Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

0.05644991 = product of:
  0.11289982 = sum of:
    0.073112294 = weight(_text_:digital in 3851) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.073112294 = score(doc=3851,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.36980176 = fieldWeight in 3851, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3851)
    0.039787523 = weight(_text_:library in 3851) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039787523 = score(doc=3851,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.30190483 = fieldWeight in 3851, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3851)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The Online Public Access Catalog (OPAC) is an information retrieval system characterized by short bibliographic records, mainly of books, journals, and audiovisual materials available in a particular library. This, coupled with a Boolean search interface and a heterogeneous user population with diverse needs, presents special problems for subject searching by end users. To perform effective subject searching in the OPAC system requires a wide range of knowledge and skills. Various approaches to improving the OPAC design for subject searching have been proposed and are reviewed in this entry. The trend toward Web-based OPAC interfaces and the developments in Internet and digital library technologies present fresh opportunities for enhancing the effectiveness of the OPAC system for subject searching.

Content

Digital unter: http://dx.doi.org/10.1081/E-ELIS3-120008863. Vgl.: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/book/10.1081/E-ELIS3.

Source

Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates

0.04399944 = product of:
  0.08799888 = sum of:
    0.060926907 = weight(_text_:digital in 585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060926907 = score(doc=585,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.3081681 = fieldWeight in 585, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=585)
    0.027071979 = weight(_text_:library in 585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027071979 = score(doc=585,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.2054202 = fieldWeight in 585, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=585)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Elementary-age children (ages 6-11) are among the largest user groups of computers and the Internet. Therefore, it is important to design searching and browsing tools that support them. However, many interfaces for children do not consider their skills and preferences. Children are capable of creating Boolean queries using category browsers, but have difficulty with the hierarchies used in many category-browsing interfaces because different branches of the hierarchy must be navigated sequentially and top-level categories are often too abstract for them to understand. Based on previous research, the authors believe using a flat category structure, where only leaf-level categories are available and can be viewed simultaneously, might better support children. However, this design introduces many more items on the screen and the need for paging or scrolling, all potential usability problems. To evaluate these tradeoffs, the authors conducted two studies with children searching and browsing using two types of category browsers in the International Children's Digital Library. Their results suggest that a flat, simultaneous interface provides advantages over a hierarchical, sequential interface for children in both Boolean searching and casual browsing. These results add to our understanding of children's searching and browsing skills and preferences, and possibly serve as guidelines for other children's interface designers.

0.014447878 = product of:
  0.028895756 = sum of:
    0.015314223 = weight(_text_:library in 168) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015314223 = score(doc=168,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.11620321 = fieldWeight in 168, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=168)
    0.013581533 = product of:
      0.027163066 = sum of:
        0.027163066 = weight(_text_:22 in 168) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027163066 = score(doc=168,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 168, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=168)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

Source

Library resources and technical services. 45(2001) no.1, S

0.013399946 = product of:
  0.053599782 = sum of:
    0.053599782 = weight(_text_:library in 768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053599782 = score(doc=768,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.40671125 = fieldWeight in 768, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=768)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Electronic library. 18(2000) no.5, S.316-327

0.013399946 = product of:
  0.053599782 = sum of:
    0.053599782 = weight(_text_:library in 2255) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053599782 = score(doc=2255,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.40671125 = fieldWeight in 2255, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2255)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The behavior of academic library users has drastically changed in recent years. Internet search engines have become the preferred tool over the library online public access catalog (OPAC) for finding information. Libraries are losing ground to online search engines. In this paper, two aspects of OPAC use are studied: (1) the current OPAC interface and searching capabilities, and (2) the OPAC bibliographic display. The purpose of the study is to find answers to the following questions: Why is the current OPAC ineffective? What can libraries and librarians do to deliver an OPAC that is as good as search engines to better serve our users? Revitalizing the library OPAC is one of the pressing issues that has to be accomplished.

0.010701139 = product of:
  0.042804558 = sum of:
    0.042804558 = weight(_text_:library in 2594) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042804558 = score(doc=2594,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.32479787 = fieldWeight in 2594, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2594)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to determine whether a faceted OPAC interface offers improvements to information discovery in scholarly research. Design/methodology/approach - The 5.2 million records of an entire library catalog were loaded into a faceted navigation interface and an attractive search term suggestion tool. Humanities PhD students at the dissertation level and familiar with this collection were observed while using this interface to continue their research into the literature on their dissertation topic. Findings - From a group of 12 subjects, nine reported finding materials that they had not found in their previous use of the traditional catalog interface. Research limitations/implications - No attempt is made to isolate the effects of relevance ranking on discovery from those of faceted navigation or the search term suggestions. The differences between the circumstances of scholars who did and did not find previously undiscovered materials are not examined. Practical implications - Faceted interface and search term suggestion in a library catalog may enable those scholars who are highly dependent on library materials to find materials that would remain hidden in a traditional library catalog. Originality/value - This article considers whether faceted navigation increases the range of relevant materials that scholars discover, and is of interest to libraries which are considering adding faceted navigation and other features to their catalog interface.

Source

Library hi tech. 25(2007) no.4, S.550-561

0.009475192 = product of:
  0.03790077 = sum of:
    0.03790077 = weight(_text_:library in 2198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03790077 = score(doc=2198,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.28758827 = fieldWeight in 2198, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2198)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Over the last couple of years, there has been a surge of activity in the library automation arena directed toward improved user interfaces. As Breeding looks at the events and activities that have transpired over the last year or so, Breeding sees an incredible amount of progress in creating interfaces that help librarians compete better in an ever more crowded landscape of information providers. It's strategically important for libraries to have technologies in place that will optimize delivery of content and services in the context of today's Web. Breeding believes that failure to make progress in this area can foster a creep of irrelevancy as potential users increasingly rely on information resources provided by entities other than libraries.

0.009378009 = product of:
  0.037512034 = sum of:
    0.037512034 = weight(_text_:library in 2659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037512034 = score(doc=2659,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.28463858 = fieldWeight in 2659, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2659)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The paper presents findings based on user feedback and opinion of online public access catalogues as tools for finding, identifying, and selecting bibliographic materials in a public library setting. Participants spoke their thoughts aloud while conducting known-item searches. The findings describe an iterative process of action, observation, identification, and emotion.

Content

1. Introduction Significant research in the design and use of online public access catalogues (OPACs) has been conducted by professionals in library and information science (Borgman, 1996; Carlyle, 2001, Carlyle & Timmons, 2002; Hancock, 1987). However, only limited research has addressed actual library user interaction with and perceptions of online catalogue displays and bibliographic elements (Abrera, 1986; Luk, 1996; Markey, 1983). Retrieval systems, specifically online library catalogues, should consider user perceptions and expectations as an important aspect of design and implementation for improved catalogue efficiency (Hert, 1996). Therefore, it is necessary to examine the online catalogue from a user perspective to determine if it is currently succeeding in meeting the bibliographic needs of users in terms of description, display, navigation, and to provide principles for design of future OPACs. A study seeking to understand better how public library users interact with general OPAC displays and the more specific displays of bibliographic information was conducted in 2003. Research questions focused an 1) user perceptions of the OPAC, 2) the elements in a bibliographic display standing out as most important in selection and identification, and 3) user feedback an the process of using the OPAC. The purpose of this paper is to highlight the larger study findings having implications for future research and online catalogue design.

0.0057428335 = product of:
  0.022971334 = sum of:
    0.022971334 = weight(_text_:library in 2597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022971334 = score(doc=2597,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.17430481 = fieldWeight in 2597, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2597)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Library hi tech. 25(2007) no.4, S.538-549