14 communication and collaboration
All computer systems interact with user organizations.
We need to understand normal human communication.
Eyes, face, body, tone
Conversation has structure
Compare to text based
	Reduced feedback
	Less context
	Slower pace
	(psychological differences)
	More easily reviewed
	More easily retrieed
Groups more complicated
	Physical environment
	Hard to do experiments
	Studies must account for social
14.1 all systems influence and are influenced by group and social
	CSCW computer supported cooperative work
	Face to face
	Structure of conversation
		Context
	Text
	Group working
14.2 face to face
	Most sophisticate; least technical
	Body language
	Eyes
	Tone
	Transfer effects and personal space
		Rules of communication not always conscious
		People are comfortable at a certain distance
			Varies by culture and relationship
			Cultural tango
		Direction can be important
			Side by side more comfortable if close
		Even an effect from size of zoom images

	Eyes
		Lovers gazing
		Eyes convey interest, confusion, boredom
		Sporadic establishes engagement and social presence
		Looking away can appear shifty or hiding
		Relative frequency (who looks away) linked to authority and power
		(19-eye contact with video)
	Video
		Quizzical, bored, confused, excited (whole face)
		Greater social presence with video
		(cannot help with where does this screw go as much)
	Gestures and body language
		 Group pointer?
		Shared work surfaces?
		Focus on screen or keyboard reduces eye contact
			(even if in same room)
	Back channels, confirmation, interruption
		Nods, grimaces, shrugs, noises
		Lost with electronics
		Text has no back channels
	Turn taking
		Uses back channels
		Offer/what do you think?
		Gaps/pauses
		Um, ah, er (may not even trigger audio)
		Time lags (2 secs for geosync)

14.3 conversation
	Analyze transcripts
	Guide for design decisions for media
	Drive design—structure system around theory		
	
	Basic structure
		Utterance and gaps
		Often utterances paired
		Normally respond to most recent utterance
	Context
		This, that, these, he, she
		Internal (earlier utterances)
		External (environment, or shared history)
		(note everything, and 90% is irrelevant; leave it out, miss subtle cues)	
		(researchers often use videotape for reference)
		Context can make utterance fragmentary
	Topic, focus forms of utterances
		Focus can be shared, but often are misunderstandings when focus shifts
		Where do breakdowns occur, and is it the tech or the people?
		Task related
			Substantive
			Annotative
			Procedural
				About collaboration
				About tech
	Breakdown and repair
		Conversations full of them
		Divergence of topic
		We are efficient at repair
		Electronic reduces turn taking and back channeling; herder to recover
	Shared understanding
		Obtain common ground
		(grounding)
		Testing and cross checking of understanding
		Common ground is always partial
		Relevant
			Further topic
		Helpful
			Understandable and unambiguous
		(What about humor?)
		(children may assume you know what they do; and may not know what you do)
	Speech act theory
		Conversation for action cfa
			Propositional meaning
			Evoke an action
			[Make or state a change]
		
		Conversation for clarification
		Conversation for possibilities
		Conversation for orientation
		Meta-conversations
		Coordinator: tool for email, based on cfa theory
			Identify ‘illocutionary’ point
			Request, promise, counter-offer, decline
			(system has been criticized)
			IT help desk system
			More recent systems allow users to build own conversational structures
		Teaching managers about speech theory improves communication

	14.4 text based communication (email, not just phone text messages)
		Asynchronous text based major
		(voice mail, graphics, etc)
		Style different
		Text as Speech substitute
		Can be:
			Discrete
			Linear
			Non-linear (hypertext)
			Spatial (e.g. 2D)
			Annotation
		No back channel
			No way to pause
		No tone, eyes, expression,body language
			😊
		People use stronger language in email than in face to face conversation
		(more likely to be critical)
		(less likely to get charged themselves)
		Can lead to ‘flame wars’
		There ARE cultural backgrounds to email!
		There ARE widely accepted (ALL CAPS) ideas
		Grounding constraints (weaker for text)
			Cotemporality
			Simultaneity
			Sequence
		Interleaving:
1. Bethan: How many should be in the group? 
2. Rowena: Maybe this could be one of the four strongest reasons? 
3. Rowena: Please clarify what you mean. 
4. Bethan: I agree. 
5. Rowena: Hang on. 
6. Rowena: Bethan what did you mean?
		Email less effective at resolving conflicts

Pace and granularity
			Email very slow
			May need to send more per message (granularity) when pace is slow
			Linear text cannot go faster than pace
			Coping strategies:
				Avoid conversation
					Delegation; reduces communication and collaboration
				Multi-plexing
					Conversations in parallel
				Eagerness
					Anticipate possible responses
				Difficult to backtrack; reviewability
				Hypertext (difficult to navigate, even when static)

14.5 group working
	Group dynamics
		Roles change (author, co-author, commentator)
		Inversions of authority
		Group membership can change
		Leader/follower vs democratic
		Allow review of earlier contributions
		Allow subgroups
	Physical layout (FOR IN PERSON ROOM)
		Inward facing terminals
		Eye contact
		(unobtrusive computers)
	Distributed cognition
		Can the system be said to think?
		Creation of new group knowledge