Collaborating face to face with netmeeting grove
Download
1 / 26

Collaborating Face-to-face & with NetMeeting & Grove - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 69 Views
  • Uploaded on

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.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Collaborating Face-to-face & with NetMeeting & Grove' - eric-ayala


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

Goal of assignment
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
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
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

Set Up


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?

Pros and Cons


Group 2
Group 2

  • John Calandrino

  • Ankur Aigiwal


Set up1

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


Pros and cons1

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


Group 3
Group 3

  • Karl Gyllstrom

  • Henry McCuen

  • Sasa Junuzovic


Set up2

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


Pros and cons2

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


Group 4
Group 4

  • Brett Clippingdale

  • Lisa Fowler

  • Kris Jordan

  • Daniel Wiegand


Set up3

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


Pros and cons3

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


Time results
Time Results

GROUP 1

GROUP 2

GROUP 3

GROUP 4

CSCW 2000

CSCW 2002

Distributed takes less time!


Goal of assignment1
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 11
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.

Groove vs. Email


Group 21
Group 2

  • John Calandrino

  • Ankur Aigiwal


Groove vs email1

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


Group 31
Group 3

  • Karl Gyllstrom

  • Henry McCuen

  • Sasa Junuzovic


Groove vs email2

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


Group 41
Group 4

  • Brett Clippingdale

  • Lisa Fowler

  • Kris Jordan

  • Daniel Wiegand


Groove vs email3

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


Conclusions groove vs email
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.


ad