NASA NTRS2000
Collaborative problem solving environments for scientists should contain the analysis tools the scientists require in addition to the remote collaboration tools used for general communication. Unfortunately, most scientific analysis tools have been designed for a "stand-alone mode" and cannot be easily modified to work well in a collaborative environment. This paper addresses the questions, "What features are desired in a scientific analysis tool contained within a collaborative environment?", "What are the tool design criteria needed to provide these features?", and "What support is required from the architecture to support these design criteria?." First, the features of scientific analysis tools that are important for effective analysis in collaborative environments are listed. Next, several design criteria for developing analysis tools that will provide these features are presented. Then requirements for the architecture to support these design criteria are listed. Sonic proposed architectures for collaborative problem solving environments are reviewed and their capabilities to support the specified design criteria are discussed. A deficiency in the most popular architecture for remote application sharing, the ITU T. 120 architecture, prevents it from supporting highly interactive, dynamic, high resolution graphics. To illustrate that the specified design criteria can provide a highly effective analysis tool within a collaborative problem solving environment, a scientific analysis tool that contains the specified design criteria has been integrated into a collaborative environment and tested for effectiveness. The tests were conducted in collaborations between remote sites in the US and between remote sites on different continents. The tests showed that the tool (a tool for the visual analysis of computer simulations of physics) was highly effective for both synchronous and asynchronous collaborative analyses. The important features provided by the tool (and made possible by the specified design criteria) are: 1. The tool provides highly interactive, dynamic, high resolution, 3D graphics. 2. All remote scientists can view the same dynamic, high resolution, 3D scenes of the analysis as the analysis is being conducted. 3. The responsiveness of the tool is nearly identical to the responsiveness of the tool in a stand-alone mode. 4. The scientists can transfer control of the analysis between themselves. 5. Any analysis session or segment of an analysis session, whether done individually or collaboratively, can be recorded and posted on the Web for other scientists or students to download and play in either a collaborative or individual mode. 6. The scientist or student who downloaded the session can, individually or collaboratively, modify or extend the session with his/her own "what if" analysis of the data and post his/her version of the analysis back onto the Web. 7. The peak network bandwidth used in the collaborative sessions is only 1K bit/second even though the scientists at all sites are viewing high resolution (1280 x 1024 pixels), dynamic, 3D scenes of the analysis. The links between the specified design criteria and these performance features are presented.