mimeg – the mixedmediagrid ncess node university of bristol & kings college london
TRANSCRIPT
MiMeG –The MixedMediaGrid
NCeSS node
University of Bristol &Kings College London
Key areas of research
• Building on VidGrid pilot project• Identifying needs of qualitative social
science user communities• Understanding social scientific practice• Synchronous and Asynchronous
support for mixed media qualitative analysis
• Capacity building across the social sciences, training, software roll-out programme
Studies of social science practice
• Scope of existing systems
• Interviews with expert practitioners
• Observational studies of existing practices
• Studies of MiMeG system in use
Shared real-time text and graphics annotations
Mimio receiver Mimio pen
Boundary microphone Speaker
Image projected to screen
Web data services for long-term data analysis
EQUIP dataspace
Slave
SlaveMaster
Slave
Digital video store
Digital video store
Digital video store
Digital video store
Control event
Annotation event
Off-Screen Annotations
• (full paper at CHI 2007)• Enable remote understanding of pace
and position of off-screen movement– Especially off-screen to on-screen transitions
• Requires two components:– Real-time tracking of local off-screen
position– Visualising at remote site(s) appropriately
Tracking Annotations
Ultrasound Receiver
GumstixComputer
Electronic WhiteboardMarker
Bluetooth Aerial
Battery
Response time results
StreamerOrbCrosshairNone
Visualization
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Res
po
nse
tim
e (s
)
StreamerOrbCrosshairNone
Visualization
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Res
po
nse
tim
e (s
)
Response time results
1 second
Studies of MiMeG system in use
• (full paper at ECSCW 2007)• Some groups have agreed to be studied
in using the software in greater depth• describes the mechanisms researchers
use to manage distributed analysis– Local/remote activities– Gestures and imitation
• Significant evidence that managing local work is useful for distributed collaboration
Next Steps
• Do we aim to preserve/amplify existing practice? (which we have ethnographic evidence works for users) or do we aim to alter practice (based on experimental studies that say collaborative responses are easier to predict)
• What do we really want our software to do here – to support or to alter existing practice?
• Can we generate new domains of practice in real-time distributed research – is this a better commercial space than traditional workplaces?
Next Steps• Studies of distributed research practice in
CSCW are few and lack detail• Buxton’s (1992) Telepresence challenge
remains– integrating task-focused activities with object-
focused activities is still tough
• Real time groupware needs to move into the real world more, and perhaps researchers offer an improved testbed than traditional workplaces for real-time distributed tools