Embodiments of the invention are generally directed toward searching for files and other data. In particular, embodiments of the invention are directed toward generating search suggestions based on user input.
Existing search tools generally require a user to input text for each element of a search query. The search query may be intended to locate files, emails, calendar events, contacts, or other entities represented by data on a data processing system. Alternatively, the system may provide a user interface that allows a user to build a search query using various on-screen controls specific to the type of the search query element. Various “auto-complete” features may be provided, in which a list of possible search terms is provided which correspond to possible search terms/elements. However, existing implementations make it difficult to easily build complex search queries in a quick and intuitive manner.
Embodiments of tokenized search suggestions include generating, by at least one suggestion engine executing on a data processing system, first suggestions based on first text input in a text input field. The first suggestions are displayed on a display device and a selection of one of the first suggestions is received. The first text input is replaced with a first token corresponding to the selected one of the first suggestions. The at least one suggestion engine generates second suggestions based on second text input in the text input field and filters the second suggestions using the selected one of the first suggestions. The filtered selections are displayed on a display device.
The present invention is illustrated by way of example and not limitation in the figures of the accompanying drawings in which like references indicate similar elements.
Various embodiments and aspects of the inventions will be described with reference to details discussed below, and the accompanying drawings will illustrate the various embodiments. The following description and drawings are illustrative of the invention and are not to be construed as limiting the invention. Numerous specific details are described to provide a thorough understanding of various embodiments of the present invention. However, in certain instances, well-known or conventional details are not described in order to provide a concise discussion of embodiments of the present inventions.
Embodiments of tokenized search suggestions are described herein. Tokenized search suggestions may be used to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of search query creation. For example, a user may want to build a search query which will locate email messages written by a particular person. If that person uses multiple email addresses, existing implementations might require a user to manually input each email address as separate terms in a search query. In one embodiment of tokenized search suggestions, the user enters some text that may match the person's name, one of the person's email addresses, or text located in the subject or body of an email message received from that person. In one or more of these situations, a suggestion engine may infer that the user is interested in a particular person with an entry in the user's address book. The user may adopt this suggestion into their search query. The suggestion may match email messages sent from any email addresses associated with that person's entry in the user's address book. The user may further refine their search by inputting an additional textual search query element. The user may view and add an additional suggestion to the search query, such as a suggestion pertaining the contents of an email message's subject line.
Suggestion engine(s) 107 may receive search query 101 as an input and use the search query to generate suggestions 109 which the user can add to search query 101 to refine their search. Various types of suggestion engines may be used depending on the context in which a user is performing a search. For example, if the user is searching within the context of an email application, a mailbox suggestion engine may be used which limits the search to a particular mailbox or mailboxes. In a web browser context, a suggestion engine may be used that limits a search to a particular website or websites. Generalized suggestion engines may be used in most or all contexts, such as a suggestion engine that generates suggestions from search results such as those generated by search engine 103.
A generalized search engine may be tailored to a particular search context using various suggestion scopes. For example, when searching in an email application context, available suggestion scopes may include the “from:” field, the “to:” field, the “subject:” field, and a catch-all “entire message:” field. In another example, a generalized suggestion engine used in a file system search context may include scopes such as file size, date of last modification, date of creation, file name, etc. Some search contexts may include hidden or implicit scopes as well. For example, in the email search context, search results and suggestions may be implicitly limited to results and suggestions that correspond to email messages, such as email messages themselves, contacts/people, email message attachments, etc. In a calendar search context, results and suggestions may be limited to events and contacts.
Suggestions 109 may also be displayed to the user for review and possible incorporation into the current search. One method of incorporating a suggestion into a search is described below in conjunction with
At block 203, the method generates one or more suggestions from the received text input. In one embodiment, suggestion engine(s) 107 of
People 311 and subjects 315 may be generated by a generalized suggestion engine that extracts both people (e.g., senders and receivers of emails) and subjects for suggestions, since these fields are relevant to a search performed in an email context. People 311 may be further refined with a particular scope, as described below in conjunction with
Mailboxes 319 may be generated by a mailbox suggestion engine that matches the text input to the name of a mailbox or mailboxes. This may include mailboxes created by the user and assigned a text name. The suggestion may also match “smart” mailboxes or automatically generated mailboxes. For example, the “received today” mailbox may be a feature of the email program or the file system rather than a mailbox created by the user. In a search query, a mailbox suggestion may limit the search to results located in the suggested mailbox.
In one embodiment, suggestions may be drawn from search results from the current search query. The search results may be normalized before being presented to the user as suggestions. For example, an email subject line may be changed from “Re: Today's Agenda” to “Today's Agenda” before being presented to the user. Normalization may broaden the search to include email threads and/or conversations by removing automatically generated text from the subject such as “Re:.” Suggestions may be indirectly derived from search results. For example, if the current search query matches the subject of an email message, the suggestion engine may search the user's address book for people whose address book entry includes the email address of the author of the email message with the matching subject. The matching person may be included as a suggestion, although identifying the person required following from a matching subject of an email message, to the author of the email message, and finally to an entry in the user's address book that includes that email address of the author. In this way, tokenized search suggestions can allow a user to more quickly add relevant elements (e.g., suggestions) to a search query.
At block 407, the first set of search results and the first suggestions are displayed to the user. The first suggestions may be displayed in the graphical user interface illustrated in
Turning to
At block 421, the filtered second suggestions are displayed to the user along with the second set of search results at block 423. At block 425, the method receives a selection of one of the filtered second suggestions and at block 427 the method generates a third set of search results using the first selected suggestion and the second selected suggestion as the search query. These results may then be displayed to the user. In some embodiments, the user may continue to enter additional text and select additional suggestions until the search has narrowed the results down sufficiently for the user to locate the desired file, email, or other search result.
In one embodiment, the links between elements of a search query may be added automatically according to a set of rules. For example, suggestions using the same scope (e.g., “From”), may be automatically linked using a Boolean OR operator. Suggestions using different scopes (e.g., “To” and “From”) may be automatically linked using a Boolean AND operator. In other embodiments, the user interface may include a graphical representation of the linkage between two query elements. In this embodiment, the linkage between query elements may be modified, such as in response to user input.
On the right hand side of
In the example illustrated by
At block 701, the method displays a tokenized search suggestion including a scope identifier and an entity identifier. In
At block 703, the method receives an input to the scope identifier. For example, the user may have clicked a mouse within the graphical region of scope identifier 803. Alternatively, a keyboard shortcut, a voice command, or other source of user input may be used to provide the input. At block 705, the method displays the available scopes for the suggestion 801. These include the current scope 807 (“From”), a recipient scope 809 (“To”), and an entire message scope 811 (“Entire Message”). On the right hand side of
At block 711, the method performs a new search using the updated tokenized suggestion as the search query. An example of an updated tokenized suggestion and corresponding search query is illustrated in
In some embodiments, suggestions may be generalized to include a scope identifier and a string instead of a entity. For example, a suggestion might include the “From” scope but rather than an entity such as “Todd Smith,” might include the text string “tod.” The resulting search query would not be limited to email messages sent from one of Todd Smith's email addresses. Instead, the resulting search query would match email messages sent from an email address that contains the text “tod.”
In one embodiment, changing the scope of a suggestion may cause elements of the current search query to be linked using different operators. For example, if a query includes one suggestion with a “From” scope and another suggestion with a “To” scope, the two suggestions may be linked using a Boolean AND operator. However, if the user changes the second suggestion to a “From” scope, the elements may be re-linked using a Boolean OR operator.
In one embodiment, search results may include text in a language other than the current or default language of the data processing system being used to perform the search. For example, the data processing system may be configured to use the English language, while some of the email messages stored on the system have subject fields and/or message body written in French. The system may detect that the subject is using a different language (e.g., when the email message is indexed) and mark the subject as being in French. When the search results and suggestions are generated, the subject line may be translated automatically into English for matching purposes, or the search query may be translated into French. This may provide more useful search results for the user. Content and metadata in other languages may be handled automatically in a similar manner using known language identification and translation techniques.
On the left hand side of
In some embodiments, suggestions may not be filtered, or the user may be allowed to temporarily halt filtering with an additional command or input. For example, building a search query that would locate emails from two different people would be easier if a suggestion for the first person is selected and then a suggestion for a second person is selected. However, if the second person is excluded from the suggestions by the first suggestion, this would make building the desired search query more difficult. In one embodiment, suggestions that would be linked to previously selected suggestions using a Boolean OR operation are not filtered from the suggestion list. That is, if a suggestion that would otherwise be excluded by a previously selected suggestion (e.g., “Bob Smith” in suggestions 905) would, if selected, become a suggestion that would be disjunctively linked to the previous suggestion (e.g., linked with a Boolean OR), then the suggestion would not be filtered. If this embodiment were applied to
In another embodiment, suggestion filtering may be disabled entirely, although this may make the tokenized search suggestions less effective at helping the user build search queries. Different tiers of suggestion filtering may also be used. For example, a first tier of suggestion filtering may involve filtering suggestions based on the search context. Suggestions related to calendar events matching the text input in an email search context may be excluded automatically and vice versa. Other context-specific filters may be used as well, such as calendar events in a file search context, etc. A second tier of suggestion filtering may be as described above, which prevents some suggestions from being filtered depending on how a particular suggestion would be linked into the existing search query. In some embodiments, suggestion filtering may be disabled by a command received, for example, from a user.
As shown in
The mass storage 1011 is typically a magnetic hard drive or a magnetic optical drive or an optical drive or a DVD RAM or a flash memory or other types of memory systems which maintain data (e.g., large amounts of data) even after power is removed from the system. Typically, the mass storage 1011 will also be a random access memory although this is not required. While
A display controller and display device 1107 provide a visual user interface for the user; this digital interface may include a graphical user interface which is similar to that shown on a Macintosh computer when running OS X operating system software. The system 1100 also includes one or more wireless transceivers 1103. A wireless transceiver may be a WiFi transceiver, an infrared transceiver, a Bluetooth transceiver, and/or a wireless cellular telephony transceiver. It will be appreciated that additional components, not shown, may also be part of the system 1100 in certain embodiments, and in certain embodiments fewer components than shown in
The data processing system 1100 also includes one or more input devices 1113 which are provided to allow a user to provide input to the system. These input devices may be a keypad or a keyboard or a touch panel or a multi touch panel. The data processing system 1100 also includes an optional input/output device 1115 which may be a connector for a dock. It will be appreciated that one or more buses, not shown, may be used to interconnect the various components as is well known in the art. The data processing system shown in
In the foregoing specification, tokenized search suggestions have been described with reference to exemplary embodiments thereof. It will be evident that various modifications may be made thereto without departing from the broader spirit and scope of the invention as set forth in the following claims. The specification and drawings are, accordingly, to be regarded in an illustrative sense rather than a restrictive sense.
This application is a continuation of co-pending U.S. application Ser. No. 13/333,810 filed on Dec. 21, 2011, which claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/433,122, filed on Jan. 14, 2011, which are incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5960448 | Reichek et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
6202061 | Khosla et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6401097 | McCotter et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6564383 | Combs et al. | May 2003 | B1 |
6618733 | White et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6654754 | Knauft et al. | Nov 2003 | B1 |
6760721 | Chasen et al. | Jul 2004 | B1 |
6775666 | Stumpf et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
7039635 | Morgan et al. | May 2006 | B1 |
7085761 | Shibata | Aug 2006 | B2 |
7162466 | Kaasten et al. | Jan 2007 | B2 |
7162488 | DeVorchik et al. | Jan 2007 | B2 |
7328199 | Ramsey et al. | Feb 2008 | B2 |
7333982 | Bakalash et al. | Feb 2008 | B2 |
7392248 | Bakalash et al. | Jun 2008 | B2 |
7657603 | He et al. | Feb 2010 | B1 |
7752237 | Ray | Jul 2010 | B2 |
7783660 | Nomula et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
20030069882 | Nieswand et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20040098250 | Kimchi et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
20050210005 | Thompson et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050246324 | Paalasmaa et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20060004739 | Anthony et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060026147 | Cone et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060031357 | Misra et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060085442 | Fujiwara | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060129536 | Foulger et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060167896 | Kapur et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060195512 | Rogers et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060230022 | Bailey et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060271526 | Charnock et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20070038616 | Guha | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070061306 | Pell et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070088734 | Krishnamurthy et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070124296 | Toebes | May 2007 | A1 |
20070143245 | Dettinger et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070156669 | Marchisio et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070156747 | Samuelson | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070162422 | Djabarov | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070174350 | Pell et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20080005651 | Grefenstette et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080021921 | Horn | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080040325 | Sachs et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080104037 | Bierner | May 2008 | A1 |
20080104542 | Cohen et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
20080133504 | Messer et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080144943 | Gokturk et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080243784 | Stading | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080243786 | Stading | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20090106224 | Roulland et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090119234 | Pinckney et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
20090187515 | Andrew et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090249248 | Burckart et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090287680 | Paek et al. | Nov 2009 | A1 |
20100005092 | Matson | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100070448 | Omoigui | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100146012 | Beaudreau et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100169353 | Soetarman | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100179964 | Ramaswamy | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100223276 | Al-Shameri et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20110035403 | Ismalon | Feb 2011 | A1 |
20110246575 | Murayama et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
20110307504 | Agrawal et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20120047135 | Hansson et al. | Feb 2012 | A1 |
20120117102 | Meyerzon et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
20120131035 | Yang et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
Entry |
---|
U.S. Appl. No. 11/499,017, titled “Methods and Systems for Managing Data”, by inventor Yan Arrouye, Filed Aug. 4,2006, 144 pages (specification and drawings). |
Timo Sirainen , http://dovecot.org/list/dovecot/2010-December/056015.html, Dec. 28, 2010, 1 pg. |
Timo Sirainen “dovecot-2.0” changeset,http://hg.dovecot.org/dovecot-2.0/rev/757cb3148407, May 17, 2010, 7 pgs. |
“Understanding Exchange Search”, Microsoft Tech Net, http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb232132.aspx, Sep. 29, 2010, 2 pgs. |
PCT International Search Report and Written Opinion of the International Search Authority for PCT/US2012/021226, mailed May 15 2012. |
PCT International Preliminary Report on Patentability (Chapter I) for corresponding International Application No. PCT/US2012/021226, mailing date Jul. 25, 2013, 8 pages. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20130290291 A1 | Oct 2013 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
61433122 | Jan 2011 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 13333810 | Dec 2011 | US |
Child | 13923961 | US |