Advertisement

Applying Web 2.0 Design Principles in the Design of Cooperative Applications

  • Niels Pinkwart
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5220)

Abstract

“Web 2.0” is a term frequently mentioned in media - apparently, applications such as Wikipedia, Social Network Services, Online Shops with integrated recommender systems, or Sharing Services like flickr, all of which rely on user’s activities, contributions, and interactions as a central factor, are fascinating for the general public. This leads to a success of these systems that seemingly exceeds the impact of most “traditional” groupware applications that have emerged from CSCW research. This paper discusses differences and similarities between novel Web 2.0 tools and more traditional CSCW application in terms of technologies, system design and success factors. Based on this analysis, the design of the cooperative learning application LARGO is presented to illustrate how Web 2.0 success factors can be considered for the design of cooperative environments.

Keywords

Social Software Cooperative Applications CSCW CSCL 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Allen, C.: Definitions of groupware. Applied Groupware 1, 1–2 (1990)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ellis, C.A., Gibbs, S.J., Rein, G.: Groupware: some issues and experiences. Communications of the ACM 34(1), 39–58 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Marca, D., Bock, G. (eds.): Groupware: Software for Computer-Supported Cooperative Work. IEEE Press, Los Alamitos (1992)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
    David, S., Pinch, T.: Six degrees of reputation: The use and abuse of online review and recommendation systems. First Monday 11(3) (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    BPMN Information, http://www.bpmn.org/
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
    Wilson, S., Galliers, J., Fone, J.: Not all sharing is equal: the impact of a large display on small group collaborative work. In: Proc. of CSCW, pp. 25–28. ACM, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fono, D., Counts, S.: Sandboxes: supporting social play through collaborative multimedia composition on mobile phones. In: Proc. of CSCW, pp. 163–166. ACM, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grudin, J., Palen, L.: Why Groupware Succeeds: Discretion or Mandate? In: Proceedings of ECSCW, pp. 85–93. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1995)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Neuwirth, C.M.: Collaborative Writing: Practical Problems and Suspective Solutions. ECSCW, Tutorial Notes #11 (1995)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Streitz, N., Tandler, P., Müller-Tomfelde, C., Konomi, S.: Roomware: Towards the Next Generation of Human-Computer Interaction based on an Integrated Design of Real and Virtual Worlds. In: Human-Computer Interaction in the New Millenium. Add.Wesley (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
  14. 14.
    Sun, D., Sun, C.: Operation context and context-based operational transformation. In: Proceedings of the 2006 20th Anniversary Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, pp. 279–288. ACM, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Papadopoulos, C.: Improving Awareness in Mobile CSCW. IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing 5(0), 1331–1346 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Konstan, J., Riedl, J.: Collaborative Filtering: Supporting social navigation in large, crowded infospaces. In: Designing Information Spaces, pp. 43–81. Springer, Berlin (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Verheij, B.: Artificial argument assistants for defeasible argumentation. Artificial Intelligence 150, 291–324 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Aleven, V.: Using Background Knowledge in Case-Based Legal Reasoning: A Computational Model and an Intelligent Learning Environment, AI 150, pp. 183–238 (2003)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pinkwart, N., Aleven, V., Ashley, K., Lynch, C.: Toward Legal Argument Instruction with Graph Grammars and Collaborative Filtering Techniques. In: Ikeda, M., Ashley, K.D., Chan, T.-W. (eds.) ITS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4053, pp. 227–236. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ashley, K.: Modeling Legal Argument: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals. MIT Press/Bradford Books (1990)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Brusilovsky, P., Sosnovsky, S.A., Shcherbinina, O.: User Modeling in a Distributed E-Learning Architecture. In: Ardissono, L., Brna, P., Mitrović, A. (eds.) UM 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3538, pp. 387–391. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Niels Pinkwart
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of InformaticsClausthal University of TechnologyClausthal-ZellerfeldGermany

Personalised recommendations