Synchronous Distributed Interfaces:
Different Place, SameTime
Exploring Real-Time Collaboration
Technologies
Introduction to Synchronous Collaboration
• Definition: Technologies enabling real-time
interaction across distances.
• Historical examples: Telephone, television.
• Modern applications: Group editing, video
conferencing, multiplayer gaming.
• Key benefit: Overcoming geographical barriers.
Early Systems (GROVE Example)
• Developed at Xerox PARC (1991).
• WYSIWIS (What You See Is What I See): Shared
outline editor.
• Coordination: Required external voice calls (no
embedded audio).
Limitations:
• No internet support; LAN-only.
• Manual conflict resolution.
Legacy: Inspired modern tools like Etherpad.
Modern Collaborative Interfaces
• Flexible communication channels:
– Text (chat, IM, texting).
– Audio/video conferencing.
• Shared workspaces: Documents, slides, web
pages.
• Use cases:
– Software demos.
– Medical consultations (X-rays, MRIs).
– Example: Zoom with shared whiteboard.
Chat, Instant Messaging (IM), and Texting
• Internet Relay Chat (IRC): Fast-paced text
exchanges.
• Activeworlds.com: Combines chat with 3D
avatars.
• Challenges:
– Limited reflection time.
– Potential for distractions or misuse.
• Example: WhatsApp Business chats.
Avatars and 3D Worlds
Pros:
• Social Proximity:
Users feel a sense of presence and closeness when avatars move naturally and occupy virtual space, enhancing
interpersonal communication.
Example: A waving avatar or facial expressions in a virtual meeting.
• Enhanced Engagement:
3D environments create immersive experiences, especially useful in games, virtual classrooms, and training simulations
where users interact more naturally.
Example: Students attending a virtual science lab where they "walk around" and explore.
Cons:
• Navigation Fatigue:
Constantly moving through 3D environments can be mentally and physically tiring, especially in long sessions.
• Questionable Value in Non-Gaming Contexts:
In professional or academic settings, the added complexity may not always improve productivity or communication.
Example: Meta Horizon Workrooms
• A virtual meeting space developed by Meta for remote collaboration.
• Users join using VR headsets, represented as avatars in a 3D room.
• Features include spatial audio, hand tracking, and virtual whiteboards.
• Pros: Encourages interaction and engagement in meetings.
Social Dynamics in Chat Environnements
In online chat environments, users often interact without revealing their true identity. This anonymity
allows individuals to experiment with different personas—this is known as identity play.
• Pseudonyms like “Gypsy” or “Larry Lightning” are commonly used instead of real names. These
screen names allow users to express creativity, explore roles, or protect privacy.
• However, this anonymity can lead to social risks, including:
– Flaming: Sending hostile or aggressive messages.
– Obscenity: Sharing inappropriate or offensive content.
– Deception: Pretending to be someone else, leading to trust issues.
Safety Concerns:
• Children may fall victim to online predators due to a lack of identity verification.
• Businesses may suffer from reputation damage, misinformation, or data breaches caused by
anonymous users.
MUDs and MOOs
MUDs (Multi-User Dungeons/Dimensions) and MOOs (MUD Object-Oriented) are text-based virtual
environments where multiple users can interact in real time.
• Originally inspired by fantasy role-playing games, these platforms allowed players to explore new
identities and interact as fictional characters.
Educational Applications:
• Later adapted for academic use, they evolved into virtual learning spaces:
– Virtual Universities used MUDs for hosting online libraries, discussion halls, and role-playing simulations.
– Encouraged collaborative learning and student engagement, especially in distance education.
Criticism:
• Critics argue these platforms often placed too much emphasis on social interaction rather than
structured learning.
• Users sometimes focused more on chatting or socializing than on the educational objectives, leading
to reduced effectiveness in some academic settings.
Instant Messaging (IM)
• Features:
– Buddy lists, emoticons, file sharing.
– Controlled membership (private groups).
• User groups:
– Teenagers (creative shorthand, e.g., "LOL").
– Office workers (coordination, quick queries).
IM in the Workplace
Study Findings (Isaacs et al., 2002):
• 31% of IM usage was for scheduling tasks or meetings.
• 28% was for simple, quick interactions, such as clarifying doubts or sharing brief updates.
Why IM is Useful:
• Supports Multitasking: Employees can chat while continuing with other work, unlike phone
calls which demand full attention.
• Promotes Awareness: Team members stay updated on each other’s availability and ongoing
tasks.
Privacy & Security:
• Crucial in professional settings to protect sensitive information.
• IM tools must ensure encrypted communication, user authentication, and access control.
Texting (SMS) Revolution
Global Adoption
• Low-Cost Alternative:
SMS became popular worldwide as a cheap and accessible communication method, especially in areas with
limited internet access.
Example: Fishermen in India use SMS to check market prices and weather conditions, helping them make
better decisions and avoid losses.
• Tool for Activism:
SMS was used to mobilize people and spread information quickly during protests and social movements.
Example: In Indonesia, protesters coordinated through SMS during political demonstrations, showing its
power in grassroots activism.
Behavioral Impact
• Real-Time Coordination:
SMS changed how people plan and respond, enabling last-minute updates and on-the-go communication.
Example: "Meet at 7:20" — quick, direct updates for dynamic planning.
Audio and Video Conferencing
• Use cases:
– Negotiations, trust-building, family calls.
• Formats:
– Telephone-based audio.
– High-end video rooms (Polycom, Tandberg).
Desktop Video Conferencing (DTVC)
• Examples:
– Cornell’s CU-SeeMe (pioneering, low-res).
– Microsoft NetMeeting (small video windows).
• Challenges:
– Delay, poor social cues (gaze, body language).
Video Conferencing in Practice
• Professional use:
– Document sharing (architectural models).
• Family use:
– Grandparent-grandchild interactions.
Media Comparison Studies
• Chapanis (1975) & later work:
– Voice critical for coordination.
– Video less impactful than audio for many tasks.
• Shared workspace findings:
– Audio halves task time vs. text-only.
Continuous Video Connections
• Concept: "Always-on" video links (e.g., office
kitchens).
• Pros: Opportunistic collaboration.
• Cons: Privacy concerns, intrusiveness.
Choosing the Right Medium
• Video vs. text vs. audio:
– First meetings → Video.
– Reflective discussion → Asynchronous text (email,
wiki).
• Task-dependent trade-offs.
Electronic Classrooms
• Examples:
– UToronto’s ePresence (webcasting + chat).
– Georgia Tech’s eClass (lecture capture).
• Microsoft study:
– Audio conferencing → Highest satisfaction.
Key Takeaways
• Synchronous tools bridge distance in real time.
• Trade-offs: Richness vs. intrusiveness.
• Audio often more critical than video.
• Context dictates the best medium.
Future Directions
• Emerging tech: VR collaboration, AI
moderation.
• Challenges:
– Better social cue transmission.
– Balancing privacy and connectivity.
• Quote: "The future is already here—it’s just
not evenly distributed." (William Gibson)
