HCI 3e - Ch 19: Groupware

Groupware What is groupware Types of groupware computer-mediated communication meeting and decisions support systems shared applications and artefacts Models of groupware Implementation issues

What is groupware? Software specifically designed to support group working with cooperative requirements in mind NOT just tools for communication Groupware can be classified by when and where the participants are working the function it performs for cooperative work Specific and difficult problems with groupware implementation

The Time/Space Matrix Classify groupware by: when the participants are working, at the same time or not where the participants are working, at the same place or not Common names for axes: time: synchronous/asynchronous place: co-located/remote different place same place same time different time

Time/Space Matrix (ctd) different place same place same time different time face-to-face conversation telephone post-it note letter

Classification by Function Cooperative work involves: Participants who are working Artefacts upon which they work participants artefacts of work control and feedback P P A communication understanding direct

What interactions does a tool support? computer-mediated communication direct communication between participants meeting and decision support systems common understanding shared applications and artefacts control and feedback with shared work objects participants artefacts of work control and feedback P P A communication understanding direct meeting and decision support systems common understanding computer-mediated communication direct communication between participants shared applications and artefacts control and feedback with shared work objects

computer-mediated communication email and bulletin boards structured message systems text messaging video, virtual environments

Email and bulletin boards asynchronous/remote familiar and most successful groupware Recipients of email: direct in To: field copies in Cc: field delivery identical – difference is social purpose

Email vs. bulletin boards fan out one-to-one – email, direct communication one-to-many – email, distribution lists BBs, broadcast distribution control sender – email, private distribution list administrator – email, shared distribution list recipient – BBs, subscription to topics

Structured message systems asynchronous/remote `super' email – cross between email and a database sender – fills in special fields recipient – filters and sorts incoming mail based on field contents … but – work by the sender – benefit for the recipient

Structured message systems (ctd) N.B. global structuring by designer vs. local structuring by participants Type: Seminar announcement To: all From: Alan Dix Subject: departmental seminar Time: 2:15 Wednesday Place: D014 Speaker: W.T. Pooh Title: The Honey Pot Text: Recent research on socially constructed meaning has focused on the image of the Honey Pot and its dialectic interpretation within an encultured hermeneutic. This talk …

txt is gr8 instant messaging 1996 – ICQ small Israeli company now millions more like conversation SMS y is it we al lv shrt msgs originally a feature of internal management protocol short messages (160 chars) and text with numbers no-one predicted mass adoption!! now phones with cameras for MMS Hi, u there want to meet later yeh, had a good night last night? uhu

SMS in action serious uses too … the ‘SPAM’ system two hostels for ex-psychiatric patients staff send SMS to central number messages appear in both offices avoids using phone ‘ mission critical’ … but used for jokes too!

Video conferences and communication synchronous/remote Technology: ISDN + video compression internet, web cams major uses: video conferences pervasive video for social contact integration with other applications often cheaper than face-to-face meetings (telecommunications costs vs. air flights)

Video issues … not a substitute for face-to-face meetings small field of view lack of reciprocity poor eye contact One solution for lack of eye contact … the video-tunnel

web-video video-conferencing – expensive technology but internet (almost) free! web-cams used for face-to-face chat for video-conferencing for permanent web-cams low bandwidth pictures ‘block out’ … not terrible audio more problematic may use text chat

collaborative virtual environments (CVEs) meet others in a virtual world participants represented – embodiment artefacts too … computer (e.g. spreadsheet) and ‘real’ (virtually) objects text? consistent orientation or easy to read MUDs (Multi-user domains) 2D/3D places to meet on the web users represented as avatars

internet foyer real foyer large screen, camera see virtual world on screen virtual world representation of web see real foyer on virtual screen

meeting and decision support systems argumentation tools meeting rooms shared work surfaces

Meeting and decision support In design, management and research, we want to: generate ideas develop ideas record ideas primary emphasis – common understanding

Three types of system argumentation tools asynchronous co-located recording the arguments for design decisions meeting rooms synchronous co-located electronic support for face-to-face meetings shared drawing surfaces synchronous remote shared drawing board at a distance

argumentation tools asynchronous co-located hypertext like tools to record design rationale Two purposes: remining the designers of the reasons for decisons communicating rationale between design teams Mode of collaboration: very long term sometimes synchronous use also

gIBIS graphical version of IBIS – issue based information system various node types including: issues e.g. ‘number of mouse buttons’ positions e.g. ‘only one button’ arguments e.g. ‘easy for novice’ linked by relationships such as: argument supports position e.g., ‘easy for novice’ supports ‘only one button’

Meeting rooms synchronous co-located electronic support for face-to-face meetings individual terminals (often recessed) large shared screen (electronic whiteboard) special software U or C shaped seating around screen Various modes: brainstorming, private use, WYSIWIS WYSIWIS – ‘what you see is what I see’ all screens show same image any participant can write/draw to screen

Typical meeting room shared screen

meeting capture use ordinary whiteboard detector and special pens LCD projection on whiteboard low-cost alternative to dedicated meeting room

Issues for cooperation Argumentation tools concurrency control two people access the same node one solution is node locking notification mechanisms knowing about others' changes Meeting rooms floor holders one or many? floor control policies who can write and when? solution: locking + social protocol group pointer for deictic reference (this and that)

Shared work surfaces synchronous remote At simplest, meeting rooms at a distance, but … additional audio/video for social protocols and discussion network delays can be major problem Additional special effects: participants write onto large video screen problems with parallax shadow of other participant's hands appears on screen electronic image integrated with video and paper images Example: TeamWorkStation remote teaching of Japanese calligraphy student's strokes on paper overlaid with video of instructor's strokes

shared applications and artefacts shared PCs and windows shared editors, co-authoring tools shared diaries communication through the artefact

Shared Applications and Artefacts Compare purpose of cooperation: meeting rooms and decison support systems – develop shared understanding shared applications and artefacts – work on the same objects technology similar but primary purpose different many different modalities (time/space matrix) shared windows – synchronous remote/co-located shared editors – synchronous remote/co-located co-authoring systems – largely asynchronous shared diaries – largely asynchronous remote shared information – any, but largely asynchronous synchronous remote needs additional audio/video channel

Similar … but different Shared PCs and shared window systems Multiplex keyboard and screen Individual applications not collaboration aware Floor control problems: user A types: `interleave the' user B types: `keystrokes' result: `inkeytersltreaokeve tshe' Shared editors An editor which is collaboration aware One document – several users Similar to shared screen in meeting room … … with similar floor control problems! Additional problem – multiple views

Shared editors - multiple views Options: same view or different view single or separate insertion points Single view  scroll wars Multiple views  loss of context with indexicals

loss of WYSIWIS … ‘I don’t like the line at the top’ ‘but I just wrote that!’ your screen your colleague’s screen We will look at some of the options and how they affect the style of cooperation. Thinking about the shared view vs. different view options, it at first seems obvious that we should allow people to edit different parts of a document. This is certainly true while they are working effectively independently. More adaptable systems are needed to allow for the wide variation between groups, and within the same group over time. We will look at some of the options and how they affect the style of cooperation. Thinking about the shared view vs. different view options, it at first seems obvious that we should allow

Co-authoring systems Emphasis is on long term document production, not editing Two levels of representation the document itself annotation and discussion Often some form of hypertext structure used Similar problems of concurrency control to argumentation systems Sometimes include rôles: author, commentator, reader, … but who decides the rôles? and how flexible are they?

Shared diaries Idea: make diaries and calendars more easily shared allow automatic meeting scheduling etc. Issues for cooperation: privacy – who can see my diary entries? control – who can write in my diary? Similar to file sharing issues, but need to be lightweight Many systems have failed because they ignored these issues

Communication through the artefact When you change a shared application: you can see the effect – feedback your colleagues can too – feedthrough feedthrough enables … communication through the artefact

Shared data Feedthrough – not just with ‘real’ groupware … Shared data is pervasive: shared files and databases casework files (often non-electronic) passing electronic copies of documents passing copies of spreadsheets Often need direct communication as well, but indirect communication through the artefact central Few examples of explicit design for cooperation. Liveware is an exception, a database with ‘merging’ of copies

frameworks for groupware time/space matrix revisited! shared information communication and work awareness

Time/space matrix revisited co-located remote synchronous asynchronous co-authoring systems, shared calendars argumentation tools email and electronic conferences shared work surfaces and editors shared PCs and windows video conferences, video-wall, etc. meeting rooms

Refined time/space matrix Mobile workers and home workers have infrequent communication – they require unsynchronised groupware Need fluid movement between synchronised/unsynchronised operation co-located remote (a) concurrent synchronized (a/b) mixed (b) serial (c) unsynchronized meeting rooms video conferences video-wall, etc. shared work surfaces and editors shared PCs and windows co-authoring systems, shared calendars argumentation tools email and structured messages electronic conferences

Shared information Granularity of sharing chunk size small – edit same word or sentance large – section or whole document update frequency frequent – every character infrequent – upon explicit ‘send’

level of sharing output: shared object shared view shared presentation input: single insertion point – shared virtual keyboard multiple insertion points – other participants visible – group pointer – no visibility

Levels of shared output select houses, population from VILLAGE_STATS where population < 200 sort by houses ascending view object presentation 15 79 123 houses population 7 23 51 population houses 100 50 50 23 339 7 51 VILLAGE_STATS village houses population Burton Marleigh Westfield Thornby 79 671 15 123

types of object to share type of shared data … influences style of sharing linear transcript (e.g. text chat) monotonic – only add - makes things easier … but sequenced – danger of race conditions shared add-only hypertext montonic & unsequenced – several people can add children to same node whiteboard montonic & unsequenced … apart from eraser!! user defined structure complex object – shared hypertext or file system !!!!!!!

ordering problems (race conditions) Alison Brian send send It's a beautiful day Let's go out after work. I agree totally send perhaps not, I look awful after the late party It's a beautiful day. Let's go out after work. Alison It's a beautiful day. Let's go out after work. Alison send perhaps not, I look awful after the late party Alison I agree totally Brian send send send send I agree totally Brian perhaps not, I look awful after the late party Alison

Integrating communication and work Added: deixis – reference to work objects feedthorough – for communication through the artefact Classified groupware by function it supported Good groupware – open to all aspects of cooperation e.g., annotations in co-authoring systems embedding direct communication bar codes – form of deixis, aids diffuse large scale cooperation control and feedback A communication understanding direct deixis feedthrough P P

awareness what is happening? who is there e.g. IM buddy list what has happened … and why? A what has happened who is there P P how did it happen

TOWER – workspace awareness virtual ‘space’ work objects (files etc.) shown as buildings avatars where other people are working built over flexible event infrastructure see http://tower.gmd.de/

implementing groupware feedback and network delays architectures for groupware feedthrough and network traffic toolkits, robustness and scaling

Feedback and network delays At least 2 network messages + four context switches With protocols 4 or more network messages screen feedback user types local machine client remote machine server remote application 1 2 3 4 5 7 9 8 6 network

Types of architecture centralised – single copy of application and data client-server – simplest case N.B. opposite of X windows client/server master-slave special case of client-server N.B. server merged with one client replicated – copy on each workstation also called peer-peer + local feedback race conditions Often ‘half way’ architectures: local copy of application + central database local cache of data for feedback some hidden locking

Client-server architecture client 1 server client 2 client n user 1 user 2 user n … … … …

Shared window architecture Non-collaboration aware applications  client/server approach corresponding feedback problems no ‘functionality’ – in the groupware but must handle floor control example: shared X single copy of real application user stub for each user acts as an X application (X client) one application stub acts like X server for real application user stub passes events to single application stub stubs merge X events coming in and replicate X lib calls going out (strictly protocol)

Shared X user stub 1 application stub user stub 2 user stub n … … … … user 1 user 2 user n … … X X X application X events X lib X events X lib user X application X events X lib

Feedthrough & traffic Need to inform all other clients of changes Few networks support broadcast messages, so … n participants  n–1 network messages! Solution: increase granularity reduce frequency of feedback but … poor feedthrough  loss of shared context Trade-off: timeliness vs. network traffic

Graphical toolkits Designed for single user interaction Problems for groupware include pre-emptive widgets (e.g., pop-up menus) over-packaged text (single cursor, poor view control) notification -based toolkits with callbacks help (chap. 8)

Robustness and scaleability crash in single-user interface – one sad user crash in groupware – disaster ! but … groupware complex: networks, graphics etc. scaling up to large numbers of users? testing and debugging – hard!

… some tips … network or server fails – standard solutions client fails – three `R's for server: robust – server should survive client crash reconfigure – detect and respond to failure resynchronise – catch up when client restarts errors in programming defensive programming simple algorithms formal methods unforeseen sequences of events deadlock – never use blocking I/O never assume particular orders network packet ≠ logical message

scaling and testing scaling up robustness  simple algorithms … but don’t scale well – need to evolve good software architecture helps document fixed-size assumptions know operating system limits (e.g. open files) testing for robustness take off the kid gloves … mistreat it reboot, pull out network cable, random input create a rogue client, simulate high loads and when you think it is perfect … give it to some computing students to test

HCI 3e - Ch 19: Groupware

More Related Content

HCI 3e - Ch 19: Groupware