We have debated the merits of pen interfaces, and this paper has focused on the use of pen-based interfaces to the exclusion of other input mechanisms. There are advantages to using paper and pen or even a keyboard for student notes instead an electronic device. Paper is familiar, cheaper, more robust, and has much higher resolution than the current generation of pen-based computers. Conventions taught to note-takers can support time-stamping, but not without introducing an added burden and the chance for errors in the capture. This shortcoming could be removed through vision technology, such as demonstrated by the DigitalDesk [11], or by anchoring the paper on a digitizing tablet, similar to the prototype developed by Stifelman [14].
Some students noted that they can type faster than they can write and that the typed-in information is immediately available for content-based search mechanisms. We stayed away from keyboards because we felt the constant tapping of the keys would be a distraction in the class. We also feel that the purpose of Classroom 2000 is not to enable a student to take more notes, but rather to be more efficient note-takers.
The use of an electronic whiteboard was universally favored in the classroom, and the LiveBoard provided an excellent, albeit expensive, solution. It is still too small, both in terms of physical size and screen resolution (VGA), to consider replacing existing whiteboards. It is roughly the size of a whiteboard in an office or small meeting room and about a third the size in real estate of even the smallest classroom whiteboards. Our experience shows that the computational capability of the LiveBoard is useful for both encouraging group exercises in a class and also creating an accurate record of some class activity. We recommend that researchers investigate ways to provide larger scale interactive surfaces, both in terms of display size and resolution.
Future Computing Environments