6,014,135
`[11] Patent Number:
`United States Patent
`Jan. 11, 2000
`(45) Date of Patent:
`Fernandes
`
`
`[19]
`
`US006014135A
`
`[54] COLLABORATION CENTRIC DOCUMENT
`PROCESSING ENVIRONMENT USING AN
`INFORMATION CENTRIC VISUAL USER
`INTERFACE AND INFORMATION
`PRESENTATION METHOD
`
`[75]
`
`Inventor: Antonio M. Fernandes, San Jose,
`Calif
`,
`[73] Assignee: Netscape Communications Corp.,
`Mountain View, Calif.
`
`[21] Appl. No.: 08/833,300
`[22]
`Filed:
`Apr. 4, 1997
`GO6F 3/14; GOGF 15/163
`[51]
`Int. C1.”
`Sg eeeetreeeneeeenennnens wnat.
`to.
`.
`[52] US. Cle on3eeeaeLesoopteea30,
`[58] Field of Search
`>~
`;
`345 341 335
`335,
`ie
`CATCH oo eee cceeessessseees
`,
`345/329, 971, 973; 395/682, 200.33, 200.57
`
`[56]
`
`References Cited
`:
`U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS
`
`5/1993 Franklin et al. wo... 345/348
`5,214,756
`1/1997 Foster et al. o..eeeseecsseseseesseees 345/340
`5,596,697
`
`. 395/200.35
`4/1997 Ludwig etal.
`5,617,539
`
`Q/1997 Roberson wceccccscsecsssseseeceee 345/348
`5,666,500
`..
`seers 345/349
`2/1998 Moranet al.
`5,717,879
`6/1996 Gorbet et al. eee 345/335
`5,781,190
`Primary Examiner—Raymond J. Bayer]
`Assistant Examiner—Cuong T. Thai
`Attorney, Agent, or Firm—Limbach & Limbach L.L.P.
`[57]
`ABSTRACT
`A new computer interface displays a plurality of icons
`representative of people, documents and time. Various
`functions, including media independent functions, for inter-
`acting between these three elements, including composing,
`routing (collaborative or otherwise), are disclosed.
`87 Claims, 6 Drawing Sheets
`
`Composer2©Router 22tesCsenptaten)(—_)
`f&x
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`>
`
`
`eS
`
`
`View/appearance
`V7 [Baa|fafa-|
`|
`2a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`=
`
`G
`
`
`ATWORK ATHOME ON ROAD
`TEXT
`HTML
`FAX
`AUDIO VIDEO
`g
`
`;
`-
`:
`5
`
`_|Location
`Available Media
`=
`
`
`
`
`|
`
`10
`
`W
`
`0
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`Send To:
`
`Erika Mustermann
`
`(| HollyToledo
`‘S>aa ILuy Valujet
`
`ef
`
`Carbon Copy:
`es
`Ky
`t—
`Store At:
`=
`
`9g
`Shuang Li
`
`Local Storage
`
`i2
`
`©
`
`oO
`
`©
`
`O
`
`O
`
`©
`
`.
`re
`Location
`
`.
`.
`Available Media
`oO
`©
`
`O
`
`O
`
`.
`Location
`
`.
`.
`Available Media
`
`oO
`
`©
`
`.-
`
`
`
`
`4g
`ke
`i
`20
`|
`nt
`
`
`Dept. News: AAPL A word from ourcf | rl,|From: Tony Fernandes 6/23/97(“Gothere... [|NSCP MSFT
`
`
`
`
`Re: Hiring Frenzy
`21 1/2
`55
`Proft Sharing 02.9 LE) "Re: Prototype Usability Testing"
`50-4
`
`Google Exhibit 1095
`Google v. VirtaMove
`
`Google Exhibit 1095
`Google v. VirtaMove
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent
`
`Jan. 11, 2000
`
`Sheet 1 of 6
`
`6,014,135
`
`
`
`FIG. 1
`
`36
`
`30
`
`WINDOWS
`95
`
`
`HARDWARE
`
`
`PROGRAM
`
`
`
`PROGRAM
`
`HARDWARE
`
`FIG. 2b
`
`FIG. 2c
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent
`
`Jan. 11, 2000
`
`Sheet 2 of 6
`
`oI
`|ebe10is aulljJoO| ulg a19A00y
`slueby
`AesLyoIne>|saoedsysonn
`
`
`©
`
`=91919OE
`
`
`
`
`
`C=amoD,)“ye/ez/gsepuewiagAuol:wo14|
`Vv4“INAD0/AAB1|onOr]ofBaeit
`(KYa/wtuiNoowe
` LY¢xOoUU0Dyaasgoju]©a=ei()©‘iae=h
`
`°"xesiuaqyernen"IN
`
`°”2OpV7ef|(BB
`HunsayAjqesyedAjolold:3H,
`
`
`
`907awee)
`
`abeyureyS,YOSOIIIW
`adeosionJojuuerxyewpeey6urssnosig
`
`sojoist]=}dduioddPIOvy
`
`ASWdOSNIdvv:smeNn1deqYH
`
`
`
`yeueyAuyeyKa00e5)Z6°E00JSYNSOY
`AuoL0}|NOWOUSbl@
`[hopoe(BujeyeW)sop’pPlompiO
`
`
`[/Ze(fe)—oidpk(=I
`
`e/bbeZUS8I4]DULIH°8Y
`uyoruyOP10199119
`SOIQMaNOj|ed)(8)AuoHnejueCYH
`
`(Bujunossy)i
`
`
`0ppHOMPIO__
`
`
` ©)@I
`
`70494NOWold)Piom
`
`26°20DUUBUSWold
`[sy4wooHHA,OOUSTEM,
`CSE)
`
`uoleyuesoid
`
`aredaid
`
`MOMOWO}
`
`pueog0}
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(sejes)
`
`e
`oO
`L
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent
`
`Jan. 11, 2000
`
`Sheet 3 of 6
`
`6,014,135
`
`FIG.4
`
`ABLLHOIND:|s90e
`Fa%n®. e. a9
`
`
`
`
`
`From:TonyFernandes6/23/97
`
`D 53
`
`iS)ft
`
`
`
`AW Pro
`
`NSCPMSFT
`
`
`HRDept.News:AAPL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`"Re:PrototypeUsabilityTesting"
`
`
`Router
`e
` \GE)eG
`
`
`©©O® ComposerWA
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent
`
`Jan. 11, 2000
`
`Sheet 4 of 6
`
`6,014,135
`
`Lg)
`
`Oi
`
`|seoedsyony
`‘onan Pn a
`
`abes0g SullO! ug ajoAoey
`sjueby
`a i
`©,2,6,°,°.%
`Yn On Oe Oe nF
`
`
`
`
`AesyoInND,
`e,%, 59,99
`
`
`
`
`
`O3dlIA__OGNV
`
`xXV4
`
`@)
`
`©OOOo
`
`©PIPEeIgeIleAy
`WWLH LXSL
`
`
`
`
`|ama)
`
`
`©O
`OoO©OIPSaIqelieAy
`
`
`
`uNsalAIgesyedMjojorg-3y,,
`
`
`Z6/S¢/9SepuBeUayAUuolsWOl
`
`
`
`[oeBB@
`
`qvOHYNOSWOHLYWHOMLV
`4DJNOWO}DIOM¥
`6°20DULEYSHold
`uoneooq[IWUCI
` =
`©©O@N
`edaes]«A
`/\ayesodwog/|6
`sourieodde/malA|
`
`eIPEWsgelleay
`
`
`
`GS
`
`LASWdOSN
`
`
`Jdvy¥‘sMen‘deg
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ja]NOY
`
`uolyeo07]
`
`uol2907]
`
`uUeULE}SnW843
`
`opajoLAIC
`
`
`
`re{n[eAANTI
`
`
`
`1}Buenys
`——u
`
`Ol
`
`LL
`
`0]pues
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent
`
`Jan. 11, 2000
`
`Sheet 5 of 6
`
`6,014,135
`
`Aeyo saoedson
`hs Peeeee
`
`
`
`sAnbJuBUYedA
`
`wee]SoH
`
`ivAve|ietKe)fst
`
`
`
` Ayuap]JONey
`
`oD
`
`SOEESHON,OBUOMSSLlEl
`
`jews[=|
`
`SNS
`
`—et—_\
`
`
`
`
`9‘Sila
`
`yuebinG@)
`
`O@aPlAEn
`
`eu0ldwo
`
`
`
`0S
`
`OL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent
`
`Jan. 11, 2000
`
`Sheet 6 of 6
`
`6,014,135
`
`- ©i
`
`aBelojS SuUIO|ulg apAeY
`sjusby
`Aesyong |Sacedsyon
`
`Cnei Fa S
`C.bhatt S
`CaMaMaand
`
`
`
`
`
`
`L6/Ea/9eBueydsinpeyssBunesyydnany9udl|LL
`26/ee/9sseiboldyoslolg‘diosubiseqSHaZI
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`26/L2e/9soadsjf)ajeashRys,aiddyualseA2]
`
`
`Z6/Ed/9so)AjyiqespadAjojo1g:0ysapueue4AUoL=
`
`
`
`
`2£6/20/9pepsausyodaisnyejgsapueuisAUOLa8
`LINAS|Loardans|YSGN3S|WNIGSn|ove
`
`L6/L2e/9uoalesyyBINOAAysegjug
`
`L6/E¢/9Z61SI26pukeSUDOONDOOWSX
` SS5Ayoees%)
`
`26/E0/9
`
`L6/E¢/9
`
`L6/E0/9
`
`L6/Ec/9
`
`L6/EC/9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SmMaNAinsayy0]aquosqns
`
`“diogJepply-1ubluy
`
`
`
`
`
`aBueyyainpeyssBuyaeyydnasyuoieo07]@UMOUUN
`
`
`
`
`
`OaplASaleSadeosjayyMAUINO
`
`
`
`Bunayeyonpold
`
`SMONAunoseyy0}aquOSsqns
`
`
`‘diogsapply-}yBiuy
`
`
`
`wOUISO|APQeSSGAjO}O14-OY,
`
`
`FzobuNeYsYoldg
`
`SS
`
`a/bbe
`
`zuel4
`
`DUWIH7384
`
`26/Ez/9SepueUle4AUOL:Wwol4
`
`
`
`)UNOWd,POM
`JHSWdOSN
`
`IdvVv
`
`
`
`‘SMON‘}deqgHy
`
`
`
`
`
`@)
`
`©)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EEae2aounreadde/malp
`
`|
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`eBueyyainpeyosBuyseyydnoiyuole007@UMOUyUl)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`6,014,135
`
`1
`COLLABORATION CENTRIC DOCUMENT
`PROCESSING ENVIRONMENT USING AN
`INFORMATION CENTRIC VISUAL USER
`INTERFACE AND INFORMATION
`PRESENTATION METHOD
`
`FIELD OF THE INVENTION
`
`The present invention relates to information processing
`system organization and in particular,
`to an interactive
`operator interface to information processing systems. More
`particularly,
`the present invention relates to a computing
`device based information processing system environment
`that uses a visual user interface for interfacing a user with
`primitives of people, information and time, as opposed to the
`prior art interface of using primitives of functions or tasks
`(such as word processing, spread sheet etc.)
`DESCRIPTION OF THE RELATED ART
`
`the typical user of an information processing
`Today,
`system such as a personal computer, haslittle or no training
`in the computer sciences or even in the basic use of a
`personal computer.
`In order to operate a computer
`effectively, however, he or she must overcome a steep
`learning curve, one requiring mastery of a number of com-
`mands and data formats. One approach to solving this
`problem is to spend hours laboring over often-cryptic user
`manuals—anunattractive option at best. Instead, most users
`usually abandon printed manuals in favor of trial-and-error
`learning.
`To increase ease of use, designers of computer systems
`have labored for decades to create architectures which are
`intuitive. Most of this effort has been centered around the
`user interface (UI)—the means by which a user communi-
`cates (i.e., supplies input and receives output) with a com-
`puter. With the increasingly widespread availability of pow-
`erful microprocessors, graphical user interfaces (GUIs) have
`become feasible.
`
`A GUL is a type of display format that enables a user to
`operate a computer by pointing to pictorial representations,
`such as “windows” and “icons” (bitmaps), displayed on a
`screen device. A window is typically a rectangle displayed
`on the screen that affords a user workspace within a pro-
`gram. In typical operation, the user may move the window
`about on the screen, change its size or shape, enlarge it to fill
`the screen, close it entirely, or change how much ofits
`contents are displayed. To aid the user in the manipulation
`of its contents, a window will typically include a number of
`user interface controls, such as buttons, menus,sliders, and
`the like. Outside the window, the screen can display other
`screen objects, such as other windows, disk drive icons, or
`even a trash can icon.
`
`To navigate within a GUI, most systems employ a screen
`cursor or pointer, typically displayed as a small arrow icon
`(bitmap) which allowsthe user to select individual points on
`the screen. In operation, the screen cursor is moved to a
`desired screen location in response to movements of a
`pointing device (e.g., mouse) by the user. Besides effecting
`cursor movement, most pointing devices include one or
`more switches or “mouse buttons” for specifying additional
`user input or “user events.” Since many user choices may be
`entered through use of a pointing device(e.g., for selecting
`screen objects), instead of input with a keyboard, the need
`for the user to memorize special commands has been less-
`ened.
`
`Most GUIs feature a menu bar, for instance, running
`across the top of the screen which serves to group or
`
`10
`
`25
`
`30
`
`40
`
`45
`
`50
`
`55
`
`60
`
`65
`
`2
`calegorize commandsavailable to the user. Clicking on an
`item on the menu bar typically causes a “pull-down” menu
`to appear. This second or “submenu”also includes a number
`of items, each of which is associated with a desired action,
`including the display of even more menus. To select a
`desired action,
`the user usually clicks the corresponding
`menuitem with the screen or mouse pointer. For some menu
`items, particularly those which may be nested in several
`layers deep, a keyboard equivalent or “hot key” may be
`available but, unfortunately, these must also be memorized
`by the user.
`With well-known examples including Apple’s Macintosh
`(Mac) interface, Microsoft’s Windows, and IBM’s OS/2
`Presentation Manager, these interfaces simplify computer
`operation by attempting to provides users with a more-or-
`less consistent interface across applications. Nevertheless,
`most application software still requires complex user
`actions, such as “double-clicking” or “dragging” a mouse
`device while a key is held down. Thus,there typically exists
`a plethora of ways to do almost anything in a graphical
`interface, such as the Mac. While this increases the flexibil-
`ity of asystem, it also adds to the complexity of the interface
`that the user must master. And this problem is by no means
`limited just to novice users. Experienced computerusers are
`reluctant to read user manuals and, hence, often fair no better
`than novice users. All
`told,
`the user is still required to
`memorize special commands.
`Standard windowing interfaces depend heavily on a sys-
`tem of pull-down menus. While pull-down menus are an
`improvement over command-line (e.g., MS-DOS by
`Microsoft Corporation) interfaces, they are non-metaphoric
`or non-analogous to ordinary objects, i.e., ones familiar to
`the user. Perhaps the biggest weakness of pull-down menus
`is the requirement that the user must know beforehand
`which menucontains the item or function ofinterest. If the
`
`user does not know which pull-down menu, submenu, or
`dialog box contains the item he or she is seeking, the user
`will spend an inordinate amount of time checking the
`contents of each in an effort to hunt down the needed item.
`And often the search is in vain. Moreover, since functions
`for a given object (e.g., text object) are often scattered over
`several disparate menus, the user is discouraged from inter-
`acting and experimenting with the object. Thus, many prior
`art windowing GUIs are no moreintuitive or useful to the
`user than other menuing systems.
`One approach to overcoming this problem has been the
`implementation of “smart icons.” This interface technique
`employs screen buttons painted with icons which are sup-
`posed to tell the user what the buttons do. This approach,
`however, makes the interface problem even worse because
`the meaning of the individual buttons is often not easily
`grasped. For instance, some button images are so small or so
`numerousthat it is hard to see the icons well enough to
`discern what they mean. Thus, the approachis frequently no
`more helpful than hiding the desired function deep inside a
`menuing system. Thus, with advances in computer and
`software technology, application software has not necessar-
`ily become easier to use. Instead, technological advances
`have been largely employed to build more complex func-
`tions into existing applications, often resulting in a compli-
`cated user interface, such as a staggering array of icons,
`which leave the user even more bewildered.
`
`The present invention recognizesthat it is highly desirable
`to provide information processing systems with system and
`application software which is highly intuitive to users,
`including those who are untrained in the use of the software.
`What is necded is a system and interface methods which
`
`

`

`6,014,135
`
`3
`require little or no knowledge of specific commandsby the
`user. Moreover, such methods should not “invade” the user
`screen workspace (client area), that is, they should operate
`in a non-intrusive fashion. The present invention fulfills this
`and other needs.
`
`
`
`The present invention recognizes that present-day imple-
`mentations of graphical user interfaces often serve to further
`confuse a user of a computer system. Examples include
`toolbars or “smart” icons, which, owing to the vast number
`of bitmap images
`typically employed, force the user to
`memorize a multitude of (often arbitrary) images. The
`present invention further recognizes that most humanspro-
`cess information better visually than they do textually.It is
`not merely the graphical nature of an interface however,that
`makes it better. Using a bit-mapped system to render the
`lines and characters of a character-mode program does not
`change the essential nature of the program. It is relatively
`simple to create a program with a “graphical user interface”
`that has the same extreme difficulty-of-use as a CP/M, DOS,
`or UNIX application. The qualities that make a user inter-
`face good are user-centric and not
`technology-centric.
`“Graphicalness” is a technology-centric concept.
`The present invention also recognizes that there are two
`very important user-centric qualities: the “visualness” of the
`software and the program’s vocabulary. Instead of a graphi-
`cal user interface, what is need is a visual user interface
`(VUI). In orderto realize the advantages of the technology,
`the interaction with the user must become visual and not
`
`merely graphical. In other words, representational graphics
`are not as importantin an interface asis the visualness of the
`interaction with the interface. What is needed is a VUIthat
`allows the user to visualize how the interface is controlled.
`
`The user-centricness of software also depends on its
`vocabulary. A commandline interface appears to a user to
`have an unlimited vocabulary. Anything can be entered at
`the commandline. Such an interface burdens the user with
`learning the vocabulary. In contrast, a menu driven GUIis
`more user-centric becauseit limits the vocabularyto a finite
`set of menu choices. However,the useris still burdened with
`understanding the options, locating and selecting the desired
`choice. What is needed is a VUI that does not depend on
`menus, has a morerestricted vocabulary than a menu based
`system, and allows the user to visualize the process needed
`to control the system to achieve his goals.
`Operators use information processing systems to work
`collaboratively in networked environments. A multitude of
`applications and operating systems have been developed to
`facilitate such collaboration. or example, some of the more
`significant groupware applications and operating systems
`that are also GUI-based include: Lotus Notes by Lotus
`Corporation, MS Windows for WorkGroups by MicroSoft
`Corporation, Macintosh System 7 by Apple Computer
`Corporation, X.11 Window System by Robert W. Scheifler
`and Jim Gettys at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
`and OS/2 Presentation Manager by International Business
`Machines, Incorporated.
`The documentis a vehicle for sharing information within
`a networked information system. The documentis currently
`the single most important vehicle for the transmission of
`information between people.
`Information carricd within
`documents can be presented in different forms, most of
`which can be transposed between various media, e.g. text,
`graphics, video, audio. All can be transmitted, presented,
`shared and worked onas digital documentfiles. A Web page
`is a document in digital format. If emailed, it becomes a
`document on a different computer in digital format. If
`
`10
`
`20
`
`35
`
`45
`
`50
`
`55
`
`60
`
`65
`
`4
`downloaded to a floppy, it becomes a document on disc. If
`printed out, it becomes a hard copy document. If scanned
`back into a system using optical character recognition
`(OCR) software, it returns to being an editable document
`file. The hard copy manuscript of a Mozart Symphony
`sitting in a Salzburg Museum is a document. A CD of the
`Vienna Philharmonic playing that symphony is an audio
`document with the added information of the conductor’s
`interpretation. A video of the performance is yet another
`document. But all are carrying the same essential informa-
`tion. Only the medium is different and is chosen for the
`effect the producer wishes to have on the end user. Com-
`pound documents include a plurality of different media
`types. For example, an email message could contain both
`text and graphics, or a video file could contain an audio
`soundtrack and text in the form of subtitles. Essentially, any
`fixed, reproducible expression of information is a document.
`Generally, groupware applications are designed to stream-
`line the collection and dissemination of documents. Users
`operating in a groupware environment can build on the
`documents that their co-workers generate. Fostering col-
`laboration in this manner is an emerging way of making
`groups of individuals more productive as a whole. Group-
`ware applications may include calendars, electronic mail,
`conferencing, spreadsheets, databases, and word processing.
`In contrast to the paper-based approach for collaborating on
`reports, the electronic method, using groupware, accom-
`plishes the task more quickly, more efficiently, and without
`the drawbacks associated with paper, because documents
`can be updated immediately, eliminating the need for users
`to replicate each other’s efforts.
`A frequent and persistent problem with groupware appli-
`cations and environments however, is that each application
`or environmenthasits own,different paradigm of how users
`should interface with data. In other words the vocabularies
`
`of the different programs are not restricted and contain
`different redundant controls for the same functions. The
`drawbackisthat users are required to learn and adapt to each
`program’s unique interface and not just the idiomatic dif-
`ferences of the different functions.
`
`This approach ignores the fact that many applications and
`operating system GUI controls perform a shared set of
`identical functions. For example, creating an HTML based
`email document using a mail composer requires essentially
`the samesteps as creating a web page documentusing a web
`page editor, yet the two programs used to perform these
`tasks have distinct interfaces. The actual steps that must be
`performed can be very different because the graphical user
`interface (GUI) controls that the two programs provide are
`different. Likewise, accessing and reading threaded email
`requires essentially the same steps as accessing and reading
`news, yet email programs and news readers use distinct
`interfaces so that the actual steps involved are different.
`Users are required to learn how to use the different interface
`controls and thus, they must adapt to each different interface.
`Referring to the above examples of drafting HTML based
`email versus creating a web page and reading threaded email
`versus reading news: in bothof these cases, the fact that one
`document type is stored locally and transmitted versus the
`other being stored on a remote server, are the only real
`perccived differences. Rather than extracting these differ-
`ences as attributes that the user controls in relation to their
`document, prior art groupware has created different, com-
`plex GUI controls and operating system concepts to which
`the user must adapt. In doing so,the prior art groupware has
`created a great deal of redundant user interface controls that
`the uscr must Icarn about and master,
`just
`to usc the
`
`

`

`6,014,135
`
`5
`information processing system. The prior arl groupware
`information processing systemshavefailed to provide a VUI
`that only requires the minimum set of controls.
`Therefore, what is needed is an interface that is both
`minimaland intuitive in terms of its VUI controls, and at the
`same time, as universal as possible for all the different kinds
`of documents that are to be processed. What is further
`needed is an information presentation method that is not
`cluttered with VUI controls, but instead provides informa-
`tion and access to documents in a form and organization that
`is natural to users. In other words, what is needed is a
`method of providing information such that the information
`itself and its organization is the essential part of the visual
`user interface.
`
`Even more problematic is the way in which applications
`use different kinds of documents. Because different appli-
`cations generally store documents in the application’s own
`unique digital format, the existing GUIs of current operating
`systems primarily associate documents with the application
`that created them,rather than the userproject, uscr goal, user
`priority, or user concern to which they belong. In contrast,
`observation of how the system fits into user workflowin an
`intranet environment for example, makesit clear that users
`do not draw a distinction between all the various artificial
`boundaries that information systems impose. The fact that
`various objects and documents are associated with different
`applications and are stored in different
`locations simply
`creates obstacles that the user must overcome. Users view
`their desktop application files,
`references to people,
`bookmarks, and other objects as all being related to certain
`projects, goals, concerns, or priorities. They are merely
`burdened by having to be aware of the application to which
`the various objects relate.
`For example,
`the Windows for Workgroups Operating
`System uses arbitrary three letter file name extensions to
`identify to the user and the system which the program is
`associated with a particular file. For instance,
`the word
`processor program MicroSoft Word uses the extension
`“DOC”; the spreadsheet application Corel Quattro Pro uses
`“ WB3”; and the drawing program Visio Technical 4.0 uses
`the extension “.VSD”. If the user fails to name the document
`with an extension that the operating system (OS) recognizes,
`the user must either manually create the association, or
`identify the appropriate application for the system each time
`the documentis directly accessed. Even worse, if the user
`provides an incorrect extension the OS will attempt to access
`the file with the incorrect application. The net effect of
`burdening the user with awareness of the association
`between documents and applications is to make it easier for
`the user to access documents via the application instead of
`directly. Thus, users are motivated to group documents by
`application type as opposed to projects, priorities, concerns,
`or goals.
`The same problem exists in applications directed toward
`communication. Users associate different people with the
`different projects on which they work. At any given time,
`users want to communicate with other users, but the inter-
`faces to the necessary information to do so are significant
`obstacles. Existing information systems that provide com-
`munications facilities require the originator to provide a
`phone number, or an cmail address, or a pager number.
`Merely being aware of the target person’s identity is insuf-
`ficient. Sometimes, real time communication is desired and
`other times, time delayed communication is most desirable.
`The media chosen depends on urgency, the content of the
`message, the nature of the message, the time of day, and
`various other factors. Prior art systems do not permit casily
`
`6
`the target person to indicate the ideal way to communicate
`with them. Sometimesthe userinitiating the communication
`does not care what media is used to deliver the message as
`long as it gets to the intended recipient. However, in every
`case, the goal of communicating is the same.
`Existing user interfaccs make it difficult for the user by
`segmenting the process of communicating depending on the
`selected media and mode. Users are burdened with, not only
`having to know the identity of the person with which they
`want to communicate, but also very specific details about the
`different numbers and addresses associated with that person.
`For instance, email has an interface that requires a target
`address, video conferencing has a different interface, voice
`mail has yet a different interface that requires a target phone
`number, etc. Once again the user is burdened with having to
`learn redundant sets of GUI controls to use the communi-
`cation system. Thus, what is further needed is a universal,
`media independent means for providing communication
`facilities that present messages in a coherent cohesive man-
`ner. In addition, what is also needed is a means for com-
`municating with other users without having to know specific
`details about how to contact them or even their identities.
`
`Motedesirably, users should be able to contact others based
`on common goals, concerns, priorities, or associations.
`Anothershort fall of existing GUIs for groupware appli-
`cations and network OS’s is that the prior art systems are
`generally ignorant of time other than timestampingoffiles,
`logging system events, initiating backup subsystems, and
`timing out upon detecting a sustained error condition. These
`time related functions are essentially concerned with the
`system itself.
`In other words, events relevant
`to the
`information, as opposed to the system, are not logged for
`example. The needs of a work group jointly revising a
`document are not met. Observation of users using existing
`GUIsindicates that time is an essential aspect of almostall
`information. A document’s creation or last modification date
`
`can be important information, but in a collaborative network
`workgroupsetting, it is likely that timestamps alone, as a
`meansof relating the document to time, will be insufficient.
`For example, in order to recover a version of the document
`as it existed before a fourth reviewer revised it but after a
`
`third modified the document requires more than mere times-
`tamps.
`In addition to not providing time-based revision control,
`prior art GUIs for groupware applications and OS’s do not
`provide access to documentsrelevant to the current time and
`date. Groupware calendar time applications such as calandar
`by XYZ Corporation do provide time sensitive notification
`of events along with documents related to the triggering
`events. However, the calendar programs of the prior art
`cannot
`integrate the calendar function with reference to
`people and to information. Moreover, the calendar programs
`of the prior art do not permit multi-dimensional viewing of
`different aspects of people and of information.
`Agents, such as Microsoft Agent (available from
`Microsoft Corporation at http://www.microsoft.com/intdev/
`agent/) are well knownin the art. However,these are passive
`helpers whichcarry out a set of actions. They function in the
`background and automate a set of steps which historically
`requires a set of manual steps. They do notactively perform
`diverse steps to achieve a function.
`Another significant problem with prior art GUIs exists
`where familiar mechanical-age models serve as more than
`just mere metaphors, but are actually implemented on the
`computer. In an effort to make the interface more familiar to
`uscrs, the GUIs of the prior art provide interfaces imple-
`
`10
`
`20
`
`25
`
`30
`
`35
`
`40
`
`45
`
`50
`
`55
`
`60
`
`65
`
`

`

`6,014,135
`
`7
`mented as computer versions of familiar mechanical pro-
`cesses using computer versions of mechanical objects. Sim-
`ply put, mechanical-age processes are a lot less efficient
`when computerized. Usually, common procedures are easier
`to perform by hand than they are with computers. Kor
`example, addressing an envelope with a computer is more
`complex andless efficient than simply using a typewriter to
`perform the same task. Only when there are a large number
`of envelopes to address is there an efficiency benefit.
`Mechanical models transliterated to computers are always
`less efficient.
`
`Another example of this principle is evident from a name
`and addresslist on a computer. If an addresslist is faithfully
`rendered like a small bound book, it will be much more
`complex, inconvenient and difficult to use than the actual
`book. A name and address book, for example, stores names
`in alphabetical order by last name. If the user wants to find
`someonebya first namethere is a problem. The mechanical-
`age artifact is not helpful. Pages must be scanned manually.
`So, too, does the accurately rendered computerized version:
`it cannot be searched byfirst name either. The difference is
`thal, on the computer screen, you lose many subtle visual
`cues offered by the paper-based book. The scrollbars and
`dialog boxes are harder to use, to visualize, and to under-
`stand than flipping hardcopy pages. Thus, GUI controls once
`again become obstacles to the user.
`The usual
`result of a mechanical process being
`computerized, is that the user of that process will suffer. The
`only situation where transliterated processes yield an advan-
`tage is if the sheer quantity of items to be processed is large
`enough to justify doing the task en masse. Early data-
`processing systems did this with applications like invoicing
`and billing. Most of user computing jobs do not involve the
`rawprocessing of sufficiently large quantities of information
`for this to remain true.
`
`But there is another, bigger problem with transliterated
`mechanical models. The old mechanical method will always
`have the strengths and weaknesses of its medium,like pen
`and paper. Software has a completely different set of
`strengths and weaknesses, yet when those old models are
`brought across without change,
`they combine the weak-
`nesses of the old with the weaknesses of the new. In the
`
`the computer could easily
`address book example above,
`search for an entry by first name, but, by storing the names
`in the same paradigm as the mechanicalartifact, new ways
`of searching are precluded. Theuseris limited to essentially
`that which could be done in the world of paper and ink, but
`now the user must do it through dialog boxes and menus.
`Reliance on mechanical-age paradigms, have blinded the
`designers of prior art GUIsto the far greater potential of the
`computer
`to do information management
`tasks in an
`improved manner.
`The Windows environment can be thought of as an
`example of a transliterated mechanical-age artifact imple-
`mented in a computer. The paradigmis that of a desktop in
`which the windows are analogous to papers and books.
`Several distinct, but overlapping regions on a single display
`are rendered for processing documents. In the same way,
`several books and documents can occupy an actual desktop.
`As with an actual desktop, the windows environment can
`become cluttered and unmanageable. Further, a substantial
`burden remains on the user to keep the system organized.
`Obviously, the existing windows-based cnvironments are
`not strictly limited to being a mechanical artifact translit-
`eration. As described above, the windowscan be resized or
`reordered, and cach one functions as a distinct virtual
`
`10
`
`20
`
`25
`
`35
`
`40
`
`45
`
`50
`
`55
`
`60
`
`65
`
`8
`machinein that a different application can be run within each
`window. Additionally, a system of menus, which has no
`mechanical equivalent in the desktop paradigm, provides the
`means for performing operations. Objects such as
`documents, applications, and OS components are repre-
`sented by icons. While the primary means of interfacing
`with these types of systems are the menus,there are limited
`visualfacilities that allow operation of the system purely via
`manipulation of the objects themselves. For example,
`Apple’s Macintosh System 7 and MicroSoft’s Windows 95
`allows the user to delete files by moving the icons repre-
`sentative of the files to a delete function object called
`“Trash” or the “Recycle Bin”.
`However, the tools provided by the prior art GUIs to help
`manage the desktop environmentoften aggravate the prob-
`lems of the desktop paradigm. For example, in Windows
`3.11, the tool providedto locate a “window”actually clutters
`the screen with an additional window. The pop-up window
`called the “tasklist” pro