Collaborating Face-to-face & with NetMeeting & Grove

1. Collaborating Face-to-face & with NetMeeting & Grove Comp 290-063 (Fall 04)

2. 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

3. 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.

4. Group 1 • William Luebke • Priyank Porwal

5. 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 Set Up

6. 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? Pros and Cons

7. Group 2 • John Calandrino • Ankur Aigiwal

8. 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 Set Up

9. 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. Pros and Cons

10. Group 3 • Karl Gyllstrom • Henry McCuen • Sasa Junuzovic

11. 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. Set Up

12. 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 Pros and Cons

13. Group 4 • Brett Clippingdale • Lisa Fowler • Kris Jordan • Daniel Wiegand

14. 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 Set Up

15. 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. Pros and Cons

16. Time Results GROUP 1 GROUP 2 GROUP 3 GROUP 4 CSCW 2000 CSCW 2002 Distributed takes less time!

17. 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

18. Group 1 • William Luebke • Priyank Porwal

19. 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. Groove vs. Email

20. Group 2 • John Calandrino • Ankur Aigiwal

21. 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. Groove vs. Email

22. Group 3 • Karl Gyllstrom • Henry McCuen • Sasa Junuzovic

23. 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. Groove vs. Email

24. Group 4 • Brett Clippingdale • Lisa Fowler • Kris Jordan • Daniel Wiegand

25. 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. Groove vs. Email

26. 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.