Patent Grant
10380232
In general, this disclosure relates to electronic documents, in particular, to systems and methods for detecting relationships between edits and resolving privileged edits within suggested 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.
Systems and methods are disclosed herein for efficient editing of a document. One aspect relates to a system or method for incorporating a first edit into a second edit in an electronic document. The first edit and the second edit in the electronic document are received, and a shared position of the first edit and the second edit in the electronic document is identified. The second edit is determined to be privileged relative to the first edit by determining that the first edit is made by a first user with a first set of permissions and the second edit is made by a second user with a second set of permissions larger than the first set of permissions. When the second edit is privileged relative to the first edit, the second edit is incorporated into the first edit.
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 incorporating one edit into another edit. In particular, detecting a relationship between two 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 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 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 interfaces 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, 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 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 (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 (such as editor 108a) 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 to the document by directly editing or to make comments on the document 106. The review manager 102 generally 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 “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 has permission to make direct changes to the changes that are made by the reviewer 112. For example, editor 108a, rather than accepting or rejecting a suggested change made by reviewer 112a, instead may modify the suggested change. The review manager 102 detects that an editor 108 (a user with greater privileges) has modified a suggested change 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 108a'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) by an editor (editor 108b, for example), the modification by editor 108a is also accepted (or rejected). This process is described in further detail in relation to
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. 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.” Any identified compounding 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 relationships each time the document 106 is loaded or displayed.
Two suggested edits have a compounding relationship if one of the suggested edits is dependent on the other suggested edit. The compounding relationship is independent of the relative privileges associated with the edits. 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.
However, a compounding relationship between two edits with the same set of privileges is not sufficient for the review manager 102 to incorporate one edit into the other edit. In particular, to incorporate a second edit into a first edit, the second edit should be privileged relative to the first edit, and the edits should have a compounding relationship. In particular, if the second edit was created by an editor 108 (rather than the reviewer 112b), then the review manager 102 would incorporate the second edit into the first suggested edit. When the second edit modifies the first suggested edit, the second edit may be treated as part of the first suggested edit with a pending status, even though the second edit was created by an editor 108. An example view of a display of a document 106 with compounding suggested edits (where the second suggested edit is privileged relative to the first suggested edit) is shown and described in more detail in relation to
When an edit is incorporated into another edit, an indication of the incorporation may be stored and displayed to a user. For example, the list of suggestions 105 may be updated to include annotations indicative of which edits are incorporated into which edits. Furthermore, the review manager 102 may provide visual indicators of any incorporations over a user interface. As shown in
As described herein, a first suggested edit is created by a reviewer 112, and a second (privileged) suggested edit is created by an editor 108. However, in general, an editor 108 may have an option of operating in a “reviewer” or comment mode, such that changes that the editor 108 makes to the document 106 are interpreted as pending suggested changes rather than direct changes to the document 106. In this case, the first suggested edit (which is less privileged than the second suggested edit) may be created by an editor 108.
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 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.
Two editors 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 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.
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 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 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 user interface 111 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 500 is similar to the diagram 400, except that the diagram 500 further includes another suggested edit 1345. The suggested edit 1345 includes the addition of a phrase “n electronic” to the portion 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 phrase “n electronic” and was made by Editor D. The metadata region 228 further includes an indication of the date and time that Editor D made the suggested edit 1345. 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 Editor D 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 incorporates the later edit with the earlier edit. This is shown in the user interface 111 by the inclusion of the metadata region 228 within the metadata region 224. 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 D 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
The diagrams 400 and 500 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 400 and 500 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 600 for the editor 108 includes a similar view as in diagram 500 for another user (such as a reviewer), with the exception that the diagram 600 includes several additional options. In particular, the diagram 600 includes an editor display options button 334 (described in more detail in relation to
As an example, the diagram 700 is a view of the display of the editor interface 110 when the editor 108 has rejected the suggested edit 1254 by providing user input to the decision box 330. In this case, because the suggested edit 1345 is incorporated with the suggested edit 1254 (meaning that acceptance of suggested edit 1345 requires acceptance of the suggested edit 1254), 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 that the suggested edit 1345 is incorporated with the suggested edit 1254 by referring to the data structure 118, or using any other suitable method for identifying an incorporation of one edit with another edit.
When the editor 108 selects to accept or reject the suggested edit 1254, the status of the suggested edit 1254 is updated. To update the status of the suggested edit 1254, the review manager 102 may update an entry indicative of the status of the suggested edit 1254 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 1254 would be updated from pending to accepted upon receiving the acceptance from the editor 108, or from pending to rejected upon receiving the rejection from the editor 108, as shown in
In addition, when the editor 108 accepts or rejects the suggested edit 1254, the view of the document is also updated. In particular, the boxes surrounding the suggested edits 1254 and 1345 are removed from the diagram 700 to indicate that the editor 108 has accepted or rejected the suggested edit 1254. Furthermore, the decision box 330 may include an indication that the suggested edit 1345 (corresponding to metadata region 228) has also been automatically accepted or rejected (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 or 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 accepted or rejected in the sidebar. The indication may correspond to a compressed version of the metadata region, an icon, or any other suitable indication.
As shown in
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 automatically rejects any privileged edits that were part of the suggested edit 1254. In the example shown, because the suggested edit 1345 is an editor's modification of a reviewer's suggested edit 1254, the suggested edit 1345 is a privileged edit and has therefore been incorporated into the suggested edit 1254. In other words, privileged edits are treated as part of the suggested edit that they modify. Thus, because rejection of the suggested edit 1254 requires rejection of the suggested edit 1345, the suggested edit 1345 is rejected when the suggested edit 1254 is rejected. However, even after the suggested edit 1254 is rejected by the editor 108, an indication of the suggested edit 1254 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 1254 by hovering over the icon or providing user input such as a mouse click, for example. While viewing the rejected suggested edit 1254, the editor 108 may select to accept the suggested edit 1254, effectively undoing the rejection of the suggested edit 1254 (and the privileged edit 1345). Alternatively, the editor 108 may confirm rejection of the suggested edit 1254, and the corresponding icon may be removed from the sidebar. Similarly, the editor 108 may undo previous acceptances of suggested edits. 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.
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 or editor's identifier (i.e., Reviewer A, Reviewer B, Reviewer C, and Editor D) 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, Reviewer C has three pending suggested edits, and Editor D 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 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 A. To only display the suggested made by Reviewer A, the editor 108 may deselect all reviewers under the display options in the display box 654 except for Reviewer A. However, one of the suggested edits made by Reviewer A (i.e., suggested edit 1254) includes a suggested edit made by Editor D (i.e., suggested edit 1354). In some implementations, the review manager 102 may prompt the editor 108 to determine whether or not to display any suggested edits that are incorporated with suggested edits made by Reviewer A. 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 some implementations, the review manager 102 automatically considers any incorporated (or privileged) edits (made by an editor 108) that modify a reviewer's original suggested edit as part of the original suggested edit. In this case, when the editor 108 deselects all reviewers except for Reviewer A, neither of the suggested edits 1254 and 1345 are displayed. However, if Reviewer A is selected, then both suggested edits 1254 and 1345 are displayed. Furthermore, even if Reviewer A is selected and Editor D is deselected, both suggested edits 1254 and 1345 are still displayed because the suggested edit 1345 is integral to the suggested edit 1254. Thus, any decision regarding the suggested edit 1254 will also automatically apply to the suggested edit 1345.
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 902, the review manager 102 receives a first suggested edit from a reviewer, and at step 904, the review manager 102 receives a second suggested edit from an editor reviewer. The reviewer who provides the first suggested edit is a user who is associated with a reviewer set of privileges with respect to the document 106. In particular, the set of reviewer privileges includes read capabilities, in addition to being able to provide comments and/or suggested edits to the document 106. The editor who provides the second suggested edit is a user who is associated with a set of editor privileges with respect to the document 106. In particular, the set of editor privileges includes read and write capabilities, in addition to being able to consider or delete comments that are provided by a reviewer. Furthermore, the set of editor privileges also includes being able to accept or reject suggested edits provided by a reviewer. In some implementations, an editor may select to operate in a reviewer mode, during which the editor can provide comments and/or suggested edits. In this case, an editor may provide the first suggested edit when operating in the reviewer mode, and another editor (or even the same editor who provided the first suggested edit) may provide the second suggested edit.
At step 906, the review manager 102 detects a shared position between the first suggested edit and the second suggested edit. The shared position includes a same portion of the document 106 to which both suggested 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 decision block 908, the review manager 102 determines whether the second suggested edit is based on the first suggested edit. 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. In the example shown in
If the second suggested edit is based on the first suggested edit, method 900 proceeds to step 910, at which the review manager 102 incorporates the second suggested edit into the first suggested edit. Incorporating the second suggested edit into the first suggested edit essentially combines the suggested edits such that the first suggested edit subsumes the second suggested edit. As an example, to incorporate one edit into another edit, the review manager 102 may update a data structure such as the data structure 118 shown in
In another example, a user interface may also include an indication of an incorporation of one suggested edit into another suggested edit. The user interfaces in
After the review manager 102 incorporates the second suggested edit into the first suggested edit, the review manager 102 determines whether to accept the first suggested edit at decision block 912. In particular, if the review manager 102 determines that the first suggested edit should be accepted (by direct user input from an editor 108, for example), the review manager 102 proceeds to step 914 to accept both the first and second suggested edits. Because the second suggested edit has been incorporated into the first suggested edit, acceptance of the first suggested edit requires acceptance of the second suggested edit, and both suggested edits are accepted at step 914.
Accepting an edit includes updating a view of the document 106 to reflect the acceptance. For example, when the edits were 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 of the first suggested edit (and any incorporated suggested edits, such as the second suggested edit) 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. Furthermore, a published version of the document 106 may be visible to a third type of user, which may be referred to as a viewer. Viewers of a document 106 may be associated with a set of viewer privileges that include permission to view a published version of the document 106. Any pending suggested edits may be hidden from the view of the published version of the document 106, but once a pending edit is accepted by an editor 108, the published version of the document 106 may be updated with the newly accepted change.
Alternatively, if the review manager 102 determines that the first suggested edit should be rejected at decision block 916, the review manager 102 rejects both the first and the second suggested edits at step 918. Because the second suggested edit is incorporated into the first suggested edit, the second suggested edit may not be accepted without acceptance of the first suggested edit. Thus, when the first suggested edit is rejected (by direct input from an editor 108, for example), the second suggested edit is also rejected. In some implementations, the review manager 102, upon determining that the first suggested edit is not accepted at decision block 912, thereby determines that the first suggested edit is rejected. In this case, the review manager 102 may proceed directly to step 918 to reject both the first and the second suggested edits.
The order of the steps and decision blocks as shown in
At step 1002, the review manager 102 receives an acceptance of a first suggested edit. As described in relation to decision block 912 of the method 900, 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 1004, the review manager 102 identifies any suggested edits that are incorporated into the first suggested edit. For example, the review manager 102 may parse a data structure such as the data structure 118 to identify any incorporated suggested edits. In particular, the review manager 102 may identify any other suggested edits that were created by an editor that depend on (or are based on, or have a compounding relationship with) the first suggested edit. In another example, the data structure 118 may include a dedicated column that provides data indicative of incorporated suggested edits (not shown).
At step 1006, the review manager 102 accepts the first suggested edit and any incorporated suggested edits that were identified at step 1004. For example, when the first suggested edit (i.e., the suggested edit 1254) is accepted, the review manager 102 determines that a second suggested edit (i.e., the suggested edit 1345) was created by an editor 108 and depends from the first suggested edit. In this case, the second suggested edit is also accepted. As described herein, only one suggested edit is incorporated into another suggested edit. In general, any number of suggested edits may be determined to be incorporated into the first suggested edit, and all of the identified incorporated suggested edits may be automatically accepted (or rejected) upon receiving an acceptance (or rejection) of the first suggested edit.
At step 1102, the review manager 102 receives a first edit and a second edit in an electronic document. As described above, the first edit and the second edit may be suggested edits that are created by a reviewer 112 or an editor 108. In particular, a reviewer 112 may create the first edit, and an editor 108 may create the second edit. Because the edits are suggested edits, a status of the edits is pending until either or both of the edits are accepted or rejected by an editor 108.
At step 1104, the review manager 102 identifies a shared position between the first edit and the second edit. The shared position includes a same portion of the document 106 to which both suggested 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 1106, the review manager 102 determines that the second edit is privileged relative to the first edit. In particular, the review manager 102 may determine that the first edit was made by a first user with a first set of permissions and the second edit is made by a second user with a second set of permissions larger than the first set of permissions. In particular, the first user may be a reviewer 112 (or an editor 108 operating in reviewer mode, as described above) with reviewer privileges. The reviewer privileges include the ability to read, comment on, and make suggested to the electronic document 106. The second user may be an editor 108 with editor privileges. The editor privileges include the ability to read, write, and accept or rejected suggested changes to the electronic document 106. In addition, the editor privileges further include the ability to make changes to any suggested changes made by a reviewer 112.
At step 1108, the review manager 102 incorporates the second edit into the first edit when the second edit is privileged relative to the first edit. As described above, incorporating the second edit into the first edit essentially combines the edits such that the first edit subsumes the second edit. Thus, the changes that an editor 108 makes to a suggested change made by a reviewer 112 are automatically incorporated into the suggested change made by the reviewer. Incorporation of the editor 108′s changes means that acceptance or rejection of the reviewer's suggested change causes the automatic acceptance or rejection of the incorporated changes.
As an example, to incorporate one edit into another edit, the review manager 102 may update a data structure such as the data structure 118 shown in
The computing device 1200 comprises at least one communications interface unit, an input/output controller 1210, system memory, and one or more data storage devices. The system memory includes at least one random access memory (RAM 1202) and at least one read-only memory (ROM 1204). All of these elements are in communication with a central processing unit (CPU 1206) to facilitate the operation of the computing device 1200. The computing device 1200 may be configured in many different ways. For example, the computing device 1200 may be a conventional standalone computer or alternatively, the functions of computing device 1200 may be distributed across multiple computer systems and architectures. In
The computing device 1200 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 1208 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 1206 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 1206. The CPU 1206 is in communication with the communications interface unit 1208 and the input/output controller 1210, through which the CPU 1206 communicates with other devices such as other servers, user terminals, or devices. The communications interface unit 1208 and the input/output controller 1210 may include multiple communication channels for simultaneous communication with, for example, other processors, servers or client terminals.
The CPU 1206 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 1202, ROM 1204, flash drive, an optical disc such as a compact disc or a hard disk or drive. The CPU 1206 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 1206 may be connected to the data storage device via the communications interface unit 1208. The CPU 1206 may be configured to perform one or more particular processing functions.
The data storage device may store, for example, (i) an operating system 1212 for the computing device 1200; (ii) one or more applications 1214 (e.g., computer program code or a computer program product) adapted to direct the CPU 1206 in accordance with the systems and methods described here, and particularly in accordance with the processes described in detail with regard to the CPU 1206; or (iii) database(s) 1216 adapted to store information that may be utilized to store information required by the program.
The operating system 1212 and applications 1214 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 1204 or from the RAM 1202. While execution of sequences of instructions in the program causes the CPU 1206 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 incorporating one suggested edit into another suggested edit as described herein. The program also may include program elements such as an operating system 1212, 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 1210.
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 1200 (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 1206 (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 1200 (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.
This application is a continuation application of co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/970,090, filed Aug. 19, 2013, entitled, “SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR RESOLVING PRIVILEGED EDITS WITHIN SUGGESTED EDITS,” which is herein incorporated by reference.
| 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 |
| 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 et al. | 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 | 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 | 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 |
| 8384759 | Hagen et al. | Feb 2013 | B2 |
| 8386478 | Wang | Feb 2013 | B2 |
| 8417666 | Bailor et al. | Apr 2013 | B2 |
| 8418051 | Bourdev | Apr 2013 | B1 |
| 8429528 | March, Jr. | Apr 2013 | B2 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 20040113141 | Isuda et al. | Jun 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 |
| 20040205653 | Hadfield | 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, Jr. | 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, Jr. 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 |
| 20090094667 | Habeck 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 |
| 20090157490 | Lawyer | Jun 2009 | A1 |
| 20090157608 | Strathearn et al. | 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 |
| 20090199090 | Poston et al. | Aug 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 | 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 |
| 20100137323 | Brown et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
| 20100161762 | Saxena | Jun 2010 | A1 |
| 20100174783 | Zarom | Jul 2010 | A1 |
| 20100199191 | Takahashi | Aug 2010 | A1 |
| 20100205230 | Simeonov et al. | Aug 2010 | A1 |
| 20100218099 | van Melle et al. | Aug 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 |
| 20110164784 | Grill et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
| 20110179427 | Krishnamoorthy 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 et al. | 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 | Jun 2013 | A1 |
| 20130159849 | Lee | Jun 2013 | A1 |
| 20130262373 | Rampson | Oct 2013 | A1 |
| 20130275884 | Katragadda et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
| 20130283147 | Wong | Oct 2013 | A1 |
| 20130326330 | Harris et al. | Dec 2013 | A1 |
| 20140082470 | Trebas et al. | Mar 2014 | A1 |
| 20140149857 | Vagell et al. | May 2014 | A1 |
| 20140164255 | Daly et al. | Jun 2014 | A1 |
| 20140165087 | Smith et al. | Jun 2014 | A1 |
| 20140280377 | Frew | Sep 2014 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| 2010-0137323 | Dec 2010 | KR |
| 2012-001 0397 | Feb 2012 | KR |
| Entry |
|---|
| The Student Multimedia Studio, “Setting Sharing Permissions for Google Docs and Google Sites”, Sep. 4, 2010, Kent State University, https://www.library.kent.edu/files/SMS_Google_Sharing_Permissions.pdf, pp. 9 (Year: 2010). |
| “File;” Microsoft Computer Dictionary; May 1, 2002; Microsoft Press; Fifth Edition; p. 266. |
| “Google Docs 4 Everyone” http:/Jwww.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/(2rojects/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/clienVeditor/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 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, Apr. 10-15, 2010, pp. 10. |
| 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. |
| 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 USE IX 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 Computina 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/webb/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). |
| 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 dated Jun. 1, 2012, 1-7. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion issued in PCT/US2012/028279 dated 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 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.blogspot.com/2010/09/whats-different-about-new-google-docs_23.html, retrieved Feb. 14, 2012. |
| 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 Software and Technology, Nov. 14-17, 1995, 111-120. |
| Pacull et al., “Duplex: A Distributed Collaborative Editing Environment in Large Scale,” ACM1994, pp. 165-173. |
| Peels et al., Document Architecture and Text Formatting, ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, XX, XX, 310/1/1985, 347-369. |
| 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). |
| The Oauth 2.0 Authorization Protocol; draft Ietf-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:/1wave-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). |
| Geoff Hart, “Using Microsoft Word's “track changes” editing feature: a short guide for authors and editors”, 2011, Using Word's revision tracking, pp. 5. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Feb. 26, 2014 in International Application No. PCT/US2013/071171. |
| “CoDoc: Multi-mode Collaboration over Documents”, Ignat, Claudia Levinia et al; 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]. |
| Flexible Merging for Asynchronous Collaborative Systems, In: “On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems 2002: CoopIS, DOA, and ODBASE”, Shen, Haifeng et al, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg (Nov. 5, 2002); vol. 2519, pp. 304-321. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Dec. 3, 2014 in International Application No. PCT/US2014/048408. |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20180260368 A1 | Sep 2018 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parent | 13970090 | Aug 2013 | US |
| Child | 15979411 | US |
