Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.022999605 = product of:
  0.04599921 = sum of:
    0.04599921 = product of:
      0.09199842 = sum of:
        0.09199842 = weight(_text_:1997 in 1072) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09199842 = score(doc=1072,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.1637463 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6322508 = idf(docFreq=3179, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04508122 = queryNorm
            0.5618351 = fieldWeight in 1072, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.6322508 = idf(docFreq=3179, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1072)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Multimedia is proliferating on Web sites, as the Web continues to enhance the integration of multimedia and textual information. In this paper we examine trends in multimedia Web searching by Excite users from 1997 to 2001. Results from an analysis of 1,025,910 Excite queries from 2001 are compared to similar Excite datasets from 1997 to 1999. Findings include: (1) queries per multimedia session have decreased since 1997 as a proportion of general queries due to the introduction of multimedia buttons near the query box, (2) multimedia queries identified are longer than non-multimedia queries, and (3) audio queries are more prevalent than image or video queries in identified multimedia queries. Overall, we see multimedia Web searching undergoing major changes as Web content and searching evolves.

0.012215767 = product of:
  0.024431534 = sum of:
    0.024431534 = product of:
      0.04886307 = sum of:
        0.04886307 = weight(_text_:22 in 5627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04886307 = score(doc=5627,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15786676 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04508122 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5627, 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=5627)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

14. 2.2001 19:09:22

0.011616556 = product of:
  0.023233112 = sum of:
    0.023233112 = product of:
      0.046466224 = sum of:
        0.046466224 = weight(_text_:1997 in 3090) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046466224 = score(doc=3090,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1637463 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6322508 = idf(docFreq=3179, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04508122 = queryNorm
            0.2837696 = fieldWeight in 3090, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.6322508 = idf(docFreq=3179, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3090)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Searching for multimedia is an important activity for users of Web search engines. Studying user's interactions with Web search engine multimedia buttons, including image, audio, and video, is important for the development of multimedia Web search systems. This article provides results from a Weblog analysis study of multimedia Web searching by Dogpile users in 2006. The study analyzes the (a) duration, size, and structure of Web search queries and sessions; (b) user demographics; (c) most popular multimedia Web searching terms; and (d) use of advanced Web search techniques including Boolean and natural language. The current study findings are compared with results from previous multimedia Web searching studies. The key findings are: (a) Since 1997, image search consistently is the dominant media type searched followed by audio and video; (b) multimedia search duration is still short (>50% of searching episodes are <1 min), using few search terms; (c) many multimedia searches are for information about people, especially in audio search; and (d) multimedia search has begun to shift from entertainment to other categories such as medical, sports, and technology (based on the most repeated terms). Implications for design of Web multimedia search engines are discussed.

0.008214145 = product of:
  0.01642829 = sum of:
    0.01642829 = product of:
      0.03285658 = sum of:
        0.03285658 = weight(_text_:1997 in 5560) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03285658 = score(doc=5560,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1637463 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6322508 = idf(docFreq=3179, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04508122 = queryNorm
            0.2006554 = fieldWeight in 5560, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.6322508 = idf(docFreq=3179, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5560)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Ein Problem der Erstellung von Multimediaanwendungen in Unternehmen ist, dass die Sachkompetenz bezüglich der darzustellenden Inhalte nicht immer bei denjenigen Mitarbeitern liegt, die die Kompetenz für die mediengerechte Aufbereitung haben. Um umfangreiche Hypertextanwendungen - ggf. auch mit interaktiven Aufgaben Lind Multimediaelernenten - zu erzeugen, können Sachautoren von dem Umgang mit Multimediasoftware weitgehend entlastet werden. Der von den Sachautoren verfasste Text ist dazu von vornherein mit minimalen Textauszeichnungen zu versehen. Dazu braucht er seine Textverarbeitung nicht zu verlassen. Um jetzt einen interaktiven Hypertext oder eine 1 lypermediaanwendung mit einzelnen Einträgen und zusätzlichen umfangreichen Navigationskomponenten zu erzeugen und weitere Medien an den jeweils richtigen Stellen einzufügen, ist ein Programm erforderlich, das die Anwendung erzeugen hilft (Engine). Zu den Themen "Hypertext" und "Multimedia" erscheinen etliche Publikationen. Eine Vielzahl von ihnen hat theoretische und konzeptionelle Aspekte zum Inhalt (z. B. Lobin 1999, Brusilovsky 1998, Rouet 1996). Manche betonen den Anwendungsbezug (Gerdes 1997, Hofinann/Simon 1995), der unter besonderer Berücksichtigung für Information oder Ausbildung gesehen werden kann (vgl. Glowalla 1992). Andere sind von historischem Interesse (Nelson 1992), klären die Begrifflichkeit und die Grundlagen (Schnupp 1992, Kuhlen 1991, Seyer 1991, Nielsen 1990, Hashim 1990) oder geben Hinweise auf die Benutzung (MacGrew 1989). Ferner gibt es programmspezifische Literatur, die die technische Handhabung bei der Erstellung unterstützt. Solche Literatur kann genutzt werden, um Aspekte zu gewinnen, die für die Anlage und Ausrichtung einer Hypertextanwendung sinnvoll sind. Werden hingegen existierende Hypertextanwendungen betrachtet, so bleibt der damit verbundene Aufwand und die Organisationsstruktur oft im Dunkeln

0.008214145 = product of:
  0.01642829 = sum of:
    0.01642829 = product of:
      0.03285658 = sum of:
        0.03285658 = weight(_text_:1997 in 472) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03285658 = score(doc=472,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1637463 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6322508 = idf(docFreq=3179, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04508122 = queryNorm
            0.2006554 = fieldWeight in 472, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.6322508 = idf(docFreq=3179, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=472)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Allowing the description of the structure of documents has been one of the key factors for the success of the hypertext markup language (HTML) family of markup languages. This capability has motivated the phenomenon that has become known as the World Wide Web (the "Web"). The next generation of the Web, known as the Semantic Web (Berners-Lee, Hendler. & Lassila, 2001), aims at describing the meaning rather than the structure of data, adding more intelligent search, retrieval, and other agent functionalities to the Web, and tools that make the implementation of this Semantic Web possible are greatly needed. The increasing availability of multimedia on the World Wide Web makes metadata description efforts for multimedia a pressing need, yet with the volume of content being created, often only a rudimentary description of the multimedia content is available. In addition, the digital mode entails a host of other descriptive needs, such as the format, factors such as compression and transmission, and issues such as copyright restrictions and terns for usage. Thus, new and efficient ways of describing multimedia content and meaning are needed as well as a structure that is capable of carrying such descriptions. Several attempts have been made to grapple with this issue using descriptive metadata, one of the earliest of which was the revision of the Dublin Core to ascertain essential features necessary to resource discovery of visual items in a networked environment (Weibel & Miller, 1997). Other metadata schemes, such as the Visual Resources Association Core Categories (http://www.vraweb.org/vracore3.htm), also include format information necessary to the use and display of digital images.

0.006611978 = product of:
  0.013223956 = sum of:
    0.013223956 = product of:
      0.026447913 = sum of:
        0.026447913 = weight(_text_:22 in 150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026447913 = score(doc=150,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.15786676 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04508122 = queryNorm
            0.16753313 = fieldWeight in 150, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=150)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Classification

006.7 22

Date

7. 3.2007 19:30:22

DDC

006.7 22

0.0061078835 = product of:
  0.012215767 = sum of:
    0.012215767 = product of:
      0.024431534 = sum of:
        0.024431534 = weight(_text_:22 in 622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024431534 = score(doc=622,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15786676 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04508122 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 622, 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=622)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

12. 8.2012 18:05:22