A design rationale (DR) is a representation of the reasoning behind the design of an artifact. In recent years, the use of semiformal notations for structuring arguments about design decisions has attracted much interest within the human-computer interaction and software engineering communities, leading to a number of DR notations and support environments. This paper examines two foundational claims made by argumentation-based DR approaches: that expressing DR as argumentation is useful, and that designers can use such notations. The conceptual and empirical basis for these claims is examined, firstly by surveying relevant literature on the use of argumentation in non-design contexts (from which current DR efforts draw much inspiration), and secondly, by surveying DR work. Evidence is classified according to the research contribution it makes, the kind of data on which claims are based (anecdotal or experimental), the extent to which the claims made are substantiated, and whether or not the users of the approach were also the researchers. In the survey, a trend towards tightly integrating DR with other design representations is noted, but it is argued that taken too far, this may result in the loss of the original vision of argumentative

The rich person-to-person interaction afforded by shared physical workspaces allows people to maintain up-to-the minute knowledge about others ’ interaction with the workspace. This knowledge is workspace awareness, part of the glue that allows groups to collaborate effectively. In real-time groupware systems that provide a shared virtual workspace, the possibilities for interaction are impoverished when compared with physical workspaces, partly because support for workspace awareness has not generally been a priority in groupware design. In this paper, we present the concept of workspace awareness as one key to supporting the richness evident in face-to-face interaction. We construct a conceptual framework that describes the elements and mechanisms of workspace awareness, and then show several widgets that can be embedded in relaxed-WYSIWIS groupware systems to support the maintenance of workspace awareness.

This article provides one example of a method of analyzing qualitative data in an objective and quantifiable way. Although the application of the method is illustrated in the context of verbal data such as explanations, interviews, problem-solving protocols, and retrospective reports, in principle, the mechanics of the method can be adapted for coding other types of qualitative data such as gestures and videotapes. The mechanics of the method we outlined in 8 concrete step. Although verbal analyses can be used for many purposes, the main goal of the analyses discussed here is to formulate an understanding of the representation of the knowledge used in cognitive performances and how that representation changes with learning This can be contrasted with another method or analyzing verbal protocols, the goal of which is to validate the cognitive processes of human performance, often as embodied in a computational model

Abstract—Although work is frequently collaborative, most computer-based activities revolve around software packages designed to be used by one person at a time. To get around this, people working together often talk and gesture around a computer screen, perhaps taking turns interacting with the running “single-user” application by passing the keyboard around. However, it is technically possible to share these unaltered applications—even though they were originally designed for a single user only—across physically different workstations through special view-sharing software. Each person sees the same image of the running application on their own screen, and has an opportunity to interact with it by taking turns. This paper discusses the various roles and responsibilities of the view-sharing software that must be considered during its design and evaluation: view management, floor control, conference registration by participants, and handling of meta-level communications. A brief survey of existing shared view systems is provided for background.

Based on a field study of cooperative design in a distributed company, this paper identifies and defines the embodied actions of the designers that enabled a cooperative design process. These actions are considered as classes of cognitive practices that are simultaneously available to the actor and others in a shared physical workspace. The public availability of these actions to the perceptions of the participants in a cooperative process enables their communicative functions A taxonomy of embodied actions is developed as a bridging structure between the field study of cooperative work and the design of technology that might support that work over distance Boundaries are drawn by mapping pracuces; "objects " do not pre-exist as such. Objects are boundary projects. But boundaries shift from within; boundaries are very tricky. What boundaries provisionally contain remains generative, productive of meanings and bodies. Siung (sighting) boundaries is a risky pracuce Donna Haraway, Situated Knowledges, 1991, p. 200.

Many phases of design projects are done in groups. Communication in these groups is naturally supported through a variety of gestures. We catalog four types of gestures that people use when engaged in design (kinetic, spatial, pointing, and other), and overlay it with the purpose of the design subtask, -- design, meeting management, and other. From this and other observations, we list recommendations for supporting this kind of communication in settings which have technology support, either face-to-face with group editors (where people do not necessarily see the same thing at the same time), and remote work (where people see neither the same view of the object nor a full room view of the other participants). KEYWORDS: Group design, gesture, support for design, remote work. INTRODUCTION Most interactive systems are designed by groups or teams, and during the design phase there are often a number of meetings at which design ideas are discussed. Anyone who has sat through a face-to-fa...

Introduction Although the phrase team cognition suggests something that happens inside people's heads, teams are very much situated in the real world, and there are a number of things that have to happen out in that world for teams to be able to think and work together. This is not just spoken communication. Depending on the circumstances, effective team cognition includes things like using environmental cues to establish a common ground of understanding, seeing who is around and what they are doing, monitoring the state of artefacts in a shared work setting, noticing other people's gestures and what they are referring to, and so on (Clark, 1996; Hutchins, 1996). In this chapter, we will argue that awareness of other group members is a critical building block in the construct of team cognition, and consequently that computational support for awareness in groupware systems is crucial for supporting team cognition in distributed groups. Our main message is that: ... for people to sust

The generation of design ideas in group discussion is a complex and dynamic process. Some design ideas are accepted; others are rejected; many others are modified and combined. The fluent expression of ideas and the ability to interact and build on representations created by others contributes significantly to the idea generation process. Computerized shared drawing tools support this fluency and interaction, but such tools need to aid not only the drawing process but also the management of design ideas during group interaction. This paper lays the groundwork for the design of the idea management portion of a shared drawing tool. It presents a taxonomy of group idea management activities, identifies user requirements in support of these behaviours, and illustrates how the user requirements are satisfied by features in CaveDraw, an experimental shared drawing system. 1.

been concerned with the formal study of engineering product development teams at work in academic and corporate settings. This chapter describes one such effort, the implementation of team-based, distance learnining techniques in a

The underlying premise of this paper is that the defining constraint in the design of technology to enable people in different physical spaces to work together is the essential corporeality of human cognition. Its empirical basis is a long term field study of cooperative design in a small distributed company. The paper is not a descriptive account of the work practices of the designers but instead structures the results of a field study in such a way that they might bridge, or reduce, the gap between the description of the work and the design of technology to support that work. The central conclusion from the field study was that the cooperative design of a software product was enabled and achieved by the work the designers did communicating with each other. The basic argument of this paper is that what needs to be supported, mediated and enabled by CSCW technology used to support cooperative design over distance is the mutual perception, for the actor and others, of the embodied actions of the participants in the process. These actions are considered as classes of cognitive practices that are simultaneously available to perceptions of the actor and others in a shared physical workspace. The public availability of these actions to the perceptions of the participants in a cooperative process enables their communicative functions. A taxonomy of embodied actions is defined that identifies and describes the embodied actions of the designers that enabled a cooperative design process. It is presented as a bridging structure between the field study of cooperative work and the design of technology that might support that work over distance. 1.