AutoCompleting Text as an Alternative to CopyPaste Shengdong Shen Zhao 1 Fanny Cheviler 2 Wei Tsang Ooi 1 Chee Yuan Lee 1 Arpit Agarwal 13 1 Background amp Motivation ID: 320725
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "AutoComPaste" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
AutoComPasteAuto-Completing Text as an Alternative to Copy-Paste
Shengdong (Shen) Zhao 1 Fanny Cheviler 2 Wei Tsang Ooi 1 Chee Yuan Lee 1Arpit Agarwal 1,3
1Slide2
Background & Motivation
2
is a common
computing
operation
it often happens across documentsSlide3
Background & MotivationCurrent copy-paste techniques:
3
Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V
Menu selection
Drag & drop
X-Win
Chapuis
and
Roussel
. Copy-and-paste between
overlapping windows
.
CHI ’07Slide4
6-Step Common Workflow
4Slide5
6-Step Common Workflow
5
Step 1:
TypingSlide6
6-Step Common Workflow
6
Step 2:
Context switch
& Win manageSlide7
6-Step Common Workflow
7
Step 3:
Visual searchSlide8
6-Step Common Workflow
8
Step 4:
Highlighting
& CopySlide9
6-Step Common Workflow
9
Step 5:
Window
managementSlide10
6-Step Common Workflow
10
Step 6: PasteSlide11
6-Step Common Workflow
11Slide12
12Slide13
13
+ Text Unit Adjustments
Auto-Completing Text as an
Alternative to Copy-PasteSlide14
14
+ Text Unit Adjustments
Window management is
common and tedious
Copy-paste often
Interleaves typing
Copy-paste different sizes of text
i
s commonSlide15
Logger StudyLogger that logs copy-paste event Automatically turned on, data send to a central server
For each copy-paste event, we recordType (copy | paste) Number of windows open, host window, and application nameTimestampNearest typing event in terms of timeContent copied “joe12@gmail.com” is stored as “xxx00@xxxxx.xxx” Participants22 students (9 female, 13 male, 21-27, M 23.14) Duration2 weeks15Slide16
Logger Study - ResultData collected
34.1 MB of text data, 8168 events with 3481 (43%) copy and 4687 (57%) paste.Windows opened 83% of the time, users have 6-20 concurrently opened windows (average 12) when performing CPType of copy-paste57% (2672) cross-document CP
43% (2015) within-document CPInterleaving
with typing42% of copy events were performed after typing, and 54% of paste events were followed by typingText size Phrases (39%), Sentences (33%), Paragraphs (28%)
16Slide17
17
+ Text Unit Adjustments
Window management is
common and tedious
Copy-paste often
Interleaves typing
Copy-paste different sizes of text
i
s commonSlide18
AutoComPaste Videohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoDT3UeAoRE
18Slide19
How does AutoComPaste Compare with Traditional Copy-Paste Techniques?
19
Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V
Menu selection
Drag & drop
X-Win
Chapuis
and
Roussel
. Copy-and-paste
between overlapping windows
.
CHI ’07Slide20
What are the conditions or factors?20Slide21
21
1) Knowledge of content
Keyword(s) known
Keyword(s) unknown
2
) Knowledge of location
Location known
Location unknownSlide22
22
1) Knowledge of content
Keyword(s) known
Keyword(s) unknown
3) Visibility
Visible
Invisible
2
) Knowledge of location
Location known
Location unknownSlide23
23
1) Knowledge of content
Keyword(s) known
Keyword(s) unknown
3) Visibility
Visible
Invisible
4) Typing activity
Standalone
Interleaving
2
) Knowledge of location
Location known
Location unknownSlide24
24
1) Knowledge of content Keyword(s) knownKeyword(s) unknown2) Knowledge of location Location knownLocation unknown
3) Visibility
VisibleInvisible4) Typing activity
StandaloneInterleavingSlide25
25
1) Knowledge of content Keyword(s) knownKeyword(s) unknown2) Knowledge of location Location knownLocation unknown
3) Visibility
VisibleInvisible4) Typing activity
StandaloneInterleavingSlide26
26Slide27
27Slide28
28Slide29
29Slide30
30Slide31
31Slide32
32Slide33
33Slide34
34
1) Knowledge of content Keyword(s) knownKeyword(s) unknown2) Knowledge of location Location knownLocation unknown
3) Visibility
VisibleInvisible4) Typing activity
StandaloneInterleavingSlide35
35
S1:
Content
(
known
)
, Location
(known)
, Visible
(true)
, Typing before copy
(false)
Slide36
36
S1:
Content
(
known
)
, Location
(known)
, Visible
(true)
, Typing before copy
(false)
Slide37
37
S1:
Content
(
known
)
, Location
(known)
, Visible
(true)
, Typing before copy
(false)
Slide38
38
S1:
Content
(
known
)
, Location
(known)
, Visible
(true)
, Typing before copy
(false)
Slide39
39
S1:
Content
(
known
)
, Location
(known)
, Visible
(true)
, Typing before copy
(false)
Slide40
40Slide41
41Slide42
42Slide43
43Slide44
Controlled Experiment12 university participants X 2 techniques (XWin
, ACP) X 2 content knowledge type (known, unknown) X 2 location knowledge type (known, unknown) X 2 visibility type (visible, invisible) X 2 pre-copy activity type (isolated, typing) X 6 trials of 3 different units of text (2 phrases + 2 sentences + 2 paragraphs)= 2304 trials total
44Slide45
Results
45Slide46
46
ACP has 29% performance benefit
XWin
has 29% performance benefitACP has 140% performance benefit
XWin
has 31% performance benefit
C
(+) L(+)
C
(-) L(+)
C
(+) L(-)
C
(-) L(-)Slide47
Qualitative Study6 participants (3 female, 3 male; aged 22-25, mean 23.8)Realistic trip planning task
plan a 5-day trip to Santa Barbara by gathering relevant information from 10 given webpagesasked to include at least one outdoor activity, one indoor activity, and one restaurant for each day of the tripCan use either AutoComPaste and other copy-paste techniques47Slide48
ResultsAutoComPaste is heavily used and highly rated by 5/6 participants
However, one rated AutoComPaste negatively He is a non-native English speaker participant48Slide49
ConclusionAutoComPaste nicely complements the traditional copy-paste techniquesAutoComPaste
has advantage when the keyword/prefix is knownWhen keywords/prefix is known and location is unknown, AutoComPaste will have the most advantage XWin has advantage when the keyword/prefix is unknownPerformance of AutoComPaste is subject to typing and spelling skills 49Slide50
AcknowledgmentShi Xiaoming for programming the logger
Guia Gali and Symon Oliver for video editingStudy participants Members in the NUS-HCI labThis research is supported by National University of Singapore Academic Research Fund R-252-000-464-112Slide51
Q & A
51
Vignette (CHI ‘12)
You may want to check out
these other projects from
SandCanvas (CHI ‘11)
MOGCLASS (CHI ‘11)
Magic Cards (CHI ‘09)
earPod
(CHI ‘07)
Z
one & Polygon Menu
(CHI ‘06)
Elastic Hierarchy
(
InfoVis
‘05)
Simple Marking Menu
(UIST ‘04)