Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0042914203 = product of:
  0.017165681 = sum of:
    0.017165681 = weight(_text_:information in 1040) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017165681 = score(doc=1040,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 1040, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1040)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Exploratory searches involve significant cognitively demanding aiming at learning and investigation. However, users gain little support from search engines for their cognitive and metacognitive activities (e.g., discovery, synthesis, planning, transformation, monitoring, and reflection) during exploratory searches. To better support the exploratory search process, we designed a new search assistance tool called OrgBox. OrgBox allows users to drag-and-drop information they find during searches into "boxes" and "items" that can be created, labeled, and rearranged on a canvas. We conducted a controlled, within-subjects user study with 24 participants to evaluate the OrgBox versus a baseline tool called the OrgDoc that supported rich-text features. Our findings show that participants perceived the OrgBox tool to provide more support for grouping and reorganizing information, tracking thought processes, planning and monitoring search and task processes, and gaining a visual overview of the collected information. The usability test reveals users' preferences for simplicity, familiarity, and flexibility of the design of OrgBox, along with technical problems such as delay of response and restrictions of use. Our results have implications for the design of search-assisting systems that encourage cognitive and metacognitive activities during exploratory search processes.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.9, S.1049-1066

0.0030344925 = product of:
  0.01213797 = sum of:
    0.01213797 = weight(_text_:information in 749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01213797 = score(doc=749,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 749, 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=749)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In this article, we present findings from a survey of nearly 600 university employees' e-mail use. The study provides a detailed comparison of use patterns between work and personal e-mail accounts. Our results suggest that users engage in more "keeping" behaviors with work e-mail than with personal e-mail-respondents reported more frequent use of keeping actions and larger inbox sizes for their work accounts. However, we found correlations between individual respondents' e-mail behaviors in the two contexts, indicating that personal preferences can play a role. We also report results pointing to e-mail as an important boundary management artifact. We show evidence that the use of multiple e-mail accounts may be a work-personal boundary placement strategy, but also observe that a fair amount of boundary permeation occurs through e-mail. To our knowledge, this study is one of the first to compare e-mail use in both work and personal contexts across the same sample. Our findings extend prior research on personal information management regarding e-mail use, and help inform the role of e-mail in managing work-personal boundaries. The results have implications for the design of e-mail systems, organizational e-mail policies, user training, and understanding the impacts of technology on daily life.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.5, S.1029-1044

0.0021457102 = product of:
  0.008582841 = sum of:
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 4129) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=4129,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 4129, 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=4129)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.1, S.114-138