1. DOCUMENTS WITH DATABASES INSIDE THEM David Karger MIT

2. THE WEB PAGE AS A WYSIWYG END USER CUSTOMIZABLE DATABASE BACKED INFORMATION MANAGEMENT APPLICATION (UIST 2009) David Karger MIT

3. SMALL DATA David Karger MIT

4. Databases for Plain Folks  Database community:  Defined key primitives for data management  Knows building apps over databases offers simplicity, power, and flexibility  Plain Folks:  Have data to manage  Think databases are black magic  Manage their data by editing documents Hide databases in plain sight inside documents plain folks can edit

5. Conclusion  People should be able to create or customize applications (data, visualization, interaction) for their own information management tasks  The web has evolved a standard metaphor of AJAX-y “active documents” as interfaces to (web) databases  People know how to edit documents  So we can turn them into database engineers by helping them edit web documents like the ones they already use

6. Conclusion  DIDO is a Data Interactive DOcument  A standalone html document that contains  Some structured data in a database  An AJAX-y WYSIWYG interface to view/edit the data  A WYSIWYG “metaeditor” to edit the interface  Persistence simply by saving the document  A broad class of Create/Read/Update/Delete content management applications can be authored (not programmed) using DIDO

7. Thank You  http://bit.ly/didodido http://bit.ly/didodido  Google “dido exhibit”

8. Customizable Applications  Applications bring together the data, specialized views, and interactions necessary to perform tasks  User wants to “stretch” the app to their task  hide irrelevant data  incorporate new kinds of data  change how data is presented or manipulated  Can’t, because apps are rigid  Developer hard-wires “right” data model  And “right” visualizations and interactions with data

9. Migration to the Web  Many applications are now web sites  Amazon, Youtube, CNET, Epicurious, LinkedIn, Flickr  Still just as rigid/uncustomizable as applications  Common Architecture  Database backed  Entity-Relation Model  Common interface paradigms  Templates  Sortable lists  Faceted browsing, text search  maps, timelines, thumbnails, tables

10. Migration to the Web

11. Text search Faceted Browsing Sorting by Properties Templated Items

12. Text search Faceted Browsing Sorting by Properties Templated Items

13. Text search Faceted Browsing Sorting by Properties Templated Items

14. Text search Faceted Browsing Sorting by Properties Templated Items

15. Text search Faceted Browsing Sorting by Properties Templated Items

16. Text search Faceted Browsing Sorting by Properties Templated Items

17. Text search Faceted Browsing Sorting by Properties Templated Items

18. Nothing New  Tremendous similarity in many web sites  Much more uniform than applications  Helps users know what to expect  Boring?  Perhaps  But it creates an opportunity to standardize/package  Define authorable standard vocabulary of widgets

19. EXHIBIT

20. Exhibit  HTML vocabulary extension (new tags) for making interactive pages “like these”  ER data model (items + properties)  Lenses (templates) for rendering individual items  Views of an object collection:  list, thumbnails, tabular, scatter plot, map, timeline  Facets to filter the collection based on properties  enumerated list, tag cloud, slider/numeric range  Exhibit Javascript library interprets the new tags

21. Exhibit Interaction

22. Simple Architecture  Each facet, view is independently tied to data  Specify which properties should  fill in which places in the template  hold latitude/longitude for map  hold start/end for timeline  be sortable in the list  be columns in the tabular view  provide filtering values for a facet  Then interact through the data  Clicking value in facet filters data, which changes view

23. Deployment  Deployed 2007  Open source Javascript library  http://simile-widgets.org/exhibit http://simile-widgets.org/exhibit  Browser independent  Scales to ~ 1000 items, tens of properties  >1500 exhibits on the web  Hobbyists, scientists, newspapers, merchants

42. Discussion  Variety of exhibits (> 1500) suggests we’ve approximated “right” interaction vocabulary  Each is just an HTML document (with new tags)  All authored by editing data files and HTML source  How do we make them WYSIWYG?

43. DIDO

44. Editing the Data  Data objects are rendered through lenses  Which “fill in the blanks” using object properties  Changes to the rendered object can map back to changes in the underlying object  No additional “editing form” required

45. Change the rendered data, Change the underlying data

46. Editing the Interface  Views (of collection) and facets (for filtering) are elements on the page  Add them like other elements---images, media  Must tie to data model  By specifying which properties are used in view/facet  Like a chart in a spreadsheet---you specify columns

49. Editing Lens Templates  Templates say which properties go where  Just HTML, so any WYSIWYG editor will do  Adding template field spawns new data field  Changing the template changes the schema

51. Persistence  It’s just a document  Save it  Publish it on your web site  Email it  Store it in a version control system  Copy it to create a new, different app  Not anchored to any particular app or web site

52. Implementation  Everything is in the one HTML file  Data (serialized JSON)  Display (HTML, with new tags for view/facet widgets)  Javascript Exhibit framework to drive the data widgets jQuery TinyMCE HTML editor 2000 lines of new Javascript to wire everything together  No server, no plugin, nothing to install/configure  Changes to data or display change the file  So saving the file saves the changes

53. DISCUSSION

54. Discussion: Document as Interface  “Active Documents” (Xerox PARC) are a great UI  Add elements that react to the user  Document becomes a whole user interface  But still intuitive (it’s just a document)  And easy to build (extend document editor/viewer)  They have taken over the web  Every web page with Javascript is one  They are the dominant interfaces to web content

55. Discussion: Authoring Active Docs  Current web active docs are manually scripted  Web has converged on standard active doc widgets  Sortable lists, maps, facets for browsing,…  Should become part of HTML standard tags  These can be inserted in document  Just like an image or other media  And wired to underlying data  Just like a chart in a spreadsheet  So users can WYSIWYG author these active docs

56. It’s Just a Document  No application to install or configure  New, specialized display for each data set  App as light “CSS” wrapper around the data  Create new apps by cloning old  no need to start from scratch  or learn the rules

57. oops! Authoring by Copying  Views, lenses in HTML file  Copy it, change the data  (Maybe change the presentation too)

58. Scientific Publication  Document of the future  Publish your paper with the data inside it  Let the reader interact with that data  They’ll better understand/believe your argument

59. Easy Implementation  Browser as comprehensive UI toolkit  2000 lines of JS  Just wiring existing open source libraries together  Dido = Exhibit + Tiddlywiki + TinyMCE  Even I could do it

60. A Cloud Computing Contrarian  Popular model:  Move all functionality to the cloud  Deliver “thin client” web interface using Ajax  We can support the same interface experience without the cloud

61. Cloud Costs  Requires connectivity  Leaks your data  Provider is attack target  May not care about your data as much as you do  Locks your data  Trapped if provider shuts down  Or changes terms of service  Dido avoids all these costs  Keep working on the plane  Manage sensitive data that cannot be leaked  Email to a friend, publish on a web site, version control

62. Cloud Benefits  Persistence/ubiquity  Can persist the document (google docs)  For Big Data  Valid reason  Even Dido does this for Google Maps  But most data is small  Don’t make cloud downsides ubiquitous just because sometimes necessary!  Even if need cloud for data, UI approach still works

63. One DAPI to rule them all  Usually only need cloud for the data  Define a single data access API  E.g., SQL over http  Build it into the browser  Native javascript invocation  Maybe even HTML tags Define HTML table using SQL query?  Skip the labor of defining/learning a new API for each application  Simplify client AND server side programming

64. The DB community can lead  Define the right primitives for data access/manipulation in web interfaces  Push for a data access standard in HTML  In-browser SQL currently bogged down in debates  High-performance in-browser database implementation  Push for one cloud-data API  Generic database equivalent of Apache HTTPD?  Ease of adoption Bring the database to the document!

65. Try It!  http://bit.ly/didodido  http://projects.csail.mit.edu/exhibit/Dido/ http://projects.csail.mit.edu/exhibit/Dido/  Remember: it’s a research prototype  Written by a theory prof.  Thanks to Scott Ostler and Ryan Lee