Summary Response Week 3: Continuous Capture

CPSC 601.25 Week 3 Response

Papers

In this response I will discuss two papers regarding 'continuos capture' technologies, the different approaches they take to the problem and the different results they achieve.

Always On

Both the papers reviewed this week have a common theme, the continuos capture and storage of data. As hard drives have grown larger and cameras, sensors and scanners have grown cheaper, many people have become interested in capturing all the data we interact and storing it outside of our brain. This 'second brain' idea dates back to the very early part of computing and AI research and even science fiction. But like some ideas in science fiction, the journey to reality is difficult. The idea of constantly recording cameras and audio recordings becomes bogged down in the issues of privacy, security and social discomfort. But when the scope of the idea is reduced, and the technologies is used to address the special needs of patients with memory difficulties, the results are very good.

Lost In Scope

The first paper reviewed work done at Microsoft to create a database of everything, a system called LifeBits. This system incorporates data from a variety of sources, scanned images, continuously running cameras, audio recorders, fitness sensors and others. The developers of the system then attempt to store this data centrally, in a SQL Server database of all things, and then built software for searching and exploring it. As the paper is somewhat older, based on work done in 2005 we can consider how some of what the developers imagined has played out. The work can be seen as falling between two chairs, what is valuable is done, but not in the way the developers imagine, and what is not is simply ignored. The developers imagine a system that tracks the metadata of many of yours files and makes it easy to search them by specifying things like "within this period of time" or "related to this person". This is used every day by millions of users of Gmail and Spotlight (on OS X). Modern systems index and support the natural queries that people would actually like to use, but the data is living in the cloud rather then on a users LifeBit system. The developers also imagine a continuously flow of pictures and interactions over a timeline, this can be seen by any user of Facebook. Even versioning (which they imagine to be handled by Windows) is actually handled well by Dropbox. Rather then a monolithic central repository many of the useful bits of this system are handled organically by different providers and software solutions. The parts of their system that fly in the face of social norms, like wearing a permanent always on camera while you go about your day, is completely ignored by most people.

Helping People

Contrasted with the first paper, which focused too much on technical details that were outdated only a few years after it published, the second paper was fantastic. Developed by researchers in Cambridge at Microsoft Research, the SenseCam technology was developed especially to help people with memory difficulties. There SenseCam technology was designed to capture still images periodically while being worn and to respond especially to changes, such as in temperature, light and audio signals. A user would wear the cameras during a special outing or event and then repeatedly review the images and associated them with events. This is groundbreaking in two ways, by capturing visual images the user is likely to associate with this images better then if they were using only text and by making the use and review of the system very easy and frictionless. When studied with an actual user, the results were very good. We can imagine extending this work to allow sensors to monitor important "moments" in the brain, and firing them when a person has made a decision. Or even improving the review system to work with some of the psychological research on "forgetting". The issue faced in the earlier paper about people being uncomfortable about the camera is likely to be lessened, as the obvious utility to the person using it is so clear.

Is Paper Safer? The Role of Paper Flight Strips in Air Traffic Control

Summary:

The authors of this paper decide to observe the real places by themselves to find the answer of this question that "How can we help air traffic controllers make the transition from today’s paper flight strips to more modern computer-based systems?". These observations highlight the benefits of paper flight strips, including qualities difficult to quantify and replicate in new computer systems. Then, they offer two basic alternatives: maintaining the existing strips without computer support and bearing the financial cost of limiting the air traffic, or replacing the strips with automated versions, which offer potential benefits in terms of increased efficiency through automation, but unknown risks through radical change of work practices. Finally, they conclude with a suggestion for a third alternative: to maintain the physical strips, but turn them into the interface to the computer. This would allow controllers to build directly upon their existing, safe work practices with paper strips, while offering them a gradual path for incorporating new computer-based functions.

In each beacon, there are some radars, paper flight strips and controllers. Radar provides a two-dimensional representation of aircraft moving along predefined routes within an air sector, while paper flight strips allow controllers to track and modify information about aircraft and their flight plans. Controller is also responsible to check frequently radars, strips and air traffics.

Because of the safety-critical nature of the system, the air traffic controllers reject interfaces they do not like. Controllers have a very convincing reason: "if there is an accident, computers do not go to jail, controllers do". In the other word, air traffic controllers like paper flight strips according to some reasons. The interface is extremely flexible, familiar, easy-to-use, helps controllers instantly understand the current state of the traffic and lets them communicate without interrupting each other. More importantly, strips are reliable, and --unlike computers, telephones, radio, and radar-- do not break down. Another reason is that paper strips take advantage of both visual and tactile memory, and form an essential component of today’s air traffic control system.

Above the mentioned advantages by controllers, there some others mentioned by the author. Arguably, the most important activity that controllers perform is the continual, sequential checking of each aircraft, first on the radar and then on the strips. This routine is important, not only when things are hectic, but also when things are slow. Any new tool that fundamentally changes this work practice must demonstrate that the increased safety risk from inattention in low traffic levels is more than offset by increased safety in high-stress conditions. Moreover, when a new strip arrives, the act of removing it from the printer and inserting it into the appropriate strip holder forces the controller to mentally register the new flight. Most controllers, when taking over a control position, physically touch each strip, rearranging some of them. Reordering the strips also helps controllers mentally register the new traffic situation. In each case, it is the act of rearranging the strips, more than the final layout, that is important. The physical nature of strips also supports cooperative work. Peripheral awareness (such as audio and visual clues) is highly necessary for air traffic controllers. Controllers share a small physical space, which helps them monitor each others’ activities. Peripheral awareness helps explain a related phenomenon among team members. In light-to-moderate traffic conditions, members of the team who are not assigned to a particular position chat with each other near their team’s working control positions. Controllers also do more than passively accept peripheral information. In some situations, they actively manage it.

Peripheral monitoring, both active and passive, provides controllers with efficient methods of assessing the traffic situation and coming to each others’ aid. It is difficult to quantify the safety benefits of this type of nonverbal physical communication; however, new computer systems that isolate controllers from each other must somehow accommodate the checks and balances that occur naturally in the paper-based system.

While improving productivity is important, safety remains the overriding concern. Increasing the former at the expense of the latter is simply not acceptable. The current paper-based system supports safe and effective work practices and offers a level of flexibility difficult to imagine with traditional computer-based interfaces. The title of this article asks “Is paper is safer?” There is, of course, no single answer. But it does raise the question as to whether the current strategy of radically changing current work practices and eliminating paper strips may be misdirected.

My Idea:

I consider this paper as a curious paper. The attempts of the team members were admirable. They spent a lot of time, and obviously money, to visit the real area and gather information about the current aircraft controlling systems. In addition, they didn't restrict their discovering in one place and they examined 8 beacons in 2 different countries.

On my opinion, as the paper was very long, but it was not boring, because the context had been managed very well. During reading this paper, I assumed that I was in the same place. As a result, I believe that today's computer systems can be applied to replace those paper flight strips.

Re Awareness and Coordination in Shared Workspaces

The paper analyses how factors like - information sharing, knowledge of group and individual activity, and coordination - are central to successful workspace collaboration. According to the paper, these factors are clearly critical concerns in the design of computer systems to support collaborative Writing; as such, information relating to this paper are classified as Awareness.

The paper goes on to illustrate Awareness as an understanding of the activities of others, which provides a context for one's personal activity. And such a context is used to ensure that individual contributions are relevant to the group’s Objectives and goals.

Awareness has been extensively studied in human computer interaction (HCI) and computer supported cooperative work (CSCW)( Faroog et al 2008). The success of many collaborative systems hinges on effectively supporting awareness of different collaborators, their actions, and the process of creating shared work products. Some case studies, eg ShrEdit, and other approaches were reviewed in detail.

Opinion

Reflecting on the contents of this paper provided new insights to a recently concluded writing collaboration work I did with some research colleagues. The concept of Awareness and how one could use it to interpreted and categorize the actions, motivations and the proclivities of myself and colleagues during the period of our workspace collaboration. I began to appreciate the fact that while we shared a common objective as a group - which was to write the paper and get a good grade for it - there were other motivation's and personal objectives which operated in the background. For example, I realized that while some collaborators within the group were concerned about their section of the project and to get high grades and recognition for their individual work, others were more affected by the desire for the project to succeed as a unit. Again, it now became clear that some group members were more concerned about finishing the work on time - so they could proceed on holidays without worrying about school work - than about the quality of the output or finishing the work to high standards.

This is the main thing I took away from this paper :

The Awareness syndrome: the insights it can reveal about workspace collaborations and the challenges it brings.

References

Dourish, P., and Bellotti, V. (1992). Awareness and coordination in shared workspaces. In Proceedings of the conference on computer supported cooperative work (Toronto, Canada, October 31–November 4, 1992) (pp. 107–113). New York, NY: ACM Press.

Farooq, U., Ganoe, C., Carroll, J., Councill, I., and Giles, C. (1998) .Design and evaluation of awareness mechanisms in CiteSeer. Information Processing & Management, 2008, 44, 596-612.

Response: Distance Matters

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.

Patterns of Contact & Communication in Scientific Research Collaboration

Summary:
The authors of this paper describe the influence of physical proximity on the development of collaborative relationships between scientific researchers and on the execution of their work. Generally, this paper proves that the nature of collaborative work relationships can help to implement technologies to support collaborative research. Therefore, this paper is divided in two sections:

1. Examination of physical proximity: In this case, they examine the role of physical proximity in the collaborative process. There are some mechanisms underlying the relationship between proximity and collaboration. These mechanisms are the availability of frequent, high quality, and low-cost communication that facilitates the development of ideas and the execution of collaborative tasks. Thus, they research on the relationship between some research collaborations and physical proximity. Consequently, they prove that among researchers in different departments, pairs of researchers who were on the same floor with frequently talking to each other have more collaborations than the farther researchers. They also prove that high quality metric in informal communication is effective in collaboration between researchers. Finally, they show that the cost of communication is as important as the other factors. Obviously, this cost is nothing when researchers are physically close to each other; so, they have more collaborations in this way.
2. Implications for technology for collaborative work: The authors' view is that communication technologies that allow free-form interaction in real-time and time-shifted modes to substitute for, and even to augment, physical proximity are likely to yield great benefits. Therefore, they address the three needs of distributed work teams: communication tools, management tools, task-oriented tools. According to the mentioned metrics of physical proximity, they claim that the communication technology should be cheap, frequent, and spontaneous enough that collaborators can be in touch easily.

My Idea:
As this paper was as old as the two others, but I found it more academic. In introduction, I highlighted a sentence which was very nice for me: "Science is a fundamentally social process". I think that all the paper was based on this fact. The authors firstly examined the metrics of collaboration between researchers, then concluded that technology should have those metrics that is a good flow from real-worl facts to technology progress.