=` A@ A` @@@ @@@@QQV=R Ap A EN DB  A     &;+ 3 Icr '6W FUdt  - _'():)Q Ishii1992cR Ishii1993. Janssen1992 Johnson2000q Johnson2003Johnston2006^ Jones1998b Juster20011S Kane2006T Kaplan1991p Kapoor2000UKarsenty1999G Kellar2005 Kellogg2006; Kerne2006O King19949P King19959V Klein2006W Klein2006Q Kobayashi1992R Kobayashi1993~ Kosaka20050v Kraemer19894 Kraut2000X Kraut2002" Kraut20046 Kraut20047 Kraut20060 Kruzeniski2005] Lafrenaye2007Y Lalomia1987# Landay1999ZLandgren2006[Landgren2006\Landgren2007] Landry2007^ Lange1998_ Lecolinet2003. Lee1992# Lee1999 Lee2007 Leifer1988p Leigh2000q Leigh2003F Leithinger20050F Leitner2005 Lesh2002 Levin1995# Li19999 Li2001e# Lin1999E Lingard2001` Lingard2003 Lober2004 Louis1992a Lundin2003 Lutters2005S Luz2006/ Lykke-Olesen2007T MacGregor1991b MacGregor2001l MacIntyre2003M Mackenzie2006 Mackinlay1998f Magee1996 Malizia2005cMamykina2004d Mandviwalla1994e Mantei1988 Mark20020M Martz2006 Matsushita1999 Mattis1990. McCall19922r McCall19939McCarthy2006fMcDaniel1996D McEwan20070^ Meyers1998 Meyers2004 Meyers20050Minneman1990V Moon20066W Moon20066r Moran1993# Morrey III1999g Morris2004h Morris2004h Morris2004 Morris20040i Morris2006j Morris2007 Morse2001Muller-Tomfelde2001k Myers1998l Mynatt2003 Nan2006 Neale2000m Nomura1998\ Nulden20070 O'Malley2000O'Malley2005Obstfeld20055 Okada1999d Olfman1994 Olson1995 Olson1995f Olson1996 Olson2002 Olson2006n Osawa2006o Oulasvirta2007i Paepcke2006%Pandolfo2004p Park2000q Park20035 Parker20033.Pedersen1992rPedersen1993 Pellegrini2004C Penner2002. Pier19921s Pinelle2002t Pinelle2003u Pinelle2005v Pinsonneault1989& Pipek2007 Pirolli1993w Pirolli1996J Pohl20066L Popow2001 Potts2007x Powsner1994 Prante20011| Pratt2003# Price1999 Proffitt1990y Qu2006z Rama2006{ Ranjan2006w Rao1996Raybourn1998 Reddy2003| Reddy2003} Reder1988~Redmiles2005 Reeves2005G Reilly2005- Rein19911Rekimoto1998Rekimoto1999qRenambot2003 Robbins2005 Robertson2005 Robertson2007Robinson19933O Rodden1994P Rodden1995 Rodden2003 Rogers2003 Rose1995> Roseman1996 Roseman1996 Roth1990] Roy2007 Rua1994 Russell19933 Russell2005g Ryall2004 Ryall2004 Saitoh19999# Schilit1999# Schleimer1999 Schmidt1992 Scholl2006` Schryer2003} Schwab1988 Schwind2007 Scott2004FSeifried200505 Setlock2003| Shabot20033 Shami2006 Sharma2007 Shen2002g Shen20044 Shen200422 Shen20062Shiozawa1999 Shoemaker20014 Siegel20000 Silverman2007K Simone20077  Simsarian2000N Smith1996 Smith2005 Smith2007Soegaard2006`Spafford2003 Stanton2000 Starren2000 Stefik19933 Stein2004 Steinmetz2001 Stent2001 Steves2001 Stewart1998 Stewart1999k Stiel1998 Streitz2001Sugimoto2004o Sumari20072 Sundblad20000 Sutcliffe2005 Sutyak20077 Tan2004 Tan2005 Tan2007 Tan2007 Tandler2001 Tang1988 Tang1991. Tang19921 Tang1994 Tang2001 Tang2004 Tatar1991 Taxen2000$ Taylor1997 Taylor20030 Tee2006D Tee2007b Thomson2001 Tse2004 Tse2004x Tufte1994K Tumulty2007L Unterasinger2001K Vaidya2007) van der Hoek2002 Van Eaton2004 Van Eaton2007 Van Kleek2001 Vernier2002g Vernier2004 Vicente2000l Voida2003M Voigt2006Wagstrom2006, Wainer1994 Walker1996 Weick1993 Weick1995 Weick2005Weisband1999 Weisz2006. Welch1992 Westrum1982G Whalen2005 White2005 Whittaker1993 Whittaker1994 Whittaker2001 Whittaker20072 Wigdor20060~Wilensky2005Williams2007 Wilson20061Winograd19888hWinograd2004iWinograd2006& Won2007 Wright1998 Wyatt1998 Xiao2000= Xiao20060M Xiao2006K Xiao2007 Yang2002 Yankelovich2001 Zanella2001 Zellweger199866W Moon20066r Moran1993# Morrey III1999g Morris2004h Morris2004h Morris2004̈ Morris20040i Morris2006j Morris2007k Myers1998l Mynatt2003 Nan2006 Neale2000m Nomura1998\ Nulden20070 O'Malley2000O'Malley2005d Olfman1994 Olson1995 Olson1995f Olson1996 Olson2006n Osawa2006o Oulasvirta2007i Paepcke2006%Pandolfo2004p Park2000q Park20035 Parker20033.Pedersen1992rPedersen1993C Penner2002. Pier19921s Pinelle2002t Pinelle2003u Pinelle2005v Pinsonneault1989& Pipek2007 Pirolli1993w Pirolli1996J Pohl20066L Popow2001x Powsner1994| Pratt2003# Price1999 Proffitt1990y Qu2006z Rama2006{ Ranjan2006w Rao1996 Reddy2003| Reddy2003} Reder1988~Redmiles2005 Reeves2005G Reilly2005- Rein19911Rekimoto1998́Rekimoto1999qRenambot2003̂ Robbins2005 Robertson2005O Rodden1994P Rodden1995̃ Rodden2003̃ Rogers2003̄ Rose1995> Roseman1996 Roseman1996 Roth1990] Roy2007 Russell19933 Russell2005g Ryall2004 Ryall2004 Saitoh19999# Schilit1999# Schleimer1999 Schmidt1992 Scholl2006` Schryer2003} Schwab1988FSeifried200505 Setlock2003| Shabot20033 Shami2006 Sharma2007̌ Shen2002g Shen20044 Shen200422 Shen200624 Siegel20000K Simone20077  Simsarian2000N Smith1996 Smith2005Soegaard2006`Spafford2003 Stanton2000 Stefik19933 Stent2001k Stiel1998o Sumari20072 Sundblad20000 Tan2005. Tang19921 Taxen2000$ Taylor1997̃ Taylor20030D Tee2007b Thomson2001x Tufte1994K Tumulty2007L Unterasinger2001K Vaidya2007) van der Hoek2002̌ Vernier2002g Vernier2004l Voida2003M Voigt2006Wagstrom2006, Wainer1994. Welch1992G Whalen20052 Wigdor20060~Wilensky20051Winograd19888hWinograd2004iWinograd2006& Won2007= Xiao20060M Xiao2006K Xiao2007 Zellweger1998  !"%#$&',(*-+. AuthorsJournals &Keywords h                                dAkesson, Karl Petter Allen, James Alvarez, G.Andersen, Hans Anderson, KAndersson, Mattias Atwater, L. Azzie, G.Baggaley, MartinBailey, Brian P. Baker, KevinBalakrishnan, R.Balakrishnan, Ravin Bannon, L.Bansler, Jorgen P.Bardram, Jakob E. Barkhuus, L Bartram, LynBaudisch, Patrick Bauer, Daniel Bayon, Victor Beard, D.V. Bederson, BenBederson, Benjamin B. Begole, JamesBekker, Mathilde M. Bell, BBellotti, VictoriaBender, WalterBenford, Steve Benson, Ian Bergman, Mark Berry, LiorBezerianos, A.Bhalodia, JanakBharadwaj, VijayanandBiehl, Jacob T. Bier, Eric A.Billinghurst, M.Billman, DorritBirnholtz, Jeremy P.Bishop, Judith Blum, R. Bly, S.A. Bly, Sara Bobrow, D.G. Boehler, M.Booth, Kellogg S. Bos, NathanBoyle, Michael Brennan, S.E Brennan, S.E. Brinck, T.Bruce, RichardBurns-Conway, D. Card, StuartCard, Stuart K.Cardarelli, M.G.Carley, Kathleen M. Carmack, D.Carroll, Alan M.Cataldo, Marcelo Cervenka, J. Chang, B.W. Chen, Victor Chi, Ed H.Chignell, Mark H.Chittaro, Luca Churchill, E.Ciborra, Claudio Coiera, E. Cook, Gary J. Coovert, M.D. Cosley, Dan Cox, Donald Cyr, C.Czerwinski, MaryDabbish, LauraDaly-Jones, OwenDavis, Richard C.de Paula, RogerioDennis, Alan R.DiMicco, Joan MorrisDorner, Christian Dourish, P Dourish, P. Dourish, PaulDragicevic, P.Druin, Allison Dunbar, R.Dunn, Cheryl L.Dunnington, G.L. Durrani, Q.S. Dyck, J.Ellis, ClarenceEllis, Clarence A. Elrod, Scott Erickson, T.Erickson, Thomas Eriksson, EvaEss-Dykema, Carol VanEugenio, Barbara DiFallman, DanielFerguson, GeorgeFlores, Fernando Fone, JamesForlines, Clifton Fortune, J.B. Foster, G. Fraser, MikeFreeman, Steven Frisch, H.Frohlich, David Frost, JeanaFurnas, George W.Fussell, Susan R.Galliers, JuliaGargiulo, Robert Garwood, K. Geelhoed, E.Gergle, Darren Ghosh, T.Gibbs, Simon J.Goecks, Jeremy Gold, RichGoldberg, David Goose, S. Gotz, DavidGrabski, Severin V. Graeber, RossGraves, Michael Greenberg, S.Greenberg, SaulGrudin, JonathanGudmundson, Stephan Gurses, A.P.Gurses, Ayse P. Gutwin, Carl Haber, R.J. Halasz, FrankHalasz, Frank G. Haller, M.Halloran, JohnHansen, Thomas R.Hansen, Thomas Riisgaard Hansson, Par Harr, Rikard Harris, R.Hartfield, BradHashizume, Hiromichi Havn, ErlingHawkey, KirstieHayashi, Koichi Hayda, R. Hazama, Tan Hedqvist, D.Henderson, M.KathrynHerbsleb, James D. Hill, JasonHilmer, Kelly M.Hirschberg, JuliaHiston, Jonathan Ho, D. Ho, DannyHoch, SusannahHoffman, Robert R. Horn, W. Horvath, K.D. Horvitz, EricHosoi, KazuhiroHourcade, Juan Pablo Hu, H. Hu, P. Hu, P.F. Huang, Anqi Huang, E.M.Huang, JonathanHudson, Scott E. Hughes, John Igarashi, T. Inglis, Gary Ingram, RobInkpen, Kori M.Isaacs, Ellen A.Ishii, HiroshiJanssen, WilliamJohnson, Andrew E. Johnson, S.B.Johnston, ErikJones, Mark A. Juster, N.P. Kane, BridgetKaplan, Simon M.Kapoor, AbhinavKarsenty, LaurentKellar, MelanieKellogg, Wendy A.Kerne, Andruid King, Val Klein, GaryKobayashi, MinoruKosaka, Kristie  !!!!!"""""%%%%%######$$$$$$&&&&&&'''''',,((((((***------++++++++.....  &$ ACM Trans.Comput.-Hum.Interact. ACM Trans.Inf.Syst. Adm Sci Q. Artif.Intell. Commun.ACM  Comput.Supported Coop.WorkHD Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).An International Journal  Human-Computer Interaction IEEE Comput.Graph.Appl. IEEE Intelligent Systems Int.J.Man-Mach.Stud. interactions J.Manage.Inf.Syst. Organization Science  Personal Ubiquitous Comput. Psychiatr Bull SIGCHI Bull. SIGGROUP Bull. Ann.Surg.Decision Support Systems Human Computer Interaction Human Factors IEEE Trans.Vis.Comput Graph.Int.J.Med.Inform.J Am Med Inform Assoc J.Crit CareJ.Gen.Intern.Med. Journal of Applied Psychology$Journal of Universal Computing Knowledge Lancet Med.Educ.Methods Inf.MedMethods Inf.Med. Pediatrics Stud.Health Technol.Inform Surg.Innov. Surgery  hAdultapproximate responses artifact artifactsArtificial IntelligenceAudiovisual AidsCase ManagementChildChild,PreschoolclassificationClinical ClerkshipClinical Competencecognitive abilitiescognitive modelingcognitive systemscollaborative work CommunicationCommunity Networks$Computer Communication NetworksComputer GraphicsComputer TerminalsConsumer Satisfaction Continuity of Patient CareCooperative Behavior coordinationData Collection Data Display$Data Interpretation,StatisticalDecision Making designdomain dependence$ domain-independent user modeling educationEducation,DistanceEducation,Medical$Education,Medical,UndergraduateEvidence-Based MedicineFaculty,Medical FemaleForms and Records ControlHealth Services Research Health Status Hospital Information SystemsHospitals,Special Humans InfantInfant,NewbornInformation Management InpatientsIntensive CareIntensive Care Units$Intensive Care Units,Pediatric$Interdisciplinary CommunicationInternship and Residency Interprofessional Relations Interviews LanguageMale manpowerMedical Errors$ Medical Informatics Applications Medical Informatics ComputingMedical Records($Medical Records Systems,ComputerizedMedical Staff,Hospital methods Middle AgedModels,TheoreticalMonitoring,PhysiologicNeeds AssessmentNursing Staff,Hospital("Operating Room Information SystemsOperating Rooms organization & administration Orthopedics Parents Patient CarePatient Care TeamPatient TransferPersonnel,HospitalPoint-of-Care Systemsprevention & controlProfessional CompetenceProgram Developmentpsychological tests psychology Quality Assurance,Health CareReferral and ConsultationSafety Management Social Values standards Surgery SymbolismSystems Analysis Teaching TerminologyTime Management Traumatology United Statesuser modelling user needsUser-Computer InterfaceVideoconferencingWORK 200181@9An architecture for more realistic conversational systemsb.(Allen,James Ferguson,George Stent,Amanda2001/// 1-81TNProceedings of the 6th international conference on Intelligent user interfaces *#Santa Fe, New Mexico, United Statesa ACMt0)TY - CONF RP - NOT IN FILE U1 - 359822i In this paper, we describe an architecture for conversational systems that enables human-like performance along several important dimensions. First, interpretation is incremental, multi-level, and involves both general and task- and domain-specific knowledge. Second, generation is also incremental, proceeds in parallel with interpretation, and accounts for phenomena such as turn-taking, grounding and interruptions. Finally, the overall behavior of the system in the task at hand is determined by the (incremental) results of interpretation, the persistent goals and obligations of the system, and exogenous events of which it becomes aware. As a practical matter, the architecture supports a separation of responsibilities that enhances portability to new tasks and domains 1-58113-325-1.(http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/359784.359822 2005 130,PIInterruptive communication patterns in the intensive care unit ward roundAlvarez,G. Coiera,E. 2005/10//Communication Humans Intensive Care Intensive Care Units Interprofessional Relations manpower methods Personnel,Hospital Time ManagementngTY - JOUR DA - 20050926 IS - 1386-5056 (Print) LA - eng PT - Journal Article SB - IM RP - NOT IN FILE 791-796vInt.J.Med.Inform. 7410nhOBJECTIVE: An exploratory study to examine interruptive communication patterns of healthcare staff within an intensive care unit (ICU) during ward rounds. METHODS: The study was conducted in a tertiary hospital in Sydney, Australia. Nine participants were observed individually, for a total of 24 h, using the communication observation method (COM). The amount of time spent in conversation, the number of conversation initiating and number of turn-taking interruptions were recorded. RESULTS: Participants averaged 75% [95% confidence interval 72.8-77.2] of their time in communication events during ward rounds. There were 345 conversation-initiating interruptions (C.I.I.) and 492 turn-taking interruptions (T.T.I.). C.I.I. accounted for 37% [95% CI 33.9-40.1] of total communication event time (5 h: 53 min). T.T.I. accounted for 5.3% of total communication event time (56 min). CONCLUSION: This is the first study to specifically examine turn-taking interruptions in a clinical setting. Staff in this intensive care unit spent the majority of their time in communication. Turn taking interruptions within conversations occurred at about the same frequency as conversation initiating interruptions, which have been the subject of earlier studies. These results suggest that the overall burden of interruptions in some settings may be significantly higher than previously suspected'xqThe Centre of Health Informatics, University of New South Wales, NSW 2055, Australia. drgeorgealvarez@hotmail.com PM:16024286 2006 131 LFInterdisciplinary communication: an uncharted source of medical error?Alvarez,G. Coiera,E. 2006/09//Communication Humans Intensive Care Units Interdisciplinary Communication Medical Errors Medical Staff,Hospital Nursing Staff,Hospital organization & administration prevention & control Quality Assurance,Health Care Safety ManagementngTY - JOUR DA - 20060922 IS - 0883-9441 (Print) LA - eng PT - Journal Article SB - IM RP - NOT IN FILE236-242 J.Crit Care213r'|uCenter of Health Informatics, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2034, Australia. drgeorgealvarez@hotmail.comt PM:16990088i 2005 137n`ZThe writing is on the wall: use of an LCD projector to aid communication at the ward round0*Baggaley,Martin Inglis,Gary Malizia,Andrea2005///  Communication 180-181oPsychiatr Bull295 d]A key element of good in-patient psychiatric care is the multidisciplinary review, with accurate and legible recording of the outcome of the discussion. Traditionally, the junior doctor and nurse act as `scribes' on the ward rounds, recording the outcomes in the multidisciplinary or separate medical and nursing notes. There are a number of ways in which this process can fail. First, the scribe may simply misunderstand the decision of the team, given the complexity and variety of decisions in a psychiatric setting. Second, the scribe may understand what to record, but what is written may be illegible. Finally, people present at the ward round can have different beliefs about what has been decided, but unless they immediately review what has been written, they may not realise the discrepancy. One or more of these failings can result in serious untoward incidents, such as a patient being allowed off the ward on unescorted leave when the responsible medical officer believed the team had decided against permitting such leave. It is only when there is a serious incident that discrepancies can and do emerge4.TY - JOUR RP - NOT IN FILE Y2 - 2005/05/01/10.1192/pb.29.5.180 200257`ZEmpirical development of a heuristic evaluation methodology for shared workspace groupware,&Baker,Kevin Greenberg,Saul Gutwin,Carl2002///e 96-105TMProceedings of the 2002 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative worki "New Orleans, Louisiana, USAt ACMe0)TY - CONF RP - NOT IN FILE U1 - 587093 Good real time groupware products are hard to develop, in part because evaluating their support for basic teamwork activities is difficult and costly. To address this problem, we are developing discount evaluation methods that look for groupware-specific usability problems. In a previous paper, we detailed a new set of usability heuristics that evaluators can use to inspect shared workspace groupware to see how they support teamwork. We wanted to determine whether the new heuristics could be integrated into a low-cost methodology that parallels Nielsen's traditional heuristic evaluation (HE). To this end, we examined 27 evaluations of two shared workspace groupware systems and analysed the inspectors' relative performance and variability. Similar to Nielsen's findings for traditional HE, individual inspectors discovered about a fifth of the total known teamwork problems, and that there was only modest overlap in the problems they found. Groups of three to five inspectors would report about 40-60% of the total known teamwork problems. These results suggest that heuristic evaluation using our groupware heuristics can be an effective and efficient method for identifying teamwork problems in shared workspace groupware systems 1-58113-560-2.(http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/587078.587093 p  n 2006 1449^WSensemaking in Technology-Use Mediation: Adapting Groupware Technology in Organizations$Bansler,Jorgen P. Havn,Erling2006/// 55-91s Comput.Supported Coop.Work151p Kluwer Academic Publishers0*TY - JOUR RP - NOT IN FILE U1 - 1117967b[Understanding how people in organizations appropriate and adapt groupware technologies to local contexts of use is a key issue for CSCW research, since it is critical to the success of these technologies. In this paper, we argue that the appropriation and adaptation of groupware and other types of advanced CSCW technologies is basically a problem of sensemaking. We analyze how a group of "technology-use mediators" (Orlikowski etA al. Org. Sci. (1995) 6(4), 423) in a large, multinational company adapted a groupware technology (a "virtual workspace") to the local organizational context (and vice versa) by modifying features of the technology, providing ongoing support for users, and promoting appropriate conventions of use. Our findings corroborate earlier research on technology-use mediation, which suggests that such mediators can exert considerable influence on how a particular technology will be established and used in an organization. However, we also find that the process of technology-use mediation is much more complex and indeterminate than prior research suggests. The reason being, we argue, that new, advanced CSCW technologies, such as "virtual workspaces" and other groupware applications, challenge the mediators' and users' sensemaking, because the technologies are equivocal and, therefore, open to many possible and plausible interpretations 0925-97242+http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10606-005-9012-x 200661lfAwareMedia: a shared interactive display supporting social, temporal, and spatial awareness in surgery6/Bardram,Jakob E. Hansen,Thomas R. Soegaard,Madst2006/// 109-118s`ZProceedings of the 2006 20th anniversary conference on Computer supported cooperative work Banff, Alberta, Canada  ACM Pressa0*TY - CONF RP - NOT IN FILE U1 - 1180892Several CSCW studies have shown that coordination of work in hospitals is particular challenging, and that clinicians put much effort into maintaining mutual awareness on the flow of work. Despite these apparent challenges, very little work has been done to design technology which helps people coordinate highly cooperative work in such a critical setting. In this paper we propose a novel way of supporting coordination in this hectic and time-critical environment. AwareMedia is a system which promotes social, spatial, and temporal awareness in combination with a shared messaging system. AwareMedia runs on large interactive displays situated around the hospital, and it is designed especially to support coordination at an operation ward. We present the design, implementation, and deployment of AwareMedia and based on preliminary data from our on-going deployment, we discuss how AwareMedia is working in-situ 1-59593-249-60*http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1180875.1180892 20042pNHEveryday encounters with context-aware computing in a campus environmentBarkhuus,L Dourish,P2004///"TY - CONF RP - NOT IN FILE232-249*#Proceedings of Ubiquitous ComputingtAs ubiquitous computing technologies mature, they must move out of laboratory settings and into the everyday world. In the process, they will increasingly be used by heterogeneous groups, made up of individuals with different attitudes and social roles. We have been studying an example of this in a campus setting. Our field work highlights the complex relationships between technology use and institutional arrangements - the roles, relationships, and responsibilities that characterize social settings. In heterogeneous groups, concerns such as location, infrastructure, access, and mobility can take on quite different forms, with very different implications for technology design and use. 2002 1564& Personal information geographies Bauer,Daniel2002///1538-539F@CHI '02 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems "Minneapolis, Minnesota, USAk ACMn0)TY - CONF RP - NOT IN FILE U1 - 506470hWe need increasingly better tools to help us manage today's flood of information. This research explores the use of visual maps as workspaces which help us both to organize new material and to relocate past resources. In particular, visual workspaces can facilitate the process of sensemaking, the gradual evolution of an inquiry through our repeated interaction with information. This interaction can serve as an organizing structure for personally meaningful information geographies: map-like workspaces which accumulate 'trails' of our activity, which evolve over time but remain stable enough to provide the same fluency that we have with maps of physical places 1-58113-454-1.(http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/506443.506470 199558lfAnalysis of gestures in face-to-face design teams provides guidance for how to use groupware in design60Bekker,Mathilde M. Olson,Judith S. Olson,Gary M.1995///157-166rlProceedings of the conference on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, \& techniques ("Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States  ACM Press 0)TY - CONF RP - NOT IN FILE U1 - 225452r 0-89791-673-5l.(http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/225434.225452 20077aLFYesterday's tomorrows: notes on ubiquitous computing's dominant visionBell,B Dourish,P2007///133-143"Personal Ubiquitous Comput.s112t Springer-VerlagcTY - JOUR Ubiquitous computing is unusual amongst technological research arenas. Most areas of computer science research, such as programming language implementation, distributed operating system design, or denotational semantics, are defined largely by technical problems, and driven by building upon and elaborating a body of past results. Ubiquitous computing, by contrast, encompasses a wide range of disparate technological areas brought together by a focus upon a common vision. It is driven, then, not so much by the problems of the past but by the possibilities of the future. Ubiquitous computing's vision, however, is over a decade old at this point, and we now inhabit the future imagined by its pioneers. The future, though, may not have worked out as the field collectively imagined. In this article, we explore the vision that has driven the ubiquitous computing research agenda and the contemporary practice that has emerged. Drawing on cross-cultural investigations of technology adoption, we argue for developing a "ubicomp of the present" which takes the messiness of everyday life as a central theme RP - NOT IN FILE U1 - 1229069t 1617-4909t  Kraemer, K.L.Kraut, Robert E.Kruzeniski, Mike Lafrenaye, S. Lalomia, M.J.Landay, James A.Landgren, Jonas Landry, M.A.Lange, Beth M.Lecolinet, Eric Lee, B. Lee, DavidLee, Rebecca B.Leifer, Larry J. Leigh, JasonLeithinger, J. Leitner, D. Lesh, Neal B.Levin, Lori S.Li, Frances C. Li, Francis Lin, James Lingard, L. Lingard, L.A. Lober, W.B. Louis, M.G. Lundin, JohanLutters, Wayne G.Luz, SaturninoLykke-Olesen, AndreasMacGregor, Kenneth J.MacGregor, S.P. MacIntyre, B.Mackenzie, C.F.Mackinlay, J.D.Magee, Joseph C.Malizia, Andrea Mamykina, L.Mandviwalla, MunirMantei, Marilyn Mark, Gloria Martz, D.Matsushita, Yutaka Mattis, J. McCall, KimMcCarthy, JohnMcDaniel, Susan E. McDonald, D. McEwan, G. Meyers, BrianMeyers, James L.Minneman, S.L. Moon, BrianMoran, Thomas P.Morrey III, Charles B. Morris, DanMorris, Meredith Ringel Morse, Emile Muller-Tomfelde, ChristianMyers, Brad A. Mynatt, E.D. Nan, Ning Neale, HelenNomura, Takahiko Nulden, Urban O'Hara, K.O'Malley, ClaireObstfeld, DavidOkada, Ken ichi Olfman, LorneOlson, Gary M. Olson, JudithOlson, Judith S.Osawa, NoritakaOulasvirta, AnttiPaepcke, AndreasPandolfo, AnnaPark, Kyoung S.Parker, Elizabeth M.Pedersen, ElinPedersen, Elin RonbyPellegrini, C.A.Penner, Reagan Perry, M. Pier, KenPinelle, DavidPinsonneault, A.Pipek, VolkmarPirolli, Peter Pohl, A. Popow, C.Potts, J.R., III Powsner, S.M.Prante, Thorsten Pratt, W.Price, Morgan N.Proffitt, Steve Qu, Yan Rama, JitenRanjan, Abhishek Rao, RamanaRaybourn, Elaine M. Reddy, M. Reddy, Y.V.R.Reder, StephenRedmiles, DavidReeves, Stuart Reilly, Derek Rein, Gail Rekimoto, Jun Renambot, LucRobbins, Daniel Robertson, G.Robertson, George Robinson, E. Rodden, TomRogers, YvonneRose, Carolyn Penstein Roseman, Mark Roth, S.F. Roy, M.C. Rua, Monica Russel, D.Russell, Daniel M. Ryall, KathySaitoh, MasanoriSchilit, Bill N.Schleimer, Ben Schmidt, K.Scholl, Jeremiah Schryer, C.Schwab, Robert G. Schwind, C.Scott, Stacey D. Seifried, T.Setlock, Leslie D. Shabot, M.M.Shami, N.SadatSharma, Nikhil Shen, ChiaShiozawa, HidekazuShoemaker, Garth B.D. Siegel, Jane Silverman, R. Simone, S.Simsarian, Kristian T. Smith, G. Smith, Greg Smith, IanSoegaard, Mads Spafford, M.Stanton, Danae Starren, J.Stefik, Mark J. Stein, R.Steinmetz, Ralf Stent, AmandaSteves, Michelle PottsStewart, Jason Stiel, HerbStreitz, NorbertSugimoto, Masanori Sumari, LauriSundblad, YngveSutcliffe, Kathleen M. Sutyak, J.Tan, Desney S.Tandler, Peter Tanenhaus, M. Tang, Anthony Tang, John Tang, John C. Tatar, D.G. Taxen, Gustav Taylor, IanTaylor, Nolan J. Tee, K. Tee, Kimberly Thomson, A.I. Trueswell, J. Tse, Edward Tufte, E.R. Tumulty, J.Unterasinger, L. Vaidya, V.van der Hoek, AVan Eaton, E.G.Van Kleek, MaxVernier, FredericVicente, Kim J Voida, S. Voigt, R.Wagstrom, Patrick A.Wainer, JacquesWalker, Marilyn A.Weick, Karl E. Weisband, S.Weisz, Justin D. Welch, Brent Westrum, R. Whalen, TaraWhite, Kevin F.Whittaker, SteveWigdor, DanielWilensky, HirokoWilliams, R.G.Wilson, StephanieWinograd, Terry Won, Markus Wright, P. Wyatt, J.C. Xiao, Y. Xiao, Yan Yang, HuahaiYankelovich, Nicole Zanella, AnaZellweger, P.T.H(  200041^WDesigning storytelling technologies to encouraging collaboration between young childrenBenford,Steve Bederson,Benjamin B. Akesson,Karl Petter Bayon,Victor Druin,Allison Hansson,Par Hourcade,Juan Pablo Ingram,Rob Neale,Helen O'Malley,Claire Simsarian,Kristian T. Stanton,Danae Sundblad,Yngve Taxen,Gustav2000///s556-563sPJProceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems The Hague, The Netherlands  ACM Presss0)TY - CONF RP - NOT IN FILE U1 - 332502iWe describe the iterative design of two collaborative storytelling technologies for young children, KidPad and the Klump. We focus on the idea of designing interfaces to subtly encourage collaboration so that children are invited to discover the added benefits of working together. This idea has been motivated by our experiences of using early versions of our technologies in schools in Sweden and the UK. We compare the approach of encouraging collaboration with other approaches to synchronizing shared interfaces. We describe how we have revised the technologies to encourage collaboration and to reflect design suggestions made by the children themselves 1-58113-216-6.(http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/332040.332502 199082HBSome social and economic consequences of groupware for flight crew0)Benson,Ian Ciborra,Claudio Proffitt,Steve1990///119-129 TMProceedings of the 1990 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work ,&Los Angeles, California, United States ACMa.(TY - CONF RP - NOT IN FILE U1 - 99348 , &In many industries a strategic issue in work organisation is how to enhance the team effect generated by the cooperation between members. Maintenance of team cohesion is paramount to achieve such a surplus. Cohesion depends upon a variety of factors, such as effective allocation of tasks, effective communications, good knowledge sharing and accumulation of joint experience, and fair allocation of rewards so as to maintain a consistent perception of equity among team members. A technical system like groupware can never substitute for the social and organisational integration of team members, but it can fill many of the inevitable logistical, knowledge and communication gaps that always arise, especially in large and/or dispersed teams performing complex tasks. Such is the case considered below - a large workforce composed of more than 3,000 flight crew in a major European airline. Each pilot has a complex set of interactions with various departments of the company and his colleagues both when he is flying and when he is on the ground, at home or during training courses. The coordination problem is compounded by the fact that flight crew are a largely absent workforce and its management are flying as well. A whole industrial culture has evolved around the logistics of the pilot's job , i.e. pilots are considered, and regard themselves, as the other side of the airline, an odd breed, lonely strangers etc. In essence, as highly competent but isolated chaps who work almost as self-employed individuals. Changes in the airline industry are putting this culture under pressure: more integration is required at a time when the scale of operations is increasing in size and new pilots are hired. Working with pilots as users and designers of a groupware application, a requirements analysis has beeen carried out of team relationships in the flight crew department using the transaction costs approach. Prototypes have been developed for asynchronous and synchronous groupware systems that may find an application for the entire crew community and in particular for crew management. We believe that the work carried out so far not only offers interesting material for the design and development of groupware applications, but also sheds some light on alternative ways of building large scale computer-based information systems 0-89791-402-3,&http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/99332.99348 2002 145 hbTechnology choice as a first step in design: the interplay of procedural and sensemaking processesBergman,Mark Mark,Gloria2002///rdesign methods WORK 224-234oxqProceedings of the 4th conference on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniquese London, Englandu ACMi0)TY - CONF RP - NOT IN FILE U1 - 778744mLFProject design involves an initial selection of technologies, which has strong consequences for later stages of design. In this paper we describe an ethnographic-based field work study of a complex organization, and how it addressed the issue of front-end project and technology selection. Formal procedures were designed for the organization to perform repeatable, definable, and measurable actions. Yet, formal procedures obscured much about the processes actually being applied in selecting technologies and projects. In actuality, the formal procedures were interwoven with sensemaking activities so that technologies could be understood, compared, and a decision consensus could be reached. We expect that the insights from this study can benefit design teams in complex organizations facing similar selection and requirements issues 1-58113-515-7.(http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/778712.778744 2005214.Role-based control of shared application views.'Berry,Lior Bartram,Lyn Booth,Kellogg S.2005/// 23-32\VProceedings of the 18th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology Seattle, WA, USA  ACM Pressb0*TY - CONF RP - NOT IN FILE U1 - 1095039Collaboration often relies on all group members having a shared view of a single-user application. A common situation is a single active presenter sharing a live view of her workstation screen with a passive audience, using simple hardware-based video signal projection onto a large screen or simple bitmap-based sharing protocols. This offers simplicity and some advantages over more sophisticated software-based replication solutions, but everyone has the exact same view of the application. This conflicts with the presenter's need to keep some information and interaction details private. It also fails to recognize the needs of the passive audience, who may struggle to follow the presentation because of verbosity, display clutter or insufficient familiarity with the application.Views that cater to the different roles of the presenter and the audience can be provided by custom solutions, but these tend to be bound to a particular application. In this paper we describe a general technique and implementation details of a prototype system that allows standardized role-specific views of existing single-user applications and permits additional customization that is application-specific with no change to the application source code. Role-based policies control manipulation and display of shared windows and image buffers produced by the application, providing semi-automated privacy protection and relaxed verbosity to meet both presenter and audience needs 1-59593-271-2e0*http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1095034.1095039*)(`'z&%$Z 199787jcInformation exchange and use in GSS and verbal group decision making: effects of minority influence 4.Dennis,Alan R. Hilmer,Kelly M. Taylor,Nolan J.1997///x 61-88eJ.Manage.Inf.Syst.143e M. E. Sharpe, Inc.0*TY - JOUR RP - NOT IN FILE U1 - 1189517This study investigated the effects of GSS use on the exchange and use of information with and without a majority/minority split of opinion in the group. When there was a distinct majority/minority, groups exchanged more information, made better decisions, and took no more time when they used a GSS than when they did not use a GSS. In this case, the GSS enabled the minority to overcome the group's inertia toward the majority preference. In the uniform treatment where there was no majority preference, groups exchanged more information but made worse decisions and took more time when they used a GSS than when they did not. The primary cause for the poor performance when using the GSS was that group members did not process and use information received during discussion 0742-1222 200462<5Influencing group participation with a shared displayy6/DiMicco,Joan Morris Pandolfo,Anna Bender,Walter2004///614-623oTMProceedings of the 2004 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative worka Chicago, Illinois, USA  ACM Pressd0*TY - CONF RP - NOT IN FILE U1 - 1031713piDuring face-to-face interactions, groups frequently overly rely on the dominant viewpoint to lead the group in its decision-making process. We begin with a discussion of this phenomenon and the possibility for technology to assist in addressing it. We then present findings from a behavioral study that examines how a shared display of individual speaker-participation rates can impact the behavior of the group during a collaboration task. The results from the study indicate that the presence of such a display influences the behavior of group participants in the extremes of over and under participation. While influencing the quantity of time someone speaks is not directly equivalent to influencing the topics discussed, we suggest that this approach of providing peripheral displays of social information is promising for improving certain types of group interactions 1-58113-810-50*http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1031607.1031713 200755B