Search (12 results, page 1 of 1)

0.016059995 = product of:
  0.03211999 = sum of:
    0.03211999 = sum of:
      0.0071598003 = weight(_text_:a in 168) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0071598003 = score(doc=168,freq=14.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.13482209 = fieldWeight in 168, product of:
            3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
              14.0 = termFreq=14.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=168)
      0.02496019 = weight(_text_:22 in 168) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02496019 = score(doc=168,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = 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)

Abstract

The effect that content and layout of bibliographic displays had on the ability of end-users to process catalog information was tested using a 2 x 2 factorial experimental design. Participants were asked to perform two related tasks during the course of the experiment. In the first task, they were asked to select a set of items that they would examine further for a hypothetical paper they must write, using a simulated online catalog to make their assessments of relevance. In the second task, they were asked to examine 20 bibliographic records, decide whether they would choose to examine these items further on the shelf, and identify the data elements that they used to formulate their relevance decision. One group viewed bibliographic records on an interface similar to current online catalogs, one that used data labels and contained data elements commonly found. A second group viewed these records on an interface in which the labels had been removed, but the data elements were the same as those in the first. The third group viewed these records on a labeled display that included enhanced data elements on the brief record display. The final group viewed these records with the same brief record data elements as the third group, but with the labels removed, using ISBD and AACR2 punctuation standards. For the first task, participants using enhanced brief screen interfaces viewed more brief screens and fewer full screens than their counterparts. Screen durations for the second 10 screens were found to have dropped from those of the first 10 screens. Statistical analyses comparing demographic variables to the screen frequencies uncovered many significant differences. Participants using the enhanced-content interfaces made fewer selections from index and full screens, and more selections from brief screens. For the second task, participants who used enhanced-content interfaces were able to make some sort of relevance judgment more frequently than those who used standard-content interfaces.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

Type

a

0.00334869 = product of:
  0.00669738 = sum of:
    0.00669738 = product of:
      0.01339476 = sum of:
        0.01339476 = weight(_text_:a in 768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01339476 = score(doc=768,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.25222903 = fieldWeight in 768, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=768)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0023678814 = product of:
  0.0047357627 = sum of:
    0.0047357627 = product of:
      0.009471525 = sum of:
        0.009471525 = weight(_text_:a in 2198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009471525 = score(doc=2198,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 2198, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2198)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

Type

a

0.002269176 = product of:
  0.004538352 = sum of:
    0.004538352 = product of:
      0.009076704 = sum of:
        0.009076704 = weight(_text_:a in 3851) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009076704 = score(doc=3851,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 3851, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3851)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

Type

a

0.0022374375 = product of:
  0.004474875 = sum of:
    0.004474875 = product of:
      0.00894975 = sum of:
        0.00894975 = weight(_text_:a in 2594) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00894975 = score(doc=2594,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 2594, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2594)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

Type

a

0.0020296127 = product of:
  0.0040592253 = sum of:
    0.0040592253 = product of:
      0.008118451 = sum of:
        0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 2597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008118451 = score(doc=2597,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 2597, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2597)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to investigate the usability of a web-based OPAC (WebPAC) user interface at the International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM). It also looks at the applicability of heuristic evaluation in designing a user-centered WebPAC interface. Design/methodology/approach - Based on Nielsen's ten usability heuristic principles, the study focuses on three heuristics only, i.e. aesthetic and minimalist design, match between interface and the real world, and visibility of interface status. Findings - Results of the study found that the WebPAC interface conforms to at least 70 percent usability properties prescribed. Usability problems violated in the interface were identified. Practical implications - The study suggests that heuristic evaluation is applicable in libraries to asses the usability of user interface for online catalogs. Originality/value - Heuristic evaluation could assist libraries in designing user-centered interface for online catalogs.

Type

a

0.001913537 = product of:
  0.003827074 = sum of:
    0.003827074 = product of:
      0.007654148 = sum of:
        0.007654148 = weight(_text_:a in 4568) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007654148 = score(doc=4568,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 4568, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4568)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Existing Online Public Access Catalogues (OPACs) demonstrate differences in the range and complexity of their functional features, terminology, and help facilities. While many libraries already have OPACs, there is a need to bring together, in the form of guidelines or recommendations, a corpus of good practice to assist libraries in designing or redesigning the displays for their OPACs, taking into consideration the needs of users.

0.0018909799 = product of:
  0.0037819599 = sum of:
    0.0037819599 = product of:
      0.0075639198 = sum of:
        0.0075639198 = weight(_text_:a in 585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0075639198 = score(doc=585,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 585, 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=585)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

Type

a

0.0015127839 = product of:
  0.0030255679 = sum of:
    0.0030255679 = product of:
      0.0060511357 = sum of:
        0.0060511357 = weight(_text_:a in 2659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0060511357 = score(doc=2659,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.11394546 = fieldWeight in 2659, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2659)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

Type

a

0.0014647468 = product of:
  0.0029294936 = sum of:
    0.0029294936 = product of:
      0.005858987 = sum of:
        0.005858987 = weight(_text_:a in 5067) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005858987 = score(doc=5067,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 5067, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5067)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Existing Online Public Access Catalogues (OPACs) demonstrate differences in the range and complexity of their functional features, terminology, and help facilities. Many libraries already have OPACs and many of them have a need for guidelines that help them to design or redesign the displays for their OPACs, taking their users' needs into account. This book provides such guidelines, recommendations and a corpus of good practice to assist libraries in this process. The audience for these guidelines is librarians charged with customising OPAC software and vendors and producers of this software. The guidelines are mainly designed for general libraries with collections of resources in the humanities, the social sciences, and the pure and applied sciences. They are intended to apply to any type of catalogue, independently of the kind of interface and technology used. This is the Final Report of a Task Force an the matter, which was approved by the Standing Committee of the IFLA Cataloguing Section.

0.0011839407 = product of:
  0.0023678814 = sum of:
    0.0023678814 = product of:
      0.0047357627 = sum of:
        0.0047357627 = weight(_text_:a in 2255) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0047357627 = score(doc=2255,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 2255, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2255)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

6.765375E-4 = product of:
  0.001353075 = sum of:
    0.001353075 = product of:
      0.00270615 = sum of:
        0.00270615 = weight(_text_:a in 692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00270615 = score(doc=692,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.050957955 = fieldWeight in 692, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=692)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a