5
But the oldest, and still most common scenario for most collaborative writingsupport has
been “artifact based” collaboration. In this approach computer support is conceived of as a
way of supporting authors in contributing their work in the form of changes to a shared “ar-
tifact” (a document or other workspace, like a whiteboard) that serves as a medium of com-
munication, as well as recording the product of that collaboration. The application itself is
some form of multi-user editor operating on the shared artifact. While some doubts have
been raised about even this model of collaboration (Williams 1992), it is the model that has
had the most success of all the collaboration approaches that have been tried. It also is the
approach that fits most naturally into existing patterns of computer use by authors; most
writers already use computer tools for writing, so it is natural to extend those writing tools
to support several collaborating authors.
Because there are a variety of collaborative work styles, and consequently a variety of
concepts of collaborative editing, systems for collaborative writing support have also been
quite different. Until recently, almost all have been classifiable by a fundamental distinction
between tools to support synchronous versus asynchronous work activities. This distinction
is one of the primary axes of Ellis, Gibbs and Rein’s time/space taxonomy of collaborative
work (Ellis, Gibbs et al. 1991), with its fundamental division of collaboration into same
time/different time categories. System designs have generally targeted either one or the
other but not both styles of work. System support models and strategies for synchronous
collaborative editing have been generalized and formalized by implementation in the form of
toolkits such as Suite, Groupkit (Roseman and Greenberg 1992), Colab (Stefik, Foster et al.
1987), Rendezvous (Patterson, Hill et al. 1990), Distedit and Distview (Knister and Prakash
1990; Prakash and Kim 1994), Timewarp (Edwards and Mynat 1997), and a variety of shared
window systems. These established toolkits (sometimes exclusively) concentrate on one kind
of collaboration: synchronous work. Support for asynchronous work has not in general led to
the creation of toolkits, and has been a somewhat less active research area, though it has
But the oldest, and still most common scenario for most collaborative writingsupport has
been “artifact based” collaboration. In this approach computer support is conceived of as a
way of supporting authors in contributing their work in the form of changes to a shared “ar-
tifact” (a document or other workspace, like a whiteboard) that serves as a medium of com-
munication, as well as recording the product of that collaboration. The application itself is
some form of multi-user editor operating on the shared artifact. While some doubts have
been raised about even this model of collaboration (Williams 1992), it is the model that has
had the most success of all the collaboration approaches that have been tried. It also is the
approach that fits most naturally into existing patterns of computer use by authors; most
writers already use computer tools for writing, so it is natural to extend those writing tools
to support several collaborating authors.
Because there are a variety of collaborative work styles, and consequently a variety of
concepts of collaborative editing, systems for collaborative writing support have also been
quite different. Until recently, almost all have been classifiable by a fundamental distinction
between tools to support synchronous versus asynchronous work activities. This distinction
is one of the primary axes of Ellis, Gibbs and Rein’s time/space taxonomy of collaborative
work (Ellis, Gibbs et al. 1991), with its fundamental division of collaboration into same
time/different time categories. System designs have generally targeted either one or the
other but not both styles of work. System support models and strategies for synchronous
collaborative editing have been generalized and formalized by implementation in the form of
toolkits such as Suite, Groupkit (Roseman and Greenberg 1992), Colab (Stefik, Foster et al.
1987), Rendezvous (Patterson, Hill et al. 1990), Distedit and Distview (Knister and Prakash
1990; Prakash and Kim 1994), Timewarp (Edwards and Mynat 1997), and a variety of shared
window systems. These established toolkits (sometimes exclusively) concentrate on one kind
of collaboration: synchronous work. Support for asynchronous work has not in general led to
the creation of toolkits, and has been a somewhat less active research area, though it has
