“I can't be happy with having everyone else pay for my wonderful source of knowledge!”
Last 3 Donors
Support us
Funding progress for 2010:
Volume 56 of International Journal of Human-Computer Studies
Publisher:
Description:
No description available... Please help other visitors by providing one!
Publications in volume 56
-- Volume 56 --
Issue 6
Fernandez-Breis, Jesualdo Tomas and Martinez-Bejar, Rodrigo (2002): A cooperative framework for integrating ontologies. In International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 56 (6) pp. 665-720
“Nowadays, there are systems and frameworks that support Ontology
construction processes. However, ontology integration processes have not
sufficiently been specified to date. In this article, by making use of a
cooperative philosophy, we describe a real framework for the integration of
ontologies supplied by a predetermined set of (expert) users, who may be
interconnected through a communication network. This framework is based on a
set of well-defined assumptions that guarantee the consistency of the ontology
derived from the ontology integration process. Moreover, in the approach
presented here, every (expert) user may consult the so-derived ontology
constructed until a given moment in order to refine his or her private
ontology. In addition to this, the model proposed in this work allows the
experts involved in the construction of the ontology to use their own
terminology when querying the global ontology obtained until a given instant
from their own co-operative work. The validation of the framework is also
included in this work.”
Poli, Roberto (2002): Ontological methodology. In International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 56 (6) pp. 639-664
“The interest in ontology may peter out unless three problems are addressed:
What are the boundaries of ontology? What types are there of ontology? What is
the structure of ontology? After distinguishing three main kinds of information
(ontological, quasi-ontological and non-ontological) and three types of
ontologies (descriptive, formal and formalized), the paper presents a few basic
ontological sub-theories (theory of particulars, of levels of reality, of
wholes, parts and boundaries, and the intensive-extensive opposition for
determinations). The methodology of domain analysis is further addressed and
the distinction between a domain's structure and the scheme of the canonical
item of a domain is introduced.”
Reising, Dal Vernon C. and Sanderson, Penelope (2002): Work domain analysis and sensors II: Pasteurizer II case study. In International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 56 (6) pp. 597-637
“In this paper we use sensor-annotated abstraction hierarchies (Reising &
Sanderson, 1996, 2002a , b) to show that unless appropriately instrumented,
configural displays designed according to the principles of ecological
interface design (EID) might be vulnerable to misinterpretation when sensors
become unreliable or are unavailable. Building on foundations established in
Reising and Sanderson (2002 a) we use a pasteurization process control example
to show how sensor-annotated AHs help the analyst determine the impact of
different instrumentation engineering policies on a configural display that is
part of an ecological interface. Our analyses suggest that configural displays
showing higher-order properties of a system are especially vulnerable under
some conservative instrumentation configurations. However, sensor-annotated AHs
can be used to indicate where corrective instrumentation might be placed. We
argue that if EID is to be effectively employed in the design of displays for
complex systems, then the information needs of the human operator need to be
considered while instrumentation requirements are being formulated. Rasmussen's
abstraction hierarchy -- and particularly its extension to the analysis of
information captured by sensors and derived from sensors -- may therefore be a
useful adjunct to up-stream instrumentation design.”
Reising, Dal Vernon C. and Sanderson, Penelope (2002): Work domain analysis and sensors I: principles and simple example. In International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 56 (6) pp. 569-596
“In this paper we establish a foundation for understanding the
instrumentation needs of complex dynamic systems if ecological interface design
(EID)-based interfaces are to be robust in the face of instrumentation
failures. EID-based interfaces often include configural displays which reveal
the higher-order properties of complex systems. However, concerns have been
expressed that such displays might be misleading when instrumentation is
unreliable or unavailable. Rasmussen's abstraction hierarchy (AH) formalism can
be extended to include representations of sensors near the functions or
properties about which they provide information, resulting in what we call a
"sensor-annotated abstraction hierarchy". Sensor-annotated AHs help the analyst
determine the impact of different instrumentation engineering policies on
higher-order system information by showing how the data provided from
individual sensors propagates within and across levels of abstraction in the
AH. The use of sensor-annotated AHs with a configural display is illustrated
with a simple water reservoir example. We argue that if EID is to be
effectively employed in the design of interfaces for complex systems, then the
information needs of the human operator need to be considered at the earliest
stages of system development while instrumentation requirements are being
formulated. In this way, Rasmussen's AH promotes a formative approach to
instrumentation engineering.”
Issue 5
Carswell, Alan D. and Venkatesh, Viswanath (2002): Learner outcomes in an asynchronous distance education environment. In International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 56 (5) pp. 475-494
“This research investigated student outcomes in a web-based distance learning
environment characterized by asynchronous electronic communications between
student and teacher. We employed two dominant theories -- the theory of planned
behavior and innovation diffusion theory -- to study student reactions to
web-based distance education. We hypothesized that student perceptions of the
technology are positively related to learning outcomes and intentions to
further use the technology, and are negatively related to using alternative,
synchronous media in the learning experience. Quantitative and qualitative data
were gathered from 540 students via a web-based survey. Partial support was
found for the hypotheses. Theoretical and practical implications for
human-computer interaction, distance education and user acceptance are
discussed.”
Wu, Chih-Hung and Lee, Shie-Jue (2002): KJ3 -- a tool assisting formal validation of knowledge-based systems*1. In International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 56 (5) pp. 495-524
“This paper presents the design and implementation of KJ3 (Knowledge
Judgment, version 3) which is an assisting tool for formal validation of
knowledge-based systems (KBSs). The KJ3 project is motivated by two main
obstacles to knowledge validation, the lack of a uniform representation and a
comprehensive validation procedure. KJ3 combines Petri Nets and theorem proving
techniques to solve these difficulties. In KJ3, the Enhanced High-Level Petri
Net (EHLPN) is employed as a meta representation scheme to describe different
KBS formalisms in a uniform format. With EHLPN, there is only one type of
problems, the reachability problems, to be solved for all validation tasks. The
kernel of KJ3 is a hyper-linking-based theorem prover which serves as the
inference engine for checking the correctness of the transformed reachability
problems. Because of the versatility of EHLPN and the soundness and
completeness of the hyper-linking proof procedure, KJ3 is a reliable and robust
platform for formal validation. Users can apply KJ3 to validate different types
of KBSs without concerning the inference process involved in the validation
procedure. Other main features of KJ3 include a friendly user interface for
describing and transforming KBSs and defining the validation tasks, a mechanism
for explaining the validation results, and facilities for analysing the
behaviour of KBSs and defining new types of KBSs and validation tasks.”
Ji, Yong Gu and Salvendy, Gavriel (2002): A metadata filter for intranet portal organizational memory information systems. In International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 56 (5) pp. 525-537
“An intranet portal is proposed as an information infrastructure to support
organizational learning. Specifically, an agent-like metadata filter for easy
information/knowledge retrieval in the intranet portal is suggested and tested.
The metadata filter preserves the context of digital objects and presents an
uncluttered window by controlling the metadata elements. An experiment using 20
participants examined whether the metadata filter reduces search and retrieval
performance time (the dependent variable). The main results indicate that the”
Purchase, Helen C. and Worrill, Joshua (2002): An empirical study of on-line help design: features and principles. In International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 56 (5) pp. 539-566
“Designers of on-line help systems have two sets of resources at their
disposal: the set of features implemented in currently available systems (which
are rapidly becoming a defacto standard), and a set of theoretical principles
suggested by researchers in the area. There is no published evidence that
either these features or principles have been empirically tested for their
suitability from the users' perspective. This paper reports on an empirical
study which aimed to assess the usability of a set of on-line help features and
principles, in the context of users performing real application tasks. The
results reveal that the more general principles associated with
understandability are considered the most relevant, and that while users may
complain about the design of existing on-line help features, they tend to value
them more than features with which they are unfamiliar. A follow-up study
showed that only minor changes need to be made to the existing defacto standard
for users' concerns to be addressed, without sacrificing the advantages of
familiarity. The study addresses questions of context sensitivity,
obtrusiveness and the importance of definitions, and highlights the usefulness
of questioning emerging defacto standards that have not been based on empirical
studies.”
Issue 4
Ranilla, Jose and Bahamonde, Antonio (2002): FAN : Finding Accurate iNductions. In International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 56 (4) pp. 445-474
“In this paper we present a machine-learning algorithm that computes a small
set of accurate and interpretable rules. The decisions of these rules can be
straight-forwardly explained as the conclusions drawn by a case-based reasoner.
Our system is named FAN, an acronym for Finding Accurate iNductions. It starts
from a collection of training examples and produces propositional rules able to
classify unseen cases following a minimum-distance criterion in their
evaluation procedure. In this way, we combine the advantages of instance-based
algorithms and the conciseness of rule (or decision-tree) inducers. The
algorithm followed by FAN can be seen as the result of successive steps of
pruning heuristics. The main tool employed is that of the impurity level, a
measure of the classification quality of a rule, inspired by a similar measure
used in IB3. Finally, a number of experiments were conducted with standard
benchmark datasets of the UCI repository to test the performance of our system,
successfully comparing FAN with a wide collection of machine-learning
algorithms.”
Potter, Richard E. and Balthazard, Pierre A. (2002): Virtual team interaction styles: assessment and effects. In International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 56 (4) pp. 423-443
“The virtual team is an increasingly common strategic work unit of many
organizations. The virtual team, via various computer-based media (e.g. email,
groupware) and noncomputer-based media (e.g. telephone), can interact and
collaborate though separated by distance and time. One approach to their study
is determining whether factors that drive conventional team performance also
exist in the virtual environment. Interaction style has been shown to have a
great effect on conventional teams' ability to achieve solution quality and
solution acceptance on collaborative decision tasks (Hirokawa, 1985; Watson &
Michaelsen 1988; Hirokawa & Gouran, 1989; Cooke & Szumal, 1994). Group
interaction styles affect communication and thus team performance by
facilitating or hindering the exchange of information among group members.
These styles reflect an aggregation of behavioral traits of individual team
members, rooted in their individual personalities. The interaction style of
conventional teams can be reliably assessed, and from that assessment,
performance on collaborative decision tasks can be predicted. This study
investigated whether or not virtual teams who collaborate via computer-mediated
communication also exhibit similar interaction styles, and whether the styles
have the same effects on their decision performance and process outcomes as
they do with conventional teams. Members of 42 virtual teams completed an
intellective decision first individually and then collaboratively. Post-task
measures captured individual and team performance data (e.g. solution quality)
as well as process perceptions (individual acceptance of the team solution). An
additional post-task tool was able to accurately capture the teams' interaction
style. Results show that the interaction styles of virtual teams affect both
performance and process outcomes in ways that are directionally consistent with
those exhibited by conventional face-to-face teams. Implications include
recommending the methodology for virtual team management, and suggestions for
future research are offered.”
Tennison, Jeni, O'Hara, Kieron and Shadbolt, Nigel (2002): APECKS: using and evaluating a tool for ontology construction with internal and external KA support. In International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 56 (4) pp. 375-422
“This paper describes Adaptive Presentation Environment for Collaboration
Knowledge Structuring (APECKS), an experimental tool for collaborative ontology
construction. APECKS takes a different line to most ontology servers, in that
it is designed for use by domain experts, possibly in the absence of a
knowledge engineer, and its aim is to foster and support debate about domain
ontologies. To that end, it does not enforce ideals of consistency or
correctness, and instead allows different conceptualizations of a domain to
coexist. The system architecture and life cycle are introduced, and three
extensive scenarios are outlined, showing how APECKS supports ontology
construction, learning, ontology comparison and discussion. APECKS has also
been used by several subjects during an evaluation experiment, and the results
of this experiment are described. A particular factor about APECKS is that, as
well as providing internal KA support, it is designed to interface with
web-accessible KA tools, thereby allowing theoretically unlimited KA support
for users. The prototype used WebGrid-II as external KA support, and the issues
involved in integrating APECKS and WebGrid are discussed in detail.”
Addis, T. R. and Addis, J. J. Townsend (2002): An introduction to clarity: a schematic functional language for managing the design of complex systems. In International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 56 (4) pp. 331-374
“Clarity is a functional schematic programming language currently freely
available to the community. It is a programming environment that allows a user
to draw a program as a set of directed graphs. The term schematic is drawn from
the traditions of engineering where the diagrams that represent electronic
circuits or those of physical objects are often referred to as schematic
drawings. A schema is a set of pictures or graphs that represent a program or
working model. A schematic is taken as a system of tokens and structuring rules
that expresses a program, model or concept; it is a graphical language. This
paper introduces the principles behind design and issues to be considered when
dealing with complex systems. The reasons why a "functional" representation
provides a non-invasive approach to design and forms the basis of "good" design
are described. In particular, the advantages of using diagrams is shown to be
because the schema constructions make the structure of complex systems explicit
as well as make a functional representation more intelligible than its
sentential equivalent.”
Issue 3
Liu, Baili, Francis, Gregory and Salvendy, Gavriel (2002): Applying models of visual search to menu design. In International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 56 (3) pp. 307-330
“The Guided Search (GS) model, a quantitative model of visual search, was
used to develop menu designs in a four-step process. First, a GS simulation
model was defined for a menu search task. Second, model parameters were
estimated to provide the best fit between model predictions and experimental
data. Third, an optimization algorithm was used to identify the menu design
that minimized model predicted search times based on predefined search
frequencies of different menu items. Fourth, the design was tested. The results
indicate that the GS model has the potential to be part of a system for
predicting or automating the design of menus.”
O'Hara, Kenton P., Taylor, Alex, Newman, William M. and Sellen, Abigail (2002): Understanding the materiality of writing from multiple sources. In International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 56 (3) pp. 269-305
“Writing research has typically focussed on the text production elements of
writing. Many everyday writing tasks, however, cannot be characterized simply
in terms of text production since they often involve the use of source
materials to support the composition process. As such, these tasks are better
thought of as hybrid tasks. Such hybrid tasks have been given relatively little
attention in the literature and what little work has been done has taken a
purely cognitive approach that downplays the material context within which the
task takes place. Following Haas' critique of mainstream writing research which
advocated the need to consider the material tools and artefacts in theories of
writing, this paper takes a similar approach in relation to the hybrid tasks of
writing while reading from multiple sources. A study is presented that explores
a range of everyday writing from multiple sources in their real-world contexts.
The study highlights a number of important characteristics of the interaction
with the material artefacts used during these tasks and the impact that these
have on the underlying cognitive processes. The hope is that these will begin
to offer some grounding on which future theoretical understanding of these
hybrid tasks can build, as well as providing useful insights into the design of
technologies to support these tasks.”
Issue 2
Bisantz, Ann M. and Ockerman, Jennifer J. (2002): Informing the evaluation and design of technology in intentional work environments through a focus on artefacts and implicit theories. In International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 56 (2) pp. 247-265
“Observation and analysis of work and computer systems in context can provide
valuable information for the evaluation, design and further development of
computer systems; however, there are still questions regarding the analysis and
utilization of information from field studies. In particular, from a design
viewpoint, it is necessary to be able to move from the extensive observational
data that is often collected during a field study to information that is
relevant for design. In this paper, we discuss the use of theories and models
of human-machine interaction to guide the analysis of information gathered
during field studies, and illustrate the application of an artefact-based
theory with the results from two different and independently conducted case
studies. This approach was valuable in structuring information collected in
flexible environments, in which models that rely on the normative procedures
found in more causal environments may be less useful. In addition to shaping
the interpretation of data from the two studies, the use of an artefact-based
theory also proved useful in integrating results across the two field studies,
to suggest more domain-independent design criteria.”
Paterno, Fabio and Santoro, Carmen (2002): Preventing user errors by systematic analysis of deviations from the system task model. In International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 56 (2) pp. 225-245
“Interactive safety-critical applications have specific requirements that
cannot be completely captured by traditional evaluation techniques. In this
paper, we discuss how to perform a systematic inspection-based analysis to
improve both usability and safety aspects of an application. The analysis
considers a system prototype and the related task model and aims to evaluate
what could happen when interactions and behaviours occur differently from what
the system design assumes. We also provide a description and discussion of an
application of this method to a case study in the air traffic control domain.”
Frydman, M. Le Goc, C. and Torres, L. (2002): Verification and validation of the SACHEM conceptual model. In International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 56 (2) pp. 199-223
“We present a method for transforming a KADS conceptual model (informal) into
an operational model (formal) based on high-level Petri nets. The KADS model we
consider specifies the functional architecture of the knowledge-based system
called SACHEM, designed for blast furnace control. The operationalizing process
we propose allows the KADS model to be completed and validated. Upon execution
of the operational model, the dynamics of the system can be simulated. Thus the
proposed operationalizing process contributed to the validation and
verification of the SACHEM conceptual model.”
Elliott, Ame and Hearst, Marti A. (2002): A comparison of the affordances of a digital desk and tablet for architectural image tasks. In International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 56 (2) pp. 173-197
“The physical context of architectural design includes large workspaces,
typically drafting tables covered with piles of images and sketches. We are
investigating if and how a large computerized workspace can be integrated
usefully into such a design environment. To this end, we compared a large
computerized desktop (digital desk) to a standard desktop computer and a small
tablet environment for two typical architecture design tasks: sketching and
image sorting. For the sketching task, the participants' preferences were
evenly divided between the digital desk and the tablet. For the image sorting
task, the desk was the least preferred environment, and produced significantly
higher sorting times and more mistakes. Investigation into the causes of this
difference yielded several interesting findings, including: the height of the
participant was significantly associated with their speed on the sorting task,
the larger image size available on the desk compensated for its poorer
resolution in subjective preferences, and the quality of the alignment of the
pen was an important factor both for preference and scoring results in the
sketching task. Highly responsive pen input devices seem critical for user
satisfaction not only for sketching, but also for image sorting; the effects of
large display spaces are difficult to isolate from the limitations of input
device. This paper elaborates on these findings and considers the implications
for the design of user interfaces for image manipulation, in particular
interaction techniques appropriate to using pen-input with large display
surfaces.”
Issue 1
Cohen, Doron, Jacovi, Michal, Maarek, Yoelle S. and Soroka, Vladimir (2002): Livemaps for collection awareness. In International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 56 (1) pp. 7-23
“With the increasing proliferation of chat applications on the web, the old
vision of "adding people" to the web is becoming a reality. Along with
collaboration tools, more and more sites offer people awareness mechanisms to
let the site visitors know about each other. This reflects the dual nature of
the web as a place for virtual meetings as well as an information repository.
While standalone chat tools became the killer application of the Internet,
site-related awareness applications did not quite catch on. In this work, we
suggest possible reasons for this phenomenon and propose a new paradigm for
awareness and social navigation. We identify three main obstacles to the
existing site-related awareness applications: high sensitivity to the "critical
mass" requirement, inflexible meeting place granularity and poor visitor
visibility. To address these issues, we extend the well-known "document
awareness" concept to a more general one that we call "collection awareness",
which better reflects the graph structure of the web. We introduce a new tool
for high-level awareness and collaboration, called Livemaps, which projects
live information onto a web site map. We demonstrate how Livemaps addresses the
obstacles we pointed out and describe a user study conducted on a "fan" web
site for the "Friends" comedy series, so as to verify whether Livemaps actually
improves social awareness.”
Gellersen, Hans-W. and Schmidt, Albert L. (2002): Look who's visiting: supporting visitor awareness in the web. In International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 56 (1) pp. 25-46
“Individuals, groups and organizations host places in the World Wide Web to
attract visitors, but once they have established a web presence they usually
maintain little or no awareness of visiting activity. However, the standard web
infrastructure supports the capture of detailed activity-related information.
In the first part of this paper, we contribute a preliminary study conducted
with expert web hosts in different domains, investigating the use of
information on visiting activity as feedback for web operation. From this
study, we infer general requirements for web awareness support, based on which
we have designed two systems aimed to promote more awareness of web activity
and visitors. The first is a system supporting ambient notification of web
events, end-user configurability, and ambient display for overview and
comparison of activity in a web place. The second system moves beyond awareness
of web activity to provide glances into the visitors' sites, introducing
reciprocity to the host-visitor relationship. Both systems have been prototyped
and deployed in work environments for an evaluation in everyday use.”
Budzik, Jay, Bradshaw, Shannon, Fu, Xiaobin and Hammond, Kristian J. (2002): Supporting on-line resource discovery in the context of ongoing tasks with proactive software assistants. In International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 56 (1) pp. 47-74
“We present ongoing work on systems aimed at improving a user's awareness of
resources available to them on the Internet and in intranets. First, we briefly
describe Watson, a system that proactively retrieves documents from on-line
repositories that are potentially useful in the context of a task, allowing the
user to quickly become aware of document resources available in on-line
information repositories. Next, we describe I2I, an extension of Watson that
builds communities of practice on the fly, based on the work that its users do,
so that users with similar goals and interests can discover each other and
communicate both synchronously and asynchronously. Both Watson and I2I operate
given some knowledge of the user's current task, gleaned automatically from the
behavior of users in software tools. As a result, the systems can provide users
with useful resources in the context of the work that they are performing. We
argue that the systems can foster a greater sense of awareness of the resources
available, while minimizing the effort required to discover them.”
Lee, Alison and Girgensohn, Andreas (2002): Design, experiences and user preferences for a web-based awareness tool. In International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 56 (1) pp. 75-107
“We describe our experiences with the design, implementation, deployment and
evaluation of a Portholes tool which provides group and collaboration awareness
through the Web. The research objective was to explore as to how such a system
would improve communication and facilitate a shared understanding among
distributed development groups. During the deployment of our Portholes system,
we conducted a naturalistic study by soliciting user feedback and evolving the
system in response. Many of the initial reactions of potential users indicated
that our system projected the wrong image so that we designed a new version
that provided explicit cues about being in public and who is looking back to
suggest a social rather than information interface. We implemented the new
design as a Java applet and evaluated design choices with a preference study.
Our experiences with different Portholes versions and user reactions to them
provide insights for designing awareness tools beyond Portholes systems. Our
approach is for the studies to guide and to provide feedback for the design and
technical development of our system.”
Jang, Chyng-Yang, Steinfield, Charles and Pfaff, Ben (2002): Virtual team awareness and groupware support: an evaluation of the TeamSCOPE system. In International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 56 (1) pp. 109-126
“This paper overviews a Web-based collaborative system called TeamSCOPE that
has been designed to support awareness needs of globally distributed teams.
Four types of awareness needs of virtual teams are defined and the awareness
support features of TeamSCOPE are described. The usage patterns of eight
globally distributed engineering design teams are outlined, and evaluation
results are provided. Findings illustrate how group process interacts with
technology to create design challenges in the support of virtual team awareness
needs.”
Sumi, Yasuyuki and Mase, Kenji (2002): Supporting the awareness of shared interests and experiences in communities. In International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 56 (1) pp. 127-146
“In this paper, we propose a notion of facilitating encounters and knowledge
sharing among people having shared interests and experiences in museums,
conferences, etc. In order to show our approach and its current state, this
paper presents our project to build a communityware system situated in
real-world contexts. The aims of the project are to build a tour guidance
system personalized according to its user's individual contexts, and to
facilitate knowledge communications among communities by matchmaking users
having shared interests and providing real and/or virtual places for their
meetings. In this paper, we first show PalmGuide, a hand-held tour guidance
system. After that, we show two systems designed to increase the level of
"community awareness". One is called Semantic Map, a visual interface for
exploring community information, such as exhibits and people (focusing on
exhibitors and visitors). The other is called AgentSalon, a display showing
conversations between personal agents according to their users' profiles and
interests.”
Segerstad, Ylva Hard Af and Ljungstrand, Peter (2002): Instant messaging with WebWho. In International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 56 (1) pp. 147-171
“We present a study of how awareness of presence affects content of instant
messaging sent between students using WebWho, an easily accessible web-based
awareness tool. WebWho visualizes where people are located in a large
university computer lab and allows students to virtually locate one another and
communicate via an instant messaging system. As WebWho is there to be accessed
through any web browser, it requires no programming skills or special software.
It may also be used from outside the computer lab by students located
elsewhere. The sender's user name is normally automatically added to the
instant messages, but the messages can also be sent anonymously. We were
interested in finding out if the sender's conscious hiding of his or her
identity seemed to be reflected in the content of anonymous messages, and how
these differed from those with identified senders. Awareness of presence seems
to be one of several factors influencing message composition, both content and
structural aspects. At this stage, we have primarily focused on examining how
different factors affects the content of the messages. We cross-analysed the
messages for content in relation to parameters such as sender location
(collocated, distributed and distant) and sender status (anonymous vs.
identified), in order to find out whether awareness of presence seems to be an
influencing factor. Computer-mediated communication (CMC) is often claimed to
be a sort of hybrid between spoken and written interaction [c.f. Ferrara,
Brunner & Whittemore (1991) and and several others]. We compared the messages
that were sent using the instant messaging tool in WebWho with data from other
types of CMC (email, chat) and also with corpora of spoken language and
traditionally written language. The aim of the study was primarily to
investigate awareness of presence affects on instant messaging, and only
secondarily to investigate spoken vs. written features of the texts. Results
show that awareness of both physical and virtual presence affects the content
of the messages, and that these factors affects the text differently. Sender
status, the nature of the computer-mediated medium, and the written mode shape
the messages as well. Results show that the students use the messaging system
to support collaborative work and coordinate social activities, and extensively
for playful behaviour.”
Liechti, Olivier and Sumi, Yasuyuki (2002): Editorial: Awareness and the WWW. In International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 56 (1) pp. 1-5
What do YOU think?
Give us your opinion! Do you have any comments/additions that you would like other visitors to see?
You say:
Mar 15th, 2010
#1
Be the first to add a thoughtful note to this page !
Changes to this page (periodical)
10 Sep 2009: Journal/Periodical was added to the bibliography (approved by an editor)05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
14 Apr 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited (approved by an editor)
02 Feb 2009: Journal/Periodical was added to the bibliography (approved by an editor)
26 Aug 2008: Journal/Periodical was edited (approved by an editor)
16 Jun 2008: Journal/Periodical was added to the bibliography (approved by an editor)
12 May 2008: Journal/Periodical was edited
12 May 2008: Journal/Periodical was edited
12 May 2008: Journal/Periodical was edited
12 May 2008: Journal/Periodical was edited
12 May 2008: Journal/Periodical was edited
12 May 2008: Journal/Periodical was edited
12 May 2008: Journal/Periodical was edited
12 May 2008: Journal/Periodical was edited
12 May 2008: Journal/Periodical was edited
12 May 2008: Journal/Periodical was edited
12 May 2008: Journal/Periodical was edited
12 May 2008: Journal/Periodical was edited
12 May 2008: Journal/Periodical was edited
12 May 2008: Journal/Periodical was edited
12 May 2008: Journal/Periodical was edited
12 May 2008: Journal/Periodical was edited
12 May 2008: Journal/Periodical was edited
12 May 2008: Journal/Periodical was edited
12 May 2008: Journal/Periodical was edited
12 May 2008: Journal/Periodical was edited
12 May 2008: Journal/Periodical was edited
12 May 2008: Journal/Periodical was edited
12 May 2008: Journal/Periodical was edited
12 May 2008: Journal/Periodical was edited
12 May 2008: Journal/Periodical was edited
12 May 2008: Journal/Periodical was edited
12 May 2008: Journal/Periodical was edited
12 May 2008: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
05 Jun 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited
14 Apr 2009: Journal/Periodical was edited (approved by an editor)
02 Feb 2009: Journal/Periodical was added to the bibliography (approved by an editor)
26 Aug 2008: Journal/Periodical was edited (approved by an editor)
16 Jun 2008: Journal/Periodical was added to the bibliography (approved by an editor)
12 May 2008: Journal/Periodical was edited
12 May 2008: Journal/Periodical was edited
12 May 2008: Journal/Periodical was edited
12 May 2008: Journal/Periodical was edited
12 May 2008: Journal/Periodical was edited
12 May 2008: Journal/Periodical was edited
12 May 2008: Journal/Periodical was edited
12 May 2008: Journal/Periodical was edited
12 May 2008: Journal/Periodical was edited
12 May 2008: Journal/Periodical was edited
12 May 2008: Journal/Periodical was edited
12 May 2008: Journal/Periodical was edited
12 May 2008: Journal/Periodical was edited
12 May 2008: Journal/Periodical was edited
12 May 2008: Journal/Periodical was edited
12 May 2008: Journal/Periodical was edited
12 May 2008: Journal/Periodical was edited
12 May 2008: Journal/Periodical was edited
12 May 2008: Journal/Periodical was edited
12 May 2008: Journal/Periodical was edited
12 May 2008: Journal/Periodical was edited
12 May 2008: Journal/Periodical was edited
12 May 2008: Journal/Periodical was edited
12 May 2008: Journal/Periodical was edited
12 May 2008: Journal/Periodical was edited
12 May 2008: Journal/Periodical was edited
12 May 2008: Journal/Periodical was edited
12 May 2008: Journal/Periodical was edited
