#  Understanding the Role of Context in Creating Enjoyable Co-Located
Interactions

Szu-Yu (Cyn) Liu<EMAIL_ADDRESS>MicrosoftRedmondWashingtonUnited States
University of California, IrvineIrvineCaliforniaUnited States ,  Brian A.
Smith<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Snap Inc.Santa MonicaCaliforniaUnited States Columbia
UniversityNew YorkNew YorkUnited States ,  Rajan Vaish<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Snap
Inc.Santa MonicaCaliforniaUnited States and  Andrés Monroy-Hernández
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Snap Inc.SeattleWashingtonUnited States Princeton
UniversityPrincetonNew JerseyUnited States

(January 2021; July 2021; November 2021)

###### Abstract.

In recent years, public discourse has blamed digital technologies for making
people feel “alone together,” distracting us from engaging with one another,
even when we are interacting in-person. We argue that in order to design
technologies that foster and augment co-located interactions, we need to first
understand the context in which enjoyable co-located socialization takes
place. We address this gap by surveying and interviewing over 1,000 U.S.-based
participants to understand what, where, with whom, how, and why people enjoy
spending time in-person. Our findings suggest that people enjoy engaging in
everyday activities with individuals with whom they have strong social ties
because it helps enable nonverbal cues, facilitate spontaneity, support
authenticity, encourage undivided attention, and leverage the physicality of
their bodies and the environment. We conclude by providing a set of
recommendations for designers interested in creating co-located technologies
that encourage social engagement and relationship building.

co-located interaction; co-located technology; in-person; enjoyment; social

††journal: PACMHCI††journalyear: 2022††journalvolume: 6††journalnumber:
CSCW1††article: 131††publicationmonth: January††price: 15.00††doi:
10.1145/3512978††copyright: acmcopyright††journal: PACMHCI††journalyear:
2022††journalvolume: 6††journalnumber: CSCW1††article: 131††publicationmonth:
4††price: 15.00††doi: 10.1145/3512978††ccs: Human-centered computing Empirical
studies in HCI

##  1\. Introduction

Information and communication technologies are deeply embedded in the fabric
of our day-to-day lives and have drastically changed the way people interact,
not only remotely, but also in-person. Previous research has shown that while
digital technologies make it easier to stay connected online, they can also
disrupt and alienate people in face-to-face social interactions (Oduor et al.,
2016; Turkle, 2017; Misra et al., 2016)— to the extent that even when people
are physically together, or co-located, they are still “alone” in their own
“digital bubbles” (Turkle, 2017; Rogers, 2014).

An open challenge for Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), then, is to understand
how to design technology that supports rather than inhibits in-person
interactions—in other words, to study how technology can make co-located
casual social interactions more enjoyable and engaging (Lindley, 2005; Fischer
et al., 2016). Following Olsson et al., who recently argued that researchers
should focus on designing technologies that increase the quality of co-located
social interactions (Olsson et al., 2019), we note that, in order to develop
such technology, we must first establish a holistic understanding regarding
the context in which enjoyable in-person interactions take place.

In this work, we performed a mixed-methods study designed to establish a
holistic understanding of enjoyable casual in-person interactions, aimed at
guiding future design efforts in this area. Our survey design and interview
protocols were based on prior work on context and focused on the following
attributes: relationship (who), activity (what), location (where), time
(when), technology (how), and value (why) people enjoy interacting with others
in-person (Abowd et al., 1999). We deployed this U.S.-only survey with 1,007
participants and performed 27 semi-structured follow-up interviews. Our study
focused on pre-pandemic scenarios; this created a number of limitations that
we will discuss later (§6).

Our findings show how different contextual attributes play a role in making
co-located interactions enjoyable. First, in terms of relationships, we
observe that people most enjoy spending time with their “strong ties”
(Granovetter, 1977), which include not only romantic partners and friends, but
also pets. In terms of activities, we find that although chatting or having
conversations is the favorite activity of most people, it is often supported
by complementary activities such as eating, drinking, and playing games. With
respect to location, we note that many of people’s preferred in-person
activities are location-independent (that is, the interaction is not
restricted to a specific location), and that location-dependent activities
often take place in private spaces. More importantly, we observe that it is
the atmosphere (rather than the location itself) that influences people’s
preference of location types. Technology-wise, we find that devices are often
used to initiate activities and then fade into the background; whether it is
desirable to include technology during an interaction depends on an implicit
consensus among the co-located individuals. Finally, our findings suggest that
one of the most valued aspects of being physically co-located is that
physicality and nonverbal cues help support authenticity, connectedness, and
attentiveness; and that it is precisely these elements that make in-person
interactions more genuine, intimate, engaging, and therefore preferable to
interacting online.

The contributions of this work are two-fold. First, through a mixed-method
study, we establish an empirical foundation that illustrates the role of
context in the in-person interactions people prefer. Second, we propose design
strategies to support future ideation surrounding enjoyable co-located
technologies.

##  2\. Related Work

As digital devices proliferate in our everyday lives, there is increasing
interest in exploring how technology might enhance engagement and enjoyment in
casual social scenarios (Alavi and Dillenbourg, 2012; Balestrini et al., 2016;
Fischer et al., 2016; Paasovaara et al., 2017; Jarusriboonchai et al., 2016;
Kytö and McGookin, 2017; Lucero et al., 2012). In this paper, we follow this
research trend and focus on supporting engagement in in-person interactions
(§2.1) and understanding the sociotechnical context in which co-located
technology should be designed (§2.2).

###  2.1. Supporting Engagement and Enjoyment in Co-Located Scenarios

Previous work has shown that technology use in co-located scenarios can
undermine conversation quality, increase social conflicts, and reduce
relationship satisfaction (Przybylski and Weinstein, 2013; Roberts and David,
2016; Wang et al., 2017; Rotondi et al., 2017; Oduor et al., 2016). Turkle
(Turkle, 2017) discusses how heavy dependency on mobile devices diverts our
attention from the people we interact with and even replaces face-to-face
encounters with online interactions. In her words, “We defend connectivity as
a way to be close,” but in reality, it “also disrupts our attachments to
things that have always sustained us,” including “genuine” and “authentic”
social interactions (Turkle, 2017). Similarly, Pickersgill’s photographs
(Pickersgill, [n.d.]) poignantly illustrate how disruptive technology can be
for relationship bonding by simply editing away people’s digital devices,
showing, for example, a couple in bed ignoring each other while paying
attention to their empty hands.

Roberts and David coined the term “phubbing” to illustrate the negative
encounter of being “snubbed by someone using their cellphone when in your
company” (Roberts and David, 2016). Studies show that being phubbed can lead
to a sense of disconnection as an ongoing in-person interaction is considered
less important than an incoming notification on a mobile device (Ling, 2008;
Przybylski and Weinstein, 2013; Su and Wang, 2015). For example, Wang et al.’s
study with 243 married couples suggests that partner phubbing has a negative
effect on relationship satisfaction and can increase the risk of depression
(Wang et al., 2017). Similarly, Oduor and colleagues conducted diary studies
and found that “family members become frustrated when others do non-urgent
activities on their phones in the presence of others” (Oduor et al., 2016).
Further, Przybylski and Weinstein found that the mere presence of mobile
phones can hinder relationship formation and undermine closeness and
connection between co-located individuals (Przybylski and Weinstein, 2013).
Overall, we see a need for HCI researchers to address the sociotechnical
“alone together” problem (Turkle, 2017).

###  2.2. Understanding the Sociotechnical Context of Enjoyable Co-located
Interactions

The HCI community has identified different strategies to mitigate technology-
induced social alienation, including developing technologies that curtail
excessive device use in co-located scenarios (Löchtefeld et al., 2013; Kim et
al., 2019; Ko et al., 2015; Okeke et al., 2018) and creating systems that make
in-person interactions more enjoyable (Fischer et al., 2016; Genç and Coskun,
2020; Park et al., 2017; Isbister et al., 2016; Lucero et al., 2012). In this
paper, our focus is on the latter approach.

Prior work on technology-enhanced co-located social interactions has explored
a wide range of topics, such as collective play (Segura et al., 2017; Isbister
et al., 2016; Balestrini et al., 2016; Paasovaara et al., 2017), storytelling
(Van House, 2009; Benford et al., 2000), photo-sharing (Clawson et al., 2008;
Lucero et al., 2013; Nielsen et al., 2014), collaborative virtual reality (VR)
and mixed reality (MR) experiences (Gugenheimer et al., 2017; Yang et al.,
2018; Zhou et al., 2019), social engagement (Dagan et al., 2019; Memarovic et
al., 2012; Powell et al., 2012; Laureyssens et al., 2014; Lucero et al., 2011;
Porcheron et al., 2016), community building (McCarthy et al., 2004; Woźniak et
al., 2015), leisure activities  (Durrant et al., 2011; Paasovaara et al.,
2017; Mauriello et al., 2014), and self-expression (Epp, 2018; Kao and
Schmandt, 2015; Kytö and McGookin, 2017). However, Lundgren et al. noted that
prior studies often “[exist] as isolated exemplars of technical systems”
(Lundgren et al., 2015). To our knowledge, there is no formative study that
provides a deep understanding of the context that enjoyable co-located
technology should be designed for.

We address this gap and aim to establish a holistic understanding of the types
of in-person activities people enjoy in order to support future work in this
area.

Our focus is on enjoyment because, although it is a central component for
engagement and joy, it remains an under-explored aspect of co-located
technology (Lindley, 2005; Sweetser and Wyeth, 2005). In this study, we leave
the term “enjoyment” undefined and open to our participants’ interpretation to
understand whether there are certain features across different in-person
interactions that lead to enjoyment.

Following Blythe and Hassenzahl (Blythe and Hassenzahl, 2003), who note that
enjoyment “doesn’t exist in and of itself” but rather embodies a “context
specific” quality, we turn our focus to the context of co-located social
intercourse to study what makes in-person interactions joyful, engaging, and
preferable. We understand context broadly as “any information that can be used
to characterize the situation of an entity. An entity is defined as a person,
place, or object that is considered relevant to the interaction between a user
and an application, including the user and applications themselves” (Abowd et
al., 1999). In this paper, we draw on the four primary attributes of context
proposed by Abowd et al. (Abowd et al., 1999)—identity (who), activity (what),
location (where), and time (when)—to guide our investigation on how different
contextual dimensions might affect the quality of co-located interactions.

##  3\. Methods

Drawing from Abowd et al.’s primary attributes of context (Abowd et al.,
1999), we aim to gain an empirical understanding into how various contextual
attributes may affect the quality of in-person social interactions. Our study
involved a two-stage inquiry—surveys (§3.1) and semi-structured interviews
(§3.2). The surveys were conducted first to offer quantitative insights into
identifying the in-person interactions people enjoy, including who they prefer
spending time with, what activities they like to do together, where they enjoy
hanging out, and whether/what technologies are involved in their favorite in-
person interactions. Next, we conducted semi-structured interviews to gain
qualitative insights into questions such as how technology use may influence
co-located interactions, and why people prefer interacting in-person in
certain scenarios. Both studies were conducted online to broaden the
geographical diversity of our participants.

###  3.1. Surveys

We started with a formative survey to explore the landscape of enjoyable co-
located interactions before designing and deploying a large-scale survey aimed
at capturing and ranking the in-person activities people prefer.

####  3.1.1. Formative Survey

In the first phase, our goal was to identify a comprehensive list of
relationship types and activities people enjoy doing when they are physically
together. To do so, we deployed an online survey focused on two questions:
“who do you most enjoy spending time in person with ?” and “what do you do
with them when you spend time together in person?” The first question was a
single-choice question we adopted from literature (Jones and O’Neill, 2010),
but it offered participants the option of providing a free response; the
second question was open-ended. To gather a wide range of responses from
participants with diverse demographics, we recruited respondents from two
distinct online platforms: Amazon Mechanical Turk, where our participants
skewed older and male (Difallah et al., 2018), and Snapchat, where our
participants skewed younger and female (Statista, 2019, 2020). We ran the
survey between February 21 and March 2, 2020, and collected 3,434 valid
responses. We developed a codebook to analyze the open-ended answers. We then
hired three independent coders from Upwork111Upwork is an online freelancing
platform: https://www.upwork.com/, who performed open-coding individually to
label the responses from a random set of participants. All authors met
regularly to discuss the codes until we reached agreement and resolved all
coding conflicts.

Table 1. Self-reported demographics of 1,007 survey participants included in
our analysis. Participant demographics resembled that of the U.S. population.
We adopted the age ranges used in by Pew research Center (Dimock, 2019) to
define generational cohorts.

Gender | Age Bracket | Race | Education
---|---|---|---
Female | 50.04% | Gen Z (13-23) | 17.68% | American Indian | 0.40% |  $<$ High school | 6.45%
Male | 49.45% | Millennial (24-39) | 28.60% | Asian | 5.46% | High school | 20.85%
Non-binary | 0.20% | Gen X (40-55) | 24.33% | Black | 12.02% | Some college | 25.52%
Other | 0.20% | Boomer (56-74) | 26.61% | Hispanic/Latino | 17.68% | Associates | 14.00%
No answer | 0.10% |  Silent ($\geq$75) | 2.78% | Two or more races | 3.97% | Bachelor’s | 22.14%
|  |  |  | Pacific Islander | 0.10% | Graduates | 10.33%
|  |  |  | White | 59.88% | No answer | 0.70%
|  |  |  | No answer | 0.50% |  |
Occupation
Administration | 4.87% | Engineering | 0.79% | Sales or retail | 1.29% | Grad student | 2.18%
Arts or journalism | 2.18% | Food services | 1.29% | Self-employed | 6.85% | Retired | 18.37%
Business | 9.04% | Homemaker | 6.06% | Skilled labor | 5.66% | Unemployed | 6.45%
CS or IT | 3.48% | Legal | 0.99% | Grade school student | 4.77% | Other | 8.54%
Education | 5.36% | Medical | 4.87% | College student | 5.46% | No answer | 1.49%

####  3.1.2. Main Survey

Based on Abowd et al.’s (Abowd et al., 1999) definition of context, our survey
has five categories: identity (who), activity (what), location (where),
technology (how), and time (when). We configured the survey such that
participant responses to later questions were dependent on their answers to
prior questions; the survey is included in the Appendix.

  * •

Identity: Information gathered in this survey section included (1)
participant’s self-reported identity (i.e., age, gender, race, education, and
occupation), and (2) relationship type they have with whomever they most enjoy
spending time with in-person. The list entailed 11 relationtypes we ientified
in our formative survey.

  * •

Activity: From a list of the top 26 in-person activities drawn from our
formative survey, participants selected and ranked the activities they most
enjoy doing with the people they mentioned in the Identity part of the survey.

  * •

Location: Participants were asked if their favorite activity needed to take
place in a specific location or if it could be done anywhere (i.e., whether
the activity was location-dependent or location-independent), and if the
former was indicated, what type of place was preferred (for example, public or
private).

  * •

Technology: Participants noted what types of technologies, if any, they use
when doing their favorite activity.

  * •

Time: Here, participants were asked to describe in detail the last time they
hung out in-person with their favorite person. The concept of time organically
arose from their free-text descriptions of the frequency (e.g., “we had a
weekly gathering”) and duration (e.g., “we spent an afternoon”) of their
favorite shared activity and the time of the day during which the activity
took place (e.g., “we went out to dinner”).

We recruited participants aged 13 years or older who reside in the United
States. The survey ran from March 13 to 18, 2020. We used
Qualtrics222Qualtrics: https://www.qualtrics.com/ for hosting our survey, as
well as recruiting and compensating the participants; Qualtrics charged us $5
USD for each completed survey response we received. The first author worked
with Qualtrics to gather a participant pool that resembled the demographics of
the United States (Bureau, 2018) (Table 1). We screened out responses that
included incomplete or gibberish answers and those where the respondents
reported that they did not enjoy spending time with anyone in-person. In the
end, we collected a total of 1,007 valid responses. The survey ended with an
invitation to participate in a follow-up interview, which we describe next.

###  3.2. Interviews

We conducted interviews to follow up on the survey results and gather
qualitative insights that were otherwise difficult to obtain from survey
alone. In total, we conducted 27 interviews between March 18 and April 23,
2020.

####  3.2.1. Interview Structure

We developed an semi-structured interview protocol (see Appendix B) to
understand the lived experiences of individuals and, in particular, to explore
the role context plays in making co-located interactions enjoyable. We began
the interviews by collecting the participants’ demographic information,
including their age and location. Following Abowd et al.’s (Abowd et al.,
1999) argument that their four contextual factors (identity, activity,
location, and time) should offer “indices into other sources of contextual
information,” we started the interviews by following a script but also used
unscripted questions to gather more information about the specific context and
experiences of in-person activities mentioned by the participants (Hesse-
Biber, 2017).

####  3.2.2. Participant Interviews

We recruited 27 people to interview: 16 signed up through the survey and 11
through a recruitment message distributed via the authors’ institutional and
social networks. Each interview lasted 50-70 minutes and was conducted via
Google Hangouts videochat (or via phone when slow connectivity was an issue).
Participants received a $20 gift card at the end of the interview. We recorded
and transcribed the interviews, then we performed a thematic analysis of both
the transcripts and the notes taken during the interviews (Braun and Clarke,
2006). The first author grouped similar codes into themes. All authors met
frequently to refine codes, themes, and concepts.

All interviewees self-reported their age and geographic location. Their ages
ranged from 13 to 83; participants were categorized according to the following
demographic cohorts: 40.74% Gen Z (aged 13-23 in year 2020), 29.63% Millennial
(aged 24-39), 14.81% Gen X (aged 40-55), 11.11% Boomer (aged 56-74), and 3.7%
Silent (aged 75 or older) (Dimock, 2019). Our interviewees were located in 15
different states and 5 different time zones in the United States. Only 16 of
our interviewees answering the survey indicated their gender and race: half
were females and half were males. Their races were diverse: 12.5% Asian, 12.5%
Black, 12.5% Hispanic, 50% White, 6.25% mixed races, and 6.25% other race.

##  4\. Results

We organize our results around the five contextual attributes: relationships
(who), activities (what), locations (where), technologies(what/how), and value
(why). We include findings about time (when) alongside the other attributes
because it is dependent on them, e.g., people enjoy playing games with friends
on the weekends. We combine our findings from the surveys (§3.1.2) and the
interviews (§3.2) to provide both quantitative and qualitative insights of
people’s preferences. We note that when we report percentages, we base them on
our survey respondents; when we report quotes, they are from the interviews or
free-text responses given in the surveys. We refer to our interviewees by
identifier P#.

Figure 1.  (Left) Survey participants’ favorite person to spend time in-person
with. (Right) Top ten in-person activities.

###  4.1. Relationships: strong preference not only for romantic partners,
friends, children, but also for pets

Participants noted that “people are [the] number one key” (P26) for making co-
located interactions enjoyable. Not surprisingly, our results show that people
much prefer hanging out in-person with individuals they regard as “strong
ties” over those they consider “weak ties” (Granovetter, 1977). The three most
preferred relationships for co-located interaction were romantic partners
(35.3%), friends (21.35%), and children (19.07%). Interestingly, the option
pets was not originally included as a choice but arose organically from the
free responses in our formative survey. In the end, pets were ranked in the
top five on this list, with 4.97% of our participants reporting pets as their
favorite individuals to spend time with. Conversely, very few participants
reported enjoying hanging out with their “weak ties” (Granovetter, 1977), such
as acquaintances and co-workers (1.6% and 1.0%, respectively). (Figure 1,
Left).

####  4.1.1. Children and pets for females; romantic partners for males

Some results varied by gender and age. For example, more than twice as many
females as males reported that they most enjoy spending time with their
children (25.6% and 12.65%, respectively) and pets (7.14% and 2.81%,
respectively). Conversely, significantly more males than females reported
enjoying hanging out with romantic partners (42.17% and 30.16%, respectively).
Age also plays a role in participants’ preferences for individuals they most
enjoy spending time with. For instance, although participants across all age
groups prefer hanging out with their romantic partners, Gen Zs are an
exception: they prefer friends (41.57%) over romantic partners (23.03%). Our
Gen Z interviewees revealed that they and their friends have “synchronized”
thoughts and actions (P16) and that they can be “really goofy” (P25) without
having to worry about being judged.

####  4.1.2. Big groups for fun; small groups for intimacy

Results from our interviews reveal that the number of people participating in
an activity also shapes the social atmosphere. Specifically, participants
mentioned that activities such as “go[ing] to the beach” (P21), “football
games” (P21), or “party” (P17) are more “fun” and “eventful” (P21) with bigger
groups. Conversely, our interviewees described small group gatherings as more
“meaningful” (P24) and “intimate” (P27). Our interviewees’ preference for
group size depends on both the nature of the activity and their personal mood,
noting that “If I’m in a bad mood, I probably don’t want to be dealing with a
big group interaction… I’d rather have more meaningful interactions with
people that I’m closer with” (P24).

###  4.2. Activities: chatting is the central experience, but it is often
supported by complementary activities

Figure 1 (right) lists the ten most-favored in-person activities; these
include but are not limited to chatting or having conversation (20.95%),
intimate or romantic activities (10.63%), eating (7.94%), traveling or
sightseeing (7.35%), and playing games (6.36%). Overall, we see that most of
the in-person activities participants enjoy are mundane, everyday
interactions. Specifically, chatting or having conversations was considered
the cornerstone of relationship building. For instance, P1 told us that “most
of” her relationship with her romantic partner “is built on these, like,
spontaneous conversations.” Interestingly, while chatting is the top activity
for many, our interview data shows that people rarely chat without also doing
something else at the same time. For example, P8 mentioned that he often eats,
drinks, or plays games while chatting with others to avoid getting into
intense or awkward conversations:

> “There’s [always] some kind of distraction… You might play a video game in
> the background or you might have some drinks in the background… it might be
> the main thing that’s happening, but it’s never the only thing. I think
> having some kind of other activity eases the awkwardness of it.”

####  4.2.1. Friends enjoy partying and playing games while couples favor
intimate activities and traveling

We found that people’s favorite in-person activities were highly dependent on
whom they spend time with. For example, our survey shows that while spending
time with friends, participants most enjoy chatting (25.58%), partying or
socializing (11.63%), and playing games (7.91%). In comparison, when hanging
out with romantic partners, participants reported preferring intimate or
romantic activities (27.04%), chatting (15.77%), and traveling or sightseeing
(10.70%). What is also interesting is that romantic partners were considered
the best people to spend time with while chatting (26.54%), having intimate
activities (89.72%), eating (30.00%), and traveling (51.35%); the exception
was playing games, where people prefer playing with their children (32.8%),
friends (26.56%), siblings (10.94%), and even pets (10.94%) over romantic
partners (7.81%).

####  4.2.2. Activity initiates in-person encounters, but people come to the
foreground afterwards

Many interviewees mentioned that the activity itself is what makes co-located
interactions possible. For instance, P8 described going to the movies and
going for a run as the main “medium” to “bring other people.” Similarly, P27
noted that they would always suggest an in-person activity whenever they
wanted to chat with friends: “For me, it’s kind of weird to just ask somebody,
hey, you want to just talk somewhere?” Intriguingly, we observed that the
initiating activity often fades into the background afterwards, to the extent
that P23 described the experience as follows: “I don’t think it matters too
much what we’re doing… I think just hanging out with a person, like, no matter
what you’re doing, is nice.”

####  4.2.3. In-person interaction is preferable but not always an option

Our interviewees also mentioned that being able to hang out in-person is a
privilege. For example, P5 mentioned that he is “restricted in the [kind] of
activities” he can take part in due to a chronic health condition; others
reported that “there’s not much to do” (P2), “not much time” (P24), or that
it’s “too costly” to do activities outside (P27). A few also mentioned that
having friends and families in “different places” makes it difficult to gather
in-person. Additionally, weather can also be a limiting factor: “we don’t
interact that much in the wintertime, because it’s just not practical to sit
there and traipse around in a foot of snow with dogs” (P6). In many cases, we
see that face-to-face interaction has indeed become “a luxury good” (Bowles,
2019).

####  4.2.4. One-of-a-kind activities create memories; everyday interactions
build relationships

Finally, we observed that how often an activity takes place also affects how
individuals perceive their co-located experiences. Overall, events that
happened less often, such as school trips to Europe, were considered memorable
because “ we are sharing that first-time experience together” (P26).
Conversely, everyday activities are often the core to relationship building.
For instance, P3 described the daily routines he developed with his romantic
partner as offering a “feeling of closeness”:

> “I was never used to listening to NPR in the morning… [but] it became like
> routine. She’ll play every morning, no matter what… We didn’t just build
> memories, we built routines.”

###  4.3. Location: space types affect not only the activities, but also how
people act and feel

We wanted to understand if the activities people enjoy with their favorite
person were tied to a specific physical space (location-dependent) or if they
could take place anywhere (location-independent). Figure 2 shows the locations
our survey participants preferred across different activities.

Figure 2.  Type of location people prefer for each of the most liked in-person
activities.

####  4.3.1. If an activity is not tied to a specific private space, it can
happen anywhere

Participants reported preferring specific locations in five of the ten most
favored in-person activities. Additionally, for activities identified as being
location-dependent by the majority of participants, private spaces (e.g.,
homes or private vehicles) significantly outweighed public spaces (e.g., parks
or cafés). Specifically, people prefer private spaces over public spaces while
engaging in intimate or romantic activities (52.34% versus zero percent),
playing games (39.06% versus 12.50%), watching, listening, or reading (51.85%
versus 14.81%), cooking or baking (80.95% versus 7.14%), and resting (70.97%
versus 9.68%). On the contrary, our survey reveals that location-independent
activities are the ones that do not require specific settings or specialized
devices to unfold; these activities include chatting (81.99% participants
described this as a location-independent activity), eating (75.00%), traveling
(78.38%), and partying (65.91%).

####  4.3.2. Private spaces support authenticity; public spaces facilitate
spontaneity

Participants observed that the space an activity occurs affects how they feel
and act. In general, interviewees reported feeling comfortable doing whatever
they wanted without having to worry about being judged in private spaces,
especially at home. For instance, P10 mentioned that “when we were indoors… we
could just act [like] a fool without people looking at us, and when we’re in
public, we [have] to be cautious [about] how loud we are and [d]on’t draw
attention to [ourselves].” Analogously, P8 noted that “it seems odd… to have a
very intense discussion in public”; instead, he prefers “go[ing] to somebody’s
house” to engage in a discussion. Similarly, P14 particularly enjoys “chilling
in the den” with his wife every night after dinner as they watch and discuss
videos together. This particular setting is critical and gives him “a feeling
of fulfillment and satisfaction”:

> “If we were sitting in two folding chairs in an empty room, it would feel
> very cold and sterile and we probably wouldn’t get as much out of it. It’s
> weird, atmosphere means a lot. When we’re in our den, you know, it’s nice
> and comfortable, we have the dog hanging out with us on the couch… we’re in
> our home and it’s comfortable and we’re just relaxing.” –P14

In contrast, public spaces help facilitate spontaneous encounters. For
example, P5 mentioned that the local post office is a great place to have
impromptu social interactions because “the town is so small that there [are]
no postal workers… [so] you have to go to the post office [to pick up mail].”
Similarly, P6 described that a particular bar in the small town he lives in
always has live music: “It draws people there… on Wednesday nights to go and
play Queen of Hearts.”

####  4.3.3. Good spaces are defined by the atmosphere and not the location
alone

Our findings suggest that it is not the location per se that determines the
quality of in-person interactions. Instead, location matters because it sets
the atmosphere for different types of social encounters to take place (i.e.,
it serves as an “affordance” (Norman, 1999)). For example, P24 noted that she
does not feel comfortable having deep conversations “when there’s blaring
music playing”; she continued, “If I’m, like, in my room late at night, we
would probably have a deeper interaction and a more meaningful interaction.”
In her narrative, both the location type and the time of day during which the
interaction takes place play a deciding role in establishing the mood.

Other factors that affect the quality in-person interactions include sound,
light, people, activity, and environmental distractions. For some, one is more
likely to have deep conversations when the “noise level” is low (P24), when
there is “quieter music” playing (P17), or when “people are somewhat
intoxicated” (P17). For others, instead of staying at one specific place,
establishing the right atmosphere might involve “going for a walk” to avoid
“distractions” in a public space, such as a café (P13). In comparison, for
those who enjoy playing VR games with others, their preference was for “big
space[s]” to avoid bumping into each other (P22), or “dark” spaces, “so it
makes it even more fun.” (P18).

###  4.4. Technologies: devices often initiate activities, then fade into the
background

We asked our participants whether there was any technology involved in their
favorite co-located activities. We found that the most used devices included
smartphones (60.87%), TVs (39.13%), computers (21.65%), and tablets (20.46%).
Additionally, approximately one in six participants (17.18%) reported not
using any device while engaging in their favorite activities. Figure 3 shows
the popularity of different digital devices in the top in-person activities.

Figure 3.  Technology use in the top ten in-person activities. Smartphones are
the most used devices across popular activities. Percentages are rounded to
the nearest whole integer.

####  4.4.1. Males and younger participants mention higher reliance on
technologies

We observe that in co-located interactions, male participants used almost all
types of digital devices more than females. The gender difference in
technology use is especially notable in audio systems or speakers; only 9.52%
of females reported using audio systems, the percentage is almost doubled
(17.47%) among male participants. Age also impacts technology use. Overall,
the percentage of older adults who reported not using any form of technology
in co-located interactions is significantly higher than with younger
respondents. Specifically, while less than one in ten (8.99%) Gen Z
participants reported not involving technology in their in-person activities,
almost one in three (32.14%) of the Silent participants and 29.48% of Boomers
indicated that they did not involve technology in their interactions. One
83-year-old interviewee mentioned that technology is “not a big part of my
life at this point”:

> “With my grandkids and my daughters and their husbands, I think technology
> plays a bigger part in their lives than it does in my wife’s and my life.
> Right now technology, uh, is a little confusing to me. At my age. I like it,
> but I’m not adept [at] using it.” –P15

Conversely, technology is an integral part of co-located interactions among
younger participants: seven of out ten Gen Z and Millennial participants
reported using smartphones while hanging out with others (70.22% and 68.06%,
respectively). We observe that the high percentage of smartphone use among
younger population is not always directly linked to the co-located interaction
itself. A 20-year-old participant mentioned becoming “super antsy and nervous”
and feeling that she was “out of the loop” if she didn’t check her phone
periodically:

> “Just because we’ve grown up with technology, and it’s so integrated in our
> life and everything that we do. It’s really difficult for people my age, to
> set the phone down and kind of be just like in the moment— and in the moment
> only— and not worry about the phone.” –P4

####  4.4.2. Smartphones are the dominant technology albeit not always the
preferred one

Our survey results show that smartphones are the most used technology in all
of the top in-person activities, while their use varies depending on the
activity people engage in. For example, for those who most enjoy petting or
playing with animals, about three in four survey participants (73.53%)
reported using a smartphone to “take pictures,” while about one in five
(20.59%) mentioned involving tablets, which were the second most used devices
for participants hanging out with pets. Chatting or having conversations is
another activity where smartphones are used more than any other device. Almost
two in three (64.93%) of our survey participants reported using smartphones to
“show each other photos or memes,” occasionally “look up things”, or just be
on their phones while casually conversing; a smaller proportion of
participants mentioned using a TV (37.44%) or a computer (21.33%) while
chatting. In contrast, among those who most enjoy intimate or romantic
activities, the number of people who reported using smartphones (to “play
music,” “watch videos,” and “take videos and photos”) is similar to those who
cited not using technologies at all (41.12% versus 38.32%).

In some cases, however, participants prefer more specialized technologies if
they offer better experiences for a group. For instance, P6 mentioned that
whenever he has visitors, he always plays music through a smart speaker (e.g.,
Alexa) to “set the mood” and that he streams movies from Amazon or Netflix
“instead of passing the phone around.” Similarly, P22 shared that, while they
generally favor a computer when playing video games, they would rather use a
gaming console (e.g., an Xbox) when friends come over to play together;
“computers can’t really have multiple people playing on them, but Xbox has
that capability that you can have two people playing at the same time,” P22
explained.

####  4.4.3. Technology is consciously prohibited in some cases and
unintentionally sidelined in other scenarios

Among participants who reported not using any technology while hanging out
with others, a few stated that technology disappeared without notice because
they were “in the moment.”

> “We were so in the moment that we didn’t really, like, take a picture or
> take a video… until it’s, like, the next day and we were, like, hey, did you
> take any pictures?” –P16

In other cases, participants intentionally curtailed technology use. For
example, P25 told us that they have a “no phone policy” whenever dining with
family and friends becausewhile it’s always possible to, reach people on the
phone, “you won’t always have the opportunity to interact with the people that
you’re sitting with.” In some cases, technology can hinder hinder potential
interactions from occurring: “When we are out to dinner, he just had his
little earpieces in… and whatever he is listening to or texting to or talking
to” (P12). In fact, many noted that when digital devices suddenly appeared on
the scene, they felt that the individual they were hanging out with “wasn’t
really listening” (P25) or that those moments become “less genuine.” (P17).
Among them, P6 was exasperated by how frequently his social interactions were
disrupted because something appeared on his friend’s “damn phone.”

> “Honest to God, we would all die if we didn’t use our iPhones… even when
> you’re interacting with people, if you’re walking around, if you’re having a
> picnic, I’ll be darned if we all don’t pull out our phones for some stupid
> reason to either answer a text or look up something… it should be
> permanently attached to your hand.”

Interestingly, our findings suggest humans are not the only ones who get
frustrated when the other party becomes distracted by technology—pets
apparently experience this too. For instance, P11 described how his two cats
“clearly don’t like technology,” and that they get upset whenever he is on the
phone.

> “You can tell by the facial expression; they… look upset and… you can tell
> by their ears if something’s going off. And their tail, you can tell the
> tail is not, like, up anymore. So you can tell… they want your full
> attention.”

####  4.4.4. Technology is preferable when it affords, sustains, or enriches
the activity

Participants mentioned several different roles that technology plays in co-
located interactions. For some, this has to do with creating a personal space
while enjoying other people’s company: “We would literally sit next to each
other… we’re both working, headphones on, laptops in our hands… we’ll all be
co-working in this living room with the couch, TV in the front, and headphones
on.” (P3). For others, technology helps cultivate the ambiance and set the
mood. For instance, P6 mentioned using a smart speaker and a TV when he had
visitors, “you set the stage and you have music. You use those gadgets…
Netflix and the smart televisions to watch movies together.” The utility of
technology is most evident in activities that involve smartphones.
Specifically, the various occasions our interviewees found smartphones useful
included “putting on some music” to sing and dance with their kids at home
(P10), doing a “mini photoshoot” to document a memorable trip (P13), finding
“relevant information” (e.g., news or recipes) to continue a conversation or
support an activity (P2), surreptitiously “chitchatting with friends” during
class via text (P26), “showing each other pictures” (P18) or “looking at
memes” to share (P20), exchanging new content encountered on social media to
“start a conversation” (P4), sending Snaps during large gatherings when they
“only want certain people to know this message” (P4), or filling the gap
between activities to avoid boredom:

> “If we sort of run out of things to talk about we’ll just put on a movie and
> sort of, like, chill out… we’ll both end up being on our phones a little bit
> more around each other if we don’t really have anything that we need to talk
> about at that moment.” –P17

###  4.5. Value: in-person activities afford physicality and richer nonverbal
interactions

Finally, we explored through the interviews the reasons people sometimes
prefer in-person activities to remote interactions. While many agreed that
remote interaction is “convenient” (P27), “takes away physical isolation”
(P26), and helps people “stay updated” (P10) and “stay connected” (P12),
participants also reported that they “get really tired” (P1), found it “hard
to keep up” (P24), or are more “likely to get misconstrued” (P24) when
interacting with others online. Participants quoted both pragmatic and
emotional dimensions for favoring in-person encounters, while P8 encapsulated
the differences between remote and in-person interactions vividly: “going out
and doing things is the relationship… talking to somebody on the phone is
upkeep.”

####  4.5.1. Enabling nonverbal cues

We see that nonverbal cues, including “tone of voice” (P4), “subtle reactions”
(P17), “body language” (P24), and “facial expressions” (P26), make in-person
encounters preferable to interacting through texts, voice calls, or video
chats. For example, P4 mentioned that “there have been many times when we said
something and we meant it one way, but the person took it another way because
it was a text message… they couldn’t read the tone…” As a result, “I feel
whenever we do have these conflicts, it needs to be talked about in person,
just so that nothing is misconstrued.”

####  4.5.2. Facilitating spontaneity

Many interviewees mentioned that they draw from other ongoing activities or
the surrounding environment while engaging in conversations with co-located
others; in other words, people tend to talk about “a lot of the things” (P24),
and the topics are “spontaneous” (P1). Spontaneous conversations that people
enjoy, however, are less likely to happen through online platforms. For
example, P1 noted that “digital tools… kind of contain or create a boundary
around the conversation,” which may pose challenges to connecting with people,
to the extent that P27 shared how much they disliked talking to a friend
through text messaging:

> “He’s not really that great of a texter. He’ll text, like, short sentences
> and stuff… a better way to describe it is just the way that he texts, it
> doesn’t feel like I’m talking to [him]… if that makes sense. Like, I feel
> like I’m talking to a different person”

####  4.5.3. Supporting authenticity

Many interviewees noted that they prefer in-person interactions because they
are “more raw” (P21). For example, P23 noted that “just having a screen
between you… takes away… the essence of a person.” Similarly, P25 agreed that
the “true emotions or true reactions” often get lost on digital platforms.
Overall, we observed that on-the-spot nonverbal reactions, given their
immediacy and unmediated nature, play a key role in making in-person
interactions more genuine. According to P17,

> “Just the fact that you have less time to process and think through… makes a
> big difference… there’s, like, a different weight placed on those words when
> you’re texting someone than if you say it in-person.”

####  4.5.4. Encouraging undivided attention

P22 noted that, in contrast to talking over voice chat and not knowing if
others are paying attention, he preferred “having the confirmation” that
people are “actually there… listening and responding” so that he felt “safer”.
Many also noted that having others’ “undivided attention” makes them prefer
interacting in-person: “when you’re FaceTiming with someone, not all of your
attention is just on them because there are other things going on around you.
But when you’re with someone, it’s kind of hard not to just sit down and give
them your undivided attention” (P16). Additionally, P1 saw the chance to be
fully engaged with others in co-located scenarios as central to relationship
building: “the fact that [our] being physically co-present together is the
thing that keeps our relationship going. I guess because if we weren’t, it
would be easy to drift apart.”

####  4.5.5. Leveraging physicality

Finally, participants mentioned that being able to engage in physical
interactions makes in-person encounters more fun, intimate, and enjoyable. For
example, P3 described that “I’m a very physical person. You know, I’m not a
really good texter, I’m not a good messager… I like the physicality of being
with people.” Similarly, P25 mentioned “I’m very, like, huggy and cuddly
person” and that she enjoyed physical interactions. She continued,

> “Me and my friend, sometimes we’ll wrestle and, like, physically interrupt
> each other in the form of wrestling, chasing each other, or just like that…
> on FaceTime, all we can really do is just talk.”

To others, simply being physically co-located helps support the sense of
connectedness. As P24 put it, “It’s just like sitting next to somebody,
you’re, like, still connected, even if you’re not talking… so you can, like,
foster conversation after just, like, being there.” Likewise, P27 saw in-
person interactions as being more “heartfelt,” noting that “I feel like I
connect better with my friends when I see them in-person.”

##  5\. Discussion

Our results show that different contextual factors—including the relationship
between individuals who hang out together, the activity they engage in, the
location in which social encounters take place, and the technology
involved—all create value that make co-located social interactions enjoyable.
We summarize our results and present our design recommendations for co-located
technology design in Table 2.

Table 2. Summary of our study findings and design recommendations for
designing enjoyable co-located technologies

Context |  Study Findings |  Recommendations
---|---|---
Relationship |  Participants reported that they most enjoy spending time in-person with their strong social ties (e.g., romantic partners, friends, children, and pets). |  Focus design efforts on supporting relationships between “besties” by maintaining and strengthening persistent social connections.
Activity |  Participants most enjoy having day-to-day, light-weight social interactions. Multiple in-person activities often happen simultaneously. |  Leverage and “piggyback” existing everyday activities rather than creating new ones. Design social artifacts that allow multitasking.
Location |  The most enjoyed in-person activities either took place in intimate private spaces or were not tied to a location at all. |  Design co-located technologies to complement a private space’s ambiance or design them to be portable (“in-a-box”) and usable anywhere.
Technology |  People often used digital devices to initiate social encounters but do not want technologies to disrupt or supersede ongoing face-to-face interactions. |  Design digital technologies that work as “board games”: systems that catalyze social interactions by attracting a shared locus of attention.

###  5.1. Relationship: designing for long-term relationships between besties

While we cannot design a person that people enjoy hanging out with, as HCI
researchers, we can design systems to make in-person interactions engaging and
enjoyable. Unsurprisingly, our results show that people much prefer spending
time with their “strong ties” (e.g., friends) than “weak ties” (e.g.,
acquaintances) (Granovetter, 1977). This finding aligns well with Olsson et
al.’s recent work highlighting a research gap in studies focused on designing
co-located technologies to “sustain interaction that has already initiated”
(rather than focusing efforts on “initiating encounters between strangers”)
(Olsson et al., 2019). Taken together, we see untapped potential in designing
technologies that maintain and enhance long-term relationships that may
otherwise fade away or banal over time. We outline two specific
recommendations below.

####  5.1.1. Encouraging group-specific in-person interactions

As P3 puts it, “we didn’t just build memories, we built routines.” Our study
suggests that intimacy is often cultivated through the establishment of
routine-like activities that are distinctive, while participants hang out with
different groups of people. As a result, we suggest future work focus on
supporting group-specific encounters that maintain and support intimacy
between besties. For instance, for couples who enjoy cooking together, we can
build interactive couples cooking apps that provide them with different
cooking instructions so that the couple can work together to put together a
perfect meal. Alternatively, (inspired by the classic children’s game hide-
and-seek and the mobile running app Zombies, Run! (to Start, 2021)) for
friends who enjoy running outdoors together, we can build mobile systems that
give audio cues where randomly assigned “seekers” have to locate and catch
concealed “hiders” within a given time to win the game.

####  5.1.2. Designing multi-species gaming experiences

One aspect we find surprising is that pets are among the top-ranked
individuals people enjoy spending in-person time with, especially when playing
games (10.94%). Prior works such as Cat Cat Revolution (Noz and An, 2011) and
BubbleTalk (Ko et al., 2018) represent systems that incorporate multimedia
simulations to facilitate collective play between people and their pets (i.e.,
cats and fishes). Research on animal-computer interaction has gained traction
in HCI (Mancini, 2011), but there are few systems that aim to support human-
animal gaming experiences. One potential area for co-located technologies is
incorporating mobile AR to make traditional games more challenging and fun.
For example, inspired by the classic video game Super Mario (Nintendo, 2021),
we can design a mobile treasure treat game where a dog collects AR coins that
appear to be scattered on the ground while playing fetch or an AR agility
competition game where the dogs and their owners pair up to perform certain
tricks and compete against other teams.

###  5.2. Activity: leveraging existing, light-weight social interactions

We observe that many in-person activities our participants enjoy are mundane
casual interactions; these activities may seem trivial but are, in fact,
fundamental to relationship building. Additionally, our findings suggest that
people are drawn to mundane activities, not only because of the emotional
fulfillment they offer, but also because everyday activities are easily
accessible. Similarly, a recent article in the New York Times also suggests
that in “life for anyone but the very rich—the physical experience of
learning, living and dying—is increasingly mediated by screens” (Bowles,
2019). Combining these insights, we recommend that future work focus on
leveraging and augmenting activities that are already happening—a technique
known as “piggyback prototyping” (Grevet and Gilbert, 2015).

One potential opportunity for co-located technologies is to make routine
activities more collaborative and engaging; as such, future work can benefit
from creating group challenges to gamify household chores. For example,
inspired by the maze arcade game Pac-Man (Inc, 2021), we can build an AR
floor-mopping challenge where parents and their children collect virtual coins
and avoid coming in contact with any AR ghosts that move in the space while
they are mopping the floors together (building on the finding that 32.8% of
our participants prefer playing with their children).

###  5.3. Location: designing for ambiance or in-a-box experiences

Our results show that many popular in-person activities such as chatting and
eating can take place anywhere; in cases where an interaction is tied to a
specific location, it most likely takes place in private spaces. The HCI
community has long differentiated the concepts of “space” and “place”: “space”
focuses on the factual geometrical arrangements, while “place” emphasizes the
constructed and perceived meaning of an environment (Harrison and Dourish,
1996; Dourish, 2006). Building on the emotional connection inscribed in the
notion of a place, we see an opportunity to design co-located technologies
that focus on placemaking (Freeman et al., 2019; Chamberlain et al., 2016); in
different contexts, prior research has suggested strategies such as garnering
emotional connections to strengthen place attachment (Milligan, 1998) and
encouraging multisensory discovery of the environment (Chamberlain et al.,
2016; Lentini and Decortis, 2010). We outline two potential directions that
aim at supporting these two distinctive location preferences in this section.

####  5.3.1. Complementing the ambiance of private spaces

We notice that participants preferred private space when engaging in
activities that are more intimate (e.g., intimate or romantic activities and
resting) or require particular setups (e.g., gaming consoles and big screens
for playing games, kitchen equipment for cooking or baking, TV and audio
system for watching, listening, and reading). More specifically, participants
described the private settings they prefer as “a laid-back, quiet environment”
(P13) where they can sit “next to each other” (P14), being “close to music”
(P3), while still being “able to actually hear each other” (P4). Accordingly,
we suggest that designers pay close attention to the atmosphere and setting
specific private spaces afford to create co-located technologies that support
location-dependent activities.

####  5.3.2. Designing in-a-box experiences for location-independent scenarios

Our results show that many of the top in-person activities such as chatting,
eating, traveling, and partying are location-independent. From this, we see an
underexplored opportunity to build co-located technologies that mobilize
activities that are often tied to a specific location. One specific strategy
for transforming location-dependent activities into interactions that can
happen on the move or are location-independent is to bring these existing
experiences in-a-box. One of the few designs that tapped into this space
included Roxie (Newswire, 2020), a plug-and-play karaoke station that enables
people to sing together while carpooling (as opposed to going to a Karaoke
bar). Another example is Escape Room In A Box (Experiment, 2021), a board game
kit that allows people to play a room escape game anywhere (instead of having
to visit an actual escape room). Future designs may aim at packaging location-
specific experiences in a box, allowing them to be played at anywhere.

###  5.4. Technology: designing digital devices as “board games”

Digital devices have become an indispensable part of our everyday lives.
However, our study shows that establishing a consensus among co-located
individuals regarding how and when to involve technology is critical in order
to avoid frustration and discomfort. Specifically, we observe that
participants considered technology undesirable when it “supersede(s) a
conversation” (P6) or disrupts ongoing interactions. Conversely, technology is
preferable when it helps initiate, maintain, or enrich in-person activities,
whether this is about “setting the stage” through music (P6), “filling the
gap” between interactions (P17), or capturing the moment by “taking pictures
and videos”(P11). With this in mind, instead of creating devices that distract
people from their collective experiences, we suggest building co-located
technologies that function more like board games, which are at the center of
the activity drawing everyone’s attention to one another.

A few previous studies have presented theoretical concepts and design
strategies that align with our recommendations. For example, to address the
issue of phubbing, Isbister coined the theoretical concept of “suprahuman” to
focus on the spaces between co-present individuals in order to create
technologies that “help to build webs of connection and coordination and co-
action” (Isbister, 2019). Similarly, Oduor et al. suggest making visible the
contents on a personal device to co-located family members when situations
that require immediate attention occur to avoid a sense of disengagement
(Oduor et al., 2016).Building on this line of work, we see untapped potential
for creating designs that resemble existing technologies that already bring
people together (e.g., TV, gaming console, or audio systems). The public
installation Giant Sing Along (Daily, 2011) is an interesting example that
combines an oversized screen that displays song lyrics (resembling the
function of a TV) and an array of standing microphones (resembling the
function of an audio system), inviting co-located individuals to sing together
and to create a collective musical experience. Overall, considering the fact
that technology is already deeply embedded in our day-to-day interactions,
instead of curbing the use of digital devices, we believe that future work
should bring technology to the center to emphasize and enhance the collective
experience.

###  5.5. Value: leveraging physicality to emphasize the sense of “being
there”

Our results suggest that remote interactions may better function as
maintaining the social ties between individuals. In contrast, people prefer
in-person activities because they offer opportunities to draw from nonverbal
communication, engage in spontaneous interactions, express authenticity and
attentiveness, and participate in physical interactions. Prior work on social
presence aims to promote “the sense of being with another” through technology
(Biocca et al., 2003; IJsselsteijn et al., 2003) and outlines design concepts,
such as embodiment and immediacy (Biocca and Harms, 2002; van Rheden and
Hengeveld, 2016). Our results align with previous research and suggest that
physicality is the central element in facilitating the sense of connectedness
and intimacy of in-person interactions. More specific examples that foreground
the notion of physicality as an enjoyable element of in-person interactions
include descriptions such as being “next to each other” (P3), feeding “each
other’s energy” (P13), and having “physical touch” (P24) while hanging out
with those close to us.

We suggest designing technologies that leverage physicality—such as physical
proximity, bodily movements, vocal tones, and facial expressions—to enhance
the sense of “being together.” One technique that has been previously explored
is tracking and amplifying the biosignals (e.g., heart rate) among those who
are co-located to support intimacy (Howell et al., 2019), cultivate
connectedness (Min and Nam, 2014), or augment collective play (Frey, 2016).
Application-wise, in discovering that many of our participants regret
forgetting to take photos or videos to capture their in-person interactions
(see §4.4.3), we have considered the potential for also incorporating sensors
for monitoring biosignals in image/video capturing devices to trigger their
recording functions. Such a mechanism, outlined by Metz (Metz, 2018) in a
different context, could help document co-located experiences without
preventing people from being fully engaged in their interactions. In addition
to biosignals, designers can also leverage other dimensions of physicality to
enhance co-located experiences. For instance, inspired by the mobile laser
tag-like game QuasAR Arena (HappyGiant, 2021), we can design co-located
technologies that specifically aim to support participants who enjoy chasing
one another (see §4.5.5) by building AR snow fight games that prompt multiple
players to cover their competitors with virtual snowballs while running and
hiding to dodge snowballs themselves.

##  6\. Limitations

Several aspects of our study design may have influenced our results. First,
while our survey sample aimed to reflect the demographics of the United
States, the results may not generalize to populations in other countries. In
addition, our interviewees, although diverse in gender, age, race, and
geographical location, were slightly skewed towards younger participants
(40.74% of our interviewees were Gen Z participants). We suggest following a
similar interview protocol to gather more in-depth insights prior to designing
co-located technologies for older adults. Further, we note that we did not
collect the relationship status of our participants in this study. While not
having access to this piece of information does not affect or change our
results, we acknowledge that knowing whether a participant is currently in a
relationship can yield additional insights (e.g., more Gen Zs prefer spending
time with friends because many of them do not have romantic partners).
Additionally, it is worth noting that this paper maintains a critical distance
with regards to technology. We do not focus solely on technology’s impact on
social interactions, but we do dive into its role when participants mention
it, as it is the case in §4.4.3.

Another limitation of this study relates to the way COVID-19 may have
restricted in-person activities. Specifically, when we started our interviews,
a few states (e.g., California and New York) had just begun to issue stay-at-
home orders due to the COVID-19 outbreak. Since our goal was not comparing
people’s preference for social interactions before and after the pandemic,
during the interview onboarding, we explicitly instructed our participants to
share the in-person interactions they enjoyed when social gatherings were not
constrained by the pandemic. Further, we also asked our participants to
describe in detail “the last time” they engaged in their preferred co-located
interactions to help minimize biases in our data (see the full interview
script in the Appendix). Following this approach, we note that a different
study is needed to design co-located technologies for a post-pandemic “new
normal” (Lichfieldarchive, 2020). Despite the limitations, we believe that our
work—including our study design and research findings—provides important
groundwork to guide future user studies and technological development in
supporting enjoyable in-person social interactions through technology.

##  7\. Conclusion

Through a mixed-method study, this work explored how different contextual
factors—relationship, activity, location, and technology—play a part in making
in-person interactions enjoyable. We observed that people prefer having
everyday casual social interactions with their strong ties, and the
relationship between co-located individuals is a deciding factor in the
activity, location, and technology involved in in-person activities. In
addition, our results also show that physicality (e.g., nonverbal cues, bodily
interactions), spontaneity, and authenticity not only supports connectedness
but also helps co-located individuals be in the moment.

This work provides an empirical foundation for a new and under-explored design
space: creating technologies that support enjoyable co-located interactions.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank our colleagues at Snap Research, especially Maarten Bos, Fannie Liu,
and Ella Dagan for their thoughtful comments in our initial manuscript. Thanks
also to the ACs and reviewers for their excellent feedback, which greatly
improved the earlier version of this paper. This work is supported in part by
Snap Inc. and the U.S. National Science Foundation (Grant #2030856, the
Computing Research Association for the CIFellow Project333Disclaimer: Any
opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations in the material are
those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the
National Science Foundation nor the Computing Research Association.) that
supported Liu in her postdoctoral position, when she worked on this paper
after working at Snap.

## Appendix

##  Appendix A Survey Questions

The following is a complete list of the questions we asked in our survey.

  1. (1)

With whom do you most enjoy spending time in person? (Single choice, randomize
choices)

     * •

Romantic Partners

     * •

Parents

     * •

Siblings

     * •

Children

     * •

Friends

     * •

Acquaintances

     * •

Schoolmates

     * •

Co-workers

     * •

Neighbors

     * •

Strangers

     * •

Other (please specify):

  2. (2)

When spending time with your [insert answer from question 1] in person, what
do you enjoy doing together? Select up to 5 that apply. (Multiple choices,
randomize choices)

     * •

Chatting or having conversations

     * •

Cooking or baking

     * •

Doing chores

     * •

Drinking or smoking

     * •

Eating

     * •

Exercising, doing sports, or dancing

     * •

Going to cultural events

     * •

Goofing around or pranking others

     * •

Having intimate or romantic activities

     * •

Making arts and crafts

     * •

Making videos or taking photos

     * •

Messing around on our phones

     * •

Partying or socializing

     * •

Petting or playing with animals

     * •

Playing games

     * •

Practicing spirituality

     * •

Resting

     * •

Shopping

     * •

Teaching and learning

     * •

Traveling or sightseeing

     * •

Video chatting with others

     * •

Volunteering

     * •

Wandering around

     * •

Watching, listening, or reading

     * •

Working

     * •

Other (please specify):

  3. (3)

Please rank the activities you enjoy doing with your [insert answer from
question 1] in person in order of preference (drag and drop to have your
favorite activities at the top).

  4. (4)

Are you usually at a specific location while [insert favorite activity from
question 3] with your [insert answer from question 1] in person?

     * •

Yes, we only do it at a specific location

     * •

No, we do it anywhere (Skip next question)

  5. (5)

How would you describe the type of location while [insert favorite activity
from question 3] with your [insert answer from question 1] in person?

     * •

Public (e.g., mall, park, library)

     * •

Private (e.g., home, private vehicle)

     * •

Semi-public (e.g., office, community courtyard)

     * •

Other (please specify):

  6. (6)

Some people report using technology in some form when they are together.
Reflecting back on your favorite activity, [insert favorite activity from
question 3], with your [insert answer from question 1], which of the following
devices are also involved in the activity? Please select all that apply.

     * •

Smartphone

     * •

Smart watch (e.g., Apple Watch, Fitbit)

     * •

Smart speaker (e.g., Amazon Echo, Google Home)

     * •

Audio system or speaker

     * •

TV

     * •

Computer

     * •

Tablet (e.g., iPad, Fire)

     * •

Headphones or earbuds (e.g., Apple AirPods, Bose SoundWear)

     * •

Gaming console (e.g., Xbox, Nintendo Switch, PS4)

     * •

VR/AR headset (e.g., Oculus Rift, HTC Vive, Magic Leap)

     * •

None of the above

     * •

Other (please specify):

  7. (7)

Could you tell us more about how the last time you and your [insert answer
from question 1] did your favorite activity, [insert favorite activity from
question 3]? What exactly did you do? Where did you do it? What tools,
devices, or other stuff, if any, did you use? Be as detailed as you can. (Free
text with a minimum of 30 characters)

  8. (8)

What is your age?

  9. (9)

Which gender do you identify with? (Multiple choices)

     * •

Female

     * •

Male

     * •

Non-binary

     * •

Prefer not to answer

     * •

Prefer to self-describe:

  10. (10)

What is your race or ethnicity?

     * •

American Indian or Alaska Native

     * •

Asian

     * •

Black or African American

     * •

Hispanic or Latino

     * •

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

     * •

White

     * •

Two or more races

     * •

Prefer not to answer

     * •

Other (please specify):

  11. (11)

What is your primary occupation?

     * •

Administrative Support (e.g., secretary, assistant)

     * •

Art, Writing, or Journalism (e.g., author, reporter, sculptor)

     * •

Business, Management, or Financial (e.g.,manager, accountant, banker)

     * •

Computer Engineering or IT Professional(e.g., programmer, IT consultant)

     * •

Education or Science (e.g., teacher, professor, scientist)

     * •

Engineer in other field (e.g., civil or bioengineer)

     * •

Homemaker

     * •

Legal (e.g., lawyer, paralegal)

     * •

Medical (e.g., doctor, nurse, dentist)

     * •

Qualtrics worker

     * •

Self-employed

     * •

Skilled Labor (e.g., electrician, plumber, carpenter)

     * •

Retired

     * •

Unemployed

     * •

Middle or high school student

     * •

College student

     * •

Graduate student

     * •

Prefer not to answer

     * •

Other (please specify):

  12. (12)

Which of the following best describes your highest achieved education level?

     * •

Some High School

     * •

High School Graduate

     * •

Some college (no degree)

     * •

Associates degree

     * •

Bachelors degree

     * •

Graduate degree (e.g., Masters, Doctorate)

     * •

Prefer not to answer

     * •

Other (please specify):

  13. (13)

We are part of a research team looking to understand more about where, why,
how and with whom people hang out in-person. Are you interested in
participating in an online video interview (via Google Hangout) to tell us
more about time you spend in-person with others? The interview is expected to
take about 60 minutes and you will receive a $20 Amazon gift card after
completing the interview. We will require your name and email to sign up and
will contact you via email if you are selected to participate in the online
interview.

     * •

Yes

     * •

No (skip to the last question)

  14. (14)

What is your preferred email address for us to contact you? Your email address
will only be used to contact you about the following interview opportunities:

  15. (15)

Comments, questions, or notes for us:

##  Appendix B Interview Protocol

The following is the script— including the on-boarding introduction and start-
off questions— we used as during our semi-structured interviews.

###  B.1. On-Boarding Introduction

Hi, [insert participant’s name], thank you for agreeing to participate in our
interview. I’m [first author’s name], a researcher from [institution], and
we’re interested in understanding what people enjoy doing while they’re
spending time with others in-person. This will help us create technologies in
the future to support in-person activities.

I know that things might have changed quite a bit in recent weeks, and I’m
happy to hear about it if you’re willing to share, but I’m most interested in
learning about how you spend time with others in a typical day-to-day
scenario. There are no right or wrong answers to any of the questions I will
be asking, I just want to know more about what you enjoy doing while hanging
out with others in person.

If there is any point during the interview that you have a question, want to
take a break, or wish to drop out, please let me know, it will be totally
fine. During the interview, I will take notes, as well as record the audio and
video of our conversation. You have previously signed and returned the
participant consent form, but before we begin, I’d like to ask again if you
consent to be recorded for this interview? [Wait until the participant consent
to be recorded]. Ok, I will start recording now.

###  B.2. Warming Up and Recap

Before we start, can you tell me a little bit about yourself? Feel free to
tell me anything you feel comfortable sharing.

  * •

How old are you?

  * •

What do you do?

  * •

What do you like to do for fun?

  * •

How would you describe the place you live?

In the survey, I think you mentioned that you enjoy spending time in-person
with [insert answer from survey question 1], can you tell me a little bit more
about it?

  * •

What do you enjoy doing with them?

  * •

How did you guys meet?

  * •

How would you describe your relationship with them?

###  B.3. Follow-Up Questions

####  B.3.1. Location

Tell me more about the last time you did [activity] with [person].

  * •

Where were you?

  * •

Tell me more about this specific place. How do the settings look like and what
are some objects around you?

  * •

Why did you two pick that as the place to do [activity]?

  * •

In what other places have you done [activity] together?

  * •

How would you imagine doing [activity] in a different place?

####  B.3.2. Time

Can you walk me through the process when you last did [activity] with your
[person]?

  * •

How did you plan it?

  * •

What did you do while [activity]?

  * •

What happened after [activity]?

####  B.3.3. Technology and Artifacts

I’d like to know more about the things you need to do [activity].

  * •

What are some objects, devices, or tools you use while doing [activity]?

  * •

Do you use any technology while doing [activity] with [person]?

  * •

Imagine doing [activity] with [person] while not having [technology or
artifact], how would you imagine it to be?

  * •

This question might be a little abstract, but how would you describe the role
of the [technology or artifact] while you two [activity] together?

  * •

You have mentioned a few objects that help you and your [person] do
[activity]. Can you tell me about the objects or things that get in the way of
that activity?

####  B.3.4. Relationship and Activity

You mentioned that you enjoy doing [activities] with [person].

  * •

Do you do the same activities with other people? How does it feel
similar/different compared to doing it with the person you most enjoy spending
time in person with?

  * •

Besides [activities], what else do you enjoy doing with [person]?

  * •

Tell me more about the type, quality, and the characteristics of the
[activity].

  * •

Describe a memorable or unique time when you do [activities] with [person].
What makes it special? Is there any specific moment like this that stands out?

  * •

Can you describe a time when [activities] with [person] were not as enjoyable?
What happened?

####  B.3.5. In-Person Interactions

Tell me about how you interact with [person] when you are not physically
together.

  * •

What differences do you see between hanging out with [person] in-person and
online?

  * •

Do you prefer hanging out with [person] in-person or online? Why?

###  B.4. Closing

That’s about it for today. Do you have any questions for me? Thank you for
participating in the interview today, you will receive the gift card from us
shortly after. If you do not receive it in the next three days, please email
me to let me know. Enjoy the rest of your day.

## References

  * (1)
  * Abowd et al. (1999) Gregory D. Abowd, Anind K. Dey, Peter J. Brown, Nigel Davies, Mark Smith, and Pete Steggles. 1999\.  Towards a Better Understanding of Context and Context-Awareness. In _Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Handheld and Ubiquitous Computing_ (Karlsruhe, Germany) _(HUC ’99)_. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 304–307.
  * Alavi and Dillenbourg (2012) Hamed S Alavi and Pierre Dillenbourg. 2012.  An Ambient Awareness Tool for Supporting Supervised Collaborative Problem Solving.  _IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies_ 5, 3 (2012), 264–274.
  * Balestrini et al. (2016) Mara Balestrini, Paul Marshall, Raymundo Cornejo, Monica Tentori, Jon Bird, and Yvonne Rogers. 2016\.  Jokebox: Coordinating Shared Encounters in Public Spaces. In _Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing_. 38–49.
  * Benford et al. (2000) Steve Benford, Benjamin B Bederson, Karl-Petter Åkesson, Victor Bayon, Allison Druin, Pär Hansson, Juan Pablo Hourcade, Rob Ingram, Helen Neale, Claire O’Malley, et al. 2000\.  Designing Storytelling Technologies to Encourage Collaboration Between Young Children. In _Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems_. 556–563.
  * Biocca and Harms (2002) Frank Biocca and Chad Harms. 2002.  Defining and measuring social presence: Contribution to the networked minds theory and measure.  _Proceedings of PRESENCE_ 2002 (2002), 1–36.
  * Biocca et al. (2003) Frank Biocca, Chad Harms, and Judee K Burgoon. 2003.  Towards A More Robust Theory and Measure of Social Presence: Review and Suggested Criteria.  _Presence: Teleoperators & virtual environments_ 12, 5 (2003), 456–480.
  * Blythe and Hassenzahl (2003) Mark Blythe and Marc Hassenzahl. 2003.  The Semantics of Fun: Differentiating Enjoyable Experiences.  In _Funology_. Springer, 91–100.
  * Bowles (2019) Nellie Bowles. 2019\.  Human Contact Is Now a Luxury Good.  https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/23/sunday-review/human-contact-luxury-screens.html.  Accessed: 2020-9-8.
  * Braun and Clarke (2006) Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006.  Using thematic analysis in psychology.  _Qualitative research in psychology_ 3, 2 (2006), 77–101.
  * Bureau (2018) United States Census Bureau. 2018\.  ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates.  https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=United%20States&g=0100000US&tid=ACSDP1Y2018.DP05.  Accessed: 2020-3-18.
  * Chamberlain et al. (2016) Alan Chamberlain, Mads Bødker, Adrian Hazzard, and Steve Benford. 2016.  Audio in Place: Media, Mobility & HCI - Creating Meaning In Space. In _Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services Adjunct_. 1045–1048.
  * Clawson et al. (2008) James Clawson, Amy Voida, Nirmal Patel, and Kent Lyons. 2008\.  Mobiphos: a collocated-synchronous mobile photo sharing application. In _Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Human computer interaction with mobile devices and services_. 187–195.
  * Dagan et al. (2019) Ella Dagan, Elena Márquez Segura, Ferran Altarriba Bertran, Miguel Flores, and Katherine Isbister. 2019\.  Designing’True Colors’ A Social Wearable that Affords Vulnerability. In _Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems_. 1–14.
  * Daily (2011) Daily. 2011.  Giant Sing Along: Outdoor Collective Karaoke.  https://www.dailytouslesjours.com/en/work/giant-sing-along.  Accessed: 2020-7-14.
  * Difallah et al. (2018) Djellel Difallah, Elena Filatova, and Panos Ipeirotis. 2018\.  Demographics and dynamics of mechanical Turk workers. In _Proceedings of the eleventh ACM international conference on web search and data mining_. 135–143.
  * Dimock (2019) Michael Dimock. 2019\.  Defining generations: Where Millennials end and Generation Z begins.  https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/17/where-millennials-end-and-generation-z-begins/.  Accessed: 2020-4-18.
  * Dourish (2006) Paul Dourish. 2006\.  Re-Space-ing Place: “Place” and “Space” Ten Years On. In _Proceedings of the 2006 20th anniversary conference on Computer supported cooperative work_. 299–308.
  * Durrant et al. (2011) Abigail Durrant, Duncan Rowland, David S Kirk, Steve Benford, Joel E Fischer, and Derek McAuley. 2011\.  Automics:Souvenir Generating Photoware for Theme Parks. In _Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems_. 1767–1776.
  * Epp (2018) Felix A Epp. 2018\.  Augmented Self-Presentation: Supporting Collocated Social Interaction. In _Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services Adjunct_. 443–445.
  * Experiment (2021) The Werewolf Experiment. 2021\.  Escape Room in a Box.  http://www.escaperoominabox.com/en-us.  Accessed: 2020-7-13.
  * Fischer et al. (2016) Joel Fischer, Martin Porcheron, Andrés Lucero, Aaron Quigley, Stacey Scott, Luigina Ciolfi, John Rooksby, and Nemanja Memarovic. 2016\.  Collocated Interaction: New Challenges in ’Same Time, Same Place’ Research. In _Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing Companion_. 465–472.
  * Freeman et al. (2019) Guo Freeman, Jeffrey Bardzell, Shaowen Bardzell, Szu-Yu Liu, Xi Lu, and Diandian Cao. 2019\.  Smart and Fermented Cities: An Approach to Placemaking in Urban Informatics. In _Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems_. 1–13.
  * Frey (2016) Jérémy Frey. 2016\.  Remote Heart Rate Sensing and Projection to Renew Traditional Board Games and Foster Social Interactions. In _Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems_. 1865–1871.
  * Genç and Coskun (2020) Hüseyin Ugur Genç and Aykut Coskun. 2020.  Designing for Social Interaction in the Age of Excessive Smartphone Use. In _Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems_. 1–13.
  * Granovetter (1977) Mark S Granovetter. 1977\.  The strength of weak ties.  In _Social networks_. Elsevier, 347–367.
  * Grevet and Gilbert (2015) Catherine Grevet and Eric Gilbert. 2015.  Piggyback prototyping: Using existing, large-scale social computing systems to prototype new ones. In _Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems_. 4047–4056.
  * Gugenheimer et al. (2017) Jan Gugenheimer, Evgeny Stemasov, Julian Frommel, and Enrico Rukzio. 2017.  Sharevr: Enabling co-located experiences for virtual reality between hmd and non-hmd users. In _Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems_. 4021–4033.
  * HappyGiant (2021) HappyGiant. 2021\.  QuasAR Arena.  https://happygiant.com/projects/quasar-arena.  Accessed: 2021-7-14.
  * Harrison and Dourish (1996) Steve Harrison and Paul Dourish. 1996.  Re-Place-ing Space: The Roles of Place and Space in Collaborative Systems. In _Proceedings of the 1996 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work_. 67–76.
  * Hesse-Biber (2017) Sharlene Nagy Hesse-Biber. 2017\.  _The Practice of Qualitative Research_ (3 ed.).
  * Howell et al. (2019) Noura Howell, Greg Niemeyer, and Kimiko Ryokai. 2019\.  Life-affirming biosensing in public: Sounding heartbeats on a red bench. In _Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems_. 1–16.
  * IJsselsteijn et al. (2003) Wijnand IJsselsteijn, Joy van Baren, and Froukje van Lanen. 2003\.  Staying in Touch Social Presence and Connectedness through Synchronous and Asynchronous Communication Media.  _Human-Computer Interaction: Theory and Practice (Part II)_ 2, 924 (2003), e928.
  * Inc (2021) BANDAI NAMCO Entertainment Inc. 2021\.  The Official Site for PAC-MAN.  https://www.pacman.com/en/.  Accessed: 2021-7-13.
  * Isbister (2019) Katherine Isbister. 2019\.  Toward ‘Suprahuman’Technology. In _Proceedings of the Halfway to the Future Symposium 2019_. 1–4.
  * Isbister et al. (2016) Katherine Isbister, Suzanne Kirkpatrick, Syed Salahuddin, Raybit Tang, Gang Cao, Xiaofeng Chen, and Elena Márquez Segura. 2016.  YAMOVE! A Movement Synchrony Game that Choreographs Social Interaction.  _Human technology_ 12, 1 (2016).
  * Jarusriboonchai et al. (2016) Pradthana Jarusriboonchai, Aris Malapaschas, and Thomas Olsson. 2016\.  Design and evaluation of a multi-player mobile game for icebreaking activity. In _Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems_. 4366–4377.
  * Jones and O’Neill (2010) Simon Jones and Eamonn O’Neill. 2010.  Feasibility of Structural Network Clustering for Group-Based Privacy Control in Social Networks. In _Proceedings of the Sixth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security_. 1–13.
  * Kao and Schmandt (2015) Hsin-Liu Kao and Chris Schmandt. 2015.  MugShots: A Mug Display for Front & Back Stage Social Interaction in the Workplace. In _Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction_. 57–60.
  * Kim et al. (2019) Jaejeung Kim, Joonyoung Park, Hyunsoo Lee, Minsam Ko, and Uichin Lee. 2019.  LocknType: Lockout Task Intervention for Discouraging Smartphone App Use. In _Proceedings of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems_. 1–12.
  * Ko et al. (2018) Donghyeon Ko, Daye Kwon, Eunjin Kim, and Woohun Lee. 2018\.  BubbleTalk: Enriching Experience with Fish by Supporting Human Behavior. In _Proceedings of the 2018 Designing Interactive Systems Conference_. 919–930.
  * Ko et al. (2015) Minsam Ko, Subin Yang, Joonwon Lee, Christian Heizmann, Jinyoung Jeong, Uichin Lee, Daehee Shin, Koji Yatani, Junehwa Song, and Kyong-Mee Chung. 2015\.  NUGU: A Group-based Intervention App for Improving Self-Regulation of Limiting Smartphone Use. In _Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work & social computing_. 1235–1245.
  * Kytö and McGookin (2017) Mikko Kytö and David McGookin. 2017.  Augmenting Multi-Party Face-to-Face Interactions Amongst Strangers with User Generated Content.  _Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)_ 26, 4-6 (2017), 527–562.
  * Laureyssens et al. (2014) Thomas Laureyssens, Tanguy Coenen, Laurence Claeys, Peter Mechant, Johan Criel, and Andrew Vande Moere. 2014\.  ZWERM: a Modular Component Network Approach for an Urban Participation Game. In _Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems_. 3259–3268.
  * Lentini and Decortis (2010) Laura Lentini and Françoise Decortis. 2010.  Space and places: when interacting with and in physical space becomes a meaningful experience.  _Personal and Ubiquitous Computing_ 14, 5 (2010), 407–415.
  * Lichfieldarchive (2020) Gideon Lichfieldarchive. 2020\.  We’re not going back to normal.  https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/03/17/905264/coronavirus-pandemic-social-distancing-18-months/.  Accessed: 2020-8-21.
  * Lindley (2005) Siân E Lindley. 2005\.  Designing Interfaces to Afford Enjoyable Social Interactions by Collocated Groups. In _CHI’05 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems_. 1122–1123.
  * Ling (2008) Richard Ling. 2008\.  _New Tech, New Ties: How Mobile Communication Is Reshaping Social Cohesion_.  MIT press.
  * Löchtefeld et al. (2013) Markus Löchtefeld, Matthias Böhmer, and Lyubomir Ganev. 2013.  AppDetox: Helping Users with Mobile App Addiction. In _Proceedings of the 12th international conference on mobile and ubiquitous multimedia_. 1–2.
  * Lucero et al. (2011) Andrés Lucero, Jussi Holopainen, and Tero Jokela. 2011\.  Pass-Them-Around: Collaborative Use of Mobile Phones for Photo Sharing. In _Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems_. 1787–1796.
  * Lucero et al. (2012) Andrés Lucero, Jussi Holopainen, and Tero Jokela. 2012\.  MobiComics: collaborative use of mobile phones and large displays for public expression. In _Proceedings of the 14th international conference on Human-computer interaction with mobile devices and services_. 383–392.
  * Lucero et al. (2013) Andrés Lucero, Matt Jones, Tero Jokela, and Simon Robinson. 2013.  Mobile Collocated Interactions: Taking an Offline Break Together.  _interactions_ 20, 2 (2013), 26–32.
  * Lundgren et al. (2015) Sus Lundgren, Joel E Fischer, Stuart Reeves, and Olof Torgersson. 2015.  Designing mobile experiences for collocated interaction. In _Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing_. 496–507.
  * Mancini (2011) Clara Mancini. 2011\.  Animal-computer interaction: a manifesto.  _interactions_ 18, 4 (2011), 69–73.
  * Mauriello et al. (2014) Matthew Mauriello, Michael Gubbels, and Jon E Froehlich. 2014\.  Social Fabric Fitness: The Design and Evaluation of Wearable E-Textile Displays to Support Group Running. In _Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems_. 2833–2842.
  * McCarthy et al. (2004) Joseph F McCarthy, David W McDonald, Suzanne Soroczak, David H Nguyen, and Al M Rashid. 2004\.  Augmenting the social space of an academic conference. In _Proceedings of the 2004 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work_. 39–48.
  * Memarovic et al. (2012) Nemanja Memarovic, Marc Langheinrich, Florian Alt, Ivan Elhart, Simo Hosio, and Elisa Rubegni. 2012\.  Using Public Displays to Stimulate Passive Engagement, Active Engagement, and Discovery in Public Spaces. In _Proceedings of the 4th Media Architecture Biennale Conference: Participation_. 55–64.
  * Metz (2018) Rachel Metz. 2018\.  This man’s quest to understand memory starts with obsessive bodycam recording and brain-wave tracking.  https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/07/17/141437/this-mans-quest-to-understand-memory-starts-with-obsessive-bodycam-recording-and-brain-wave/.  Accessed: 2020-9-14.
  * Milligan (1998) Melinda J Milligan. 1998\.  Interactional Past and Potential: The Social Construction of Place Attachment.  _Symbolic interaction_ 21, 1 (1998), 1–33.
  * Min and Nam (2014) Hyeryung Christine Min and Tek-Jin Nam. 2014.  Biosignal Sharing for Affective Connectedness.  In _CHI’14 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems_. 2191–2196.
  * Misra et al. (2016) Shalini Misra, Lulu Cheng, Jamie Genevie, and Miao Yuan. 2016\.  The iPhone Effect: The Quality of In-Person Social Interactions in the Presence of Mobile Devices.  _Environment and Behavior_ 48, 2 (2016), 275–298.
  * Newswire (2020) Newswire. 2020.  CarKitAI’s Roxie Karaoke Car Entertainment Makes Road Trips and Commute Fun Again.  https://www.newswire.com/news/carkitais-roxie-karaoke-car-entertainment-makes-road-trips-and-commute-21068701.  Accessed: 2020-9-7.
  * Nielsen et al. (2014) Heidi Selmer Nielsen, Marius Pallisgaard Olsen, Mikael B Skov, and Jesper Kjeldskov. 2014.  JuxtaPinch: exploring multi-device interaction in collocated photo sharing. In _Proceedings of the 16th international conference on Human-computer interaction with mobile devices & services_. 183–192.
  * Nintendo (2021) Nintendo. 2021.  The official home of Super Mario™.  https://mario.nintendo.com/.  Accessed: 2021-7-13.
  * Norman (1999) Donald A Norman. 1999\.  Affordance, Conventions, and Design.  _interactions_ 6, 3 (1999), 38–43.
  * Noz and An (2011) Frank Noz and Jinsoo An. 2011.  Cat Cat Revolution: An Interspecies Gaming Experience. In _Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems_. 2661–2664.
  * Oduor et al. (2016) Erick Oduor, Carman Neustaedter, William Odom, Anthony Tang, Niala Moallem, Melanie Tory, and Pourang Irani. 2016.  The Frustrations and Benefits of Mobile Device Usage in the Home when Co-Present with Family Members. In _Proceedings of the 2016 ACM conference on designing interactive systems_. 1315–1327.
  * Okeke et al. (2018) Fabian Okeke, Michael Sobolev, Nicola Dell, and Deborah Estrin. 2018.  Good Vibrations: Can a Digital Nudge Reduce Digital Overload?. In _Proceedings of the 20th international conference on human-computer interaction with mobile devices and services_. 1–12.
  * Olsson et al. (2019) Thomas Olsson, Pradthana Jarusriboonchai, Paweł Woźniak, Susanna Paasovaara, Kaisa Väänänen, and Andrés Lucero. 2019\.  Technologies for Enhancing Collocated Social Interaction: Review of Design Solutions and Approaches.  _Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)_ 29, 1 (2019), 29–83.
  * Paasovaara et al. (2017) Susanna Paasovaara, Pradthana Jarusriboonchai, and Thomas Olsson. 2017.  Understanding collocated social interaction between Pokémon GO players. In _Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia_. 151–163.
  * Park et al. (2017) Chunjong Park, Junsung Lim, Juho Kim, Sung-Ju Lee, and Dongman Lee. 2017.  Don’t Bother Me. I’m Socializing! A Breakpoint-Based Smartphone Notification System. In _Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing_. 541–554.
  * Pickersgill ([n.d.]) Eric Pickersgill. [n.d.].  Removed.  https://www.ericpickersgill.com/removed.  Accessed: 2020-06-07.
  * Porcheron et al. (2016) Martin Porcheron, Joel E Fischer, and Sarah Sharples. 2016\.  Using mobile phones in pub talk. In _Proceedings of the 19th ACM conference on computer-supported cooperative work & social computing_. 1649–1661.
  * Powell et al. (2012) Evie Powell, Rachel Brinkman, Tiffany Barnes, and Veronica Catete. 2012.  Table Tilt: Making Friends Fast. In _Proceedings of the international conference on the foundations of digital games_. 242–245.
  * Przybylski and Weinstein (2013) Andrew K Przybylski and Netta Weinstein. 2013.  Can you connect with me now? How the presence of mobile communication technology influences face-to-face conversation quality.  _Journal of Social and Personal Relationships_ 30, 3 (2013), 237–246.
  * Roberts and David (2016) James A Roberts and Meredith E David. 2016.  My Life has Become a Major Distraction from My Cell Phone: Partner Phubbing and Relationship Satisfaction among Romantic Partners.  _Computers in human behavior_ 54 (2016), 134–141.
  * Rogers (2014) Yvonne Rogers. 2014\.  Bursting our Digital Bubbles: Life Beyond the App. In _Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Multimodal Interaction_. 1–1.
  * Rotondi et al. (2017) Valentina Rotondi, Luca Stanca, and Miriam Tomasuolo. 2017\.  Connecting Alone: Smartphone Use, Quality of Social Interactions and Well-being.  _Journal of Economic Psychology_ 63 (2017), 17–26.
  * Segura et al. (2017) Elena Márquez Segura, Katherine Isbister, Jon Back, and Annika Waern. 2017.  Design, Appropriation, and Use of Technology in Larps. In _Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games_. 1–4.
  * Statista (2019) Statista. 2019.  Percentage of U.S. internet users who use Snapchat as of 3rd quarter 2019, by age group.  https://www.statista.com/statistics/814300/snapchat-users-in-the-united-states-by-age/.  Accessed: 2020-8-16.
  * Statista (2020) Statista. 2020.  Distribution of Snapchat users worldwide as of July 2020, by gender.  https://www.statista.com/statistics/326460/snapchat-global-gender-group/.  Accessed: 2020-8-16.
  * Su and Wang (2015) Norman Makoto Su and Lulu Wang. 2015.  From Third to Surveilled Place: The Mobile in Irish Pubs. In _Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems_. 1659–1668.
  * Sweetser and Wyeth (2005) Penelope Sweetser and Peta Wyeth. 2005.  GameFlow: A Model for Evaluating Player Enjoyment in Games.  _Computers in Entertainment (CIE)_ 3, 3 (2005), 3–3.
  * to Start (2021) Six to Start. 2021\.  Zombies, Run!  https://zombiesrungame.com/.  Accessed: 2021-7-13.
  * Turkle (2017) Sherry Turkle. 2017\.  _Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other_.  Hachette UK.
  * Van House (2009) Nancy A Van House. 2009\.  Collocated photo sharing, story-telling, and the performance of self.  _International Journal of Human-Computer Studies_ 67, 12 (2009), 1073–1086.
  * van Rheden and Hengeveld (2016) Vincent van Rheden and Bart Hengeveld. 2016.  Engagement Through Embodiment: A Case For Mindful Interaction. In _Proceedings of the TEI’16: Tenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction_. 349–356.
  * Wang et al. (2017) Xingchao Wang, Xiaochun Xie, Yuhui Wang, Pengcheng Wang, and Li Lei. 2017.  Partner Phubbing and Depression among Married Chinese Adults: The Roles of Relationship Satisfaction and Relationship Length.  _Personality and Individual Differences_ 110 (2017), 12–17.
  * Woźniak et al. (2015) Paweł Woźniak, Kristina Knaving, Staffan Björk, and Morten Fjeld. 2015.  RUFUS: Remote Supporter Feedback for Long-Distance Runners. In _Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services_. 115–124.
  * Yang et al. (2018) Keng-Ta Yang, Chiu-Hsuan Wang, and Liwei Chan. 2018.  Sharespace: Facilitating shared use of the physical space by both vr head-mounted display and external users. In _Proceedings of the 31st Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology_. 499–509.
  * Zhou et al. (2019) Zhuoming Zhou, Elena Márquez Segura, Jared Duval, Michael John, and Katherine Isbister. 2019\.  Astaire: A Collaborative Mixed Reality Dance Game for Collocated Players. In _Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play_. 5–18.