. Open Implementation and Flexibility in CSCW Toolkits Paul Dourish A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philisophy of the University of London. Department of Computer Science University College London June 1996 . This distribution copy has been repaginated to reduce its size. The page numbers are not the same as in the submitted version. Please do not cite anything by page number. Abstract. Abstract The design of Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) systems involves a variety of dis- ciplinary approaches, drawing as much on sociological and psychological perspectives on group and individual activity as on technical approaches to designing distributed systems. Traditionally, these have been applied independently—the technical approaches focussing on design criteria and implementation strategies, the social approaches focussing on the analysis of working activity with or without technological support. However, the disciplines are more strongly related than this suggests. Technical strategies—such as the mechanisms for data replication, distribution and coordination—have a significant impact on the forms of interaction in which users can engage, and therefore on how their work proceeds. Con- sequently, the findings of sociological and psychological investigations of collaborative working have direct impact for how we go about designing collaborative systems. In support of this relationship, this thesis concentrates on the provision of flexibility in CSCW sys- tems, and, in particular, in toolkits from which they are generated. Flexibility is key to supporting many characteristics of group behaviour detailed by observational investigations—the improvised nature of work and activity, individual and group tailoring, customisation and re-purposing, chang- ing group membership and activity over the course of a collaboration, and so forth. Based on an analysis of current CSCW toolkits, and on the interaction between user behaviour and system design, I will demonstrate that, as in many other areas of system development, traditional notions of abstraction in system design mitigate against the design of open, flexible systems. “Open Implementation” is an emerging approach based on the systematic and principled exposure of mechanism in system components, “opening up” abstractions to examination and manipulation. Concentrating particularly on distributed data management and concurrency, I will show how these ideas can be exploited to provide an open and customisable framework enabling programmers and end-users to tailor toolkit structures to the needs of applications and domains. 3 Abstract . 4 Dedication. Dedication The character of Prospero, the magus of Shakespeare’s “The Tempest”, was reputedly inspired by the Elizabe- than scientist, alchemist and Hermetic philosopher, John Dee (1527–1608). The tenets of Hermetic philosophy, while intricate, have a simple basis—that the structure of our earthly world reflects the structure of the heavens. By understanding the earthly world, the alchemist would learn about the world of the spirits; by gaining power and control over the earthly world, he would gain “magical” power and control of the higher dimensions. “As above, so below.” So the transmutation of base matter to gold was a metaphor for the transformation of man to god; a transformation which could be achieved by the adept once the correspondence from above to below is understood, since the pattern of man must be the same as the pattern of god. Since I have spent much of the past few years trying to understand and control the link between what is below and what is above, this thesis is dedicated to John Dee. 5 Dedication . 6 Acknowledgements. Acknowledgements The work in this thesis has had three homes—the Rank Xerox Research Centre, Cambridge Laboratory (for- merly EuroPARC); the Computer Science department at University College, London; and the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center. I couldn’t have asked for three more interesting and stimulating places to have spent the last three years, and I owe a great deal to the people who have supported me and my work at each place: Bob Ander- son, Graham Button, Wendy Mackay and Allan MacLean at EuroPARC, Jon Crowcroft and Angela Sasse at UCL, and Annette Adler, Austin Henderson and Gregor Kiczales at PARC. The development of the ideas presented here has been inspired, nurtured and guided by a host of people, only some of whom can be mentioned here. Jon Crowcroft provided guidance, advice, criticism and beer in admira- ble proportions, tolerating the rather odd path of my work with bemused grace. Annette Adler, Bob Anderson, Graham Button, Wendy Mackay and Lucy Suchman have, wittingly or unwittingly, contributed to my inclina- tion towards the social which underpins this work (although they should not be held responsible). Annette also brought together a group of people who have provided me with much intellectual sustenance over the last year or two; David Levy, Gene McDaniel, Bob Printis, Vijay Saraswat and Brian Smith deserve especial mention. Brian’s work has been central to much I’ve thought and done over the last few years; one day, I hope to under- stand 10% of it. Dik Bentley, Jon Crowcroft, Alan Dix, Steve Freeman, Jonathan Grudin, Rachel Jones, Gregor Kiczales and John Lamping have all made valuable contributions to my thinking about the ideas described here, and to the form of their presentation. Some of my greatest debts are to those who helped me through the deepest moments of inevitable thesis gloom. Lorna Banks, Eevi Beck, Dik Bentley, Matthew Chalmers, Lynn Cherny, Laura Dekker, Bill Gaver, Lorna Goulden, Maxine Gregson, Rory Hamilton, Rachel Hewson, Pernille Marqvardsen, Gillian Ritchie, Ellen Sie- gel, Lisa Tweedie, and Alex Zbyslaw all helped with email, cynicism, laughter, silliness and beer, and they all deserve better recompense than a few words here. I’ll get round to you all in time. Victoria Bellotti deserves a place on her own as both an inspiring colleague and valued friend. And above all, thanks to Beki Grinter, who’s simply more than I deserve. Thank you all. May you never have to hear about this again. 7 Acknowledgements . 8 Table of Contents. Table of Contents Abstract . 3 Dedication . 5 Acknowledgements . 7 Table of Contents . 9 Chapter 1: Introduction . 15 1.1 Introductory Remarks. 15 1.2 The Emergence of CSCW . 15 1.3 Ethnomethodology and CSCW . 16 1.4 The Development of CSCW Toolkits . 16 1.5 Flexibility and Tailorability in HCI . 17 1.6 Flexibility and Tailorability in CSCW Systems and Toolkits . 17 1.6.1 Flexibility from Social and Technical Perspectives . 18 1.6.2 A Cross-Cutting View of Flexibility. 18 1.7 What Is To Come . 19 Chapter 2: Flexibility in CSCW Toolkits . 21 2.1 Introduction . 21 2.2 Flexibility and Reuse . 21 2.2.1 Software Issues . 21 2.2.2 HCI Issues. 22 2.3 A Framework for Flexibility . 22 2.3.1 Collaboration Transparency and Collaboration Awareness . 23 2.4 CSCW Toolkits and Approaches . 24 2.4.1 Rendezvous . 24 2.4.1.1 Flexibility in Rendezvous . 24 Replication and Centralisation 25 Declarative Event Model 25 2.4.2 GroupKit . 25 2.4.2.1 Flexibility in GroupKit: Open Protocols . 25 2.4.3 MEAD. 26 2.4.3.1 Flexibility in MEAD: Tailorable User Display Agents . 26 2.4.4 Suite . 27 9 Table of Contents . 2.4.4.1 Flexibility in Suite: Coupling Control. 27 2.4.5 Oval . 27 2.4.5.1 Flexibility in Oval: Supporting Radical Tailorability . 28 2.4.6 COLA . 28 2.4.6.1 Flexibility in COLA: The Policy/Mechanism Split . 29 2.4.7 Other Systems. 29 2.4.7.1 SEPIA . 29 2.4.7.2 PREP . 30 2.5 Genericity and Extensibility . 30 2.5.1 Genericity and Extensibility in CSCW Toolkits. 31 2.6 Problems in Toolkit Flexibility . 32 2.6.1 Structure and Semantics . 32 2.6.2 Extending versus Revising . 33 2.7 Summary . 33 Chapter 3: Computational Reflection and Open Implementation . 35 3.1 Flexibility . ..