Download Write document using Groove comparing face to face and

Collaborating Face-to-face &
with NetMeeting & Grove
Comp 290-063 (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 email
• 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
• 2nd 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
• 2nd 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
• 3rd 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 email,
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.
Time Results
GROUP 1
GROUP 2
GROUP 3
GROUP 4
Calandrino
Gyllstrom
Agiwal
Junuzovic
Clippingdale
Fowler
Jordan
Wiegand
Porwal
Luebke
CSCW 2000
McEuen
Face to
Face
Distributed
Face to Face
Distributed
4.47
4.67
3.06
3.56
Distributed
Face to
Face
Distributed
3.36
6.03
2.50
CSCW 2002
Face to Face
Distributed takes less time!
3.83
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 email
• Assumed document will be written synchronously
Group 1
• William Luebke
• Priyank Porwal
Groove vs. Email
• Groove tools
– Workspace Chat
– Real-time Editor (after
abandoning Word coediting)
• 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.
• 200 emails over 4 days in
mail-based coauthoring
– Shared version: no need to
pass documents around
• Cons
– Records of changed
explicitly saved in email.
– Persistent store in email.
– Email more formal and
messages may be better
crafted.
Group 2
• John Calandrino
• Ankur Aigiwal
Groove vs. Email
• Groove tools
– Word co-edit
• Process
• Pros
– Could complete edits before
feedback given
• Unnecessary comments not given
– Mail communication more
heavyweight than mouse-click
based communication
– Initial draft written by
• Communications fewer.
one person during co– No need to merge document.
editing.
– Good computing and
communication infrastructure
– Other person took over,
needed.
underlining edits
• Cons
– Initial person then took
– Requesting and relinquishing
control took too much time.
over, also underlining
– Edits not seen until document
edits.
saved.
– Prefer email with given computing
and comm power.
Group 3
• Karl Gyllstrom
• Henry McCuen
• Sasa Junuzovic
Groove vs. Email
• 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
Group 4
•
•
•
•
Brett Clippingdale
Lisa Fowler
Kris Jordan
Daniel Wiegand
Groove vs. Email
• 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. email
• 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.