Search (35 results, page 2 of 2)

0.0023521183 = product of:
  0.021169065 = sum of:
    0.021169065 = weight(_text_:of in 3952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021169065 = score(doc=3952,freq=32.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.34554482 = fieldWeight in 3952, product of:
          5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
            32.0 = termFreq=32.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3952)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to investigate the usability of the user interface to an online catalogue and to explore how user assessment of both system usability and functionality can provide recommendations for the improved design. Design/methodology/approach - Drawing on previous studies, the usability testing used a mixture of search tasks, interviews and a structured focus group. Representative users completed tasks designed to test the system's features and a "think aloud" protocol collected data about the users' responses when using the system and on its perceived functionality. Findings - The analysis of the data on users' evaluation, preferences and expectations by a set of usability attributes enabled recommendations to be made with respect to key areas of the system functionality. Practical implications - The usability study helped to improve the "look and feel" of the interface and demonstrates how the user expectation of what constitutes a supported experience can help make recommendations for the design of a system that is both usable and useful. Originality/value - The paper demonstrates the benefits of using a mixture of approaches to test system usability and to gain a better understanding of usability from the perspective of the system's users, their expectations and perceived usefulness of the system.

0.002304596 = product of:
  0.020741362 = sum of:
    0.020741362 = weight(_text_:of in 2796) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020741362 = score(doc=2796,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.33856338 = fieldWeight in 2796, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2796)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

The paper examines the significance of Ranganathan's canons of cataloguing in the context of online catalogue and also investigates the extent to which these canons of cataloguing matches or fails with the principles of the new cataloguing code Resource Description and Access (RDA).

Source

Annals of library and information studies. 62(2015) no.4, S.286-289

0.002277429 = product of:
  0.02049686 = sum of:
    0.02049686 = weight(_text_:of in 4541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02049686 = score(doc=4541,freq=30.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.33457235 = fieldWeight in 4541, product of:
          5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
            30.0 = termFreq=30.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4541)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to highlight limits to the dominant model of social inclusion under which UK public libraries operate, to analyse how and to what extent processes of socio-cultural exclusion emerge in the subject representation and discoverability of "non-dominant" resources in public library OPACs, and to consider folksonomy as a solution to any issues raised. Design/methodology/approach - The paper first develops a critique of the dominant model of "inclusion" within UK public libraries, drawing on feminist and critical theories of identity. It then considers how this critique overlaps with and offers fresh insights into major debates within subject indexing, and develops a theoretical rationale for considering the potential of folksonomy to intervene in more inclusive subject-indexing design. A user-based critical interpretive methodology which understands OPACs as texts open to multiple interpretations is developed, and a comparative reading of standard OPACs and LibraryThing folksonomy is undertaken to evaluate the discoverability and subject representation of LGBTQ and ethnic minority resources. Findings - LibraryThing folksonomy offers benefits over LCSH subject indexing in the discoverability and representation of LGBTQ resources. However, the folksonomy is dominated by US taggers, and this impacts on the tagging of ethnic minority resources. Folksonomy, like traditional indexing, is found to contain its own biases in worldview and subject representation. Originality/value - The importance of subject indexing in developing inclusive library services is highlighted and a new method for evaluating OPACs is developed.

Source

Journal of documentation. 67(2011) no.3, S.431-448

0.0022002053 = product of:
  0.019801848 = sum of:
    0.019801848 = weight(_text_:of in 4129) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019801848 = score(doc=4129,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.32322758 = fieldWeight in 4129, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4129)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

This study examined how searchers interact with a web-based, faceted library catalog when conducting exploratory searches. It applied multiple methods, including eye tracking and stimulated recall interviews, to investigate important aspects of faceted search interface use, specifically: (a) searcher gaze behavior-what components of the interface searchers look at; (b) how gaze behavior differs when training is and is not provided; (c) how gaze behavior changes as searchers become familiar with the interface; and (d) how gaze behavior differs depending on the stage of the search process. The results confirm previous findings that facets account for approximately 10-30% of interface use. They show that providing a 60-second video demonstration increased searcher use of facets. However, searcher use of the facets did not evolve during the study session, which suggests that searchers may not, on their own, rapidly apply the faceted interfaces. The findings also suggest that searcher use of interface elements varied by the stage of their search during the session, with higher use of facets during decision-making stages. These findings will be of interest to librarians and interface designers who wish to maximize the value of faceted searching for patrons, as well as to researchers who study search behavior.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.1, S.114-138

0.0021780923 = product of:
  0.01960283 = sum of:
    0.01960283 = weight(_text_:of in 2016) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01960283 = score(doc=2016,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 2016, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2016)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

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.

0.0021780923 = product of:
  0.01960283 = sum of:
    0.01960283 = weight(_text_:of in 5156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01960283 = score(doc=5156,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 5156, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5156)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Controlled vocabulary and subject headings in OPAC records have proven to be useful in improving search results. The authors used a survey to gather information about librarian opinions and professional use of controlled vocabulary. Data from a range of backgrounds and expertise were examined, including academic and public libraries, and technical services as well as public services professionals. Responses overall demonstrated positive opinions of the value of controlled vocabulary, including in reference interactions as well as during bibliographic instruction sessions. Results are also examined based upon factors such as age and type of librarian.

0.0020165213 = product of:
  0.018148692 = sum of:
    0.018148692 = weight(_text_:of in 1878) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018148692 = score(doc=1878,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 1878, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1878)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

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.

0.0020165213 = product of:
  0.018148692 = sum of:
    0.018148692 = weight(_text_:of in 5128) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018148692 = score(doc=5128,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 5128, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5128)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

The article is a researcher's eye view of the value of the library catalog not only as a database to be searched for surrogates of objects of study, but as a corpus of text that can be analyzed in its own right, or incorporated within the researcher's own research database. Barriers are identified in the ways in which catalog data can be output and the technical skills researchers currently need to download, ingest, and manipulate data. Research tools and datasets created by, or in collaboration with, the library community are identified.

Footnote

Beitrag in einem Themenherft: 'The present and future state of rare materials cataloging: an international perspective'.

0.0018595128 = product of:
  0.016735615 = sum of:
    0.016735615 = weight(_text_:of in 87) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016735615 = score(doc=87,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.27317715 = fieldWeight in 87, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=87)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

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.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.4, S.702-715

0.0018408239 = product of:
  0.016567415 = sum of:
    0.016567415 = weight(_text_:of in 5568) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016567415 = score(doc=5568,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2704316 = fieldWeight in 5568, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5568)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

As of spring semester 2010, Georgia Southern University began using a VuFind implementation as the default access to the library catalogue on the library Web page while maintaining a secondary link to the traditional Voyager "classic" catalogue. VuFind is an open-source product that has been adopted and adapted by all the state universities and colleges in the state of Georgia. For approximately ten years, Georgia libraries have used Voyager as their catalogue, and it remains available to users as the "classic" search option. This report examines the local VuFind implementation compared to the more traditional Voyager implementation, emphasizing the differences in the searching capabilities of each.

0.001769301 = product of:
  0.015923709 = sum of:
    0.015923709 = product of:
      0.031847417 = sum of:
        0.031847417 = weight(_text_:22 in 1709) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031847417 = score(doc=1709,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13719016 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1709, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1709)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Date

4. 2.2015 9:22:39

0.0016464829 = product of:
  0.014818345 = sum of:
    0.014818345 = weight(_text_:of in 1879) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014818345 = score(doc=1879,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 1879, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1879)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

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.

0.0015557801 = product of:
  0.0140020205 = sum of:
    0.0140020205 = weight(_text_:of in 4379) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0140020205 = score(doc=4379,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.22855641 = fieldWeight in 4379, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4379)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

While support for subject searching has been traditionally advocated for in library catalogs, often in the form of a catalog objective to find everything that a library has on a certain topic, research has shown that subject access has not been satisfactory. Many existing online catalogs and discovery services do not seem to make good use of the intellectual effort invested into assigning controlled subject index terms and classes. For example, few support hierarchical browsing of classification schemes and other controlled vocabularies with hierarchical structures, few provide end-user-friendly options to choose a more specific concept to increase precision, a broader concept or related concepts to increase recall, to disambiguate homonyms, or to find which term is best used to name a concept. Optimum subject access in library catalogs and discovery services is analyzed from the perspective of earlier research as well as contemporary conceptual models and cataloguing codes. Eighteen proposed features of what this should entail in practice are drawn. In an exploratory qualitative study, the three most common discovery services used in Swedish academic libraries are analyzed against these features. In line with previous research, subject access in contemporary interfaces is demonstrated to less than optimal. This is in spite of the fact that individual collections have been indexed with controlled vocabularies and a significant number of controlled vocabularies have been mapped to each other and are available in interoperable standards. Strategic action is proposed to build research-informed (inter)national standards and guidelines.

0.0014403724 = product of:
  0.012963352 = sum of:
    0.012963352 = weight(_text_:of in 4042) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012963352 = score(doc=4042,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.21160212 = fieldWeight in 4042, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4042)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Although technology can often correct spelling errors, the complex tasks of information searching and retrieval in an online public access catalog (OPAC) are made more difficult by these errors in users' input and bibliographic records. This study examines the search behaviors of 38 university students, divided into groups with either easy-to-spell or difficult-to-spell search terms, who were asked to find items in the OPAC with these search terms. Search behaviors and strategy use in the OPAC and on the World Wide Web (WWW) were examined. In general, students used familiar Web resources to check their spelling or discover more about the assigned topic. Students with difficult-to-spell search terms checked spelling more often, changed search strategies to look for the general topic and had fewer successful searches. Students unable to find the correct spelling of a search term were unable to complete their search. Students tended to search the OPAC as they would search a search engine, with few search terms or complex search strategies. The results of this study have implications for spell checking, user-focused OPAC design, and cataloging. Students' search behaviors are discussed by expanding Thatcher's (2006) Information-Seeking Process and Tactics for the WWW model to include OPACs.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.12, S.2461-2476

8.846505E-4 = product of:
  0.007961854 = sum of:
    0.007961854 = product of:
      0.015923709 = sum of:
        0.015923709 = weight(_text_:22 in 3206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015923709 = score(doc=3206,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13719016 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 3206, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3206)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Date

3. 5.1997 8:44:22