GREENBERG, S., ROSEMAN, M., and WEBSTER, D., "Human and Technical Factors of Distributed Group Drawing Tools," Interacting with Computers, vol. 4, no. 3, 364-392, December 1992.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....only a limited set of tools, such as pen, line, oval, filled rectangle, and eraser. In collaborative applications those shared whiteboards are used, the simple editing functionality would usually su#ce. Group awareness mechanisms such as telepointer, on the other hand, are found more valuable [13, 14]. Nevertheless users often need to make changes to groupware tools like shared whiteboards so that it more closely fits the idiosyncratic needs of the common task or the individual participants [12] Customization has been one of the most interesting research topics in the CSCW community. Many ....

S. Greenberg, M. Roseman, D. Webster, and R. Bohnet. Human and technical factors of distributed group drawing tools. Interacting with Computers, 4(1):364--392, Dec. 1992.

....concern in CSCW research. In the most simple, command line shared editing systems, the behaviour of other users may be indicated only by the appearance of the text they type. More recent CSCW applications have added icons to represent each user and labelled cursors which can be used in gesturing [GRWB92] with some of the more high tech systems providing full video and audio linkage between participants [IM91, e.g. Ishii and other CSCW researchers have emphasized the importance of the shared view. The motivation for the application ClearBoard, for example, which includes super imposed video ....

....The enhanced communication mode (ECM) allows both written and spoken communication as well as an element of virtual presence . The term, virtual presence, refers to the simulated presence of other participants in shared virtual spaces, and has been a focus of several CSCW applications [IM91, GRWB92, e.g. In Builder, virtual presence is implemented in two ways. First, within the 2 D building environment a small icon representing each player appears on top of the wall s he is working on (see Screenshot 3) Second, when both players are exploring the 3 D model of the house they have ....

S. Greenberg, M. Roseman, D. Webster, and R. Bohnet. Human and technical factors of distributed group drawing tools. Interacting with Computers, 4(3):364--392, 1992.

....distributed, and co operative database interaction method (Ellis et al. 91) This means that although only a single worker may edit a database at any one time, committed information is available in read only form to the rest of the group. The tool is built around a hybrid architecture (Greenberg et al. 92) utilising distributed file servers for database dispersal, and local copies of the application program. This results in improved user application interaction performance whilst retaining distributed data access. Like all Groupware applications it is necessary to implement concurrency control ....

GREENBERG, S.; ROSEMAN, M.; WEBSTER, D.; BOHNET, R.: "Human And Technical Factors Of Distributed Group Drawing Tools" Interacting With Computers, 1992, 4 (3) pp. 364 - 392.

....face to face meeting environments by using audio, video, and computer links between distributed individuals. Although a number of software packages now exist which provide for a shared work space between physically distributed individuals (Group Technologies, 1990; McGuffin and Olson, 1992; Greenberg et al. 1992) little research has been carried out to establish the significance of creating co presence, and the relative effectiveness of various, often costly, communication techniques in achieving this co presence. Designers have often assumed that audio visual communication is sufficient improvement over ....

Greenberg, S., Roseman, M., Webster, D. and Bohnet, R. (1992) `Human and Technical Factors of Distributed Group Drawing Tools' Interacting with Computers, 4, 3, 364-392.

....outlines#. There are tools to support synchronous editing #e.g. GROVE #Ellis and Gibbs, 1989; Ellis et al. 1990#, MACE #Newman Wolfe and Pelimuhandiram, 1991#, SASE and SASSE #Baecker et al. 1993#, CaveDraw #Lu and Mantei, 1991#, GroupDesign #BeaudouinLafon and Karsenty, 1992#, GroupDraw #Greenberg et al. 1992## and to support asynchronous editing #e.g. CES #Greif et al. 1986#, Quilt #Fish et al. 1988; 16#02#1996 Design Issues and Model for a Distributed Multi User Editor 3 Leland et al. 1988#, PREP #Neuwirth et al. 1992; Neuwirth et al. 1990#, GroupWriter #Malcolm and Gaines, 1991#, Shared Books ....

Greenberg, S., Roseman, M., Webster, D. and Bohnet, R. #1992#: Human and technical factors of distributed group drawing tools. Interacting with Computers, 4#3#, 1992, pp. 364#392.

.... user, synchronism or asynchronism (related to interacting time constraints) floor control systems, data granularity, strong or loosely coupled works (dependent on amount of cooperation between users) The classical groupware systems include electronic mail, shared editors (Griffon [10] GroupDraw [12]) and desktop conferencing, among others. Several general multi layer models have been given in order to offer a rigorous framework for the development of groupwares [16] 14] or [11] These approaches offer the possibility of adequately defining, for each layer, the sharing and instantiating ....

S. Greenberg and M. Roseman and D. Webster and R. Bohnet,"Human and Technical Factors of Distributed Group Drawing Tools", Interacting with Computers, Special Issue on CSCW: Part 1, volume 4, number 3, pages 364--392, 1992.

....which enhance teamwork. The current applications of this area are primarily in group meetings, long distance conferences, software development, and game playing. The research relevant to this survey includes architectures for multiuser applications (Patterson, 1990; Crowley et al. 1990; Greenberg et al. 1992), models for shared workspace (Ishii et al. 1993) and multi user drawing tools (Greenberg and Marwood, 1994) The application of this research to the design of physical objects is not well developed. The distinctions made by computersupported collaborative design include the need to share design ....

....users to lock their scrollbars together. Unlike painting programs, drawing programs allow users to create objects (such as lines and texts) that can be manipulated. The effect of having objects that can be selected and modified simultaneously by different users raises a number of interface issues. Greenberg et al. 1992) reports some of these issues with building an object oriented drawing program called GroupDraw. The strategy that is used in GroupDraw is to allow only one person at a time to manipulate the object. Further, to provide a more flexible and responsive system, this strategy can be applied to the ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Greenberg, S., Roseman, M., Webster, D. and Bohnet, R. (1992). Human and technical factors of distributed group drawing tools, Interacting with Computers 4(3): 364--392.

....of our public server, network delays represent a much larger component of the total feedback lag than processing time at the server. In many ways this problem is simply a manifestation of a well known trade off in the design of multi user systems concerning centralised and replicated architectures [9, 1]. To use the Web in its current form for deploying an application requires extending Web servers through CGI scripting, and this locks the developer into a centralised approach to providing application functionality and data. Although such an approach can deliver acceptable performance [6] when ....

Greenberg, S., Roseman, M., Webster, D. and Bohnet, R., Human and technical factors of distributed group drawing tools, in Interacting with Computers, 4(3), 1992, pp 364-392.

....or loosely, coupled works (which depend on the degree of cooperation between the users) Popular electronic mail or desktop conference systems are classic forms of groupware in the field of communication applications. For the shared editors we can quote systems such as Griffon [DQV92] or GroupDraw [GRWB92]) among others. Several general multi layer models have been given in order to have a precise framework for the development of groupware applications (see [Kar94] and [EW94] The architecture of synchronous groupware must be studied in order to build a robust, transparent and efficient system. ....

Saul Greenberg, Mark Roseman, Dave Webster, and Ralph Bohnet. Human and technical factors of distributed group drawing tools. Interacting with Computers: Special Issue on CSCW: Part 1, 4:3:364--392, 1992.

....and some include full tele conferencing capabilities; however, full video connection requires high bandwidth communication and is still difficult and expensive to set up. 15 Synchronous remote interaction applications include Grove [Ellis 91] a group editor; GroupSketch and GroupDraw [Greenberg 92c] group drawing applications; Cantata [Chang 87] Shared X [Garfinkel 89] sharing views of single user applications; and Rapport [Ensor 89] a multi media conferencing system. 2.1.1.3. Asynchronous Interaction The prime example of asynchronous interaction CSCW applications is electronic mail ....

....[Mantei 89] has tended to concentrate on decision support. Educational research, such as Intermedia [Yankelovich 85] and SharedArk [Smith 91] has concentrated on learning through interaction with peers and with instructors. Other research, such as Cognoter [Stefik 87, Tartar 91] and GroupDraw [Greenberg 92c] has 16 concentrated on more generic and collaborative tasks such as design and group writing. Still other research, such as Object Lens [Lai 88] and The Coordinator [Winograd 87] concentrates on group and individual organization and coordination. These diverse groups reflect different ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

S. Greenberg, M. Roseman, D. Webster, R. Bohnet. "Human and Technical Factors of Distributed Group Drawing Tools." Interacting with Computers, 4(3), 1992. pp. 364-392.

....The 1 At this point, I beg the indulgence of more technical readers. In a spirit of fairness, I ll beg the indulgence of non technical readers later on. distinction between centralised and replicated approaches, has long been a concern for CSCW developers (Ahuja et al., 1990; Lauwers, 1990; Greenberg et al., 1992). Centralisation concentrates all the data at one point in the system; clients communicate with this central point to retrieve or update information, and so consistency is a trivial issue since there is only one copy of a data item at any time. Replication, however, allows multiple copies of ....

Greenberg, S., Roseman, R., Webster, D. and Bohnet, R. (1992): "Human and Technical Factors in Distributed Group Drawing Tools", Interacting with Computers , 4(3), pp. 364-392, 1992.

....author can work, the others have to observe his actions. The next step in support for editing are tools explicitly supporting synchronous editing of documents. Examples are group editors like GROVE [Ellis89, Ellis90] SASE and SASSE [Baeck93] CAVEDRAW [Lu91] GROUPDESIGN [Beaud92] and GROUPDRAW [Green92]. Most of these tools are limited to LAN environments. If wide area network support is provided this is done by pessimistic locking protocols and by some form of central control or central storage (e.g. MACE [Newma91] Hence, it is not possible to access the document if the network is down. ....

S. Greenberg, M. Roseman, D. Webster, and R. Bohnet. Human and technical factors of distributed group drawing tools. Interacting with Computers, 4(3):364--392, 1992.

....with general design criteria for CSCW systems, it is instructive to highlight two specific examples. GroupSketch exemplifies a shared task application and MERMAID exemplifies a media space that supports both shared task and shared person spaces. 6.4. 1 GroupSketch (shared task) GroupSketch [Greenberg et al. 1992] is a groupware system that provides small groups of two to approximately eight people with remote real time access to a shared drawing space. It is a minimalist multi user sketchpad that occupies the entire computer display. It is WYSIWIS (what you see is what I see) and it allows users to draw, ....

....were of different ranks, then floor control which gave the person of higher rank the control was usually selected. 6.5 Design Criteria A number of design criteria or guidelines have surfaced in the CSCW literature. I include two sets of guidelines below. The criteria by Tang [cited in Greenberg et al. 1992] are specifically for shared task spaces and have been frequently referenced in the literature. The criteria by Sasse and Fentem [1994] cover both shared task and person spaces. These criteria are new to the literature. 52 6.5.1 Shared Task Space Tang s criteria were derived from observations ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Greenberg, S., Roseman, M., Webster, D., and Bohnet, R. (1992). Human and technical factors of distributed group drawing tools. Interacting with Computers 4, 3, 364-392.

....to be specialised and modified independently of graphical and other interface features. It allows application developers to think in terms of extending the toolkit facilities, and then writing their applications in terms of this extended functionality. 2.4. 2 GroupKit GroupKit (Roseman and Greenberg, 1992; Roseman and Greenberg, 1996) is a flexible toolkit for building realtime collaborative applications. Like Rendezvous, it is a programmatic toolkit. The first implementation was in the C UI toolkit Interviews, and was informed by both programmer level and user level requirements from earlier ....

....it is a programmatic toolkit. The first implementation was in the C UI toolkit Interviews, and was informed by both programmer level and user level requirements from earlier experiments with monolithic groupware applications, as well as the collaborative window system Share (Greenberg, 1991; Greenberg et al. 1992). The current implementation is written in Tcl Tk (Ousterhout, 1994) Unlike Rendezvous, the run time system is based on a replicated object model. Object replication provides the responsiveness which the system needs to support synchronous graphical applications. GroupKit has three major ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Greenberg, S., Roseman, M., Webster, D., and Bohnet, R. (1992). "Human and Technical Factors of Distributed Group Drawing Tools", Interacting with Computers 4(3), pp. 364--392.

....or loosely, coupled works (which depend on the degree of cooperation between the users) Popular electronic mail or desktop conference systems are classic forms of groupware in the field of communication applications. For the shared editors we can quote systems such as Griffon [DQV92] or GroupDraw [GRWB92]) among others. Several general multi layer models have been given in order to have a precise framework for the development of groupware applications (see [Kar94] and [EW94] The architecture of synchronous groupware must be studied in order to build a robust, transparent and efficient system. ....

Saul Greenberg, Mark Roseman, Dave Webster, and Ralph Bohnet. Human and technical factors of distributed group drawing tools. Interacting with Computers: Special Issue on CSCW: Part 1, 4:3:364--392, 1992.

....Therefore, concurrency conflicts may be rare in many groupware sessions since people mediate themselves but this can only happen if people have a good sense of what is going on. People are quite capable of repairing the negative effects of conflicts and consider it part of the natural dialog [13]. Of course, there are situations where conflict can occur, such as accidental interference due to one person not noticing what another is doing. In some (but not all) cases, slight inconsistencies resulting from conflicts may not be problematic. Typical groupware support. Many groupware systems ....

Greenberg, S., Roseman, M., Webster, D. and Bohnet, R. (1992). Human and technical factors of distributed group drawing tools. Interacting with Computers, 4(1), 364-392.

No context found.

Videotape. Greenberg, S., Roseman, M., Webster, D. and Bohnet, R. (1992) "Human and Technical Factors of Distributed Group Drawing Tools." Interacting with Computers, 4(3), p364-392.

....is that shared distributed work surfaces must support gestural expression. Consequently, developers of video systems used video overlays to show other peoples hands over the images [10] while those interested in computational workspaces used multiple telepointers as gesturing surrogates [6,9]. We have now come full circle. Although we have a better understanding of why telepointers are valuable, their appearance in commercial groupware has evolved little from Engelbart s original demonstration. In this paper, we will show how telepointers can be improved in two different ways. First, ....

....button press may be overlooked by others, while keystroke actions that change modes are invisible. One solution is to overload individual telepointers to reflect mode information across all displays. Figure 7 gives an example, in this case from our GroupDraw application, a shared drawing tool [6]. Participants select tools and modes from the shared palette on the left, and the telepointer shapes reflect what mode people are in: Mark is in the selection mode (the pointer) and Saul can draw (the pencil) Knowing the mode hints at the intentions of others e.g. Saul will likely draw because ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Greenberg S., Roseman M., Webster D., and Bohnet R. (1992). Human and technical factors of distributed group drawing tools. Interacting with Computers, 4(1), pp. 364392, December. Reprinted in [4].

....Real time computer conferencing applications have been a major focus of groupware development efforts. Often motivated by CSCW research, we have recently seen the creation of numerous systems, such as shared text editors [23] freehand sketching systems [13,22] structured drawing programs [15], and group support systems [24] Yet construction of these applications is fraught with difficulties. Besides all the normal problems of building single user applications, the groupware developer must be concerned with technical issues such as synchronization, concurrency, communications, ....

....frequently gesture over the drawing surface: to enact ideas, to signal turn taking, to focus the attention of the group, and to reference objects on the surface. Several recent computer systems emulating group drawing surfaces support gesturing with multiple cursors appearing on all displays [13,2,15], and their usability studies confirm the ubiquity of gesturing. We believe that gesturing can enhance communication in many diverse types of conferences, and should be supported at the toolkit level. b) Provide support for graphical annotation. The Xerox studies also noticed many instances of ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Greenberg, S., Roseman, M., Webster, D., and Bohnet, R. Human and technical factors of distributed group drawing tools. In Interacting with Computers (Special Edition on CSCW, in press).

....separate to work together at the same time through computers. These systems provide a shared virtual workspace where conference participants can see and manipulate work artifacts. The shared workspace typically contains groupware tools such as a shared sketchpad or drawing system (e.g. Greenberg, Roseman, Webster and Bohnet 1992), multi user text editors (e.g. Baecker, Glass, Mitchell and Posner 1994) idea organizers (e.g. Tatar, Foster and Bobrow 1991) or multi user games. In addition to the workspace, a groupware system is likely to incorporate facilities for communication over audio and video links. Unfortunately, ....

Greenberg, S., Roseman, M., Webster, D. and Bohnet, R. (1992). Human and technical factors of distributed group drawing tools. Interacting with Computers, 4(1), p364-392. Butterworth-Heinemann.

....we will show that groupware must be treated differently because it includes not only computers but people as well. The groupware class we are addressing is those supporting highly interactive real time shared computational workspaces. Examples are group sketchpads [10,30] drawing tools [11,20] and group word processors [2,19] We expect that participants in these conferences: are in real time communication with each other e.g. through audio and video channels; focus and coordinate their attentions on what seems to be a shared visual workspace or document e.g. what you see is ....

....inconsistency due to out of order events, and neither users goals being satisfied. A difference of a few pixels in a large image will probably not matter to the participants, especially if they use the shared drawing space as many do to elaborate ideas, rather than to produce a document [27,11]. Our own GROUPSKETCH program ignores concurrency [10,11] and no user had noticed, let al..one complained, about the occasional small grained image inconsistencies that crept in. However, this is not true for all situations. If the differences become noticeable (e.g. if a wide brush stroke is ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Greenberg, S., Roseman, M., Webster, D. and Bohnet, R. (1992) "Human and technical factors of distributed group drawing tools." Interacting with Computers, 4(1), pp. 364-392, December. Butterworth-Heinemann.

....are necessary for the design of groupware that fully supports negotiative requirements engineering processes. 2. Groupware Requirements for Remote Requirements Negotiation While groupware for distributed collaboration is well studied in the area of Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) [7,9], little attention has been given to how it can support the RE process. Still, several groupware design factors are highly relevant to requirements negotiation: support for both asynchronous and synchronous collaboration, telepresence, teledata, and process support. Through asynchronous ....

....attention has been given to how it can support the RE process. Still, several groupware design factors are highly relevant to requirements negotiation: support for both asynchronous and synchronous collaboration, telepresence, teledata, and process support. Through asynchronous collaboration [7,9], team members can construct requirements individually and contribute them to the collective activity of the group for later discussion. This is especially important when groups are distributed across time zones and when real time meetings are hard to schedule. Through asynchronous capabilities, ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

S. Greenberg, M. Roseman, D. Webster and R. Bohnet, "Human and technical factors of distributed group drawing tools", Interacting with Computers 4(1), 364-392, 1992

No context found.

GREENBERG, S., ROSEMAN, M., and WEBSTER, D., "Human and Technical Factors of Distributed Group Drawing Tools," Interacting with Computers, vol. 4, no. 3, 364-392, December 1992.

No context found.

Saul Greenberg, Mark Roseman, Dave Webster and Ralph Bohnet, "Human and Technical Factors of Distributed Group Drawing Tools", Interacting with Computers 4(3), pp. 364--392, 1992.

No context found.

Greenberg, S., Roseman, M., Webster, D., Bohnet, R. Human and technical factors of distributed group drawing tools. In Interacting with Computers, special edition on CSCW, 1992.

No context found.

Saul Greenberg, Mark Roseman, Dave Webster and Ralph Bohnet, "Human and Technical Factors of Distributed Group Drawing Tools", Interacting with Computers 4(3), pp. 364-392, 1992.

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC