Contextual menu with additional information to help user choice

Patent metadata

Field	Value
Publication number	US-11157684-B2
Application number	US-201615354381-A
Country	US
Kind code	B2
Filing date	Nov 17, 2016
Priority date	Feb 1, 2016
Publication date	Oct 26, 2021
Grant date	Oct 26, 2021

Abstract

In non-limiting examples, the present disclosure is directed to systems and methods for performing an analysis of an electronic document comprising a review for a plurality of writing issues related to the electronic document's conformance to a specified target audience; causing, in an application associated with the electronic document, one or more flagged writing issues identified by the analysis of the electronic document to be displayed; receiving a selection of a flagged writing issue; and based on the selection of the flagged writing issue, causing, in a contextual menu, one or more alternative suggestions to replace text associated with the flagged writing issue to be displayed, the one or more alternative suggestions based, at least in part, on a fluency metric and a resemblance of the one or more alternative suggestions to the text associated with the flagged writing issue.

First claim

We claim:

1. A computer-based method for causing a contextual menu in an electronic document to be displayed, comprising:
performing a first analysis of the electronic document comprising a review for a plurality of writing issues related to the electronic document's conformance to a specified target audience;
causing, in an application associated with the electronic document, one or more flagged writing issues identified by the analysis of the electronic document to be displayed;
receiving a selection of a flagged writing issue; and
based on the selection of the flagged writing issue, causing, in the contextual menu, display of:
an issue type context feature including an explanation of the flagged writing issue;
one or more alternative suggestions to replace text associated with the flagged writing issue; and
a fluency metric and a resemblance score alongside each of the one or more alternative suggestions, the resemblance score indicating a resemblance of the one or more alternative suggestions to the text associated with the flagged writing issue, the one or more alternative suggestions based, at least in part, on the fluency metric and the resemblance of the one or more alternative suggestions to the text associated with the flagged writing issue, wherein the fluency metric is determined from a text complexity analysis of the one or more alternative suggestions to the text associated with the flagged writing issue, the text complexity analysis being based on a complexity spectrum representing how difficult the one or more alternative suggestions will be for the specified target audience to understand.

2. The method of claim 1 , further comprising:
performing a second analysis and a contextual language model analysis of the electronic document comprising a review for a plurality of spelling and grammar issues;
causing, via a graphical user interface, at least one flagged spelling issue and at least one flagged grammar issue to be displayed;
receiving a selection of an issue selected from one of: the at least one flagged spelling issue and the at least one flagged grammar issue; and
based on the selection of the at least one flagged spelling issue and the at least one flagged grammar issue, causing in the contextual menu, one or more alternative suggestions to replace the selected spelling or grammar issue to be displayed.

3. The method of claim 2 , further comprising, causing, in the application associated with the electronic document at least one of: at least one selectable action associated the one or more alternative suggestions for the one or more flagged writing issues to be displayed, at least one selectable action associated with the one or more alternative suggestions for the at least one flagged spelling issue to be displayed, and at least one selectable action associated with the one or more alternative suggestions for the at least one flagged grammar issue to be displayed.

4. The method of claim 2 , further comprising:
receiving a selection of an audio option associated with at least one of: the one or more flagged writing issues, the at least one flagged spelling issue, and the at least one flagged grammar issue; and
based on the selection of the audio option, providing feedback selected from at least one of: audibly reading one or more words associated with at least one of: the one or more flagged writing issues, the at least one flagged spelling issue, and the at least one grammar issue aloud; audibly reading a definition of one or more words associated with at least one of: the flagged writing issue, the at least one flagged spelling issue, and the at least one grammar issue, aloud; audibly reading a synonym of one or more words associated with at least one of: the flagged writing issue, the at least one flagged spelling issue, and the at least one grammar issue, aloud; audibly reading a usage sample of one or more words associated with at least one of: the flagged writing issue, the at least one flagged spelling issue, and the at least one grammar issue, aloud; audibly reading a translation in a foreign language of one or more words associated with at least one of: the flagged writing issue the at least one flagged spelling issue, and the at least one grammar issue, aloud; and audibly reading a translation in a foreign language of one or more words associated with at least one of: the flagged writing issue, the at least one flagged spelling issue, and the at least one grammar issue, aloud.

5. The method of claim 4 , wherein the fluency metric is a value-based score determined from a text complexity analysis of a plurality of linguistic features selected from the group comprising: a percentage of rare words in analyzed text, the presence of keywords indicative of multiple clauses in analyzed text, sentence length of analyzed text, presence of punctuation in analyzed text, presence of conjunctions in analyzed text, presence of relative pronouns in analyzed text, and presence of negations in analyzed text.

6. The method of claim 5 , further comprising:
audibly reading the fluency metric and the resemblance of the one or more alternative suggestion to the text associated with the flagged writing issue.

7. The method of claim 1 , further comprising:
performing a third analysis of the electronic document comprising a review for a plurality of accessibility issues;
causing, via a graphical user interface, at least one flagged accessibility issue to be displayed;
receiving a selection of a flagged accessibility issue; and
based on the selection of the flagged accessibility issue, causing, in the contextual menu, a suggestion for making the flagged accessibility issue more accessible by users of a group to be displayed, the group selected from at least one of visually impaired users and audibly impaired users.

8. The method of claim 7 , wherein the suggestion for making the flagged accessibility issue more accessible by users relates to at least one of: causing a larger font size for text to be displayed, causing a different color for text to be displayed, causing an increased contrast between displayed text and a background to be displayed, causing explanatory text associated with an image to be displayed.

9. The method of claim 1 , wherein performing the first analysis of the electronic document further comprises a review for run-on sentences, complex sentences, and complex word usage, wherein the review for complex sentences includes a review for sentences with multiple parts or clauses, and wherein the review for complex word usage includes a review for usage of compound words or words with prefixes, words with suffixes, or words with contractions.

10. The method of claim 1 , wherein performing the first analysis of the electronic document further comprises a review of the electronic document for a plurality of issues related to formal language, wherein the review of the electronic document for the plurality of issues related to formal language includes a review for language including contractions, relative clauses without relative pronouns, ellipsis, or words with origins in Latin or Greek.

11. The method of claim 10 , wherein the review of the electronic document for the plurality of issues related to formal language includes a review for language that does not conform to a target audience.

12. The method of claim 1 , wherein performing the first analysis of the electronic document further comprises a review of the electronic document for a plurality of issues related to inclusive language, wherein the review of the electronic document for the plurality of issues related to inclusive language includes a review for language that excludes a group of ind

Assignees

• Microsoft Technology Licensing Llc

Inventors

• Chiba Kenichiro
• Arnaiz Alfredo
• McLoughlin Dermot
• Michel Nicole
• Gerges Hany G
• Koenig Michael
• Carpenter Maria Isabel R
• Desai Shikha Devesh

Classifications

• G06F40/232 Primary

  Orthographic correction, e.g. spell checking or vowelisation · CPC title

• G06F40/166 Primary

  Editing, e.g. inserting or deleting · CPC title

• G06F3/167

  Audio in a user interface, e.g. using voice commands for navigating, audio feedback · CPC title

• G06F3/0482

  Interaction with lists of selectable items, e.g. menus · CPC title

• G06F40/109

  Font handling; Temporal or kinetic typography · CPC title