Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.05074306 = product of:
  0.10148612 = sum of:
    0.024031956 = weight(_text_:information in 1878) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024031956 = score(doc=1878,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 1878, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1878)
    0.077454165 = weight(_text_:standards in 1878) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.077454165 = score(doc=1878,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.34469998 = fieldWeight in 1878, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1878)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The quality of large catalogs is uneven and often low, but this issue is underrated and understudied. Library catalogs often fail to communicate correct and clear information to users and their low quality is not simply due to faults, duplications, and so on but also to unwise cataloging standards and policies. While there is plenty of uncontrolled information about books and other publications, the need for good-quality bibliographic information is apparent and library catalogs may provide a trustworthy map of the publishing output, with full control of editions, works, authors, and so on and effective navigation functions, which are lacking in today's information-rich environment.

0.0030039945 = product of:
  0.012015978 = sum of:
    0.012015978 = weight(_text_:information in 1879) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012015978 = score(doc=1879,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 1879, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1879)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Many experts have proposed an evolution toward "next generation catalogs," whose main features are partly inspired by commercial websites such as Google or Amazon. This article examines pros and cons of this integration. It also aims to show how a qualitative approach helps to broaden understanding of web communication mechanisms. After discussing some examples of "next generation catalog" features, I analyze the interface of an online catalog responding to different users' information needs and seeking behaviors. In the conclusion I suggest that the right approach to integration is a "translation" (not a "copy and paste") between commercial and library logics.

0.0030039945 = product of:
  0.012015978 = sum of:
    0.012015978 = weight(_text_:information in 2016) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012015978 = score(doc=2016,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 2016, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2016)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

An increasing number of library user studies are employing ethnographic techniques as an alternative to more traditional qualitative methods such as surveys. Such techniques, however, are only beginning to see significant application to catalog user studies. Beginning with a discussion of the applied ethnographic method and its current usage within the field of Library and Information Science research, this article will assess methods that have traditionally been applied to studies of catalog users and present the case for the potential of an ethnographic approach for future catalog evaluation and design.

0.0025748524 = product of:
  0.01029941 = sum of:
    0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 4073) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01029941 = score(doc=4073,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 4073, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4073)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Nach einschlägigen Fortbildungsveranstaltungen in Stuttgart in den Jahren 2004 und 20071 beschäftigte sich der Regionalverband Südwest des Vereins Deutscher Bibliothekare (VDB) bereits zum dritten Mal in einer Vortragsveranstaltung mit aktuellen und zukünftigen Entwicklungen bei Bibliothekskatalogen: "Der Katalog der Zukunft (Teil 3): Die Benutzer in den Mittelpunkt!" war der Titel der Veranstaltung am 11. November 2010. Gastgeber war - wie schon bei der Premiere der Veranstaltungsreihe im Jahr 2004 - die Universitätsbibliothek Stuttgart. Da der Landesverband Baden-Württemberg des Berufsverband Information Bibliothek (BIB) ebenfalls an der Thematik interessiert war, bot es sich an, die Fortbildung gemeinsam durchzuführen. Zugleich sollte damit ein Zeichen für eine engere Kooperation der beiden Berufsverbände gesetzt werden. Entsprechend wurde auch die Moderation geteilt: Vormittags moderierte Heidrun Wiesenmüller von der Stuttgarter Hochschule der Medien (VDB Südwest), nachmittags Isabell Leibing von der Bibliothek der Universität Konstanz (BIB Baden-Württemberg). Die Vortragsfolien und weitere Materialien können über die Websites des VDB-Regionalverbands Südwest und der BIB-Landesgruppe Baden-Württemberg abgerufen werden.