Computer Supported Coooperative Work (CSCW)GoalsInvestment GameGroup WorkSlide 5Slide 6What is CSCW?Models for CSCW – By UseGrudin’s Time/Space ModelWritely TimeCase Study 1: Structured EmailSpeech Acts – Conversations for Action (1910’s)Coordinator – (Winograd, 1988)Slide 14Coordinator failed in practiceLessons LearnedWorkflowWorkflow: Response to CoordinatorCase Study 2: Video ConferencingSlide 20When you interact with a face, what do you want it to do?AnswerPersuasiveness (Werkhoven et al., 2001)Trust FormationSlide 25Socially Relevant FactorsMultiView Video ConferencingMona Lisa EffectSlide 29Slide 30Slide 31Slide 32Slide 33Slide 34Slide 35MultiView Directional DisplaySlide 37Slide 38Slide 39Slide 40Slide 41Slide 42ResultsSlide 44Group ExerciseComputer Supported Coooperative Work (CSCW)CS260 – Human Computer InteractionsSeptember 17, 2006GoalsExposure to a couple CSCW type experimentsOverview some interesting case studies of CSCW applications.Learn some socially relevant aspects for CSCW designHave some fun.Investment GameI have some extra money. Let me give to it to you guys.Each of you will be paired off with someone else. Half of you will know who you are paired with, the other half will not.I will give each of you $5. You decide whether or not you want to cooperatively invest with your partner (whether or not you know who this person is).Those of you who know who your partners are get to talk to them first.Everyone will make their decisions in confidentiality. If neither of you cooperate, you guys get to keep your $5. If you both cooperate, then I’ll give each person $6. If one person cooperates and the other doesn’t, the person who doesn’t cooperate gets to keep their money AND their partner’s money ($10). The person who does cooperate goes home with nothing.Group WorkHalf of you will work individually, half of you will work in groups of 3.You’re coming up with two lists:1. CSCW Applications (AIM, Netmeeting, Wikis, etc) you use2. Things you do with CSCW applicationsGroup WorkThose of you who worked in teams of 3, please count the number of items you have in your list.Those of you who worked individually, please group up in teams of three and count the number of unique items you have in your list.VR ChatsWhat is CSCW?“CSCW is about groups of users – how to design systems to support their work as a group and how to understand the effect of technology on their work patterns.What makes studying CSCW so difficult?–The very thing that makes CSCW important is the very thing that makes it so difficult – groups–We are great at working in groups. We are horrible at knowing why!Models for CSCW – By UseTools that support Understanding – capturing common understanding.Tools that support Direct Communication – supporting the direct communication between participantsTools that support Control and Feedback – supporting the participants’ interaction with shared work objectsUnderstandingDirect CommunicationArtifactParticipantParticipantControl and FeedbackGrudin’s Time/Space ModelCoLocated RemoteSynchronous Meeting RoomsVideo conferencingAsynchronousArgumentation ToolsEmailWritely TimeSmall GroupsOrganize your CSCW tools according to these models of CSCW.Anything doesn’t fit quite right? Anything fits in more than one area?Compare and Contrast these two models.Case Study 1: Structured EmailSpeech Acts – Conversations for Action (1910’s)Alison: Have you got the market survey on chocolate mouse?Brian: Sure.Rummages in filing cabinet and hands it to AlisonBrian: There you are.Alison: Thanks.Coordinator – (Winograd, 1988)Applied Speech Acts theory to a tool for supporting communication as structured email.1. Alison selects appropriate speech act2. Alison enters “Have you got the market survey on chocolate mouse?”3. Brian receives Alison’s message, is told it’s a request and must select from valid conversational moves (promise, counter-offer, decline, etc).4. A default messages is produced, “I promise to do as you request”. Brian may alter this message.5. Interaction is not considered complete until Speech Act is in a terminal state.Writely TimeSmall GroupsHow do you think Coordinator did?Why?Consider the socially relevant aspects of Coordinator and the Speech Acts theory.Coordinator failed in practiceMost people have abandoned Coordinator.People who use coordinator ignore the Speech Acts elements and use it as a regular email client.Coordinator only remained in use with strong authoritarian orders from management–“The world’s first fascist computer system”Lessons LearnedDo not impose a theory which captures a limited subset of the richness of human communications on an otherwise more expressive communication tool–People do not like tools that undermine their authority and limit their power.Do not make what is generally implicit, explicit; forcing people to think about their actions in a non-productive way.–People are experts at communicating. They are not experts at how people communicate.WorkflowDocuments carry meta-data that describes their flow through the organization:–Document X should be completed by Celeste by 4/15–Doc X should then be reviewed by Hannes by 4/22–Doc X should then be approved by Yongwook by 4/29–Doc X should finally be received by Kenghao by 5/4The document “knows” its route. With the aid of the system, itwill send reminders to its users, and then forward automatically at the time limit.Workflow: Response to CoordinatorWorkflow graceful falls back to regular email practices if it’s not used.–If people don’t like workflow, they don’t have to use it and it works like normal emailWorkflow automates what we do anyways–We no longer have to nag our colleagues to finish something.Many workflow implementations today in most enterprise software systems…–Lotus (earliest implementation), PeopleSoft, Oracle, SAP, etcCase Study 2: Video ConferencingWhen you interact with a face, what do you want it to do?Answer“The face is so expressive, so subtle, so filled with meaning. We ascribe character to and read emotion in any face, especially a realistically rendered one. A face in the interface is replete with social messages, but a poorly design one will send many unintended ones [and fail to send intended ones].” –Judith Donath–We want the face to do things