ICS 463: Intro to Human Computer Example Applications Interaction Design • Workgroups 4. Understanding Users: – Meeting support (GDSS) Collaboration – Distributed teams (CSCL) • Communities – Of practice – Of interest • Learning (CSCL) – Classroom support – Online learning (ALN) Collaborative Systems (CSCW/L) Communicative Issues • CMC: Computer Mediated Communication – Lose proximal cues such as intonation, gesture, gaze, posture – Gain privacy, time to reflect (as well as distance) • Deixis: reference to entity in extralinguistic context – Important for “grounding” (mutual awareness and meaning) – Physically shared context is lost – Gestural deixis is harder - need alternatives Group Awareness Issues Representational Issues • “Articulation work” Two results from my research … – Not directly concerned with the task • Representational Guidance – Synchronous systems: coordination includes – Shared representations constrain what can be said and make some information more salient than others floor control – Thus they can guide collaborating users to use certain – Asynchronous: scheduling, work coordination ontologies, search for certain information, talk about • Online Identity certain issues – How to build familiarity and trust? • Role of Online Representations – Anonymity: Loss of inhibition: good and bad – A representation that is an object of discussion in FTF may also become a discourse medium online as • Group history, protocols, knowledge participants use all available resources to compensate for – How to record/summarize and who will do it lack of FTF channels – How to induct newcomers http://lilt.ics.hawaii.edu/lilt/research/pubs.html 1
Deixis Study (will explain …) Synchronous Co-located • We analyzed the use of graphs as conversational Let’s look for these issues in some resources • Online use of graphs involved: historical and current systems, – Far less use of gestural deixis beginning with group meeting support – About the same use of verbal-only deixis, but only for temporally focused items systems … (no reintroductions) – A greater percentage of reintroductions through direct manipulation – Essays of online participants showed poorer integration of information • Design all media for communication • Reminders of previous work / issues are needed Colab (1987-1992) Colab: Hardware innovations • Xerox PARC • Liveboards – Light-based • Liveboard, individual workstations – Ultrasonic • Software – Cognoter – Argnoter – Boardnoter • Can work in private or public spaces Colab: Cognoter and Argnoter Colab: Portable meetings & ideas • Cognoter: Preparing an outline of a presentation • Vision: Colab workspaces available • Argnoter: Presentation and evaluation of proposals everywhere, interconnected • Three-phase model (others use this too) – Brainstorm/Propose - placed in the workspace – Organize/Argue - annotated by participants – Evaluate - rank evaluation criteria and apply under different belief sets • Example of a Group Decision Support System (GDSS) • http://www2.parc.com/istl/members/stefik/movies/colab.mov 2
Synchronous-Remote CSCW Activity / presence awareness • Typically two components: • Is Jan in his office? • What is he doing? – Shared workspaces • Is he willing to talk? – Natural language interaction • Video • Audio • Textual “chat” • Commercial tools: NetMeeting, Polycom videoconferencing etc. How to know when someone is available? Portals: video image of other office. Research focuses on privacy issues. Surrogates: move your towards the other to indicate interest in conversation. Other’s will shake. If he moves his towards yours, he is accepting: video will appear. Babble (IBM, Erickson et al, 1999) Tickertape (Segall and Arnold, 1997) • Tickertape is a scrolling one-line window, • Circle with marbles going from left to right represents people taking • Group name, sender’s name and text part in message conversation in a chatroom. • Activity coordination, instant collaboration • Those in the middle are doing … the most chatting. • Those towards the outside are less active in the conversation. How does this assist the user in his/her task? Eye Contact Solutions ClearBoard If camera is not centered on video image, it will look Hydra Video Tunnel • Example of an like you are not looking the other person in the eye => inappropriate socially. Here are two solutions. Video attempt to tunnel has camera behind display (see next slide). reintroduce FTF cues with a video tunnel • Expensive specialized hardware Working on a clearboard facing each other enables shared representations and gesturing for deixis while also solving the gaze problem. Each display has a person’s head and a Question: how does this keep the image from being reversed camera: can tell who you’re looking at on the other side? Must reverse image => also reverse video image of person so gestures are correct! 3
Access Grid (HITS on steroids?) I think … Hypermirror (Morikawa and Maesako, 1998) • “Allows people to feel as if they are in the • High bandwidth technology is great if same virtual place even though in physically we can afford it different spaces” • The real issues are in designing the workspaces (representations, (woman in white sweater is in a collaborative work tools) and activity People in different different room to places are superimposed the other three) structures to make effective use of it on the same screen to make them appear as if in same space Bridging FTF & online interaction Early NetLearn Design Sketch • Some conversations are best started in person, but need to be continued at a distance • Can we design for this transition? – Introduce shared workspace while co-present – Continue at a distance – Summarize and bring virtual work back to group meetings • Addresses technology unfamiliarity and establishment of mutual meaning • NetLearn Example … 4
Asynchronous Examples TeamWave • Discussion tools, e.g. Email, Threaded discussions • Variety of tools • Document repositories • User organizes – BSCW http://bscw.gmd.de/ into rooms • Document annotation systems • Rooms are – MS Office whiteboards – Kukakuka, Pink • Synchronous – JIME http://www-jime.open.ac.uk/ (chat) and • Multimedia/Mixed asynchronous – Knowledge Forum (discussion tool, http://kf.oise.utoronto.ca/kfdemo/kfdemo.html workspaces) – Teamwave – Groove http://www.groove.net/ • Group awawareness – who’s where – radar view Teamwave Coherence Problems How is it possible for online discussion to be coherent? Traditional linguistic theory says • Another that coherence is built out of relationships between contiguous discourse units. But that is violated in online chat/discussion. version A: Shall we meet at 8? B: Wow, look at him? A: Yes what a funny hairdo! B: Um, can we meet a bit later? • Sources of coherence problems: – Lack of simultaneous feedback – Lack of shared (physical) context – Disrupted turn adjacency • Manifestations: – Some messages not addressed – Redundant and parallel postings – Topic decay or fragmentation Herring, S. C. (1999). Interactional coherence in CMC. Hawai'i International Conference on the System Sciences, Wailea, Maui, Hawai'i, IEEE CD-ROM. Possible Solutions Design Solutions • Not a problem? • Mechanisms to increase feedback – Lack of constraint is liberating – two way transmission as well as permanent log – not linear: difficult to log – Simultaneous typing is more efficient – space limitations – Multiple simultaneous conversations more interactive – Persistent text aids processing • Enhanced logging/archiving • Users’ solutions: • Tracking and linking threads – Turn completion signals – Automated linking? beyond current NLP technology – Linking and quoting for context – Users indicate message replied to? Extra cognitive – Moderators processing • Designers’ Solutions … – How to display? graphical chains, trees … 5
Recommend
More recommend
