CSCW
description
Transcript of CSCW
CSCW
Facilitating group work
Fall 2001 Guzdial, based on Stasko's 2
CSCW
Computer Supported Cooperative Work Study of how people work together as a
group and how technology affects this Support the social processes of work,
often among geographically separated people
Fall 2001 Guzdial, based on Stasko's 3
Examples
Scientists collaborating on a technical issue
Authors editing a document togetherProgrammers debugging a system
concurrentlyWorkers collaborating over a shared video
conferencing applicationBuyers and sellers meeting in eBay
Fall 2001 Guzdial, based on Stasko's 4
Research Focus
Often divided into two main areas Systems - Groupware
Designing software to facilitate collaboration
Social componentStudy of human and group dynamics in
such situations
Fall 2001 Guzdial, based on Stasko's 5
Taxonomy
Time
Place
Same
Same
Different
Different
Fall 2001 Guzdial, based on Stasko's 6
Taxonomy
Time
Place
Synchronous
Co-located
Asynchronous
Remote
Face-to-face Post-it note
Phone call Letter
E-meeting room Argument. tool
Video window,wall
Email, newsgroup, CoWeb
Fall 2001 Guzdial, based on Stasko's 7
A more-fleshed out taxonomy
Fall 2001 Guzdial, based on Stasko's 8
Styles of Systems
1. Computer-mediated communication aids
2. Meeting and decision support systems
3. Shared applications and tools
Fall 2001 Guzdial, based on Stasko's 9
Computer-mediated Communication Aids
Examples Email, Chats, MUDs, virtual worlds,
desktop videoconferencing Example: CUSee-Me
Fall 2001 Guzdial, based on Stasko's 10
Meeting and Decision Support Systems
Examples Corporate decision-support conference
roomProvides ways of rationalizing decisions,
voting, presenting cases, etc.• “Delphi” method: magic?
Concurrency control is important
Shared computer classroom/clusterGroup discussion/design aid tools
Fall 2001 Guzdial, based on Stasko's 11
Shared Applications and Tools
Examples Shared editors, design tools, etc.
Want to avoid “locking” and allow multiple people to concurrently work on document
Requires some form of contention resolutionHow do you show what others are doing?
Fall 2001 Guzdial, based on Stasko's 12
Example
Teamrooms - Univ. of Calgary, Saul Greenberg
Fall 2001 Guzdial, based on Stasko's 13
Fall 2001 Guzdial, based on Stasko's 14
Using the CoWeb
QuickTime™ and aQuickDraw decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Fall 2001 Guzdial, based on Stasko's 15
Features to support collaboration:Recent Changes and Attachments
Fall 2001 Guzdial, based on Stasko's 16
Handling contention in CoWeb
No locking On the Web, how do you know if someone walks away?
But if person A edits, then person B starts and saves edit before A saves, how do you deal with it? Old way: A “wins,” but B’s is available in history for
retrieval Current way:
Each edit time is recorded If incoming edit time is earlier than last save, then note
collision. Provide user with both versions for resolution.
Fall 2001 Guzdial, based on Stasko's 17
Security
We save everything,
But it’s mostly social pressure that keeps it working
Fall 2001 Guzdial, based on Stasko's 18
Social Issues
People bring in different perspectives and views to a collaboration environment
Goal of CSCW systems is often to establish some common ground and to facilitate understanding and interaction
Fall 2001 Guzdial, based on Stasko's 19
Turn Taking
There are many subtle social conventions about turn taking in an interaction Personal space, closeness Eye contact Gestures Body language Conversation cues
Fall 2001 Guzdial, based on Stasko's 20
Geography, Position
In group dynamics, the physical layout of individuals matters a lot “Power positions”
Fall 2001 Guzdial, based on Stasko's 21
Evaluation
Evaluating the usability and utility of CSCW tools is quite challenging Need more participants Logistically difficult Apples - oranges
Often use field studies and ethnographic evaluations to assist
Fall 2001 Guzdial, based on Stasko's 22
Evaluation Effort at Calgary
http://www.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/grouplab/papers/2001/01-HeurisiticsMechanics.EHCI/talk/EHCI_2.html
Fall 2001 Guzdial, based on Stasko's 23
When the CoWeb fails...
The CoWeb has been successful in many settings (See papers at
http://coweb.cc.gatech.edu/csl/Papers)But not in Math and Engineering...
Fall 2001 Guzdial, based on Stasko's 24
The Challenge of Engineering and Math: Anecdotes
On a mandatory assignment involving a math class studying results from Engineering students’ simulations, 40% of math students accepted a zero rather than collaborate with engineers.
We provided an Equation Editor in the CoWeb for an Engineering and a Math course to facilitate talking about equations. Not a single student even tried the Editor.
Fall 2001 Guzdial, based on Stasko's 25
Fall 2001 Guzdial, based on Stasko's 26
Competition
Student quotes on “Why didn’t you participate in CoWeb?”“1) didn't want to get railed 2) with the curve it is better when your peers do badly”“since it is a curved class most people don’t want others to do well”
(Note: Students claimed that the course grades were “curved” even when there was none!)
Fall 2001 Guzdial, based on Stasko's 27
Learned helplessness
Student quotes:“I haven't posted about questions because I am confident that my answers are wrong.”“I thought I was the only one having problem understanding what was asked in the exam.”“Who am I to post answers?”“The overall environment for [this class] isn't a very help-oriented environment.”
Bottom line: For Collaboration to work in Engineering,must be explicit focus to make it work.