Search (18 results, page 1 of 1)

0.008243278 = product of:
  0.03297311 = sum of:
    0.03297311 = weight(_text_:information in 1013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03297311 = score(doc=1013,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.5375032 = fieldWeight in 1013, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1013)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Information interaction is the process that people use in interacting with the content of an information system. Information architecture is a blueprint and navigational aid to the content of information-rich systems. As such information architecture performs an important supporting rote in information interactivity. This article elaborates an a model of information interactivity that crosses the "no-man's land" between user and computer articulating a model that includes user, content and system, illustrating the context for information architecture.

Footnote

Teil eines Themenschwerpunktes Information architecture

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 53(2002) no.10, S.855-862

0.0058892816 = product of:
  0.023557127 = sum of:
    0.023557127 = weight(_text_:information in 544) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023557127 = score(doc=544,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.3840108 = fieldWeight in 544, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=544)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Interactive information seeking, behaviour and retrieval. Eds.: Ruthven, I. u. D. Kelly

0.004759258 = product of:
  0.019037032 = sum of:
    0.019037032 = weight(_text_:information in 579) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019037032 = score(doc=579,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.3103276 = fieldWeight in 579, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=579)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Computer-based systems are increasingly used by society for everyday activities. Yet these systems are rarely exploited to meet personal information needs. One development that may change this imbalance is the community online system. This paper examines one type of community online system, the Free-Net, and discusses its usefulness in delivering the information and services typically provided by community information centers

0.0044518784 = product of:
  0.017807513 = sum of:
    0.017807513 = weight(_text_:information in 292) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017807513 = score(doc=292,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.29028487 = fieldWeight in 292, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=292)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Browsing is considered to be unstructured and human-driven, although not a cognitively intensive process. It is conducted using systems that facilitate considerable user-system interactivity. Cued by the content, people immerse themselves in a topic of interest and meander from topic to topic while concurrently recognising interesting and informative information en route. They seem to seek and gather information in a purposeless, illogical and indiscriminate manner. Typical examples of these ostensibly random acts are scanning a non-fiction book, examining the morning newspaper, perusing the contents of a business report and scavenging the World Wide Web. Often the result is the acquisition of new information, the rejection or confirmation of an idea, or the genesis of new, perhaps not-wholly-formed thoughts about a topic. Noteworthy about this approach is that people explore information without having consciously structured queries or explicit goals. This form of passive information interaction behaviour is defined as acquiring and gathering information while scanning an information space without a specific goal in mind (Waterworth & Chignell, 1991; Toms, 1997), and for the purposes of this study, is called browsing. Traditionally, browsing is thought of in two ways: as a physical process - the action taken when one scans a list, a document, or a set of linked information nodes (e.g., Fox & Palay, 1979; Thompson & Croft, 1989; Ellis, 1989), and as a conceptual process, information seeking when the goal is ill-defined (e.g., Cove & Walsh, 1987). Browsing is also combined with searching in an integrated information-seeking process for retrieving information (e.g., Ellis, 1989; Belkin, Marchetti & Cool, 1993; Marchionini, 1995; Chang, 1995). Each of these cases focuses primarily on seeking information when the objective ranges from fuzzy to explicit.

Source

Exploring the contexts of information behaviour: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Research in Information Needs, Seeking and Use in Different Contexts, 13-15 August 1998, Sheffield, UK. Ed. by D.K. Wilson u. D.K. Allen

0.0036430482 = product of:
  0.014572193 = sum of:
    0.014572193 = weight(_text_:information in 4195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014572193 = score(doc=4195,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.23754507 = fieldWeight in 4195, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4195)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Webcasting systems were developed to provide remote access in real-time to live events. Today, these systems have an additional requirement: to accommodate the "second life" of webcasts as archival information objects. Research to date has focused on facilitating the production and storage of webcasts as well as the development of more interactive and collaborative multimedia tools to support the event, but research has not examined how people interact with a webcasting system to access and use the contents of those archived events. Using an experimental design, this study examined how 16 typical users interact with a webcasting system to respond to a set of information tasks: selecting a webcast, searching for specific information, and making a gist of a webcast. Using several data sources that included user actions, user perceptions, and user explanations of their actions and decisions, the study also examined the strategies employed to complete the tasks. The results revealed distinctive system-use patterns for each task and provided insights into the types of tools needed to make webcasting systems better suited for also using the webcasts as information objects.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.2, S.343-362

0.0033653039 = product of:
  0.013461215 = sum of:
    0.013461215 = weight(_text_:information in 4761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013461215 = score(doc=4761,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 4761, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4761)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 53(2002) no.14, S.1232-1238

0.0033256328 = product of:
  0.013302531 = sum of:
    0.013302531 = weight(_text_:information in 5256) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013302531 = score(doc=5256,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.21684799 = fieldWeight in 5256, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5256)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The purpose of this research is to capture, understand, and model the process used by bioinformatics analysts when facing a specific scientific problem. Integrating information behavior with task analysis, we interviewed 20 bioinformatics experts about the process they follow to conduct a typical bioinformatics analysis - a functional analysis of a gene, and then used a task analysis approach to model that process. We found that each expert followed a unique process in using bioinformatics resources, but had significant similarities with their peers. We synthesized these unique processes into a standard research protocol, from which we developed a procedural model that describes the process of conducting a functional analysis of a gene. The model protocol consists of a series of 16 individual steps, each of which specifies detail for the type of analysis, how and why it is conducted, the tools used, the data input and output, and the interpretation of the results. The linking of information behavior and task analysis research is a novel approach, as it provides a rich high-level view of information behavior while providing a detailed analysis at the task level. In this article we concentrate on the latter.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 56(2005) no.5, S.469-482

0.003091229 = product of:
  0.012364916 = sum of:
    0.012364916 = weight(_text_:information in 2534) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012364916 = score(doc=2534,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 2534, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2534)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

We introduce WiIRE, a prototype system for conducting interactive information retrieval (IIR) experiments via the Internet. We conceived Wi IRE to increase validity while streamlining procedures and adding efficiencies to the conduct of IIR experiments. The system incorporates password-controlled access, online questionnaires, study instructions and tutorials, conditional interface assignment, and conditional query assignment as well as provision for data collection. As an initial evaluation, we used WiIRE inhouse to conduct a Web-based IIR experiment using an external search engine with customized search interfaces and the TREC 11 Interactive Track search queries. Our evaluation of the prototype indicated significant cost efficiencies in the conduct of IIR studies, and additionally had some novel findings about the human perspective: about half participants would have preferred some personal contact with the researcher, and participants spent a significantly decreasing amount of time on tasks over the course of a session.

Source

Information processing and management. 40(2004) no.4, S.655-676

0.003091229 = product of:
  0.012364916 = sum of:
    0.012364916 = weight(_text_:information in 2851) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012364916 = score(doc=2851,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 2851, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2851)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This research aimed to gain a detailed understanding of how genealogists and historians interact with, and make use of, finding aids in print and digital form. The study uses the lens of human information interaction to investigate finding aid use. Data were collected through a lab-based study of 32 experienced archives' users who completed two tasks with each of two finding aids. Participants were able to carry out the tasks, but they were somewhat challenged by the structure of the finding aid and employed various techniques to cope. Their patterns of interaction differed by task type and they reported higher rates of satisfaction, ease of use, and clarity for the assessment task than the known-item task. Four common patterns of interaction were identified: top-down, bottom-up, interrogative, and opportunistic. Results show how users interact with findings aids and identify features that support and hinder use. This research examines process and performance in addition to outcomes. Results contribute to the archival science literature and also suggest ways to extend models of human information interaction.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.4, S.994-1008

0.0029446408 = product of:
  0.011778563 = sum of:
    0.011778563 = weight(_text_:information in 3900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011778563 = score(doc=3900,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 3900, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3900)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates

0.0029144385 = product of:
  0.011657754 = sum of:
    0.011657754 = weight(_text_:information in 6699) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011657754 = score(doc=6699,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.19003606 = fieldWeight in 6699, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6699)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Documents belonging to a genre have a definite structure which has evolved within specific discourse communities to the point where its use is fixed and standardized. We speculate that such a structure exhibits a strong visual cue, facilitating document recognition and defining a shape of information. To test the concept of shape, 72 participants from two groups (half currently working in an academic setting and half from the general public) examined 24 documents typically used in the academic environment. The documents were in three versions: one based on form, in which the text was masked, leaving only the layout, a second based on content, in which the document was reduced to its semantic information only, and the full version, the original unaltered document. On examining each of the 24 documents (e.g., journal article, call for papers, annotated bibliography) in one of the three versions, participants identified: the type of document and, its recognizable and/or unfamiliar features. In addition, they assessed 8 print versions of the form document for suggestive features of shape. Two variables were tested: the genre element (form or content) and the participant's membership in the academic community. Not unexpectedly, participants identified more documents in the Full and Content versions than the Form versions. But Form versions were recognized twice as quickly as the other two versions. Thus when document shape was evident, the document was immediately discernible to participants; when participants were required to read the semantic content for a gist of the document and an extrapolation of its contents, it took more time. Surprisingly, discourse community had no effect

Imprint

Medford, NJ : Information Today

Series

Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science; vol.36

Source

Knowledge: creation, organization and use. Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science, 31.10.-4.11.1999. Ed.: L. Woods

0.0025760243 = product of:
  0.010304097 = sum of:
    0.010304097 = weight(_text_:information in 1731) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010304097 = score(doc=1731,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 1731, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1731)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to understand the needs of humanists with respect to information and communication technology (ICT) in order to prescribe the design of an e-humanist's workbench. Design/methodology/approach - A web-based survey comprising over 60 questions gathered the following data from 169 humanists: profile of the humanist, use of ICT in teaching, e-texts, text analysis tools, access to and use of primary and secondary sources, and use of collaboration and communication tools. Findings - Humanists conduct varied forms of research and use multiple techniques. They rely on the availability of inexpensive, quality-controlled e-texts for their research. The existence of primary sources in digital form influences the type of research conducted. They are unaware of existing tools for conducting text analyses, but expressed a need for better tools. Search engines have replaced the library catalogue as the key access tool for sources. Research continues to be solitary with little collaboration among scholars. Research limitations/implications - The results are based on a self-selected sample of humanists who responded to a web-based survey. Future research needs to examine the work of the scholar at a more detailed level, preferably through observation and/or interviewing. Practical implications - The findings support a five-part framework that could serve as the basis for the design of an e-humanist's workbench. Originality/value - The paper examines the needs of the humanist, founded on an integration of information science research and humanities computing for a more comprehensive understanding of the humanist at work.

0.0021033147 = product of:
  0.008413259 = sum of:
    0.008413259 = weight(_text_:information in 6505) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008413259 = score(doc=6505,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 6505, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6505)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Metaphors are used in the design of systems to ameliorate complxities, to exploit prior knowledge, and to enhace the user's understanding of the system. In this study, we examined the electronic city metaphor adopted by Free-Nets, the average citizen's medium for accessing electronic community information. The electronic city metaphor represents a categorized set of menus as buildings in a mythical city. To examnie this metaphor, we compared the performance of 2 groups of university student subjects who used a simulated Free-Net to find answers to simple factual questions. One group used an interface that embodied the electronic city metaphor, while the other group used an interface with labels composed from everyday language. Subjects used the simulated Free-Net in 2 sessions, about a week apart. Results were assessed using 3 performance measures: Number of top-level menu choices used, number of correct answers, and amout of time taken to respond to questions. Preference ratings were also obtained. Results indicated that both groups performed about equally in the first session, but that only the subjects who used the everyday language menu showed a learning effect over time. Subjects in both groups expressed a definite preference for the non-metaphor interface. The results raise questions about the utility of this type of metaphor, especially to represent categorized lists

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 47(1996) no.12, S.919-931

0.0021033147 = product of:
  0.008413259 = sum of:
    0.008413259 = weight(_text_:information in 2565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008413259 = score(doc=2565,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 2565, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2565)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In this study, we compare a search tool, TOPIC, with three other widely used tools that retrieve information from the Web: AltaVista, Google, and Lycos. These tools use different techniques for outputting and ranking Web sites: external link structure (TOPIC and Google) and semantic content analysis (AltaVista and Lycos). TOPIC purports to output, and highly rank within its hit list, reputable Web sites for searched topics. In this study, 80 participants reviewed the output (i.e., highly ranked sites) from each tool and assessed the quality of retrieved sites. The 4800 individual assessments of 240 sites that represent 12 topics indicated that Google tends to identify and highly rank significantly more reputable Web sites than TOPIC, which, in turn, outputs more than AltaVista and Lycos, but this was not consistent from topic to topic. Metrics derived from reputation research were used in the assessment and a factor analysis was employed to identify a key factor, which we call 'repute'. The results of this research include insight into the factors that Web users consider in formulating perceptions of Web site reputation, and insight into which search tools are outputting reputable sites for Web users. Our findings, we believe, have implications for Web users and suggest the need for future research to assess the relationship between Web page characteristics and their perceived reputation.

Source

Information processing and management. 40(2004) no.2, S.291-317

0.0021033147 = product of:
  0.008413259 = sum of:
    0.008413259 = weight(_text_:information in 1786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008413259 = score(doc=1786,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 1786, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1786)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - One core element of interactive information retrieval (IIR) experiments is the assignment of search tasks. The purpose of this paper is to provide an analytical review of current practice in developing those search tasks to test, observe or control task complexity and difficulty. Design/methodology/approach - Over 100 prior studies of IIR were examined in terms of how each defined task complexity and/or difficulty (or related concepts) and subsequently interpreted those concepts in the development of the assigned search tasks. Findings - Search task complexity is found to include three dimensions: multiplicity of subtasks or steps, multiplicity of facets, and indeterminability. Search task difficulty is based on an interaction between the search task and the attributes of the searcher or the attributes of the search situation. The paper highlights the anomalies in our use of these two concepts, concluding with suggestions for future methodological research related to search task complexity and difficulty. Originality/value - By analyzing and synthesizing current practices, this paper provides guidance for future experiments in IIR that involve these two constructs.

0.0014872681 = product of:
  0.0059490725 = sum of:
    0.0059490725 = weight(_text_:information in 1721) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0059490725 = score(doc=1721,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 1721, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1721)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.6, S.938-955

0.0014872681 = product of:
  0.0059490725 = sum of:
    0.0059490725 = weight(_text_:information in 3312) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0059490725 = score(doc=3312,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3312, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3312)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.1, S.50-69

0.0014872681 = product of:
  0.0059490725 = sum of:
    0.0059490725 = weight(_text_:information in 2044) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0059490725 = score(doc=2044,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2044, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2044)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.7, S.1463-1476