Summary:
The main point of this paper was to formalize collaboration concepts for co-located and remote collaborations. For co-located, it was noted factors such as identity, context and multiple-sensory input contributed more to success. For remote, they discussed failures of current technology (choppy video in video conferencing, lack of sensory input, lack of context, for example). From this, there was some discussion on some factors that could contribute to successful future technology, that could bring us closer to collaboration (or simulated physical collaboration).
Reflection:
The paper I read before this, Portholes, was all about supporting distributed collaboration. This paper, on the flip-side, was all about comparing collocated and distributed interactions. Much like the points in the previous paper, I felt a lot were common sense. However, this paper did an excellent job in formalizing it.
One common thread in the previous paper and this paper (as well as Descriptive Framework of Workspace Awareness) is the strength that face-to-face communications provide for communication. There is much discussion and formalization, and I think the reasoning for this is almost to provide a quantifiable measure for the “collaborativeness” of systems.
Overall however, no matter the measure, I still believe nothing can ever replace physical communication. It can be simulated, and become as close as possible, but it won’t ever quite be the same thing. This leads me into a random and wacky thought, about the perception we have of communication. All our lives, we have depended on physical communication primarily, but if that were to be removed, just how different would we perceive communication systems that simulated it. For people who are unable to have any physical contact from child-birth (due to various conditions), how do they perceive collaborative systems? I think it would be something interesting to examine.
No comments:
Post a Comment