ࡱ> ` (bjbj $V7x x x x |||Dh"h"h"""C4#####&&& 77779H7<B$EhHB9|.E&@&..Bx x ## C8222.x #|# 72. 722V42J|k5## E!h"/BS5 5LEC<C_5 H&1Hk5k5&H|50&((27*<s+w&&&BB1^&&&C....D"$D"x x x x x x  As Technophobia Disappears: Implications for Design Jonathan Grudin Microsoft Research One Microsoft Way Redmond, WA 98052 USA http://research.microsoft.com/~jgrudin jgrudin@microsoft.com Shari Tallarico Washington Mutual 1201 3rd Avenue Seattle, WA , 98101 USA +1 206 377 5498 shari.tallarico@wamu.net Scott Counts Microsoft Research One Microsoft Way Redmond, WA 98052 USA +1 425 722 5057 counts@microsoft.com ABSTRACT We conducted two studies of communication: an ethnographic study of communication primarily in homes, cars, and public places, and a survey of communication in a large corporation. A clear pattern emerged. To a greater degree than expected in the ethnographic study, people were familiar with a broad range of communication tools. Awareness and a lack of anxiety was the norm even for tools that a person rarely or had not yet used. As a result, people frequently shifted to the tool that was most appropriate for a task at hand. The resulting behaviors conflict with popular press images and have implications for the designers of communication tools. Categories and Subject Descriptors H.4.3 [Communications Applications] General Terms Management, Design, Human Factors Keywords Computer-mediated communication, instant messaging, email INTRODUCTION Diverse communication and social networking technologies have recently emerged and been embraced particularly by the net generation. Members of the previous generation grew up with social networks formed and supported by email, brought that technology into workplaces, and saw the Internet grow into the Web. Many in the present generation are forming social networks through aided by cell phones, messaging, blogging, and tagging. Their skills should enter workplaces relatively quickly, given the minor demands that these new technologies place on technical infrastructure. It is now widely and reliably reported that instant messaging is the preferred mode of communication for students in the United States. Although most have grown up with cell phones and are familiar with email, they favor IMs rapidity, informality, and lack of imposition on the other party. In contrast to a phone which demands full attention, IM permits multitasking. In Europe and Asia SMS or text messaging provides these with the added advantage of mobility, and potential disadvantage of a more cumbersome keyboard. Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. GROUP05, November 69, 2005, Sanibel Island, Florida, USA. Copyright 2005 ACM 1-59593-223-2/05/0011$5.00. Their parents are another story. Most may be using cell phones and email, but few are active instant or text messagers. How that generation regards the proliferating communication options is less evident. Email is now a mission-critical application in many settings, but unequivocal acceptance of the technology was not the norm ten or fifteen years ago. Management scepticism was high: email was an element of the productivity paradox debate through the 1980s and into the 1990s, exemplified by Landauers influential book The Trouble with Computers [2]. Landauer did not focus on email, but others predicted that once its effect was carefully measured, organizations would terminate email use [4]. Similar reservations are directed at IM today. For example, quoting from Gartner Group reports, Enterprises that fail to (develop and instill best practices) will quickly find IM to be a productivity drain and a communication quagmire (August 2001). Prediction: IM misuse will threaten user productivity (November 2002). Impact in 2003: IM misuse and overload has the potential to be worse than e-mail overload Without due diligence, enterprises run the risk of turning unmanaged, unsanctioned consumer IM into unmanaged, sanctioned EIM (November 2002). There is no data security and no enterprise management (February 2003). Vendor marketing of IM will be at the Peak of Inflated Expectations on the Hype Cycle from the end of 1Q04 to at least 3Q04 (October 2003). Email in 1985 & 2005 IM in 2005 & soon Used mostly by students Used mostly by students Used by everyone Use spreading rapidly Access limited to friends Access limited to buddies Accessible to everyone Pressure to remove limits Clients not interoperable Clients not interoperable Complete interoperability Pressure for interoperability Conversations ephemeral Conversations ephemeral Conversations saved Recording is more common Chosen for informality Chosen for informality Became formal Recording ! formality " Organizational distrust: " Organizational distrust: Chit-chat? ROI? Chit-chat? ROI? Mission-critical Will become essential Figure 1. Characteristics of email and IM at different times (adapted from [3]). The parallel between email twenty years ago and IM today, explored by Lovejoy and Grudin [3], is summarized in Figure 1. The authors concluded that IM will follow email to in becoming acceptable and probably indispensable in workplaces. With widespread networked desktop computers and free IM clients available for download over the Internet, IM has reached many workplaces. An early study of IM use by researchers in a large technology company showed that IM was indeed mostly used for work purposes [1]. Our two studies were undertaken to extend the picture of coporate use and to investigate the use of communication tools in homes and schools, where a greater range of ages, activities, and access to technical support is found. Although the studies employed different methods and different populations, the findings converged on some points. URBAN COMMUNICATION STUDY Background Two of the authors conducted a qualitative study of communication patterns in a major metropolitan area. Sixteen participants were recruited, selected (for reasons not relevant to this report) to include some heavy cell phone users, some light cell phone users, and some who were not cell phone users. Each participant was visited at home for an initial interview that lasted from one to two hours. The participants lived within a radius of approximately 25 miles of Seattle, Washington. They ranged in age from 15 to 55. During the interview each participant was asked in detail about their communication patterns and the technologies used. When not spontaneously mentioned, email, messaging, cell and landline phones, pager, weblog, postal communication, and face to face interactions (at home and, when relevant, at work or school) were asked about. For each communication medium employed, we explored the history of use, people communicated with, frequency of communication, purposes of communication, hardware used, and so on. We also covered relevant paper materials, such as address or contact lists. Each participant was given a diary and asked to record their communication patterns for one weekday and one weekend day. In addition, we spent half-days shadowing four of the participants. Observations Two noteworthy observations emerged from this study. The population had a uniformly high level of sophistication with respect to communication technologies. Although from a technologically advanced region in a technologically advanced country, and thus not representative of everyone, the sample covered a wide range of people. Some participants reported being the last person in their family to adopt new technologies, people who almost surely would have considered themselves technophobic in the past and who sometimes still saw themselves leaning in that direction. But even the last person in a family of five to adopt technology knew what technologies were out there (except weblogs, which were familiar to few participants). For example, If they did not use IM much or at all, they knew what IM is and what it is likely to be good for, and seemed assured that if they had a need for IM they could obtain it, perhaps relying on family members or friends. This leads to our second observation. If people know what communication channels exist and what they are used for, and if people are not intimidated and feel that little effort is required to adopt or start using a technology, then when their circumstances shift, they are more likely to adopt a technology appropriate to their new situation. In the past, with higher barriers to adopting new technologies, people would exert more effort to adapting a familiar communication channel to serve the same purposes. Two examples of IM use illustrate how the choice of communication technology can shift as circumstances change. Student communication and the calendar As noted in the introduction, the popular press and research reports of university student use of communication tools indicate that for many or most, messaging has overtaken phone and email as the preferred medium. The three university students in our sample did indeed report heavy IM use. During the academic year students spend considerable time in their rooms, perhaps being there four or five evenings in a week. So are most their close circles of friends. IM is the perfect medium in this context. It is fast and permits multitasking, enabling a student to chat with several people and perhaps study and listen to music at the same time. Our participants described this as their normal behavior during the academic year. As it happened, we interviewed them during the summer. They were at home, and they were not reliably in their rooms most evenings. Neither were their friends, who were mostly in the area although more geographically dispersed than during the academic year. To remain in touch and arrange meetings, IM use was dropped in favor of cell phones or email, depending on urgency, group norms, long distance charges, and other factors. At the time of the research all of us worked at Microsoft and had an opportunity to discuss our findings with the team overseeing MSN Messenger use. They reported an overall drop in IM use in the summer, which they had attributed to family vacations but agreed could be due more to college and university breaks. School activity coordinator A mother of three teenagers, not working when we interviewed and shadowed her, described herself as the last family member to adopt a new technology. She was heavily engaged in helping plan school-related events, such as band concerts and field trips. Some of the parents with whom she coordinated these activities worked during the day. Email was the preferred method for discussing these non-work-related activities. Independent of when it arrived, employees could handle email during breaks or outside work hours. Email is far less disruptive than phone calls or IM. However, when the deadline for an event approaches, creating greater urgency, email is no longer ideal. People are more willing to be interrupted at work. The phone remains very intrusive; IM strikes the right balance. The group can shift from email to IM until the event and return to email when the urgency is gone. This woman was one of two participants who reported shifting to IM in such situations. She was not generally an IM user, but other family members were and helped her start using it as needed. Most of our participants understand days multi-channel world. Some experimented with a technology and stopped using it if they found little use for it. Others maintained low level use of a channel, having it available as needed. All seemed aware of the choices and not intimidated by them, ready to adopt one should colleagues or family create a need for it. CORPORATE COMMUNICATION STUDY Survey background and distribution To get a snapshot of IM use, we sent a survey to the first 522 people in our largely collocated, email-oriented company who upgraded to a new version of an enterprise IM client. The list was provided by the IT support group handling the deployment. In contrast to [1], these were not people in a research organization who adopted IM for the purpose of a study; however, they had a prior history of IM use and given the setting were relatively likely to be early technology adopters for adults. The organization makes an effort to give employees offices near those with whom they will interact the most. Because face to face communication with team members is thus relatively easy, communication tools such as real-time application sharing have not historically fared as well in this organization as in some others of comparable size but more geographically distributed. In addition, the organization provides almost all employees with private offices and phones, eliminating the advantage IM provides in open floor plan settings where spoken conversation is overheard. Thus, in this setting, we anticipated that IM could be less useful for work and also less useful for communicating externally with family and friends. Although the environment is somewhat unusual in these respects, we saw a benefit in obtaining insight into current IM use where email and phones are universally available alternatives. An invitation to take an online survey was distributed to the 522 employees. The survey had 28 questions and a few optional comment fields. The questions addressed all IM clients being used at work, contact with internal and external IM buddies or contacts, estimates of time spent using various communication tools (work-related and not), estimated impact of IM on other tool use, reasons for IM use, IM feature use, multitasking, and impact of IM on various work activities. A few demographic questions were included. The comment fields solicited general views of IM impact as well as likes and dislikes. Results 141 people filled out the survey. The results must be considered carefully given the selection process and the reliance on self-reports. For example, we found that people who reported a higher use of IM at work to communicate with friends and colleagues outside of work also reported greater work efficiencies through the use of IM. This is plausible: it could be that their personal use provided the skills to use it effectively at work. But it is also possible that some sought to justify their higher level of personal use by exaggerating the work benefits. Nevertheless, the survey provided insight into directions that quantitative logging studies or observational studies might take, and much of the data and open-ended comments seem reliable. Respondents were given a set of 7 possible uses of IM and asked to check all that apply (Figure 2). Clearly, chat and presence awareness are considered key IM features, and quick questions and answers are a major workplace use. We asked about the use of existing peripheral IM features (Table 1). Only file transfer is above the radar for this experienced set of IM users. The value of file sharing is reinforced by a high number of open-ended comments requesting that it be made more reliable. Table 1. Frequency of use of secondary IM features. Ever used2-3 times/monthMore frequentlyFile transfer55%47%7%App sharing18%16%2%Audio chat16%14%2%Video chat12%11%1%Whiteboard 9% 8%1% Respondents reported a range of other behaviors that are subject to confirmation with other populations and more accurate techniques. Managers and individual contributors reported different patterns of use. Younger employees differed from older. What we wish to focus on here is the principal reasons people enthused about IM in the open-ended comments. Recall that the employees are largely but not entirely geographically collocated, with efforts made to place employees who interact frequently in the same building. Below are excerpts. Some repetitiveness is included to show the recurring nature of some points. Allows me to converse privately with a coworker when working with a customer on the phone. can make quick question via IM while talking on phone can IM multiple people -- much easier than phone Critical during videoconferencing, especially with satellite-delayed VTCs (e.g. to India). I often IM while doing other things and can juggle my attention between the two since IM conversation rate is slow I may be on a Conference Call but (IMing) with another team member while on that call. it is great for conference calls to prepare and discuss things privately. I use instant messaging during meetings to engage in a related conversation (not a "side" conversation). Most common method is to: 1.) Ask a quick question of a 3rd party when on a conference call 2.) Have private side conversations with Coworkers during conference calls/online presentations with customers (to help coach the presenter) On a conference call, and want to get team members back in line or on the same page. on the phone to handle urgent conversations. open side conversations to check facts while being on voice conferences or answering email. Side meetings, bring an additional person into a meeting for immediate information, guiding a phone conversation without interrupting the conversation (sales) I really, really like it when I'm working with someone at a remote location It kicks butt. My team is widely distributed (geographically) and we live by IM. I save a LOT of money by using IM rather than the phone or the VTC systems. Long distance real time collaboration is cheap and efficient. As long as someone is logged in, I don't have to know where they are to contact them. It's great for communicating with people who are traveling. It is useful for side-conversations in meetings or for when I am on the phone Makes working with traveling colleagues (or when I'm traveling) far easier and cheaper Other comments lauded the ability to get quick questions and answers, the awareness of others presence, and so forth. But a striking proportion of comments addressed situations in which people were tied up on phones, working with people in remote locations, and pinned down in meetings. The first two are not typical activities for most employees in the organization, but employees in those contexts shifted to IM, despite the very heavy email orientation of the company as a whole. Managers, who were historically often late adopters of email, reported using IM as heavily as individual contributors. They could multitask from large meetings using laptops and the corporate wireless network. Once again, a clearly-defined need led to the adoption of a new communication channel. DESIGN IMPLICATIONS Both studies provided evidence of people in our region and company who are comfortable with a range of communication tools, understand where each can be useful, and switch to the best channel for their current purpose. The technical and behavioral costs for switching are low enough, where this could mean asking your daughter to help you set up instant messaging or downloading a client over the intranet or internet. If borne out by further study, this has clear implications for designers of communication tools. When switching costs are high, users would prefer to find ways to extend the functionality of a tool they are already familiar with. They would appreciate additional features that enable them to do things that might be easier using another tool, because they would not want to switch. With low switching costs, designers of a communication tool should instead identify its core competencies, the features that cause people to prefer that tool to others, and make those features as effective as possible. Additional features handled better by other tools become secondary or dispensable. As illustrated in Table 1, IM features developed with considerable effort were never used by over 80% of an experienced user population. In the case of IM, the core features are lightweight chat and presence awareness. Much more effort could go into optimizing these. File sharing and lightweight archiving of IM conversations also emerged as important features in our survey. This is perhaps not surprising: Email was widely used for well over a decade before attachments were easily handled and before disk space costs permitted it to be archived, but only when these spread in the early 1990s did email become a mission-critical application. At the same time, because people do readily switch among communication tools, doing so should be effortless via links among tools. But our sense is that a single bulky Swiss army knife approach is not preferable to a set of carefully honed inter-linked applications. Just as one could merge the functionality of a word processor, presentation system, and spreadsheet into a single application, that is probably not desirable, although interoperable individual applications are of course beneficial. Underlying these recommendations is the observation that for a large swath of the population, the comfort level with digital technology has grown. People may resist adopting new technology through inertia or because they perceive insufficient personal value, but when they encounter a situation that warrants the use of a technology, people today seem likely to know about it and unafraid to tackle it. REFERENCES Isaacs, E., Walendowski, A., Whittaker, S., Schiano, D.J. & Kamm, C. (2002). The character, functions, and styles of in-stant messaging in the workplace. Proc. CSCW 2002, 11-20. Landauer, T. K. (1996). The trouble with computers: Usefulness, usability, and productivity. MIT Press. Lovejoy, T. & Grudin, J. (2003). Messaging and formality: Will IM follow in the footsteps of email? Proc. INTERACT 2003, 817-820. Pickering, J.M. & King, J.L. (1992). Hardwiring weak ties: Individual and institutional issues in computer mediated communication, Proc. CSCW 92, 356-361.     PAGE  Figure 2. Repor4 8 Z b } ~  KL9KS"c}*0>E}W24 66N8l89 htRHajhtUht56CJmHnHuht5CJmHnHuht6mHnHuhtmHnHu hSd$CJ htCJ ht6CJhSd$ ht6 ht5 ht5CJ ht@H* ht@ht34E 3 A 8 [  xx$a$<__' AKL#ST"E| p<]p`n2H&#$+D/0$n2H&#$+D/0$n2+Dx`ExEƀe. E4;!V!ExEƀe.x`$<]`a$$<]`a$$p<]p`a$ V!a!"%r&&(?*>,,mExEƀe.x`ExEƀe. ,,-/X122346N8qExEƀe..xExEƀe.. N8l889T= >l@ummmkx`ExEƀe.ExEƀe.99DDDDQEE*F+FWWWW]7^F^N^g^^_8_9____________________&(ȾȴUhSd$ hSd$0JjhSd$0JUh>jh>U ht6ht6mH sH htmH sH hv?htjhtUmHnHu,l@t@BQEEEEEE $If`xgdv?`x`ExEƀe.EEEEEE^TGGG $$If`a$ $If`kd$$Ifl\8 .x t0644 laEEEEEE^TGGG $$If`a$ $If`kd$$Ifl\8 .x t0644 laEEEEEE^TGGG $$If`a$ $If`kd|$$Ifl\8 .x t0644 laEEF F FF^TGGG $$If`a$ $If`kd:$$Ifl\8 .x t0644 laFFF!F&F)F^TGGG $$If`a$ $If`kd$$Ifl\8 .x t0644 la)F*F+F!GHHYI+JJ^VVVNNNNP`x`kd$$Ifl\8 .x t0644 laJJ;K&L}LL MMMNjOOPQ S4STUVX ZExEƀe.x`P` Z[]]O^oCEƀe[]ExEƀe.x`O^^9___y4) $dx1$a$EEƀe[]CEƀe[]CEƀe[]______________!"#$%&'( $dx1$a$&`#$ted uses of IM in the workplace. ,&P/ =!8"8#$% 3 0&P/ =!8"8#$% P 3 0&P/ =!8"8#$% P / 0&P/ =!8"8#$% @=B!(j]H%]u* SyII#$w:΢8Œ.|=򮔗ASCr=GX(J{ٝd6ԟJY ԨrN_|WD?!UBr#$4ɄPr|9!^x9Տ༐v}v֐N@ q(%%ph wt~oiT'y\ހ dHTctvU?nPӣeQg)S'Bqd*Cۊ=UrC! qˠ7Jyp?)7q}ZF [9$[ m̆{< t<;Run򲵭JN5ƙSfĩ1G[{y[[ |,-yJy]!ː61`ob/Cu.1EI1?|M 򊥲R[B&Pผzz%ܹC\ea\Q>s0rj`.Ґj\TbGˆݰ.nsy:0nXH +2>Rx-+ ŸK~v۝ldN'1-ǖZ;Uq6R^;a͆=D?؅6n~2's -P9M~H尤V]N?jJFW::Mn^O I~9gT| 0h\~)= H54付 (IңpTC2:|Mw@iH[%pTCat: n&C@4-.ijF/?~@CߠM;FSL;9&ƽAe&{R]]|~~ൈ?;xr& ظG)`:}6:y&c7@>xDnG9~Dzڑ5X ݴ/@g݄Uy9i }m5t7+R x-+~Iῤ"#ZW+] E=8/$\|5?x0¸ 4*ɜGo\ Y8/! 1ށ1m$xCnPG?10V//o&m3j<ӵ)󻣮Z9{@GYt=d@^H߳K_jc;g6#! !}WYDl}?pүmm]_*<+lu8< δ9wR\<_3ײYˠkƼ7} H:Y-R|)x—8c4~grEYp3sS*qF.Y6L"w{96V>+\n"W\)b/7Av0tw?`WTi)__vk?Vb_)|qs3YM"R繼..-@my<,MQVw5YEWpb^<܆.<8T (;}ϓBcy>~eU6.WPrV*c+,evY%+/|+}T :I ^E<,E1tI96-vD-Ayg5XpA{tue$+zs5|q/"^'X]@-| ^OIY'Y/Uu@}მikE[^:?obj3/K5Y˭o+9&؄ ^WKG)d}v|>펝6}w+h^{xMݔSZb<+`6+N[{fmج`ZvkSgȬJd>؀?Ͱ<"U,cV<.rr~]`= ֻ-+¬O֗Us2Ye! `)R&}'+ve ܛt\;ţi3=KG؝=^S@3~r`{+=|_uqݔocAioRmA<5m}kl}_d缯b,>+~lzcy銯c(Ї]?Ce& z=ؤu&FݸiMvtkMs>,X2'b;gZ22,.$]+83&O k:c7݆zg.̕bfnc4,2ttgZ 'Se&ǐ.  9p<m'qNN~w|'g8 ğ=a^qNA` .?3;Pg閙=x]|3-Ӄ?sCTk 3w,i-Gdz~Ǝ~1p_loK|NF>v_/*-./.#d}1!k\xж9f1 9obJQ[Zc+3fFo[gVqo%LN9tnEZ x.Xk6f9l=% 8;7oɺ ߣHGd]7!wwn/uM*swg:>Meg|~wb9k:xqPR{ m)p遼:(o ~C795}P9ܐ9ugC݇s";7L[vT JUfw*8 e}\})gYQx _Ky~z &(xs|>6ޯgi^n{gDdw0װG,?}oFa>݉ɶDdsl?&H~?,>Lf>8+~zu_Lx?ކ}ss|$C={~¡&Ncud8矌 <ܢ:v i;/9q=p%}497?T{/ epCHa <X*$HlLxX]h\E45Xq1qH$l5bijain ن.Z)ЇUP| ҇ }h UT 뙽Ě{7L̈́ndd7P&OX\!|OʩF'Cθj9\#w!Q^Q%~kR[Ƌ+]`}"Ty#BԦJWh]QZ!SMC5PJ Q~W~ SC_rv.Dm[XQ${E٫*QQY[^9Ԧh;{;=~($"~-3I%W\«+]f F.xQ}fuF "#ٞ8h>ޏ%Z^ Kux`zH =F[/ DuDlj ޮg{By^O DL:bB'4ysixMwzzS|&qMs=_yεkN9h֐ 7>]0kro-D-~PyԦON\5kT8IwڧԦJ3 ܙi}ȝ P~OQ_9'eԷZJϷ }2d]}B4tuбCֵjΫ4ɐu\4ckTjBYת9\UsQUO꼁)Z/n2Q3y==TLU9QAs5 ii<֢cm*ZUyct;~mF6n)kac"F=mʞ+{ꨡ,Rp"C iO131Y@C}՞7 CFUiP95ſi{X|Xkt*"HAquCWb44$#AŻl *!n썅1"*uP+K O5VFW_֠o?͑5GUg, PXcqC c#5*󜤕 /1F_oa.U\FuyNdz'Ɖx%ULNt7/`q" YR,́s`9ܜn>4Xne{OʼnxSwJ`=&Dws$X^9^2XXdQu Nt3WW._W.^Z:w(S^;eЫ$$If!vh5555x#v#v#v#vx:V l t065555x$$If!vh5555x#v#v#v#vx:V l t065555x$$If!vh5555x#v#v#v#vx:V l t065555x$$If!vh5555x#v#v#v#vx:V l t065555x$$If!vh5555x#v#v#v#vx:V l t065555x$$If!vh5555x#v#v#v#vx:V l t065555x'F@F Normal $Pa$CJ_HmH sH tH V@V Heading 1$$ & F(@&a$ 5CJKH8@8 Heading 2  & F@&B@!B Heading 3  & F@& 56CJ8@18 Heading 4  & F@&^@^ Heading 5*$ & F(@&^`a$6CJT@T Heading 6 & F<@&6CJOJQJkHL@L Heading 7 & F<@& OJQJkHP@P Heading 8 & F<@&6OJQJkHT @T Heading 9 & F<@&6CJOJQJkHDA@D Default Paragraph FontVi@V  Table Normal :V 44 la (k(No List P&P Footnote ReferenceCJH*OJQJkH>O> Author$a$CJOJQJkHPOP Paper-Title $xa$5CJ$OJQJkHFO"F Affiliations$a$ CJOJQJJ2J  Footnote Textp^`pCJOB Bulletp & Fp>Th^`p4 @R4 Footer  !,Ob, E-Mail<LOrL Abstract$ & Fx@& a$5CJ;@ List Number 3p & F8>Th.^8`POP Captions$H#$+Dp/0$a$5CJ>O> References$ & Fa$.)@. Page NumberHC@H Body Text Indenth`hRYR  Document Map-D M OJQJ^JB"@B Caption$a$5\^JaJtH TB@T Body Text#/H&#$+D@/0$CJ6U@6 Hyperlink >*B*ph4@4 Header ! !DO"D Body"`CJOJPJQJ^JH2H  Balloon Text#CJOJQJ^JaJB'AB Comment ReferenceCJaJ8R8  Comment Text%CJ@jQR@ Comment Subject&5\23456tV2345694#VtV.c4E3A8[AK L # S T " E[:;( ""$#G$%'(()6+4-.../3\4668;;;;;;<<<<<<&<*<.<1<2<=<A<E<H<I<T<X<\<_<`<k<p<u<x<y<z<p=>???z@@AAuBBBYCCHDDE FbFFHoII&KL]NYPNRSSTUU#V$V&V'V)V*V,V-V/V0V9V:V;V?@ABC'2 !#$_"$B!(jn8)1A?n8)2A@n8)<"An8)|"Bn8)"Cn8)"Dn8).En8).Fn8)$/Gn8)d/Hn8)GIn8),GJn8)lGKn8)GLn8)GMn8),GNn8)lGOn8)GPn8)GQn8),GRn8)lGSn8)GTn8)GUn8),GVn8)lGWn8)GXn8)$@j||.TTforx      )(/??DuV      !"#$%&q  2emqw{{*   ! ! ,(/@@DuV     !"#$%& B%*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagscountry-region9&*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace<*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsmswterms;!*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsaddress>*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PostalCode9#*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsState: *urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsStreet8'*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCity= *urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceType= *urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceName f'&%&#&! '#%! '#%&%&'&#%& &'#%&& v}??@@STTT(T,TdTiTTT$V$V&V&V'V'V)V*V,V-V/V0V;V7J7;;>>?@?C??@@@BBBC_ChC$V$V&V&V'V'V)V*V,V-V/V0V;VtX DE;;;;;;<<<<<<&<*<.<1<2<=<A<E<H<I<T<X<\<_<`<k<p<u<x<y<uV!.e!0@\\red-prn-xrx\b113-3205-aNe04:winspoolXerox WCP 55 PS\\red-prn-xrx\b113-3205-aS odXX8.5 x 11" LetterPRIV0''''\KhC2 9XRX10XX*4Lxlewdfghijopqrk mz~|}0012345678919XRX%xlewfghijopq\\red-prn-xrx\b113-3205-aS odXX8.5 x 11" LetterPRIV0''''\KhC2 9XRX10XX*4Lxlewdfghijopqrk mz~|}0012345678919XRX%xlewfghijopqܧ-4OOLVtVP@PP<@P@UnknownScott LeeTiernan Gz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial;& z Helvetica3z Times5& zaTahomaG  MS Mincho-3 fgK,Bookman Old StyleCFComic Sans MS"h¡F¡F; xH xH!4dUU`2qHX ?t2Proceedings Template - WORDEnd User Computing Services Scott Counts   Oh+'0  $0 P \ h tProceedings Template - WORDEnd User Computing Services Normal.dotScott Counts2Microsoft Office Word@F#@!@!@! xH՜.+,0 px  ACM*U Proceedings Template - WORD Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPRSTUVWXZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}Root Entry Fp]!Data Q1TableYHWordDocumentSummaryInformation(~DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q