Communication

1
(No Transcript)
2

• previous research on impact of communication
  channels on collaborative tasks has produced
  mixed findings

• video channel Important (Harrison Minneman,
  1990 Tang Issacs, 1993, Olson, et al., 1997)

Communication channels Collaborative Design

• no difference (ROCOCO project) (Maziloglou, et
  al., 1996)

• video channel not Important (Vera, et al.,
  1998 Gabriel, et al., 1998)

• beyond being there (Hollan Stornetta, 1993)

Communication
3

• face-to-face (FTF)

• computer-mediated collaborative design with full
  communication channels (CMCD-a)

Experiments ...

• computer-mediated collaborative design with
  limited communication channels (CMCD-b)

Experiments ...
4

• 5th 6th year architecture students _at_
  Architecture Faculty - University of Sydney

• 9 pilot experiments using 18 - 6th year
  students (September 1997)

Subjects ...

• 26 final experiments using 52 - 5 6th year
  students (September 1998)

Subjects ...
5
Brief Site ...
Brief Site ...
6
Coding Scheme ...
Coding Scheme ...
Coding Scheme ...
Coding Scheme
7
Observed Differences...
Observed Differences
8
Observed Differences...
Observed Differences
9

• FTF spontaneous participants seemed to talk
  all the time.

Verbal Representation ...

• CMCD-a spontaneous as in FTF, but with less
  interruptions.

• CMCD-b less spontaneous than FTF CMCD-a,
  with no interruptions or floor holding.

Preliminary ...
10
most of the time working simultaneously
spontaneously on or around the same sketch.
FTF Graphical Differences ...
sketching using traditional media (pencil
paper) was smooth allowed subjects to produce
graphical representations with more ease.
Differences ...
11
sometimes working on separate pages then
looking up each others pages to evaluate
progress.
sketching was spontaneous at times, accompanied
by simple annotations.
CMCD-a Graphical Differences...
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.
Differences ...
12
working on separate pages as in CMCD-a ...
sketching was less spontaneous ...
CMCD-b Graphical Differences...
... consequently appeared to be more elaborate
accompanied by more elaborate annotations most of
the time as well as 3D representations...
Differences ...
13

• smooth straightforward apart from interruptions

• natural use of verbal communication plus
  familiarity of sketching environment, allowed
  participants to produce graphical representations
  with more ease.

FTF Comments ...

• eye contact varied depending on subjects and
  rarely simultaneous ...

Comments ...
14

• some difficulty in the beginning adjusting to the
  new medium.

• hardly used video channel most of the time
  covered it with the brief window for remainder of
  session.

CMCD-a Comments ...

• 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).

Comments...
15

• difficulty in typing and drawing at the same
  time. Therefore subjects proceeded to annotate
  their sketches with verbal representations.

• fewer words, less repetition more thinking/
  reflecting with subjects getting straight to the
  point. Often seen rewording or revisiting verbal
  representations

CMCD-b Comments ...

• the semi-synchronous nature of the CMCD-b
  collaborative environment appeared to allow
  participants more time to reflect on ideas.

• consequently their graphical representations
  responded to well thought out ideas instead of a
  spontaneous reactions to the verbal
  representations at hand.

Comments...
16

• the three categories of communication for design
  collaboration explored in the experiments are
  indicative of the alternatives available now.

• we observed differences in the way people
  communicate using different communication
  channels.

In summary ...

• 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.

Summary ...
17

• we propose that each category has its own
  strengths and difficulties for design
  collaboration.

• 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.

• 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)

In summary ...
Summary ...
18

• Collaborative design in a 3D virtual world,
  Active Worlds

• Verbal communication by typing

3D Collaborative World

• Gesture communication with avatars

• Design communication through 3D models

Summary ...
19
(No Transcript)
20
Communication Analysis
Major communication categories in 3D world chat
21
Communication Analysis
Design codes for 3D world chat
22
Communication Analysis
How many words did each person use in the session?
Smmary ...
23

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

In conclusion