CoSearch: A System for Co-located Collaborative Web Search
- 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
- 16. Individual color-coded cursors Also helps to Refer to on-screen content Enable hands-on-learning Distributing Control
- 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