1. 1 Discussion of AIDS Collaboratory Prasun Dewan UNC Chapel Hill/Microsoft

2. 2 Goal and Bias Be a provocateur! –to guide future research Systems person –few interesting things are domain-specific Systems researcher –current systems state of the art not sufficient

3. 3 Collaboration Engineering/Science Collaboration Assumption at Start of Projects AIDS UARC Each domain offers a unique opportunity

4. 4 Collaboration Engineering/Science Collaboration Result at End of Projects? AIDS Research efforts should be divided not by domain But by application feature –technical vs. use dimensions –function vs. implementation dimension –based on common model of interaction

5. 5 Model for Functionality Application Window Version 1 User 1User 2 Coupling Window Version 1 Session Management User Merging Undo/Redo Awareness CC/AC

6. 6 Model for Implementation Model View Windows User 1User 2 Toolkit PC

7. 7 Model for Implementation Windows User 1User 2 Toolkit PC Model View

8. 8 Social Results Significant fraction of people liked CSCW Significant number of useful collaborations took place Previous and other studies have already shown this What was surprising here?

9. 9 Benefits: Towards Being There Face-to-Face Computer-Supported Interaction Network

10. 10 Benefits: Beyond Being There Face-to-Face Computer-Supported Interaction Network Hollan & Stornetta ‘92 Mixed Synchronous/ Asynchronous Collaboration

11. 11 Technical Conclusion Off the shelf tools work fine. –NetMeeting, Timbuktoo, and Virtual PC for app sharing But single tool does not. What would the ideal single tool be? –Specially for also doing beyond being there collaboration?

12. 12 Conclusions Need unifying technical models, dimension space, and tools Let projects be defined not by domain but by points in dimension space –collaboratories should not be a first-class research area –collaboratories for xxx vs collaboratories with xxx