Map-based aesthetic evaluation of document layouts

A method is disclosed for determining the aesthetic quality of a document page. The method partitions the document page into a plurality of regions according to a predetermined map. Each region is then evaluated to determine whether the region is of acceptable aesthetic quality according to a predetermined profile corresponding to the region and defined by the map. The profile comprises (i) one or more measures of region properties; (ii) an acceptability rule corresponding to each measure; and (iii) a region decision rule (435, 440) based on the results of one or more of the acceptability rules. The method then determines the aesthetic quality for the document page based on the aesthetic quality acceptability of each region and a predetermined page rule defined by the map.

TECHNICAL FIELD

The current invention relates to document layout, design, and analysis and, in particular, to methods which measure the aesthetic quality of a document based upon characteristics of the document.

BACKGROUND ART

With the growing popularity of variable data printing technology and other automatic document layout technology, document authors can efficiently produce customised documents in large quantities in a short period of time.

In order to reduce labour cost and processing time for monitoring the quality of many generated documents, different methods have been explored. One approach is to evaluate the aesthetic quality of documents using software algorithms so that documents of poor quality can be identified or screened out automatically. There exist a number of methods that examine different aspects of document appearance to assess the aesthetic quality of a document. However, those methods generally aim to generate a single score to reflect measured aesthetic quality. When such a score falls below a predefined threshold, a document may have an unacceptable aesthetic quality. Unfortunately, no information apart from the single score is provided. In other words, there is no way to figure out what aspect of the document makes the document of poor quality. Typically such documents must be manually examined to ascertain why the score was below the threshold and to determine what corrections may be necessary to restore the document to suitability.

Aesthetic quality is a subjective judgement depending on the eyes of the beholder. Given a set of documents, different evaluators may place emphasis on different parts of the documents based on the goals and requirements of application contexts. Known methods are limited and inflexible as they provide no way to allow users to impose their own individualistic perception into the process of aesthetic evaluation of documents.

Different types of documents comprise different layout structures. Some documents, such as product brochures, are made up of different sections of different design styles contributing to the overall theme or layout. Nevertheless, current aesthetic evaluation methods measure aesthetic quality based on the assumption that documents only have a single design style. Accordingly, those methods may not be able to accurately evaluate documents containing multiple disparate design styles.

SUMMARY

It is an object of the present invention to substantially overcome or at least ameliorate one or more disadvantages of known aesthetic evaluation methods.

In accordance with one aspect of the present invention there is disclosed a method of determining an aesthetic quality of a document page, said method comprising the steps of:

(a) providing a map defining (1) a plurality of map regions, each of said map regions has one or more profiles, and (2) a page rule;

(b) partitioning the document page into a plurality of document regions according to said map regions of the provided map;

(c) evaluating each said partitioned document region to determine whether said document region is of acceptable aesthetic quality based upon said provided profile corresponding to each said partitioned document region, said profile comprising:(i) one or more measures of region properties; and(ii) an acceptability rule corresponding to each said measure to determine a regional aesthetic quality acceptability

(d) determining said aesthetic quality for said document page based on the determined regional aesthetic quality acceptability and said page rule defined by said map.

Other aspects are also disclosed.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION INCLUDING BEST MODE

Disclosed are methods for evaluating the aesthetic quality of document pages and providing informative evaluation results as feedback. In the present disclosure, aesthetic quality refers generally to the degree to which pleasure can be derived from the appearance of a document.

The methods of evaluating the aesthetic quality of document pages and providing informative evaluation results as feedback to be described may be implemented using a computer system100, such as that shown inFIG. 1wherein the processes ofFIGS. 2 to 15may be implemented as software, such as one or more application programs executable within the computer system100. In particular, the steps of the methods are effected by instructions in the software that are carried out within the computer system100. The instructions may be formed as one or more code modules, each for performing one or more particular tasks. The software may also be divided into two separate parts, in which a first part and the corresponding code modules perform the evaluation the aesthetic quality and provide informative evaluation results as feedback, and a second part and the corresponding code modules manage a user interface between the first part and the user. The code modules each form a means which, when operated collectively, provide for determining an aesthetic quality measure of a document page. The software may be stored in a computer readable medium, including the storage devices described below, for example. The software is loaded into the computer system100from the computer readable medium, and then executed by the computer system100. A computer readable medium having such software or computer program recorded on it is a computer program product. The use of the computer program product in the computer system100preferably effects an advantageous apparatus for evaluating the aesthetic quality of document pages and providing informative evaluation results as feedback.

As seen inFIG. 1, the computer system100is formed by a computer module101, input devices such as a keyboard102and a mouse pointer device103, and output devices including a printer115, a display device114and loudspeakers117. An external Modulator-Demodulator (Modem) transceiver device116may be used by the computer module101for communicating to and from a communications network120via a connection121. The network120may be a wide-area network (WAN), such as the Internet or a private WAN. Where the connection121is a telephone line, the modem116may be a traditional “dial-up” modem. Alternatively, where the connection121is a high capacity (e.g.: cable) connection, the modem116may be a broadband modem. A wireless modem may also be used for wireless connection to the network120.

The computer module101typically includes at least one processor unit105, and a memory unit106for example formed from semiconductor random access memory (RAM) and read only memory (ROM). The module101also includes an number of input/output (I/O) interfaces including an audio-video interface107that couples to the video display114and loudspeakers117, an I/O interface113for the keyboard102and mouse103and optionally a joystick (not illustrated), and an interface108for the external modem116and printer115. In some implementations, the modem116may be incorporated within the computer module101, for example within the interface108. The computer module101also has a local network interface111which, via a connection123, permits coupling of the computer system100to a local computer network122, known as a Local Area Network (LAN). As also illustrated, the local network122may also couple to the wide-area network120via a connection124, which would typically include a so-called “firewall” device or similar functionality. The interface111may be formed by an Ethernet™ circuit card, a wireless Bluetooth™ or an IEEE 802.11 wireless arrangement.

The interfaces108and113may afford both serial and parallel connectivity, the former typically being implemented according to the Universal Serial Bus (USB) standards and having corresponding USB connectors (not illustrated). Storage devices109are provided and typically include a hard disk drive (HDD)110. Other devices such as a floppy disk drive and a magnetic tape drive (not illustrated) may also be used. An optical disk drive112is typically provided to act as a non-volatile source of data. Portable memory devices, such as optical disks (e.g.: CD-ROM, DVD), USB-RAM, and floppy disks for example may then be used as appropriate sources of data to the system100.

The components105to113of the computer module101typically communicate via an interconnected bus104and in a manner which results in a conventional mode of operation of the computer system100known to those in the relevant art. Examples of computers on which the described arrangements can be practised include IBM-PCs and compatibles, Sun Sparcstations, Apple Mac™ or alike computer systems evolved therefrom.

Typically, the application programs discussed above are resident on the hard disk drive110and read and controlled in execution by the processor105. Intermediate storage of such programs and any data fetched from the networks120and122may be accomplished using the semiconductor memory106, possibly in concert with the hard disk drive110. In some instances, the application programs may be supplied to the user encoded on one or more CD-ROM and read via the corresponding drive112, or alternatively may be read by the user from the networks120or122. Still further, the software can also be loaded into the computer system100from other computer readable media. Computer readable storage media refers to any storage medium that participates in providing instructions and/or data to the computer system100for execution and/or processing. Examples of such media include floppy disks, magnetic tape, CD-ROM, a hard disk drive, a ROM or integrated circuit, a magneto-optical disk, or a computer readable card such as a PCMCIA card and the like, whether or not such devices are internal or external of the computer module101. Examples of computer readable transmission media that may also participate in the provision of instructions and/or data include radio or infra-red transmission channels as well as a network connection to another computer or networked device, and the Internet or Intranets including e-mail transmissions and information recorded on Websites and the like.

The second part of the application programs and the corresponding code modules mentioned above may be executed to implement one or more graphical user interfaces (GUIs) to be rendered or otherwise represented upon the display114. Through manipulation of the keyboard102and the mouse103, a user of the computer system100and the application may manipulate the interface to provide controlling commands and/or input to the applications associated with the GUI(s).

Typically the system100is configured to execute a document layout application by which data, which may include variable data, is input into a predefined document format and by which the specific configuration of the document may be varied based upon the input data. The variability of such documents can lead to aesthetic concerns where certain documents depart from the intended predefined document format, which notionally has an acceptable aesthetic quality. Alternatively, the system100may operate upon arbitrary documents without knowledge of any predefined form or intend aesthetic appeal.

CREATION OF A MAP OF AESTHETIC MEASURE PROFILES

According to the present disclosure, initially and before evaluating any one or more documents, a user is required to create a map of aesthetic measure profiles. Referring toFIG. 3, a method300of creating such a map can now be described. The method300is desirably implemented in software executable in the computer module101, typically in concert with a GUI via which user input may be received. First, at step315, the page is partitioned into multiple map regions. This may be performed manually by the user with the aid of a GUI representation of the page. The user may scribe bounding boxes about map regions of the page to distinguish one map region from another. In one implementation, static map regions are supported. However, in alternative implementations, map regions may be dynamically determined rather than predefined. The map regions may then be stored in the memory106or HDD110. Next, each map region is processed one by one from step320to step330. At step320, the user creates a new aesthetic measure profile. An aesthetic measure profile refers to a set of measures of region properties and acceptability rules for measuring and evaluating a number of predetermined characteristics of a document region along with a region decision rule. Each aesthetic measure profile is assigned to a map region which represents a corresponding document region of a document to be assessed for aesthetic quality. Region decision rules are devised by users specifying, for example via the GUI, the measures of region properties and acceptability rules to be satisfied by a document region with acceptable aesthetic quality. In other words, region decision rules are used to assess the regional aesthetic quality acceptability of a document region. A preferred implementation for step320is described below with reference toFIG. 5. At step325, the aesthetic measure profile is assigned to the current map region of the map. This again may be performed by the user in the manner described below. At step330, if there are more map regions to be assigned with aesthetic measure profiles, processing returns to step320and each further map region is processed in turn. Otherwise, at step335, the user devises a page decision rule (described below) which specifies the conditions for a page to pass the overall evaluation against the map of aesthetic measure profiles. Finally, the method300concludes at which point the map is stored in the memory106/109for subsequent use in aesthetic page analysis.

FIG. 4shows an example of a map400of aesthetic measure profiles. The map400of aesthetic measure profiles in this example consists of two map regions, a top map region410and a bottom map region415. Each map region410and415has a corresponding aesthetic measure profile. An aesthetic measure profile420assigned to the top map region410specifies two parameters, font consistency and shape consistency, each being greater than 60% and 50% respectively. This emphasises strong consistency among layout objects. By contrast, the aesthetic measure profile425in the bottom map region415has a different focus and suggests that a more varied layout is permitted. A page decision rule430, devised by the user for this map of aesthetic measure profiles, is also shown. The page decision rule430specifies that a document page with an acceptable aesthetic quality must satisfy the region decision rule440for its bottom document region corresponding to the map region415but, in this case, there is no requirement to pass the region decision rule435for the top document region corresponding to the map region410. This is described in detail below with reference toFIG. 7.

In alternative embodiments, dynamic maps of aesthetic measure profiles consisting of dynamic map regions are created. In one implementation, the user defines different aesthetic measure profiles applicable to specific types of document contents. For example, the users can create one aesthetic measure profile for textual content and another aesthetic measure profile for non-textual content. When a document layout is received, metadata of the layout and optical character recognition software are used to partition the layout dynamically into textual and non-textual document regions based on the content of the document. Then, the aesthetic measure profiles are applied to the dynamically generated regions of the document accordingly.

In another implementation, users create maps of aesthetic measure profiles based on document templates, which are used to generate a number of documents to be assessed for aesthetic quality. First, a document template is fetched and all its content placeholders are automatically identified using the metadata of the template. Then, a map of aesthetic measure profiles is produced when aesthetic measure profiles created by the user are assigned to appropriate content placeholders of the template.

When a document to be assessed for aesthetic quality is received, based on the provided metadata, the document template used to generate the document is determined and the corresponding map of aesthetic measure profiles is fetched. The aesthetic measure profile of the map applies to different document regions of the assessed document depending upon which content placeholder each piece of content of the document is resided in.

Aesthetic Measure Profile Creation

Step320is now discussed in more detail with reference toFIG. 5, which shows the method of creating a new aesthetic measure profile for a map region containing one or more property measures with corresponding acceptability rules. At step515, the user defines a new property measure in terms of a mathematical formula for specifying how a layout characteristic of the document region should be measured. For example, when the user defines a white-space fraction measure, a common formula in this area of technology, such as:
Vws=1−4((ΣAi/Ap)−0.5)2×100%,
is provided, where Aprefers to an area and Aiis an object area. The formula determines the amount of white space in a document region. At step520, the user defines an acceptability rule in terms of a predefined range for the defined property measure representing an acceptable aesthetic quality level for a document region. The acceptability rule preferably generates a pass/failure Boolean result. In alternative implementations, other acceptability rules may be configured to generate non-Boolean results, e.g. low, low-average, average, high-average, high. At step525, if the user wants to add more property measures to the profile, processing returns to step515. Otherwise the method320proceeds to step530. At step530, the user defines a region decision rule to determine whether a document region has an acceptable aesthetic quality based the property measures and acceptability rules. The region decision rule of an aesthetic measure profile refers to the condition(s) that a document region must satisfy in order to be declared as having an acceptable aesthetic quality. Methods provided for users to input and structure region decision rules can be different in different applications. In one application, the user defines a region decision rule by simply selecting mandatory property measures and acceptability rules for evaluation using check boxes. Alternatively, rules may be selected from predefined lists with user settable variable parameters. Then, the step320concludes.

FIG. 6illustrates the exemplary aesthetic measure profile425as comprising three property measures, white-space fraction610, shape consistency615and images used640. The names of the property measures610,615and640refer to the amount of white space, the consistency of shapes among layout objects and the number of images used in a document region corresponding to the map region415. Each property measure has an acceptability rule. In this case, the acceptability rule620for the white-space fraction measure610specifies that an aesthetically pleasing document region should have less than 50% of white space out of the total region area. The acceptability rule625specifies that shape consistency among layout objects inside a document region should be less than 50% and acceptability rule645specifies that the region must contain more than two images. With all check boxes630,635and650checked, the region decision rule440for this profile425states that a document region is acceptably aesthetically pleasing only if the white-space fraction and shape consistency measures are less than 50% and the document region contains more than two images.

Page Decision Rules

Page decision rules are used in step235of method200, which is yet to be described. The page decision rules refer to the conditions that a document page must satisfy based on region decision rules in order to be declared as having an acceptable aesthetic quality. In one implementation, the method step335of devising a page decision rule is similar to the method step530described above of defining a region decision rule for an aesthetic measure profile.FIG. 7shows the page decision rule430ofFIG. 4in more detail. A list of map regions of the map of aesthetic measure profiles400is compiled and presented to the user to select relevant map regions,710or715, using the check boxes720and725. Document regions of a page corresponding to the selected map regions must pass the evaluations of corresponding aesthetic measure profiles according to their respective region decision rules for the whole page to be declared as aesthetically pleasing. According to the selection in the example page decision rule430, the user specifies that document pages with an acceptable aesthetic quality must pass the evaluation of aesthetic measure profiles in the bottom document region only. In alternative implementations, more complex page decision rules, such as dependency relationships among map regions, may be entered using script languages.

FIG. 2shows a method200of evaluating the aesthetic quality of a page based on a map of aesthetic measure profiles. The aesthetic evaluation method200commences at step215, where a page to be evaluated is partitioned into multiple document regions based on the map of aesthetic measure profiles. This is described in more detail later with reference toFIG. 8. Next, each document region of the page is processed one by one from steps220to step230. Step220measures layout characteristics of a document region using a corresponding aesthetic measure profile from the map of aesthetic measure profiles. This is also described later, with reference toFIG. 10. At step225, the aesthetic quality of the document region is evaluated based on the corresponding region decision rule. Region decision rules are devised by users specifying the acceptability rules on the layout characteristics to be satisfied by a document region with acceptable aesthetic quality. At step230, if there are more document regions to be evaluated, processing returns to step220. Otherwise, step235applies a page decision rule to evaluate the overall aesthetic quality of the page. Page decision rules are devised by users as described above and specify the region decision rules to be satisfied by a page with acceptable aesthetic quality based on the aesthetic quality acceptability of individual document regions. Finally, the method200concludes.

PAGE PARTITION

Step215is now described in more detail with reference toFIG. 8. A page to be evaluated aesthetically based on a map of aesthetic measure profiles has to be partitioned into document regions according to the map. Referring toFIG. 8, step815calculates the aspect ratio of the map of aesthetic measure profiles and the aspect ratio of the page, being determined from the whole page upon which the map is built. At step820, if the two calculated aspect ratios match, processing continues to step825. Step825divides the page into multiple document regions according to the map of aesthetic measure profiles. Then, step215concludes. However, if the two aspect ratios are different, processing continues to step830. Step830rotates the map of aesthetic measure profiles to a different orientation, e.g. 90 degrees clockwise, and calculates a new aspect ratio. This involves rotating the whole page of the map. Next, step835compares the new aspect ratio to the aspect ratio of the page. If they match, processing goes to step825which partitions the page accordingly. Otherwise, processing continues to step840. Step840notifies the user of a failure of the attempted application of aesthetic measures to a page. Afterwards, step215concludes. If a notification of step840occurs, the method200also fails and requires the user to re-specify the page, or the layout or the profiles of the map, so that the evaluations may be again attempted.FIG. 9illustrates the partitioning of a page920based on the exemplary map of aesthetic measure profiles400. The page920is divided into two document regions, one small “header” region at the top925and one large “body” region at the bottom930and to which the aesthetic measure profiles420and425and page decision rule430apply.

AESTHETIC MEASURES

Step220is now described in more detail with reference toFIG. 10. Step220covers applying an aesthetic measure profile to a designated document region of a page according to a map of aesthetic measure profiles. First, step1015fetches a property measure and a corresponding acceptability rule from the aesthetic measure profile. This could for example be any of the rules940,945,620,625and645seen inFIG. 9. Next, step1020applies the property measure as a mathematical formula to measure a layout characteristic of the document region. Then, step1025examines whether the document region has an acceptable aesthetic quality level determined by satisfying the acceptability rule corresponding to the layout characteristic. Step1030saves the measurement of the layout characteristic and the acceptability rule result into a dedicated storage structure, called a region measure structure. This storage structure may be formed in the memory106or the HDD110. At step1035, if more property measures are in the aesthetic measure profile, processing returns to step1015. Otherwise, step220concludes.

FIG. 11shows two region measure structures1115and1135after applying aesthetic measure profiles to the document regions925and930of the page920using the map400of aesthetic measure profiles. In the region measure structure1115, there are two saved measurements with corresponding acceptability rule results. As seen, the font consistency of the header document region925is 100% and the rule result is illustrated by a tick1125which records that the measurement passes the corresponding acceptability rule940. Similarly, the shape consistency of the header document region925is 100% and the rule result is illustrated by a tick1130which records that the measurement passes the acceptability rule945. In the region measure structure1135, there are three saved measurements with corresponding rule results. The white-space fraction of the body document region930is 33% and the rule result is illustrated by a tick1145that records that the measurement passes the acceptability rule620. The shape consistency of the body document region930is 69% and the rule result is illustrated by a cross1150that records that the measurement fails the acceptability rule625. Finally, only one image is used in the body document region930and the rule result is illustrated by a cross1155that records that the measurement fails the acceptability rule645.

EVALUATION

As shown inFIG. 12, there are preferably two levels of evaluation, one at the region level and one at the page level. Region evaluation applies to all document regions of a page as depicted by1210,1215and1220. Results are saved in region measure structures and indicate whether each document region has an acceptable aesthetic quality or not according to the corresponding region decision rule. Then, results of region evaluations are examined in page evaluation1225to determine whether a page as a whole is aesthetically pleasing according to the page decision rule.

Region Evaluation

Step225of method200is now described in more detail. Region evaluation is conducted after applying aesthetic measures to a document region and measurements against acceptability rules. All rule results within a region measure structure are examined to check whether they satisfy the corresponding region decision rule specified in the aesthetic measure profile. Then, the evaluation result is saved in the region measure structure. For example, referring to the region measure structure1115inFIG. 11, the document region925satisfies the font consistency and shape consistency requirements and the result1160is saved in the structure1115as passing the region decision rule435of the aesthetic measure profile420. On the other hand, the document region930fails the white-space fraction and images used measures, but passes the shape consistency measure. The evaluation result1165as failing the region decision rule440of the aesthetic measure profile425is saved in the region measure structure1135.

Page Evaluation

Step235of method200is now discussed in more detail. Page evaluation is conducted after applying aesthetic measures and region evaluation to all document regions of a page. All region evaluation results are examined to check whether they satisfy the page decision rule of the map of aesthetic measure profiles. Referring toFIG. 9, in that specific example, the page decision rule430states that an aesthetically pleasing page must have the bottom region that passes the region decision rule440of the corresponding aesthetic measure profile425. The page920is evaluated to have an unacceptable aesthetic quality because its bottom document region930fails the region decision rule440of the corresponding aesthetic measure profile425as recorded by the Fail designation1165in the region measure structure1135.

EXTENSIONS

In an alternative implementation, the construction of multi-page document maps for measuring the aesthetic quality of multiple-page documents is supported. During the process of creating a multi-page map of aesthetic measure profiles, the user is able to add document decision rules to the map to specify how to evaluate a multi-page document based on the evaluation results of individual pages. Referring toFIG. 13, there are three levels of evaluation for multi-page documents. Items1310to1330represent region evaluations, as in step225, applied to individual document regions on different pages. Next, items1335and1340are page evaluations that apply to individual pages, as in step235as described above. Each page examines document region results to derive the aesthetic quality for the page which, once determined can be stored in the memory106/109. At the top level, the document evaluation1345derives the aesthetic quality for the whole document, taking into consideration the aesthetic quality of individual pages.

Given a multi-page document, the user can then specify those pages to which the document map applies, and thereby evaluate those pages of the multi-page document. The aesthetic evaluation of each page follows the method200.

Recommendation Generation

In a further alternative implementation, based on saved layout measurements and acceptability rule results in a region measure structure, specific recommendations can be generated for layout enhancements. In the process of creating an aesthetic measure profile as shown inFIG. 5, between step520and step525, the user can provide predefined recommendations about how a document region can be enhanced to satisfy the layout characteristic measured by a property measure.FIG. 14illustrates an aesthetic measure profile supplemented with recommendations. Items1410to1450are the same as items610to650. For each property measure in the aesthetic measure profile1400, a recommendation is included. Recommendations1455,1460, and1465are specified for property measures1410,1415and1440, respectively.

Recommendations for a document region which fails to satisfy the region decision rule of an aesthetic measure profile are compiled by collating recommendations of the property measures that caused the document region to fail the region decision rule. For example, the recommendations1510inFIG. 15are generated by collating the recommendations1460and1465for the property measures1415and1440, respectively, since the document region930fails its region decision rule due to the acceptability rule failures recorded at1150and1155in the region measure structure1135. Where the arrangements described are executed within a GUI, the recommendation1510may be dynamically displayed in the GUI on the display114over the page being aesthetically assessed to hint to the user a possible solution to achieve aesthetic acceptability.

Industrial Applicability

The arrangements described are applicable to the computer and data processing industries and particularly to the automated assessment of documents with respect to user aesthetic criteria, which may be predefined or used generated/modified.