ComputerSupported Cooperative Work CSCW Professor James Landay Spring

Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) Professor James Landay Spring 2002 April 1, 2002 * based on slides by Prof. Canny 4/1/2002 1

Hall of Fame or Shame? 4/1/2002 2

4/1/2002 3

4/1/2002 4

4/1/2002 5

4/1/2002 6

Hall of Shame z z z z Content not given enough screen real estate WARNING not that big of a deal (false alarm) Too many windows Poor layout Bad page titles Links don’t go where expected Doesn’t speak user’s language (doi? ) 4/1/2002 7

Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) Professor James Landay Spring 2002 April 1, 2002 * based on slides by Prof. Canny 4/1/2002 8

Outline z z z Review of Rapid Prototyping Definitions of CSCW & group work Implementation issues Success/Failures Media 4/1/2002 9

Review of Rapid Prototyping z UI tools good for testing more developed UI ideas z Two styles of tools ? y “Prototyping” vs. UI builders y what is the difference? z Both types generally ignore the “insides” of application -> this is research 4/1/2002 10

Collaboration z Current work environments y several people working on personal workstations z Frequently people need to cooperate y create/modify documents, drawings, designs z Two key ways y at different times (asynchronously) x see changes previous workers have made y simultaneously (synchronously) 4/1/2002 x actions taken by user must be seen immediately 11

Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) z Def. : “the study of how people work together using computer technology” z Examples of systems: y y y 4/1/2002 email shared databases/hypertext video conferencing chat systems real-time shared applications x collaborative writing, drawing, games 12

Groupware z Groupware denotes the technology that people use to work together y “systems that support groups of people engaged in a common task (or goal) and that provide an interface to a shared environment. ” z CSCW studies the use groupware y “CSCW is the study of the tools and techniques of groupware as well as their psychological, social, and organizational effects. ” 4/1/2002 13

Types of Cooperation z Focused partnerships y users who need each other to complete a task x often a document or image to work on x e. g. , joint authors of a paper z Lecture or demo y person shares info. with users at remote sites x questions may be asked x may wish to keep history and be able to replay 4/1/2002 14

Types of Cooperation (cont. ) z Conference y group participation distributed in space x at same time or spread out over time z Structured work process y a set of people w/ distinct roles solve task x e. g. , hiring committee accepts applications, reviews, invites top for interviews, chooses, informs y aka “work flow” or “task flow” 4/1/2002 15

Types of Cooperation (cont. ) z Meeting and decision support y meeting w/ each user working at a computer x e. g. , PDA Brainstorming tool z Tele-democracy y online town hall meetings 4/1/2002 16

Groupware Taxonomy Asynchronous Synchron Same place project scheduling, in/out board classro ATC Distributed e-mail, netnews, chat writing video conf. , netmeeting RCS, CAD, 4/1/2002 17

Key Issues z Group awareness z Multi-user interfaces y hard to design/conduct controlled experiments z Concurrency control y consistency and reconciliation z Communication & coordination y can’t see each other -> lose visual cues y floor control 4/1/2002 18

Key Issues (cont. ) z Latency y e. g. , user points at an object and talk z Security and privacy z more. . . 4/1/2002 19

Asynchronous Implementation Issues z Each user may have own copy of data z Must integrate changes at some point y example: programmers working on source z Problems when conflicts between changes y lock portions of work x keeps state well defined, although doesn’t stop semantically incompatible changes y resolve conflicts via integration mechanism 4/1/2002 20

Synchronous Implementation Issues z >=Two users working on same data, at the same time, in cooperation z Extend Model View Controller (MVC) y views & copies of the model are distributed z Propagate command history y must resolve conflicts among N histories y at what level are commands? x mouse position not good enough (e. g. , different font sizes, etc. ) 4/1/2002 21

Social Issues z Can these technologies replace human interaction? y can you send a “handshake” or a “hug” y how does intimacy survive? z Are too many social cues lost? y facial expressions and body language for enthusiasm, disinterest, anger y will new cues develop? e. g. , : ) 4/1/2002 22

Groupware Successes z Email y ubiquitous (your grandparents have it? ) z Newsgroups and mailing lists z Videoconferencing y growing slowly but steadily 4/1/2002 23

Groupware Successes (cont. ) z Lotus Notes y integrates email, newsgroups, call tracking, status, DB searching, document sharing, & scheduling y very successful in corporations y will the Web erode? Notes is more structured 4/1/2002 24

Groupware Failures z Shared calendars y making a come back? web-based? z Why does groupware fail? (Grudin) y y y 4/1/2002 disparity between workers & beneficiaries threats to existing power structures insufficient critical mass (Web reduces) violation of social taboos rigidity that counters common practice or exceptions 25

Success/Failure of Groupware z Depends on competing alternatives y collaborators down the hall or across country? z If users are committed to system, etiquette & conventions will evolve y tend to arise from cultural & task background y users from different orgs or cultural contexts may clash z Synchronous systems that work well for 2 users may be less effective w/ more users 4/1/2002 26

Administrivia z HE assignment now due on Wed. y questions? z My office hours moved to Tue. 2 -3 this week only 4/1/2002 27

Media z Video: Rich, but problems with gaze, gesture, non-verbal communication. z Audio: Conveys meaning well but not necessarily location z Text: Good for synchronous or asynchronous communication z Ink: Good for expressing ideas and brainstorming 4/1/2002 28

Video z Eye contact problems: y Offset from camera to screen y “Mona Lisa” effect z Gesture has similar problems: trying pointing at something 4/1/2002 29

Audio z Good for one-on-one communication z Bad for meetings. Spatial localization is normally lost. Can be put back but tricky. 4/1/2002 30

Turn-taking, back-channeling z In a face-to-face meeting, people do a lot of self-management z Preparing to speak: lean forward, clear throat, shuffle paper z Unfortunately, these are subtle gestures which don’t pass well through today’s technology z Network delays make things much worse 4/1/2002 31

Breakdowns z Misunderstandings, talking over each other, losing the thread of the meeting z People are good at recognizing these and recovering from them “repair” z Mediated communication often makes it harder z E. g. email often escalates simple misunderstandings into flaming sessions 4/1/2002 32

Usage issues z Communication in the real world has both structured & unplanned episodes y meeting by the Xerox machine z Much face-to-face communication is really side-by-side, w/ some artifact as focus 4/1/2002 33

Solutions z Sharing experiences is very important for mutual understanding in team work z Context-based displays (portholes) work well z Video shows rooms & hallways, not just people or seats 4/1/2002 34

Solutions z Props (mobile presences) address most of these issues. They even support exploration. 4/1/2002 35

Solutions z Ishii’s Clearboard: sketching + presence 4/1/2002 36

Face-to-Face: the ultimate? z It depends z Conveys the maximum amount of information, mere presence effects are strong. But… z People spend a lot of cognitive effort managing perceptions of each other z In a simple comparison of F 2 F, phone and email, most subjects felt most comfortable with the phone for routine business contact 4/1/2002 37

Face-to-Face: the ultimate? z Kiesler and Sproull found email-only programming teams were more productive than email+F 2 F teams in a CS course z There you want coordination, commitment, recording z Conclusion: Match the medium to the mission 4/1/2002 38

CSCL: Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning z Sub-area of CSCW concerned with learning & collaboration z Peer interaction is a powerful source of learning, especially in universities z Three powerful models: y TVI, DTVI: recorded instructor, team review y Peer instruction: pauses for group discussion y PBL: Problem-based learning, team problemsolving 4/1/2002 39

Livenotes z Designed to include other learners perspectives into note-taking 4/1/2002 40

Review z CSCW vs. groupware z Taxonomy based on space and time z Key issues y awareness, multi-user UIs, concurrency, communication & coordination, latency z Implementation and social issues y extend MVC y are social cues lost? z Successes (email) & failures (scheduling) 41 4/1/2002

Next Time z In class exercise z Bring two copies of your HE assignment 4/1/2002 42