Search (95 results, page 2 of 5)

0.023691658 = product of:
  0.047383316 = sum of:
    0.047383316 = sum of:
      0.00994303 = weight(_text_:a in 5293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.00994303 = score(doc=5293,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 5293, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5293)
      0.037440285 = weight(_text_:22 in 5293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037440285 = score(doc=5293,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5293, 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=5293)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The authors describe a set of best practices that were developed to assist in the design of search user interfaces. Search user interfaces represent a challenging design domain because novices who have no desire to learn the mechanics of search engine architecture or algorithms often use them. These can lead to frustration and task failure when it is not addressed by the user interface. The best practices are organized into five domains: the corpus, search algorithms, user and task context, the search interface, and mobility. In each section the authors present an introduction to the design challenges related to the domain and a set of best practices for creating a user interface that facilitates effective use by a broad population of users and tasks.

Date

22. 7.2006 17:38:51

Type

a

0.022235535 = product of:
  0.04447107 = sum of:
    0.04447107 = sum of:
      0.007030784 = weight(_text_:a in 5298) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.007030784 = score(doc=5298,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 5298, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5298)
      0.037440285 = weight(_text_:22 in 5298) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037440285 = score(doc=5298,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5298, 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=5298)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The authors describe user interface tools based on search histories to support legal information seekers. The design of the tools was informed by the results of a user study (Komlodi, 2002a) that examined the use of human memory, external memory aids, and search histories in legal information seeking and derived interface design recommendations for information storage and retrieval systems. The data collected were analyzed to identify potential task areas where search histories can support information seeking and use. The results show that many information-seeking tasks can take advantage of automatically and manually recorded history information. These findings encouraged the design of user interface tools building on search history information: direct search history displays, history-enabled scratchpad facilities, and organized results collection tools.

Date

22. 7.2006 18:04:19

Type

a

0.01938208 = product of:
  0.03876416 = sum of:
    0.03876416 = sum of:
      0.0075639198 = weight(_text_:a in 5300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0075639198 = score(doc=5300,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 5300, 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=5300)
      0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 5300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03120024 = score(doc=5300,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5300, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5300)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Recent research highlights the potential relevance of emotions in interface design. People can no longer be modeled as purely goal-driven, task-solving agents: They also have affective motivations for their choices and behavior implying an extended mandate for search design. Absent from current Web design practice, however, is a pattern for emotive criticism and design reflecting these new directions. Further, discussion of emotions and Web design is not limited to visual design or aesthetic appeal: Emotions users have as they interact with information also have design implications. The author outlines a framework for understanding users' emotional states as they seek information on the Web. It is inspired largely by Carol Kuhlthau's (1991, 1993, 1999) work in library services, particularly her information searching process (ISP), which is adapted to Web design practice. A staged approach resembling traditional models of information seeking behavior is presented here as the basis for creating appropriate search and navigation systems. This user-centered framework is flexible and solution-oriented, enjoys longevity, and considers affective factors. Its aim is a more comprehensive, conceptual analysis of the user's entire information search experience.

Date

22. 7.2006 18:19:20

Type

a

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

0.00334869 = product of:
  0.00669738 = sum of:
    0.00669738 = product of:
      0.01339476 = sum of:
        0.01339476 = weight(_text_:a in 4896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01339476 = score(doc=4896,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.25222903 = fieldWeight in 4896, 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=4896)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0032752731 = product of:
  0.0065505463 = sum of:
    0.0065505463 = product of:
      0.013101093 = sum of:
        0.013101093 = weight(_text_:a in 5236) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013101093 = score(doc=5236,freq=30.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.24669915 = fieldWeight in 5236, product of:
              5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
                30.0 = termFreq=30.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5236)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Yu and Roh investigate the effects of providing a simple menu, a global and local navigation menu, and a pull-down menu on searching and browsing speed, as well as the user's perception of the appeal of each menu form and the degree of disorientation it might cause. The site was a shopping center with items and prices that could be approached by way of a simple menu with a hierarchal structure, a menu which retained global links across the top of the screen, with local links in a frame to the left, or a pull down menu design. Each of 21 student subjects was given ten searching and five browsing tasks assigned in three treatments, and responded to a post exercise questionnaire using a five point Likert scale on attitude toward the menus. Time was measured from the subjects' indication of starting until the price was provided, and the procedure repeated three times over a three-week interval with treatment switching. A repeated measure ANOVA showed a significant difference among the designs on search speed with the pull-down menu leading the other two. In browsing speed pull-down and global/local were not significantly different but both bettered the simple menu. Attitude and disorientation showed no significant differences.

Type

a

0.0032090992 = product of:
  0.0064181983 = sum of:
    0.0064181983 = product of:
      0.012836397 = sum of:
        0.012836397 = weight(_text_:a in 4437) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012836397 = score(doc=4437,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.24171482 = fieldWeight in 4437, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4437)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The advent of the heterogeneous digital library provides the opportunity and establishes the need for the design of new user interfaces. As a single portal to a wide array of information sources, the heterogeneous digital library requires that a variety of cataloging schemas, subject domains, document genres, and institutional biases be accomodated. SenseMaker is a user-centered interface for information exploration in a heterogeneous digital library. It unifies citations and articles from heterogeneous sources by presenting them in a common schema with affordances for quick comparisons of properties. At the same time, SenseMaker users can recover a degree of context by iteratively organizing citations and articles into higher-level bundles based on either metadata or content. Furthermore, SenseMaker enables users to move fluidly from browsing to searching by introducing structure-based searching and structure-based filtering. This paper outlines the SenseMaker interface design and details some of our experimental findings surrounding its use

Type

a

0.0029294936 = product of:
  0.005858987 = sum of:
    0.005858987 = product of:
      0.011717974 = sum of:
        0.011717974 = weight(_text_:a in 617) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011717974 = score(doc=617,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.22065444 = fieldWeight in 617, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=617)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The study adopts a naturalistic approach to investigate users' interaction with a browsable MeSH (medical subject headings) display designed to facilitate query construction for the PubMed bibliographic database. The purpose of the study is twofold: first, to test the usefulness of a browsable interface utilizing the principle of faceted classification; and second, to investigate users' preferred query submission methods in different problematic situations. An interface that incorporated multiple query submission methods - the conventional single-line query box as well as methods associated the faceted classification display was constructed. Participants' interactions with the interface were monitored remotely over a period of 10 weeks; information about their problematic situations and information retrieval behaviors were also collected during this time. The traditional controlled experiment was not adequate in answering the author's research questions; hence, the author provides his rationale for a naturalistic approach. The study's findings show that there is indeed a selective compatibility between query submission methods provided by the MeSH display and users' problematic situations. The query submission methods associated with the display were found to be the preferred search tools when users' information needs were vague and the search topics unfamiliar. The findings support the theoretical proposition that users engaging in an information retrieval process with a variety of problematic situations need different approaches. The author argues that rather than treat the information retrieval system as a general purpose tool, more attention should be given to the interaction between the functionality of the tool and the characteristics of users' problematic situations.

Type

a

0.0029000505 = product of:
  0.005800101 = sum of:
    0.005800101 = product of:
      0.011600202 = sum of:
        0.011600202 = weight(_text_:a in 579) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011600202 = score(doc=579,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.21843673 = fieldWeight in 579, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=579)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study explores an image-based retrieval interface for drug information, focusing on usability for a specific population - seniors. Qualitative, task-based interviews examined participants' health information behaviors and documented search strategies using an existing database (www.drugs.com) and a new prototype that uses similarity-based clustering of pill images for retrieval. Twelve participants (aged 65 and older), reflecting a diversity of backgrounds and experience with Web-based resources, located pill information using the interfaces and discussed navigational and other search preferences. Findings point to design features (e.g., image enlargement) that meet seniors' needs in the context of other health-related information-seeking strategies (e.g., contacting pharmacists).

Type

a

0.0026849252 = product of:
  0.0053698504 = sum of:
    0.0053698504 = product of:
      0.010739701 = sum of:
        0.010739701 = weight(_text_:a in 2233) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010739701 = score(doc=2233,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.20223314 = fieldWeight in 2233, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2233)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article investigates a new, effective browsing approach called metabrowsing. It is an alternative for current information retrieval systems, which still face six prominent difficulties. We identify and classify the difficulties and show that the metabrowsing approach alleviates the difficulties associated with query formulation and missing domain knowledge. Metabrowsing is a high-level way of browsing through information: instead of browsing through document contents or document surrogates, the user browses through a graphical representation of the documents and their relations to the domain. The approach requires other cognitive skills from the user than what is currently required. Yet, a user evaluation in which the metabrowsing system was compared with an ordinary query-oriented system showed only some small indicatory differences in effectiveness, efficiency, and user satisfaction. We expect that more experience with metabrowsing will result in a significantly better performance difference. Hence, our conclusion is that the development of new cognitive skills requires some time before the technologies are ready to be used.

Type

a

0.0026849252 = product of:
  0.0053698504 = sum of:
    0.0053698504 = product of:
      0.010739701 = sum of:
        0.010739701 = weight(_text_:a in 5053) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010739701 = score(doc=5053,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.20223314 = fieldWeight in 5053, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5053)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A novel and complex form of information access is cross-language information retrieval: searching for texts written in foreign languages based on native language queries. Although the underlying technology for achieving such a search is relatively well understood, the appropriate interface design is not. The authors present three user evaluations undertaken during the iterative design of Clarity, a cross-language retrieval system for lowdensity languages, and shows how the user-interaction design evolved depending on the results of usability tests. The first test was instrumental to identify weaknesses in both functionalities and interface; the second was run to determine if query translation should be shown or not; the final was a global assessment and focused on user satisfaction criteria. Lessons were learned at every stage of the process leading to a much more informed view of what a cross-language retrieval system should offer to users.

Type

a

0.0026473717 = product of:
  0.0052947435 = sum of:
    0.0052947435 = product of:
      0.010589487 = sum of:
        0.010589487 = weight(_text_:a in 675) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010589487 = score(doc=675,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 675, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=675)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Touch-screen kiosks are located in a variety of locations to provide the public with ready access to health information. This paper examines, via a questionnaire, the characteristics of adult users of a surgery-based kiosk. The Esk Medical Centre is in Musselburgh, near Edinburgh. Just under 200 questionnaires were returned and analysed. The research establishes characteristics of users and non-users, how the kiosk fits in with other consumer information sources, what health outcomes result from using the kiosk, and reasons for non-use. The main finding is that the respondents' attitude and previous experience with information technology has an impact on whether the touch-screen kiosk is used.

Type

a

0.0025803389 = product of:
  0.0051606777 = sum of:
    0.0051606777 = product of:
      0.010321355 = sum of:
        0.010321355 = weight(_text_:a in 4270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010321355 = score(doc=4270,freq=38.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.19435552 = fieldWeight in 4270, product of:
              6.164414 = tf(freq=38.0), with freq of:
                38.0 = termFreq=38.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4270)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

"Theory weary, theory leery, why can't I be theory cheery?" (Erickson, 2002, p. 269). The field of human-computer interaction (HCI) is rapidly expanding. Alongside the extensive technological developments that are taking place, a profusion of new theories, methods, and concerns has been imported into the field from a range of disciplines and contexts. An extensive critique of recent theoretical developments is presented here together with an overview of HCI practice. A consequence of bringing new theories into the field has been much insightful explication of HCI phenomena and also a broadening of the field's discourse. However, these theoretically based approaches have had limited impact an the practice of interaction design. This chapter discusses why this is so and suggests that different kinds of mechanisms are needed that will enable both designers and researchers to better articulate and theoretically ground the challenges facing them today. Human-computer interaction is bursting at the seams. Its mission, goals, and methods, well established in the '80s, have all greatly expanded to the point that "HCI is now effectively a boundless domain" (Barnard, May, Duke, & Duce, 2000, p. 221). Everything is in a state of flux: The theory driving research is changing, a flurry of new concepts is emerging, the domains and type of users being studied are diversifying, many of the ways of doing design are new, and much of what is being designed is significantly different. Although potentially much is to be gained from such rapid growth, the downside is an increasing lack of direction, structure, and coherence in the field. What was originally a bounded problem space with a clear focus and a small set of methods for designing computer systems that were easier and more efficient to use by a single user is now turning into a diffuse problem space with less clarity in terms of its objects of study, design foci, and investigative methods. Instead, aspirations of overcoming the Digital Divide, by providing universal accessibility, have become major concerns (e.g., Shneiderman, 2002a). The move toward greater openness in the field means that many more topics, areas, and approaches are now considered acceptable in the worlds of research and practice.
A problem with allowing a field to expand eclectically is that it can easily lose coherence. No one really knows what its purpose is anymore or what criteria to use in assessing its contribution and value to both knowledge and practice. For example, among the many new approaches, ideas, methods, and goals now being proposed, how do we know which are acceptable, reliable, useful, and generalizable? Moreover, how do researchers and designers know which of the many tools and techniques to use when doing design and research? To be able to address these concerns, a young field in a state of flux (as is HCI) needs to take stock and begin to reflect an the changes that are happening. The purpose of this chapter is to assess and reflect an the role of theory in contemporary HCI and the extent to which it is used in design practice. Over the last ten years, a range of new theories has been imported into the field. A key question is whether such attempts have been productive in terms of "knowledge transfer." Here knowledge transfer means the translation of research findings (e.g., theory, empirical results, descriptive accounts, cognitive models) from one discipline (e.g., cognitive psychology, sociology) into another (e.g., human-computer interaction, computer supported cooperative work).

Type

a

0.0024857575 = product of:
  0.004971515 = sum of:
    0.004971515 = product of:
      0.00994303 = sum of:
        0.00994303 = weight(_text_:a in 5766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00994303 = score(doc=5766,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 5766, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5766)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Domain visualization is one of the new research fronts resulted from the proliferation of information visualization, aiming to reveal the essence of a knowledge domain. Information visualization plays an integral role in modeling and representing intellectual structures associated with scientific disciplines. In this article, the domain of computer graphics is visualized based on author cocitation patterns derived from an 18-year span of the prestigious IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications (1982-1999). This domain visualization utilizes a series of visualization and animation techniques, including author cocitation maps, citation time lines, animation of a highdimensional specialty space, and institutional profiles. This approach not only augments traditional domain analysis and the understanding of scientific disciplines, but also produces a persistent and shared knowledge space for researchers to keep track the development of knowledge more effectively. The results of the domain visualization are discussed and triangulated in a broader context of the computer graphics field

Type

a

0.0024857575 = product of:
  0.004971515 = sum of:
    0.004971515 = product of:
      0.00994303 = sum of:
        0.00994303 = weight(_text_:a in 2555) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00994303 = score(doc=2555,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 2555, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2555)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Past research has proved that graphical user interfaces (GUIs) can significantly improve the effectiveness of the information access task. Our work is based on the consideration that structured document retrieval requires different user graphical interfaces from standard information retrieval. In structured document retrieval a GUI has to enable a user to query, browse retrieved documents, provide query refinement and relevance feedback based not only on full documents, but also on specific document parts in relation to the document structure. In this paper, we present a new GUI for structured document retrieval specifically designed for hierarchically structured documents. A user task-oriented evaluation has shown that the proposed interface provides the user with an intuitive and powerful set of tools for structured document searching, retrieved list navigation, and search refinement.

Type

a

0.0024857575 = product of:
  0.004971515 = sum of:
    0.004971515 = product of:
      0.00994303 = sum of:
        0.00994303 = weight(_text_:a in 4811) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00994303 = score(doc=4811,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 4811, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4811)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Academic libraries have long desired one-stop shopping for their customers and, in this electronic age, their customers are demanding it: a way to search from a single point at any physical location, and retrieve information from the library catalog, citations from journal indexes, and full text information from electronic resources. Academic libraries have explored ways to provide this access, as have library vendors of electronic databases, indexes, and integrated online library systems. The various components for a universal common user interface are in use and available, but have yet to be combined into a single system interface, adaptable enough to include any electronic resource, yet still powerful and versatile enough to provide a powerful and expert search engine. This article discusses the integrated facets as well as the system components that should be built into the ideal electronic library interface, taking into account the information needs of everyone from the newest freshman to the most erudite scholar and their expectations with regard to access, functionality and personalization.

Type

a

0.0024392908 = product of:
  0.0048785815 = sum of:
    0.0048785815 = product of:
      0.009757163 = sum of:
        0.009757163 = weight(_text_:a in 4431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009757163 = score(doc=4431,freq=26.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.18373153 = fieldWeight in 4431, product of:
              5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
                26.0 = termFreq=26.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4431)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The recent explosion of the Internet and the WWW has made digital libraries popular. Easy access to a digital library is provided by commercially available Web browsers, which provide a user-friendly interface. To retrieve documents of interest, the user is provided with a search interface that may only consist of one input field and one push button. Most users type in a single keyword, click the button, and hope for the best. The result of a query using this kind of search interface can consist of a large unordered set of documents, or a ranked list of documents based on the freuqency of the keywords. Both lists can contain articles unrelated to the user's inquiry unless a sophisticated search was performed and the user knows exactly what to look for. More sophisticated algorithms for ranking the search results according to how well they meet the users needs as expressed in the search input may help. However, what is desperately needed are software tools that can analyze the search result and manipulate large hierarchies of data graphically. In this article we describe the design of a language-independent document classification systems being developed to help users of the Florida Center for Library Automation analyze search query results. Easy access through the Web is provided, as well as a graphical user interface to display the classification results. We also describe the use of this system to retrieve and analyze sets of documents from public Web sites

Content

"We use the term 'classification' to denote the general process of identifying the subject matter of a document. We use the term 'clustering' to refer to the process of forming groups (clusters) of documents with related topics and subtopics, and visualizing those clusters"

Type

a

0.0023678814 = product of:
  0.0047357627 = sum of:
    0.0047357627 = product of:
      0.009471525 = sum of:
        0.009471525 = weight(_text_:a in 2018) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009471525 = score(doc=2018,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 2018, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2018)
      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 4672) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009471525 = score(doc=4672,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 4672, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4672)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a