• If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • Get control of your email attachments. Connect all your Gmail accounts and in less than 2 minutes, Dokkio will automatically organize your file attachments. You can also connect Dokkio to Drive, Dropbox, and Slack. Sign up for free.



Page history last edited by kayceeacollins@... 6 years, 1 month ago

Opening Context:

In order to define criteria for the web-based Collaborative authoring product, we used a vision based methodology. Often, developer team use this classic waterfall method as a collaborative management tool for designing a framework that fosters discussion around decision making with different levels of abstraction. This particular methodology helps to iterate between abstract and concrete thinking and decision activities. [6]


Criteria 1: Access

When a team is considering a web collaborative product, one criteria that should come to mind is the accessibility of the tool by all team members. For example, if the team members have different operation systems (windows, mac) or web browsers, will each member be able to access the tool without any glitch or software customization? Also, accessibility considers the price of tool. Is it a free product or members have to purchase licenses to use the collaborative tool.


Criteria 2: Simultaneity

This criteria addresses the ability for real-time interactions or data manipulation between multiple users. Users are immediately aware  of changes made to the information being worked on the collaboration product. Simultaneity can take place synchronously, which I have just explained and Asynchronously, where non-real time interactions take place. The users can modify information on the collaboration product but immediate knowledge of such changes are not known to other users until they access the information at a later time.


Criteria 3: Breadth of Tools

When a team is considering a web collaborative product, they should consider the number of different types of tools and functionality the product offers. For example, can the collaborative product the type(s) of content that the group will be collaborating on. Before choosing a collaborative product, the team should define all their needs for the project and evaluate the product to measure and compare it against alternative products. If the team does not choose a tool that meets all their needs, members will choose to use alternate routes of completing tasks causing a lack of communication and pieced together work.


Criteria 4 & 5: Reliability and Security

In addition to the Criteria discussed above, reliability and security of the contributions by team members is another Criterion that could be considered for Collaborative authoring. It is a tool that guides a team towards their desired goal and control individual access to documents so as to keep it valuable. It ensures that a consistent quality, appropriateness, accuracy and clarity are maintained because of the variance in the knowledge and a wide difference between individuals writing ability. It is therefore necessary to ensure the reliability of the work done. The most exciting thing about Collaborative authoring is the ability of each member to access, view, edit and make contributions to a document from anywhere. This therefore poses a great challenge to the writers since undesirable authors can contribute as easily as good authors. As a result, most authoring products allow editing access to only registered members requiring a sign–on to be able access the document. Also, a group document is editable to by only members of the team though may be accessed by anyone but editing is restricted to the team members. This is to guide against undesirable authors who can easily contribute as good authors. Some authoring products like wiki for example only give access to editing to registered members.


Criteria 6: Internal coherence

When choosing a web-collaborated product they should look for a product that corresponds well between different objectives of the same intervention. There should be a hierarchy of objectives, with those at the bottom logically contributing towards those above. [5]



1. Adler, A., Nash, J. C., & Noël, S. (0). Challenges in Collaborative Authoring Software. Retrieved from Web.


2. Lee, M. (2007). Usability of collaboration technologies.


3. Cronin, P. (1997). Learning and assessment of instruction. Unpublished report, Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Centre for Cognitive Science, http://www.cogsci.ed.ac.uk/~paulus/Work/Vranded/litconsa.htm

Glushko, R. Collaborative Authoring, Use, and Maintenance of a Multidisciplinary “E-Textbook”. Journal of Electronic Publishing, 17. Retrieved May 14, 2014, from http://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jep/3336451.0017.123/--collaborative-authoring-use-and-%20maintenance?rgn=main;view=fulltext


4. Lafifi, Y., & Touil, G. (2010). Study of the Impact of Collaboration among Teachers in a Collaborative Authoring System. Journal Of Information Technology Education, 9IIP113-IIP132


5. Miller, S. M., & Miller, K. L. (1999). Using Instructional Theory to Facilitate Communication in Web-based Courses. Educational Technology & Society 2(3) 1999, 2. Retrieved May 14, 2014, from http://www.ifets.info/others/journals/2_3/miller.html


6. Tollestrup, C. (n.d.). Vision-based methodology for collaborative management of qualitative criteria in design. Academia.edu. Retrieved May 16, 2014, from http://www.academia.edu/577544/Vision-based_methodology_for_collaborative_management_of_qualitative_criteria_in_design


7. Web 2.0 Selection Criteria: Save Time Choosing an Appropriate Tool | The Sloan Consortium. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://sloanconsortium.org/Web_2.0_Selection_Criteria_Save_Time_Choosing_an_Appropriate_Tool


Editor Choice:

We used google docs to collaborate for this project.  Two docs were created.  One for fleshing out potential criteria and the second to create the final deliverable before entering the content into the wiki. 


Team Ringo Members:

Rita Ogbogu

Olusegun Ajibola

Miriam Sanders

Kaycee Collins

Comments (1)

Danny Mittleman said

at 4:32 pm on Jun 14, 2014

The content is ok, but very sparse. You barely scratch the surface describing these criteria. There is not enough depth here to be of use to someone actually evaluating platforms. Only two of your seven references, apparently, were used as only two are cited in the text. If you used all, you needed to cite them. If you used only two, you need to crop the rest off your list. Grade of B-, and I could justify going lower with this grade.

You don't have permission to comment on this page.