Communication

2. previousresearch on impact of communication channels on collaborative tasks has produced mixed findings … • video channelImportant (Harrison & Minneman, 1990; Tang & Issacs, 1993, Olson, et al., 1997) Communication channels & Collaborative Design • no difference(ROCOCO project)(Maziloglou, et al., 1996) • video channelnotImportant (Vera, et al., 1998; Gabriel, et al., 1998) • beyond being there(Hollan & Stornetta, 1993) Communication

3. face-to-face(FTF) • computer-mediated collaborative design with full communication channels(CMCD-a) Experiments ... • computer-mediated collaborative design with limited communication channels(CMCD-b) Experiments ...

4. 5th & 6th year architecture students @ Architecture Faculty - University of Sydney • 9 pilot experiments using 18 - 6th year students (September 1997) Subjects ... • 26 final experiments using 52 - 5 & 6th year students (September 1998) Subjects ...

5. Brief & Site ... Brief & Site ...

6. Coding Scheme... Coding Scheme ... Coding Scheme ... Coding Scheme

7. differences in communication Observed Differences... • differences in verbal design representations • differences in graphical design representations Observed Differences

8. Observed Differences... Observed Differences

9. Observed Differences... Observed Differences

10. FTF:‘spontaneous’ & participants seemed to talk all the time. Verbal Representation... • CMCD-a:‘spontaneous’ as in FTF, but with less interruptions. • CMCD-b:‘less spontaneous’ than FTF & CMCD-a, with no interruptions or floor holding. Preliminary ...

11. most of the time working simultaneously & spontaneously on or around the same sketch. FTF Graphical Differences... sketching using traditional media (pencil & paper) was smooth & allowed subjects to produce graphical representations with more ease. Differences...

12. sometimes working on separate pages & then looking up each other’s pages to evaluate progress. sketching was spontaneous & at times, accompanied by simple annotations. CMCD-a Graphical Differences... emulating FTF by simultaneously illustrating their verbal utterances with graphical sketches & with the added awkwardness of the mouse may have contributed to sketches that were incomprehensible most of the time. Differences...

13. working on separate pages as in CMCD-a ... sketching was less spontaneous & ... CMCD-b Graphical Differences... ... consequently appeared to be moreelaborateaccompanied by more elaborate annotations most of the time as well as 3Drepresentations... Differences...

14. smooth & straightforward apart from interruptions • natural use of verbal communication plus familiarity of sketching environment, allowed participants to produce graphical representations with more ease. FTF Comments ... • eye contact varied depending on subjects and rarely simultaneous ... Comments...

15. some difficulty in the beginning adjusting to the new medium. • hardly used video channel & most of the time covered it with the brief window for remainder of session. CMCD-a Comments ... • higher levels of social communication, interruptions & repetitions of verbal utterances, in order to establish and maintain on-line presence. • 2D graphical representations most of the time … & not always comprehensible (even by their authors). Comments...

16. difficulty in typing and drawing at the same time. Therefore subjects proceeded to annotate their sketches with verbal representations. • fewer words, less repetition & more thinking/ reflecting with subjects getting straight to the point. Often seen rewording or revisitingverbal representations CMCD-b Comments ... • the semi-synchronous nature of the CMCD-b collaborative environment appeared to allow participants more time to reflect on ideas. • consequently their graphical representations responded to well thought out ideas instead of a spontaneous reactions to the verbal representations at hand. Comments...

17. the three categories of communication for design collaboration explored in the experiments are indicative of the alternatives available now. • some of the differences show that computer-mediation may in some cases, be more appropriate than a FTF meeting, eg CMCD-b produced a better record of the collaborative session than the FTF or the full audio and video experiments. • we observed differences in the way people communicate using different communication channels. In summary... Summary...

18. … we propose that each category has its own strengths and difficulties for design collaboration. • therefore each category should be selected on the basis of the type of communication that would be most effective for the stage and tasks of the design project. • “designers need to decide when they want socially and culturally FTF communication, and when they want and need synchronous or semi-synchronous remote communication.” (Mitchell, 1995) In summary... Summary...

19. Collaborative design in a 3D virtual world, Active Worlds • Verbal communication by typing 3D Collaborative World • Gesture communication with avatars • Design communication through 3D models Summary...

25. Communication Analysis Summary...

26. Communication Analysis Summary...

27. Communication Analysis Summary...

28. Alternatives for drawing or model communication include: sketches, drawings, 3D modelling • Alternatives for verbal communication include: video, audio, chat • Video contact is not essential for effective collaboration while designing • Communication is primarily about the design in CMCD In conclusion