Collaborative Applications

1. Collaborative Applications Prasun Dewan Department of Computer Science University of North Carolina CB 3175 Sitterson Hall Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3175 dewan@cs.unc.edu http:/www.cs.unc.edu/~dewan

2. Definition Collaborative Application I/O I/O Coupling User 2 User 1 Potentially Real-Time

3. send receive hi hello hi hello save load User 1 User 2 User 1 User 2 User 1 User 2 Traditional Collaborative Applications File Mail Talk

4. Implicit Comm. Explicit Comm. Implicit Comm. Private Messages Session-based Artifact-based Auto Notification Auto Notification Polling Asynchronous Synchronous Asynchronous Traditional Collaborative Applications File Mail Talk save load send receive hi hello hi hello User 1 User 2 User 1 User 2 User 1 User 2

5. Implicit Comm. Artifact-based Session-based Synchronous Artifact-based Private Messages Session-based Explicit Messages Implicit & Explicit Comm. Artifact-based Session-based Synchronous & Asynchronous Novel Collaborative Applications File++ Mail++ Talk++ Talk + File File + Mail Talk + Mail File + Mail + Talk

6. Talk++ • Talk++ • Mail++ • File++ • Talk + Mail • Talk + File • Mail + File • Talk + Mail + File

7. Talk Screen Division • Screen gets divided among two users. • Each portion shows history of user’s input. • Each user’s input seen incrementally. • N-Users?

8. Semi-Synchronous N-User Talk • A single history shared by all users • User’s input not seen incrementally. • Concurrent unseen typing can lead to history misinterpretation • User does not know if newly shown text was entered concurrently

9. Horizontal Time Line Horizontal time line in Flow Chat (Vronay, Smith et al. 99), • Users see concurrent input. • Time line of committed text for third party • Textless box created for uncommitted text • Long conversations will not fit. • Incremental input of users in other threads of conversations distracting

10. Vertical Time Line • Comic-book metaphor • Incremental input not shown – empty balloon created • Does not work for large # users Vertical time line in Freeway (Vronay 2002)

11. Threaded Chat • Scales to large # users & supports long conversations • New message response to clicked message. • Incremental input not shown, but empty box created • Chronological order not shown • New items gradually fade to grey. • Fewer messages, balanced participation, but users less comfortable and same task performance. • Overhead of responding to message? • Associate default thread with message • Structure? Threaded Chat (Smith, Cadiz et al. 2000)

12. Babble Persistent Sessions and Involvement Degree dewan CSCW Demo • User List • Involvement Degree • Topic List • Current messages wu Faculty Retreat sherman Comp 14 omojokun From: PD Is the grading sheet ready • Persistent sessions • Social topics synchronous • Work topics asynchronous From: Omojokun About to post it. Bradner et al ‘99

13. John Mary John says, “Hi everyone” You say, “Hi everyone” John smiles You smile MUDs: Textual Virtual Reality (Wizard) John has entered the room (hear footsteps) Say Hi everyone Emote smiles Whisper “Boring” to Joe Look John You whisper, “Boring” to Joe John’s textual description @who Move John to public place Name Connect Idle Time Time Change John’s description Disallow John whisper Disallow John from this room Make John a wizard

14. Line of Site Graphical VR • MUD place represented as 3-D space • Users represented as avatars in 3-D space. • Line of site communication • Move avatars close to users of interest. • Can express emotions Avatars in V-Chat (Smith, Farnham et al. 2000)

15. Session DIVE: Aura-based Graphical VR • Avatar interaction • With another user enables communication • With app enables sharing. • Transitive • Multiple auras • Podium - perception and communication. Determine whether can speak into/hear the speaker. • Table – perception and distribution. Determine if distributed document is shared or private. Aura User 2 User 3 Application User 4 User 1 Fahlen, Stahl et al ‘93

16. MASSIVE: Aura and Nimbus Aura • Speaker’s aura must intersect listener’s nimbus • User 2 can hear User 1 Nimbus User 1 User 2 Greenhalgh & Benford 95

17. MASSIVE: Aura and Nimbus • Speaker’s aura must intersect listener’s nimbus • User 1cannot hear user 2 Nimbus Aura User 1 User 2 Greenhalgh & Benford 95

18. Elvin CofeeBiff: Textual Remote VR # of people in coffee room Scrolling user list. Can get notified when # > threshold (party!)

19. Video Walls: Video-based Remote VR Camera & Microphone Camera & Microphone Screen & Speaker Screen & Speaker Room 1 Room 2

20. Two Remote Rooms • Goal: spontaneous collaboration • See CNN to attract attention • Moderately useful • N rooms? Display of two remote kitchens, local image, and video to attract attention (Jancke, Venolia et al. 2001)

21. Media Space Map Room 2 Room 4 • Selecting a room starts video conference with user • Can be abrupt

22. Office Walker • Each office has virtual neighbors • Clicking on office places caller in virtual hallway • Neighbors can see small image. • User can approach to create bigger image. • Office worker, neighbors, visitors and initiate talk. Interaction Model (Obata, Sazaki 98)

23. Two Remote Rooms • Media space/Office Walker intended for 1-1 • Connected Kitchens can be used for 1-N • Speaker focus? Display of two remote kitchens, local image, and video to attract attention (Jancke, Venolia et al. 2001)

24. Overview + Speaker • Omni-directional set of cameras to create overview image. • Shot of current speaker sent separately. • Speaker can be selected manually by buttons. • Auto detection • Speaker’s voice received by his microphone first. • Audio triangulation can be used when each speaker does not have microphone. • Custom zooming? • on non speaker or speaker? Overview, speaker and persons selection buttons (Rui, Gupta et al. 2001)

25. 3-D Telepresence • Multiple cameras used to create 3-D Model of Room • Remote site can navigate in this model • With or without tracking • Can focus on speaking person • Or patient! UNC Office of the Future

26. Gesture Cam: Remote Surrogate • Can determine which objects to look at • As in office of the future • Can point to specific objects • As in Clearboard Figure originally appears in [30]

27. Gesture Cam: Architecture Figure Originally appears in [30]

28. Colab. PsyBench

29. PsyBench

30. Psy Bench Architecture

31. In Touch

32. In Touch Architecture

33. Merging Graphical VR and TelePresence?

34. Mixed reality: Internet Foyer • Physical Foyer • Public visiting place • Virtual foyer • 3-D image visualization of web pages with avatars • Clicking on page opens the page shows 2-d images of people browsing it. • Mixed reality • Physical foyer has video wall to 3-D visualization and avatars • Virtual foyer has video of physical foyer Benford ‘95

35. Scrollable remote audience view Speaker video Slide Video Question & Vote Status Video Picture Text Comm. Text Descrip. TELEP: Presentation to large # users Lecture Site Remote Site • Questions seldom asked • Local audience not seen remotely Display at lecture (left) and remote site (right) (Jancke, Grudin et al. 2000)

36. Video Production Lecture • Same screen for lecture and audience view • Switch to speaking audience member as soon as tracked • If no one tracked, show overview • If lecturer speaking, occasionally show random audience member • A shot should be shown for a max and min time. • Always show person from the same side. • Two consecutive shots should be very different Figure 4: Cameras and their placement (Liu, Rui et al. 2001)

37. Video vs. App. Sharing • Screen shot can be shared through video broadcast or app sharing • App sharing cheaper, with better fidelity. • Allows collaborative input. • E.g. multiple presenters • Integrating with video for non-computer objects?

38. TeamWorkstation: Integrated Desktop & Computer Awareness • Each user has personal and shared computer • Shared computer can provide various overlays (Ishii 90)

39. TELE-SCREEN Editing paper xxxx yyyyy

40. TELE-DESK Editing paper xxxx yyyyy

41. SCREEN-OVERLAY Editing paper xxxx yyyyy

42. DESK-OVERLAY Editing paper xxxx yyyyy

43. SCREEN & DESK OVERLAY Editing paper xxxx yyyyy

44. COMPUTER SHARING • Computer shared by capturing and distributing video to the monitor • Keystrokes also captured and distributed by hardware. • Everything overlaid is video • No software needed Editing paper xxxx yyyyy

45. SUMMARY OF MODES (Ishii 90)

46. Awareness of Collaborator • Must look away from work area to see collaborators’ image. • Do not know what object the collaborator is gazing at. • Overlay Video?

47. Clearboard: Collaborator Awareness Figure available from http://ishii.www.media.mit.edu/people/ishii/CB.html.

48. Clearboard: Architecture • Mirror image transmitted when LCD screen in transparent mode. • Video projected when in scattering mode. • Digitizer pen used to track user input. Figure first appeared in [26]

49. Clearboard: Drafter Mirror • Coupling two non electronic whiteboards. • Half-slivered mirror • Fluorescent marker • See two hand images • One captured directly • One reflected • Polarized film and filter on each camera prevents feedback between screen pairs Figure first appeared in [26]

50. Two Gaze Awareness Problem • Object of interest: Do we know what object on the screen the collaborator is looking at. • Clearboard and Facetop address this. • Person of interest: Do we know which one of many collaborators a person is addressing • Hydra, MAJIC address this