In my thesis I have tried to combine the fields of computer supported cooperative work (CSCW) and human-computer interaction (HCI). An interesting combination. In essence, both are concerned with establishing the common ground. A human-computer interface tries to do so between human and application; a groupware application should provide a feeling of common ground between group members, mediated through their computers.
Computer support for cooperative work is still in its infancy. To a large extend, it is still merely enabling technology. Yet, the mere fact that it is possible to support groups (which perform a joint task) by a computer leads to research on this subject. The science of CSCW is also still in its infancy. Thus, the first recommendation is obvious: groupware designers must closely follow these studies.
Supporting intellective group tasks through computerised media is, without a doubt, extremely difficult. Not only should a specific task be supported, designers should also take the communication process and social powers within a group into account. Collaborative writing is a very specific and highly creative intellective tasks, which proves especially difficult to support by computer.
In general, collaborative writing involves much high-touch communication (e.g., face-to-face interaction) which cannot properly be replaced by computerised media. Thus (and fortunately), co-authoring tools cannot replace the entire communication process. How computerised media affect a group's social experience and if they lead to increased group process losses is still unknown. For example, consider the discussion on the effect of CSCW on cooperative work in general and on group polarisation in particular.
In my opinion, the presented conceptual model of collaborative writing, which is based on insights as expressed in recent literature, is up to date and usable.
As CSCW, HCI is a new scientific field. The multidisciplinarity of HCI shows the real advance of the computer into society. Putting humans in the center of interaction design is by far the greatest virtue of HCI. It will eventually help designers recognise that they should move away from the application-model towards a more task-oriented way of thinking. Moreover, by recognising the central role of objects in the interface, HCI has lead to the broad acceptance of direct manipulation. Objects enable designers to separate the human-computer interface from an application's functional core subsystem.
CSCW has a large impact on HCI. This is especially acknowledged in research on metaphors that enable collaborative writing, like hypertext.
The technical concept behind The COOPerator has been carefully designed. In my opinion, the use of a directed, connected graph to depict a group's shared environment has been a right strategic decision. I highly recommend holding on to this concept for the development of the following prototype.
The usability of the first prototype of The COOPerator leaves a lot to be desired. For instance, basic features like word wrap are still missing. What is more, the system shows a high error rate though this is not unusual in prototypes. In the next version, meaningful error messages should prevent users from making the same error twice. Regarding memorability and learnability, The COOPerator can certainly be improved. For example, recall the earlier mentioned improvements to role support from which these factors would surely benefit.
Besides, I can hardly imagine that students are subjectively satisfied using the first prototype. For improvements, I recommend heavy usability testing (e.g., Nielsen [1993]). If time constraints constitute a major obstacle, I suggest a more detailed requirements and task analysis be sacrificed in favour of testing the new prototype with students.
In this section, an assessment of the first prototype of The COOPerator on the basis of the model of collaborative writing is presented. A paragraph is devoted to almost every point of focus within the model.
By the writing process I simply mean the putting of words onto paper. In the discussion of the document facility, I claim that this is not the strongest point of The COOPerator systems. However, putting words onto paper is not the same as word processing or document publishing. In my opinion, COOPerator's editor should merely provide basic functionalities such as word wrap to become much more usable. Moreover, some claim that the absence of fancy features helps people concentrate on the contents of the text instead of the looks of it.
True co-authoring stresses the need for support of multiple writers which have equal control over the text and within the interaction. On this point, the first prototype of The COOPerator lives up to the expectations. For example, people can comment on other people's work, and may create as many document parts as they like. Thus, co-writers can participate as they please. Of course, it is also possible that some of them quickly pass on all access privileges of their document parts to others and decide to participate no further. The prototype is not equiped to deal with particular group process losses which are left to the group members to solve.
In the discussion of effects of computer support on cooperative work I make clear that especially the early as well as the final stages of intellective cooperative work appear to demand face-to-face communication. To provide support for the planning of face-to-face meetings, which may (besides the planning stages) occur when the computerised means of communication prove to be generally insufficient, we designed the Agenda.
In the model of collaborative writing I mention two specific mechanisms that provide on-going support for the planning process: an outline and signalling of upcoming deadlines. Though these instruments were mentioned in the brainstorm sessions, they have not been incorporated into the first prototype. However, knowing what I know now, I would highly recommend including them in the next version.
Already in the early stages of the project, support for roles was identified as a key issue in the design of a co-authoring tool. In the description of the document facility, I pointed out that The COOPerator was to support three different roles: an editor, authors, and others. Support for the last two roles has been provided within the prototype; for the role of editor some coding work is done but this was not finished in time.
I would like to take the opportunity to suggest more as well as better support for roles (e.g. Bosters [1995]). For example, it might be interesting to add anonimity to the tool in order to introduce an advocate of the devil. Better support for roles would have to be available both on-line and within the manuals. Students must be fully aware of their current role and must understand how they can make excursions into other roles. In the discussion of influences of computer supported cooperative work on the human-computer interface, I mention some interesting ideas of Hellman [1992] to support roles.
To support the negotiation process, a discussion facility was incorporated into our design. The design was derived from the gIBIS system (Begeman and Conklin [1988]). As I make clear in the introduction to this section of my work, the discussion facility has never been build.
In my opinion, which is backed up by the literature, the envisioned means of communication (e.g, annotations, discussion space, and mail facility) would have been amply sufficient, given the asynchronous and remote nature of The COOPerator system. Moreover, todays technical standards and possibilities and the minimal configuration should be taken into account.
As Grudin [1994] explains, features that support group processes are used relatively infrequently. To ensure a large exceptance as well as unobtrusive accessability to The COOPerator, it may be necessary to integrate this co-writing tool with heavily used features and applications within Tilburg University. In the discussion of the mail facility the example of integrating a common mail application is discussed. As my comments with the example express, this requires careful consideration.
Sjoerd Michels, Tilburg, The Netherlands