INFO 447 - L07 - January 26, 2005
Notes by: Fortier, Egaas, Rose, Horm, Serim, Prins, Yaptinchay, Hornbostel

Votes for Each Piece
Olson 3
Roseman 8 (tried to go commercial later, but project died in .com crash)
Muramatsu 1
Beford 3

The common theme from prior readings:
    - Persistence
    - Awareness
    - Shared workspaces

"Shared Space"
    - Olson: Tool Set but Disjoint
    - Roseman: Tool Set but Environment Coupled
    - Maramatsu: Place, Text, Interaction, Metaphors (to avoid overload), Norms
    - Benford: Multiple Users, Areas of Interest, Perceptual Differences, Multiple Views, Engaging (immersive), Affordances to Match Tasks

Is the Roseman Immersive?
    - It could be, but it couldn't be too.
    - Think about the casual stuff that can be included within the room

Olson Paper
    -2 people in class agree that the study done in the Olson article d

What about place?
    - Definitely in the Bedford, by maybe not so much in the Olson


These characteristics of "shared space" seems to evolve over time. First we start off with disjointed tool sets, then we go on to coupled tool sets. All seem to be kind of immersive, but Benford is really immersive.

What does/doesn't qualify as immersive?
    - Doesn't necessarily have to do with graphical interface
    - Tasks that require your undivided attention are immersive
    - Immersion in place vs. immersion in social group

Perceptual Characteristics
    - Technical Features
    - Social Characteristics

Interactions
    - How do they differ in virtual versus physical?
        * Probably wouldn't just burst in and grab an object.
        * Whiteboard app- more users with virtual whiteboard than physical
        * Electronic medium implies completion
        * Shared file spaces
            -sometimes has the disadvantage of network permissions
        * Objects

- What are the limits imposed by the technology on CSCW?

!!! Guest presentation by Steven Poltrock on Friday 1/28

# END #