The Web Collaboration Wave:

(1)

The Web Collaboration Wave:

Tsunami or Rip Tide?

Mary Trauner

Georgia Institute of Technology

Meeting of the

(2)

Outline

•T er m s •T he W av e • T ypical Uses • A SDC Survey Results • P roduct Examples • C ase Studies

(3)

Terms

• D ocument Sharing • D ata Sharing • D ata Collaboration • A pplication Sharing • W eb Collaboration

(4)

An Evolutionary Table

T.120 NetMeeting (1995/6) VCON Meetingpoint R adVis ion DCS SGIMeeting Lotus Sametime

SunForum MeetingOne PictureTel LiveLan RadVis

ion DCS

Remote Control VNC (1998) Timbuktu Rea

lVNC

Custom/Hybrid Tango (

1998)

Habañero AG Dist. PowerPoint Ezenia Placeware ThinAnywhere UARC/SPARC

White board/Chat/IM Netscape Confer ence (1997) Voxphone MERCI ( T eleDraw) e/pop

Wiki Wiki Wiki (1998) Twiki

Information on this slide

contains gross estimations

based on rapidly changing tec

(5)

An Evolutionary Table

Shared Browsers Hipbone (1999) SurfNCh

at

ZofX Po

werCall

WebAnytime CuSeeMe (2001)

JAVA/Javascript Habanero JCE mDesk Brains

har

k

iMeet JAMM MeetingP

lace

Peer to Peer (P2P) Jxta (2001) Groove (1999)

Virtual Classroom/

Desktop/Office

WebOffice (2002) WebEx Elluminate vClass Hori

zon

Live

Raindance eMeeting PictureTalk

Information on this slide

contains gross estimations

based on rapidly changing tec

hnologies in a large market.

(6)

The

Good

Side

Many products to choose from Rich set of features and functions Multiplatform solutions beginning to appear Integration with audio and video

(7)

The

Good

Side

The

Bad

Side

High cost on many Most not standards-based Independent pricing of pieces Unique, non-intuitive interfaces Significant training required Often browser only Limited features and

functionality at this time

Some H.323 and SIP specific Some proprietary Many POTS

(8)

The

Good

Side

The Wave

The

Bad

Side

High cost on many Most not standards-based Independent pricing of pieces Unique, non-intuitive interfaces Significant training required Often browser only Limited features and

functionality at this time

(9)

ASDC Survey

Background

•

A

dministered in March and April, 2004

•

A

imed to solicit opinions about

importance of use cases for and features included in data collaboration technology

•

Input for ViDe, Internet2 Commons, and an RFI

•

O

pen invitation send to several relevant

mailing lists

•

(10)

ASDC Survey

Typical Uses

•

T

eaching and Learning _–Lecture _–Seminar _–O

ffi ce H o ur s – G roup Projec ts – S tudent Advisement – A

ccessibility and Spec

ial

Needs

•Research

–Meetings, Dis

cussion Format

–Meetings, Presentation Format –Informal Work Session

•Administrative

–Planning and Reviews –Training –Servic

(11)

ASDC Survey Results

Who responded? Responses by Perspective 36 85 100 108 16 11

(12)

•

H

ad moderate experience with DC

technology (mean 3.52)

•

U

sed DC technology with some

frequency (mean 3.27)

•

S

aw need for DC technology increasing

in near future (mean 4.03)

ASDC Survey Results

(13)

•

R

esearch, teaching and administration

would all require DC technology –R

esearch will require it the most

•

F

elt that lack of interoperability would

negatively impact the appeal of a tool (mean 2.05)

•

Expressed a weak preference for an integrated set of tools (mean 3.20)

ASDC Survey Results

(14)

ASDC Survey Results

What did they say?

•

R

espondents ranged widely in their

experience with these technologies

•

T

here was a very strong correlation (p < .001)

between experience with the technology and the belief that these types of technologies would soon be important, generally and within research, teaching and administration

•

T

his suggests that users find data

(15)

ASDC Survey Results

Scenarios by Importance 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Lecture Se mi nar Of fic e Hours Gro up Pro j St ud en t A dvi se Acce ss ib ilit y Mt g-Di sc us s g-Prese Mt nt In fo rm al W k an Pl &R ev ie w Training Servi ce P ro v

(16)

ASDC Survey Results

What did they say?

•

H

ow do we turn these scenarios into recommendations

for design and deployment?

•

T

he scenarios clustered into two factors _–F

actor 1: education uses that involve students

–

F

actor 2: research and administration uses that do

not involve students

•

F

actor 2 was rated slightly more important (p < .10)

than Factor 1, though the

two were highly correlated

•

T

his suggests that the classroom uses of these

(17)

–

White

board

–

Chat or Instant Messenger

–

Shared Documents (Still Image)

– File Transfer – Shared Applications – Remote Control – Pointers –

Surveys, Polling, Quizzing

–

Recording

–

Telephone and/or VC Bridges

– Video Streaming – Animation Support – Chair Control –

Scheduling and Timers

–

Agendas for Meetings, Classes

–

Announcement Boards

–

Participant List, Status panels

– Management Console – Directories – Logging, Tracking – Security • Authentication • Encryption –

Shared Repository, Meeting/

Class Archives

ASDC Survey Results

(18)

ASDC Survey Results

Most Requested (>50%) 0 2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 100 120 140

shared document viewing

shared applications

authentication

chat or instant messenger

telephone and/or videoconference bridges

whiteboard

collaborative document editing

video streaming

scheduling _{file transfer}

recording - archival

shared document storage

meeting rooms

remote control/desktop sharing

participant lists _{standards-based}

classrooms

participant status

virtual office

firewall/nat support

conference facility/auditorium

recording - classroom _{meeting/class archives}

pointers _feedback

self support and operation logging/tracking/reporting

Feature or Function

(19)

ASDC Survey Results

Least Requested (<30%) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 address book Cost <$1,000 Other platform Cost <$500 Cost <$200 Cost no object Cost $0 Cost <$100 Pocket PC Cost <$50

application service provider

PDA access

Palm

timers

Feature or Function

(20)

ASDC Survey Results

Middle of the Road (>30%, <50%) 0

1 0 2 03 0 4 05 06 0 7 08 0 9 0 1 0 0 peer to peer customizable interface decentralized invitation announcement boards centralized surveys

animation, high resolution graphics

redundancy (fail-safe) directories polling quizzes management console encryption agendas hand raising email integration Macintosh Linux/Unix chair control scalability Feature or Function

(21)

•

W

hile 73% wanted Windows solutions, 48%

wanted MacIntosh and Linux solutions (each).

•

C

ost responses were divided across all

ranges, but largest groups require something <$100 annually.

•

56% want or prefer standards based solutions.

•

T

he rankings of features found in newer

products were in the middle.

ASDC Survey Results

(22)

(23)

Scan Converters

(24)

Separate Video Streams

H.239

•

H

.239 is a new standard that supports

one or more parallel streams for sharing data and presentations. (July, 2003)

•

B

asically, H.239 defines multiple

channels (video, audio, or data.) and their “role” (Live, Presentation).

•

H

.239 is relevant to H.32x video

conferencing with implementation only in RadVision’s

(25)

Virtual Offices (

Polycom

W

ebOffice

(26)

Virtual Classroom (

Elluminate vClass

(27)

Virtual Desktop (

Wave3

P

ictureTalk

(28)

(29)

Case Studies

Remote Instrumentation

Laboratory Discussions

(30)

UARC / SPARC

•NSF-funded Upper Atmospheric Research Collaboratory and Space Physics and Aeronomy Research Collaboratory projects •Remote instrumentation of facilities for upper atmospheric science •Provided simultaneous viewing of multiple instruments, archival data and model visualizations in a collaboratory environment

Erik C. Hofer [email protected]

Collaboratory for Research

on Electronic Work School of Inform ati on, U niversi ty of Mi chi gan

(31)

UARC 5.0

(32)

UARC 6.0

(33)

SPARC

(34)

Distance Learning

Elluminate vClass The Univ ersi ty of Io w a Coll abor atio n tOol s for Re se ar ch & iNstru ctio n Le s F in ke n Le s-fin ke n @uio w a. edu

(35)

Conclusions

(36)

Conclusions

"

(37)

Contact Information

Mary Trauner

Georgia Institute of Technology [email protected]

Les

F

inken

The University of Iowa [email protected]

Erik Hofer University of M ichigan [email protected] John CW Krienke Internet2 jc [email protected]