CoSearch: A System for Co-located Collaborative Web Search
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

CoSearch: A System for Co-located Collaborative Web Search

on

  • 1,392 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,392
Views on SlideShare
1,392
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
16
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

CoSearch: A System for Co-located Collaborative Web Search CoSearch: A System for Co-located Collaborative Web Search Presentation Transcript

  • 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?
  • 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
    • YES!
    • … but current search engines and web browsers do not support collaborative search.
    Do People Search Collaboratively?
    • 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
  • 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
    • Drivers control input devices
    • Observers make suggestions verbally or through gestures
    How Do They Collaboratively Search?
    • Difficulties contributing
      • Controlling drivers may ignore observer suggestions
      • Demanding observers may make it difficult for drivers to make contributions
    Limitations
    • Pacing problems
      • Scrolling too fast or too slow
      • Navigating away from a page too quickly
    Limitations
    • Referential difficulties
      • Difficulty referring to on-screen content if situated away from the display
    Limitations
    • Single-track strategies
      • No division-of-labor
      • Inefficient
    Limitations
  • Limitations
    • 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)
    • CoSearch with multiple mice
      • Refer to paper
    • CoSearch with mobile phones
      • In this talk
    CoSearch
    • Individual color-coded cursors
    • Also helps to
      • Refer to on-screen content
      • Enable hands-on-learning
    Distributing Control
  • Enabling Contributions
    • Color-coded Page Queue
    Page Queue
    • Color-coded Page Queue
    • Color-coded Query Queue
    • Query by text messaging
    Query Queue
  • Reading at Your Own Pace
    • 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
  • 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
    • 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
  • 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)
    • 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
    • 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
    • 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
    • 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
    • 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
  • 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
  • Conclusion
    • 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