1. CSCW Facilitating group work

2. Fall 2001Guzdial, based on Stasko's2 CSCW zComputer Supported Cooperative Work yStudy of how people work together as a group and how technology affects this ySupport the social processes of work, often among geographically separated people

3. Fall 2001Guzdial, based on Stasko's3 Examples zScientists collaborating on a technical issue zAuthors editing a document together zProgrammers debugging a system concurrently zWorkers collaborating over a shared video conferencing application zBuyers and sellers meeting in eBay

4. Fall 2001Guzdial, based on Stasko's4 Research Focus zOften divided into two main areas ySystems - Groupware xDesigning software to facilitate collaboration ySocial component xStudy of human and group dynamics in such situations

5. Fall 2001Guzdial, based on Stasko's5 Taxonomy Time Place Same Different

6. Fall 2001Guzdial, based on Stasko's6 Taxonomy Time Place Synchronous Co-located Asynchronous Remote Face-to-facePost-it note Phone call Letter E-meeting room Argument. tool Video window, wall Email, newsgroup, CoWeb

7. Fall 2001Guzdial, based on Stasko's7 A more-fleshed out taxonomy

8. Fall 2001Guzdial, based on Stasko's8 Styles of Systems z1. Computer-mediated communication aids z2. Meeting and decision support systems z3. Shared applications and tools

9. Fall 2001Guzdial, based on Stasko's9 Computer-mediated Communication Aids zExamples yEmail, Chats, MUDs, virtual worlds, desktop videoconferencing yExample: CUSee-Me

10. Fall 2001Guzdial, based on Stasko's10 Meeting and Decision Support Systems zExamples yCorporate decision-support conference room xProvides ways of rationalizing decisions, voting, presenting cases, etc. “Delphi” method: magic? xConcurrency control is important yShared computer classroom/cluster xGroup discussion/design aid tools

11. Fall 2001Guzdial, based on Stasko's11 Shared Applications and Tools zExamples yShared editors, design tools, etc. xWant to avoid “locking” and allow multiple people to concurrently work on document xRequires some form of contention resolution xHow do you show what others are doing?

12. Fall 2001Guzdial, based on Stasko's12 Example zTeamrooms - Univ. of Calgary, Saul Greenberg

13. Fall 2001Guzdial, based on Stasko's13

14. Fall 2001Guzdial, based on Stasko's14 Using the CoWebCoWeb

15. Fall 2001Guzdial, based on Stasko's15 Features to support collaboration: Recent Changes and Attachments

16. Fall 2001Guzdial, based on Stasko's16 Handling contention in CoWeb zNo locking yOn the Web, how do you know if someone walks away? zBut if person A edits, then person B starts and saves edit before A saves, how do you deal with it? yOld way: A “wins,” but B’s is available in history for retrieval yCurrent way: xEach edit time is recorded xIf incoming edit time is earlier than last save, then note collision. Provide user with both versions for resolution.

17. Fall 2001Guzdial, based on Stasko's17 Security zWe save everything, zBut it’s mostly social pressure that keeps it working

18. Fall 2001Guzdial, based on Stasko's18 Social Issues zPeople bring in different perspectives and views to a collaboration environment zGoal of CSCW systems is often to establish some common ground and to facilitate understanding and interaction

19. Fall 2001Guzdial, based on Stasko's19 Turn Taking zThere are many subtle social conventions about turn taking in an interaction yPersonal space, closeness yEye contact yGestures yBody language yConversation cues

20. Fall 2001Guzdial, based on Stasko's20 Geography, Position zIn group dynamics, the physical layout of individuals matters a lot y“Power positions”

21. Fall 2001Guzdial, based on Stasko's21 Evaluation zEvaluating the usability and utility of CSCW tools is quite challenging yNeed more participants yLogistically difficult yApples - oranges zOften use field studies and ethnographic evaluations to assist

22. Fall 2001Guzdial, based on Stasko's22 Evaluation Effort at Calgary zhttp://www.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/grouplab/pa pers/2001/01- HeurisiticsMechanics.EHCI/talk/EHCI_2.ht ml

23. Fall 2001Guzdial, based on Stasko's23 When the CoWeb fails... zThe CoWeb has been successful in many settings y(See papers at http://coweb.cc.gatech.edu/csl/Papers) zBut not in Math and Engineering...

24. Fall 2001Guzdial, based on Stasko's24 The Challenge of Engineering and Math: Anecdotes zOn a mandatory assignment involving a math class studying results from Engineering students’ simulations, 40% of math students accepted a zero rather than collaborate with engineers. zWe provided an Equation Editor in the CoWeb for an Engineering and a Math course to facilitate talking about equations. Not a single student even tried the Editor.

25. Fall 2001Guzdial, based on Stasko's25

26. Fall 2001Guzdial, based on Stasko's26 Competition zStudent quotes on “Why didn’t you participate in CoWeb?” “1) didn't want to get railed 2) with the curve it is better when your peers do badly” “since it is a curved class most people don’t want others to do well” (Note: Students claimed that the course grades were “curved” even when there was none!)

27. Fall 2001Guzdial, based on Stasko's27 Learned helplessness zStudent quotes: “I haven't posted about questions because I am confident that my answers are wrong.” “I thought I was the only one having problem understanding what was asked in the exam.” “Who am I to post answers?” “The overall environment for [this class] isn't a very help-oriented environment.” Bottom line: For Collaboration to work in Engineering, must be explicit focus to make it work.