Patent Grant
9348803
In general, this disclosure relates to electronic documents, in particular, to systems and methods for providing previews of suggestion resolution.
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.
Systems and methods are disclosed herein for efficient editing of a document. One aspect relates to a system or method for providing a preview of an editor action related to an edit of an electronic document. An edit is provided by a first user of the electronic document, and a user interface displays the edit to the electronic document. A user input from a second user of the electronic document is detected, where the user input is indicative of a desire to preview a result of the editor action on the edit. A processor provides a preview of the result of the editor action in response to detecting the user input, where the preview is provided before the second user performs the editor action.
Another aspect relates to a system including means for providing a preview of an editor action related to an edit of an electronic document that is provided by a first user of the electronic document. The system includes means for displaying an edit to the electronic document, and means for detecting a user input from a second user of the electronic document. The user input is indicative of a desire to preview a result of the editor action on the edit. The system also includes means for providing a preview of the result of the editor action in response to the detection of the user input, where the preview is provided before the second user performs the editor action.
In some implementations, the edit is a suggested edit to the electronic document, and the editor action is an acceptance or a rejection of the suggested edit. The means for providing the preview may include means for temporarily applying the editor action to a visual rendering of the electronic document, and/or means for temporarily displaying an indication of a preview mode in a visual rendering of the electronic document. In some implementations, the system includes means for hiding the edit from a view of a published view of the electronic document until performance of the editor action is detected, where the editor action is an acceptance of the edit.
In some implementations, the first user has reviewer privileges associated with the electronic document and the second user has editor privileges associated with the electronic document. The first user and the second user may simultaneously access different views of the electronic document, where the different views are associated with the reviewer privileges or the editor privileges.
In some implementations, the system further includes means for detecting another user input from the second user, where the other user input is indicative of a desire to perform the editor action on the edit, and means for updating the electronic document to reflect the editor action.
In some implementations, the means for detecting the user input includes means for detecting a mouse cursor hovering over an action region of a display of the electronic document, where the action region is associated with the editor action. In some implementations, the means for detecting the user input comprises detecting a selection of a preview region of a display of the electronic document, where the preview region is associated with a preview of the editor action.
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 providing a preview of suggestion resolution. In particular, providing such previews 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 the 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 one or more processors and one or more memory units. In an example, the review manager 102 may be implemented over multiple subsystems that are configured to identify, process, and manage suggested edits to the document 106. 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 views of the document 106 to various users. As depicted in
Each user device 113 may include a personal computer, a laptop computer, a tablet, a smart phone, a personal digital assistant, or any other suitable type of computer or 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, a display unit, an input device, an output device, a communication interface (e.g., editor interfaces 110 or reviewer interfaces 114), or any suitable combination thereof. 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, generate 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 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 (i.e., a larger set of permissions) 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. For example, the editor 108 may be an owner or a creator of the document 106, and the editor 108 may assign one or more users to a reviewer type role. When a reviewer (such as reviewer 112a) makes a suggested edit to the document 106, the editor 108 is prompted to perform an editor action on the suggested edit.
Before the editor action is performed by the editor 108, the editor 108 may provide a user input to the editor interface 110 indicative of a desire to preview a result of an editor action on the suggested edit. The editor action may be an acceptance or a rejection of the suggested edit, and the preview includes a temporary visual rendering of the document 106 that incorporates the acceptance or rejection. The editor interface 110 provides such a preview to the editor 108 so that the editor 108 may observe the change or changes to the document 106 if the editor action is performed, and allows for the editor 108 to make an informed decision regarding whether to perform the editor action. When the anticipated editor action is a rejection of a suggested edit, the preview includes a markup view of the document 106 (i.e., including the original document 106 and all accepted suggested edits) without the suggested edit. When the anticipated editor action is an acceptance of a suggested edit, the preview includes the markup view of the document including what the suggested edit would look like if the suggested edit were accepted. In some implementations, the preview includes a clean view of the document and a preview of a rejection or an acceptance of the suggested edit. Providing such a preview to the editor 108 enables the editor 108 to view what the document would include, if the editor 108 were to perform the anticipated editor action. As described herein, the editor interface 110 generates the visual rendering of the preview of the document. In some implementations, the server 104 or the review manager 102 may perform generation of the visual rendering. Example displays of the preview are shown in
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 to the document by directly editing or making comments on the document 106. The review manager 102 generally treats edits made by the editor 108 as accepted edits which are automatically applied to the document 106. 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 “reviewer 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).
In addition, the editor 108 may make direct changes to the suggested edits that are made by the reviewer 112. For example, the editor 108, rather than accepting or rejecting a suggested edit made by reviewer 112a, instead may modify the suggested edit. The review manager 102 detects that an editor 108 (a user with greater privileges) has modified a suggested edit originally created by a reviewer 112 (a user with fewer privileges), thereby determining that the modification made by the editor 108 is privileged relative to the suggested change made by the reviewer 112. Because of the privileged modification to the reviewer's suggested change, the editor 108's modification is incorporated into the reviewer 112a's suggested change. By integrating or combining the modification with the suggested change, when the suggested change is accepted (or rejected), the modification by the editor 108 is also accepted (or rejected).
Thus, 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 may include a compound identifier, a conflict identifier, or both. The compound identifier and the conflict identifier may each 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 particular relationship.
Two suggested edits 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. 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.
Two suggested edits 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. 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. An example of a data structure for storing the list of suggestions 105 is described in more detail in relation to
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. The real-time updates to the document 106 also allow for reviewers 112 to make suggestions at their own pace. Even when just a single reviewer 112 has the document 106 open, indications of the suggestions or comments that are made by the active reviewer 112 may be sent to other users, such as other reviewers 112 or one or more editors 108. The notifications may be sent over email messages or any other form of communications that may alert an editor and/or reviewer to the suggested changes. An editor 108 may then access the document 106 at a later time and accept, reject, or modify a suggestion made by the reviewer 112. In some implementations, the notifications are sent only to the one or more editors 108, and not to any of the other reviewers 108.
When relationships between two or more suggested edits are detected, the relationships may be used to provide the preview of the result of an editor action. For example, if an editor 108 selects to preview a result of an acceptance of a first suggested edit, the preview includes a temporary visual rendering of the document 106 that incorporates the acceptance of the first suggested edit, as well as an acceptance of any suggested edits on which the first suggested edit depends (i.e., have a compounding relationship with the first suggested edit). The temporary visual rendering of the document 106 may further incorporate the rejection of any suggested edits that have a conflicting relationship with the first suggested edit. Similarly, if an editor 108 instead selects to preview a result of a rejection of the first suggested edit, the temporary visual rendering of the document 106 incorporates a rejection of any suggested edits that depend on the first suggested edit (i.e., have a compounding relationship with the first suggested edit), but may take no action on any suggested edits that conflict with the first suggested edit, because a rejection of the first suggested edit does not automatically result in an acceptance or a rejection of any conflicting suggested edits. By providing a preview to the editor 108, the editor 108 may observe the anticipated change or changes to the document 106 if the editor action is performed, and the systems and methods described herein allow for the editor 108 to make an informed decision regarding whether to perform the editor action.
In some implementations, 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 two reviewers are shown in
In certain implementations, each user may be assigned a unique color, such that the changes 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 to 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, or some suitable combination thereof.
From the shared edit position, the review manager 102 may determine that the suggested edit 1345 depends on (or equivalently, has a compounding relationship with) the suggested edit 1254. The data structure 118 is shown for illustrative purposes only, and other fields with additional data may also be included. Examples of such additional data include the time of the suggested edit, whether the suggested edit was accepted or rejected, who accepted or rejected the suggested edit, and the time of the acceptance or rejection. Furthermore, when a suggested edit includes deleting, moving, or replacing existing objects in the document, the data structure 118 may further include which objects to delete, move, or replace. Similarly, when a suggested edit includes adding objects, the data structure 118 may further include which object(s) to add.
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.
Data structures 117 and 118 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 various views of the document using a dynamic approach. In particular, if a user wishes to view only a subset of the suggested edits, a view 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 view may not be stored on a database. Instead, when a user accesses the document, a view specific to that user (based on the user's settings) may be generated.
In addition to the data stored in example data structures 117 and 118, 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 400 includes a portion of an original document 106 with a suggested edit 1254. In particular, the suggested edit 1254 includes the addition of a portion 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 400 includes a sidebar on the right hand side of the editor interface 110 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 400 also includes an action preview region 440 that corresponds to the suggested edit 1254. The action preview region 440 is a prompt for the editor 108 to make a selection to preview an acceptance or a rejection of the corresponding edit. When the editor 108 provides a user input (in the form of selecting one of the options in the action preview region 440), the display of the document is updated to reflect a preview of the editor's anticipated action (i.e., an acceptance or a rejection of the corresponding edit). Advantageously, by providing a preview of the result of the editor's anticipated action before the editor performs the action, the systems and methods described herein allow for the editor 108 to view the document 106 that includes the anticipated changes and make an informed decision regarding whether to accept or reject the suggested edit. Example displays of the preview when the anticipated editor action is an acceptance are shown in
As shown in
When Editor C makes the suggested edit 1345, the review manager 102 determines that the suggested edit 1345 depends on (or equivalently, 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. The review manager 102 further determines that the suggested edit 1254 was made by a reviewer and the suggested edit 1345 was made by an editor, who has greater privileges with respect to the document 106 than the reviewer. Upon determining that the suggested edits have a compounding relationship and that the user who made the later suggested edit has greater privileges than the user who made the earlier suggested edit, the review manager 102 identifies the edit 1345 as a privileged edit and incorporates the later edit (edit 1345) with the earlier edit (edit 1254). This is shown in the editor interface 110 by the inclusion of the metadata region 928 within the metadata region 924. Thus, the suggested edit 1345 is incorporated into the suggested edit 1254, and the sidebar region of
When Reviewer A makes the suggested edit 1254 and when Editor C makes the suggested edit 1345, 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
As shown in the diagram 900, the editor has controlled the mouse cursor to hover over the “accept” region of the action region 730, indicating a desire to preview an acceptance of the suggested edit made by Reviewer A. Because the edit 1345 made by the editor is incorporated into the suggested edit 1254 made by the reviewer, the preview display of the document includes a visual rendering of the document including acceptances of both edits 1254 and 1345, as shown by preview indicators 902 and 904. Thus, even though the editor has only explicitly indicated a desire to preview an acceptance of the suggested edit 1254, acceptances of both edits 1254 and 1345 are shown in the preview because the suggested edit 1254 would not be accepted without acceptance of the edit 1345. As shown in
Furthermore, if the editor were to control the mouse cursor to hover over the “reject” region of the action region 730, a preview of a rejection of the suggested edit 1254 would be displayed in the display of the document. In this case, the preview would include a rejection of both the suggested edit 1254 and the suggested edit 1345 because rejection of the suggested edit 1254 causes an automatic rejection of the suggested edit 1345.
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 in a markup view of the document. For example, before selecting to preview an editor's action on any of the suggested edits, the editor 108 may first select to display 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 or editor's identifier (i.e., Reviewer A, Reviewer B, and Editor C) may be automatically selected, and all the suggested edits may be shown in the display. The numbers following the user 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 Editor C has two pending suggested edits. The review 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 corrections, 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 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. Before rejecting or accepting the edits, a preview of the document taking into account the anticipated editor's action is provided when the editor controls the mouse cursor to hover over the “accept all visible” option, as shown in
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), preview the changes by hovering over the the appropriate region, 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 1302, a first suggested edit from a reviewer is received. The reviewer 112 has access to view and make suggested edits and comments to the electronic document. As described in relation to
At step 1304, the first suggested edit is displayed to an editor. For example, the editor 108 may interact with the document over an editor interface 110, which may include a display unit that displays a view of the document to the editor. The displayed view of the document includes an indication of the first suggested edit, such as the suggested edit 1254 as shown and described in relation to
At step 1306, an input is received from the editor to preview an editor's action. As shown and described in relation to
At decision block 1308, it is determined whether the preview request is for an acceptance. That is, the user input received at step 1306 is evaluated to determine whether the user input received over the editor interface 110 is associated with an acceptance of the first suggested edit. If so, the method 1300 proceeds to step 1310 to display a preview of the acceptance over the editor interface 110. As depicted in
In some implementations, the preview does not include updates to other suggested edits that are still pending. In this case, other pending suggested edits are displayed in markup form when the preview is displayed, such that a remainder of the view of the document (other than that associated with the first suggested edit) remains unchanged before and after the editor 108 provides the input at step 1306. This may be desirable if it is desirable to keep most of the visual display unchanged, such that the only changes that are made to the visual display are those associated with the first suggested edit. In some implementations, one or more acceptances of other suggested edits that are incorporated with the first suggested edit, as described in relation to
At decision block 1312, it is determined whether the editor 108 provides user input indicating to accept the first suggested edit. For example, the editor 108 may select the accept region of an action region, or may provide some other user input indicative of a desire to accept the first suggested edit. If so, the method 1300 proceeds to step 1314 to accept the first suggested edit by the review manager 102, which may update a list of suggestions 105 to indicate that the first suggested edit is accepted (by changing the status of the first suggested edit from pending to accepted, for example) and by incorporating the acceptance of the first suggested edit into a clean view of the document.
Alternatively, if it is determined at decision block 1316 that the preview request is for a rejection, the editor interface 110 displays a preview of the rejection at step 1318. That is, the user input received at step 1306 is evaluated to determine whether the user input received over the editor interface 110 is associated with a rejection of the first suggested edit. Example displays of a preview including a rejection of a suggested edit are shown in
The order of the steps and decision blocks as shown in
At step 1402, the editor interface 110 displays an edit to the electronic document, where the edit is provided by a first user of the electronic document. The edit is a suggested edit that is made by a user who has reviewing privileges with respect to the document, or an editor who is operating in a reviewing mode to provide suggested edits to the document. As described herein, the edit may be any kind of edit, such as changes to text portions of the document, such as those shown in
At step 1404, the editor interface 110 detects a user input from a second user of the electronic document, where the user input is indicative of a desire to preview a result of the editor action on the edit. The second user is a user who has editing privileges with respect to the electronic document, such as an editor, and the editor action is an action that the editor may take with respect to the suggested edit, such as accepting or rejecting the suggested edit. The first user (i.e., the reviewer) and the second user (i.e., the editor) may simultaneously access different views of the electronic document over the network 101, and the different views of the electronic document may be associated with the reviewer privileges or the editor privileges for each user. In particular, the view of the document displayed over the reviewer interface 114 may include the suggested changes to the document. However, the reviewer interface 114 would not include editor action regions, such as action region 440 shown in
At step 1406, the editor interface 110 provides a preview of the result of the editor action in response to detecting the user input. In an example, providing the preview comprises temporarily applying the editor action to a visual rendering of the electronic document. Furthermore, the preview may include temporarily displaying an indication of the preview mode in a visual rendering of the electronic document over the editor interface 110. For example, the indication of the preview mode may include the preview indicators as shown in
In some implementations, the edit displayed at step 1402 is hidden from a view of a published view of the document. In particular, a third type of user may have view-only privileges with respect to the electronic document, and the view-only user may only have access to a published view of the electronic document. In this case, the view-only user may not be able to view any pending suggested edits to the document that have not yet been accepted by the editor. When the review manager 102 updates the electronic document 106 to reflect accepted edits, the published view of the electronic document may be updated in real time to reflect these changes.
The computing device 1500 comprises at least one communications interface unit, an input/output controller 1510, system memory, and one or more data storage devices. The system memory includes at least one random access memory (RAM 1502) and at least one read-only memory (ROM 1504). All of these elements are in communication with a central processing unit (CPU 1506) to facilitate the operation of the computing device 1500. The computing device 1500 may be configured in many different ways. For example, the computing device 1500 may be a conventional standalone computer or alternatively, the functions of computing device 1500 may be distributed across multiple computer systems and architectures. In
The computing device 1500 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 1508 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 1506 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 1506. The CPU 1506 is in communication with the communications interface unit 1508 and the input/output controller 1510, through which the CPU 1506 communicates with other devices such as other servers, user terminals, or devices. The communications interface unit 1508 and the input/output controller 1510 may include multiple communication channels for simultaneous communication with, for example, other processors, servers or client terminals.
The CPU 1506 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 1502, ROM 1504, flash drive, an optical disc such as a compact disc or a hard disk or drive. The CPU 1506 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 1506 may be connected to the data storage device via the communications interface unit 1508. The CPU 1506 may be configured to perform one or more particular processing functions.
The data storage device may store, for example, (i) an operating system 1512 for the computing device 1500; (ii) one or more applications 1514 (e.g., computer program code or a computer program product) adapted to direct the CPU 1506 in accordance with the systems and methods described here, and particularly in accordance with the processes described in detail with regard to the CPU 1506; or (iii) database(s) 1516 adapted to store information that may be utilized to store information required by the program.
The operating system 1512 and applications 1514 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 1504 or from the RAM 1502. While execution of sequences of instructions in the program causes the CPU 1506 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 any of the processes described herein. The program also may include program elements such as an operating system 1512, 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 1510.
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 1500 (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 1506 (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 1500 (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 | 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 20120210210 | Itoh et al. | Aug 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 |
| 20130262373 | Rampson | Oct 2013 | A1 |
| 20130326330 | Harris et al. | Dec 2013 | A1 |
| 20140082470 | Trebas et al. | Mar 2014 | A1 |
| 20140164255 | Daly | Jun 2014 | A1 |
| 20140165087 | Smith et al. | Jun 2014 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| 2010-0137323 | Dec 2010 | KR |
| 2012-0010397 | Feb 2012 | KR |
| Entry |
|---|
| Camarda, Bill. “Special Edition Using Microsoft Office Word 2003”. Dec. 12, 2003, Que. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Mar. 5, 2015 in International Application No. PCT/US2014/058275. |
| “File:” Microsoft Computer Dictionary; May 1, 2002; Microsoft Press; Fifth Edition; p. 266. |
| “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). |
| “Simultaneously edit a presentation with other authors,” by MicrosoftTM Office: MAC, published Nov. 11, 2010, pp. 1-4. |
| “Using Adobe Buzzword”, 2008, pp. 1-35. |
| <http://www-archive.mozilla.org/projects/webservice retrieved from the Internet Dec. 13, 2013. |
| 1-3, retrieved from the Internet May 24, 2012: http://code.google.com/p/wave-protocol/source/browse/srcJorg/waveprotocol/wave/client/editor/exampleslimg/MyDoodad.java. |
| 28th International Conference in Human Factors in Computing Systems, Apr. 10, 2010, 683-692. |
| Beresford et al., “MockDroid: Trading Privacy for Application Functionality on Smartphones,” HotMobile '11 Mar01-Mar. 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”, from “Proceedings of the 28th Annual CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems”, Apr. 10-15, 2010, Association for Computing Machinery. |
| Chitu,Footnotes in GoogleDocs, Oct. 17, 2008, XP055028085, retrieved from the Internet 5/2412012: http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2008/10/footnotes-in-google-docs.html. |
| Cooperative Word (2004) 13, (copyright 2005) (“MAUI”). |
| 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/threadl73608bf7a13f2385. |
| 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. |
| Frazer, “Differential Synchronization,” Google, Munich, Germany (2009) 8 pages. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| http://web.archive.org/web/20121021135356/http://support.mozilla.org/en -US/kb/find-and-install-add-ons-add-features-to-firefox. |
| https://addons.mozilla.org/En-us/seamonkey/addon/gmail-smime/?src=search. |
| 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 (2004); retrieved from the Internet: URL: http://www.springerlink.com/content/mffh585tc0ntcype/fulltext.pdf [retrieved on Jun. 17, 2011] (15 pages). |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Feb. 25, 2014 in International Application No. PCT/US2013/043011. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion for PCT/US2014/048408 issued Mar. 12, 2014. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion for PCT/US2012/028069 issued Jun. 1, 2012,1-7. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion issued in PCTIUS2012/028279 on Jun. 6, 2012. |
| Jason Hill & Carl Gutwin, The MAUI Toolkit: Groupware Widgets for Group Awareness, p. 539-571 in Computer Supported. |
| 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). |
| 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 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. |
| 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 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20150113390 A1 | Apr 2015 | US |
