Search (14 results, page 1 of 1)

0.012969697 = product of:
  0.051878788 = sum of:
    0.03215836 = weight(_text_:data in 2765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03215836 = score(doc=2765,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.115061514 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03638826 = queryNorm
        0.2794884 = fieldWeight in 2765, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2765)
    0.019720428 = product of:
      0.039440855 = sum of:
        0.039440855 = weight(_text_:22 in 2765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039440855 = score(doc=2765,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12742549 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03638826 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2765, 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=2765)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Presents a brief report on a study, carried out by the Centre for Interactive Systems Research, City University, to investigate the techniques used for evaluating OPACs: to explore and assess different data gathering methods in studying information seeking behaviour at the on-line catalogue; and to examine how a transaction logging facility could be enhanced to serve as a more effective diagnostic tool. For a full report see British Library research paper 78

Pages

S.20-22

0.0123115 = product of:
  0.049246 = sum of:
    0.039385784 = weight(_text_:data in 168) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039385784 = score(doc=168,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.115061514 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03638826 = queryNorm
        0.342302 = fieldWeight in 168, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=168)
    0.009860214 = product of:
      0.019720428 = sum of:
        0.019720428 = weight(_text_:22 in 168) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019720428 = score(doc=168,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12742549 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03638826 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

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

0.0110927895 = product of:
  0.088742316 = sum of:
    0.088742316 = weight(_text_:higher in 1258) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.088742316 = score(doc=1258,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19113865 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03638826 = queryNorm
        0.46428242 = fieldWeight in 1258, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1258)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Current user interfaces for textual database searching leave much to be desired: individually, they are often confusing, and as a group, they are seriously inconsistent. We propose a four- phase framework for user-interface design: the framework provides common structure and terminology for searching while preserving the distinct features of individual collections and search mechanisms. Users will benefit from faster learning, increased comprehension, and better control, leading to more effective searches and higher satisfaction.

0.0060296925 = product of:
  0.04823754 = sum of:
    0.04823754 = weight(_text_:data in 3116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04823754 = score(doc=3116,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.115061514 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03638826 = queryNorm
        0.4192326 = fieldWeight in 3116, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3116)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

0.0049742428 = product of:
  0.039793942 = sum of:
    0.039793942 = weight(_text_:data in 2725) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039793942 = score(doc=2725,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.115061514 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03638826 = queryNorm
        0.34584928 = fieldWeight in 2725, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2725)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Standards for user interfaces for access to bibliographic data bases cannot be developed without more complete understanding of the current user, user attitude and capabilities. Gives 3 means of achieving this based on observing the user. 45% of access points in subject searches results in no retrievals. Errors in searching on-line catalogues occur with a 40% no hit title search rate and a 51% no hit author search rate when those records were on the data base. Stresses the importance of fundamental user interface components contained in the IBM staff publication systems guide. Concludes that although there is no such thing as a standard user it is still vital to develop user standards

0.004019795 = product of:
  0.03215836 = sum of:
    0.03215836 = weight(_text_:data in 710) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03215836 = score(doc=710,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.115061514 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03638826 = queryNorm
        0.2794884 = fieldWeight in 710, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=710)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Describes the OPAC research project at Indiana University of Pennsylvania Library funded by the Council on Library Resources, and the US Department of Education, with technical assistance from Carlyle Systems, Inc. Places emphasis on the design of a user interface to improve access and retrieval, in large textual data bases. The hardware configuration is a NeXT system

0.004019795 = product of:
  0.03215836 = sum of:
    0.03215836 = weight(_text_:data in 2111) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03215836 = score(doc=2111,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.115061514 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03638826 = queryNorm
        0.2794884 = fieldWeight in 2111, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2111)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Modern online information systems have been criticized as being too complicated for the average information seeker. To overcome this problem interfaces have been developed to assist users at all stages of the information transfer process from searching to analysis and evaluation of retrieval data. However, the effectiveness of an interface will depend on the skills of the user. Further development of interfaces will be aided by the use of Windows and mouse controlled systems

0.004019795 = product of:
  0.03215836 = sum of:
    0.03215836 = weight(_text_:data in 2780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03215836 = score(doc=2780,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.115061514 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03638826 = queryNorm
        0.2794884 = fieldWeight in 2780, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2780)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

User interfaces for CD-ROM products in the academic library environment must accomodate a variety of user and task profiles. Discusses the practical considerations that govern the implementation of interface design principles for such electronic data bases under the following headings: redesign goals; interaction style; menu design and implementation; system structure and the search paradigm; basic system operation and screen layout; simplified features; integrated novice and expert mode; redesign constraints; and hardware and software constraints

0.0035173206 = product of:
  0.028138565 = sum of:
    0.028138565 = weight(_text_:data in 2768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028138565 = score(doc=2768,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.115061514 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03638826 = queryNorm
        0.24455236 = fieldWeight in 2768, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2768)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Presents the selected findings of a research project based on the British Library Network Online Public Access Catalogue (NOPAC) carried out in the department of information and library management at the University of Northumbria in Newcastle, UK over the academic year 1994/95. Data was collected by means of interviews with NOPAC users especially on use made of the NOPAC and on attitudes towards the NOPAC's interface. Discusses the views of users as they relate to: display features; mode of interaction; help/user assistance; extra features available; and usability. Lists important points which emerged from the survey concerning the NOPAC service

0.0030148462 = product of:
  0.02411877 = sum of:
    0.02411877 = weight(_text_:data in 2767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02411877 = score(doc=2767,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.115061514 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03638826 = queryNorm
        0.2096163 = fieldWeight in 2767, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2767)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Information retrieval systems such as library OPACs have been largely designed to give the impression of being single user systems, the existence and activity of other users being hidden from each other. However, informal observations indicate significant collaboration between users despite the fact that existing systems fail to support this. Describes the development of an interface, the Ariadne system, that supports collaboration through the storage and re-use of others' search processes promoting better visualization of the information data structures being browsed and more effective means of communicating the browsing process. Discusses issues relating to privacy and ownership resulting from the storage of users' searches. Argues that introducing support for collaboration into information retrieval systems would help users to learn and use the systems more effectively

0.0030148462 = product of:
  0.02411877 = sum of:
    0.02411877 = weight(_text_:data in 2782) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02411877 = score(doc=2782,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.115061514 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03638826 = queryNorm
        0.2096163 = fieldWeight in 2782, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2782)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Current research on user interfaces to online public access catalogs is reviewed in an attempt to identify research methods and findings applicable to the design of effective user interfaces to online public access catalogs. A broad definition of user interface is employed which includes data structures, in addition to searching and indexing software. The following features of online public access catalogs are discussed: the demonstration of relationships between records, the provision of entry vocabularies, the arrangement of multiple entries on the screen, the provision of access points, the display of single records, and the division of the catalog into separate files or indexes. For each feature, user studies and other research on online public access catalogs are reviewed and those findings summarized which provide insight into user needs concerning that particular feature; issues are identified and directions for further research are suggested. Implications for cataloging codes and standards and system design are discussed

0.0030148462 = product of:
  0.02411877 = sum of:
    0.02411877 = weight(_text_:data in 5839) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02411877 = score(doc=5839,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.115061514 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03638826 = queryNorm
        0.2096163 = fieldWeight in 5839, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5839)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Decribes the BookHouse, a system for the retrieval and indexing of fiction and non fiction literature developed for public and school libraries though cooperation between library and information science professionals. Discusses 3 aspects of the system: domain characteristic; task analysis; and user characteristics. Outlines the framework underlying the collection of field data with special emphasis on the work involved in transforming the empirical field studies of user behaviour in the library into computer system specifications and subsequent design of a retrieval system providing subject access to fiction. Describes a few of the many indexing policies, rules and practices which evolved for concept identification and book descriptions as well as the functionality and associated displays of the system for supporting the retrieval and indexing of fiction

0.0025123719 = product of:
  0.020098975 = sum of:
    0.020098975 = weight(_text_:data in 87) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020098975 = score(doc=87,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.115061514 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03638826 = queryNorm
        0.17468026 = fieldWeight in 87, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=87)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

In the summer of 2008 all University of North Carolina libraries switched from a traditional library catalog interface supporting text-based searching (TextOnly) to a text and facet-based interface (TextFacet) to improve users' search experiences. This study seeks to understand the differences between these two interfaces and how they affect the search experience of the novice user. In this study, 40 participants were asked to search for resources using both interfaces. Their search times and accuracy were measured across three types of search tasks (known, partially known, and exploratory). After completing the searches, they were asked a series of questions about their experiences. The data were analyzed in order to identify strengths and weaknesses in both search interfaces. Thirty-six out of 40 participants preferred the TextFacet interface to the TextOnly interface. Using three dependent variables-time, accuracy, and rating-the two interfaces were compared and interactions were tested with the three task types. Search times for the TextFacet were shorter and participants preferred the TextFacet search interface over the TextOnly search interface. Performances across the three task types were different in terms of search time. The partially known and exploratory task types showed similar distributions for rating and accuracy. These distributions were distinctly different from the known task type. The results of this study may assist libraries in developing improved library catalog search interfaces that utilize facets as well as text searching.

0.002156922 = product of:
  0.017255375 = sum of:
    0.017255375 = product of:
      0.03451075 = sum of:
        0.03451075 = weight(_text_:22 in 6958) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03451075 = score(doc=6958,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12742549 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03638826 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 6958, 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=6958)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Source

Information retrieval: new systems and current research. Proceedings of the 16th Research Colloquium of the British Computer Society Information Retrieval Specialist Group, Drymen, Scotland, 22-23 Mar 94. Ed.: R. Leon