Supporting distributed groups with a Montage of lightweight interactions

Tang, John C.; Isaacs, Ellen; Rua, Monica

doi:10.1145/192844.192861

Cited by 142 publications

(90 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These results are in keeping with data about other workplace interactions, which indicate that both phone and FTF conversations tend to be short, frequent, intermittent, and unscheduled [9,21]. Estimates of workplace FTF conversations range from 2 to 15 minutes [10,21], and interactions in a lightweight desktop videoconference system averaged about 3 minutes [19]. So IM conversations are indeed short, as expected, but that may be the result of being impromptu rather than being in IM.…”

Section: Conversational Character Overall Usagesupporting

confidence: 76%

“…Although this is good portion of the conversations, it is low compared with estimates of unanswered phone calls and attempts to start impromptu desktop videoconferences. In previous workplace studies, 62% of phone calls didn't connect with their intended recipient [17,21], and 75% of attempts to start desktop videoconferences received no response [19]. The lower IM percentage may be because IM recipients could respond up to 5 minutes after receiving a message, whereas the other media require a response within seconds.…”

Section: No Response and "Sticky Notes"mentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Early attempts to build tools to support informal communication focused on audio and video environments [1,4,7,19]. However, these attempts have not been widely adopted for several reasons, including the lack of support for core user tasks, cost, privacy concerns, and implementation difficulties [1,9,10,20].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The character, functions, and styles of instant messaging in the workplace

Isaacs¹,

Walendowski²,

Whittaker³

et al. 2002

Proceedings of the 2002 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work - CSCW '02

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Current perceptions of Instant Messaging (IM) use are based primarily on self-report studies. We logged thousands of (mostly) workplace IM conversations and evaluated their conversational characteristics and functions. Contrary to prior research, we found that the primary use of workplace IM was for complex work discussions. Only 28% of conversations were simple, single-purpose interactions and only 31% were about scheduling or coordination. Moreover, people rarely switched from IM to another medium when the conversation got complex. We found evidence of two distinct styles of use. Heavy IM users and frequent IM partners mainly used it to work together: to discuss a broad range of topics via many fastpaced interactions per day, each with many short turns and much threading and multitasking. Light users and infrequent pairs mainly used IM to coordinate: for scheduling, via fewer conversations per day that were shorter, slower-paced with less threading and multitasking.

show abstract

Section: Conversational Character Overall Usagesupporting

confidence: 76%

Section: No Response and "Sticky Notes"mentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The character, functions, and styles of instant messaging in the workplace

Isaacs¹,

Walendowski²,

Whittaker³

et al. 2002

Proceedings of the 2002 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work - CSCW '02

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Non-users are often so suspicious of the media space that they go out of their way to sabotage the system (Jancke et al, 2001). Even users themselves are often wary about the system's handling of their privacy (Tang et al, 1994). Thus, in addition to specific deliberate or inadvertent privacy threats, prior analysis of video media space privacy indicates that apprehension (5.b.ii) itself is a significant problem.…”

Section: Privacy Violationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Even if there are audio or text channels, getting everyone into a state where they can use them is not lightweight. Beyond cumbersome user interfaces, networking delays during the initiation of conversation denies quick and graceful transition into it (Tang et al, 1994). …”

Section: Privacy Feedback In Media Spacesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Privacy Factors in Video-Based Media Spaces

Boyle

Neustaedter

Greenberg

2009

Computer Supported Cooperative Work

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Media space research is accompanied by a long-standing debate on the value of awareness leading to casual interaction vs. its potential for intended or unintended privacy invasion. This is not just a matter of technology: the trade-off between the two depends very much on the social makeup of the people using the space, how cameras are actually situated, the kinds of activities that typically happen in the space, and so on. This chapter offers a framework-a descriptive theory-that defines how one can think of privacy while analyzing media spaces and their expected or actual use. The framework outlines existing perspectives on privacy and then decomposes privacy into three normative controls for regulating interpersonal boundaries in an embodied dialectic: solitude, confidentiality and autonomy. By considering the nuances of these controls, this theory yields a powerful vocabulary of terms that disambiguate the many interrelated and subtle meanings of "privacy."

show abstract