Wilson, M.L.; Schraefel, M.C.; White, R.W.: Evaluating advanced search interfaces using established information-seeking models (2009)
0.00
0.0018909799 = product of:
0.0037819599 = sum of:
0.0037819599 = product of:
0.0075639198 = sum of:
0.0075639198 = weight(_text_:a in 2920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0075639198 = score(doc=2920,freq=10.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 2920, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2920)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- When users have poorly defined or complex goals, search interfaces that offer only keyword-searching facilities provide inadequate support to help them reach their information-seeking objectives. The emergence of interfaces with more advanced capabilities, such as faceted browsing and result clustering, can go some way toward addressing such problems. The evaluation of these interfaces, however, is challenging because they generally offer diverse and versatile search environments that introduce overwhelming amounts of independent variables to user studies; choosing the interface object as the only independent variable in a study would reveal very little about why one design outperforms another. Nonetheless, if we could effectively compare these interfaces, then we would have a way to determine which was best for a given scenario and begin to learn why. In this article, we present a formative inspection framework for the evaluation of advanced search interfaces through the quantification of the strengths and weaknesses of the interfaces in supporting user tactics and varying user conditions. This framework combines established models of users and their needs and behaviors to achieve this. The framework is applied to evaluate three search interfaces and demonstrates the potential value of this approach to interactive information retrieval evaluation.
- Type
- a
