that user interface features that enhanced common ground had a greater impact on enjoyment than did .... I. People will find a shared, WYSIWIS browser.
Supporting Sociability in a Shared Browser Shelly Farnham, Melora Zaner, Lili Cheng Virtual Worlds Group, Microsoft Research, One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA 98052, USA {shellyf, meloraz, lilich}@microsoft.com Abstract: The present paper explores the importance of designing shared browsing user interfaces to support sociability. In particular, several shared browsing interfaces were empirically tested for the extent to which they helped people achieve a sense of shared understanding--or common ground--while surfing the web. We found a) that people generally preferred a shared browser to an unshared browser when shopping online together, and b) that user interface features that enhanced common ground had a greater impact on enjoyment than did features affecting ease of use or functionality. These results suggest that web designers need to take into account supporting sociability when considering the tradeoffs in their user interface designs. Keywords: computer-mediated communication, shared browsing, synchronous browsing, e-commerce, common ground
1 Introduction With the advent of the Internet people are increasingly accessing and developing their social networks online (Sproull & Faraj, 1997). Currently, people primarily interact with others online through email (ResearchPortal.com, 2000). However, as new technologies allow for web-based email, chat rooms, and bulletin boards, people are increasingly interacting with each other through the World Wide Web itself. People’s social networks are a central component of their lives, and as a consequence the increasingly social nature of the Web is arguably one of its stickiest features. The present paper explores the importance of designing user interfaces to support sociability, as opposed to functionality or ease of use. More specifically, we explore “socializing” web browsers to support people’s desire to work and play together online.
1.1 Shared Browsing Technology A number of web technologies have been developed to support cooperative web browsing. However, they tended to focus on the functionality of shared browsing, rather than its social aspects. For example, some were designed to enhance knowledge sharing. Vistibar (Marais & Bharat, 1997) provides web page annotations and bookmarks. Others
emphasized the use of web-based shared spaces to help groups manage documents (Bentley & Appelt, 1997). Many shared browsing programs have focused on business applications, such group work (Greenberg & Roseman, 1996; Marias & Bharat, 1997) and customer service (Manhart, Schmidt, & Ziegler, 1998). There have also been online systems developed specifically for shared shopping. Umeda et al. (1999) developed an interface with a shared shopping cart pane and a screen for browsing the web. However, again they were focused on enhancing the functionality of the shared shopping experience, rather than its social features. One notable exception is Manhart et al. (1998), who designed a system modeled after different social shopping scenarios. They argued that more social shopping would result in more customers due to the increased attractiveness of the site. Although they developed their user interface to support sociability, they did not test the effectiveness of their user interface.
1.2 Supporting Sociability Online Conceptualizing the World Wide Web as a portal to our social networks affects how we design our browsing software. While little attention has directly addressed how to improve the quality of casual online social interactions, researchers have
extensively explored how to support collaboration and learning online within the domain of computer supported cooperative work (CSCW) and computermediated communication (CMC). CSCW and CMC researchers find that computermediated communication suffers by comparison to face-to-face communication on a variety of dimensions, including cooperation, group decisionmaking, and trust (Walther, 1996). These effects have largely been ascribed to the lower levels of social presence--the sense of the person being physically present (Daft & Lengel, 1986; Short, Williams & Christie, 1976; Walther, 1996)-experienced online. Computer mediated situations, such as text chat or email, lack not only nonverbal communication, but also common ground (Clark & Brennan, 1991)--the shared understanding that arises through a shared context and effective communication (see Preece, 2000, for review). Thus one means for improving the quality of computer-mediated social interactions is through the development of common ground. Dillenbourg and Traum (1999) list four levels of common ground that must be achieved through the design of user interfaces. The interface must support a person’s inferences that a) the other person has access to the same information b) the information is being perceived by the other person c) the information is understood by the other person, and d) the other person agrees. In the context of CSCW research, common ground theory has been applied to the development of online group work software to enhance problem-solving in shared workspaces (Dillenbourg & Traum, 1999; Terveen, Wroblewski, & Tighe, 1991). For example, Dillenbourg and Traum (1999) found that a shared whiteboard helped a problem-solving group maintain a shared representation of their process. However, while CSCW research has focused on employing common ground theory to improve work-related outcomes such as reaching consensus or enhancing the quality of decision-making, it has not investigated the effect of common ground on enjoyment or liking for the task. Preece (2000) notes that features of common ground that increased social presence might also increase socio-emotional content such as empathy. It is argued here that common ground, by increasing social presence, can also improve enjoyment for an activity. More specifically, the present paper explores how shared browsing interfaces might provide a common ground that increases social presence, and hence enjoyment for an online activity.
1.3 Increasing Common Ground What features of a shared browsing user interface might impact the levels of common ground achieved by a pair of individuals? Clark and Brennan (1991) list a number of characteristics of communication that affect the ease with which people achieve a common ground. The present study will explore the impact of user interface design on two of these characteristics: Co-presence: People share the same environment. Visibility: People are visible to each other. Perhaps the most substantive means for increasing co-presence and visibility in the context of shared browsing is through a “What you see is what I see” [WYSIWIS] interface (Stefik, Bobrow, Foster, Lanning, & Tatart, 1987). Although people are not physically present in the same environment, they are sharing the same online space. People are visible to each other to the extent to which they see each other act in the same, shared space. Thus, for a shared browser the greatest level of common ground would be achieved by having a user interface where the two individuals share the same window, or screen. (See Figure 1, Single Screen.) However, people would be limited in their ability act independently, and may become frustrated over control issues. Another possibility is two side-by side screens, in which each person drove his or her own browsing interface, while observing the other. (See Figure 1, Dual Screen.) However desktops are rarely large enough to host two full-sized web pages, increasing the likelihood of needing to scroll within the browser, and decreasing ease of use. The third option is to have one full sized screen for the self, and a smaller screen for the remote other. (See Figure 1, Remote Screen.) While this interface would maximize ease of use and self-control, it would decrease the visibility of the other. Presently we do not have a sense of the importance of co-presence and visibility in determining the extent to which people enjoy a user interface, relative to issues such as self-control, functionality, and ease of use. We may find that while a shared screen increases co-presence, the frustration of needing to coordinate control of the interface may wash out any positive effects. A primary goal of the present study is to assess the relative importance of providing common ground in determining enjoyment of a shared online experience.
2 Current Research Our overall goal is to create a browser interface that allows people to browse together from separate locations with ease and enjoyment. Unshared browsers are limited in that they do not allow people at different locations to see what the other person is doing. We expect that WYSIWIS interfaces will increase enjoyment, because WYSIWIS interfaces help people achieve a common ground. We will explore the impact of several types of WYSIWIS interfaces to better understand the impact of copresence and visibility on common ground, and the impact of common ground on enjoyment. For the study, we had pairs of friends shop together online. We focused on an online shopping task because an increasing number of people go online to shop. 55% of surfers at work and 31% of surfers at home have purchased something online (ResearchPortal.com, 2000), spending between $25 and $50 a month. Total electronic commerce is predicted to reach an estimated $330 billion in 20012002 (OECD, 1997). For many people shopping in brick-and-mortar stores is a shared experience. We wanted to explore whether people would find online shopping more appealing if it were also shared. Our primary hypotheses are as follows: I. People will find a shared, WYSIWIS browser more compelling than an unshared browser when shopping together online. II. People will most enjoy WYSIWIS browsing interfaces that have the highest levels of visibility and co-presence, even though they may not be used as easily or as effectively.
3 Research Methods 3.1 Study Participants There were 24 people (12 female and 12 male) who participated in the study in exchange for a software package. People were run in same-sex pairs, making 6 male and 6 female pairs of friends. The average age was 23 years (ranging from 18 to 33), and most participants (75%) had at least some higher education. Participants were recruited so that they were at least intermediate computer users, and had shopped online at least once. Participants reported using the World Wide Web on average 16.5 hours a week, primarily to email others and then to seek out information/knowledge. Participants reported purchasing an average of 6 items online in the past six months. When asked how many times they had gone shopping with their study partner in
the past six months, they indicated an average of 6 times in brick-and-mortar stores, and once online.
3.2 Procedures 3.2.a Overview For the study, pairs of friends browsed together online from two separate locations while talking together on the phone. Each pair completed two 20minute browsing sessions. For one session they used an unshared browser, and for one session they used a shared browser. The order of the two browsing sessions was counterbalanced. For each browsing session, participants were given a shopping list of ten gifts to find on the web, and were instructed to come to an agreement about which gifts to buy. Following each session, participants completed a questionnaire. 3.2.b Equipment Each participant completed the study in a room that housed a standard personal computer. There was only one participant in each room, and participants communicated with each other through the use of a speaker phone. The experimenter observed each participant through a one-way mirror, and through a remote display of the user’s screen. Participants and the experimenter interacted via a microphone and speakers. 3.2.c Browsing Task For the browsing task, pairs of friends were given a shopping list of gifts, and were instructed to search for the gifts online. They had twenty minutes to find as many of the gifts as they could. They were given an imaginary budget of $20 for each gift, and were instructed to search for the gifts in any order they wanted. Gift items were chosen to represent a broad range of interests. The following are several example items from the list: 1. A book for Aunt Emma who likes to garden. 2. An umbrella for your friend Amy. 3. Potholders for your friend Jeff, who likes to cook. 4. A poster for Aunt Bertha, who loves nature scenes. 3.2.d Browsing Interfaces Each pair of participants completed two browsing sessions, one using an unshared browser and one using a shared browser. The order of the two browsing sessions was counterbalanced. For each browsing session, participants were shown the browsing interface, instructed in its use, and practiced using it for several minutes. For the unshared browsing session, all participants used Internet Explorer 5.0. For the shared browsing
session, participants used one of the following three shared browsing interfaces. Single screen shared browsing. In the single screen condition, participants shared the same screen through the use of NetMeeting 3i (2000). Control of the screen was passed back and forth when the person receiving control double-clicked on the screen. Each participant saw the same mouse pointer, whether or not the screen was in his or her control. (Figure 1, Single Screen.) Dual screen shared browsing. In the dual screen condition, participants had two browsers open on their desktop side by side. The participant drove one screen, and the participant’s partner drove the other screen. Participants could take control of the other’s screen by double-clicking on it. The remotely driven screen was set up through the use of NetMeeting 3 (2000). (Figure 1, Dual Screen.) Remote screen shared browsing. In the remote screen condition, participants had a standard browser open (Internet Explorer 5.5), and then viewed their partner’s browser through We Shop!, a prototype that allows people to view each other's web browsers in real-time through a small window. When launching the application, each user types in the IP address of their partner's PC into the We Shop! dialog box. This allows the users to send and receive browser information to each others’ We Shop! window. The We Shop! window is active and clickable, acting as a shortcut to the other’s web page. (Figure 1, Remote Screen.) 3.2.e Questionnaires Participants completed several questionnaires. First they completed a basic demographic and computer experience questionnaire. Then they completed a questionnaire following each browsing session. Questionnaire items were aggregated to assess co-presence, visibility, ease of completing the browsing task,, ease of making decisions together, difficulty over coordinating activities, ease of the program, liking for the program, satisfaction with decisions, and enjoyment of the browsing task. At the end of the study, participants completed a questionnaire in which they compared the two browsing sessions and provided open-ended comments about their experiences. 3.2.f Transcripts and User Logs User behavior was logged in two ways. First, conversations during the browsing sessions were recorded and then transcribed. Second, browsing i
Netmeeting is a general purpose program that allows users to share screens remotely.
activity was logged using WinWhatWhere Investigator (2000), a logging program that captures user activities, including date, time started, time elapsed, program used, and program captions. In addition, it records which web sites were visited.
Single Screen
Dual Screen
Remote Screen
Figure 1. People viewed either a) a single, shared screen, b) dual screens, one for the self and one for the other person, and c) a regular browser for the self with a remote, smaller screen for the other person. 3.2.g Design and Analyses Each pair was randomly assigned to one of the three shared browsing interface conditions. All data were aggregated at the pair level. Comparisons of shared browsing were analyzed using either t-tests or repeated measures ANOVAs (2 within subjects: unshared vs. shared browsing session, X 3 between
subjects: type of browser:, single, dual, remote). All p-values are one-tailed.
4 Research Results 4.1 Overview of Sessions People generally enjoyed the shopping task and found it easy to complete. In the allotted twenty minutes for each browsing session, pairs found an average of 8.3 of the ten item in their shopping list. During the course of the shopping session, people visited on average 72 links, used a search engine 7 times, and used a shopping search site link (e.g., msn.eshop.com, shopping.yahoo.com) 20 times.
4.2 Unshared Browsing
Browsing
vs.
Shared
4.2.a Browsing together We examined the user activity logs to determine if the pairs were actually browsing together. If pairs were browsing together, then they should visit fewer sites overall than if they were browsing apart. As expected, an examination of the user activity logs shows that on average pairs visited more links per minute in the unshared browser condition (M = 4.1, SD = .97) than in the shared browser condition (M = 3.4, SD = .74), F(1, 11) = 3.90, p < .05. If pairs were browsing together, they should have visited the same sites at the same time. An examination of the extent of overlap in links visited (overlap is defined as visiting the same site as the other person within plus or minus a minute) shows pairs had a much higher rate of overlapped links per minute in the shared browsing condition (M =1.7, SD = .97) than in the unshared browsing condition (M = .81, SD = .76). Remarkably, even in the unshared browsing condition pairs tended to overlap up to once a minute, indicating that they were attempting to browse at the same place at the same time even when using an unshared browser. If pairs coordinate activity through the use of the shared browser, then they should need to communicate web site names less frequently. Pairs verbally communicated fewer web site names per minute in the shared browsing condition (M = .54, SD = .38), than in the unshared browsing condition (M = .30, SD =.20, F(1,11) = 6.93, p < .05. 4.2.b. Achieving common ground We expected that pairs would have a higher sense of common ground when using shared browsers. They should have a greater sense of co-presence, being in the same place at the same time, and
visibility, being aware of what the other is doing. As expected, having a shared browser with a WYSIWIS interface significantly increased self-reported copresence and visibility. (Table 1.) If people coordinate their activities and achieve a shared understanding more easily in the shared browsing sessions, then it should be reflected in their language. According to common ground theory (Clark & Brennan, 1991), grounding is maintained through frequent conversational updates in which participants try to establish that the other shares an understanding of the current state of the conversation and the shared activity. We coded the conversation transcripts to ascertain the number of grounding questions in each session (e.g., “What are you looking at?” “Where are you?” “Are you on the same page as me?” “You see it?”). We expected that people would have fewer grounding questions in the shared browser condition than in the unshared browser condition. We found the effect to be in the predicted direction, with pairs in the unshared browser condition having more grounding questions per minute (M = 3.7, SD = 1.59) than in the shared browser condition (M = 3.4, SD = 1.37), however the effect was only marginally significant F (1, 11) = 3.21, p < .06. If people have a sense of common ground, they should use more collective pronouns (e.g., “We”, “Let’s”) in their conversation. A comparison of collective pronouns per minute in the two sessions shows that pairs used collective pronouns more in the shared browsing condition (M = 1.9, SD = 1.28) than in the unshared browsing condition (M = 1.4, SD = .83), F(1, 11) = 3.95, p < .05. 4.2.c Browsing effectiveness People found the shopping task easier to complete in the shared browser condition, and reported less conflict over making their decisions and less conflict over coordinating their activities.ii (See Table 2). If pairs browse together more effectively when using a shared browsing program, then they should be able to come to decisions about which gifts to buy more efficiently. However, we did not find that pairs made decisions more quickly when using the shared browser (.41 items per minute) than when using the unshared browser (.49 items per minute). If anything, they were more effective in the unshared ii
Unexpectedly, we found that males had particularly high levels of self-reported conflict when using the unshared browser (repeated measures ANOVA, sex by browser type interaction, F(1, 10 = 15.77, p < .005).
browser condition, though the difference is not statistically significant.
Unshared Browser Mean SD
Shared Browser
Difference t-test (1-tailed) p
Mean
SD
1.09 1.24
5.3 6.2
0.80 0.48
2.31 6.39
0.02 0.00
5.0 2.6 2.8
0.97 0.95 0.84
5.7 2.0 2.1
0.63 0.48 0.43
2.09 -2.06 -2.85
0.03 0.03 0.01
Program ease of use Liking for browsing program Ease of browsing program
5.4 6.2
0.55 0.60
5.3 5.4
0.78 0.81
-0.77 -3.33
0.23 0.00
Browsing Enjoyment Satisfaction with decisions Enjoyment during task
5.2 4.8
0.67 0.81
5.7 5.3
0.81 0.75
2.09 1.86
0.03 0.04
Common Ground Co-presence Visibility
4.4 3.9
Browsing Effectiveness Ease of shopping task Conflict making decisions Conflict over coordination
Table 1 Self-report responses to the unshared and shared browser experiences. All items are on a scale of 1 to 7. 4.2.d Browsing program ease of use People reported finding the shared browsing programs harder to use than the unshared program. They showed no difference in liking for either the shared or unshared browsing programs. See Table 2. 4.2.e Browsing enjoyment People reported finding the shopping task more enjoyable and were more satisfied with their decisions when using the shared browser. See Table 2. After completing both sessions, participants were asked which browser they would prefer to take home to use. 21 out of 24 said they would prefer the shared browser. When asked why they preferred the shared browsers, over half of the people mentioned how important it was to be able see what the other person was doing. Being able to see the same thing at the same time saves time. We didn't have to explain where we were or have to figure out how to get to the same spot, once we got separated. A few mentioned they found the shared browser more compelling because it felt more social. I felt like we were having a real shopping experience together - seeing the same things, pointing out what the other might have missed, and making decisions together. We were able to help one another out and had fun. The other browser was a more distant feel, although we
got more accomplished in the same amount of time - it just wasn't as fun as doing it together. 4.2.f Summary of results Although pairs found the shared browsing programs harder to use, visited fewer sites, and were no more efficient in making decisions, a) they browsed together more in the shared browsing condition, b) they had a greater sense of common ground--feeling that they were in the same place at the same time and working together, c) they reported having less conflict over making decisions and coordinating their activities, and d) they enjoyed themselves more, were more satisfied with their decisions, and preferred the shared browser to the unshared browser.
4.3 Hypothesis II: Interfaces
Comparing the
Through variations in user interfaces we explored the tradeoffs among levels of common ground, selfcontrol, functionality and ease of use in impacting browsing enjoyment and browsing effectiveness. We expected that people would achieve higher levels of common ground when using a single screen interface, because of higher levels of co-presence and visibility. However, we also expected that this interface might produce the greatest conflict in coordinating activities. The dual browser condition was expected to be high in self-control and visibility, but low in ease of use. Finally, the remote screen interface was expected to have greater levels of selfcontrol and ease of use, but lower levels of visibility. 4.3.a. Achieving common ground An examination of the change in self-reported ratings for the shared browsers relative to the unshared browser (Table 2) shows that people rate the single browser as having significantly higher levels of both co-presence and visibility. The dual screen browser and the remote screen browser also had higher levels of visibility. If the single shared screen helped people achieve common ground, then we would expect that people would have fewer grounding questions in the single screen shared browser condition than in the other two shared browser conditions. We found the effect to be in the predicted direction, with pairs in the dual screen browser condition and remote screen browser condition having more grounding questions per minute. (See Figure 2.) However, the effect was not statistically significant F(2, 9) = 2.39, p < .08. Finally, if people have a greater sense of common ground in the single screen shared browsing
condition, then they should use more collective pronouns (e.g., “We”, “Let’s”) in their conversation. A comparison of collective pronouns per minute across the three sessions shows a much higher rate in the single screen shared browsing condition than in the other two conditions (F(2, 9) = 4.74, p < .05). (Figure 3.)
Common Ground Co-presence Visibility
Single Screen
Dual Screen
Remote Screen
1.2 2.5
0.1 1.5
0.9 1.4
People reported the greatest ease in completing the task in the single screen condition. They also reported less conflict in making decisions. However, they also reported less conflict in making decisions in the dual screen condition. (Table 2.) If pairs browse together more effectively when using a shared browsing program, then they should be able to come to decisions about which gifts to buy more efficiently. However, we found no differences in how quickly people made their decisions across the conditions (on average .41 items per minute).
Ease of shopping task Conflict making decisions Conflict over coordination
2.1 -1.1 -0.7
0.5 -0.4 -3.0
0.1 -0.3 0.0
Program Ease of Use Liking for browsing program Ease of browsing program Browsing Enjoyment Satisfaction with decisions Enjoyment during task
0.6 -0.4
-0.6 -1.3
-0.4 -2.0
0.7 1.9
1.9 0.8
0.2 0.1
Grounding Questions per Minute
Table 2 Standardized change scores in selfreported ratings of shared browsing interfaces relative to the unshared browser. Bolded scores are significantly different than the unshared browser (p < .05). Note that the N’s are small (4 pairs per cell) warranting caution in interpreting results. However, a standardized effect of .8 or higher is generally considered large. 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 single screen
dual remote screen screen
Figure 2 People appeared to have fewer grounding questions per minute in the single screen condition, though the effect is not statistically significant. 4.3.b Browsing effectiveness
Collective Pronouns Per Minute
5
Browsing Effectiveness
4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0
single dual remote screen screen screen
Figure 3 Pairs had many more collective pronouns per minute in the single screen condition. 4.3.c Program ease of use People showed the least relative ease of use for the program itself in the remote screen condition and in the dual screen condition. There were no significant differences in liking for the shared browsing programs relative to the unshared program. 4.3.d. Browsing enjoyment People reported the greatest enjoyment for the task in the single screen condition. However, people were most satisfied with their decision in the dual screen condition. 4.3.e. Summary of Results We found that people achieved a higher level of common ground when they shared a single screen, having higher levels of self-reported co-presence and visibility, fewer grounding questions, and more collective pronouns. Although there were no differences in shopping effectiveness across the three conditions, people reported the the greatest ease in completing the task and the least conflict in making decisions in the single screen condition. Furthermore, people reported enjoying the shared browsing experience more when using the single screen browser. People had the greatest satisfaction with decisions and lowest levels of conflict over
coordinating activities when browsing together with the dual screen. Once again, we found that enjoyment of task tended to correspond more with factors that facilitate common ground than factors affecting browsing effectiveness or ease of program use.
5 Conclusions We found for the task of shared shopping that a) people generally preferred the shared browser to the unshared browser, b) that common ground may be enhanced with WYSIWIS interfaces, and c) that the user interface that supported the greatest degree of common ground was the most enjoyed. As we move from task-oriented computing to social computing, we must take into consideration new questions when designing user interfaces. Users have a broad range of goals when browsing the web, ranging from accomplishing a specific shopping task to interacting wit others. The results of the present study suggest that designers must balance features that support task achievement or ease of use with features that support sociability. We risk user enjoyment if we fail to account for supporting sociability.
References Bentley, R., and Appelt, W. Designing a System for Cooperative Work on the World-Wide Web: Experiences with the BSCW System. IEEE, 1997. Clark, H. H. & Brennan, S. E. Grounding the communication. In L. Resnik, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds), Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition. Washington, DC: APA. 1991. Daft, R. L. & Lengel, R. H. Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32, 554-571. 1986. Dillenbourg, P., and Traum, D. Does a shared screen make a shared solution? Proceedings of Computer Support for Collaborative Learning, 1999. Greenberg, S., and Roseman, M. GroupWeb: A WWW Browser as Real Time Groupware. Proceedings of CHI, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 1996. Kobayashi, M., Shinozaki, M., Sakairi, T., Touma, M., Daijavad, S., and Wolf, C. Collaborative Customer Services Using Synchronous Web Browser Sharing. Proceedings of Association for Computing Machinery, 1998. Manhart, P., Schmidt, K., and Ziegler, H. Group Interaction in Web-based Multimedia Market
Places. Proceedings of the 31st Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 1998. Marais, H., and Bharat, K. Supporting Cooperative and Personal Surfing with a Desktop Assistant. Proceedings of the User Interface Software and Technology Conference, Banff, Alberta, Canada, 1997. NetMeeting 3. Microsoft. URL: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/netmeeting/. Organization for Economic cooperation and Devepment. The Economic and Social Impacts of Electronic Commerce: Preliminary Findings and Research Agenda. Report presented to the Ottawa Ministerial, 1997. Preece, J. Online Communities: Designing Usability, Supporting Sociability. Chichester, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2000. ResearchPortal.com. Mobilecenter. http://www.researchportal.com.
2000.
URL:
Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. The Social Psychology of Telecommunications. London: John Wiley & Sons. 1976. Sproull, L, & Faraj, S. The Net as a social technology. In S. Kiesler (Ed.), Culture of the Internet. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 1997. Stefik, M., Bobrow, D. G., Foster, G., Lanning, S. & Tatart, D. WYSIWIS Revisited: Early Experiences with Multi-user Interfaces. ACM Trnasactions on Office Information Systems, 52, 147-167. Terveen, L. G., Wroblewski, D. A., & Tighe, S. N. Intelligence Assistance through Collaborative Manipulation, Proceedings of IJCAI, 1991. Umeda, T., Tarumi, H., Kambayashi, Y. Design and Development of a Cooperative Shopping System with Shared Discussion Space. IEEE, 1999. Walther, J. Computer-Mediated Communication: Impersonal, Interpersonal, and Hyperpersonal Interaction. Communication Research, Vol 23 No 1, 1996. WinWhatWhere Investigator. http://www.winwhatwhere.com/
URL:
