Collaboration Human Computer Interaction CIS 69304930 Section 41884186

Collaboration Human Computer Interaction CIS 6930/4930 Section 4188/4186

Intro ► Old school: individualism ► New School: chat rooms, listserves, MMORPGs, IRC ► Terms: § Alienating and antihuman § socially respectable and occassionally positive § Computer Support Cooperative Work (CSCW) ► Does this include cooperative, collaborative, and competitive? § Groupware (team orientated collaborative interfaces) ► Covers many fields including: ► ► Now a design requirement for most interfaces Everyone must give a presentation on one interface, including § Psychology § Sociology § Invention date, Pros, Cons, Current Usage, Business possiblities, Research areas, Future § Choices: email, IRC, IM, MMORPG, Medical, B 2 B,

Types of Collaboration ► Focused Partnerships – close collaborations between a small group (2 to 3) that require each person § § § Ex. Authors, Medical team, Programmers Needs: Share documents, joint review Apps: IM, Video conference, email, broadband § Needs: Store, replay, broadband § § Needs: many-to-many messaging Apps: Blogs and wikis (group editing spaces) § Apps: online conference/journal managers § Apps: program committees § Apps: b 2 b negotiations § Apps: online town-hall meetings (impacts constituent power) § Apps: MMORPG, Communities of interest (COIs)) and Communities of practice (COPs)) § § Apps: Time sharing unique equipment Benefits from similar file formats § Apps: VR, remote control vehicles ► Lecture/demo – one person shares to others ► Conferences – distributed communication (synchronous and asynchronous) ► Structured Work – group with distinct roles work on a task ► Meeting and decision support – Many people with local and global data (psychology impacts)2 ► Electronic commerce – reviewing data and making decisions as a group (time and space distributed) ► Teledemocracy – groups, organizations, gov’t meetings ► Online Communities – large widely distributed group ► Collabortories – groups that work together over time and space, usually to share equipment, expertise, etc. ► Telepresence – remote participants to have experiences as being present. Notion of co-presence ► Questions about etiquette, subtlety, responsibility, trust

Space – Time Matrix Same Time Different Times Same Place Synchronous local F 2 F Meeting & control rooms Asynchronous local group calendars Different Places Synchronous Distributed chat, IM, video conferencing Asynchronous Distributed e-mail, recordings, blogs

Goals of Collaboration ► ► ► Research is harder w/ collaborative systems Controlled experiments are more complicated § § § Multiple users Distributed nature Lots of data to process § § § Social psych lit Reflective case studies of tools Usage stats Researchers can use: ► What makes some interfaces successful while others not? ► How do you evaluate effectiveness? ► Don’t discount the effect of shared risk in face-to-face meetings that make them compelling § Accepted: Cell phones, email, IM § Research: VE, video conferencing § Acceptance can be misleading (IM, email) § Surveys, usage stats, test scores for teaching apps

Asynchronous Distributed Interfaces ► ► ► ► ► Different methods to support AD collaboration What are the pros and cons of each? E-Mail § § Organization is difficult for large volume users Spam Half of US population uses it List control § § Communications between groups Hiearchical structure § § § Stat: Lurkers outnumber posters by 100: 1 Most unmoderated groups do not survive Support for archiving, sorting, searching § § § § § Topics focused groups Both: good collaboration and addiction and disturbing cyber-identities Successful: Patient support (rare diseases, immobile patients) Generalized Reciprocity – help others believing you will be eventually helped Requires both good interfaces and understanding of the social community Clearly stated purpose, well-defined membership, explicit policies Data-mining in online forums Subset: Distance education courses Subset: Open source communities Newsgroups Listserve (moderated/unmoderated) Discussion Boards (evolved from BBSs) Online conferencing benefits from anytime connectivity Online communities Evolution of emoticons (icons [typically text] that represent an emotional state)

Synchronous Distributed Interfaces ► ► Different Place, Same Time Initial systems: GRoup Outline Viewing Editor (GROVE) ► ► ► Sharing and affecting information dynamically Example research: Distributed acting rehearsals Expansive 3 D environments § Edit the same document simultaneously w/ voice chat § § App: Active. Worlds Research: Role of avatars in these environments Slater What is important for avatars? ► Instant Messenging ► Enables a more even distribution of technology § 28% were simple interactions, 31% about scheduling and coordination § Short Messaging Systems (SMS) – Texting § Short: India fishermen can check dock prices before coming ashore § Allows activists and protestors to organize quickly

Video and Audio Conferencing ► ► ► ► ► Large industry for video and audio conferencing § Companies: Polycom, Sony, VTEL § § § CU-See. ME Net Meeting (screenshot) Allows access to files during conversation § Bandwidth, packet loss, compression quality, latency, action synchronization, FOV § § § Chapanis ’ 75 – importance of audio for review of shared visuals Audio is important, though users often desire video If review of an object is the task, then using video significantly improves performance § § § Is it eye-contact? Lack of 3 D? OOTF Would constant-on video conferencing improve the sense of co-presence? or just intrusive? ( Jancke ’ 01) § Helped: Initial meetings Pros: infrastructure available, cost versus travel, facial expression, some body language Cons: eye contact, intimacy, subtle side meetings, availability, body expression, physical contact Leverage desktop videoconferencing (DTVC) - mid 90 s Considerations: Studies on impact on task performance of audio and visual streams What has restricted more wide usage? Tasks For distance learning: Audio > video > text

Face to Face Interfaces ► ► ► Teams of people working together and sharing technology Ex. pilot & co-pilot, stock traders, air traffic controllers Group. Systems (Univ. of Arizona – Valalcich ’ 91) § Semicircular classroom w/ 24 personal computers built into desks § Anonymous proposals § Study: (Nunamaker ’ 91) discusses benefits ► ► ► Broader input, fewer dominators More candid comments Group history was useful Helped focus the group discussion Improved information analysis Lots of projects on shared spaces § Capture Lab at Electronic Data Systems (Mantei ’ 88) § 8 Macs around an oval desk for business meetings with a central display that any user can take control of § Display walls (Xerox PARC’s Live. Board) ► New tracked pens allow for electronic copies ► Public display walls is a new interaction paradigm that needs new interaction methodologies

Electronic Classrooms ► Most balance learning with § Too much ‘chatting’ § Cheating § Conversations off topic ► New learning and interaction styles § § § More interactive than traditional lectures More prep time Reports of greater efficiency Anxiety is reduced by showing work more often Can support small group dynamics (pairs learn better than individuals for collaboration tasks) ► Time variance reduced with fewer stragglers § Novel simulations: Hostage negotiation, space camp