AutoComPaste Auto-Completing Text as an Alternative to Copy-Paste

1. AutoComPasteAuto-Completing Text as an Alternative to Copy-Paste Shengdong (Shen) Zhao 1 Fanny Cheviler2 Wei Tsang Ooi1 Chee Yuan Lee 1 ArpitAgarwal1,3

2. Background & Motivation is a common computing operation it often happens across documents

3. Background & Motivation Current copy-paste techniques: Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V Menu selection Drag & drop X-Win Chapuisand Roussel. Copy-and-paste between overlapping windows. CHI ’07

4. 6-Step Common Workflow

5. 6-Step Common Workflow Step 1: Typing

6. 6-Step Common Workflow Step 2: Context switch & Win manage

7. 6-Step Common Workflow Step 3: Visual search

8. 6-Step Common Workflow Step 4: Highlighting & Copy

9. 6-Step Common Workflow Step 5: Window management

10. 6-Step Common Workflow Step 6: Paste

11. 6-Step Common Workflow

13. Auto-Completing Text as an Alternative to Copy-Paste + Text Unit Adjustments

14. Window management is common and tedious Copy-paste often Interleaves typing Copy-paste different sizes of text is common + Text Unit Adjustments

15. Logger Study • Logger that logs copy-paste event • Automatically turned on, data send to a central server • For each copy-paste event, we record • Type (copy | paste) • Number of windows open, host window, and application name • Timestamp • Nearest typing event in terms of time • Content copied • “joe12@gmail.com” is stored as “xxx00@xxxxx.xxx” • Participants • 22 students (9 female, 13 male, 21-27, M 23.14) • Duration • 2 weeks

16. Logger Study - Result • Data 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 CP • Type of copy-paste • 57% (2672) cross-document CP • 43% (2015) within-document CP • Interleaving with typing • 42% of copy events were performed after typing, and 54% of paste events were followed by typing • Text size • Phrases (39%), Sentences (33%), Paragraphs (28%)

17. Window management is common and tedious Copy-paste often Interleaves typing Copy-paste different sizes of text is common + Text Unit Adjustments

18. AutoComPaste Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoDT3UeAoRE

19. How does AutoComPaste Compare with Traditional Copy-Paste Techniques? Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V Menu selection Drag & drop X-Win Chapuisand Roussel. Copy-and-paste between overlapping windows. CHI ’07

20. What are the conditions or factors?

21. 1) Knowledge of content • Keyword(s) known • Keyword(s) unknown • 2) Knowledge of location • Location known • Location unknown

22. 1) Knowledge of content • Keyword(s) known • Keyword(s) unknown • 2) Knowledge of location • Location known • Location unknown • 3) Visibility • Visible • Invisible

23. 1) Knowledge of content • Keyword(s) known • Keyword(s) unknown • 2) Knowledge of location • Location known • Location unknown • 3) Visibility • Visible • Invisible • 4) Typing activity • Standalone • Interleaving

24. 1) Knowledge of content • Keyword(s) known • Keyword(s) unknown • 2) Knowledge of location • Location known • Location unknown • 3) Visibility • Visible • Invisible • 4) Typing activity • Standalone • Interleaving

25. 1) Knowledge of content • Keyword(s) known • Keyword(s) unknown • 2) Knowledge of location • Location known • Location unknown • 3) Visibility • Visible • Invisible • 4) Typing activity • Standalone • Interleaving

34. 1) Knowledge of content • Keyword(s) known • Keyword(s) unknown • 2) Knowledge of location • Location known • Location unknown • 3) Visibility • Visible • Invisible • 4) Typing activity • Standalone • Interleaving

35. S1:Content (known), Location (known), Visible (true), Typing before copy (false)

36. S1:Content (known), Location (known), Visible (true), Typing before copy (false)

37. S1:Content (known), Location (known), Visible (true), Typing before copy (false)

38. S1:Content (known), Location (known), Visible (true), Typing before copy (false)

39. S1:Content (known), Location (known), Visible (true), Typing before copy (false)

44. Controlled Experiment 12 university participants X 2 techniques (XWin, ACP) X 2content 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

45. Results

46. ACP has 29% performance benefit C(+) L(+) XWin has 29% performance benefit C(-) L(+) ACP has 140% performance benefit C(+) L(-) XWin has 31% performance benefit C(-) L(-)

47. Qualitative Study • 6 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 webpages • asked to include at least one outdoor activity, one indoor activity, and one restaurant for each day of the trip • Can use either AutoComPaste and other copy-paste techniques

48. Results AutoComPaste is heavily used and highly rated by 5/6 participants However, one rated AutoComPaste negatively • He is a non-native English speaker participant

49. Conclusion • AutoComPaste nicely complements the traditional copy-paste techniques • AutoComPaste has advantage when the keyword/prefix is known • When keywords/prefix is known and location is unknown, AutoComPaste will have the most advantage • XWin has advantage when the keyword/prefix is unknown • Performance of AutoComPaste is subject to typing and spelling skills

50. Acknowledgment • Shi Xiaoming for programming the logger • GuiaGali and SymonOliver for video editing • Study participants • Members in the NUS-HCI lab • This research is supported by National University of Singapore Academic Research Fund R-252-000-464-112