Patent Grant
9529785
In general, this disclosure relates to electronic documents, in particular, to systems and methods for detecting relationships between edits and acting on a subset of edits.
During development of an electronic document, it is often desirable to have multiple users propose changes and comment on a draft of the electronic document. For example, an author may create an initial draft of an electronic document and send a copy of the electronic document to one or more reviewers to make comments or changes in the document. Each reviewer may independently propose changes or make comments in the electronic document and return a revised version of the electronic document back to the author. Since each reviewer may create a unique version of the electronic document, there may be conflicts across different versions. The original author will need to resolve the conflicting edits and re-send updated copies of the electronic document to the reviewers. These steps will need to be repeated until the author and all of the reviewers are satisfied with a version of the electronic document. One way to increase the efficiency of this process is to allow multiple users to simultaneously make changes in a document.
Accordingly, methods are disclosed herein for detecting compounding and conflicting suggested edits in a collaborative document editing environment. One aspect relates to a method for identifying compounding relationships between edits in an electronic document. A processor receives a first edit and a second edit to the electronic document and identifies a shared position of the first edit and the second edit in the electronic document. The processor determines that the first edit and the second edit have a compounding relationship based at least in part on the identification.
Another aspect relates to a method for identifying conflicting relationships between edits in an electronic document. A processor receives a first edit and a second edit to the electronic document and identifies a shared position of the first edit and the second edit in the electronic document. The processor determines that the first edit and the second edit have a conflicting relationship based at least in part on the identification and displays the first edit, the second edit, and an indicator of the conflict to a user of the electronic document.
Another aspect relates to a system for identifying compounding relationships between suggested edits in an electronic document. A receiver processor receives first and second suggested edits to the electronic document. In addition, a compound identifier coupled to the receiver processor identifies a shared position of the suggested edits in the electronic document and determines the first and second suggested edits have a compounding relationship based at least in part on the identification.
Another aspect relates to a system for identifying conflicting relationships between suggested edits in an electronic document. A receiver processor receives first and second suggested edits to the electronic document. In addition, a conflict identifier coupled to the receiver processor identifies a shared position of the suggested edits in the electronic document and determines the first and second suggested edits have a conflicting relationship based at least in part on the identification. A user interface displays the first and second suggested edits and an indicator of the conflict to a user of the electronic document.
The above and other features of the present disclosure, including its nature and its various advantages, will be more apparent upon consideration of the following detailed description, taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings in which:
To provide an overall understanding of the disclosure, certain illustrative embodiments will now be described, including a system for detecting relationships between edits and acting on a subset of edits. In particular, detecting relationships between edits and acting on a subset of edits allows for efficient development of a document. However, it will be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that the systems and methods described herein may be adapted and modified as is appropriate for the application being addressed and that the systems and methods described herein may be employed in other suitable applications, and that such other additions and modifications will not depart from the scope thereof.
The review manager 102 is configured to transmit and receive data over the network 101 in communication with user devices 113. In particular, the review manager 102 receives data indicative of changes that a user at a user device 113 wishes to suggest or create related to the master document 106. Depending on the user type, which sets the access permissions for the user to access the master document 106, the review manager 102 then creates these changes by appending to a list of suggestions 105 corresponding to the master document 106. The list of suggestions 105 may be stored in the form of a data structure, an example of which is described in more detail in relation to
The review manager 102 may include a processor and a memory unit. The memory unit stores computer executable instructions, which are executed by the processor. The computer executable instructions include instructions for receiving data over the network 101, determining a user type for a given user, making changes in the master document 106, and publishing various versions of the document 106 to various users. As depicted in
Users at user devices 113 may simultaneously interact with the master document 106 over user interfaces 110 or 114. In particular,
Each user device 113 may include a device such as a personal computer, a laptop computer, a tablet, a smart phone, a personal digital assistant, or any other suitable type of computer of communication device. Users at the user devices access and receive information from the server 104 over the network 101. The user devices 113 may include typical components, for example, an input device, an output device, and a communication interface (e.g., editor interface 110 or reviewer interfaces 114). A user may authenticate with the server 104 by inputting a user name and password (or providing other identification information) via a user interface, such that the same user device may be used by different users at different times, including users with the same or different user type.
Users interact with the server 104 such that the users, in conjunction with the server 104, execute an online document by collaboratively proposing changes in the document 106. Although illustrated as a single device in
In an example, the document 106 is a text document. One of skill in the art will understand that the features and concepts described herein may be applied in any type of collaborative document application, including, for example, spreadsheet applications, presentation applications, drawing applications, and others.
One type of document user is reviewer 112, who has certain authority and access to the document. Typically a reviewer may view and make suggested edits and comments on the document 106. To do this, the reviewer 112 views a version of the document on the reviewer interface 114 and makes a change to the document. Data indicative of the change is sent over the network 101 to the server 104, where the review manager 102 receives the data and adds the data to the list of suggestions 105 associated with the document 106. The change may be a suggested edit to the document 106, such as an insertion, deletion, replacement, move, format change, or any other suitable change in a document. In another example, the change may be a comment on the document 106 or a portion thereof. Changes of different types (such as insertions, deletions, replacements, moves, format changes, or comments, for example) may be saved differently in the list of suggestions 105. For example, different lists may be used to store changes of different types. As another example, changes of different types may be stored together as entries in one list, with each entry having a label indicative of the change type.
Another user type is an editor 108, who has a greater level of authority for the document 106 than the reviewer 112. The editor 108 can accept or reject any suggested edits made by the reviewer 112, and further can delete any comments made by the reviewer 112. Access and authority may vary and be customized for a document allowing different access and use capabilities for different users. When a reviewer (such as reviewer 112a) makes a suggested edit to the document 106, the editor 108 is prompted to either accept or reject the suggested edit. When a suggested edit is accepted by the editor 108, the review manager 102 converts the suggested edit into an accepted edit and updates the master document 106 with the accepted edit. In addition, the accepted edit may be removed from the list of suggestions 105, or an indicator label may be set for the accepted edit to indicate that the edit has been accepted. If the editor 108 rejects a suggested edit, the review manager 102 removes the suggested edit from the list of suggestions 105, or an indicator label may be set for the edit to indicate that the edit has been rejected or dismissed.
In addition to accepting or rejecting changes made by the reviewer 112, the editor 108 also has access to make direct changes in the document by directly editing or making comments on the document 106. The review manager 102 treats edits made by the editor 108 as accepted edits which are automatically accepted. Alternatively, the editor 108 may wish to make a suggested edit in order to get input from the reviewer 112 or other editors regarding the suggested edit. In this case, the editor 108 may mark an edit as “suggested” or may set the user device 109 to operate in “suggestion mode,” such that the suggested edit appears in the list of suggestions 105 of the document to the reviewer 112. Then, the reviewer 112 may modify the suggested edit or comment on the suggested edit, and the editor 108 may then decide whether to accept or reject the suggested edit(s).
The updates to the master document 106 and the list of suggestions 105 are performed nearly in real-time. This means that when the reviewer 112 and the editor 108 are simultaneously viewing and accessing the document, the reviewer 112 receives feedback regarding a suggested edit almost immediately after the editor 108 sends the feedback. The system 100 is especially advantageous for the case when a suggested edit made by the reviewer 112 may affect additional suggested edits made by the reviewer 112. For example, it is helpful for the reviewer 112 to receive early feedback from an editor 108 regarding a suggested edit because the feedback may influence future suggested edits.
In addition to managing the list of suggestions 105 for the master document 106, the review manager 102 also keeps track of relationships between suggested edits in the list of suggestions 105. In particular, the review manager 102 includes a compound identifier and/or a conflict identifier. The compound identifier may identify a shared position between two or more suggested edits in the document 106 and may determine that the suggested edits that share a position in the document 106 have a “compounding relationship,” which is described in more detail below. In addition, the conflict identifier may identify a shared position between two or more suggested edits in the document 106 and may determine that the suggested edits that share a position in the document 106 have a “conflicting relationship,” which is described in more detail below. Any identified compounding and/or conflicting relationships associated with the master document 106 may be stored even when the master document 106 is closed. In this case, the relationships may be loaded from a stored location when the document 106 is loaded or displayed. Alternatively, the relationships may be discarded when the document 106 is closed, and the review manager 102 may identify compounding and/or conflicting relationships each time the document 106 is loaded or displayed.
As an example, two suggested edits may have a compounding relationship if one of the suggested edits is dependent on the other suggested edit. For example, the reviewer 112a may make a first suggested edit such as an insertion of some text into the document 106. Then, the reviewer 112b may make a second suggested edit such as a change within the suggested insertion made by reviewer 112a. For example, the reviewer 112b may suggest making another insertion, making a deletion, fixing a spelling mistake, or any other change of the suggested insertion made by reviewer 112a. In this case, the second suggested edit has a compounding relationship with the first suggested edit, and when the second suggested edit is made, the review manager 102 detects the compounding relationship and may store an indication of the compounding relationship in the list of suggestions 105. An example view of a display of a document 106 with compounding suggested edits is shown and described in more detail in relation to
In another example, two suggested edits may have a “conflicting” relationship if one of the suggested edits conflicts with the other suggested edit. For example, a first suggested edit may be a deletion of a segment of text, and a second suggested edit may be an insertion of some text within the deleted segment. In this case, the first and second suggested edits have a conflicting relationship, meaning that the editor 108 may not accept both suggested edits. After a conflicting relationship is identified by the conflict identifier, an indication of the conflicting relationship is stored and displayed to a user such as an editor 108. The review manager 102 thus provides visual indicators of the relationships for an editor 108. Thus, if the editor 108 accepts the first suggested edit, the review manager 102 may automatically update the second suggested edit as rejected. In this case, the editor 108 implicitly rejects the second suggested edit by accepting the first suggested edit. Similarly, if the editor 108 accepts the second suggested edit, the review manager 102 may automatically update the first suggested edit as rejected. In this case, the editor 108 implicitly rejects the first suggested edit by explicitly accepting the second suggested edit. Therefore, knowledge of any conflicting relationships between suggested edits may lead to efficient development of the document 106 because the system 100 exploits the relationships between edits. In particular, the review manager 102 automatically accepts or rejects edits that the editor 108 has implicitly accepted or rejected based on decisions that the editor 108 has made regarding other edits. An example of a data structure for storing the list of suggestions 105 is described in more detail in relation to
When the interfaces 110 and 114 include web browsers, different versions of the document (for example, a markup version, a clean version, or various historical versions of the document, such as those including a selected group of the suggested and/or accepted edits) may be saved to different network locations. The editor 108 may select which versions of the master document 106 are saved to which network location, and may further select to display a version of the document in a particular format, such as in browser format, html format, or any other suitable format for displaying an electronic document. In addition, a user such as a reviewer 112 and/or an editor 108 may select to view the master document 106 including any suggested edit satisfying one or more criteria. As an example, a user may wish to view only suggested edits of a certain type, such as insertions, deletions, replacements, format changes, spelling mistakes, or any other suitable type of suggested edit.
The reviewer 112 and the editor 108 may view who else is currently viewing the document. When more than one user views the document at a time, the users may communicate with each other over an instant messaging application.
One editor and three reviewers are shown in
In certain implementations, each user may be assigned a unique color, such that the changes of a version of the document are color-coded by the user who made the changes. In addition, changes made by editors 108 may be marked differently on view of the document from changes made by reviewers. Further, a user may select to view the document 106 including all suggested edits of a certain type, such as all suggested edits made by a particular user or type of user, or all suggested edits corresponding a specific edit type, such as all insertions, deletions, replacements, moves, format changes, spelling changes, or any other suitable edit type. An editor 108 may, at once, accept or reject all suggested edits made by a particular user or all suggested edits corresponding to a specific edit type.
In some embodiments, the data related to a suggested edit may be stored as a mutation of the document. For example, a mutation may include data indicating changes made by the edit such as the user id of the user who created the suggested edit, deletions, additions, location of the edit, and a status of the edit, such as pending, rejected, or accepted.
The tree diagram 119 indicates that suggested edits 1345 and 1278 each depend on, and has a compounding relationship with, suggested edit 1254. That is, acceptance of either suggested edit 1345 or 1278 would require acceptance of suggested edit 1254. In addition, suggested edit 459 depends on, and has a compounding relationship with, suggested edit 1278. Thus, acceptance of suggested edit 459 requires acceptance of both suggested edits 1254 and 1278. Furthermore, suggested edit 892 has a conflicting relationship with suggested edit 1254. That is, acceptance of suggested edit 1254 would require rejection of suggested edit 892, and acceptance of suggested edit 892 would require rejection of suggested edit 1254. In an example, an editor 108 directly accepts suggested edit 892, and the review manager 102 parses the tree 119 to determine suggested edits related to suggested edit 892. In particular, the review manager 102 automatically rejects suggested edit 1254 and further automatically rejects any suggested edits that require the acceptance of suggested edit 1254, such as suggested edits 1345, 1278, and 459. Thus, direct acceptance of suggested edit 892 results in indirect changes of the statuses of other suggested edits in the tree 119. In another example, the editor 108 directly accepts suggested edit 459. In this case, the review manager automatically accepts suggested edits 1254 and 1278 and automatically rejects suggested edit 892. Furthermore, the acceptance of suggested edit 459 has no effect on the status of suggested edit 1345, which remains pending. In another example, the editor 108 directly rejects suggested edit 1254. In this case, the review manager automatically rejects suggested edits 1345, 1278, and 459, and the status of suggested edit 892 remains pending.
The tree diagram 120 indicates that suggested edit 574 has a compounding relationship with suggested edit 1126 and a conflicting relationship with suggested edit 687. In particular, suggested edit 574 depends on suggested edit 1126 such that acceptance of suggested edit 574 requires acceptance of suggested edit 1126. In an example, an editor 108 directly accepts suggested edit 574, and the review manager 102 automatically accepts suggested edit 1126 and automatically rejects suggested edit 687. In another example, an editor 108 directly accepts suggested edit 1126. In this case, both suggested edits 574 and 687 remain pending. The status of suggested edit 574 is unchanged because acceptance of suggested edit 1126 is necessary, but not necessarily sufficient, for acceptance of suggested edit 574. In another example, an editor 108 directly rejects suggested edit 1126, and the review manager automatically rejects suggested edit 574. The status of suggested edit 687 remains pending because rejection of suggested edit 574 is necessary, but not necessarily sufficient, for acceptance of suggested edit 687. In another example, an editor 108 directly accepts suggested edit 687, and the review manager 102 automatically rejects suggested edit 574 and accepts suggested edit 1126. In an example, the suggested edit 1126 includes an inserted paragraph, and the suggested edit 574 includes a deleted sentence within the inserted paragraph. Furthermore, the suggested edit 687 is an inserted word in the deleted sentence. In this case, when an editor 108 accepts the suggested edit 687, the suggested edit 574 may be automatically rejected, and the suggested edit 1126 may be automatically accepted.
The tree diagrams 119 and 120 are examples of data structures for storing relationships between suggested edits in a document 106. The tree diagrams 119 and 120 each show three levels of suggested edits and are simplified for illustrative purposes. In general, the relationships among suggested edits may be more complex and may include any number of levels. Representing the relationships among suggested edits in tree structures such as tree diagrams 119 and 120 allows for the review manager 102 to efficiently determine which suggested edits should be automatically accepted or rejected based on an acceptance or a rejection of a first suggested edit.
Data structures 117-120 and the master document 106 may be stored on the same electronic database 103, or may be stored on different databases. In some embodiments, an original version of the master document 106 is stored on a database. For example, the combination of the original version and data structure 118 would be enough to generate versions of the document using a dynamic approach. In particular, if a user wishes to view only a subset of the suggested edits, a version of the document may be generated including the original version and the subset of suggested edits. The subset may include those suggested edits corresponding to a specific user, a user type, or an edit type. The generated version may not be stored on a database. Instead, when a user accesses the document, a version specific to that user (based on the user's settings) may be generated.
In addition to the data stored in example data structures 117-120, the review manager 102 may also store additional data. For example, data indicative of how all users interact with the document may be stored such as what portions of the document are most viewed or read.
The diagram 500 includes a portion of an original document 106 with a suggested edit 1254. In particular, the suggested edit 1254 includes the addition of a sentence to the document and is distinguished from a remainder of the document by a box surrounding the text. In addition, the diagram 500 includes a sidebar on the right hand side of the reviewer interface 114 for displaying metadata associated with the suggested edit 1254. In particular, the sidebar includes a metadata region 224 associated with the suggested edit 1254. The metadata region 224 includes data indicative of which user made the suggested edit 1254 (i.e., Reviewer A), the edit type corresponding to the suggested edit 1254 (i.e., an addition), the time and date the suggested edit was made (i.e., 10:00 AM today), and an indication of the object to be added (i.e., “During development of a document.”). Metadata shown in the metadata region 224 may be stored in a data structure such as the data structure 118 shown in
The diagram 600 is similar to the diagram 500, except that the diagram 600 further includes another suggested edit 1345. The suggested edit 1345 includes the addition of a word “electronic” to the sentence added by the suggested edit 1254. In addition, the sidebar on the right hand side of the reviewer interface 114 includes another metadata region 228 associated with the suggested edit 1345. The metadata region 228 indicates that the suggested edit 1345 includes the addition of a word “electronic” and was made by Reviewer B. The metadata region 1345 further includes an indication of the date and time that Reviewer B made the suggested edit 1254. The suggested edit 1345 is distinguished from a remainder of the document by a box with dotted lines surrounding the text. As an indication that the metadata region 228 corresponds to the suggested edit 1345, the metadata region 228 is also surrounded by a box with dotted lines. Metadata shown in the metadata region 228 may be stored in a data structure such as the data structure 118 shown in
When Reviewer B makes the suggested edit 1345, the review manager 102 determines that the suggested edit 1345 has a compounding relationship with the suggested edit 1254. In particular, the review manager 102 determines that acceptance of the suggested edit 1345 depends on the acceptance of the suggested edit 1254. To display an indication of the compounding relationship between the suggested edits 1254 and 1345, the metadata region 228 is displayed within the metadata region 224.
When Reviewers A and B make the suggested edits 1254 and 1345, respectively, the review manager 102 may receive data indicative of the suggested edits 1254 and 1345 over the network 101 and may accordingly update the list of suggestions 105. Furthermore, the data structure 118 shown in
The diagrams 500 and 600 are exemplary displays and are shown for illustrative purposes only. In particular, one of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate any combination of metadata associated with suggested edits may be displayed in any number of ways on the reviewer interface 114. For example, the metadata regions 224 and 228 may include only a portion of the text to be added. When a reviewer selects, via user input (such as with a mouse click or with keyboard input), a region surrounding a suggested edit 1254 or 1345 or a metadata region 224 or 228, the selected metadata region and/or the suggested edit may be highlighted with color or distinguished in any other way from a remainder of the document 106. The diagrams 500 and 600 show that the suggested edits 1254 and 1345 are distinguished from a remainder of the document by boxes surrounding the text. However, any method of distinguishing suggested edits such as 1254 and 1345 from a remainder of the document 106 may be used, including using different colors for different reviewers, different colors for different types of edits, underlining added items, striking out removed items, redlining the view of the document, or any other suitable method of distinguishing suggested edits in a document.
The diagram 700 for the editor 108 includes a similar view as in diagram 600 for a reviewer 112, with the exception that the diagram 700 includes several additional options. In particular, the diagram 700 includes an editor display options button 334 (described in more detail in relation to
As an example, the diagram 800 is a view of the display of the editor interface 110 when the editor 108 has accepted the suggested edit 1345 by providing user input to the decision box 332. In this case, because the suggested edit 1345 has a compounding relationship with 1254, meaning that acceptance of suggested edit 1345 requires acceptance of the suggested edit 1254, the review manager 102 therefore automatically accepts the suggested edit 1254 in response to receiving an acceptance of the suggested edit 1345 from the editor 108. In an example, the review manager 102 determines the compounding relationship between the suggested edits 1345 and 1254 by referring to the data structure 118 or the tree diagram 119, or using any other suitable method for identifying a compounding relationship between two or more suggested edits.
When the editor 108 selects to accept the suggested edit 1345, the status of the suggested edit 1345 is updated. To update the status of the suggested edit 1345, the review manager 102 may update an entry indicative of the status of the suggested edit 1345 in a data structure such as the data structure 118. Examples of statuses for suggested edits include pending (i.e., if the editor 108 has not yet selected to accept or reject the suggested edit), accepted (i.e., if the editor 108 accepts the suggested edit), or rejected (i.e., if the editor 108 rejects the suggested edit). In this case, the status of the suggested edit 1345 would be updated from pending to accepted upon receiving the acceptance from the editor 108. Furthermore, an update in the status to the suggested edit 1345 requires updates to the status of the suggested edit 1254. In this case, updates to the status of the suggested edit 1254 may also require updates to the data entry corresponding to the suggested edit 1254 in the diagram 118 as well as updates to the tree diagrams 119 and 120. In addition, an indication of the identification of an editor 108 who accepted or rejected a suggested edit may be saved in a data structure such as the data structure 118. Then, when other editors view the document 106 or a history of the document 106, the identification of the editor 108 who made changes to the document 106 may be determined.
In addition, when the editor 108 accepts the suggested edit 1345, the view of the document is also updated. In particular, the boxes surrounding the suggested edits 1254 and 1345 are removed in the diagram 800 to indicate that the editor 108 has accepted the addition of the sentence suggested by Reviewer A and the word “electronic” suggested by Reviewer B. Furthermore, the decision box 330 may include an indication that the suggested edit 1254 (corresponding to metadata region 224) has also been automatically accepted (not shown). The update to the view of the document 106 may be displayed in real time to any user viewing the document. In certain implementations, upon receiving an acceptance of a suggested edit from the editor 108, the metadata regions corresponding to the affected suggested edit(s) are removed from the sidebar. In other implementations, the user interacting with the document 106 may be shown an indication that the suggested edit(s) have been accepted in the sidebar. The indication may correspond to a compressed version of the metadata region, an icon, or any other suitable indication.
In another example, the diagram 900 is a view of the display of the editor interface 110 after the editor 108 has accepted the suggested edit 1254 by providing user input to the decision box 330 (not shown). Upon receiving acceptance of the suggested edit 1254, the review manager 102 removes the decision box 330 from the sidebar. As a result of the acceptance of the suggested edit 1254, the sentence that Reviewer A added is updated in the master document 106, and the box surrounding the sentence (indicating that the suggested edit 1254 was previously pending) has been removed. Removal of the box surrounding the sentence is indicative that the addition of the sentence has been accepted by an editor 108.
Furthermore, acceptance of the suggested edit 1254 has no effect on the status of the suggested edit 1345. In particular, the compounding relationship between suggested edits 1254 and 1345 was such that acceptance of the suggested edit 1345 required acceptance of the suggested edit 1254. However, acceptance of the suggested edit 1254 has no effect on the status of the suggested edit 1345. Therefore, compounding relationships such as the one between suggested edits 1254 and 1345 are directional. In this case, the status of the suggested edit 1345 is unchanged such that the status remains pending. Therefore, the editor interface 110 still displays the decision box 332, which prompts the editor 108 to accept or reject the suggested edit 1345.
In another example, the diagram 1000 is a view of the display of the editor interface 110 when the editor 108 rejects the suggested edit 1254 by providing user input to the decision box 330. In this case, because the suggested edit 1345 has a compounding relationship with the suggested edit 1254, meaning that rejection of the suggested edit 1254 additionally requires rejection of the suggested edit 1345. The review manager 102 therefore automatically rejects the suggested edit 1345 in response to receiving a rejection of the suggested edit 1254 from the editor 108. In an example, the review manager 102 determines the compounding relationship between the suggested edits 1345 and 1254 by referring to the data structure 118 or the tree diagram 119, or using any other suitable method for identifying a compounding relationship between two or more suggested edits.
When the editor 108 selects to reject the suggested edit 1254, the status of the suggested edit 1345 is updating by updating an entry indicative of the status of the suggested edit 1254 in a data structure such as the data structure 118. In this case, the status of the suggested edit 1254 would be updated from pending to rejected upon receiving the rejection from the editor 108. Furthermore, an update in the status to the suggested edit 1254 requires updates to the status of the suggested edit 1345. In this case, updates to the status of the suggested edit 1254 may also require updates the data entry corresponding to the suggested edit 1345 in the diagram 118 as well as updates to the tree diagrams 119 and 120.
In addition, when the editor 108 rejects the suggested edit 1254, the view of the document is also updated. In particular, the additions corresponding suggested edits 1254 (sentence) and 1345 (the word “electronic”) are removed in the diagram 1000 to indicate that these additions were rejected by an editor 108. In particular, the editor 108 has directly rejected the addition of the sentence suggested by Reviewer A and indirectly rejected the addition of the word “electronic” suggested by Reviewer B. The update to the view of the document 106 may be displayed in real time to any user viewing the document.
In certain implementations, when the editor 108 makes a direct change to the document 106 by accepting or rejecting a suggested edit, the review manager 102 prompts the editor 108 for confirmation to make the indirect changes that are required by the direct change. In certain implementations, indirect changes of the document 106 are displayed differently than direct changes (through the use of different colors or different format styles, for example). In certain implementations, upon receiving a rejection of a suggested edit from the editor 108, the metadata regions corresponding to the affected suggested edit(s) are removed from the sidebar. In other implementations, the user interacting with the document 106 may be shown an indication that the suggested edit(s) have been rejected in the sidebar. The indication may correspond to a compressed version of the metadata region, an icon, or any other suitable indication.
In certain implementations, the review manager 102 is configured to allow an editor 108 to undo a previous acceptance or rejection of a suggested edit. For example, the editor 108 may reject the suggested edit 1254. In this case, the review manager 102 may automatically reject the suggested edit 1345 because rejection of the suggested edit 1254 requires rejection of the suggested edit 1345. However, even after the suggested edit 1345 is indirectly rejected by the editor 108, an indication of the suggested edit 1345 may still be displayed to the editor 108 over the editor interface 110. For example, the indication may be an icon in the sidebar of the editor interface 110, and the editor 108 may select to view the rejected suggested edit 1345 by hovering over the icon or providing user input such as a mouse click, for example. While viewing the rejected suggested edit 1345, the editor 108 may select to directly accept the suggested edit 1345, effectively undoing the rejections of the suggested edits 1254 and 1345. Alternatively, the editor 108 may confirm rejection of the suggested edit 1345, and the corresponding icon may be removed from the sidebar. Similarly, the editor 108 may undo previous acceptances of suggested edits. The review manager 102 thus allows the editor 108 to review indirect changes that were automatically made in response to direct changes received from the editor 108. Furthermore, the review manager 102 allows the editor 108 to undo previous acceptances or rejections of suggested edits. This feature is useful when it is desirable to allow the editor 108 to review previous decisions made by another editor or to review previous decisions by the same editor 108, in case the editor 108 changes his/her mind. In certain implementations, multiple editors 108 collaborate to make changes in a document 106. In this case, this feature would enable an editor 108 to undo previous acceptances or rejections made by another editor.
The diagram 1100 includes a portion of an original document 106 with a suggested edit 574. In particular, the suggested edit 574 includes the deletion of a paragraph in the document 106 and is distinguished from a remainder of the document 106 by lines through the text of the paragraph. In addition, the diagram 1100 includes a sidebar for displaying metadata associated with the suggested edit 574. In particular, the sidebar includes a metadata region 440 associated with the suggested edit 574. The metadata region 440 is similar to the metadata region 224 in the diagram 500. In particular, the metadata region 440 includes data indicative of which user made the suggested edit 574 (i.e., Reviewer C), the edit type corresponding to the suggested edit 574 (i.e., a deletion), the time and date the suggested edit was made (i.e., 9:42 AM today), and an indication of the object to be added (i.e., “Since each review may create a uni . . . ”). Metadata shown in the metadata region 440 may be stored in a data structure such as the data structure 118 shown in
The diagram 1300 is the same as the diagram 1200, except that the diagram 1300 further includes another suggested edit 687. The suggested edit 687 includes the addition of a word “different” to a section of the document 106. In addition, the sidebar on the right hand side of the reviewer interface 114 includes another metadata region 442 associated with the suggested edit 687. The metadata region 442 indicates that the suggested edit 687 includes the addition of the word “different” and was made by Reviewer B. The metadata region 442 further includes an indication of the date and time that Reviewer B made the suggested edit 687. The suggested edit 687 is distinguished from a remainder of the document by a box with dotted lines surrounding the text. As an indication that the metadata region 442 corresponds to the suggested edit 687, the metadata region 442 is also surrounded by a box with dotted lines. Metadata shown in the metadata regions 440 and 442 may be stored in a data structure such as the data structure 118 shown in
When Reviewer B makes the suggested edit 687, the review manager 102 determines that the suggested edit 687 has a conflicting relationship with the suggested edit 574. In particular, the review manager 102 determined that acceptance of the suggested edit 687 would require rejection of the suggested edit 574. In addition, acceptance of the suggested edit 574 would require rejection of the suggested edit 687. To display an indication of the conflicting relationship between the suggested edits 687 and 574, the metadata region 442 is displayed within the metadata region 440, and an alert indicative of the conflicting relationship is displayed above the metadata regions 440 and 442.
Furthermore, when the user interacting with the document 106 selects to show one of the suggested edits 687 or 574, the other suggested edit is automatically hidden. In the example display of the diagram 1300, a reviewer has selected to show the suggested edit 687. Therefore, the box surrounding the word “different” is displayed, and the lines through the paragraph suggested to be deleted by the suggested edit 574 are not displayed. As shown in the diagram 1300, even though the suggested edit 574 is not shown in the display of the document, the metadata region 440 corresponding to the suggested edit 574 is still shown in the sidebar of the reviewer interface 114. In certain implementations, a compressed version of the metadata region 440 may be displayed when the corresponding suggested edit is not shown, as described above.
When Reviewers B and C make the suggested edits 687 and 574, respectively, the review manager 102 may receive data indicative of the suggested edits 687 and 574 over the network 101 and may accordingly update the list of suggestions 105. Furthermore, the data structure 118 shown in
In certain implementations, when the editor 108 makes a direct change in the document 106 by accepting or rejecting a suggested edit, the review manager 102 prompts the editor 108 for confirmation to make the indirect changes that are required by the direct change. In certain implementations, indirect changes of the document 106 are displayed differently than direct changes (through the use of different colors or different format styles, for example). In certain implementations, upon receiving a rejection of a suggested edit from the editor 108, the metadata regions corresponding to the affected suggested edit(s) are removed from the sidebar. In other implementations, the user interacting with the document 106 may be shown an indication that the suggested edit(s) have been rejected in the sidebar. The indication may correspond to a compressed version of the metadata region, an icon, or any other suitable indication.
The diagram 1400 for the editor 108 includes a similar view as in diagram 1300 for a reviewer 112, with the exception that the diagram 1400 includes several additional options. In particular, the diagram 1400 includes an editor display options button 334 (described in more detail in relation to
As an example, the diagram 1500 is a view of the display of the editor interface 110 when the editor 108 has accepted the suggested edit 687 by providing user input to the decision box 546. In this case, because the suggested edit 687 has a conflicting relationship with the suggested edit 574, the review manager 102 therefore automatically rejects the suggested edit 574 in response to receiving an acceptance of the suggested edit 687 from the editor 108. In an example, the review manager 102 determines the conflicting relationship between the suggested edits 574 and 687 by referring to the data structure 118 or the tree diagram 120, or using any other suitable method for identifying a compounding relationship between two or more suggested edits.
When the editor 108 selects to accept the suggested edit 687, the status of the suggested edit 687 is updated by updating an entry in the data structure 118, for example. Furthermore, the update in the status (i.e., from pending to accepted) to the suggested edit 687 requires updates to the status of the suggested edit 574 (i.e., from pending to rejected). In this case, updates to the status of the suggested edit 574 may also involve updating the data entry corresponding to the suggested edit 574 in the data structure 118 as well as updates to the tree diagrams 119 and 120.
In addition, when the editor 108 accepts the suggested edit 687, the view of the document is also updated. In particular, a markup version of the document no longer includes indications that the suggested edits 687 and 574 are pending (i.e., redline changes indicating the suggested edits 687 and 574 are removed). Furthermore, the decision box 544 includes an indication that the suggested edit 574 (corresponding to metadata region 440) has been automatically rejected.
In another example, the diagram 1600 is a view of the display of the editor interface 110 after the editor 108 has accepted the suggested edit 574 by providing user input to the decision box 544. Upon receiving acceptance of the suggested edit 574, the review manager 102 may remove the decision box 544 from the sidebar. As a result of the acceptance of the suggested edit 574 (which suggested deletion of a paragraph in the document), the deleted paragraph is removed in the master document 106. In addition, the suggested edit 687 is automatically or indirectly rejected because of the conflicting relationship between the suggested edits 574 and 687.
The examples shown in the diagrams 1500 and 1600 indicate that two suggested edits in a conflicting relationship with each other are mutually conflicting, meaning that acceptance of either one requires rejection (or equivalently, precludes acceptance) of the other. However, rejection of a suggested edit does not have an effect on the other. That is, if the suggested edit 574 were rejected, the editor 108 may still be prompted to accept or reject the suggested edit 687, and vice versa.
As described in relation to
In addition, when the editor 108 provides user input to a decision box such as the decision boxes 544 and 546, the view of the document is updated in real time. In particular, the paragraph in the suggested edit 574 is removed from the display of the document because the editor 108 accepted the deletion of the paragraph. In particular, the editor 108 has directly accepted the deletion of the paragraph suggested by Reviewer C and indirectly rejected the addition of the word “different” suggested by Reviewer B.
In certain implementations, when the editor 108 makes a direct change in the document 106 by accepting or rejecting a suggested edit, the review manager 102 prompts the editor 108 for confirmation to make the indirect changes that are required by the direct change. In certain implementations, indirect changes of the document 106 are displayed differently than direct changes (through the use of different colors or different format styles, for example). In certain implementations, upon receiving a rejection of a suggested edit from the editor 108, the metadata regions corresponding to the affected suggested edit(s) are removed from the sidebar. In other implementations, the user interacting with the document 106 may be shown an indication that the suggested edit(s) have been rejected in the sidebar. The indication may correspond to a compressed version of the metadata region, an icon, or any other suitable indication.
In particular, the display box 654 allows the editor 108 to selectively view a subset of all the suggested edits related to the document 106. For example, the editor 108 may wish to view only the suggested edits corresponding to a particular reviewer, or corresponding to a particular type of suggested edit. In this case, the editor 108 would select and deselect the appropriate set of options under the display options in the display box 654. When the editor 108 selects and deselects the display options, the view of the display of the document may be updated in real time. As shown, the editor 108 has selected to view the option corresponding to everyone's activity. Upon selecting this option, each box next to a reviewer's identifier (i.e., Reviewer A, Reviewer B, and Reviewer C) may be automatically selected, and all the suggested edits may be shown in the display. The numbers following the reviewer identifiers correspond to a number of pending suggestions remaining from the reviewer. For example, Reviewer A has five pending suggested edits, Reviewer B has two pending suggested edits, and Reviewer C has three pending suggested edits. The reviewer manager 102 may appropriately update these numbers as the editor 108 accepts or rejects the suggested edits in the document 106.
The display box 654 also allows the editor 108 to selectively view a subset of the suggested edits corresponding to an edit type. The editor 108 may select and deselect the appropriate set of options to display the edits corresponding to one or more desired edit types. As shown, the editor 108 has selected to view all edits, corresponding to comments, additions, deletions, spelling mistakes, and formatting changes. In this case, all the edits, regardless of edit type are shown in the display. The review manager may use the data structure shown in
In an example, the editor 108 may wish to view only those suggested edits corresponding to Reviewer B. To only display the suggested made by Reviewer B, the editor 108 may deselect all reviewers under the display options in the display box 654 except for Reviewer B. However, one of the suggested edits made by Reviewer B (i.e., suggested edit 1345) depends on one of the suggested edits made by Reviewer A (i.e., suggested edit 1254). In this case, the review manager 102 may prompt the editor 108 to determine whether or not to display any suggested edit from which an edit by Reviewer B depends. Depending on the input from the editor 108, the review manager 102 may display both suggested edits 1254 and 1345, or neither suggested edit may be displayed. In an example, the review manager 102 may display all suggested edits made by Reviewer B in addition to any suggested edits on which Reviewer B's suggested edits depend.
In addition, the display box 654 includes two options corresponding to reject options 650 and accept options 652. The options 650 and 652 allow the editor 108 to accept or reject a current edit, which may correspond to a suggested edit in the document 106 and may be highlighted in the document with color, a pointer, or any other suitable way of pointing out an edit in a document. In addition, the options 650 and 652 also allow the editor 108 to accept or reject all visible edits (i.e., corresponding to those edits selected to be displayed under the display options). In particular, it may be desirable for the editor 108 to accept or reject all suggested edits corresponding to a particular reviewer (i.e., Reviewer A). In this case, the editor 108 may select to display only those edits corresponding to Reviewer A, and may select the option 650 to reject all the displayed suggested edits. Alternatively, the editor 108 may select the option 652 to accept all the suggested edits from Reviewer A. As an example, this may be desirable if the editor 108 has enough trust in Reviewer A to accept all of the suggestions made by Reviewer A without reviewing them individually.
It may be desirable for the editor 108 to accept or reject all suggested edits corresponding to a particular edit type. In particular, parsing through each suggested edit may be time consuming, especially when the suggested edits include fixes to spelling mistakes, format changes, or any other minor suggested edits. Thus, the editor 108 may select to display only those edits corresponding to one or more edit types (i.e., spelling mistakes and formatting changes, or the “non-substantive” suggested edits), and select the option 652 to accept all visible edits. Then, the editor 108 may parse through the remainder of the edits (i.e., the “substantive” suggested edits) for individual consideration. These options, which allow the editor 108 to efficiently accept or reject edits corresponding to one or more reviewers or one or more edit types, allow for changes to be made to the document 106 efficiently.
The display box 654 is shown for illustrative purposes only, and one of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that any subset of the components shown may be combined with any other sort of data related to the document 106 for display.
At step 702, the review manager 102 receives a first suggested edit from a first reviewer, and at step 704, the review manager 102 receives a second suggested edit from a second reviewer. The first and second reviewers may be the same or different reviewers. At decision block 706, the review manager 102 determines whether the first and second suggested edits conflict with each other. In particular, in order to determine whether the suggested edits have a conflicting relationship, the review manager 102 may use any type of information related to the document 106. As an example, the review manager 102 may determine that the suggested edits conflict with each other if both suggested edits modify the same portion of the document, and if acceptance of one suggested edit would preclude acceptance of the other suggested edit. For example, when the document 106 is a text document, the first suggested edit may correspond to a deletion of a portion of the text, while the second suggested edit may correspond to an insertion of some text within the portion that the first suggested edit suggested to delete. In this case, the first and second suggested edits conflict because they modify the same portion of the document 106. In another example, the review manager 102 determines that two suggested edits have a conflicting relationship when acceptance of one suggested edit would preclude acceptance of the other suggested edit. So, when the two suggested edits suggest to modify the same portion of the document 106 in different ways, this may be an indication to the review manager 102 that the two suggested edits conflict with each other.
If at decision block 706, the review manager 102 determines that the first and second suggested edits conflict, the review manager 102 labels the first and second suggested edits as conflicting. In particular, labeling the first and second suggested edits as conflicting may include updating a data structure such as the data structure 118 shown in
At decision block 710, the review manager 102 determines whether to accept the first suggested edit. As an example, the review manager 102 may make this determination based on a user input such as an input from an editor 108 indicating to accept the first suggested edit. As another example, the review manager 102 may make this determination based on previously received input from the editor 108. In particular, the editor 108 may have accepted a third suggested edit, which may have a compounding relationship with the first suggested edit such that the acceptance of the third suggested edit requires acceptance of the first suggested edit. In this case, upon receiving an acceptance from the editor 108 of the third suggested edit, the review manager 102 may indirectly determine that the first suggested edit is accepted. If the review manager 102 determines that the first suggested edit is accepted at decision block 710, then the review manager 102 proceeds to step 712 to accept the first suggested edit and to reject the second suggested edit. In this case, because the first and second suggested edits have a conflicting relationship, acceptance of one suggested edit would indirectly result in the rejection of the other suggested edit. In certain implementations, the indirect rejection of the other suggested edit may occur automatically. In other implementations, the editor 108 may be prompted to confirm that indirect rejection of the other suggested edit is desired.
Alternatively, the review manager 102 may determine to reject the first suggested edit at decision block 710. In this case, the determination may be made based on a user input from the editor 108 to reject the first suggested edit. In another example, the review manager 102 may have received an acceptance of a fourth suggested edit, which conflicts with the first suggested edits. In this case, the review manager 102 indirectly determines that the first suggested edit is rejected without receiving any explicit instruction from the editor 108 to reject the first suggested edit. The review manager 102 proceeds to step 714 to reject the first suggested edit and to decision block 716 to determine whether to accept the second suggested edit. In this case, if the second suggested edit is to be accepted (similarly decided as described in relation to the decision block 710) then the second suggested edit is accepted at step 718.
If the review manager 102 determines that the first and second suggested edits do not conflict at decision block 706, the review manager 102 proceeds to decision block 720 to determine whether the first and second suggested edits have a compounding relationship. In particular, in order to determine whether the suggested edits have a compounding relationship, the review manager 102 may use any type of information related to the document 106. As an example, the review manager 102 may determine that the suggested edits compound with each other if both suggested edits modify the same portion of the document, and if acceptance of one suggested edit would require acceptance of the other suggested edit. For example, when the document 106 is a text document, the first suggested edit may correspond to an insertion of a portion of text into the document 106, while the second suggested edit may correspond to an edit of the inserted text. In this case, the second suggested edit compounds with the first suggested edit because acceptance of the second suggested edit would require acceptance of the first suggested edit.
In certain implementations, if the first and second suggested edits do not have a compounding relationship, the review manager 102 proceeds to step 722 and labels the second suggested edit as a “stand alone” edit. For example, some indication may be made in data structure 118 to indicate that the first and second suggested edits have neither a conflicting nor a compounding relationship with one another.
If the review manager 102 determines that the second suggested edit compounds with the first suggested edit (i.e., acceptance of the second suggested edit requires acceptance of the first suggested edit), then the review manager proceeds to step 724 to label the second suggested edit as compounding with the first suggested edit. In this case, the review manager 102 may update the data structure 118 with a data entry indicative of the compounding relationship. As an example, the data entry corresponding to the second suggested edit may be updated with the identifier of the first suggested edit to indicate the compounding relationship. In another example, the review manager 102 may update a tree diagram such as the tree diagrams 119 and 120. The review manager 102 may parse through any stored tree diagrams to determine whether any tree has an entry corresponding to the first suggested edit. Any tree diagram including the first suggested edit may be updated by appending the second suggested edit to the first suggested edit and indicating the relationship between the first and second suggested edits.
After the review manager 102 labels the compounding relationship, the review manager 102 determines whether to accept the second suggested edit at decision block 726. In particular, if the review manager 102 determines that the second suggested edit should be accepted (whether this is done by direct user input from the editor 108 or whether acceptance of the second suggested edit has been done automatically by the review manager 102 based on previously received user input from the editor 108 as described above), the review manager 102 proceeds to step 728 to accept both the first and second suggested edits. Because acceptance of the second suggested edit requires on acceptance of the first suggested edit, both suggested edits are accepted at step 728.
Alternatively, if the review manager 102 determines that the second suggested edit is to be rejected at decision block 726, the review manager 102 rejects the second suggested edit at step 730. Because acceptance of the second suggested edit depended on acceptance of the first suggested edit, but not vice versa, the status of the first suggested edit is unchanged and remains pending. In this case, the review manager 102 proceeds to decision block 732 to determine whether to accept the first suggested edit. The acceptance or rejection of the first suggested edit may be determined by receiving explicit user input from the editor 108 or by automatic determination by the review manager 102 as described above. In particular, if the review manager 102 determines that the first suggested edit should be accepted, the review manager 102 proceeds to step 734 to accept the first suggested edit. Otherwise, the review manager 102 rejects the first suggested edit at step 736.
The order of the steps and decision blocks as shown in
In addition, as shown, the method 1800 indicates that when it is determined that the two suggested edits have a conflicting relationship, acceptance or rejection of the first suggested edit is considered at decision block 710 before consideration of the second suggested edit at decision block 716. In this case, the order of consideration of the first and second suggested edits may similarly be flipped without departing from the scope of the systems and methods disclosed herein. Similarly, when the first and second suggested edits have a compounding relationship, the method 1800 includes considering whether to accept or reject the second suggested edit at decision block 726 before considering the first suggested edit at decision block 732. In this case, consideration of either the first or the second suggested edits may be done in either order. In particular, the order may be determined by an order of a received user input by the editor 108.
At decision block 802, the review manager 102 determines to accept a first suggested edit. As described in relation to decision blocks 710 and 726 of the method 1800, the review manager 102 may make this determination based on a user input such as an input from an editor 108 indicating to accept the first suggested edit. In another example, the review manager 102 may make this determination based on previously received input from the editor 108 (i.e., by receiving an acceptance of another suggested edit, whose acceptance requires acceptance of the first suggested edit).
At step 804, the review manager 102 accepts the first suggested edit. In certain implementations, accepting the first suggested edit includes updating a view of the document 106 to reflect the acceptance. For example, when the first suggested edit was pending, the view of the document 106 may have included a markup of the document indicating the suggested edit (i.e., suggested additions may be underlined, suggested deletions may be crossed out, etc.). Upon acceptance of the first suggested edit, the markup may be removed from the display. Furthermore, a data structure storing data related to the first suggested edit may be updated to reflect the acceptance. In particular, the data structure may have a field entry for a status of the first suggested edit, and the status may be updated from pending to accepted.
At decision block 806, the review manager 102 determines whether the first suggested edit conflicts with any suggested edits. To do this, the review manager 102 may use a data structure such as the data structure 118 to determine, if any, the identifiers of any conflicting suggested edits. In another example, the review manager 102 may use a tree diagram such as tree diagrams 119 or 120 to identify any suggested edits that conflict with the first suggested edit. If any conflicting suggested edits are identified, the review manager 102 rejects the conflicting suggested edits at step 808. In certain implementations, rejecting the conflicting suggested edits includes updating a view of the document 106 to reflect the rejection. For example, upon rejection, the markup of the document indicating the conflicting suggested edits may be removed from the display. Furthermore, a data structure storing data related to the conflicting edits may be updated to reflect the rejection. In particular, the data structure may have a field entry for a status of the identified conflicting suggested edits, and the status of these edits may be updated from pending to rejected.
At decision block 810, the review manager 102 determines whether the first suggested edit depends on any other suggested edit. In particular, the review manager 102 identifies any compounding relationship such that acceptance of the first suggested edit requires acceptance of one or more other suggested edits. To do this, the review manager 102 may use a data structure such as the data structure 118 to determine, if any, the identifiers of any compounding suggested edits.
The review manager 102 may use a tree diagram such as tree diagrams 119 or 120 to identify any suggested edits whose acceptance is required for acceptance of the first suggested edit. In particular, these edits would be those compounding suggested edits positioned at higher levels than the first suggested edit. As an example, referring to the tree diagram 119, if the first suggested edit were the suggested edit 1278, the review manager 102 would identify the suggested edit 1254 as compounding with the first suggested edit. The compounding relationship between the suggested edits 1278 and 459 would not be considered here because the suggested edit 459 is at a lower levels than the suggested edit 1278, and acceptance of the suggested edit 1278 does not require a change in status to the suggested edit 459.
As another example, if the first suggested edit were the suggested edit 459, the review manager 102 would identify the suggested edit 1278 as compounding with the first suggested edit. Thus, acceptance of the suggested edit 459 requires acceptance of the suggested edit 1278. Furthermore, the review manager 102 may additionally determine that acceptance of the suggested edit 459 depends on acceptance of any suggested edit which is required by the suggested edit 1278 (i.e., the suggested edit 1254). Acceptance of the suggested edit 1254 may therefore also be required in order to accept the suggested edit 459. Thus, both suggested edits 1254 and 1278 may be identified at decision block 810. In general, any number of suggested edits at any number of levels of a tree diagram such as tree diagram 119 may be identified at decision block 810.
If any suggested edits are identified at decision block 810, the review manager 102 accepts the compounding suggested edits at step 812. In certain implementations, accepting the compounding suggested edits includes updating a view of the document 106 to reflect the acceptance. For example, upon acceptance, the markup of the document indicating the compounding suggested edits may be removed from the display. Furthermore, a data structure storing data related to the compounding edits may be updated to reflect the acceptance. In particular, the data structure may have a field entry for a status of the identified suggested edits, and the status of these edits may be updated from pending to accepted.
At step 902, the review manager 102 receives first and second edits. The first and second edits may correspond to any type of suggested change of a document, such as a suggested insertion, deletion, replacement, format change, or any other suitable type of suggested edit. The edits may be received from the same reviewer or different reviewers.
At step 904, the review manager 102 identifies a shared position of the first and second edits. The shared position includes a same portion of the document 106 to which both edits suggest making a change. For example, the first and second edits may correspond to the suggested edits 1254 and 1345, respectively, as shown in
At step 906, the review manager 102 determines that the first and second edits have a compounding relationship based on the identification. Because both edits include a suggested change of the document in the shared position, the shared position is indicative of a relationship between the edits. In particular, after identifying the shared position of the first edit (i.e., the suggested edit 1254) and the second edit (i.e., the suggested edit 1345), the review manager 102 determines that the first and second edits have a compounding relationship. The compounding relationship is determined based on the shared position. In addition, identifying the compounding relationship is based on a determination that acceptance of the second suggested edit requires acceptance of the first suggested edit.
The method 2100 includes the steps of receiving first and second edits (step 912), identifying a shared position of the first and second edits (step 914), determining that the first and second edits have a conflicting relationship based on the identification (step 916), and displaying the first and second edits and an indicator of the conflict (step 918).
At step 912, the review manager 102 receives first and second edits. The first and second edits may correspond to any type of suggested change of a document, such as a suggested insertion, deletion, replacement, format change, or any other suitable type of suggested edit. The edits may be received from the same reviewer or different reviewers.
At step 914, the review manager 102 identifies a shared position of the first and second edits. The shared position includes a same portion of the document 106 to which both edits suggest making a change. For example, the first and second edits may correspond to the suggested edits 574 and 687, respectively, as shown in
At step 916, the review manager 102 determines that the first and second edits have a conflicting relationship based on the identification. Because both edits include a suggested change of the document in the shared position, the shared position is indicative of a relationship between the edits. In particular, after identifying the shared position of the first edit (i.e., the suggested edit 574) and the second edit (i.e., the suggested edit 687), the review manager 102 determines that the first and second edits have a conflicting relationship. In addition, identifying the conflicting relationship is based on a determination that acceptance of one of the edits requires rejection of the other edit, and vice versa.
The computing device 2200 comprises at least one communications interface unit, an input/output controller 1010, system memory, and one or more data storage devices. The system memory includes at least one random access memory (RAM 1002) and at least one read-only memory (ROM 1004). All of these elements are in communication with a central processing unit (CPU 1006) to facilitate the operation of the computing device 2200. The computing device 2200 may be configured in many different ways. For example, the computing device 2200 may be a conventional standalone computer or alternatively, the functions of computing device 2200 may be distributed across multiple computer systems and architectures. In
The computing device 2200 may be configured in a distributed architecture, wherein databases and processors are housed in separate units or locations. Some units perform primary processing functions and contain at a minimum a general controller or a processor and a system memory. In distributed architecture implementations, each of these units may be attached via the communications interface unit 1008 to a communications hub or port (not shown) that serves as a primary communication link with other servers, client or user computers and other related devices. The communications hub or port may have minimal processing capability itself, serving primarily as a communications router. A variety of communications protocols may be part of the system, including, but not limited to: Ethernet, SAP, SAS™, ATP, BLUETOOTH™, GSM and TCP/IP.
The CPU 1006 comprises a processor, such as one or more conventional microprocessors and one or more supplementary co-processors such as math co-processors for offloading workload from the CPU 1006. The CPU 1006 is in communication with the communications interface unit 1008 and the input/output controller 1010, through which the CPU 1006 communicates with other devices such as other servers, user terminals, or devices. The communications interface unit 1008 and the input/output controller 1010 may include multiple communication channels for simultaneous communication with, for example, other processors, servers or client terminals.
The CPU 1006 is also in communication with the data storage device. The data storage device may comprise an appropriate combination of magnetic, optical or semiconductor memory, and may include, for example, RAM 1002, ROM 1004, flash drive, an optical disc such as a compact disc or a hard disk or drive. The CPU 1006 and the data storage device each may be, for example, located entirely within a single computer or other computing device; or connected to each other by a communication medium, such as a USB port, serial port cable, a coaxial cable, an Ethernet cable, a telephone line, a radio frequency transceiver or other similar wireless or wired medium or combination of the foregoing. For example, the CPU 1006 may be connected to the data storage device via the communications interface unit 1008. The CPU 1006 may be configured to perform one or more particular processing functions.
The data storage device may store, for example, (i) an operating system 1012 for the computing device 2200; (ii) one or more applications 1014 (e.g., computer program code or a computer program product) adapted to direct the CPU 1006 in accordance with the systems and methods described here, and particularly in accordance with the processes described in detail with regard to the CPU 1006; or (iii) database(s) 1016 adapted to store information that may be utilized to store information required by the program.
The operating system 1012 and applications 1014 may be stored, for example, in a compressed, an uncompiled and an encrypted format, and may include computer program code. The instructions of the program may be read into a main memory of the processor from a computer-readable medium other than the data storage device, such as from the ROM 1004 or from the RAM 1002. While execution of sequences of instructions in the program causes the CPU 1006 to perform the process steps described herein, hard-wired circuitry may be used in place of, or in combination with, software instructions for implementation of the processes of the present disclosure. Thus, the systems and methods described are not limited to any specific combination of hardware and software.
Suitable computer program code may be provided for performing one or more functions in relation to detecting relationships between edits and acting on a subset of edits as described herein. The program also may include program elements such as an operating system 1012, a database management system and “device drivers” that allow the processor to interface with computer peripheral devices (e.g., a video display, a keyboard, a computer mouse, etc.) via the input/output controller 1010.
The term “computer-readable medium” as used herein refers to any non-transitory medium that provides or participates in providing instructions to the processor of the computing device 2200 (or any other processor of a device described herein) for execution. Such a medium may take many forms, including but not limited to, non-volatile media and volatile media. Non-volatile media include, for example, optical, magnetic, or opto-magnetic disks, or integrated circuit memory, such as flash memory. Volatile media include dynamic random access memory (DRAM), which typically constitutes the main memory. Common forms of computer-readable media include, for example, a floppy disk, a flexible disk, hard disk, magnetic tape, any other magnetic medium, a CD-ROM, DVD, any other optical medium, punch cards, paper tape, any other physical medium with patterns of holes, a RAM, a PROM, an EPROM or EEPROM (electronically erasable programmable read-only memory), a FLASH-EEPROM, any other memory chip or cartridge, or any other non-transitory medium from which a computer can read.
Various forms of computer readable media may be involved in carrying one or more sequences of one or more instructions to the CPU 1006 (or any other processor of a device described herein) for execution. For example, the instructions may initially be borne on a magnetic disk of a remote computer (not shown). The remote computer can load the instructions into its dynamic memory and send the instructions over an Ethernet connection, cable line, or even telephone line using a modem. A communications device local to a computing device 2200 (e.g., a server) can receive the data on the respective communications line and place the data on a system bus for the processor. The system bus carries the data to main memory, from which the processor retrieves and executes the instructions. The instructions received by main memory may optionally be stored in memory either before or after execution by the processor. In addition, instructions may be received via a communication port as electrical, electromagnetic or optical signals, which are exemplary forms of wireless communications or data streams that carry various types of information.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4889439 | Cook et al. | Dec 1989 | A |
| 5111397 | Chirokas et al. | May 1992 | A |
| 5142674 | Barker et al. | Aug 1992 | A |
| 5146552 | Cassorla et al. | Sep 1992 | A |
| 5231577 | Koss | Jul 1993 | A |
| 5381523 | Hayashi | Jan 1995 | A |
| 5408470 | Rothrock et al. | Apr 1995 | A |
| 5557722 | DeRose et al. | Sep 1996 | A |
| 5600775 | King et al. | Feb 1997 | A |
| 5675788 | Husick et al. | Oct 1997 | A |
| 5694609 | Murata | Dec 1997 | A |
| 5708826 | Ikeda et al. | Jan 1998 | A |
| 5758358 | Ebbo | May 1998 | A |
| 5761669 | Montague et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
| 5793966 | Amstein et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
| 5799325 | Rivette et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
| 5819304 | Nilsen et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
| 5860073 | Ferrel et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
| 5890177 | Moody et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
| 5895476 | Orr et al. | Apr 1999 | A |
| 6025836 | McBride | Feb 2000 | A |
| 6049664 | Dale et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
| 6061697 | Nakao | May 2000 | A |
| 6065026 | Cornelia et al. | May 2000 | A |
| 6067551 | Brown et al. | May 2000 | A |
| 6073144 | van Hoff | Jun 2000 | A |
| 6169999 | Kanno | Jan 2001 | B1 |
| 6173317 | Chaddha et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
| 6212549 | Page et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
| 6243706 | Moreau et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
| 6327584 | Xian et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
| 6341305 | Wolfe | Jan 2002 | B2 |
| 6349308 | Whang et al. | Feb 2002 | B1 |
| 6349314 | Patel | Feb 2002 | B1 |
| 6377957 | Jeyaraman | Apr 2002 | B1 |
| 6377993 | Brandt et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
| 6418441 | Call | Jul 2002 | B1 |
| 6438564 | Morton et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
| 6501779 | McLaughlin et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
| 6532218 | Shaffer et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
| 6551357 | Madduri | Apr 2003 | B1 |
| 6584479 | Chang et al. | Jun 2003 | B2 |
| 6662210 | Carleton et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
| 6665835 | Gutfreund et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
| 6687878 | Eintracht et al. | Feb 2004 | B1 |
| 6691126 | Syeda-Mahmood | Feb 2004 | B1 |
| 6697569 | Gomez et al. | Feb 2004 | B1 |
| 6717593 | Jennings | Apr 2004 | B1 |
| 6728753 | Parasnis et al. | Apr 2004 | B1 |
| 6731309 | Unbedacht et al. | May 2004 | B1 |
| 6760749 | Dunlap et al. | Jul 2004 | B1 |
| 6766333 | Wu et al. | Jul 2004 | B1 |
| 6771291 | DiStefano, III | Aug 2004 | B1 |
| 6865713 | Bates et al. | Mar 2005 | B1 |
| 6879997 | Ketola et al. | Apr 2005 | B1 |
| 6904561 | Faraday et al. | Jun 2005 | B1 |
| 6912726 | Chen et al. | Jun 2005 | B1 |
| 6983416 | Bae et al. | Jan 2006 | B1 |
| 6988241 | Guttman et al. | Jan 2006 | B1 |
| 7017112 | Collie et al. | Mar 2006 | B2 |
| 7031954 | Kirsch | Apr 2006 | B1 |
| 7035910 | Dutta et al. | Apr 2006 | B1 |
| 7039643 | Sena et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
| 7069502 | Numata et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
| 7106469 | Simpson et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
| 7143177 | Johnson et al. | Nov 2006 | B1 |
| 7149957 | Hull et al. | Dec 2006 | B2 |
| 7149973 | Dias et al. | Dec 2006 | B2 |
| 7162693 | Yamanaka et al. | Jan 2007 | B2 |
| 7197510 | Abe et al. | Mar 2007 | B2 |
| 7206773 | Erol et al. | Apr 2007 | B2 |
| 7213199 | Humenansky et al. | May 2007 | B2 |
| 7233951 | Gainer et al. | Jun 2007 | B1 |
| 7263497 | Wiser et al. | Aug 2007 | B1 |
| 7263688 | Pitzel et al. | Aug 2007 | B2 |
| 7266568 | Erol et al. | Sep 2007 | B1 |
| 7284199 | Parasnis et al. | Oct 2007 | B2 |
| 7287094 | Mogul | Oct 2007 | B2 |
| 7299404 | Agarwal et al. | Nov 2007 | B2 |
| 7305613 | Oezgen | Dec 2007 | B2 |
| 7325187 | Yashiro | Jan 2008 | B2 |
| 7330875 | Parasnis et al. | Feb 2008 | B1 |
| 7350142 | Kraft et al. | Mar 2008 | B2 |
| 7409633 | Lerner et al. | Aug 2008 | B2 |
| 7418656 | Petersen | Aug 2008 | B1 |
| 7424670 | Burke et al. | Sep 2008 | B2 |
| 7432938 | Reuter et al. | Oct 2008 | B1 |
| 7437421 | Bhogal et al. | Oct 2008 | B2 |
| 7478330 | Branson et al. | Jan 2009 | B1 |
| 7487448 | Emerson et al. | Feb 2009 | B2 |
| 7491399 | Vakharia | Feb 2009 | B2 |
| 7506242 | Kotler et al. | Mar 2009 | B2 |
| 7529778 | Dewey et al. | May 2009 | B1 |
| 7559017 | Datar et al. | Jul 2009 | B2 |
| 7634728 | Kraft | Dec 2009 | B2 |
| 7656543 | Atkins | Feb 2010 | B2 |
| 7667862 | Ziegler et al. | Feb 2010 | B2 |
| 7680932 | Defaix et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
| 7698379 | Dutta et al. | Apr 2010 | B2 |
| 7707413 | Lunt et al. | Apr 2010 | B2 |
| 7711835 | Braddy et al. | May 2010 | B2 |
| 7712016 | Jones et al. | May 2010 | B2 |
| 7734914 | Malasky | Jun 2010 | B1 |
| 7735101 | Lanza et al. | Jun 2010 | B2 |
| 7739255 | Hengel et al. | Jun 2010 | B2 |
| 7743331 | Fleischer et al. | Jun 2010 | B1 |
| 7761796 | Faraday et al. | Jul 2010 | B2 |
| 7769810 | Kaufman | Aug 2010 | B1 |
| 7774703 | Junuzovic et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
| 7779113 | Samar | Aug 2010 | B1 |
| 7779347 | Christiansen et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
| 7792788 | Melmon et al. | Sep 2010 | B2 |
| 7818678 | Massand | Oct 2010 | B2 |
| 7818679 | Clarke | Oct 2010 | B2 |
| 7823058 | Pea et al. | Oct 2010 | B2 |
| 7836148 | Popp et al. | Nov 2010 | B2 |
| 7849401 | Elza | Dec 2010 | B2 |
| 7865816 | Tanaka | Jan 2011 | B2 |
| 7890405 | Robb | Feb 2011 | B1 |
| 7890928 | Patrudu | Feb 2011 | B2 |
| 7920894 | Wyler | Apr 2011 | B2 |
| 7937663 | Parker et al. | May 2011 | B2 |
| 7941399 | Bailor et al. | May 2011 | B2 |
| 7941419 | Bhatkar et al. | May 2011 | B2 |
| 7941444 | Cragun et al. | May 2011 | B2 |
| 7962853 | Bedi et al. | Jun 2011 | B2 |
| 7966556 | Bourdev | Jun 2011 | B1 |
| 7975223 | Plumley et al. | Jul 2011 | B2 |
| 7982747 | Dulaney et al. | Jul 2011 | B1 |
| 7986298 | Dulaney et al. | Jul 2011 | B1 |
| 7996380 | Arrouye et al. | Aug 2011 | B2 |
| 7996446 | Bacon et al. | Aug 2011 | B2 |
| 8015496 | Rogers | Sep 2011 | B1 |
| 8019780 | Pinkerton et al. | Sep 2011 | B1 |
| 8073812 | Curtis | Dec 2011 | B2 |
| 8086960 | Gopalakrishna et al. | Dec 2011 | B1 |
| 8108427 | Prahlad et al. | Jan 2012 | B2 |
| 8116569 | Markiewicz et al. | Feb 2012 | B2 |
| 8131723 | Sim-Tang | Mar 2012 | B2 |
| 8151204 | Lusen et al. | Apr 2012 | B2 |
| 8184811 | Patten et al. | May 2012 | B1 |
| 8190987 | Campbell et al. | May 2012 | B2 |
| 8225274 | Cowtan | Jul 2012 | B2 |
| 8250455 | Kadowaki et al. | Aug 2012 | B2 |
| 8266534 | Curtis et al. | Sep 2012 | B2 |
| 8275974 | Voshell | Sep 2012 | B2 |
| 8281023 | Dondeti et al. | Oct 2012 | B2 |
| 8296647 | Bourdev | Oct 2012 | B1 |
| 8327127 | Suryanarayana et al. | Dec 2012 | B2 |
| 8332815 | Balfe et al. | Dec 2012 | B2 |
| 8341708 | Eatough et al. | Dec 2012 | B1 |
| 8352870 | Bailor et al. | Jan 2013 | B2 |
| 8364759 | Moromisato et al. | Jan 2013 | B2 |
| 8386478 | Wang | Feb 2013 | B2 |
| 8417666 | Bailor et al. | Apr 2013 | B2 |
| 8418051 | Bourdev | Apr 2013 | B1 |
| 8453052 | Newman et al. | May 2013 | B1 |
| 8478817 | Duggal | Jul 2013 | B2 |
| 8682989 | Meisels et al. | Mar 2014 | B2 |
| 8700986 | Pereira et al. | Apr 2014 | B1 |
| 8943399 | Pereira et al. | Jan 2015 | B1 |
| 20010037346 | Johnson | Nov 2001 | A1 |
| 20020032701 | Gao et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
| 20020035580 | Tanabe | Mar 2002 | A1 |
| 20020051185 | Yamaguchi et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
| 20020065848 | Walker et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
| 20020133492 | Goldstein et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
| 20020143691 | Ramaley et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
| 20020161797 | Gallo et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
| 20020162118 | Levy et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
| 20020174085 | Nelson et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
| 20020174224 | Scheifler et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
| 20020194302 | Blumberg | Dec 2002 | A1 |
| 20030014406 | Faieta et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
| 20030037076 | Bravery et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
| 20030037303 | Bodlaender et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
| 20030061280 | Bulson et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
| 20030084078 | Torii et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
| 20030105719 | Berger et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
| 20030126592 | Mishra et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
| 20030145279 | Bourbakis et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
| 20030222890 | Salesin et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
| 20040019595 | Bhogal et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
| 20040044965 | Toyama et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
| 20040085354 | Massand | May 2004 | A1 |
| 20040088653 | Bell et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
| 20040103141 | Miller et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
| 20040133444 | Defaix et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
| 20040133639 | Shuang et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
| 20040201633 | Barsness et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
| 20040205358 | Erickson | Oct 2004 | A1 |
| 20040205477 | Lin | Oct 2004 | A1 |
| 20040210833 | Lerner et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
| 20040215672 | Pfitzner | Oct 2004 | A1 |
| 20040215825 | Pfitzner | Oct 2004 | A1 |
| 20040215826 | Pfitzner | Oct 2004 | A1 |
| 20040216090 | Kaler et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
| 20040248612 | Lee et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
| 20040255005 | Spooner | Dec 2004 | A1 |
| 20040255337 | Doyle et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
| 20040260594 | Maddox | Dec 2004 | A1 |
| 20040260714 | Chatterjee et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
| 20050055337 | Bebo et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
| 20050091291 | Kaler et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
| 20050125461 | Filz | Jun 2005 | A1 |
| 20050131887 | Rohrabaugh et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
| 20050144256 | Blumberg | Jun 2005 | A1 |
| 20050160355 | Cragun et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
| 20050160356 | Albornoz et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
| 20050160357 | Rivette et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
| 20050160368 | Liu et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
| 20050182650 | Maddox et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
| 20050185636 | Bucher | Aug 2005 | A1 |
| 20050200896 | Narusawa et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
| 20050223315 | Shimizu et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
| 20050234943 | Clarke | Oct 2005 | A1 |
| 20050243760 | Yoshioka | Nov 2005 | A1 |
| 20050268220 | Tanaka | Dec 2005 | A1 |
| 20050273695 | Schnurr | Dec 2005 | A1 |
| 20050289538 | Black-Ziegelbein et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
| 20060005168 | Singh | Jan 2006 | A1 |
| 20060031751 | Ehud | Feb 2006 | A1 |
| 20060053194 | Schneider et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
| 20060053365 | Hollander et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
| 20060070029 | Laborczfalvi et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
| 20060075332 | Fairweather et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
| 20060080601 | Weber et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
| 20060101071 | Henderson | May 2006 | A1 |
| 20060101328 | Albornoz et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
| 20060123329 | Steen et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
| 20060123348 | Ross et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
| 20060149795 | Gillespie et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
| 20060149831 | Dutta et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
| 20060161841 | Horiuchi et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
| 20060200755 | Melmon et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
| 20060224570 | Quiroga et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
| 20060230344 | Jennings et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
| 20060248121 | Cacenco et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
| 20060282762 | Diamond et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
| 20060282778 | Barsness et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
| 20070003223 | Armstrong et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
| 20070033654 | Wilson | Feb 2007 | A1 |
| 20070047008 | Graham et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
| 20070055926 | Christiansen et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
| 20070061714 | Stuple et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
| 20070067182 | Harp et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
| 20070070066 | Bakhash | Mar 2007 | A1 |
| 20070073899 | Judge et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
| 20070100938 | Bagley et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
| 20070118598 | Bedi et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
| 20070118794 | Hollander et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
| 20070118795 | Noyes et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
| 20070174762 | Plant | Jul 2007 | A1 |
| 20070186157 | Walker et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
| 20070208992 | Koren | Sep 2007 | A1 |
| 20070220068 | Thompson et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
| 20070239695 | Chakra et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
| 20070244906 | Colton et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
| 20070250901 | McIntire et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
| 20070254631 | Spooner | Nov 2007 | A1 |
| 20070260677 | DeMarco et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
| 20070260996 | Jakobson | Nov 2007 | A1 |
| 20070266325 | Helm et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
| 20070271502 | Bedi et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
| 20070288637 | Layton et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
| 20080028302 | Meschkat | Jan 2008 | A1 |
| 20080034275 | Edd et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
| 20080040659 | Doyle | Feb 2008 | A1 |
| 20080046837 | Beauchamp et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
| 20080059417 | Yamada et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
| 20080059539 | Chin et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
| 20080071827 | Hengel et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
| 20080082604 | Mansour et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
| 20080092066 | Edlund et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
| 20080126943 | Parasnis et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
| 20080127212 | Nakamizo et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
| 20080168073 | Siegel et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
| 20080172720 | Botz et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
| 20080189361 | Greschler et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
| 20080222273 | Lakshmanan et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
| 20080229181 | Jung et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
| 20080244374 | Hattori | Oct 2008 | A1 |
| 20080263101 | Hara | Oct 2008 | A1 |
| 20080263442 | Plumley et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
| 20080270406 | Flavin et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
| 20080282143 | Hiyama et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
| 20080301571 | Herzog | Dec 2008 | A1 |
| 20090006842 | Ross et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
| 20090025063 | Thomas | Jan 2009 | A1 |
| 20090049046 | Godzik et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
| 20090055755 | Hicks et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
| 20090070128 | McCauley et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
| 20090083707 | Fujita et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
| 20090089664 | Wagner et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
| 20090094086 | Bruno et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
| 20090094329 | Ambati et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
| 20090099919 | Schultheiss et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
| 20090112953 | Barsness et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
| 20090112990 | Campbell et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
| 20090119572 | Koivunen | May 2009 | A1 |
| 20090129596 | Chavez et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
| 20090132907 | Shao et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
| 20090144616 | Mori | Jun 2009 | A1 |
| 20090157608 | Strathearn | Jun 2009 | A1 |
| 20090157811 | Bailor et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
| 20090164620 | Ziegler et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
| 20090165128 | McNally et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
| 20090192845 | Gudipaty et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090210459 | Nair et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
| 20090210721 | Phillips | Aug 2009 | A1 |
| 20090235181 | Saliba et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
| 20090235352 | Schrijen et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
| 20090249224 | Davis et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
| 20090254580 | Laurion | Oct 2009 | A1 |
| 20090254802 | Campagna et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
| 20090254840 | Churchill et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
| 20090271696 | Bailor et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
| 20090288135 | Chang et al. | Nov 2009 | A1 |
| 20090292548 | Van Court | Nov 2009 | A1 |
| 20090307585 | Tranchant et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
| 20100005398 | Pratley et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
| 20100005410 | Pang | Jan 2010 | A1 |
| 20100005529 | Hemade | Jan 2010 | A1 |
| 20100030578 | Siddique et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
| 20100031135 | Naghshin et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
| 20100050089 | Kim et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
| 20100070852 | Li | Mar 2010 | A1 |
| 20100077301 | Bodnick et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
| 20100083096 | Dupuis-Latour et al. | Apr 2010 | A1 |
| 20100161762 | Saxena | Jun 2010 | A1 |
| 20100174783 | Zarom | Jul 2010 | A1 |
| 20100199191 | Takahashi | Aug 2010 | A1 |
| 20100205230 | Simeonov et al. | Aug 2010 | A1 |
| 20100205520 | Parish et al. | Aug 2010 | A1 |
| 20100218099 | van Melle et al. | Aug 2010 | A1 |
| 20100229086 | Howell et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
| 20100235763 | Massand | Sep 2010 | A1 |
| 20100245256 | Estrada et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
| 20100251092 | Sun | Sep 2010 | A1 |
| 20100251122 | Lee et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
| 20100257457 | De Goes | Oct 2010 | A1 |
| 20100257578 | Shukla et al. | Oct 2010 | A1 |
| 20100262636 | Bacon et al. | Oct 2010 | A1 |
| 20100262659 | Christiansen et al. | Oct 2010 | A1 |
| 20100274910 | Ghanaie-Sichanie et al. | Oct 2010 | A1 |
| 20100278453 | King | Nov 2010 | A1 |
| 20100281076 | Pan et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
| 20100281528 | Hayton et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
| 20100309436 | Allen, Jr. et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
| 20100318894 | Billharz et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
| 20110018963 | Robinson | Jan 2011 | A1 |
| 20110035661 | Balinsky et al. | Feb 2011 | A1 |
| 20110055702 | Jakobson | Mar 2011 | A1 |
| 20110060844 | Allan et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
| 20110066668 | Guarraci | Mar 2011 | A1 |
| 20110066957 | Prats et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
| 20110078246 | Dittmer-Roche | Mar 2011 | A1 |
| 20110085211 | King et al. | Apr 2011 | A1 |
| 20110099093 | Mills | Apr 2011 | A1 |
| 20110137979 | Seo et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
| 20110154185 | Kern et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
| 20110161413 | Cierniak et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
| 20110164043 | Arora et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
| 20110179427 | Krishnamoorthy et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
| 20110184784 | Rudow et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
| 20110202672 | Narayanaswamy et al. | Aug 2011 | A1 |
| 20110209052 | Parker et al. | Aug 2011 | A1 |
| 20110219331 | DeLuca et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
| 20110231912 | Lee et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
| 20110238663 | Zhang | Sep 2011 | A1 |
| 20110252038 | Schmidt et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
| 20110252299 | Lloyd et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
| 20110252335 | Lloyd et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
| 20110252339 | Lemonik et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
| 20110264712 | Ylonen | Oct 2011 | A1 |
| 20110282933 | Schmier | Nov 2011 | A1 |
| 20110295593 | Raghuveer | Dec 2011 | A1 |
| 20110296299 | Parker | Dec 2011 | A1 |
| 20120005159 | Wang et al. | Jan 2012 | A1 |
| 20120023407 | Taylor | Jan 2012 | A1 |
| 20120036423 | Haynes, II et al. | Feb 2012 | A1 |
| 20120047434 | Ginetti | Feb 2012 | A1 |
| 20120072821 | Bowling | Mar 2012 | A1 |
| 20120095878 | Feldman et al. | Apr 2012 | A1 |
| 20120099135 | Ono | Apr 2012 | A1 |
| 20120110445 | Greenspan et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
| 20120110646 | Ajitomi et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
| 20120117406 | Eun | May 2012 | A1 |
| 20120117452 | Lloyd et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
| 20120131483 | Archer et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
| 20120144202 | Counterman | Jun 2012 | A1 |
| 20120144454 | Lee | Jun 2012 | A1 |
| 20120185759 | Balinsky | Jul 2012 | A1 |
| 20120210210 | Itoh et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
| 20120233543 | Vagell et al. | Sep 2012 | A1 |
| 20120240027 | Pereira et al. | Sep 2012 | A1 |
| 20120254042 | Ludemann | Oct 2012 | A1 |
| 20120266229 | Simone et al. | Oct 2012 | A1 |
| 20120278401 | Meisels et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
| 20130036455 | Bodi et al. | Feb 2013 | A1 |
| 20130047072 | Bailor | Feb 2013 | A1 |
| 20130086670 | Vangpat et al. | Apr 2013 | A1 |
| 20130097490 | Kotler et al. | Apr 2013 | A1 |
| 20130103387 | Kinder | Apr 2013 | A1 |
| 20130111336 | Dorman et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
| 20130124606 | Carpenter et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
| 20130155071 | Chan et al. | Jun 2013 | A1 |
| 20130262373 | Rampson | Oct 2013 | A1 |
| 20130326330 | Harris et al. | Dec 2013 | A1 |
| 20140082470 | Trebas et al. | Mar 2014 | A1 |
| 20140164255 | Daly et al. | Jun 2014 | A1 |
| 20140165087 | Smith et al. | Jun 2014 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| 2010-0137323 | Dec 2010 | KR |
| 2012-0010397 | Feb 2012 | KR |
| Entry |
|---|
| International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Feb. 26, 2014 in International Application No. PCT/US2013/071171. |
| Beresford et al., MockDroid: Trading Privacy for Application Functionality on Smartphones, HotMobile '11 Mar. 1-3, 2011, Phoenix, AZ, USA. |
| Bibi et al., A Platform for Delivering Multimedia Presentations on Cultural Heritage, 2010 14th Panhellenic Conference on Informatics, pp. 175-179. |
| Brouwer et al., MathDox editor, Electronic Proceedings MathUI 2009, 2009, XP55028009, retrieved from the Internet May 23, 2012: <http:/Www/>win.tue.nl/hansc/mde.pdf. |
| Cayenne-McCall, Synchronous 3D Document Collaboration, Pace University, Department of Computer Sciene; Nov. 2008. (42 Pages). |
| Chevalier et al., Using Text Animated Transitions to Support Navigation in Document Histories, Proceedings of the 28th International Conference in Human Factors in Computing Systems, Apr. 10, 2010, 683-692. |
| Chitu,Footnotes in GoogleDocs, Oct. 17, 2008, XP055028085, retrieved from the Internet May 24, 2012: http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2008/10/footnotes-in-google-docs.html. |
| Dan R. Herrick, Google This! Using Google Apps for Collaboration and Productivity, Proceedings of the ACM SIGUCCS Fall Conference on User Services Conference, SIGUCCS '09, Jan. 1, 2009, 55. |
| Danilatos, Riche Text Editor—Message dated Jun. 10, 2010 8:57am, Wave Protocol Group Discussion Forum, Jun. 10, 2010, XP055027976, retrieved from the Internet May 23, 2012: https://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol/browse—thread/thread|73608bf7a13f2385. |
| Danilatos. Demonstration Doodad, with a few different variations of rendering and interactive behaviour,Dec. 5, 2010. |
| De Lara et al., Puppeteer: Component-Based Adaptation for Mobile Computing, Proceedings of the 3rd USEIX Symposium on Internet Techonologies and Systems, 14 pages (Mar. 27, 2001). |
| Ellis et al., Concurrency Control in Groupware Systems, ACM 1989, pp. 399-407. |
| Ellis et al., Groupware Some Issues and Experiences, Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery, ACM, 34:1, Jan. 1, 1991,38-58. |
| File; Microsoft Computer Dictionary; May 1, 2002; Microsoft Press; Fifth Edition; p. 266. |
| Frazer, Differential Synchronization, Google, Munich, Germany (2009) 8 pages. |
| Google Docs 4 Everyone http://www.scribd.com/doc/14119795/Google-Docs-4-Everyone Published Feb. 2009 Steven Holzner. |
| Googlepedia: The Ultimate Google Resource, Third Edition pp. 1-24 (pp. 276-287 in original source). |
| Gutwin et al., Improving Network Efficiency in Real-Time Groupware with General Message Compression, University of Saskatchewan, Canada, University of Canterbury, 10 pages, New Zealand (2006). |
| Hashemi, ambigity Resolution by Reording Rules in Text Containing Errors, Association for Computational Linguistics, 62(1):69-70 (2007). |
| Hearnden, Wave Editor & Document Renders. A talk by Dave Hearnden at teh Wave Summit captured in video on YouTube Nov. 12, 2010, retrieved from the Internet 5123/2012: http:J/youtu.beiEuXApEullzc. |
| Hill et al., The MAUI Toolkit: Groupware Widgets for Group Awareness, p. 539-571 in Computer Supported Cooperative Word (2004) 13, (copyright 2005) (MAUI). |
| Hodel et al., Supporting Collaborative Layouting in Word Processing, University of Zurich, Department of Inforamtics; Zurich, Switzerland, 2004 (18 page). |
| http://web.archive.org/web/20120512130530/https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Setting—up—extension—development—environment Aug. 19, 2012. |
| http://web.archive.org/web/20120819143535/https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/extensions/?sort=featured. |
| http://web.archive.org/web/20121020134710/https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/seamonkey/extensions Dec. 13, 2013. |
| http://web.archive.org/web/20121021135356/http://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/find-and-install-add-ons-add-features-to-firefox Dec. 13, 2013. |
| http://www-archive.mozilla.org/projects/webservice retrieved from the Internet Dec. 13, 2013. |
| https://addons.mozilla.org/En-us/seamonkey/addon/gmail-smime/?src=search Dec. 13, 2013. |
| Huang et al., A General Purpose Virtual Collaboration Room, Google 1999, pp. 1-9. |
| Ignat et al., Awareness of Concurrent Changes in Distributed Software Development, Nancy-Universite, France 2008 (9 pages). |
| Ignat et al., CoDoc: Multi-mode Collaboration over Documents, CAiSE, Jan. 1, 2004, pp. 580-594; Retrieved from the Internet: URL:http://www.springerlink.com/content/mffh585tc0ntcype/fulltext.pdf [retrieved on Jun. 17, 2011]. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Feb. 25, 2014 in International Application No. PCT/US2013/043011. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Mar. 5, 2015 in International Application No. PCT/US2014/058275. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion for PCT/US2012/028069 issued Jun. 1, 2012, 1-7. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion for PCT/US2014/048408 issued Mar. 12, 2014. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion issued in PCT|US2012/028279 on Jun. 6, 2012. |
| John Day-Richter, Internet Archive Copy of Online Article; What's Different About the New Google Docs: Making Collaboration Fast, Sep. 9, 2010, 1-6, http:f/web.archive.org/web/20100927180700/http:J/googledocs.blospot. com/2010/09/whats-different-about-new-google-docs—23.html, retrieved Feb. 14, 2012. |
| Junuzovic et al., Read, Write and Navigation Awareness in Realistic Multi-View Collaborations, International Conference on Collaborative Computing: Networking, Applications and Worksharing, 2007, 494-503. |
| Kindberg, Mushroom: A Framework for Collaboration and Interaction across the Internet, Google 1996, pp. 1-11. |
| Krieger, Documents, Presentations, and Workbooks: Using Microsoft® Office to Create Content That Gets Noticed, published May 2011, pp. 1-104. |
| Masoodian, M., et al., RECOLED: A Group-Aware Collaborative Text Editor for Capturing Document History, In Proceedings of IADIS International Conference on WWW/Internet, Lisbon, Portugal, Oct. 19-22, 2005, International Association for Development of the Information Society, vol. 1, 323-330. |
| Muhammad et al., Awareness Elements in Web Based Cooperative Writing Applications, Second Asia-Pacific Conference on Computationa Intelligence and Industrial Applications, 18 pages (2009). |
| Mulvany, What's Going on in Indexing, ACM 1997, pp. 10-15. |
| Munteaunu et al., Collaborative Editing for Improved Usefulness and Usability of Transcript-Enhanced Webcasts, ACM 2008, pp. 373-382. |
| Nasir et al., Collaborative Report Creation System for Industrial Use, Yamagata University, Graduate School of Science and Engineering; Yamagata, Japan 2009 (6 pages). |
| Nauman et al., Apex: Extending Android Permission Model and Enforcement with User-Defined Runtime Constraints, ASIACCS '10 Apr. 13-16, 2010 Beijing, China. |
| Nichols et al., High-Latency, Low-Bandwidth Windowing in the Jupiter Collaboration System, UIST '95. 8th Annual Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on User Interface SoftwareandTedmology,Nov. 14-17, 1995,111-120. |
| Pacull et al., Duplex: A Distributed Collaborative Editing Environment in Large Scale, ACM 1994, pp. 165-173. |
| Peels et al., Document Architecture and Text Formatting, ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, XX, XX, 310/1/1985,347-369. |
| Raggett, Dave, Slidy—a web based alternative to Microsoft PowerPoint, published 2006, pp. 1-13. |
| Raman, Cloud Computing and Equal Access for All, Google Inc. 2008 (4 pages). |
| Shen et al., Flexible Merging for Asynchronouse Collaborative Systems, Griffith University, School of Computing an Information Technology, Brisbane, Australia 2002 (18 pages). |
| Shen et al., Integrating Advanced Collaborative Capabilitites into Web-Based Word Processors, Nauyang Technological University, School of Computer Engineering, Singapore 2007 (8 pages). |
| Simultaneously edit a presentation with other authors, by MicrosoftTM Office: MAC, published Nov. 11, 2010, pp. 1-4. |
| Taylor, Cool Apple Keynote Presentation Tricks and Tips, published Apr. 2011, p. 1-5. |
| The Oauth 2.0 Authorization Protocol; draft letf-oauth-v2-24; Mar. 8, 2012. |
| Using Adobe Buzzword, 2008, pp. 1-35 (undated). |
| Using Adobe Flash Professional CS5 & CS5.5, Jan. 16, 2012, Adobe Systems Incorporated, pp. 125-126, http://help.adobe.com/en—US/flash/cs/using/flash—cs5—help.pdf. |
| Wang et al. Google Wave Operational Transformation, Jul. 1, 2010, 1-6, retrieved from the Internet Feb. 14, 2012: http:/1 wave-protocol.googlecode.comfhg/Whitepapers/operational-transform/operational-transform.html. |
| Wave-Protocol, retrieved from the Internet May 24, 2012: http://code.google.com/p/wave-protocol/source/browse/srcJorg/waveprotocol/wave/client/editor/exampleslimg/MyDoodad.java. |
| Wempen, Faithe, PowerPoint 2010 Bible, May 24 ,2010, John Wiley & Sons, pp. 491-519. |
| Zafer NetEdit: A Collaborative Editor, Blacksburt, Virginia 89 pages (Apr. 23, 2011). |
| Zhou et al., Taming Information-Stealing Smartphone Applications (on Android), LNCS 6740:93-107 (2011). |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20140149857 A1 | May 2014 | US |
