CoSearch: A System for Co-located Collaborative Web Search Saleema Amershi, Meredith Ringel Morris

Search often considered to be a solitary activity Do People Search Collaboratively?

Search often considered to be a solitary activity

Do People Search Collaboratively? 3.8 to 1 student-to-computer ratio in U.S. public schools 5000 to 3 person-to-computer ratio in U.S. public libraries 10 to 1 student-to-computer ratio in developing world schools

3.8 to 1 student-to-computer ratio in U.S. public schools

5000 to 3 person-to-computer ratio in U.S. public libraries

10 to 1 student-to-computer ratio in developing world schools

YES! … but current search engines and web browsers do not support collaborative search. Do People Search Collaboratively?

YES!

… but current search engines and web browsers do not support collaborative search.

People 2 Librarians 3 Teachers 2 Developing world researchers Questions Who collaboratively searches the Web? Why do they collaboratively search? How do they currently search in co-located settings? Interview Study

People

2 Librarians

3 Teachers

2 Developing world researchers

Questions

Who collaboratively searches the Web?

Why do they collaboratively search?

How do they currently search in co-located settings?

Who Collaboratively Searches & Why? Youth, Teens & Students Seniors & new immigrants People in rural regions of the developing world Small business employees Pedagogical and social value Unfamiliarity with technology Resource constraints

Youth, Teens & Students

Seniors & new immigrants

People in rural regions of the developing world

Small business employees

Pedagogical and social value

Unfamiliarity with technology

Resource constraints

Drivers control input devices Observers make suggestions verbally or through gestures How Do They Collaboratively Search?

Drivers control input devices

Observers make suggestions verbally or through gestures

Difficulties contributing Controlling drivers may ignore observer suggestions Demanding observers may make it difficult for drivers to make contributions Limitations

Difficulties contributing

Controlling drivers may ignore observer suggestions

Demanding observers may make it difficult for drivers to make contributions

Pacing problems Scrolling too fast or too slow Navigating away from a page too quickly Limitations

Pacing problems

Scrolling too fast or too slow

Navigating away from a page too quickly

Referential difficulties Difficulty referring to on-screen content if situated away from the display Limitations

Referential difficulties

Difficulty referring to on-screen content if situated away from the display

Single-track strategies No division-of-labor Inefficient Limitations

Single-track strategies

No division-of-labor

Inefficient

Limitations Difficulties contributing Pacing problems Referential difficulties Single-track strategies Lack of hands-on learning Information loss

Difficulties contributing

Pacing problems

Referential difficulties

Single-track strategies

Lack of hands-on learning

Information loss

Design Implications Facilitate co-located collaborative search Enable distributed control and division of labor Encourage collaboration, communication and awareness Leverage ubiquitous devices (mice and mobile phones) Related work (Inkpen, 1999; Pawar et al ., 2007; Paek et al., 2004; Ballagas et al ., 2005; Mahaney and Pierce, 2003; Han et al ., 2000)

Facilitate co-located collaborative search

Enable distributed control and division of labor

Encourage collaboration, communication and awareness

Leverage ubiquitous devices (mice and mobile phones)

Related work (Inkpen, 1999; Pawar et al ., 2007; Paek et al., 2004; Ballagas et al ., 2005; Mahaney and Pierce, 2003; Han et al ., 2000)

CoSearch with multiple mice Refer to paper CoSearch with mobile phones In this talk CoSearch

CoSearch with multiple mice

Refer to paper

CoSearch with mobile phones

In this talk

Individual color-coded cursors Also helps to Refer to on-screen content Enable hands-on-learning Distributing Control

Individual color-coded cursors

Also helps to

Refer to on-screen content

Enable hands-on-learning

Enabling Contributions

Color-coded Page Queue Page Queue

Color-coded Page Queue

Color-coded Page Queue Color-coded Query Queue Query by text messaging Query Queue

Color-coded Page Queue

Color-coded Query Queue

Query by text messaging

Reading at Your Own Pace Viewing Web pages on mobile phones Also enables division of labor

Viewing Web pages on mobile phones

Also enables division of labor

Status-quo Limitations CoSearch Features Difficulties contributing Individual color-coded cursors, Query Queue & query by text messaging, Page Queue Pacing Problems Viewing Web pages in mobile phones Referential difficulties Individual cursors controlled by mice or mobile phones Single-track strategies Viewing Web pages in mobile phones Lack of hands-on learning Individual input devices (mice and mobile phones) Information loss Notes regions, summaries

Evaluation Goals Assess how well CoSearch enables: Distributed control Division of labor Group communication Awareness

Assess how well CoSearch enables:

Distributed control

Division of labor

Group communication

Awareness

Participants 3 person groups, 12 groups 21 males, 15 females 12 - 76 years old Experienced and non-experienced searchers Experienced and non-experienced mobile phone users Friends, siblings, children with parents, adults with grandparents

3 person groups, 12 groups

21 males, 15 females

12 - 76 years old

Experienced and non-experienced searchers

Experienced and non-experienced mobile phone users

Friends, siblings, children with parents, adults with grandparents

Within-subject 3 conditions: CoSearch, Shared, Parallel 2 tasks per condition One fixed (e.g., “Which state is the birthplace of the most U.S. Vice Presidents?”) One group-selected (e.g., planning a trip or group activity) Questionnaires, log data, observations Study Design

Within-subject

3 conditions: CoSearch, Shared, Parallel

2 tasks per condition

One fixed (e.g., “Which state is the birthplace of the most U.S. Vice Presidents?”)

One group-selected (e.g., planning a trip or group activity)

Questionnaires, log data, observations

Results

Communication CoSearch and Shared better than Parallel (p<.01) Collaboration CoSearch and Shared better than Parallel (p<.01) Communication & Collaboration

Communication

CoSearch and Shared better than Parallel (p<.01)

Collaboration

CoSearch and Shared better than Parallel (p<.01)

Communication CoSearch and Shared better than Parallel (p<.01) Collaboration CoSearch and Shared better than Parallel (p<.01) Frustration Observers more frustrated in Shared than drivers (p<.03) Experienced searchers more frustrated in Shared than less experienced (p<.01) No differences in CoSearch Reduced Frustration

Communication

CoSearch and Shared better than Parallel (p<.01)

Collaboration

CoSearch and Shared better than Parallel (p<.01)

Frustration

Observers more frustrated in Shared than drivers (p<.03)

Experienced searchers more frustrated in Shared than less experienced (p<.01)

No differences in CoSearch

Distribution of Control “ Submit search topics without having to yell at the person on the computer” ” Have more of a say in what’s going on on screen” “ Go at my own pace” Division of Labor “ We could search many offshoots of the same topic at once” “ Input more ideas on how to find the answer” Control & Division of Labor

Distribution of Control

“ Submit search topics without having to yell at the person on the computer”

” Have more of a say in what’s going on on screen”

“ Go at my own pace”

Division of Labor

“ We could search many offshoots of the same topic at once”

“ Input more ideas on how to find the answer”

Overall #1 Favorite: Parallel (15 participants) #2 Favorite: CoSearch (11 participants) #3 Favorite: Shared (7 participants) CoSearch better than Parallel for communication collaboration CoSearch intended for resource-constrained environments where Parallel is not feasible CoSearch better than Shared for distribution of control, division of labor, and reduced frustration Overall

Overall

#1 Favorite: Parallel (15 participants)

#2 Favorite: CoSearch (11 participants)

#3 Favorite: Shared (7 participants)

CoSearch better than Parallel for communication collaboration

CoSearch intended for resource-constrained environments where Parallel is not feasible

CoSearch better than Shared for distribution of control, division of labor, and reduced frustration

Awareness Shared better than CoSearch and Parallel (p<.04) Experienced SMS users more aware of group in CoSearch than less experienced users (p<.02) Feelings of being ignored More so in CoSearch and Parallel than Shared (p<.01) Only 55.3% of observer queries were executed by drivers Only 10.88% of observer Web pages viewed by group Problems with CoSearch

Awareness

Shared better than CoSearch and Parallel (p<.04)

Experienced SMS users more aware of group in CoSearch than less experienced users (p<.02)

Feelings of being ignored

More so in CoSearch and Parallel than Shared (p<.01)

Only 55.3% of observer queries were executed by drivers

Only 10.88% of observer Web pages viewed by group

Usability People able to quickly learn CoSearch More-experienced searchers found it easier than less experienced (p<.03) Technological Limitations Lag in WiFi and Bluetooth Small screens and keypads CoSearch Usability

Usability

People able to quickly learn CoSearch

More-experienced searchers found it easier than less experienced (p<.03)

Technological Limitations

Lag in WiFi and Bluetooth

Small screens and keypads

Recap Interview Study to learn about status-quo co-located collaborative search practices (Shared & Parallel) Developed CoSearch to address limitations of current practices Evaluated CoSearch against current practices CoSearch better than Parallel for communication and collaboration CoSearch better than Shared for reducing frustrations and increasing control and division of labor Still room for improvement in CoSearch

Interview Study to learn about status-quo co-located collaborative search practices (Shared & Parallel)

Developed CoSearch to address limitations of current practices

Evaluated CoSearch against current practices

CoSearch better than Parallel for communication and collaboration

CoSearch better than Shared for reducing frustrations and increasing control and division of labor

Still room for improvement in CoSearch

Conclusion Shared-computing still prevalent in many scenarios. CoSearch enhances the shared-computing experience by leveraging additional devices in the environment.

Shared-computing still prevalent in many scenarios.

CoSearch enhances the shared-computing experience by leveraging additional devices in the environment.

Thank you! Status-quo Limitations CoSearch Features Difficulties contributing Individual cursors, Query Queue & query by text messaging, Page Queue Pacing Problems Viewing Web pages in mobile phones Referential difficulties Cursors controlled by mice or mobile phones Single-track strategies Viewing Web pages in mobile phones Lack of hands-on learning Individual input devices (mice and phones) Information loss Notes regions, summaries