ABSTRACT
Collaborative writing is on the increase. In order to write well together, authors often need to be aware of who has done what recently. We offer a new tool, DocuViz, that displays the entire revision history of Google Docs, showing more than the one-step-at-a-time view now shown in revision history and tracking changes in Word. We introduce the tool and present cases in which the tool has the potential to be useful: To authors themselves to see recent "seismic activity," indicating where in particular a co-author might want to pay attention, to instructors to see who has contributed what and which changes were made to comments from them, and to researchers interested in the new patterns of collaboration made possible by simultaneous editing capabilities.
- Beck, E. E. (1993). A survey of experiences of collaborative writing. In E. E. Beck (Ed.) Computer Supported Collaborative Writing Springer London. 87112.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Bostock, M., Ogievetsky, V., & Heer, J. (2011). D³ datadriven documents. Visualization and Computer Graphics, IEEE Transactions on, 17(12), 2301--2309. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Cross, G. A. (1990). A Bakhtinian exploration of factors affecting the collaborative writing of an executive letter of an annual report. Research in the Teaching of English, 173--203.Google Scholar
- Curtis, B., Krasner, H., & Iscoe, N. (1988). A field study of the software design process for large systems. Communications of the ACM, 31(11), 1268--1287. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Dabbish, L., Stuart, C., Tsay, J., & Herbsleb, J. (2012). Social coding in GitHub: transparency and collaboration in an open software repository. In Proceedings of CSCW 2012, 1277--1286. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Dourish, P., & Bellotti, V. (1992). Awareness and coordination in shared workspaces. In Proceedings of the 1992 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work, 107--114 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ede, L. S., & Lunsford, A. A. (1990). Singular texts/plural authors: Perspectives on collaborative writing. SIU Press.Google Scholar
- Eick, S. G., Steffen, J. L., & Sumner Jr, E. E. (1992). Seesoft-a tool for visualizing line oriented software statistics. Software Engineering, IEEE Transactions on, 18(11), pp. 957--968. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ellis, C. A., & Gibbs, S. J. (1989). Concurrency control in groupware systems. In ACM SIGMOD Record Vol. 18(2), 399--407. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Fraser, N. (2012). google-diff-match-patch Diff, Match and Patch libraries for Plain Text. https://code.google.com/p/google-diff-match-patch/Google Scholar
- Froehlich, J., & Dourish, P. (2004). Unifying artifacts and activities in a visual tool for distributed software development teams. In Proc. of the 26th International Conference on Software Engineering, 387--396. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Google Docs. https://docs.google.com/Google Scholar
- Google Drive API. https://developers.google.com/drive/Google Scholar
- Higgins, L., Flower, L., & Petraglia, J. (1992). Planning text together: The role of critical reflection in student collaboration. Written communication, 9(1), pp. 48--84.Google Scholar
- Hunt, J. W., & Szymanski, T. G. (1977). A fast algorithm for computing longest common subsequences. Communications of the ACM, 20(5), 350353. Google ScholarDigital Library
- JQuery. http://jquery.com/Google Scholar
- JSON. http://json.org/Google Scholar
- Keys, C. W. (1994). The development of scientific reasoning skills in conjunction with collaborative writing assignments: An interpretive study of six ninth-grade students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 1003--1022.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Lowry, P. B., Curtis, A., & Lowry, M. R. (2004). Building a taxonomy and nomenclature of collaborative writing to improve interdisciplinary research and practice. Journal of Business Communication, 41(1), 6699.Google ScholarCross Ref
- McCarthey, S. J., & McMahon, S. (1992). From convention to invention: Three approaches to peer interactions during writing. Interaction in Cooperative Groups: The Theoretical Anatomy of Group Learning, 1735.Google Scholar
- McGuffin, L. J., & Olson, G. M. (1992). ShrEdit: A Shared Electronic Work Space. CSMIL Technical Report #45, The University of Michigan.Google Scholar
- Michailidis, A., & Rada, R. (1996). A review of collaborative authoring tools. Groupware and authoring. Academic Press, London, 9--43.Google Scholar
- Microsoft Word. http://office.microsoft.com/Google Scholar
- Miller, W., & Myers, E. W. (1985). A file comparison program. Software: Practice and Experience, 15(11), 1025--1040.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Myers, E. W. (1986). AnO (ND) difference algorithm and its variations. Algorithmica, 1(1--4), 251--266.Google Scholar
- Noël, S., & Robert, J. M. (2004). Empirical study on collaborative writing: What do co-authors do, use, and like? Computer Supported Cooperative Work, (CSCW), 13(1), 63--89. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Olson, J. S., & Olson, G. M. (2013). Working Together Apart: Collaboration over the Internet. Springer. Google Scholar
- Posner, I. R., & Baecker, R. M. (1992) How people write together. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences Vol. 4, 127--138.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Rada, R. (1996). Groupware and Authoring. Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Rice, R. P., & Huguley Jr, J. T. (1994). Describing collaborative forms: A profile of the team-writing process. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 37(3), 163--170.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Roskams, T. (1999). Chinese EFL students' attitudes to peer feedback and peer assessment in an extended pairwork setting. RELC Journal, 30(1), 79--123.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Sharples, M., Goodlet, J. S., Beck, E. E., Wood, C. C., Easterbrook, S. M., & Plowman, L. (1993). Research Issues in the Study of Computer Supported Collaborative Writing (pp. 9--28). Springer London.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Southavilay, V., Yacef, K., Reimann, P., & Calvo, R. A. (2013). Analysis of collaborative writing processes using revision maps and probabilistic topic models. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge, 38--47. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students' reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 153--173.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Viégas, F. B., Wattenberg, M., & Dave, K. (2004). Studying cooperation and conflict between authors with history flow visualizations. In Proceedings of CHI 2004, pp. 575--582. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Voinea, L., Telea, A., & Van Wijk, J. J. (2005). CVSscan: visualization of code evolution. In Proceedings of the 2005 ACM symposium on Software visualization, pp. 47--56. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- DocuViz: Visualizing Collaborative Writing
Recommendations
Synchronous Collaborative Writing in the Classroom: Undergraduates' Collaboration Practices and their Impact on Writing Style, Quality, and Quantity
CSCW '17: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social ComputingGroup activities that use Google Docs for simultaneous collaborative writing and editing are increasingly common in higher education. Although studies show that synchronous collaboration can bring multiple benefits, such as enhanced productivity and ...
How People Write Together Now: Beginning the Investigation with Advanced Undergraduates in a Project Course
Today's commercially available word processors allow people to write collaboratively in the cloud, both in the familiar asynchronous mode and now in synchronous mode as well. This opens up new ways of working together. We examined the data traces of ...
CAWS: An Awareness Based Wiki System to Improve Team Collaboration
ICALT '08: Proceedings of the 2008 Eighth IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning TechnologiesEffective collaborative authoring techniques require tools that consider the social aspects of collaboration in addition to the technical aspects. Collaborative authoring is fundamentally different to individual writing because of the communications ...
Comments