Final report sprint

[mpaskevi]

Creating this issue for the final report sprint this week. We still have to complete the issues Peggy identified last time we spoke, please check them off as you address them - see https://github.com/maryi/CSCW-Project/issues/33

I will be working on writing tomorrow as I am free from work. There are a couple new sections to write based on the criteria listed by Peggy, including what you learned, impact of what you learned. If you are able to contribute to any of these please indicate below.

Here is the marking criteria for the final report:

Project concept/idea and its development throughout the term: 40 points

Writing/presentation of the final report (should cover: introduction, related work, project motivation, metholodogy, what you learned, impact of what you learned, limitations of your findings/results, future work): 20 points

Linkages to related work (course or workshop readings, as well as other background works): 20 points

Methodology (appropriateness discussed, how it was executed, are limitations or alternatives considered): 20 points

https://github.com/margaretstorey/cscwuvic/blob/master/project_marking_guide.md

* Outstanding tasks * from https://github.com/maryi/CSCW-Project/issues/33

• [x] Make tech. specs. its own section
• [x] update limitations section
• [x] update Strategy and Methods section
• [x] add section on what we learned, impact of what we learned
• [x] Add current screenshots of website to document
• [x] For the LateX doc: Make the figures bigger
• [x] For the LateX doc: be consistent with headings and numbering
• [x] Each person needs to write a summary of their contributions, should be in an appendix or at end of the document

[maryi]

I'm working now on the Methodology. I'm trying to follow Peggy's indications for that (appropriateness, how it was executed, describing limitations or alternatives considered) I have a question, where should we add "what you learned, impact of what you learned?" That is part of appendix 3, collaboration process?? or Is part of the report, where the answer expected is probably from the group and not individuals?

[mpaskevi]

I recall that one of Peggy's comments was that much of the content in our appendices should be brought into the report. This might be a good start, perhaps not a copy and paste but a small section based on the appendix. I think this section has to be about what we as a group learned throughout this process, we can brainstorm this afternoon.

Also note that Peggy wants a section about what we did on the project. I guess this goes right in the report, perhaps at the end.

'Make sure each student clearly indicates their contributions to the projects (I'm not interesting in hearing I did a commit to the project, you need to describe what you did).'

[mpaskevi]

I have changed the title of our paper to "#MatchMaker Application – A Recommender System to Match Collaborative Software Tools to Computer Supported Collaborative Work"

Let me know if anyone feels strongly about this change of has other recommendations. If this is ok, we should change the presentation as well.

[maryi]

I like the title :)

[mpaskevi]

I am making some changes to the use of the word 'application', in many cases substituting it for 'software'. We currently use application alot in conjunction with 'MatchMaker Application' and to me it got a little confusing. So when talking about what the system recommends, I am changing the word applications to software.

Let me know if anyone feels strongly about this change of has other recommendations.

[mpaskevi]

@eli4 When you talk about 'Google's platform' in the methodology, can you provide a link to the website in brackets there in text?

[mpaskevi]

I have gone through the methodology section, @eli4 captured many of the edits I had flagged, many thanks. I suggest we break this large section up into sections, I proposed Conception, Design, Development, Analysis. Please feel free to alter.

Just before submission we will need to review all headings throughout the report. It is not clear to me why we use numbering for some headings and not others. Some consistency there would help. Perhaps @kristalow can address this issue as the report moves into Latex?

[eli4]

@mpaskevi added a link to the cloud computing platform in the technical specs

[mpaskevi]

In section 2.2 Descriptors for collaborative work this statement stands out to me, anyone want to explain?

'We found that although MoCA represented a good base to describe collaborative work, the framework presents a high level description for each dimension maybe due to the fact that is has never been applied before to a real situation. '

In the MoCA paper there were two examples of the framework being applied. Not sure we can make the statement above in light of that.

[kristalow]

i'm not sure why some headings have numbers in the report here, but the format i'm using for latex includes numbers for all the headings, so when i format the report, i can take a look at it to make sure all the headings have the correct numbers

[eli4]

ill work on adding a what we learned section following the future work section in the document

[eli4]

Have we decided on a place for writing our contribution summaries? I would suggest adding them to appendix 3 under roles and contribution as a logical place.

[maryi]

Agree with @eli4 , I was planning to add my part in Appendix 3 too.

[dustinfaulkner91]

In similar work, Desanctis & Gallupe (1987) further proposed descriptors which included the size of the group engaged in CSCW (smaller, larger), and one used to identify generally the type of task being conducted (planning, creativity, intellective, preference, cognitive, conflict, mixed motive). These elements helped describe the scale of the group undertaking CSCW as well as the complexity of the work objectives.

I'm not keen on the flow of this part, I would like to change it. Also, I am unsure whether the descriptors in brackets are able to be modified or not.

[dustinfaulkner91]

We removed an entire paragraph from the section 'Reflecting upon and articulating CSCW'?

[dustinfaulkner91]

I didn't get a response on slack so I'll try here. Do we want "Future Work" to be more about what our project's effects on collaborative work could be or should I talk more about what we would like to continue to do with the project?

[mpaskevi]

@dustinfaulkner91 descriptors in brackets come from the literature, so please do not change them. What suggestions do you have to improve the flow?

I moved a paragraph today during my edits as it fit better in the 'The problem we are trying to solve' section.

IMO Future work section should be both, what we could do next or what opportunities remain for other researchers seeking to build upon our work.

[maryi]

About Future work section... I agree with @mpaskevi, future work is about potential opportunities we see in our project. Also, I think that whether we or other will do it... doesn't matter.

[maryi]

I edited Strategy and Methods section. I changed it to be Software design. I tried to create a section that introduce our design process and presents an overview of the descriptors.

[maryi]

I think the last subsection on Methodology should be Validation.. I think that title is a better fit for the activities we did in that phase -survey and analysis of results.- That's ok with everyone?

[maryi]

In technical specifications.. I just changed the word 'link' for the specific url: http://matchmaker-1137.appspot.com/ ... The final version of the work is going to be in a pdf, not web, so the readers should be able to see the site address without internet connection.

[maryi]

I just added current screenshots of website to document and linked them in technical specifications section.

[mpaskevi]

In Appendix 3 I have changed the milestones section to be Individual contributions and added my work there.

[maryi]

Hi, I made some edits to Limitation section, future work and lessons learned

[maryi]

Changed the highlighted phrase: "We found that although MoCA represented a good base to describe collaborative work, the framework presents a high level description for each dimension maybe due to the fact that is has never been applied before to a real situation."

For: "We found that although MoCA represented a good base to describe collaborative work, the framework presents a high level description for each dimension. Accordingly, the first challenge is to create a less abstract version of MoCA with applicable definitions for each of its dimensions that could fit into our classification purposes. "

[eli4]

Just finished going over the whole report and making some small changes and making sure all the sentences were super clear. The report looks great!

[maryi]

My last edits were to Appendix 3 - Milestones. I won't make more edits to the report. As Eli, I think the report looks really good :)

[mpaskevi]

Signing off on the report as well. Well done folks!

[kristalow]

do we all agree that we're finished with the report? if so, i am going to start formatting it now

[kristalow]

should i make the pictures of the mockups & website screenshots a full size page? and if they are a full page, should i make an appendix for them? cause it looks a bit weird for our report to be divided by the figures.

[mpaskevi]

Feedback so far has been to make the images larger. Think we should take her feedback and make them bigger in text in the report.

[kristalow]

i've finished formatting the final report :) @maryi are you able to upload the report on to github? i can email the report pdf to you

[maryi]

Hi @kristalow , Sure, send me the file

[kristalow]

@maryi did you get my email? i think i sent it to the correct email address.. but let me know if you didn't get it

[maryi]

Hey team, I just uploaded the file and created the link to it in the main repository view. Good job everyone!