Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Sharon Murrel

dblp:297/2073 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 1983
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 1 · 1 first-author

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper
Collaborative and social computing · 100%

Topics — the 1 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Collaborative and social computing › communication technologies
communication system design
0.011983
Computer communication system design affects group decision making · CHI 1983

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

controlled experiment · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
1983 Computer communication system design affects group decision making
abstract
The impact of computer-based communication on group performance depends upon the structure enforced by the communication system. While the ability to introduce structures which enhance human communication processes has been applauded, research to evaluate the impact of various design features is lacking. This research has explored the impact of two synchronous systems which vary in the role of immediacy of interaction and feedback on group decision making. One system is message-oriented, requiring a conferee to complete a message before interacting with others. The other displays what each group member is typing in a separate window on the screens of all participants. In this system, comments can be made as ideas are expressed. Groups were asked to solve a problem first individually and then cooperatively using one of the two systems. All groups produced decisions superior to the average initial individual solutions. Window system groups both improved more and produced significantly higher quality decisions. These groups focused on fewer topics at one time while spending less time discussing how to organize both system and task efforts. By influencing the group's ability to organize and focus its attention, the design of the communication system influenced decision quality.
Sharon Murrel
CHI1