http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
Computer Support for Collaborative Reviewing of Documents
김희철 Stockholm University 2001 해외박사
Collaborative writing is a common social activity. Computer support for collaborative writing has also been a central area in HCI, CSCW, and writing research. The particular concern in this thesis is how the computer can support collaborative reviewing of documents. The act of reviewing in collaborative writing requires communication about revisions of text among the collaborators. Computers are not only communication media, as e.g. email and conferencing systems, but also tools to help build a common ground on revisions between writers, which is a basis for communicating about revisions. Typical examples of the latter are tools for representing changes in text and for commenting on it. The thesis investigates the use of these tools and aspects of the design. In Study I, collaborative reviewing practices were explored by interviewing academics. Two laboratory studies, Study II and III, addressed how people understand and use change representation tools in the context of collaboration between a writer and a reviewer. In particular, Study III explored the reviewerinitiative collaboration where a reviewer revises on-line documents directly as suggestion of further revisions. Study IV discussed how to detect and filter out typing error corrections in text revision history. A case study, Study V, investigated the effect of a Web-based collaboration tool on the interaction between collaborating writers, emphasizing aspects of dialogues formed by written comments that writers contribute. For reviewing tools to be usable, Study I has suggested that collaborators have to possess a good network environment that they have in common for sharing and accessing their documents, and exchanging ideas. Study II has argued that a common space for different reviewing tools should be supported so that writers can better perform various cognitive processes of writing. In addition, writers need mechanisms to support a smooth transition between reading the text and understanding changes in it. Study III has shown a complementing relationship between change representation tools and commenting tools. Study V has revealed the tradeoffs of dialogues versus annotations in the usage of commenting functions. In conclusion, writers need integrated environments where collaborators and different pieces of work are connected, where reviewing tools are smoothly supported to help different cognitive processes, and where dialogues and annotations coexist. An important task for future research is to try to answer the question of how to better connect writers, cognitive processes, and functions.