1. AutoComPaste Auto-Completing Text as an Alternative to Copy-Paste Shengdong (Shen) Zhao 1 Fanny Cheviler 2 Wei Tsang Ooi 1 Chee Yuan Lee 1 Arpit Agarwal 1,3 1

2. Background & Motivation 2 is a common computing operation it often happens across documents

3. Background & Motivation Current copy-paste techniques: 3 Ctrl-C, Ctrl-VMenu selection Drag & dropX-Win Chapuis and Roussel. Copy-and-paste between overlapping windows. CHI 07

4. 6-Step Common Workflow 4

5. 5 Step 1: Typing Step 1: Typing

6. 6-Step Common Workflow 6 Step 2: Context switch & Win manage Step 2: Context switch & Win manage

7. 6-Step Common Workflow 7 Step 3: Visual search Step 3: Visual search

8. 6-Step Common Workflow 8 Step 4: Highlighting & Copy Step 4: Highlighting & Copy

9. 6-Step Common Workflow 9 Step 5: Window management Step 5: Window management

10. 6-Step Common Workflow 10 Step 6: Paste Step 6: Paste

11. 6-Step Common Workflow 11

12. 12

13. 13 + Text Unit Adjustments Auto-Completing Text as an Alternative to Copy-Paste

14. 14 + Text Unit Adjustments Window management is common and tedious Window management is common and tedious Copy-paste often Interleaves typing Copy-paste often Interleaves typing Copy-paste different sizes of text is common Copy-paste different sizes of text is common

15. Logger Study Logger that logs copy-paste event –Automatically turned on, data send to a central server –For each copy-paste event, we record Type (copy | paste) Number of windows open, host window, and application name Timestamp Nearest typing event in terms of time Content copied –joe12@gmail.com is stored as xxx00@xxxxx.xxx Participants –22 students (9 female, 13 male, 21-27, M 23.14) Duration –2 weeks 15

16. Logger Study - Result Data collected –34.1 MB of text data, 8168 events with 3481 (43%) copy and 4687 (57%) paste. Windows opened –83% of the time, users have 6-20 concurrently opened windows (average 12) when performing CP Type of copy-paste –57% (2672) cross-document CP –43% (2015) within-document CP Interleaving with typing –42% of copy events were performed after typing, and 54% of paste events were followed by typing Text size –Phrases (39%), Sentences (33%), Paragraphs (28%) 16

17. 17 + Text Unit Adjustments Window management is common and tedious Window management is common and tedious Copy-paste often Interleaves typing Copy-paste often Interleaves typing Copy-paste different sizes of text is common Copy-paste different sizes of text is common

18. AutoComPaste Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoDT3UeAoR E 18

19. How does AutoComPaste Compare with Traditional Copy-Paste Techniques? 19 Ctrl-C, Ctrl-VMenu selection Drag & dropX-Win Chapuis and Roussel. Copy-and-paste between overlapping windows. CHI 07

20. What are the conditions or factors? 20

21. 21 1) Knowledge of content Keyword(s) known Keyword(s) unknown 1) Knowledge of content Keyword(s) known Keyword(s) unknown 2) Knowledge of location Location known Location unknown 2) Knowledge of location Location known Location unknown

22. 22 1) Knowledge of content Keyword(s) known Keyword(s) unknown 1) Knowledge of content Keyword(s) known Keyword(s) unknown 3) Visibility Visible Invisible 3) Visibility Visible Invisible 2) Knowledge of location Location known Location unknown 2) Knowledge of location Location known Location unknown

23. 23 1) Knowledge of content Keyword(s) known Keyword(s) unknown 1) Knowledge of content Keyword(s) known Keyword(s) unknown 3) Visibility Visible Invisible 3) Visibility Visible Invisible 4) Typing activity Standalone Interleaving 4) Typing activity Standalone Interleaving 2) Knowledge of location Location known Location unknown 2) Knowledge of location Location known Location unknown

24. 24 1) Knowledge of content Keyword(s) known Keyword(s) unknown 1) Knowledge of content Keyword(s) known Keyword(s) unknown 2) Knowledge of location Location known Location unknown 2) Knowledge of location Location known Location unknown 3) Visibility Visible Invisible 3) Visibility Visible Invisible 4) Typing activity Standalone Interleaving 4) Typing activity Standalone Interleaving

25. 25 1) Knowledge of content Keyword(s) known Keyword(s) unknown 1) Knowledge of content Keyword(s) known Keyword(s) unknown 2) Knowledge of location Location known Location unknown 2) Knowledge of location Location known Location unknown 3) Visibility Visible Invisible 3) Visibility Visible Invisible 4) Typing activity Standalone Interleaving 4) Typing activity Standalone Interleaving

26. 26

27. 27

28. 28

29. 29

30. 30

31. 31

32. 32

33. 33

34. 34 1) Knowledge of content Keyword(s) known Keyword(s) unknown 1) Knowledge of content Keyword(s) known Keyword(s) unknown 2) Knowledge of location Location known Location unknown 2) Knowledge of location Location known Location unknown 3) Visibility Visible Invisible 3) Visibility Visible Invisible 4) Typing activity Standalone Interleaving 4) Typing activity Standalone Interleaving

35. 35 S1: Content (known), Location (known), Visible (true), Typing before copy (false)

36. 36 S1: Content (known), Location (known), Visible (true), Typing before copy (false)

37. 37 S1: Content (known), Location (known), Visible (true), Typing before copy (false)

38. 38 S1: Content (known), Location (known), Visible (true), Typing before copy (false)

39. 39 S1: Content (known), Location (known), Visible (true), Typing before copy (false)

40. 40

41. 41

42. 42

43. 43

44. Controlled Experiment 12 university participants X 2 techniques (XWin, ACP) X 2 content knowledge type (known, unknown) X 2 location knowledge type (known, unknown) X 2 visibility type (visible, invisible) X 2 pre-copy activity type (isolated, typing) X 6 trials of 3 different units of text (2 phrases + 2 sentences + 2 paragraphs) = 2304 trials total 44

45. Results 45

46. 46 ACP has 29% performance benefit XWin has 29% performance benefit ACP has 140% performance benefit XWin has 31% performance benefit C(+) L(+) C(-) L(+) C(+) L(-) C(-) L(-)

47. Qualitative Study 6 participants (3 female, 3 male; aged 22-25, mean 23.8) Realistic trip planning task –plan a 5-day trip to Santa Barbara by gathering relevant information from 10 given webpages –asked to include at least one outdoor activity, one indoor activity, and one restaurant for each day of the trip Can use either AutoComPaste and other copy-paste techniques 47

48. Results AutoComPaste is heavily used and highly rated by 5/6 participants However, one rated AutoComPaste negatively He is a non-native English speaker participant 48

49. Conclusion AutoComPaste nicely complements the traditional copy-paste techniques –AutoComPaste has advantage when the keyword/prefix is known –When keywords/prefix is known and location is unknown, AutoComPaste will have the most advantage –XWin has advantage when the keyword/prefix is unknown Performance of AutoComPaste is subject to typing and spelling skills 49

50. Acknowledgment Shi Xiaoming for programming the logger Guia Gali and Symon Oliver for video editing Study participants Members in the NUS-HCI lab This research is supported by National University of Singapore Academic Research Fund R-252-000-464- 112

51. Q & A 51 Vignette (CHI 12) You may want to check out these other projects from SandCanvas (CHI 11) MOGCLASS (CHI 11)Magic Cards (CHI 09) earPod (CHI 07) Zone & Polygon Menu (CHI 06) Elastic Hierarchy (InfoVis 05) Simple Marking Menu (UIST 04)