Universal Access in the Information Society

, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 137–153

e-Document management in situated interactivity: the WIL approach

  • Paolo Bottoni
  • Fernando Ferri
  • Patrizia Grifoni
  • Andrea Marcante
  • Piero Mussio
  • Marco Padula
  • Amanda Reggiori
Long Paper


Complex organizations need to manage a large amount of information that their employees produce and use in the form of documents: therefore, information systems are adopted to access these documents in electronic format (e-documents) through Intranet or Internet. These documents are composed, organized and annotated in different ways according to the rules adopted by specific professional communities. Such rules reflect the different and peculiar culture and skills of the communities producing them. The large amount of information available today can be potentially accessed in real time. This has increased the need for syntactic and semantic characterization of documents and for tools that allow their effective access and exploitation on the Net, their easy retrieval and management, their annotation to adapt and personalize them on the base of users’ characteristics and diversities. This paper describes the approach adopted for the Web Indexing Language (WIL) system, a system conceived for supporting users interactivity during editing, indexing, and annotating e-documents on the basis of conventions adopted for their production and distribution. In particular, the approach capitalizes on the notion that the document layout reflects the relationships among the different semantic components of the document. The model and the architecture of the WIL system aim at improving e-document indexing, searching, editing and annotating, and at exploiting the description of the logical structure of the document itself to squeeze the information about the document content which are usually grasped by a reader at a glance.


HCI Interactivity XML e-Document management 


  1. 1.
    Green, T.R.G., Petre, M.: Usability analysis of visual programming environments: a ‘cognitive dimensions’ framework. J. Visual Lang. Comput. 7(2), 131–174 (1996). (special issue on HCI in visual programming)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bottoni, P., Costabile, M.F., Levialdi, S., Mussio, P.: Specifying dialog control in visual interactive systems. J. Visual Lang. Comput. 9, 535–564 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ferri, F., Grifoni, P., Padula, M.: Using shape to index and query web document content. J. Visual Lang. Comput. 13, 355–373 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boiko, B.: The Content Management Bible. Wiley, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Padula, M., Reggiori, A.: Art teams up with technology through the net. ACM Int. 6(4), 40–50 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shamber, L.: What is a document? Rethinking the concept in uneasy times. J. ASIS 47(9), 669–671 (1996)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zhao, R., Grosky, W.I.: Narrowing the semantic gap-improved text-based web document retrieval using visual features. IEEE Trans. Multimedia 4(2), 189–200 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Deerwester, S., Dumais, S.T., Furnas, G.W., Landauer, T.K., Harshman, R.: Indexing by latent semantic analysis. J. ASIS 41(6), 391–407 (1990)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tao, Y., Grosky, W.I.: Spatial color indexing using rotation, translation, and scale invariant anglograms. Multimedia Tools Appl. 15(3), 247–268 (2001)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zhao, R., Grosky, W.I.: Negotiating the semantic gap: from feature maps to semantic landscapes. Pattern Recognit. 35(3), 593–600 (2002)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dourish, P., Edwards, W.K., Lamarca, A., Lamping, J., Petersen, K., Salisbury, M., Terry, D.B., Thornton, J.: Extending document management systems with user-specific active properties. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 18(2), 140–170 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Johnson, W., Jellinek, H., Klotz, L. Jr., Rao, R., Card, S.: Bridging the paper and electronic worlds: the paper user interface. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Amsterdam, 24–29 April 1993Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gaines, B.R., Shaw, M.L.G.: Open architecture multimedia documents. In: Proceedings of ACM Multimedia ’93 (1993)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gaines, B.R., Shaw, M.L.G.: Embedding formal knowledge models in active documents. Commun. ACM 42(1), 57–63 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pedauque, R.T.: Document: form, sign and medium, as reformulated for electronic documents. Working Paper STIC-CNRS. http://archivesic.ccsd.cnrs.fr/sic_00000594.html, original French version: http://archivesic.ccsd.cnrs.fr/documents/archives0/00/00/05/11/index_fr.html, Version 3, 8 July 2003
  16. 16.
    Jensen, J.: Interactivity—tracking a new concept in media and communication studies. In: Mayer, P. (ed.) Computer Media and Communication—A Reader. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1999)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rafaeli, S.: Interactivity: from new media to communication. In: Hawkins, R.P., Wiemann, J.M., Pingree, S. (eds.) Advancing Communication Science: Merging Mass and Interpersonal Processes. Sage, Newbury Park (1988)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rogers, E.M.: Communication Technology. The New Media in Society, New York (1986)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Szuprowicz, B.O.: Multimedia Networking. McGraw-Hill, New York (1995)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Laurel, B.: Interface as mimesis. In: Norman, D.A., Draper, S. (eds.) User Centered System Design: New Perspectives on Human–Computer Interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale (1986)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Laurel, B.: Interface agents: metaphors with character. In: Laurel, B. (ed.) The Art of Human–Computer Interface Design. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1990)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Goertz, L.: Wie interaktiv sind Medien? Auf dem Weg zu einer Definition von Interaktivitat. Rundfunk und Fernsehen 43(4), 477–493 (1995)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Heeter, C.: Implications of new interactive technologies for conceptualizing communication. In: Salvaggio, J.L., Bryant, J. (eds.) Media Use in the Information Age: Emerging Patterns of Adoption and Consumer Use. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale (1989)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bordewijk, J.L., van Kaam, B.: Towards a new classification of teleinformation services. Intermedia 14(1), 16–21 (1986)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hutchins, E.L., Hollan, J.D., Norman, D.: Direct manipulation interfaces. In: Norman, D., Draper, S. (eds.) User Centred System Design. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale (1986)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Andersen, P.B.: What semiotics can and cannot do for HCI. Knowledge based systems, vol. 14, pp. 419–424. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2001)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    De Souza, C.S.: Semiotic engineering: bringing designers and users together at interaction time. Interact. Comput. 17, 317–341 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Abowd, G.D., Beale, R.: Users, systems and interfaces: a unifying framework for interaction. In: Diaper, D., Hammond, N. (eds.) HCI’91: People and Computers VI, pp. 73–87. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1991)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Barnard, P., May, J., Duke, D., Duce, D.: Systems, interactions, and macrotheory. ACM Trans. Human–Comput. Interact. 7(2), 222–262 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lober, W.B., Brinkley, J.M.: A portable image annotation tool for web-based anatomy atlases. In: Proceedings of the AMIA 1999 Annual Symposium, Washington (1999)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lober, W.B., Brinkley, J.M.: A personal annotated image server. In: Proceedings of the AMIA 2000 Annual Symposium, Los Angeles (2000)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lober, W.B., Trigg, L.J., Bliss, D., Brinkley, J.M.: IML: an image markup language. In: Proceedings of the AMIA 2001 Annual Symposium, Washington (2001)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Chronaki, C.E., Zabulis, X., Orphanoudakis, S.C.: I2Cnet medical image annotation service. Med. Inform. 22(4), 337–347 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Schroeter, R., Hunter, J., Kosovic, D.: Vannotea—a collaborative video indexing, annotation and discussion system for broadband networks. In: Proceedings of the K-CAP 2003, Sanibel, 23–25 October 2003Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bargeron, D., Gupta, A., Grudin, J., Sanocki, E.: Annotations for streaming video on the web: system design and usage studies. Technical Report, Microsoft Research. http://research.microsoft.com/research/coet/MRAS/www8/paper.htm (1999)
  36. 36.
    Bottoni, P., Costabile, M.F., Mussio, P.: Specification and dialogue control of visual interaction through visual rewriting systems. ACM TOPLAS 21(6), 1077–1136 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C.M.: eXtensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0. http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-XML-19980210.html, Feb 1998
  38. 38.
    Kipelainen, P., Mannila, H.: Retrieval from hierarchical text by partial patterns. In: Proceedings of ACM-SIGIR’93 (1993)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Bottoni, P., Civica, R., Levialdi, S., Orso, L., Panizzi, E., Trinchese, R.: MADCOW: a multimedia digital annotation system. In: Costabile, M.F. (ed.) Proceedings of AVI 2004, pp. 55–62. ACM Press (2004)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bottoni, P., Civica, R., Levialdi, S., Panizzi, E., Orso, L., Trinchese, R.: Storing and retrieving multimedia web notes. In: Proceedings of DNIS ’05, Aizu, Japan, 28–30 March 2005Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Fogli, D., Fresta, G., Mussio, P.: On electronic annotation and its implementation. In: Costabile, M.F. (ed.) Proceedings of AVI 2004, pp. 98–102. ACM Press (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paolo Bottoni
    • 1
  • Fernando Ferri
    • 2
  • Patrizia Grifoni
    • 2
  • Andrea Marcante
    • 3
  • Piero Mussio
    • 4
  • Marco Padula
    • 3
  • Amanda Reggiori
    • 5
  1. 1.Dipartimento di InformaticaUniversità di Roma “La Sapienza”RomeItaly
  2. 2.IRPPS-CNRRomeItaly
  3. 3.ITC-CNR Unità Staccata di MilanoMilanItaly
  4. 4.DICOUniversità degli StudiMilanItaly
  5. 5.FSLLSUniversità Cattolica del Sacro CuoreBresciaItaly

Personalised recommendations