Communication

previous research on impact of communication channels on collaborative tasks has produced mixed findings …

beyond being there (Hollan & Stornetta, 1993)

no difference (ROCOCO project) (Maziloglou, et al., 1996)

video channel Important (Harrison

& Minneman, 1990; Tang & Issacs, 1993, Olson, et al., 1997)

video channel not Important (Vera, et al., 1998; Gabriel, et al., 1998)

Com

mun

icat

ion

chan

nels

&

Col

labo

rativ

e D

esig

n

face-to-face (FTF)

computer-mediated collaborative design with full communication channels (CMCD-a)

computer-mediated collaborative design with limited communication channels (CMCD-b)

Exp

erim

ents

...

Experiments ...

5th & 6th year architecture students @ Architecture Faculty - University of Sydney

9 pilot experiments using 18 - 6th year students (September 1997)

26 final experiments using 52 - 5 & 6th year students (September 1998)

Sub

ject

s ..

.

Subjects ...

Brie

f &

Site

...

Brief & Site ...

Verbal Communication inCollaborative Design

CommunicationControl

DesignCommunication

SocialCommunication

CommunicationTechnology

Cod

ing

Sch

eme

...

InterruptionFloor

HoldingHandOver

OnlineAcknow.

Tools &Environment

Social &Interpersonal

Design Ideas Design ScopeDesign Task

Introductionof Idea

Rejectionof Idea

Confirmationof Idea

Evaluationof Idea

Acceptanceof Idea

Clarificationof Idea

Developmentof Idea

Repetitionof Idea

Referencingof Idea

Revisitingof Idea

LLD HLDBrief Schedule Task ActionInstructionDesign

Representation

Cod

ing

Sch

eme

...C

odin

g S

chem

e ...

Coding Scheme

differences in communication

differences in verbal design representations

differences in graphical design representations

Obs

erve

d D

iffer

ence

s...

Observed Differences

Obs

erve

d D

iffer

ence

s...

Observed Differences

The Four Primary Coding Categories

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

DesignCommunication

SocialCommunication

CommunicationTechnology

CommunicationControl

FTF CMCD-a CMCD-b

Obs

erve

d D

iffer

ence

s...

Observed Differences

Design Idea

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Introductionof idea

Acceptanceof Idea

Rejection ofidea

Clarificationof idea

Confirmationof idea

Developmentof idea

Repetition ofidea

Referencingan idea

Revisiting anidea

Evaluation ofidea

FTF CMCD-a CMCD-b

FTF: ‘spontaneous’ & participants seemed to talk all the time.

CMCD-a: ‘spontaneous’ as in FTF, but with less interruptions.

CMCD-b: ‘less spontaneous’ than FTF & CMCD-a, with no interruptions or floor holding.

Ver

bal R

epr

ese

nta

tion .

..

Preliminary ...

most of the time working simultaneously & spontaneously on or around the same sketch.

sketching using traditional media (pencil & paper) was smooth & allowed subjects to produce graphical representations with more ease. F

TF

Gra

phic

al D

iffer

ence

s ...

Differences ...

sometimes working on separate pages & then looking up each other’s pages to evaluate progress.

sketching was spontaneous & at times, accompanied by simple annotations.

emulating FTF by simultaneously illustrating their verbal utterances with graphical sketches & with the added awkwardness of the mouse may have contributed to sketches that were incomprehensible most of the time.

CM

CD-a

Gra

phic

al D

iffer

ence

s...

Differences ...

working on separate pages as in CMCD-a ...

sketching was less spontaneous & ...

... consequently appeared to be more elaborate accompanied by more elaborate annotations most of the time as well as 3D representations...

CM

CD-b

Gra

phic

al D

iffer

ence

s...

Differences ...

natural use of verbal communication plus familiarity of sketching environment, allowed participants to produce graphical representations with more ease.

eye contact varied depending on subjects and rarely simultaneous ...

FT

F C

omm

ents

... smooth & straightforward apart from interruptions

Comments ...

some difficulty in the beginning adjusting to the new medium.

hardly used video channel & most of the time covered it with the brief window for remainder of session.

higher levels of social communication, interruptions & repetitions of verbal utterances, in order to establish and maintain on-line presence.

2D graphical representations most of the time … & not always comprehensible

(even by their authors). CM

CD

-a C

omm

ents

...

Comments...

difficulty in typing and drawing at the same time. Therefore subjects proceeded to annotate their sketches with verbal representations.

fewer words, less repetition & more thinking/ reflecting with subjects getting straight to the point. Often seen rewording or revisiting verbal representations

the semi-synchronous nature of the CMCD-b collaborative environment appeared to allow participants more time to reflect on ideas.

consequently their graphical representations responded to well thought out ideas instead of a spontaneous reactions to the verbal representations at hand.CM

CD

-b C

omm

ents

...

Comments...

some of the differences show that computer-mediation may in some cases, be more appropriate than a FTF meeting, eg CMCD-b produced a better record of the collaborative session than the FTF or the full audio and video experiments.

the three categories of communication for design collaboration explored in the experiments are indicative of the alternatives available now.

In s

umm

ary

...

Summary ...

we observed differences in the way people communicate using different communication channels.

… we propose that each category has its own strengths and difficulties for design collaboration.

therefore each category should be selected on the basis of the type of communication that would be most effective for the stage and tasks of the design project.

“designers need to decide when they want socially and culturally FTF communication, and when they want and need synchronous or semi-synchronous remote communication.” (Mitchell, 1995)

Summary ...

In s

umm

ary

...

Collaborative design in a 3D virtual world, Active Worlds

Verbal communication by typing

Gesture communication with avatars

Summary ...

3D C

olla

bora

tive

Wor

ld

Design communication through 3D models

Summary ...

Com

mu

nic

ati

on

An

aly

sis

Communication control17% Communication Technology3%

Navigation6%

Design Communication67%Social communication7%

Summary ...

Com

mu

nic

ati

on

An

aly

sis

Evaluation of idea7%

Low-level design6%

High-level design14%

Brief5%

Schedule2%

Task/Instruction17%

Refinement of idea8%

Clarification of idea20%

Acceptance of idea1%

Rejection of idea4%

Introduction of idea16%

Summary ...

Com

mu

nic

ati

on

An

aly

sis

0 2 4 6 8 10ClientProject CoordiatorTeam ManagerDesigner 1Designer 2Designer 3Designer 4Designer 5Designer 6

words

Alternatives for drawing or model communication include: sketches, drawings, 3D modelling

Alternatives for verbal communication include: video, audio, chat

Video contact is not essential for effective collaboration while designing

Communication is primarily about the design in CMCD

In c

oncl

usio

n