A review of groupware evaluations

David Pinelle, C. Gutwin
{"title":"A review of groupware evaluations","authors":"David Pinelle, C. Gutwin","doi":"10.1109/ENABL.2000.883709","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A better understanding of how groupware systems have been evaluated in the past can help to frame the discussion of what methods and techniques should be considered for future evaluations. We reviewed all papers from the ACM CSCW conference (1990-1998) that introduced or evaluated a groupware system. Forty-five papers were included in the review. The main findings are that almost one-third of the groupware systems were not evaluated in any formal way, that only about one-quarter of the articles included evaluations in a real-world setting, and that a wide variety of evaluation techniques are in use. Our main conclusions from the review are that more attention must be paid to evaluating groupware systems and that there is room for additional evaluation techniques that are simple and low in cost.","PeriodicalId":435283,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings IEEE 9th International Workshops on Enabling Technologies: Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprises (WET ICE 2000)","volume":"233 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2000-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"122","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings IEEE 9th International Workshops on Enabling Technologies: Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprises (WET ICE 2000)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ENABL.2000.883709","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 122

Abstract

A better understanding of how groupware systems have been evaluated in the past can help to frame the discussion of what methods and techniques should be considered for future evaluations. We reviewed all papers from the ACM CSCW conference (1990-1998) that introduced or evaluated a groupware system. Forty-five papers were included in the review. The main findings are that almost one-third of the groupware systems were not evaluated in any formal way, that only about one-quarter of the articles included evaluations in a real-world setting, and that a wide variety of evaluation techniques are in use. Our main conclusions from the review are that more attention must be paid to evaluating groupware systems and that there is room for additional evaluation techniques that are simple and low in cost.
对群件评价的回顾
更好地理解过去是如何评估群件系统的,可以帮助构建关于未来评估应该考虑哪些方法和技术的讨论。我们回顾了来自ACM CSCW会议(1990-1998)的所有介绍或评估群件系统的论文。这篇综述收录了45篇论文。主要的发现是,几乎三分之一的群件系统没有以任何正式的方式进行评估,只有大约四分之一的文章包含了真实世界环境中的评估,并且使用了各种各样的评估技术。我们从审查中得出的主要结论是,必须更多地关注对群件系统的评估,并且存在对简单和低成本的附加评估技术的空间。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信