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

CoSearch: A System for Co-located Collaborative Web Search

  • 859 views
Uploaded on

 

More in: Technology , Design
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
859
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
16
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. CoSearch: A System for Co-located Collaborative Web Search Saleema Amershi, Meredith Ringel Morris
  • 2.
    • Search often considered to be a solitary activity
    Do People Search Collaboratively?
  • 3. 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
  • 4.
    • YES!
    • … but current search engines and web browsers do not support collaborative search.
    Do People Search Collaboratively?
  • 5.
    • 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
  • 6. 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
  • 7.
    • Drivers control input devices
    • Observers make suggestions verbally or through gestures
    How Do They Collaboratively Search?
  • 8.
    • Difficulties contributing
      • Controlling drivers may ignore observer suggestions
      • Demanding observers may make it difficult for drivers to make contributions
    Limitations
  • 9.
    • Pacing problems
      • Scrolling too fast or too slow
      • Navigating away from a page too quickly
    Limitations
  • 10.
    • Referential difficulties
      • Difficulty referring to on-screen content if situated away from the display
    Limitations
  • 11.
    • Single-track strategies
      • No division-of-labor
      • Inefficient
    Limitations
  • 12. Limitations
    • Difficulties contributing
    • Pacing problems
    • Referential difficulties
    • Single-track strategies
    • Lack of hands-on learning
    • Information loss
  • 13. 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)
  • 14.
    • CoSearch with multiple mice
      • Refer to paper
    • CoSearch with mobile phones
      • In this talk
    CoSearch
  • 15.
  • 16.
    • Individual color-coded cursors
    • Also helps to
      • Refer to on-screen content
      • Enable hands-on-learning
    Distributing Control
  • 17. Enabling Contributions
  • 18.
    • Color-coded Page Queue
    Page Queue
  • 19.
    • Color-coded Page Queue
    • Color-coded Query Queue
    • Query by text messaging
    Query Queue
  • 20. Reading at Your Own Pace
    • Viewing Web pages on mobile phones
    • Also enables division of labor
  • 21. 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
  • 22. Evaluation Goals
    • Assess how well CoSearch enables:
      • Distributed control
      • Division of labor
      • Group communication
      • Awareness
  • 23. 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
  • 24.
    • 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
  • 25. Results
  • 26.
    • Communication
      • CoSearch and Shared better than Parallel (p<.01)
    • Collaboration
        • CoSearch and Shared better than Parallel (p<.01)
    Communication & Collaboration
  • 27.
    • 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
  • 28.
    • 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
  • 29.
    • 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
  • 30.
    • 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
  • 31.
    • 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
  • 32. 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
  • 33. Conclusion
    • Shared-computing still prevalent in many scenarios.
    • CoSearch enhances the shared-computing experience by leveraging additional devices in the environment.
  • 34. 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