3.2. Procedure for Stage 1
Participants were equipped with digital cameras,and asked to use
them to record their paper captureactivities. The participants were
asked to imaginethat the camera could capture documents by
justtaking a photograph of the first page. This “magiccamera” could
then be used to email the document,
1Having said that, we fully expected that these mainly
desk-bound individuals would sometimes be mobile both locallywithin
their work settings and outside of them. These situationswere also
of interest.
91/brownr3.PM6 23/05/2000, 5:42 pm75
-
1
B. Brown et al.
76
print the document, or to carry out any actionspossible
electronically. The emphasis was placedon participants using their
imagination as muchas possible. No limit was put on how
documentscould be captured, allowing individuals tospecify their
“dream document capture device”.Participants were told that every
time they cameacross a document they would like to captureand do
something with, they were to take aphotograph of the document. The
camera inthis way worked as something of a diary tool,helping them
record all the documents theywanted to capture throughout the
working day.Documents were described as being anythingwhich was on
paper or acetate, including posters,letters, post-it notes, photos,
and so on. Itwas emphasised that we were interested inhow they
would use the documents they werephotographing.
Participants had the cameras for 1.5 weeks,during which time
they were interviewed threetimes for between 30 minutes and 1 hour,
usingthe photographs they had taken as material onwhich to base the
interview. Since we had useddigital cameras, the photographs could
be reviewedon the camera’s built-in LCD screen. Thesephotographs
were also archived and used later inour analysis.
The interviews we conducted allowed us tobuild up considerable
data on what documentsindividuals wanted to capture, where they
wantedto capture them, and what stopped them doing the
capturing with the existing infrastructure. Standardquestions
were asked during the interviews for eachphotograph taken
including:
• Where were you when you photographed this?• Did you know what
you wanted to do with it?• Would you have liked to have shared
this?• Would you have liked to have used this on your
computer?• How do you normally capture this sort of thing?• How
do you currently archive/send/re-use these
things?
3.3. Procedure for stage 2
In the second stage of the study, the sameparticipants were
equipped with a Capsharedevice. Software was loaded onto their PCs
andparticipants were equipped with a connectionbetween Capshare and
their PC. This allowedthem to use Capshare when away from their
PC,to capture documents which could then be sent totheir PC and
stored as TIFFs, a standard formatfor scanned pages. Participants
were shown howto use the scanner, how to get documents onto theirPC
and how to view, edit, and send TIFFdocuments to others.
The aim of this second stage was to investigatehow participants
used Capshare to capturedocuments. The same methodology was used as
inStage 1: three in-depth interviews per participant
Table 1. Participants and their occupation.(Pseudonyms have been
used for participants’ names)
Subject Occupation
Jane Office administrator in small financial services firm,
responsible for activities such as distributing the post,
answeringthe telephone and keeping track of the company’s
correspondence.
Ewan Sub-editor of an entertainment magazine, doing jobs such as
opening and organising correspondence, makingsure people get
information at the right time and keeping an eye on the supplements
which go in the magazine. Heworks from home three days a week,
where he is also a book author.
Susan Teacher in local school. Responsible for teaching “special
needs” children, producing specialised material and monitoringtheir
progress.
Ken Head buyer of supermarket chain. Manages his staff who do
the actual buying and maintains the contacts betweensuppliers and
stores at the senior level.
Jennifer Trainer in supermarket chain, dealing with arranging
training sessions and working out what material to put into
newtraining sessions.
Lenny Stockbroker who takes buying requests from his clients,
carries them out on the stock exchange and advises clients onthe
best time to make financial investments.
Matt Management consultant who spends a lot of his days in
meetings, and often works from client sites. Roger
Universityresearcher who spends a lot of time interviewing people
working in government agencies.
Tim Logistics manager in Hewlett Packard. Lots of work in
meetings discussing new manufacturing processes, and
bringingtogether plans for new products.
Sam Financial administrator working in Hewlett Packard. Manages
the purchasing of equipment and chasing purchase orders.Geoff
Lawyer in firm dealing with patent issues. Frequently distributes
information to other people in the company, and
keeps large archives of information.
91/brownr3.PM6 23/05/2000, 5:42 pm76
-
Opportunities and Barriers to Portable Document Scanning
77
were carried out over 1.5 weeks, based around thedocuments which
they had scanned. Similarquestions to those listed in Stage 1 were
askedabout each scanned document.
Together, the two stages of the study gave usfirst a view of
people’s desires for document capture(using the camera), followed
by their actualdocument capture behaviour (using Capshare). Inall,
66 interviews were conducted with participantsto collect the data
for this study. The interviewsfor both stages were tape recorded
and fullytranscribed, producing a large corpus of infor-mation
about document capture scanning and itsrelation to work
practice.
4. Findings: Scanning Goalsand Document Types
During the study, participants took 162 photo-graphs and carried
out 98 successful scans – anaverage of 15 photos and 9 scans per
participant.A first observation is the difference in thefrequency
of photographs and scans. This showsthat participants indicated
they wanted to capturedocuments more than they actually did
capturedocuments. There are many reasons why this mightbe. One
reason could well have been thatparticipants’ motivation declined
over the courseof the study. Another is that Capshare was simplynot
suited for the types of things that theparticipants wanted to scan
in. Finally, anotherpossible reason was that scanning a document
withthe Capshare and carrying out subsequent activitiesrequired
more effort than just taking a photographand telling the
interviewer about it later. Bylooking in more detail at the reasons
whyparticipants captured documents (their goals), andthe kinds of
documents they captured, these issuesbecome clearer. We will return
to this markeddifference in the frequency after describing thebasic
findings.
4.1. Scanning goals
One of the first findings from the data was thatscanning was a
highly goal-driven activity. Forthe study participants, scanning
documents wassomething which was done only if there was adefinite
benefit to having the documents inelectronic form. Participants’
time was too valuableto scan documents merely to have them
elec-tronically available. Instead, there had to be somework goal
of which scanning was one part. So, for
example, handwritten notes would often bescanned to send to
colleagues. The goal for thisactivity was not scanning itself, but
rather wassending the note to a colleague. While this mayseem an
obvious point, the implication is that wecannot assume that
documents will consistentlybe made available electronically, unless
scanningplays a part in achieving work goals.
To understand the goals which were achievedwith document
scanning, we categorised thephotographs and scans by the capture
goal. We useda list of categories which we developed from
ourrelated work on information capture [14]. Therewere seven
categories in total which we used toclassify each capture incident
with both the cameraand the scanner. A quantitative categorisation
ofthe data according to these goals is shown in Fig.2. It should be
emphasised that with such asmall sample size, it is not possible to
draw anystrong conclusions from these numbers. However,some
important inferences can be drawn. Firstly,there was a wide range
of different activities withinwhich document capture occurred. So,
while ascanner such as Capshare may be characterised asa
single-function device, it is certainly not asingle-use device.
Second, the fact that the threemost frequent capture goals covered
86% ofall documents which were captured indicatessomething about
the needs of these individuals.These particular participants
frequently cameacross documents which they wanted to
distribute,store or reuse. Furthermore, participants sawsome real
advantage in doing these activitieselectronically, for reasons
which we shall discuss.
In an attempt to understand these findingsbetter, we looked in
more detail at each of thedifferent activities starting with the
most frequentcategory first.
Fig. 2. Scans and photographed categorised by the goalbehind
their capture.
91/brownr3.PM6 23/05/2000, 5:42 pm77
-
1
B. Brown et al.
78
Distribute: The “distribute” category covers caseswhere
documents were scanned to be distributedor sent to someone else,
either a group or anindividual. This category was the goal behind
47%of the captures. Participants were enthusiastic inthe interviews
about being able to scan documentsfor electronic distribution them.
This wasparticularly the case with participants who spentmuch of
their time receiving and redistributinginformation. For example,
both Jane (officeadministrator) and Tim (logistics manager)received
a lot of paper documentation through thepost which they would then
need to distribute togroups of people in their organisations:
Interviewer: Was using Capshare quicker than photocopyingit and
sending it out to people?
Jane: Yes, much quicker and also it means I don’t have to
tramparound everywhere you know I can actually do it from
here.(Jane, Office Administrator)
Tim: These are more notes from a meeting we had today. Thisis
basically an action plan for setting up the returns process. Sonow
I have to send that out to people. I could send that
outhandwritten, as it’s all internal. I’m going to type it up in
anemail … It would have been marvellous if I could have scannedit
in and emailed it out. (Tim, Logistics Manager)
With electronic documents, one obvious ad-vantage is their
ability to be quickly distributed.This activity can be
time-consuming with paper,especially if there is a large recipient
list, as onehas to photocopy and send or fax individually eachcopy
of the document. With electronic mail,documents can be simply
scanned and emailed,saving time and effort. The high frequency of
thisactivity suggests that supporting distribution is animportant
need for all scanning devices. Ourparticipants had a real need for
distributing paperdocuments electronically to others that was
notcurrently well met with existing technologies.
Store: This category refers to documents capturedfor medium-term
storage or longer-term archiving.This includes documents which are
captured andkept “just in case”, as well as documents which
arestored for a specific purpose. This category wasthe second most
frequent in our study. Someparticipants who maintained large
collections ofdocuments were enthusiastic about keepingelectronic
archives:
Ewan: I and most people who do my kind of job consumeimmense
quantities of print and we tear things out ofnewspapers for filing
away and thinking I would like to writesomething about that … so in
that sense perhaps when in afew years time I will have on my hard
disc a whole sort ofarchive of newspaper clippings that have been
scanned in asopposed to sort of half a dozen folders of various
sort of wedges
of yellowing news print that I never bother looking at.
(Ewan,Magazine Editor)
However, other participants were less enthusiastic.There were
various reasons behind this hesitancyto store documents
electronically, ranging fromlegal reasons or a lack of trust in
computertechnology. For example:
Interviewer: You’ve got a lot of files, do you think youcould
file them on the computer, all the bits of paper on thecomputer or
is it easier just have it in folders?
Jane: We’ve got to keep them on paper for legal reasons,we’ve
got have it on paper, you know they don’t want it onthe computer
because we don’t trust it. (Jane, Office Manager)
One recurring reason centred around the effortwhich would be
involved in scanning thedocuments. Jane, who maintained a large
body ofrecords, felt that it would have been cumbersometo have to
scan each record compared to placing itinto the paper archive she
kept. This emphasisesthat the effort of scanning to file may
outweighany potential benefits. This is therefore a barrierto
scanning. One relevant issue here is thatelectronic records lack
the tangibility of paperrecords. In some ways this makes them
harder toarrange and sort in a flexible manner. However,electronic
document archives have advantages inthat they can be searched (if
OCRed) and thatthey can be accessed by geographically
diversegroups. For example, Roger (university researcher)collected
a large archive of documents from hisinterviews with government
officials. Roger oftenfound that he wanted to distribute these
documentsfrom his archive with other researchers – in thiscase he
needed to resort to photocopying thedocuments and putting them into
the post. ToRoger, scanning these documents into an archivewould
have been worthwhile, since he oftenneeded to take them out of the
archive andredistribute them to others.
Reuse: This category covers documents which arecaptured in order
that they can be reused in theproduction of something else (usually
a document).This was third in terms of frequency. In this
case,participants often wanted to take snippets fromother
documents, so they could reuse them in theirown documents. One
participant in particular,Susan, a teacher in a local school, found
thescanner useful for scanning in diagrams which shethen included
in her own documents. Thesediagrams were specially modified for
special needschildren, who needed text around diagrams to
besimplified, or diagrams to be enlarged. Anotherparticipant, Tim,
a logistics manager, found it useful
91/brownr3.PM6 23/05/2000, 5:42 pm78
-
Opportunities and Barriers to Portable Document Scanning
79
to scan in handwritten process diagrams, whichhe would then
distribute around different groupsfor comment. Tim found that
drawing thesediagrams on the computer using PowerPoint wasfairly
laborious, and particularly time consuming.With Capshare, however,
he found he could justsketch out the diagrams on a piece of blank
paper,scan it in and include it in his word documents.
One relevant issue to the r-use of scans iswhether these
documents were to be convertedinto computer text – “if they were to
be OCRed”.In our study, in many of the cases where parti-cipants
indicated that they wanted to OCRscans, conventional OCR software
would havebeen unlikely to produce useful results. Forexample, a
number of participants wanted to scanhandwritten notes, or complex
tables of numbersand have this converted to text. It is unlikely
thatconventional software would be able to do thiswith any level of
accuracy. This suggested to usthat OCR would have had limited
applicabilityto our participants.
Task management, discussion, working, readingand reflection:
These four categories together werethe least frequent in our study,
accounting for only15% of captures. However, they do demonstratethe
wide range of activities for which people wantto capture
documents:
• Task management covers situations wheredocuments are captured
in order to rememberthings that you have to do, or have
themorganised for future tasks. One participant,Lenny, was
responsible for nearly all the captureevents in this category, as
he used Capshareextensively for scanning letters and attachingthem
to tasks in his diary.
• Discussion covers documents which werecaptured to have a
synchronous discussionaround – documents to be used in
face-to-faceinteraction. For example, one participant tooka
photograph of a slide from a presentation, thathe wanted to be able
to use in a group meetingwith his team, having a discussion using
thecaptured slide.
• Working was where documents were capturedto be annotated as
“working documents”. Thiscategory covered cases where documents
aremodified in an ongoing way, and act asrepositories for
information.
• Reading and reflection covers documents whichwere captured to
be read later, by printing themout for reading or by reading them
on-screen.
Since these activities are of low frequency itcould be argued
that there was little need forparticipants to carry them out.
Indeed, theinterview data suggest that participants saw verylittle
need to carry out these sorts of activities inthe electronic realm.
For example, one participant(Ewan, magazine editor) discussed a
documentwhich kept the magazine’s important dates. Thisdocument
would be distributed to magazinesection editors, and annotated as
it came closerto production time. This document was thereforea
“working document”, in that it was continuallybeing changed and
updated. Ewan distributedphotocopies of this document as he knew
thisfitted its purpose better than an electronic one:
Basically it contains a whole load of listings of dates … butyou
know it would be have been easier to photocopy it. (Ewan,Magazine
Editor)
Ewan explained that the documents would beannotated and posted
up on office walls – andit was better to distribute this document
byphotocopying it and manually handing it out. Inthis case, having
the document held electronicallywould not support the incidental
viewing of thedocument on office walls, and annotations
andmodifications which would be made to thedocument in different
magazine departments.Data such as this suggest that rather than
thesekinds of activities being rare, they are insteadactivities
which are not well supported byelectronic documents. Electronic
documents areless than ideal for supporting discussion, andreading
and reflection, when compared to paperdocuments.
Fig. 3. Document capture by type of document.
91/brownr3.PM6 23/05/2000, 5:43 pm79
-
1
B. Brown et al.
80
4.2. Analysis by document type
A second aspect of document capture in which wewere interested
was the type of document that wascaptured. Participants
photographed and scanneda wide range of documents, from newspapers
tohandwritten notes. To understand this diversity wecarried out a
second categorisation of the data interms of the type of document
scanned.Breaking down our data by the goal of capture gaveus an
idea of the different workplace activitiesscanning was part of.
However, we were alsointerested in what sorts of documents
participantswanted to capture. This would be important inshaping
the requirements for future scanningtechnologies. This is shown in
Fig. 3. Documentswere categorised into A4 pages, handwritten
notes,book pages (which includes all bound documents),newspaper and
magazine articles, flipcharts andbusiness cards.
The data showed that A4 pages were the mostcommonly-scanned
document type. Moreover, themajority of documents scanned were one
page: 76%were one page or a section of a page; 16% were 2–3 pages;
7% were 4 pages or more. While A4documents were the most common
type ofdocument captured, the type of A4 documentvaried. For
example, they included résumés,application forms, legal documents,
letters, faxesand handouts from meetings. Since this biastowards A4
pages existed both with the cameraand the Capshare, this suggests
that it was not dueto a peculiarity of the technology but rather
thatthe majority of documents participants wanted toscan were A4
pages (or the equivalent, such asletter or legal paper).
However, the data also show that there was alarge variety in the
remaining 41% of documents,including book pages, handwritten notes
andnewspaper articles. From the interviews, theparticipants
emphasised the value they got fromscanning handwritten notes:
Matt: I realised at the end of the meeting, someone said didyou
happen to know what those questions were and it was sortof ideal if
I could have just photocopied the page out of thebook or emailed
the page out of the book rather having to write,what I actually had
to do was laboriously type it out and emailit round to all
concerned which took some time. (Matt,Management Consultant)
Interviewer: Do you sometimes get it where they just want tosend
handwritten notes?
Jane: Yes quite often, John quite often just writes
faxes,especially if it’s to someone he knows in a company. (Jane,
OfficeManager)
Participants emphasised the value of distributinghandwritten
notes, in that they could avoid havingto type their notes up for
emailing. However, ifparticipants were dealing with individuals
outsidetheir own work group, there was more hesitancyin sending
handwritten documents:
Interviewer: You said that you’d want to type it up for
peopleoutside the company. What about people outside your part
ofthe company but still inside the company?
Tim: It depends on the team structure. I mean, if it’s internal
toa project team it can be in any format. If you’re working
withpeople in a foreign language, it’s sometimes better to type it
upso you can clean up the language. Yeah, so anything outsidethe
department. Outside the company, I’ll make it a bit slicker.(Tim,
logistics manager)
5. Scanning as an “EffortBargain”
Having covered the basic findings, we now return tothe
observation that participants took almost twiceas many photographs
as scans. Previously, we hadconjectured three reasons for this:
first, thatparticipants’ motivation may have waned over
time;second, that the materials they wanted to scan wereunsuited to
the design of Capshare; and third, thatthe time and effort required
to scan far outweighedthat of taking a photo. Although we have no
strongsupport for the claim, it is likely that
participantsmaintained motivation for the study simply by
thefrequency with which we interviewed them over thecourse of the
three weeks. With regard to the issue ofthe unsuitability of
materials scanned, there werecertainly some kinds of documents that
Capshare wasnot ideally suited for scanning (such as business
cards).However, according to the analysis by document type,it was
clear that the majority of materials were in factunproblematic for
Capshare. For example, Capsharehas a “flipchart mode” designed to
handle large piecesof paper. Further, the distribution of document
typeis very similar for both photos and scans, suggestingthat
document type was not the main factoringinfluencing Capshare’s
use.
What seems most likely, and what was indeed clearfrom talking
extensively with the study participants,was that the reason for the
small number of scanswas the effort involved not only in scanning,
but alsoin achieving the range of goals which we haveoutlined. In
this respect, scanning was in competitionwith other more
conventional processes – such asphotocopying or obtaining an
original electronic file– which also achieve those goals. In this
way,scanning is an effort bargain. By this we mean thatparticipants
would only scan if the potential
91/brownr3.PM6 23/05/2000, 5:43 pm80
-
Opportunities and Barriers to Portable Document Scanning
81
benefits they could gain justified the effort required.So if
participants thought that they could workaround the barrier between
paper and electronicdocuments, and that this would be quicker and
easierthan scanning, they would do this rather than scanthe
document. If the goal was editing a document,for example, then an
individual might ask the authorfor an electronic copy, rather than
attempt to scanthe document in, OCR it and then edit the OCR’dcopy.
In this way, Capshare sometimes “failed” theeffort bargain:
Ken: Again it’s back to this “the thought goes through yourmind”
and you just dismiss it almost immediately, it’s not worththe
effort. (Ken, Manager)
This effort bargain exists in the use of many types
oftechnology. Sharrock and Anderson, for example,discuss it with
reference to the design of photocopiers[15]. It is an explicit
trade-off between the use of anew type of technology, such as
Capshare, and the useof existing processes. At its heart it
involves aconsideration of the effort which will be involved
inmeeting a goal. Two aspects of Capshare’s designreduced its
ability to win this “effort bargain”. Capsharewas designed as a
contact scanner. That is, it was swipedover the page making contact
with the page to scanits contents. In use this meant that Capshare
was verysensitive to being lifted off the page during
scanning.Indeed, bumps in the page, such as paperclips, orcreases,
would be enough to stop the scan, which wouldthen have to be
repeated from the beginning. Thismeant that, in practice, Capshare
had a high scanfailure rate for participants.
Moreover, this failure rate was increased by thedifficulty
participants had in finding suitable flat surfaceareas where they
could use the scanner in a hurry.Participants’ desks were often
crowded and coveredwith documents. There would simply be no
suitableflat surface for scanning a document in, meaning thatan
area would have to be cleared before a documentcould be scanned. It
could be thought that this smalladdition to the scanning activity
might have little effecton scanning behaviour. However, it
increased theamount of effort needed to scan, influencing the
effortbargain. As the bother involved in scanning increased,a
number of marginal scanning activities becamequicker and easier to
do with existing papertechnologies. However, some participants were
moretolerant of some of these problems such as pageclipping,
because of the advantages a portable devicegave them:
This was useful because I’ve been missing college quite a
lotlately so I’ve scanned in all these notes. All these
collegenotes – but they don’t always capture it all. It depends on
thepaper – it crops the edges of the page. When I got them back
here I printed them off and put them in my file. It savedcopying
them all out or photocopying them, I just did it thereand then. It
handy because you don’t have to borrow andtake things away. It’s
been pretty valuable for that sort of use.(Tim, Logistics
Manager)
A second aspect of Capshare’s design whichinfluenced the effort
bargain can be seen if welook at how Capshare is used to reach a
goal. Forexample, to send a document to a colleague withCapshare
would involve a number of steps. First,one would need to scan the
document, then checkthe document to see it had scanned
properly,rescanning if necessary. Then the Capshare wouldhave to be
attached to the PC, and the documentsent using the buttons on the
PC. Finally, a newemail message would need to be created,
addressedand the file attached to the email message.
Obviously, these steps take some time andcognitive effort. To
the participants, this effortwould often be more than using other
ways ofcompleting the task, such as putting a photocopyinto the
internal mail. The configuration ofCapshare and its software on the
PC producedlittle assistance in completing common tasks.This made
using Capshare to reach goalsunnecessarily complex. One example
from thestudy illustrates this clearly. Jane, the officemanager,
found Capshare to be easier to use whenshe wanted to photocopy
documents. Rather thanwalking round the building and waiting for
thephotocopier to warm up, she could copy thedocument from her desk
using her printer,Capshare and PC. This also had the advantageof
keeping a copy of any documents that shephotocopied on her PC.
However, due to thefailure rate of scanning with Capshare, and
theeffort involved in completing the task, sheeventually gave up on
using the Capshare andwent back to photo-copying documents:
There were times when I went to get it and then thought no
Ihaven’t got time. You know that sort of thing because quiteoften
since I’d maybe take three attempts to get it how I wantedit.
(Jane, Office Manager)
In this way it was the small amounts of effortcaused by
technical and design problems withCapshare which forced individuals
to revert toconventional technologies.
6. Capshare as a Personaland Mobile Technology
A second theme which ran throughout the findingshas to do with
the implications of Capshare’s smallsize and mobile design. Our
data suggest two aspects
91/brownr3.PM6 23/05/2000, 5:43 pm81
-
1
B. Brown et al.
82
of Capshare’s small design which affected its use,neither of
which have to do with portability in aconventional sense. First,
there were cleardifferences between Capshare’s use as a
personaltechnology and the usage of shared infrastructurein office
environments. Being a small device,Capshare did not have to be
shared like photo-copiers or fax machines, avoiding
allocationproblems. Secondly, Capshare’s mobility made itfit
spatially better into non-mobile settings. Thus,Capshare supported
“local-mobility”, in that itcould be kept on a desk, put away in a
drawer whenspace was needed, or carried to a meeting room onsite.
Both these findings show the non-obviousadvantages which mobility
can give to a device innon-mobile settings.
6.1. Personal vs. shared technologies
To those who took part in the study, Capshareoffered a key
advantage over existing parts of theoffice infrastructure since it
did not have to beshared with others. Participants saw
clearadvantages in not having to go across the office touse a
shared device, such as an office photocopieror a fax machine, which
might be in use, or taketime to set up.
Interviewer: Did you do any photocopying today?
Tim: Yeah I had some documents other people wanted.
Interviewer: Would you have wanted to do that at your desk?
Tim: Absolutely, the photocopier takes about 10 minutes towarm
up. It’s two corridors over. (Tim, logistics manager)
Roger: I don’t like faxing, that’s one thing I don’t, I don’t
likefax because it means I have to get up from here and walk
alongthe corridor and then hang around waiting for the
opportunityto use the faculty fax and then input it and I tend to
put it inupside down or something. (Roger, University
Researcher)
The fact that Capshare was seen as a personaldevice generated
enthusiasm from participantssince they could see the value of
replacing a sharedtechnology with something they could
useindividually. Above we gave the example of Jane,who used
Capshare instead of her office photo-copier. Other participants
talked about howCapshare could save them time by replacingshared
technologies:
Geoff: That’d save the walk to the photocopier. It’s all a
timething really, if you can save me some time. (Geoff, Lawyer)
In our introduction we discussed the sales ofscanners as a
peripheral for the PC. This market isdominated by the sales of
flatbed scanners (around
90% of the market). We were interested, therefore,in how
Capshare compared to these scanners. Dueto the large size, flatbed
scanners were viewed asshared devices by the study participants.
None ofthe participants discussed flatbed scannersas something they
would personally own in anoffice environment:
Interviewer: Have you ever thought about buying a scanner?
Tim: Well… I wouldn’t have though it’s worth it. I think
we’regetting one in for the department, but I wouldn’t suggest
itindividually. (Tim, Logistics Manager)
This appears to have little to do with the cost offlatbed
scanners (relatively low), but rather theirsize. Indeed, the size
pressure on most officesis tight. The working environments of
theparticipants who took part in the study were allfairly crowded.
Even the smallest of flatbedscanners would take up an equivalent
space to aPC – unworkable on most peoples’ desks. Theshared nature
of scanners also makes themparticularly difficult to use as you
have to transferscans from a shared PC to your own. This is
aproblem addressed with the recent introductionof network scanners.
Market research by HP alsosuggests that as few as 22% of scanners
which arepurchased are used in the office for work activities,the
rest being sold into the home.
The difference with Capshare, then, is not somuch that it is a
portable device, but that it is apersonal device. Being personal,
Capshare couldbe used to lower the effort involved in usinga shared
device such as a fax machine or aphotocopier. However, to be able
to make thisdistinction effectively, it was clear that the effortof
using Capshare – both in terms of its scanningsuccess rate and in
the ease of using scans – had tobe lower.
6.2. Micro and “local” mobility
The portable nature of Capshare also showed upin the way in
which Capshare supported “localmobility”. In one of the first
papers to discussmobility and technology in depth, Luff et al.
[16]contrasted the conventional notion of mobility(meaning
portability) with something they called“micro-mobility”. In this
case, they referred tomicro-mobility as the extent to which an
artefactcould be jointly viewed, referred to and interwoveninto a
face-to-face conversation. This micro-mobility is something which
paper documentssupport very well, but which
technologicalalternatives often fail to support. So, the fact
that
91/brownr3.PM6 23/05/2000, 5:43 pm82
-
Opportunities and Barriers to Portable Document Scanning
83
a device is small and lightweight not only affectswhere such
devices can be carried physically, butalso affects the ways in
which the devices supportlocal aspects of the interaction with
those devices.In this case, Luff et al. had in mind the ways
inwhich a PC-based tablet was used in conversationalsituations. In
our study, this issue did not come tothe fore since Capshare did
not support this kindof “micro-mobility” in that its small screen
wasunsuitable for document sharing in a conversation.Even
increasing the screen size on the device wouldnot have avoided the
interactional problems (suchas limited viewing angle and cumbersome
design)which Luff et al. discuss.
However, this study did suggest that Capsharehad the advantage
of offering support for a differentaspect of interaction in a local
environment – onewhich we have tentatively named “local
mobility”.Capshare’s small size allowed it to be stored easilyon a
desk or in a drawer. Unlike a flatbed scannerit did not demand desk
space which could not bereused when it was out of use. Added to
this, thedevice was locally portable in that it could betaken to
meetings on-site, or to other staff offices.For one participant
this meant that the devicecould be used to scan in meeting notes
immediatelyafter they had been taken. Moreover, if the devicewas
routinely carried about on the local site, onecould use it to scan
documents in unexpectedsituations. In one example, a participant
foundhimself scanning slides in a meeting where heunexpectedly
wanted copies of a few key slides. Inthis way, Capshare’s small
size helped it to bettersupport activities in a fixed, limited
geographic area(i.e. an office), without strictly being used as
aportable “mobile” device. This local mobility wasseen as a key
advantage of the device by the userswho took part in this
study.
What this points to is that the advantagesof mobile devices may
not come just from theirportability, but in the way that their
mobilitymakes them fit better into our working andpersonal life.
This may take a number of differentforms, rather than just the
conventional notionof mobility as portability, ranging from
howdevices can be used to better support workplaceinteraction, to
how a device can fit better intocrowded office environments.
7. Design Implications
The aim of our research work was to recommendchanges to the
Capshare product. However, a
number of more general design implications canbe drawn for the
design of scanning devices per se,and other information appliances.
The discussionof capture goals emphasises that the design
oftechnology must centre around satisfying the goalsof the user. Of
course, with many developingtechnologies, those goals are
ill-defined, althoughour study shows how diary methodologies can
beused to explore and understand what these goalsmay be.
The participants in our study scanned when itwas easier to
complete their goal with an electronicas versus a paper document.
In the study, the keyadvantage of electronic documents appeared to
bethe ease with which one could distribute digitaldocuments to
others. This took the form ofemailing documents, but it could
include sharingactivities such as scanning to web pages.
Thissuggests that an important feature of scanningtechnologies is
that they should support thedistribution of scans in as easy a way
as possible.The analysis of the type of document scanned hasa
similar lesson. A4 documents accounted for 59%of what was captured.
This seems to indicate thatthere may well be high value for a
scanning devicewhich is suited to the scanning of single pages ofA4
paper. However, this analysis also showed thatpeople wanted to
capture handwritten notes, booksand newspaper articles (together
accounting for afurther 35% of the data). This implies there
areadvantages to a device, like Capshare, which caneasily capture a
wide range of document types.Devices that only address one type of
capture maybe less successful than devices which attempt toscan a
wide range of document types.
Focusing on the use of Capshare highlightedtwo other important
findings. First, that the use ofdevices such as Capshare is part of
an effort bargainand, second, that the small size of Capshare
hadother implications for how it was used (such as thefact that it
could be used as a personal device, andthat it was locally mobile
in some useful ways).With regard to Capshare, the first
observationabout the effort bargain had a special resonance.We
recommended two design changes to lower thisbarrier. Firstly, we
recommended that Capshare besold with a cradle with one button on
it whichwould synchronise the Capshare with the PC. Thissimplifies
the connection of Capshare to a PC.Secondly, we prototyped the
assignment of actionsfor documents on the Capshare device itself.
Inthis model of use the document is scanned and thenthe action
(such as sending to a colleague) enteredon the device itself
without having to go to the
91/brownr3.PM6 23/05/2000, 5:43 pm83
-
1
B. Brown et al.
84
PC. The action is then completed when the deviceis put into its
cradle. The aim of both these designrecommendations was to reduce
the effort involvedin completing the scanning activity for the
mostfrequent types of activities and goals that ourparticipants
talked about. The cradle solutionreduced the complexity of
completing a particularpart of using Capshare, whereas the ability
toaddress email from the Capshare reduced thenumber of steps
involved in achieving the goal.Together these lower the barriers of
learning howto use Capshare and barriers to its adoption.
These observations can be carried across to thedesign of other
devices. The study suggests thatlowering of the complexity of
completing simpletasks can greatly increase usage. The dynamics
ofthis are based around the competition these deviceshave with
existing processes. Should the effort ofthe new device be more than
existing processes,they will not be used. This effort barrier takes
theform of the complexity of individual actions withthe device, the
number of steps involved in its use,and the barriers in learning
how to use the device.
However, our observations regarding thedesign of shared versus
personal devices, and“locally-mobile” devices, gives encouragement
tothe design of devices such as Capshare. If devicescan be better
designed so that they fit intoindividuals’ personal work practices,
rather thanhaving to be shared either for economic or spacereasons,
then they are likely to be successful. Thisis an interesting
addition to the recent interest inmobile technologies [17], in that
utility of thesedevices may not come just from their mobility,
butfrom the fact that their small size allows them tobecome
personal technologies. With Capshare, thisopened our eyes to new
markets outside that ofmobile professionals, since the small size
of thedevice allowed it to fit into the static office contextas
much as it enabled use on the move.
8. Conclusion
This paper has discussed a study looking at theusage and
opportunities for a new type of scanningdevice, the Capshare 920,
and, more generally, theopportunities for ad hoc document scanning
in theoffice. The results from the study emphasised theimportance
of goals in scanning activity. Whenparticipants captured documents,
it was with someusage in mind. The top goals for capture
weredistribution, archiving and reuse. A similarcategorisation of
the documents which were
captured by document type highlighted theprominence of A4
documents. Capshare’s use by thestudy participants was part of an
effort bargain.Participants would only use Capshare if
theyestimated that it would save them time and effort.While this is
not a new observation, it was particularlyrelevant to the design of
Capshare. Two issues withCapshare – problems with getting reliable
scans, andthe effort required to transfer scans to the PC
–increased the effort required in using Capshare. Thislowered the
device’s usefulness.
However, a number of features of Capshare’s designmade it useful
to our participants, in particular, howCapshare’s mobility was
useful in distinctly non-mobile settings. Since Capshare was small
andportable it was used as a personal technology, ratherthan being
shared. Participants saw real advantagesin this. When using shared
devices, such asphotocopiers or fax machines, participants
wouldhave to walk across their building, turn on and waitfor the
device to initialise, and often wait until otherpeople had finished
with the device. Althoughseemingly trivial, this added to the
effort involved inusing shared devices. Alternatively, personal
devicessuch as Capshare lower the effort involved in faxingor
copying a document. Capshare’s personal naturemade it more
useful.
A second finding concerned the ways in whichCapshare’s small
size made it fit into conventional,non-mobile work environments
better. SinceCapshare was small it could easily be stored whennot
used, either on a desk or in a desk drawer. This isin contrast with
conventional scanners which takeup a large amount of desk space.
Moreover, Capsharewas locally portable in that it could be taken
tomeetings on-site, or to other local places. This meantthat, with
Capshare, the scanner could be taken tothe document to be scanned,
rather than thedocument being brought to the scanner. This
“localmobility” implies that the advantage of mobiledevices, such
as Capshare, may not come from justtheir portability, but in the
way that their mobilitymakes them fit better into our working and
personallife. This may take a number of different forms, ratherthan
just the conventional notion of mobility asportability. In terms of
future research directions, thisinteraction between different form
factors forconventional devices and their usage is a promisingone.
Within our own lab we have been investigatingthis in the case of
devices such as miniature webservers [18], and Swatch watches which
can accessthe internet [19].
In conclusion, we present this study as anattempt to understand
better the divide between
91/brownr3.PM6 23/05/2000, 5:43 pm84
-
Opportunities and Barriers to Portable Document Scanning
85
paper and electronic documents. Rather thanassuming that
documents are all availableelectronically, we have looked at how
individualscross this divide with one type of scanning device,and
the problems which they encountered. As theimportance of electronic
documents increases, andthe prominence of electronic document
managementsystems increases, we believe that how this divide
ismanaged is a topic of increasing importance.
References
1. Glaz R. The worldwide scanner market: review andforecast. IDC
Report, 1999
2. Buscher M, Mogensen P, Shapiro D, Wagner I. TheManufaktrur:
supporting work practice in (landscape)architecture. In:
Proceedings of ECSCW ’99, Copenhagen,Denmark. Kluwer Academic
Press, 1999; 21–40
3. Olson JS, Teasley S. Groupware in the wild lessons
learnedfrom a year of virtual collocation. In: Proceedings ofECSCW
’96, Boston, US. ACM Press, 1996; 419
4. Bannon L, Bodker S. Constructing common informationspaces.
In: Hughes J, Prinz W, Rodden T, Schmidt K (eds)Proceedings of
ECSCW ’97, Lancaster, UK. KluwerAcademic Press, 1997; 81–96
5. Fitzpatrick G, Tolone WJ, Kaplan SM. Work, locales
anddistributed social worlds. In: Marmolin H, Sundblad Y,Schmidt K
(eds) Proceeings of ECSCW ’95, Stockholm,Sweden. Kluwer Academic
Press, 1995; 1–16
6. Adler A, Gujar A, Harrison BL, O’Hara K, et al. A diarystudy
of work related reading: design implications for digitalreading
devices. In: Proceedings of CHI’98, Los Angeles,CA. ACM Press,
1998; 241–248
7. Sellen A, Harper R. Paper as an analytic resource for
thedesign of new technologies. In: Proceedings of CHI’97,Atlanta,
GA. ACM Press, 1997
8. O’Hara K, Smith F, Newman W, Sellen A. Student readers’use of
library documents: implications for librarytechnologies. In:
Proceedings of CHI’98, Los Angeles, CA.ACM Press, 1998; 233–240
9. Rao R, Card SK, Johnson W, Klotz L, et al. Protofoil:storing
and finding the information worker’s paperdocuments in an
electronic file cabinet. In: Proceedingsof CHI’94, Boston, MA. ACM
Press, 1994
10. Entlich R, Garson L, Lesk M, Normore L, et al. Making
adigitial library: the contents of the core project.
ACMTransactions on Information Systems, 1997; 15(2): 103–123
11. Worring M, Smeulders AWM. Internet access to scannedpaper
documents. In: Proceedings of Digital Libraries ’98,Pittsburgh, PA.
ACM Press, 1998
12. Marchionini G, Fox EA. Progress towards digital
libraries:augmentation through integration. Information
Processingand Management, 1999; 35: 219–225
13. Trigg RH, Blomberg J, Suchman L. Moving documentcollections
online: the evolution of a shared repository.In: Proceedings of
ECSCW’99, Copenhagen, Denmark.Kluwer Academic Press, 1999
14. Brown B, Sellen A, O’Hara K. A diary study of
informationcapture in working life. In: Proceedings of
CHI’2000,TheHague, Neatherlands, forthcoming
15. Sharrock W, Anderson B. The user as a scenic feature ofthe
design space. Design Studies 1994; 15(1): 5–18
16. Luff P, Heath C. Mobility in collaboration. In: Poltrock
S,Grudin, J (eds) CSCW 1998. ACM Press, Seattle,Washington, 1998;
305–314
17. Kristoffersen S, Ljungberg F. Designing interaction
stylesfor a mobile use context. In: Gellersen, HW (ed.)Proceedings
of International Symposium on Handheld andUbiquitous Computing,
Karlsruhe, Germany. Springer-Verlag, 1999
18. Kindberg T, Barton J, Morgan J, Becker G, et al.
People,places, things: web presence for the real world.
In:Proceedings of 9th International World Wide WebConference
(Www9), 2000. Available on the internet:
19. Shankland S. Hp’s Fiorina wants “intimate, warm,
friendly”Net. In: CNET News.com., 1999. Available on
theinternet:
Correspondence to: Barry A.T. Brown, Hewlett-Packard
ResearchLabs, Filton Road, Stoke Gifford, Bristol BS34 8QZ, UK.
Tel:+(44) 117 922 9520. Email: [email protected]
91/brownr3.PM6 23/05/2000, 5:43 pm85