@Part[commchoice, Root "thesis.lis"]

@comment[communication choice]

@subheading[Introduction]
@skip[1]
Communication among individuals within a close geographic area involves
face-to-face meetings, telephone calls and paper memos.  A number of
organizations have now had sufficient experience with electronic mail
that it has become an integral component of each employee's communication
strategy.

I have been asked to discuss the preferred types of communication for
people working together within a building and to describe the benefits
and shortcomings of available technologies in supporting these types of
communication.  The advantage of studying a close geographic area is
that, for any particular activity, individuals can usually choose
among face-to-face conversation, telephone or electronic mail.
Examining what choices people make and why will help to identify 
the important characteristics of each and provide guidelines for 
developing useful cooperative work tools.

@subheading[Research Findings]
@skip[1]
I studied an organization in which telephone and electronic mail are
available in every office and hallway conversations among all members of
the staff are common @cite[Mackay1].  Electronic mail has been used
extensively for many years and is used for a significant portion of 
the organizations' work.

I interviewed 25 people, including managers, administrative staff,
researchers (primarily social scientists), and programmers.  Uses of
electronic mail and strategies for processing it varied a great deal.
Many relied on electronic mail as their primary source of communication
with others in the building, and reported its use for allocating tasks
and management of their own time, in addition to distributing
information. A subsequent study, @cite[Mackay2], reports how participants
automate their processing of electronic mail and explores how the rules
reflect their work and communication patterns.

I will draw upon the data reported in the above papers, as well as the
results of two interview questions that have not previously been
reported.  I asked 18 of the participants to describe the kinds of
communication they prefer for each of three forms of communication:
face-to-face, telephone, and electronic mail.  I also asked them whether
they had needed technical information in the past week, and if so, to
describe the process by which they gathered it.

@b[Results of first question.]

Nine (50%) expressed an explicit preference (or dislike) for one of the
communication forms.  Of these, four most preferred mail (2
researchers, 1 administrator, 1 manager) , three most preferred
face-to-face (1 researcher, 1 administrator, 1 manager) and none
rated phone first.  One person expressed a dislike for face-to-face
and four expressed a dislike for phone (1 researcher, 1 administrator,
and 2 programmers.)  Note that job category is not the deciding 
factor here.

In addition to expression of general 

I think its important that only half of the people expressed a 
preference for a medium, but all described the condictions under 
which one form was especially good or bad.
***

When individuals described what they do when there's a technical problem,
ten expressed a preference for face-to-face communication (of whom, two
described electronic mail as a second choice).  Three preferred
electronic mail, with a face-to-face follow up if that did not solve the
problem.  Five people preferred the telephone (of whom, two follow up
with face-to-face conversations).

@b[Results of second question.]

@subheading[Conclusions]
@skip[1]
I believe that the results of these two questions get at a fundamental 
problem in studying artifacts such as "phone" and "electronic mail", 
which have a set of characteristics.  People choose among them because 
one or more of the characteristics is salient.  For example, when 
a fast exchange of information is required, synchronous communication 
forms such as phone or face-to-face conversation are preferred.

Thus, I will argue, that it is not useful to describe the advantages 
and disadvantages of telphones and electronic mail.  Instead, it is 
important to identify the characteristics that make each a more or 
less preferred form of communication for a particular purpose.

Thus, when we look at the characteristics of the media from the users'
perspective, we see things like fast exchange of information (so 
synchronous communication is important)

When the benefits of face-to-face conversation, phone, and mail are
examined from the user's perspective, certain characteristics of 
the media become salient.  

@newpage

@subheading[Sift through this]

I will argue that the technologies of "phone" and "email" are not 
what is important in the user's perception of use.  Rather, it is the 
characteristics of such tools, which are somewhat arbitrarily combined 
in each communication tool, that influence the users' perception of 
usefulness.  This is both obvious and subtle, since if one thinks 
of these as collections of attributes, then it becomes possible to 
evaluate the attributes of each independently (or perhaps with some 
interaction effects) and then build tools to support the attributes, 
rather than to ask if the particular collection of attribtues, 
given historical accident, is useful.

=============

Preferred types::  it of course varies.  Readers have their 
own ideas of what to do -- important to know that the preferences
varied widely -- just as time management strategies and 
ways of organizing ones desk vary.

In this study we found:

E. Advantages and Disadvantages of Each

The advantages of electronic mail reported included: 

Disadvantages:

Then phone and face-to-face.  

Note:  readers who use electronic mail in organizations that do not 
depend upon it may find this result surprising.  I think this is 
an indication of how heavily mail is used in this site as well 
as the kinds of jobs these people do. 


F.  Technologies to support this


I believe that teh most successful tools will not support the 
media, but the underlying tasks users are trying to acommplish.
Aspects of the media, both explicit and implicit, affect which 
media are preferred for different activities, but in many cases,
users will use a slightly less preferred medium for convenience 
or when others are not available.  Thus, face-to-face may be 
preferred, but time and distance constraints make phone or email 
more reasonable.  KEEP in mind, though, athat ftf is NOT always 
better -- for some things, "being unobtrusive" is better, thus
email is preferred.

Technology needs to understand the attibutes of each meduim (what 
are the binding constraints as well) and realize how those 
combine for the user to support an activity.  Thus, email is 
async, phone is synchronous.  However, phone answering machines
allow you to leave short messages asynchronously.  However, you 
can't be sure (usually) that you can "leave a message" -- the 
other person might actually answer.  
  Email lets you modify your messag until 
you're ready, phone answering machines don't.

Can imagine technologies that allow users to explicitly manipulate 
these dimensions.  Thus - level of synchronicity desired depends 
on anumber of things -- should be distinguished from phone.

Problem is that we think of phone and email as "packages" -- as 
if they are unitary phenomena.  But they're really collections 
of attributes.  If you divide out those attributes and make them 
explicitly accessible, then you have a much richer system.

You can't compare "phone" with "mail".  You can say "how important 
is it that I get  immediate response and can return with 
another response.  

@comment{@cite[Allen, Berman, Bjerknes, Root, Mackay1, Mackay2]}

@newpage

===========================
Book/CBI anecdote -- remember??
Like comparing books and on-line instruction -- same problem.  

Can't ask if a book is a useful thing -- just whether or not 
it meets the needs.
===========================

Eric -- are synch and stream/db the same thing as attributes?
Look at the old list of communication systems attributes 
we did with tony.  Find that list!!!

When a user asks for help, one of the questions is "how do I 
modify this system for my own purposes".  Sometimes, it's to 
customize some fixed features -- eg the way that mouse buttons 
work.  You then need to tell user that it can be modified, it
s not a given.  Then tell them what the range of modifications 
are.  Then tell them what the current settings are.  Then tell 
them how to change it.  (direct manipulation , text, choice off 
a list, etc.) 

What about different kinds of modification -- actually changing 
the structure of the system such that it does something for 
which it was not originally intended.

Problem of allowing people too many options, thus rendering the 
modifications too difficult.  too many to choose from.  don't 
know, initially, what my preferences are.    

What is it that modifiability buys you?  Designer doesn't have 
to build specific tools for every purpose -- user can contribute 
to the process.


Why don't like the phone?  List attributes of the phone that are 
annouing -- requires a synch connection -- which can entail alot 
of time and is frustrating, especially when not necessary for thw 
particular communication.  

BUILD a mulit-media, multi-attribute communication system -- 
make the dimensions that people report modifiable by users, 
allow them to manipulate them and watch how they do it.
Some can be predicted, some not.  

When people describe which tool they use for different communication 
activities, they generally include attributes of the media that can 
be separated from the medim.  A phone is a collection of attributes.

==========================

Readers who are not used to using electronic mail may find it 
difficult to belief the range of activities that are supported 
in this way.  The difference is, that if you know everyone has 
a workstation or terminal in their office, next to their phone and 
answering machine, and that they read it on a regular basis, then 
it serves as an "open" communication channel. 

Some people read their mail more reliably than others, just as 
some are better at returning phone calls and remembering to show 
up to meetings on time.

A problem with electronic mail is that, by lowering the threshold 
for sending messages and distributing them to large numbers of 
people, it increases the load.  So people have to develop strategies 
for reducing the number they deal with.  (You have the same 
problem if you get 20 phone messages a day -- only it's worse 
because you have to answer each in "real -time"  ie you need to 
establish a simultaneous link with the other person.)  

Some people explicitly wait to reply to email, so that others don't
rely on it as a fast-turnaround form of communication.

Compare people who spend most of their time during the day next 
to their terminals (secretaries and programmers) with people 
who do other tasks that cause them to be in many meetings or 
do work that is not related to the terminal (managers and 
researchers).  This changes how people feel about email vs 
phone.

The answering machine provides an asynchronous voice connection, 
but it's a very limited one.  One usually has a limited period of 
time to leave a message, with no possibility for editing it or 
replaying it.  Email gives the sender more control, as well as 
a different medium.  (One can easily imaging multi-media mail 
systems that allow users the same kind of flexibilty with voice 
that they currently have with text-- also video.  Too early 
to cite the SIGGRAPH project?)

Articulating the advantages and disadvantages helps to identify 
the key dimensions that people want to vary.

@begin[comment]
Visual (seeing each other, watching gesture and body language), written,
spoken.

Discuss video, typing/email, phone/voicemail.
@end[comment]

@b[What people said]

When explicitly asked, most of the individuals in the study expressed 
a general preference for face-to-face meetings, followed by electronic 
mail, with telephone as the least preferred communication tool.  (However, 
a few individuals greatly preferred the telephone over electronic mail.)
(Note:  paper memos tended to be used for formal communications from 
the corporate management and administrative staff and was not viewed 
as a major source of communication among the individuals interviewed.)

When probed, however, the general preferences give way to more 
specific preferences.  

Individuals reported a variety of situations in which each form of 
communication was superior to the others.  The same goal can often 
be accomplished with any of the three, but 

, indicating that the same 
form of communication 


Electronic mail can support highly formal to very informal kinds of 
communication -- "official" memos that other organizations might 
send out via paper mail are often sent electronically.  Quick messages 
asking if someone wants to join someone else for lunch are also 
sent electronically.


Advantages of Email over phone:  record of converation, 
prioritization easier.  Ref CSCW papers on planning, coordination, 
resouce management.

Advantage of voice mail and video: Captures inflection gesture etc for
people who can not be scehduled to meet or talk at the same time.  Re
Root's paper on tracking people with video

Disadvantage with video:  time to prepare and do quality control
Easier to wait for a meeting.  Privacy issues (e.g. Root's stuff)

-------

A number of people said that electronic mail was used for communication 
with people more than a few doors away.  Also mentioned several 
times were communication with more than one person, handling 
non-time critical information

Some people have very clearly articulated rules for the 


Then we looked at the rules -- did this correspond to the above?

Now, what about video?  

Looking at things that help people communicate via email, including 
video.  Right now, only really possible in a single building, 
given the constraints of the medium.  (We keep one copy of each 
message and allow everyone to access the same message.)

Addition of things like muse helps to make it understandable and 
controllable by people on the sending and receiving end.




One danger in building tools to support activities is to assume 
that there's a single "best answer" for any particular form of 
communication.  People like flexibility and accomplish the same 
type of communication in different ways, according to a complex
set of changing criteria.  Also, there are differences among 
people -- some may prefer the phone for most communication while 
others prefer email.  Some of the characteristics of each form 
may override the other advantages and disadvantage.

The implication for technology?  Well, let people choose.  Let them 
adapt.  Let them allow their current work contexts (and "life context") 
help to dictate the ways in which they communicate and manage their 
communications.  Tools should support this flexibilty.

They should look at the dimensions of what makes these different 
forms of communication more or less desirable, and allow people 
to manipulate these.  For example, synchronous vs asynchronous.
Keeping a record, vs not.  Formal vs informal.  Full senses -- sight 
sound (smell?), etc.  Sense of personal space and privacy.

The preferred types of communication vary according to the constraints 
of the activity.  And people have very different preferences, based 
on different kinds of power relationships with the people to whom 
they need to talk, the job, the delegation of actions, etc.

A multi-media mail system is really interesting -- but not because 
it handles "compound documents".  Ours is interesting because it 
allows us to think about these dimensions in different ways.  To 
have the benefits of sync and async voice and video, without having 
different technologies.

FTF is visual -- high quality.  Also, reactions to different things
like body language, nuances in expression etc.  (Clearly, different 
people are more or less tuned to these things and are more or less 
aware of them.)

Phone is auditory -- allows you to hear changes in tone, etc. 
Current phones are much degraded signals (you wouldn't want to 
listen to music over such a line), but adequate for many voice 
applications.  

Email is text -- some people are better at ...


Would like to be able to blur distinctions based on these attributes of
the system.  Want to try to establish a live phone connection and leave a
text message.  Or email a voice message.  Or send video of self pointing
to useful things.

Note that video, even live video, is not the same as ftf.  The view is
limited (it's like looking through blinders) and you are aware that the
world immediately around you is different from the world the other person
is in.  Think of how different it is to look at someone through a window
than it is to "be there".  Or to be looking at someone through a limited
opening -- a bank teller for example.  So, although we can simulate some
of the aspects of ftf communication, there are still some things lacking.
It's important to understand which, because we may be able to enhance
tools to support more of the things that are important.





@newpage

I asked 18 people in the organization the following question:
"For what types of communication do you prefer mail, phone and face
to face conversation?"

7 researchers, 5 programmers, 3 managers and 3 administrative staff
answered the question.

The answers can be summarized as follows:

Preferred ftf to everything else.

@skip[1]
@subheading[Mail]
@skip[1]
@begin[enumerate]
Not negotiation.  Good for East/West communication 
(vs North/South), because of time change.

Much preferred to phone.  Like the control it gives.
Raise issues for the first time with boss.  Meet 
later.  Distant places.  Plan visits, meetings, etc.
Don't like it for discussions -- transfer a bit of 
info.  Quick questions.

People upstairs or further away.  Carefully stated 
messages, things you need a record for.  Also, 
messages to multiple people.

Least, but still alot.

Routine.  Seeking information.  Pointers to people 
(followed by face-to-face meeting.)  Making 
arrangements.  If don't want to disturb myself.
Remember to do something or if there's some reason 
not to call.  Personal - more so than phone but 
not as onerous as a letter.  Maintain contact with 
people I know well.  Or a project I know well.

Most things.  Doesn't require immediate decision or
action.  Of interest or trivial things better.  Long 
distance.  (Preferred -- I can be as unobtrusive as 
I like.)  Also, good to avoid personalities.  good 
for wide dispersion.

The fact that it is asynchronous is a great advantage.
Useful for communicating with Europe.  You don't know 
when they'll read it -- don't get feedback from 
reader.  Example:  lunch invitation.

Next most preferred.  Remote collaborations.  Worked 
best when composing short statements of intent.  Not 
good for long papers.  Supplemented with phone 
conversations.  Forces a well-documented record 
of a project -- useful.  Helps with final analysis.

Nicer than phone.  Handles the "nobody in the office"
problem.  HAve a record. 

Prefer for low thought, quick items.

Further than immediate walking distance.  Seek 
information and not in a hurry.  Answer a question,
convey information (e.g. documents)

Remote and not time critical.  Check with colleagues.

Pass small amounts of info, confirmations.
Vehicle for collaborative work - prepare proposal 
or discuss technical issues before a meeting.
update mechanism, status reports.  Only way to 
deal with different time zones.  One step better 
than regular mail or FAX.  Eamil very important 
to deal with remote organizations.

Efficient.  Limit to 30 min/day, else inefficient.
Sec prints out.  Read at home.  Time delay problem.
Great for keeping in touch.  Not for personal matters.
Good for technical/business meetings, remote
coauthors, friends overseas.  Use for almost
everything when on the road. 1 hr/day.  Mail is more 
formal, especially with new users.
Use alot.  Least urgent issues.

If there's a person you don't know.  A way to 
get familiar with people.  Agendas.

Use at night or when talking to EuroPARC.  (Any 
time change.)  Likes Email, listens to it.  Can 
pick out mail addressed just to you.

Not immediate.  Random thoughts.  Gives receiver 
time to respond.
@end[enumerate]

@skip[1]
@subheading[Phone]
@skip[1]
@begin[enumerate]
Not as much as I should.

Dislike.  Use only for non-Email people.  People don't 
come to the phone.

People upstairs or further away.  Urgent things.
Don't use phone much at work.  Notecards (his project)
support.

Use alot.

If not in easy walking distance or office door is 
shut.  Can interrupt without interrupting (person
can say "can't talk now".)

Quick things.

Wherever there's no mail link yet or distant.  Helps 
to get a sense of how much he really wants to 
collaborate (can't get it from Email).  

Least preferred. ("I don't like the phone -- only 
use it when I need an immediate answer, eg a 
conference meeting time.")

Only if urgent.  More intrustive, more aggressive 
than mail.  Can choose not to answer phone, not mail.
Long distance, where it's important to articulate 
carefully.  

Call if not here or urgent.  Don't like much.

Car insurance, etc.  Immediate matters.  

Find out where someone stands on an issue.  
Maintain informality (no record).  Benefits and 
problems -- handle minsinterpretations from email,
may seem too strong an opinion.  Conflicts are 
aggravated by email.

1/4.  User for personnel matters.

Middle level of urgency.

When immediacy is needed.  Addresses change.

Occasionally to EuroPARC.

Immediate things.  Not used for information 
gathering.
@end[enumerate]

@skip[1]
@subheading[Face-to-face Meetings]
@skip[1]
@begin[enumerate]
Negotiations. (Need facial reactions.) Mail too slow.

Friends, logistics to work out, open-ended discussions
(especially).

People who are nearby.  Urgent.

Research issues.

Whenever possible.  Much preferred.

Technical, hacking matters.  (Mail and phone sometimes 
substitute.)  Quick things.  

Similar to phone.

Most preferred.  Discuss matters of substance -- 
phone and mail don't come close.


If within walking distance and more than a few 
sentences.  Important to articulate carefully -
complex things.

For local people.

Wander around.  Not many meetings.

Preferred.

Up to 3/4.  Personnel matters.

Most urgent issues.  Crises.

Last choice.  Not alot of difference among them.
			
Use when there are technical problems.

If urgent.

Subtle things.
@end[enumerate]
@newpage

Subjects were asked the following question:

Can you think of times in the past week in which you needed 
technical information?  If so, what did you do?

Of the 17 who responded to the question, 16 said "yes".  The 
person who said "no" said that she would go ask a particular 
person if such a situation arose.

6 researchers, 5 programmers, 3 managers, 3 administrative staff.

@begin[enumerate]

Tried to find the answer on the system, use apropos 
function. Ask friends if that doesn't work.

Call Becky and say "help".  Always face to face, never 
on-line.  (Someone else, if Becky not there.)

Rely on face-to-face with colleagues.

Lafite (mail system) changed.  Walk over and ask.
Mail reply.  Need the answer now, so face to face.
In general, no good way to do it.  Bug reports 
are often requests for information -- Becky handles it.

Didn't know who to ask.  Either figure out by self, 
use phone, find someone, send a message.  (Latter is 
too careful and concrety -- Call if not clear.)

Use mail to set out a problem, then call.  Information 
is easier to absorb face to face.

Sent a message to the appropriate person.  General fixes I 
do myself.  E.g. phylum (file server) is corrupted -- ask a 
person then note it and look at it.

Ask Ramana or Julian, then Randy or someone else.  Example:
input from keyboard not accepted.  Becky not there.  Ended up 
loading a new sysout which fixed the problem.  In this case, 
had to ask in person, couldn't send mail.

Just walk over and talk to person -- usually dispense more 
than I get.  Example, talked to someone -- got a pointer 
to someone else.  Followed up with Email.

Looking for technical information -- find manuals, documenta-
tion, papers, etc.  Find people (J. Gosling, etc.)  They point 
to places.  Example:  mailed X protocol question.  Mostly 
follow the bibliography.  Use local people or figure it out.

Ususally go ask someone.  Talk to Randy re: new configuration.
Only use mail if person isn't in.

Office mate first, then ask another person.  Then send mail.
then wander around and find someone.  If you know an 
expert, then you ask.

May phone an outside vendor.  Send email whenever possible.
Request facts or information.  At other times, hunt for a 
person.  Find phone # - hit or miss.

Get stuck, ask Stu or Austin.  Find people.  But there are 
rarely problems.  Ususally face-to-face.

Example:  AR bug.  Phoned people in Pasadena, sent a message
returned the call.  Look through the bug folder.

Programming manual or using LISP's on-line info.  Look up in 
paper.  Occasionally ask someone, would call someone, use mail 
last.
@end[enumerate]



