Optimizing automated interactions with computer software applications

Patent metadata

Field	Value
Publication number	US-10102100-B2
Application number	US-201113306089-A
Country	US
Kind code	B2
Filing date	Nov 29, 2011
Priority date	Nov 29, 2011
Publication date	Oct 16, 2018
Grant date	Oct 16, 2018

Abstract

Performing an automated interaction with a computer software application by identifying, among a plurality of regions of an interface of a computer software application, a region for which a region-level measure exists of user interaction that occurred within the region of the interface, determining if the region-level measure meets or exceeds a predefined minimum level of user interaction, and performing an automated interaction with an element at least partly found within the region if the region-level measure meets or exceeds the predefined minimum level of user interaction.

First claim

What is claimed is:

1. A method for determining the similarity of computer software application interfaces, comprising:
performing a comparison of structure within a first region of a baseline interface of a computer software application with structure in a corresponding region of a comparison interface of the computer software application, where a region-level measure of the first region meets or exceeds a predefined minimum level of user interaction, thereby determining a first similarity measure between the baseline interface and the comparison interface;
performing a comparison of structure within a second region of the baseline interface with structure in a corresponding region of the comparison interface, where a region-level measure of the second region does not meet or exceed the predefined minimum level of user interaction, thereby determining a second similarity measure between the baseline interface and the comparison interface;
applying a weight to the first similarity measure that is greater than any weight applied to the second similarity measure; and
determining a combined similarity measure from the first similarity measure and the second similarity measure.

2. The method of claim 1 and further comprising performing an automated interaction with an element of the comparison interface if the combined similarity measure meets a predefined criterion indicating that the baseline interface and the comparison interface are dissimilar.

3. The method of claim 1 and further comprising determining the region-level measure for any of the regions.

4. The method of claim 3 and further comprising determining the region-level measure where the user interaction is selecting any element of the interface within the region with a pointing device when the interface is displayed on a computer display.

5. The method of claim 3 and further comprising determining the region-level measure where the user interaction is interacting with any element of the interface within the region using a keyboard when the interface is displayed on a computer display.

6. The method of claim 1 and further comprising defining the regions when the interface is displayed on a computer display.

7. The method of claim 6 where the defining comprises programmatically dividing the display area of the computer display on which the interface is displayed into a plurality of virtual regions, where the each of the plurality of regions of the interface displayed on the computer display lies within one of the virtual regions.

8. A method for determining the similarity of computer software application interfaces, comprising:
identifying among a plurality of regions of a baseline interface of a computer software application a region for which a region-level measure exists of user interaction that occurred within the region; and
performing a comparison of structure within the region of the baseline interface with structure in a corresponding region of a comparison interface of the computer software application if the region-level measure meets or exceeds the predefined minimum level of user interaction, thereby determining a similarity measure between the baseline interface and the comparison interface.

9. The method of claim 8 and further comprising performing an automated interaction with an element of the comparison interface if the combined similarity measure meets a predefined criterion indicating that the baseline interface and the comparison interface are dissimilar.

10. The method of claim 8 and further comprising determining the region-level measure for any of the regions.

11. The method of claim 10 and further comprising determining the region-level measure where the user interaction is selecting any element of the interface within the region with a pointing device when the interface is displayed on a computer display.

12. The method of claim 10 and further comprising determining the region-level measure where the user interaction is interacting with any element of the interface within the region using a keyboard when the interface is displayed on a computer display.

13. The method of claim 8 and further comprising defining the regions when the interface is displayed on a computer display.

14. The method of claim 13 where the defining comprises programmatically dividing the display area of the computer display on which the interface is displayed into a plurality of virtual regions, where the each of the plurality of regions of the interface displayed on the computer display lies within one of the virtual regions.

Assignees

• Kreichman Igal
• Sakin Ariel
• Tripp Omer
• IBM

Inventors

• Kreichman Igal
• Sakin Ariel
• Tripp Omer

Classifications

• G06F2201/865

  Monitoring of software · CPC title

• G06F11/3438

  monitoring of user actions (tracking the activity of the user H04L67/535) · CPC title

• G06F11/3414 Primary

  Workload generation, e.g. scripts, playback · CPC title

• G06F2201/81

  Threshold · CPC title