Search (138 results, page 2 of 7)

0.015401474 = product of:
  0.030802948 = sum of:
    0.030802948 = product of:
      0.061605897 = sum of:
        0.061605897 = weight(_text_:systems in 4519) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061605897 = score(doc=4519,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.38414678 = fieldWeight in 4519, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4519)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Explores the variety of user behaviour exhibited by users of information retrieval systems over time and the effort of differences between expert and novice searchers on an understanding of information searching dynamics and on the design of information systems. Based on a naturalistic case study. Points out some of the dynamic patterns of behaviour of children's use of online catalogues (OPACs)

0.015401474 = product of:
  0.030802948 = sum of:
    0.030802948 = product of:
      0.061605897 = sum of:
        0.061605897 = weight(_text_:systems in 6731) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061605897 = score(doc=6731,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.38414678 = fieldWeight in 6731, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6731)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Examines the development of OPACs of the last 15 years, and how this has promoted the use of automated information retrieval systems. Using the technique of search path maps, investigates how end users use the system available to them and the type of subject searches they carry out. Compares 2 techniques for mapping searches, concluding that there is need for effective diagnosis and monitoring methods, and that an efficient method of analysis of end user use is essential

Source

OCLC systems and services. 12(1996) no.2, S.27-34

0.015401474 = product of:
  0.030802948 = sum of:
    0.030802948 = product of:
      0.061605897 = sum of:
        0.061605897 = weight(_text_:systems in 410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061605897 = score(doc=410,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.38414678 = fieldWeight in 410, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=410)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Observes that whether in academic, special, or public libraries or on commercial online systems, CD-ROM, the online catalogue, or the Internet, certain end user errors crop up repeatedly. Details the main errors, which include input errors, errors arising from confusion in the face of different interfaces and screen designs, Boolean logic errors, term errors, conceptual errors, and errors due to the fact that users do not read instructions. Concludes that systems must solve the trivial errors automatically, but user instruction librarians must help solve the more complex problems

0.015401474 = product of:
  0.030802948 = sum of:
    0.030802948 = product of:
      0.061605897 = sum of:
        0.061605897 = weight(_text_:systems in 1778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061605897 = score(doc=1778,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.38414678 = fieldWeight in 1778, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1778)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Provides information on the characteristics of 5 online catalogue systems in 5 academic libraries in the austin, Texas and North Texas, USA, and their use by Korean students at University of North Texas, USA, in order to assist system managers in the selection of online catalogues. Proposes recommendations when designing, adopting, or managing a new online catalogue system. Topics for further studies on the characteristics of online systems and their use are also suggested

0.014147157 = product of:
  0.028294314 = sum of:
    0.028294314 = product of:
      0.056588627 = sum of:
        0.056588627 = weight(_text_:systems in 4487) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056588627 = score(doc=4487,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.35286134 = fieldWeight in 4487, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4487)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Presents a state of the art review of the underlying theories of and analysis methods used to study the ways in which users (end users) receive and interpret information through information retrieval systems and looks at the potential for refining theories and adopting new analysis methods. Focuses on approaches that advocate the user centred perspective, including: the cognitive approach; and the holistic approach. Identifies and summarizes the significant studies and ideas since 1986 that are represented by these approaches and looks toward the design of more effective systems that are user oriented and incorporate features such as filtering that would provide retrieval results based on individual or group preferences. Concludes that systems designed from the user centred perspective would not only serve the intended audience but would further the user centred perspective of the entire information retrieval discipline

0.014147157 = product of:
  0.028294314 = sum of:
    0.028294314 = product of:
      0.056588627 = sum of:
        0.056588627 = weight(_text_:systems in 845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056588627 = score(doc=845,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.35286134 = fieldWeight in 845, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=845)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Intellectual access to a growing number of networked image repositories is but a small part of the much larger problem of intellectual access to new information formats. As more and more information becomes available in digital formats, it is imperative that we understand how people retrieve and use images. Several studies have investigated how users search for images, but there are few evaluation studies of image retrieval systems. Preliminary findings from research in progress indicate a need for improved browsing tools, image manipulation software, feedback mechanisms, and query analysis. Comparisons are made to previous research results from a study of intellectual access to digital art images. This discussion will focus on the problems of image retrieval identified in current research projects, report on an evaluation project in process, and propose a framework for evaluation studies of image retrieval systems that emphasizes the role of user feedback.

0.014140441 = product of:
  0.028280882 = sum of:
    0.028280882 = product of:
      0.056561764 = sum of:
        0.056561764 = weight(_text_:22 in 1628) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056561764 = score(doc=1628,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1628, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1628)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

29. 7.1998 10:57:22

0.014140441 = product of:
  0.028280882 = sum of:
    0.028280882 = product of:
      0.056561764 = sum of:
        0.056561764 = weight(_text_:22 in 3687) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056561764 = score(doc=3687,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3687, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3687)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 5.1999 19:07:29

0.014140441 = product of:
  0.028280882 = sum of:
    0.028280882 = product of:
      0.056561764 = sum of:
        0.056561764 = weight(_text_:22 in 5299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056561764 = score(doc=5299,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5299, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5299)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 7.2006 18:17:44

0.014140441 = product of:
  0.028280882 = sum of:
    0.028280882 = product of:
      0.056561764 = sum of:
        0.056561764 = weight(_text_:22 in 2905) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056561764 = score(doc=2905,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2905, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2905)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 2.2009 18:50:43

0.013613109 = product of:
  0.027226217 = sum of:
    0.027226217 = product of:
      0.054452434 = sum of:
        0.054452434 = weight(_text_:systems in 1589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054452434 = score(doc=1589,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.339541 = fieldWeight in 1589, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1589)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article discusses the major catalog use studies that have been conducted in the United States and Great Britain. The potential to influence the construction of new online public access catalogs is emphasized. The cumulative findings could serve as an information base which designers of OPAC systems could refer to in the course of their work

0.013613109 = product of:
  0.027226217 = sum of:
    0.027226217 = product of:
      0.054452434 = sum of:
        0.054452434 = weight(_text_:systems in 5163) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054452434 = score(doc=5163,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.339541 = fieldWeight in 5163, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5163)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This is the first part of a two-part article that reviews 25 years of published research findings on end-user searching in online information retrieval (IR) systems. In Part 1 (Markey, 2007), the author seeks to answer the following questions: What characterizes the queries that end users submit to online IR systems? What search features do people use? What features would enable them to improve on the retrievals they have in hand? What features are hardly ever used? What do end users do in response to the system's retrievals? Are end users satisfied with their online searches? Summarizing searches of online IR systems by the search features people use everyday makes information retrieval appear to be a very simplistic one-stop event. In Part 2, the author examines current models of the information retrieval process, demonstrating that information retrieval is much more complex and involves changes in cognition, feelings, and/or events during the information seeking process. She poses a host of new research questions that will further our understanding about end-user searching of online IR systems.

0.013613109 = product of:
  0.027226217 = sum of:
    0.027226217 = product of:
      0.054452434 = sum of:
        0.054452434 = weight(_text_:systems in 443) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054452434 = score(doc=443,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.339541 = fieldWeight in 443, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=443)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This is the second part of a two-part article that examines 25 years of published research findings on end-user searching of online information retrieval (IR) systems. In Part 1, it was learned that people enter a few short search statements into online IR systems. Their searches do not resemble the systematic approach of expert searchers who use the full range of IR-system functionality. Part 2 picks up the discussion of research findings about end-user searching in the context of current information retrieval models. These models demonstrate that information retrieval is a complex event, involving changes in cognition, feelings, and/or events during the information seeking process. The author challenges IR researchers to design new studies of end-user searching, collecting data not only on system-feature use, but on multiple search sessions and controlling for variables such as domain knowledge expertise and expert system knowledge. Because future IR systems designers are likely to improve the functionality of online IR systems in response to answers to the new research questions posed here, the author concludes with advice to these designers about retaining the simplicity of online IR system interfaces.

0.013613109 = product of:
  0.027226217 = sum of:
    0.027226217 = product of:
      0.054452434 = sum of:
        0.054452434 = weight(_text_:systems in 2029) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054452434 = score(doc=2029,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.339541 = fieldWeight in 2029, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2029)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The questionnaire is an important technique for gathering data from subjects during interactive information retrieval (IR) experiments. Research in survey methodology, public opinion polling and psychology has demonstrated a number of response biases and behaviors that subjects exhibit when responding to questionnaires. Furthermore, research in human-computer interaction has demonstrated that subjects tend to inflate their ratings of systems when completing usability questionnaires. In this study we investigate the relationship between questionnaire mode and subjects' responses to a usability questionnaire comprised of closed and open questions administered during an interactive IR experiment. Three questionnaire modes (pen-and-paper, electronic and interview) were explored with 51 subjects who used one of two information retrieval systems. Results showed that subjects' quantitative evaluations of systems were significantly lower in the interview mode than in the electronic mode. With respect to open questions, subjects in the interview mode used significantly more words than subjects in the pen-and-paper or electronic modes to communicate their responses, and communicated a significantly higher number of response units, even though the total number of unique response units was roughly the same across condition. Finally, results showed that subjects in the pen-and-paper mode were the most efficient in communicating their responses to open questions. These results suggest that researchers should use the interview mode to elicit responses to closed questions from subjects and either pen-and-paper or electronic modes to elicit responses to open questions.

Footnote

Beitrag eines Themenbereichs: Evaluation of Interactive Information Retrieval Systems

0.013613109 = product of:
  0.027226217 = sum of:
    0.027226217 = product of:
      0.054452434 = sum of:
        0.054452434 = weight(_text_:systems in 3699) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054452434 = score(doc=3699,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.339541 = fieldWeight in 3699, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3699)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

We report on a study that investigated the efficacy of four different interactive information retrieval (IIR) systems, each designed to support a specific information-seeking strategy (ISS). These systems were constructed using different combinations of IR techniques (i.e., combinations of different methods of representation, comparison, presentation and navigation), each of which was hypothesized to be well suited to support a specific ISS. We compared the performance of searchers in each such system, designated experimental, to an appropriate baseline system, which implemented the standard specified query and results list model of current state-of-the-art experimental and operational IR systems. Four within-subjects experiments were conducted for the purpose of this comparison. Results showed that each of the experimental systems was superior to its baseline system in supporting user performance for the specific ISS (that is, the information problem leading to that ISS) for which the system was designed. These results indicate that an IIR system, which intends to support more than one kind of ISS, should be designed within a framework which allows the use and combination of different IR support techniques for different ISSs.

0.013476291 = product of:
  0.026952581 = sum of:
    0.026952581 = product of:
      0.053905163 = sum of:
        0.053905163 = weight(_text_:systems in 3288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053905163 = score(doc=3288,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.33612844 = fieldWeight in 3288, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3288)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Reports on the factor analysis of affective data gathered from a study of searching behaviour in 2 library catalogues. 20 subjects were assigned information problems to solve through searching a university card catalogue and 20 were assigned the same problems to solve in a comparable online catalogue. After searches were completed, subjects were asked to evaluate their search results and to respond to attitude measures about the search experience. The 11 attitude itmes were constructed to tap a variety of affective responses to the attitude measures. Factor patterns in the data can serve to identify the dimensions on which search experiences are evaluated by users, to direct further investigation into user evaluations, and to suggest features for inclusion in information retrieval systems accessed directly by users

0.012372886 = product of:
  0.024745772 = sum of:
    0.024745772 = product of:
      0.049491543 = sum of:
        0.049491543 = weight(_text_:22 in 760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049491543 = score(doc=760,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 760, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=760)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The degree of variability in the percentage of subject searching in an online public access catalog (OPAC) among branch libraries of one university was studied. A full semester's worth of transactions was analyzed, not sampled. The time units used were hour of the day, day of the week, and week of the semester. The findings show that subject searching varies from a low of 22% to a high of 74% over the hours of a day. Variability for the days of the week ranged from 17% to 64%, and for the weeks of the semester variability ranged from 12% to 70%. Valuable management information on the utilization of the OPAC within each brach library and among all the branch libraries is provided through numerous charts and graphs.

0.012372886 = product of:
  0.024745772 = sum of:
    0.024745772 = product of:
      0.049491543 = sum of:
        0.049491543 = weight(_text_:22 in 7914) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049491543 = score(doc=7914,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 7914, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7914)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

International cataloguing and bibliographic control. 22(1993) no.4, S.68-71

0.012372886 = product of:
  0.024745772 = sum of:
    0.024745772 = product of:
      0.049491543 = sum of:
        0.049491543 = weight(_text_:22 in 1795) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049491543 = score(doc=1795,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1795, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1795)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Canadian journal of information and library science. 19(1994) no.4, S.1-22

0.012372886 = product of:
  0.024745772 = sum of:
    0.024745772 = product of:
      0.049491543 = sum of:
        0.049491543 = weight(_text_:22 in 883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049491543 = score(doc=883,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 883, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=883)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

BibliotheekBlad. 1(1997) no.21, S.22-23