Collaborating Face-to- face & with NetMeeting & Grove Comp 290-063 (Fall 04)
Feb 09, 2016
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.
GROUP 1 GROUP 2 GROUP 3 GROUP 4Porwal
LuebkeCalandrino
Agiwal
Gyllstrom
Junuzovic
McEuen
ClippingdaleFowlerJordan
Wiegand
Distributed DistributedFace to
Face Face to Face
3.36 6.03 2.50 3.83
Face toFace
Face to FaceDistributed Distributed
4.47 4.67 3.06 3.56
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 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 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.
• 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
– 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 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
– Slow network caused problems.
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.