Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.03799764 = product of:
  0.15199056 = sum of:
    0.080183506 = weight(_text_:libraries in 141) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.080183506 = score(doc=141,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.6159477 = fieldWeight in 141, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=141)
    0.071807064 = weight(_text_:case in 141) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.071807064 = score(doc=141,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.41216385 = fieldWeight in 141, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=141)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

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.

0.030936617 = product of:
  0.12374647 = sum of:
    0.040091753 = weight(_text_:libraries in 2021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040091753 = score(doc=2021,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.30797386 = fieldWeight in 2021, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2021)
    0.08365472 = weight(_text_:studies in 2021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08365472 = score(doc=2021,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.52904063 = fieldWeight in 2021, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2021)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

The strongest tradition of IR systems evaluation has focused on system effectiveness; more recently, there has been a growing interest in evaluation of Interactive IR systems, balancing system and user-oriented evaluation criteria. In this paper we shift the focus to considering how IR systems, and particularly digital libraries, can be evaluated to assess (and improve) their fit with users' broader work activities. Taking this focus, we answer a different set of evaluation questions that reveal more about the design of interfaces, user-system interactions and how systems may be deployed in the information working context. The planning and conduct of such evaluation studies share some features with the established methods for conducting IR evaluation studies, but come with a shift in emphasis; for example, a greater range of ethical considerations may be pertinent. We present the PRET A Rapporter framework for structuring user-centred evaluation studies and illustrate its application to three evaluation studies of digital library systems.

0.014620107 = product of:
  0.058480427 = sum of:
    0.023624292 = weight(_text_:libraries in 2052) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023624292 = score(doc=2052,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.18147534 = fieldWeight in 2052, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2052)
    0.034856133 = weight(_text_:studies in 2052) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034856133 = score(doc=2052,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.22043361 = fieldWeight in 2052, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2052)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Information-seeking is important for lawyers, who have access to many dedicated electronic resources. However there is considerable scope for improving the design of these resources to better support information-seeking. One way of informing design is to use information-seeking models as theoretical lenses to analyse users' behaviour with existing systems. However many models, including those informed by studying lawyers, analyse information-seeking at a high level of abstraction and are only likely to lead to broad-scoped design insights. We illustrate that one potentially useful (and lower-level) model is Ellis's - by using it as a lens to analyse and make design suggestions based on the information-seeking behaviour of 27 academic lawyers, who were asked to think aloud whilst using electronic legal resources to find information for their work. We identify similar information-seeking behaviours to those originally found by Ellis and his colleagues in scientific domains, along with several that were not identified in previous studies such as 'updating' (which we believe is particularly pertinent to legal information-seeking). We also present a refinement of Ellis's model based on the identification of several levels that the behaviours were found to operate at and the identification of sets of mutually exclusive subtypes of behaviours.

Footnote

Beitrag eines Themenschwerpunktes "Digital libraries in the context of users' broader activities"

0.010022938 = product of:
  0.080183506 = sum of:
    0.080183506 = weight(_text_:libraries in 6060) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.080183506 = score(doc=6060,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.6159477 = fieldWeight in 6060, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6060)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Footnote

Einführung in einen Themenschwerpunkt "Digital libraries in the context of users' broader activities"

0.0043570166 = product of:
  0.034856133 = sum of:
    0.034856133 = weight(_text_:studies in 4490) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034856133 = score(doc=4490,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.22043361 = fieldWeight in 4490, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4490)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

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.

0.004176224 = product of:
  0.033409793 = sum of:
    0.033409793 = weight(_text_:libraries in 2098) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033409793 = score(doc=2098,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.25664487 = fieldWeight in 2098, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2098)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Traditionally humanities scholars have worked in physical environments and with physical artefacts. Libraries are familiar places, built on cultural traditions over thousands of years, and books are comfortable research companions. Digital tools are a more recent addition to the resources available to a researcher. This paper explores both the physical and the digital qualities of modern humanities research, drawing on existing literature and presenting a study of humanities scholars' perceptions of the research resources they use. We highlight aspects of the physical and digital that can facilitate or hinder the researcher, focusing on three themes that emerge from the data: the working environment; the experience of finding resources; and the experience of working with documents. Rather than aiming to replace physical texts and libraries by digital surrogates, providers need to recognise the complementary roles they play: digital information environments have the potential to provide improved access and analysis features and the facility to exploit the library from any place, while the physical library and resources provide greater authenticity, trustworthiness and the demand to be in a particular place with important material properties.

0.0016778135 = product of:
  0.013422508 = sum of:
    0.013422508 = product of:
      0.026845016 = sum of:
        0.026845016 = weight(_text_:22 in 3340) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026845016 = score(doc=3340,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Source

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