Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.010168676 = product of:
  0.14236146 = sum of:
    0.14236146 = weight(_text_:mental in 141) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14236146 = score(doc=141,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.16438161 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.532101 = idf(docFreq=174, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.8660425 = fieldWeight in 141, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          6.532101 = idf(docFreq=174, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=141)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

A user's understanding of the libraries they work in, and hence of what they can do in those libraries, is encapsulated in their "mental models" of those libraries. In this article, we present a focused case study of users' mental models of traditional and digital libraries based on observations and interviews with eight participants. It was found that a poor understanding of access restrictions led to risk-averse behavior, whereas a poor understanding of search algorithms and relevance ranking resulted in trial-and-error behavior. This highlights the importance of rich feedback in helping users to construct useful mental models. Although the use of concrete analogies for digital libraries was not widespread, participants used their knowledge of Internet search engines to infer how searching might work in digital libraries. Indeed, most participants did not clearly distinguish between different kinds of digital resource, viewing the electronic library catalogue, abstracting services, digital libraries, and Internet search engines as variants on a theme.

0.0035673599 = product of:
  0.049943037 = sum of:
    0.049943037 = weight(_text_:representation in 4451) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049943037 = score(doc=4451,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.4313432 = fieldWeight in 4451, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4451)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Information seeking does not occur in a vacuum but invariably is motivated by some wider task. It is well accepted that to understand information seeking we must understand the task context within which it takes place. Writing is amongst the most common tasks within which information seeking is embedded. This paper considers how writing can be understood in order to account for embedded information seeking. Following Sharples, the paper treats writing as a design activity and explore parallels between the psychology of design and information seeking. Significant parallels can be found and ideas from the psychology of design offer explanations for a number of information seeking phenomena. Next, a design-oriented representation of writing tasks as a means of providing an account of phenomena such as information seeking uncertainty and focus refinement is developed. The paper illustrates the representation with scenarios describing the work of newspaper journalists.

0.0021020873 = product of:
  0.02942922 = sum of:
    0.02942922 = weight(_text_:representation in 4490) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02942922 = score(doc=4490,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.25417143 = fieldWeight in 4490, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4490)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Purpose - This research aims to identify some requirements for supporting user interactions with electronic current-awareness alert systems based on data from a professional work environment. Design/methodology/approach - Qualitative data were gathered using contextual inquiry observations with 21 workers at the London office of an international law firm. The analysis uses CASSM ("Concept-based Analysis of Surface and Structural Misfits"), a usability evaluation method structured around identifying mismatches, or "misfits", between user-concepts and concepts represented within a system. Findings - Participants were frequently overwhelmed by e-mail alerts, and a key requirement is to support efficient interaction. Several misfits, which act as barriers to efficient reviewing and follow-on activities, are demonstrated. These relate to a lack of representation of key user-concepts at the interface and/or within the system, including alert items and their properties, source documents, "back-story", primary sources, content categorisations and user collections. Research limitations/implications - Given these misfits, a set of requirements is derived to improve the efficiency with which users can achieve key outcomes with current-awareness information as these occur within a professional work environment. Originality/value - The findings will be of interest to current-awareness providers. The approach is relevant to information interaction researchers interested in deriving design requirements from naturalistic studies.

9.829961E-4 = product of:
  0.013761944 = sum of:
    0.013761944 = product of:
      0.04128583 = sum of:
        0.04128583 = weight(_text_:29 in 6060) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04128583 = score(doc=6060,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08852329 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025165197 = queryNorm
            0.46638384 = fieldWeight in 6060, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6060)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Date

29. 7.2008 18:41:20

5.7923596E-4 = product of:
  0.008109303 = sum of:
    0.008109303 = product of:
      0.02432791 = sum of:
        0.02432791 = weight(_text_:29 in 2052) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02432791 = score(doc=2052,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08852329 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025165197 = queryNorm
            0.2748193 = fieldWeight in 2052, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2052)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Date

29. 7.2008 19:29:44

4.0589727E-4 = product of:
  0.0056825615 = sum of:
    0.0056825615 = product of:
      0.017047685 = sum of:
        0.017047685 = weight(_text_:22 in 3340) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017047685 = score(doc=3340,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08812423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025165197 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3340, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3340)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.1, S.22-35