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.