Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)

, Volume 1, Issue 3, pp 163–196 | Cite as

Why do users like video?

Studies of multimedia-supported collaboration
  • John C. Tang
  • Ellen Isaacs


Three studies of collaborative activity were conducted as part of research in developing multimedia technology to support collaboration. One study surveyed users' opinions of their use of video conference rooms. Users indicated that the availability of the video conference rooms was too limited, audio quality needed improvement, and a shared drawing space was needed. A second study analyzed videotapes of a work group when meeting face-to-face, video conferencing, and phone conferencing. The analyses found that the noticeable audio delay in video conferencing made it difficult for the participants to manage turn-taking and coordinate eye glances. In the third study, a distributed team was observed under three conditions: using their existing collaboration tools, adding a desktop conferencing prototype (audio, video, and shared drawing tool), and subtracting the video capability from the prototype. Qualitative and quantitative data were collected by videotaping the team, interviewing the team members individually, and recording their usage of the phone, electronic mail, face-to-face meetings, and desktop conferencing. The team's use of the desktop conferencing prototype dropped significantly when the video capability was removed. Analysis of the videotape data showed how the video channel was used to help mediate their interaction and convey visual information. Desktop conferencing apparently reduced e-mail usage and was perceived to reduce the number of shorter, two-person, face-to-face meetings.


Desktop Conferencing Remote Collaboration Use Studies Video Conferencing Computer Supported Cooperative Work Multimedia 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Buxton, Bill and Tom Moran. 1990. EuroPARC's Integrated Interactive Intermedia Facility (IIIF): Early Experiences. InMulti-User Interfaces and Applications, eds. S. Gibbs, and A. A. Verrijn-Stuart, 11–34. Amsterdam, Elsevier Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  2. Bly, Sara A. 1988. A Use of Drawing Surfaces in Different Collaborative Settings. InProceedings of the Conference of Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, 250–256. Portland, OR, USA.Google Scholar
  3. Bly, Sara A., Steve R. Harrison and Susan Irwin. 1993. Media spaces: Bringing People Together in a Video, Audio, and Computing Environment.Communications of the ACM 35 (1): 28–47.Google Scholar
  4. Conrath, David W., Earl V. Dunn, William G. Bloor and Barbara Tranquada. 1977. A Clinical Evaluation of Four Alternative Telemedicine Systems.Behavioral Science 22: 12–21.Google Scholar
  5. Egido, Carmen. 1990. Teleconferencing as a Technology to Support Cooperative Work: Its Possibilities and Limitatins. InTeamwork: Social and Technological Foundations of Cooperative Work, eds. Jolene Galegher, Robert E. Kraut and Carmen Egido, 351–371, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
  6. Falk, Howard. 1973. Picturephone and Beyond.IEEE Spectrum: 45–49.Google Scholar
  7. Fish, Robert S., Robert E. Kraut, Robert W. Root and Ronald E. Rice. 1992. Evaluating Video as a Technology for Informal Communication. InProceedings of the Conference on Computer Human Interaction (CHI) '92, 37–48. Monterey, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  8. Francik, Ellen, Susan Ehrlich Rudman, Donna Cooper and Stephen Levine. 1991. Putting Innovation to Work: Adoption Strategies for Multimedia Communication Systems.Communications of the ACM 34 (12): 53–63.Google Scholar
  9. Gale, Stephen. 1990. Human Aspects of Interactive Multimedia Communication.Interacting with Computers 2 (2): 175–189.Google Scholar
  10. Gale, Stephen. 1992. Desktop Video Conferencing: Technical Advances and Evaluation Issues.Computer Communications 15 (2): 517–526.Google Scholar
  11. Heath, Christian and Paul Luff. 1991. Disembodied Conduct: Communication Through Video in a Multi-media Office Environment. InProceedings of the Conference on Computer Human Interaction (CH) '91, 99–103. New Orleans, LA, USA.Google Scholar
  12. Isaacs, Ellen, A. and John C. Tang. 1993. What Video Can and Can't Do for Collaboration: A Case Study. InProceedings of the ACM Multimedia '93 Conference. Anaheim, CA (in press).Google Scholar
  13. Ishii, Hiroshi and Minoru Kobayashi. 1992. ClearBoard: A Seamless Medium for Shared Drawing and Conversation with Eye Contact. InProceedings of the Conference on Computer Human Interaction (CHI) '92, 525–532. Monterey, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  14. Kendon, Adam. 1986. Current Issues in the Study of Gesture. InThe Biological Foundations of Gestures: Motor and Semiotic Aspects, eds. Jean-Luc Nespoulous, Paul Perron and Andre Roch Lecours, 23–47. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
  15. Krauss, Robert M., Connie M. Garlock, Peter D. Bricker and Lee E. McMahon. 1977. The Role of Audible and Visible Back-Channel Responses in Interpersonal Communication.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 35 (7): 523–529.Google Scholar
  16. Masaki, Shigeki, Naobumi Kanemaki, Hiroya Tanigawa, Hideya Ichihara and Kazunori Shimamura. 1991. Personal Multimedia-multipoint Teleconference System for Broadband ISDN. InHigh Speed Networking. III, eds. O. Spaniol and A. Danthine, 215–230. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  17. Minneman, Scott L. and Sara A. Bly. 1991. Managing a Trois: A Study of a Multi-user Drawing Tool in Distributed Design Work. InProceedings of the Conference on Computer Human Interaction (CHI) '91, 217–224. New Orleans, LA, USA.Google Scholar
  18. Ochsman, Robert B. and Alphonse Chapanis. 1974. The Effects of 10 Communication Modes on the Behavior of Teams During Co-operative Problem-solving.International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 6:579–619.Google Scholar
  19. Olson, Margrethe H. and Sara A. Bly 1991. The Portland Experience: A Report on a Distributed Research Group.International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 34 (2): 211–228. Reprinted: InComputer-supported Cooperative Work and Groupware, ed. Saul Greenberg, 81–98. London Academic Press.Google Scholar
  20. Pearl, Amy. 1992.System Support for Integrated Desktop Video Conferencing, Sun Microsystems Laboratories Inc. Technical Report TR-92-4. Mountain View, CA.Google Scholar
  21. Root, Robert W. 1988. Design of a Multi-Media Vehicle for Social Browsing. InProceedings of the Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, 25–38. Portland, OR, USA.Google Scholar
  22. Sacks, H., E. Schegloff and G. Jefferson, 1974. A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-taking for Conversation.Language 50: 696–735.Google Scholar
  23. Short, John, Ederyn Williams and Bruce Christie, 1976.The Social Psychology of Telecommunications London: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  24. Smith, Randall B., Tim O'Shea, Claire O'Malley, Eileen Scanlon and Josie Taylor. 1989. Preliminary Experiments with a Distributed, Multi-media, Problem Solving Environment. InProceedings of the First European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work: EC-CSCW '89, 19–34. London, UK. Reprinted: 1991. InStudies in Computer Supported Cooperative Work: Theory Practice and Design, eds. J. Bowers and S. Benford. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  25. Stefik, Mark, Gregg Foster, Daniel G. Bobrow, Kenneth Kahn, Stan Lanning and Lucy Suchman, 1987. Beyond the Chalkboard: Computer Support for Collaboration and Problem Solving in Meetings.Communications of the ACM 30 (1): 32–47. Reprinted: 1988. InComputer-Supported Cooperative Work: A Book of Readings, ed. Irene Greif, 335–366. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
  26. Tang, John C. 1991. Findings from Observational Studies of Collaborative Work.International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 34(2): 143–160. Reprinted: 1991. InComputer-supported Cooperative Work and Groupware, ed. Saul Greenberg, 11–28. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  27. Tang, John. 1991. Involving Social Scientists in the Design of New Technology. InTaking Software Design Seriously: Practical Techniques for Human-Computer Interaction Design, ed. John Karat, 115–126. Boston: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  28. Tang, John C. and Scott L. Minneman 1991. VideoDraw: A Video Interface for Collaborative Drawing.ACM Transactions on Information Systems 9(2): 170–184.Google Scholar
  29. Tatar, Deborah. 1989. Using Video-Based Observations to Shape the Design of a New Technology.SIGGHI Bulletin 21(2): 108–111.Google Scholar
  30. Watabe, Kazuo, Shiro Sakata, Kazutoshi Maeno, Hideyuki Fukuoka and Toyoko Ohmori. 1990. Distributed Multiparty Desktop Conferencing System: MERMAID. InProceedings of the Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, 27–38. Los Angeles, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  31. Wilkes-Gibbs, Deanna. 1986.Collaborative Processes of Language Use in Conversation, Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  32. Williams, Ederyn. 1977. Experimental Comparisons of Face-to-Face and Mediated Communication: A Review.Psychological Bulletin 84(5): 963–976.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • John C. Tang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ellen Isaacs
    • 2
  1. 1.Sun Microsystems Laboratories, Inc.Mountain ViewU.S.A.
  2. 2.SunSoft, Inc.Mountain ViewU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations