• Like
  • Save
PowerMeetingWebScienceProcess
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

PowerMeetingWebScienceProcess

on

  • 510 views

Describing the design of PowerMeeting (a Web browser based real time groupware) and comparing it with Google Wave and ThinkTank, using Tim Burners Lee's Web science process as a framework.

Describing the design of PowerMeeting (a Web browser based real time groupware) and comparing it with Google Wave and ThinkTank, using Tim Burners Lee's Web science process as a framework.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
510
Views on SlideShare
510
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    PowerMeetingWebScienceProcess PowerMeetingWebScienceProcess Presentation Transcript

    • Real Time Groupware in Web Browsers: A New Web 2.0 Species is Coming of Age!? Dr. Weigang Wang Decision and Cognitive Sciences Research Centre Strategy Division, MBS The University of ManchesterWeb / Art / Science Camp Unconference (6 November 2010, London)
    • Overview• A Web science approach• The problems/issues• The PowerMeeting idea• Technical protocols/rules• Social protocols/rules• The evidence of success at micro level• Some promising lights at macro level• A comparison to Google Wave, …• Concluding remarks 2
    • A process of Web Science (Tim Burners Lee, 2007) magic Problems combines technical and social aspects influence influence co-evolve rules rules synthesize Problems are a function of the very large scale behavior rules wide participation, large impact useful, usable fractal tangle communities fractal tangle web magic 3Annotation in purple added by WW
    • Wiki example (Tim Burners Lee, 2007) 4
    • The Problems/Issues• Lack of real time collaboration support on the Web – Web based cooperative systems are largely asynchronous (e.g. Facebook, Blob, Wiki, Web mail). – For a long time standard Web browsers and standard Web networking technologies are inadequate for real time groupware – Most plug-in (JavaApplet, Java Web Start, Flash) based ones are not easy to access and not widely adopted• Two high-level problems/issues – Not readily accessible (an issue at micro level) – Not widely adopted (failed at macro level) 5
    • Make two magics at the same time ! real time groupware not readily accessible ?real time groupwarenot widely adopted ? 6
    • The PowerMeeting Idea• Standard Web browser based real time groupware using latest Web 2.0 technologies (AJAX and AJAX push) – High level technical protocols that make real time groupware possible and easier to build (for developers) – Social protocols that make the system easier to understand and more comfortable to use (for end users) 7
    • The technical protocols• Replicated data model• Cooperative Model-View-Controller and Cooperative Model-View-Presenter (CoopMVC and CoopMVP)• Concurrency friendly content model and change notification• Efficient optimistic concurrency control (OCC)• Smooth moving between synchronous and asynchronous collaboration modes – Persistent collaborative session and data objects – Webized session instances (accessible by URLs)• Supported by Googe Web Toolkit (GWT) and Java IDE (Eclipse) 8
    • The social protocols• Meeting metaphor for conventions and social protocols in group meetings (participants, area of joint focus, pointer/beamer, agenda and their corresponding task- specific tools, session chair led group process)• “PowerPoint” metaphor for planning and execute a meeting process (consisting of agenda items)• Point-of-Meeting (PoM) in context (for integrating real time media into existing asynchronous social media)• Focus on joint work in shared workspace while using textual or voice chatting for fine grained coordination 9
    • Web science process to PowerMeeting real time groupware not readily accessible meeting in web browsersreal time groupware enable by AJAXnot widely adopted replication, transaction, meeting metaphor persistency, respect OCC, PoM in context CoopMVC session URLWide participation? PowerMeetingFractal tangle groups in communities 10Integration into asyn coop sys
    • PowerMeeting• PowerMeeting supports participants to plan and perform their group activities (using various task-specific groupware tools) in a well coordinated group process. 11
    • Area of joint focus (shared workspace)Agenda:ad hot meeting process Telepointer (deixis)Participants:group awareness Indirect communication: feedback and controlDirect communication: feedthrough upontext or voice chat shared artefacts 12
    • 13
    • 14
    • 15
    • 16
    • Comparing with ThinkTank• ThinkTank: needs a Flash plug in, provides a small number of tools, smaller developer base with ActionScript, mainly used for collocated decision meetings, lacks integrated communication and coordination support, cannot run in devices not supporting flash, e.g. iPhone and iPad• Comparing with ThinkTank, PowerMeeting – Can be accessed by any standard Web browser (no need to install a plug in) – Is more open and extendable in terms of groupware tools available – Has integrated communication and coordination support for distributed facilitation 17
    • Google Wave Lack of real time support in social networking(?) New media that merge key features of e-mail, instant messaging, wikis, and social networkingIntegrated intoother systems live richtext threaded editing, conversations, OT, ?? Scalability? Google Wave not widely adopted Mixed async and sync 18
    • 19
    • Comparing with Google Wave (May, 2009)• Google Wave: strong in richtext editing, its operational transformation concurrency control methods are specific to its operations on text editing, weak on task-specific tool support (the capability of its gadgets extension is very limited), system objectives not very clear, not easy to understand and use, project ended due to low adoption• Comparing with Google Wave, PowerMeeting (June, 2008) – Supports the development of full-fledged groupware with more complex data structures and operations – Applies an optimistic concurrency control methods applicable to such data structures for wide range of groupware applications – Focus on group work with textual and voice chat as communication and coordination means – Offers distributed facilitation support for a well coordinated meeting process 20
    • Data from Google Analytics(from 13 Nov 2008 to 19 Oct 2010)• 1454 users from 74 counties/territories• Avg. Time on Site: 00:03:42• Top screen resolution: 1280x800, 25.35%; 1024x768, 21.96%; 1280x1024, 18.36%, …• Connecting speed: T1, 42.49%; DSL, 28.61%; Unknown 21.92%; Cable, 5.81%; Dialup, 1.09%• Used 8 browsers: Firebox, 33.96%; Chrome, 29.57%; Internet Exporer, 27.85%; Safari, 6.48%; Opera, 1.30% 21
    • Results on PowerMeeting• With good groupware performance in term of round trip time (well below sub second on average).• The optimistic concurrency control mechanism has a good test result (for keep data consistency).• The framework and programming model has been successfully used by less experience Java developers (students) to develop various groupware tools• The systems have been used in case studies on managing student group projects, integration with Facebook and Blackboard, team building activities in induction event, group decision support 22
    • Concluding remarks• This work is the first to demonstrate that standard Web networking technologies and standard Web browsers can support full- fledged highly interactive real-time groupware that offer a desktop-application-like rich user experience• More work is needed to further investigate its adoption, distributed facilitation support, and its integration with other popular Web 2.0 systems 23
    • Links• PowerMeeting website (Introduction and Demos): – http://www.powermeeting.co.uk• Wang, W. 2008. PowerMeeting on CommonGround: web based synchronous groupware with rich user experience. In Proceedings of the ACM Hypertext 2008 Workshop on Collaboration and Collective intelligence (Pittsburgh, PA, USA, June 19 - 21, 2008). WebScience 08, New York, NY, 35-39. DOI=http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1379157.1379166• Wang, W. and French, S. 2008. A multi-dimensional framework for facilitating wide participation and common understanding. In Proceedings of the ACM Hypertext 2008 Workshop on Collaboration and Collective intelligence (Pittsburgh, PA, USA, June 19 - 21, 2008). WebScience 08, New York, NY, 23-27. DOI=http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1379157.1379164• Wang, W. 2008. Powermeeting: gwt-based synchronous groupware (A demo at HT98). In Proceedings of the Nineteenth ACM Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia (Pittsburgh, PA, USA, June 19 - 21, 2008). ACM HT 08, New York, NY, 251-252. DOI=http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1379092.1379150• Stephen Mogan, Weigang Wang, "The Impact of Web 2.0 Developments on Real-Time Groupware," socialcom, pp.534-539, 2010 IEEE Second International Conference on Social Computing, 2010, DOI= http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/SocialCom.2010.84 24
    • PowerMeeting Framework for wide participation 25Adapted from Cunningham’s innovation framework (WikiSystem 2006) and the success factors of many Web 2.0 systems
    • PowerMeeting framework for coordination and shared understanding 26Derived from Piaget’s cognitive theory, Clark’s social cognitive theory, and Dix’s CSCW framework