2. Communication l previous research on impact of communication channels on collaborative tasks has produced mixed findings … beyond being there (Hollan & Stornetta, 1993) l no difference (ROCOCO project) (Maziloglou, et al., 1996) l video channel Important (Harrison & Minneman, 1990; Tang & Issacs, 1993, Olson, et al., 1997) l video channel not Important (Vera, et al., 1998; Gabriel, et al., 1998) Communication channels & Collaborative Design

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

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

5. Brief & Site...

6. Coding Scheme... Codin g Scheme

7. l differences in communication l differences in verbal design representat ions l differences in graphical design re presentations Observed Differences... Observed D ifferences

8. Observed Differences... Observed D ifferences

9. Observed Differences... Observed D ifferences

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

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

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

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

15. l some difficulty in the beginning adjusting to the new medium. l hardly used video channel & most of the time covered it with the brief window for remainder of session. 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). CMCD-a Comments... Comments...

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

17. l 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. l the three categories of communication for design collaboration explored in the experiments are indicative of the alternatives available now. In su m mary... Summary... l we observed differences in the way people communicate using different communication channels.

18. l … we propose that each category has its own strengths and difficulties for design collaboration. l 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. l “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) Summary... In su m mary...

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

25. Summary... Communication Analysis

26. Summary... Communication Analysis

27. Summary... Communication Analysis

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