Issues and experiences designing and implementing two group drawing tools

Greenberg, Saul; Roseman, Mark; Webster, Dave; Bohnet, Ralph

doi:10.1109/hicss.1992.183421

Cited by 76 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Graphics editing Several applications for collaborative synchronous edition of graphics have been implemented [38,31,35,42,6]. Some applications use lockbased concurrency control strategies that prevent conflicts.…”

Section: Collaborative Editing Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrating Synchronous and Asynchronous Interactions in Groupware Applications

Preguiça

Martins

Domingos

et al. 2005

Groupware: Design, Implementation, and Use

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. It is common that, in a long-term asynchronous collaborative activity, groups of users engage in occasional synchronous sessions. In this paper, we analyze the requirements for supporting this common work practice in typical collaborative activities and applications. This analysis shows that, for some applications, it is necessary to rely on different data sharing techniques in synchronous and asynchronous settings. We present a data management system that allows to integrate a synchronous session in the context of a long-term asynchronous interaction, using the suitable data sharing techniques in each setting. We exemplify the use of our system with two multi-synchronous applications.

show abstract

Section: Collaborative Editing Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrating Synchronous and Asynchronous Interactions in Groupware Applications

Preguiça

Martins

Domingos

et al. 2005

Groupware: Design, Implementation, and Use

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A popular view held by some researchers is that adding audio, video and graphics is somehow expected to make the medium more "real" (Sudweeks and Rafaeli, 1995). According to Greenberg et al (1992) some researchers maintain tele-presence as being the alternative to FTF collaboration, where distributed participants in a collaborative venture are given the feeling that they are present in the same meeting room. Whether or not seeing one's partner has an effect on performance seems to be highly dependent on the type of performed task (Olson et al, 1997).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

An Analysis of Design Communication with and Without Computer Mediation

Gabriel¹,

Maher²

2000

Collaborative Design

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

.1 IntroductionWith recent developments in CAD and communication technologies, the way we visualise and communicate design representations is changing. A matter of great interest to architects, practitioners and researchers alike, is how computer technology might affect the way they think and work. The concern is not about the notion of 'support' alone, but about ensuring that computers do not disrupt the design process and collaborative activity already going on (Bannon and Schmidt, 1991). Designing new collaborative tools will then have to be guided by a better understanding of how collaborative work is accomplished and by understanding what resources the collaborators use and what hindrances they encounter in their work (Finholt et al., 1990).Designing, as a more abstract notion, is different than having a business meeting using video conferencing. In design it is more important to 'see' what is being discussed rather than 'watch' the other person(s) involved in the discussion. In other words the data being conveyed might be of more importance than the method with which it is communicated (See Kvan, 1994). Similarly, we believe that by using text instead of audio as a medium for verbal communication, verbal representations can then be recorded alongside graphical representations for later retrieval and use. In this paper we present the results of a study on collaborative design in three different environments: face-to-face (FTF), computer-mediated using video conferencing (CMCD-a), and computer-mediated using "talk by typing" (CMCD-b). The underlying aim is to establish a clearer notion of the collaborative needs of architects using computer-mediation. In turn this has the potential in assisting developers when designing new collaborative tools and in assisting designers when selecting an environment for a collaborative session. .2 Computer Mediated Collaborative DesignIn order to compare CMCD and FTF collaborative sessions between architects, we first need to look at how architects collaborate in FTF environments, the media they employ and the communication channels they utilize in order to convey design representations to their partner(s). When working FTF, architects have been observed to hold certain preferences for the way they set their design and creative environments and what 'traditional' tools they choose to use whether designing alone or collaborating with colleagues (Carter, 1993). Some architects might prefer to work with thick pencils scribbling 2D sketches on butter paper (Gross, 1994, Kvan, 1994. Others might sketch as well as start working with 3D volumetry. Sometimes they hastily proceed to build 3D massing models, made of polystyrene or cardboard (Visser, 1993). This enables them to acquire an enriched 'experience' of the space they are working with and makes it easier to communicate their 'idea' to other parties involved in the design.However the continuous development of computer and telecommunication technologies, has seen architects increasingly using these mediums for communication as ...

show abstract

“…Aspects (von Biel, 1991), Ensemble (Newman-Wolfe et al, 1992), GroupDraw (Greenberg et al, 1992), serialization -e.g. GroupDesign (Karsenty and Beaudouin-Lafon, 1993), LICRA (Kanwati, 1992) or multi-version techniques -e.g.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Customizable Collaborative Editor Relying on treeOPT Algorithm

Ignat

Norrie

2003

Ecscw 2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Research in collaborative editing tends to have been undertaken in isolation rather than as part of a general information or application infrastructure. Our goal is to develop a universal information platform that can support collaboration in a range of application domains. Since not all user groups have the same conventions and not all tasks have the same requirements, this implies that it should be possible to customize the collaborative editor at the level of both communities and individual tasks. One of the keys to customization is to use a structured rather than linear representation of documents that can be applied to both textual and graphical editors. In this paper, we propose the treeOPT (tree OPerational Transformation) algorithm that, relying on a tree representation of documents, applies the operational transformation mechanism recursively over the different document levels. Applications using this algorithm achieve better efficiency, the possibility of working at different granularity levels and improvements in the semantic consistency.

show abstract

Issues and experiences designing and implementing two group drawing tools

Cited by 76 publications

References 21 publications

Integrating Synchronous and Asynchronous Interactions in Groupware Applications

Integrating Synchronous and Asynchronous Interactions in Groupware Applications

An Analysis of Design Communication with and Without Computer Mediation

Customizable Collaborative Editor Relying on treeOPT Algorithm

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About