Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.008606319 = product of:
  0.03872844 = sum of:
    0.014200641 = weight(_text_:of in 2394) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014200641 = score(doc=2394,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.23179851 = fieldWeight in 2394, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2394)
    0.0245278 = weight(_text_:systems in 2394) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0245278 = score(doc=2394,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 2394, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2394)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

The need for promoting Multilingual Information Retrieval (MLIR) and Access (MLIA) has become evident, now more than ever, given the increase of the online information produced daily in languages other than English. This study aims to explore users' information needs when searching for information across languages. Specifically, the method of questionnaire was employed to shed light on the Library and Information Science (LIS) undergraduate students' use of search engines, databases, digital libraries when searching as well as their needs for multilingual access. This study contributes in informing the design of MLIR systems by focusing on the reasons and situations under which users would search and use information in multiple languages.

0.0023521183 = product of:
  0.021169065 = sum of:
    0.021169065 = weight(_text_:of in 3952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021169065 = score(doc=3952,freq=32.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.34554482 = fieldWeight in 3952, product of:
          5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
            32.0 = termFreq=32.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3952)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to investigate the usability of the user interface to an online catalogue and to explore how user assessment of both system usability and functionality can provide recommendations for the improved design. Design/methodology/approach - Drawing on previous studies, the usability testing used a mixture of search tasks, interviews and a structured focus group. Representative users completed tasks designed to test the system's features and a "think aloud" protocol collected data about the users' responses when using the system and on its perceived functionality. Findings - The analysis of the data on users' evaluation, preferences and expectations by a set of usability attributes enabled recommendations to be made with respect to key areas of the system functionality. Practical implications - The usability study helped to improve the "look and feel" of the interface and demonstrates how the user expectation of what constitutes a supported experience can help make recommendations for the design of a system that is both usable and useful. Originality/value - The paper demonstrates the benefits of using a mixture of approaches to test system usability and to gain a better understanding of usability from the perspective of the system's users, their expectations and perceived usefulness of the system.

0.0023403284 = product of:
  0.021062955 = sum of:
    0.021062955 = weight(_text_:of in 2885) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021062955 = score(doc=2885,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.34381276 = fieldWeight in 2885, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2885)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

The study sets out to explore the factors that influence the evaluation of information and the judgments made in the process of finding useful information in web search contexts. Based on a diary study of 2 assigned tasks to search on Google and Google Scholar, factor analysis identified the core constructs of content, relevance, scope, and style, as well as informational and system "ease of use" as influencing the judgment that useful information had been found. Differences were found in the participants' evaluation of information across the search tasks on Google and on Google Scholar when identified by the factors related to both content and ease of use. The findings from this study suggest how searchers might critically evaluate information, and the study identifies a relation between the user's involvement in the information interaction and the influences of the perceived system ease of use and information design.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.4, S.824-840

0.002304596 = product of:
  0.020741362 = sum of:
    0.020741362 = weight(_text_:of in 3847) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020741362 = score(doc=3847,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.33856338 = fieldWeight in 3847, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3847)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Discusses the attraction for researchers of the prospect of automatically generating abstracts but notes that the promise of superseding the human effort has yet to be realized. Notes ways in which progress in automatic abstracting research may come about and suggests a shift in the aim from reproducing the conventional benefits of abstracts to accentuating the advantages to users of the computerized representation of information in large textual databases

0.0020369943 = product of:
  0.018332949 = sum of:
    0.018332949 = weight(_text_:of in 3316) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018332949 = score(doc=3316,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 3316, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3316)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

This article contributes to the growing body of research that explores the significance of context in health information behavior. Specifically, through the lens of trust judgments, it demonstrates that gender is a determinant of the information evaluation process. A questionnaire-based survey collected data from adults regarding the factors that influence their judgment of the trustworthiness of online health information. Both men and women identified credibility, recommendation, ease of use, and brand as being of importance in their trust judgments. However, women also take into account style, while men eschew this for familiarity. In addition, men appear to be more concerned with the comprehensiveness and accuracy of the information, the ease with which they can access it, and its familiarity, whereas women demonstrate greater interest in cognition, such as the ease with which they can read and understand the information. These gender differences are consistent with the demographic data, which suggest that: women consult more types of sources than men; men are more likely to be searching with respect to a long-standing health complaint; and, women are more likely than men to use tablets in their health information seeking. Recommendations for further research to better inform practice are offered.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.1, S.36-47

0.0017640886 = product of:
  0.015876798 = sum of:
    0.015876798 = weight(_text_:of in 3597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015876798 = score(doc=3597,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.25915858 = fieldWeight in 3597, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3597)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

While there is significant progress with policy and a lively debate regarding the potential impact of open access publishing, few studies have examined academics' behavior and attitudes to open access publishing (OAP) in scholarly journals. This article seeks to address this gap through an international and interdisciplinary survey of academics. Issues covered include: use of and intentions regarding OAP, and perceptions regarding advantages and disadvantages of OAP, journal article publication services, peer review, and reuse. Despite reporting engagement in OAP, academics were unsure about their future intentions regarding OAP. Broadly, academics identified the potential for wider circulation as the key advantage of OAP, and were more positive about its benefits than they were negative about its disadvantages. As regards services, rigorous peer review, followed by rapid publication were most valued. Academics reported strong views on reuse of their work; they were relatively happy with noncommercial reuse, but not in favor of commercial reuse, adaptations, and inclusion in anthologies. Comparing science, technology, and medicine with arts, humanities, and social sciences showed a significant difference in attitude on a number of questions, but, in general, the effect size was small, suggesting that attitudes are relatively consistent across the academic community.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.5, S.1201-1211