Collaborating Face-to-face & with NetMeeting & Grove Comp (Fall 04)

Goal of Assignment Read abstracts of CSCW’00 & CSCW’02 papers. Classify them collaboratively based on –Application area –Tasks –Issues –Disciplines Use face to face for one proceedings and NetMeeting for another. Note times for classifying each paper. Write document using Groove comparing face to face and NetMeeting experiences. Write document using chosen collaboration technology comparing Groove with Assumed document will be written synchronously

Unconstrained Factors How many computers used in face to face. Whether distributed users use IM or phone for communication. What apps were shared in distributed setting How large the groups were. How evenly distributed the partitioning. How many sessions used for each task. Which Groove tools used.

Group 1 William Luebke Priyank Porwal

Set Up Face to face set up –# computers: 1 –Division of labor One person managing browser windows and Excel table 2 nd user just contributed. NetMeeting Set Up –Excel and browser shared through NetMeeting –Shared windows occupied complete screen –NM chat used. –Division of labor One person communicated

Pros and Cons No technical difficulties in starting. Eye contact Audio communication made it easy to discuss. Felt it was faster. –Need to calculate Not shuttled from room to room. Could play music in background. Concurrency –Used?

Group 2 John Calandrino Ankur Aigiwal

Set Up Face to face set up –# computers: 1 –Division of labor One person in control 2 nd user just contributed. NetMeeting Set Up –All relevant windows shared –Audio chat used –Division of labor One person mainly in control Other occasionally edited table

Pros and Cons No technical difficulties in starting. Eye contact Audio communication made it easy to discuss. No delays in communication –NetMeeting significant delay when non hosting user input. –NetMeeting – switching of windows by hosting user not seen by remote user. No awkwardness of control exchange F2F preferred overall. Did not gesture in face to face so lack of gestures not an issue. Higher cost of communication made classification time longer. Lack of sufficient physical space not a problem – no need to huddle in front of computer.

Group 3 Karl Gyllstrom Henry McCuen Sasa Junuzovic

Set Up Face to face set up –# computers: 2 –Division of labor One person managing browser windows –Class PPT presentation, Class notes, abstracts One person filled classification Excel table 3 rd user just contributed. NetMeeting Set Up –Excel shared through NetMeeting –Class PPT presentation and abstracts not shared to allow independent views –NM chat used. –Division of labor Not specified.

Pros and Cons No technical difficulties in starting. Pointing and communication using body gestures. Faster communication using audio. Group would focus and relax synchronously based on cues. Easier to challenge a person’s ideas. In NM more irrelevant items were added No occlusion of shared windows by pvt windows. Browser windows had to be manually synchronized Average time per abstract less because less challenges (and chit chat?) despite using text communication Multiple users could control shared state – text contents, window position. –Typed messages in cells. Could have private , browser, music. Chat history referred to later. Asynchronously replied later. Succinct suggestions –Concurrency  dbms –I think that because we have concurrency in the tasks column we should have dbms in the right column

Group 4 Brett Clippingdale Lisa Fowler Kris Jordan Daniel Wiegand

Set Up Face to face set up –Session 1 Two projectors Abstracts table in separate projectors –Session 2 Three computers for abstract, class notes, and classification document –Division of labor? One person per computer? NetMeeting Set Up –Session 1 Non shared window recording classification Abstract shared –Session 2 Classification shared –IM used –Division of labor One person mainly in control of shared window

Pros and Cons More discussion. Easier communication –Lack of latency –Gestures, body language Audio communication made it easy to discuss. No delays in communication –NetMeeting significant delay when non hosting user input. –NetMeeting – switching of windows by hosting user not seen by remote user. Person in charge of control did not dominate and others did not become passive. Clear when someone absent or distracted. In NetMeeting technical difficulties and establishing awareness took 30 minutes Less distraction. Brevity Phone call or interruption of one person stopped everyone (pro or con?) Did not gesture in face to face so lack of gestures not an issue. Higher cost of communication made classification time longer. Lack of sufficient physical space not a problem – no need to huddle in front of computer.

GROUP 1GROUP 2GROUP 3GROUP 4 Porwal Luebke Calandrino Agiwal Gyllstrom Junuzovic McEuen Clippingdale Fowler Jordan Wiegand Distributed Face to Face Face to Face Face to Face Face to FaceDistributed CSCW 2000 CSCW 2002 Time Results Distributed takes less time!

Goal of Assignment Read abstracts of CSCW’00 & CSCW’02 papers. Classify them collaboratively based on –Application area –Tasks –Issues –Disciplines Use face to face for one proceedings and NetMeeting for another. Note times for classifying each paper. Write document using Groove comparing face to face and NetMeeting experiences. Write document using chosen collaboration technology comparing Groove with Assumed document will be written synchronously

Group 1 William Luebke Priyank Porwal

Groove vs. Groove tools –Workspace Chat –Real-time Editor (after abandoning Word co- editing) Process –Concurrently created Outline using chat –Concurrently alternated between fleshing out outline and editing other person’s text –One person formatted and then other person pasted to Word Pros –Better suited for quick feedback to small amt of information s over 4 days in mail-based coauthoring –Shared version: no need to pass documents around Cons –Records of changed explicitly saved in . –Persistent store in . – more formal and messages may be better crafted.

Group 2 John Calandrino Ankur Aigiwal

Groove vs. Groove tools –Word co-edit Process –Initial draft written by one person during co- editing. –Other person took over, underlining edits –Initial person then took over, also underlining edits. Pros –Could complete edits before feedback given Unnecessary comments not given –Mail communication more heavyweight than mouse-click based communication Communications fewer. –No need to merge document. –Good computing and communication infrastructure needed. Cons –Requesting and relinquishing control took too much time. –Edits not seen until document saved. –Prefer with given computing and comm power.

Group 3 Karl Gyllstrom Henry McCuen Sasa Junuzovic

Groove vs. Groove tools –Workspace Chat –Real-time Editor Process –Unspecified – assume concurrent editing –Each user assigned unique font color Pros –Instant feedback and prevention of conflicts –Undo allowed easy transition to previous state –Shared version: No need to pass documents around –Tied to PCs. Cons –Communication not time stamped. –Steep learning curve –Highlighting by one user and editing by other sometimes lead to lost work. –Multiple edits caused unintended window scrolling –Slow network caused problems.

Group 4 Brett Clippingdale Lisa Fowler Kris Jordan Daniel Wiegand

Groove vs. Groove tools –Word co-edit Process –Initial draft put in document review tool and message put in discussion board. –Asynchronously commented and edited using user-specific font color. –Word co-edit used to finalize changes. Pros –Persistent chat useful. –No overhead of sending, reading, organizing mails. –Notification of file changes. –Notification of online status. Cons –Edits had to be explicitly pushed. –Lag caused inconsistent delays. –Chat did not support consistent order.

Conclusions: Groove vs. Asynchronous communication –Groove lighter-weight No need to write, read, organize mail. –Provides awareness and presence information. –Requires more computing power. Synchronous collaboration –Requires more communication bandwidth –Allows more communication –Word co-edit Pushing of changes and delay major problem. Avoiding unnecessary comments minor advantage –Special text editor Implicit sharing big win. Tracking revisions or author of change would have been useful.