3
Intermittentconnections(modems,E-mail,“sneakernet”)
Afastlocalnetworkisidealforcooperativeediting,andallowstheuseoftraditional
synchronizationtechniqueswithoutcreatingbottlenecks.Thiswillremainpossiblegivenany
continuouslyavailablecommunicationsaccess(thoughevenWANconnectionsarefarfrom
perfectinthisrespect).Whencommunicationsareintermittent,suchstrategiesareinsuffi-
cient;inconsistenciesinthecollaborators’viewsoftheshareddataareboundtooccur(Greif
andSarin1987).
Agreatnumberofhumanfactorsarecriticalineffectivelysupportingthewritingtask.A
completelist,evenoftheknownfactorswouldbehardtogivehere,butthefollowinglistof
generalgoalshasguidedalltheworkinthisdissertation:
Itsmodelshouldbenaturaltousers,atleasttotheextentthatitisexposedtothem
throughtheinterface.Thisiseasiestiftheunderlyingdatamodelisnaturalinitself.
Thebasicobjectsinasystemshouldcorrespondtoentitiesthatareintheuser’sontol-
ogy.
Itmustallowmeaningfulinformationfilteringandselectionbyeachcollaborator.Col-
laborationintroducesawholenewsetofproblems,andusersmusthaveeasy,natural
accesstotheinformationtheyneedtosolvethoseproblems.
Itshouldassistuserstoevolvetheirownworkprocess,ratherthanenforcingoneon
them.Whilespecializedsituationsmayrequirevarioussortsofpolicyenforcement,such
policiesareapplication,organization,andsometimespersonneldependent.Generictool-
kits,especially,shouldstriveforgeneralityandpolicyneutrality,providingdefaultpoli-
ciesonlyforthoseapplicationsthatdonotneedtheirown.
Palimpsestismyattempttobalancehumanrequirementsagainsttechnicalones,while
makingminimalcommitmentstounderlyingnetworktechnologyandapplication-specific
policydecisions.
4
1.3 Abriefreviewofsomecollaborativeeditingsystems
Onethreadofcollaborationresearchhasemergedfromthestudyofwritingandwriting
pedagogy.Thisresearchhasconcentratedoncreatingtoolstoenhancetheabilityofan
authororgroupofauthorstoeffectivelyplanthestructureofdocuments,andtoolstopro-
videexplicittechniquestocontroltheprocessofconceiving,planning,creating,andresiz-
ingdocuments.Whilealmostanywriter’stool(outliners,spell-checkers,editors,etc)iscon-
ceivablyrelevanttotheproblemofhowpeoplewriteoncomputers,theresearchliterature
onthisproblemistypicallygroundedintheoriesofthewritingprocessandanalysisofex-
perimentalobservationsofauthors’activities.
Somesystemshaveconcentratedonassistanceforspecificphasesofthewritingprocess.
Forexample,anumberoftoolshavebeendesignedtosupport“brainstorming”or“pre-
writing”activities(Applegate,Konsynskietal.1986;FosterandStefik1986).Argumentation
hypertextsystemslikegIBISandTHOTH-II(Collier1987;ConklinandBegeman1987;Conklin
1988)triedtoimplementformalargumentanalysismethodologiesdirectly,asanaidinde-
velopingengineeringandtechnicalspecificationswhilemakingdesignknowledgeandthe
designprocessexplicitandpermanent.Significantly,SHREDIT(asimpletexteditorsup-
portingsimultaneousediting,andnostructure)wasextremelyeffectiveasagroupbrain-
stormingtool(DourishandBellotti1992;HymesandOlson1992).
Afewsystemsfromthecompositionteachingcommunityprovidedintegratedsupportfor
awholestructuredprocessofdocumentcreation.Theideawasthatanintegratedsetofspe-
cializedsupporttoolswouldbemoreeffectiveinenablingauthorstoapplyeachphaseofa
structuredwritingmethod,aswellasmakingconformitytotheoverallmethodeasier.Per-
haps,duetowidevariationinindividualwritingstyles,suchsystems,liketheargumenta-
tionsupportsystems,havenotbeenwidelyused.
Previous Page Next Page