Search (66 results, page 4 of 4)

  • × theme_ss:"Suchoberflächen"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Ju, B.; Gluck, M.: User-Process Model Approach to Improve User Interface Usability (2005) 0.00
    5.6712516E-4 = product of:
      0.003969876 = sum of:
        0.003969876 = product of:
          0.01984938 = sum of:
            0.01984938 = weight(_text_:system in 3262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.01984938 = score(doc=3262,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03622214 = queryNorm
                0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 3262, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3262)
          0.2 = coord(1/5)
      0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    
    Abstract
    Our purpose in this study is to inductively reorganize software interface menu items based an a user's process model. The proposed menu interface in this study used direct users' input, such as goals and strategies for solving their information needs, to reorganize and re-label menus. To assess its effectiveness, efficiency, and user satisfaction with actual users, we implemented and compared this new menu version to the original interface that was based upon a traditional categorical menu organization. The significance of this study is that it incorporates user process modeling into the design of the user interface, providing insights into the impact of such modeling an the usability of an information system. Results from the usability testing do indicate that the proposed menu and the traditional menu are similarly effective for users in terms of task completion time and accuracy. User preferences and debriefing comments from usability testing also indicate users preferred the user-process based arrangement of menu items as displayed. However, the types of tasks (different problem type) suggest significant differences for results in task completion time and in accuracy, sometimes favoring the new version. In other words, usable and effective menu organization depends more an the types of tasks and the domain of knowledge than mere menu organization, although menu organization is a factor in the process.
  2. Järvelin, K.; Ingwersen, P.; Niemi, T.: ¬A user-oriented interface for generalised informetric analysis based on applying advanced data modelling techniques (2000) 0.00
    5.2312744E-4 = product of:
      0.003661892 = sum of:
        0.003661892 = product of:
          0.01830946 = sum of:
            0.01830946 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4545) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.01830946 = score(doc=4545,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03622214 = queryNorm
                0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 4545, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4545)
          0.2 = coord(1/5)
      0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    
    Abstract
    This article presents a novel user-oriented interface for generalised informetric analysis and demonstrates how informetric calculations can easily and declaratively be specified through advanced data modelling techniques. The interface is declarative and at a high level. Therefore it is easy to use, flexible and extensible. It enables end users to perform basic informetric ad hoc calculations easily and often with much less effort than in contemporary online retrieval systems. It also provides several fruitful generalisations of typical informetric measurements like impact factors. These are based on substituting traditional foci of analysis, for instance journals, by other object types, such as authors, organisations or countries. In the interface, bibliographic data are modelled as complex objects (non-first normal form relations) and terminological and citation networks involving transitive relationships are modelled as binary relations for deductive processing. The interface is flexible, because it makes it easy to switch focus between various object types for informetric calculations, e.g. from authors to institutions. Moreover, it is demonstrated that all informetric data can easily be broken down by criteria that foster advanced analysis, e.g. by years or content-bearing attributes. Such modelling allows flexible data aggregation along many dimensions. These salient features emerge from the query interface's general data restructuring and aggregation capabilities combined with transitive processing capabilities. The features are illustrated by means of sample queries and results in the article.
  3. Vilar, P.; Zumer, M.: Perceptions and importance of user friendliness of IR systems according to users' individual characteristics and academic discipline (2008) 0.00
    5.2312744E-4 = product of:
      0.003661892 = sum of:
        0.003661892 = product of:
          0.01830946 = sum of:
            0.01830946 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2378) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.01830946 = score(doc=2378,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03622214 = queryNorm
                0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 2378, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2378)
          0.2 = coord(1/5)
      0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    
    Abstract
    This article presents one part of a wider study, performed at the Department of library and information science and book studies (LIS & BS) at the University of Ljubljana (UL). The study investigated the perceptions of user friendliness of information-retrieval systems (IRS) and the role of individual characteristics of users in these perceptions. Based on an expert study, a user study with 61 postgraduate students of the UL was performed. Three interfaces of e-journals were studied: Science Direct, Proquest Direct, and Ebsco Host. Questionnaires and observations were used for data collection. The users'perceptions of user friendliness and of importance of auxiliary functions were investigated. Also, the connections between these perceptions and the users'individual characteristics were identified. Three sets of individual characteristics were included: approaches to studying, thinking styles, and hemisphere leanings. In connection with the dimensions of individual characteristics, very different perceptions of user friendliness were expressed. Some dimensions of individual characteristics were also found to be connected to the users'academic areas. It is shown that participants from different academic areas have different requirements and perceptions of user friendliness. The results of the study are relevant for the design of the user interfaces of disciplinary IR systems. They also have implications for other areas, for example, user education and training.
  4. Wilson, M.L.; Schraefel, M.C.; White, R.W.: Evaluating advanced search interfaces using established information-seeking models (2009) 0.00
    5.2312744E-4 = product of:
      0.003661892 = sum of:
        0.003661892 = product of:
          0.01830946 = sum of:
            0.01830946 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.01830946 = score(doc=2920,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03622214 = queryNorm
                0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 2920, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2920)
          0.2 = coord(1/5)
      0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    
    Abstract
    When users have poorly defined or complex goals, search interfaces that offer only keyword-searching facilities provide inadequate support to help them reach their information-seeking objectives. The emergence of interfaces with more advanced capabilities, such as faceted browsing and result clustering, can go some way toward addressing such problems. The evaluation of these interfaces, however, is challenging because they generally offer diverse and versatile search environments that introduce overwhelming amounts of independent variables to user studies; choosing the interface object as the only independent variable in a study would reveal very little about why one design outperforms another. Nonetheless, if we could effectively compare these interfaces, then we would have a way to determine which was best for a given scenario and begin to learn why. In this article, we present a formative inspection framework for the evaluation of advanced search interfaces through the quantification of the strengths and weaknesses of the interfaces in supporting user tactics and varying user conditions. This framework combines established models of users and their needs and behaviors to achieve this. The framework is applied to evaluate three search interfaces and demonstrates the potential value of this approach to interactive information retrieval evaluation.
  5. Liu, Y.-H.; Dantzig, P.; Sachs, M.; Corey, J.T.; Hinnebusch, M.T.; Damashek, M.; Cohen, J.: Visualizing document classification : a search aid for the digital library (2000) 0.00
    4.5370017E-4 = product of:
      0.003175901 = sum of:
        0.003175901 = product of:
          0.015879504 = sum of:
            0.015879504 = weight(_text_:system in 4431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.015879504 = score(doc=4431,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03622214 = queryNorm
                0.13919188 = fieldWeight in 4431, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4431)
          0.2 = coord(1/5)
      0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    
    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
  6. Miller, D.H.: User perception and the online catalogue : public library OPAC users "think aloud" (2004) 0.00
    4.1850194E-4 = product of:
      0.0029295133 = sum of:
        0.0029295133 = product of:
          0.014647567 = sum of:
            0.014647567 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.014647567 = score(doc=2659,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03622214 = queryNorm
                0.13368362 = fieldWeight in 2659, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2659)
          0.2 = coord(1/5)
      0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    
    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.

Languages

  • e 55
  • d 11

Types

  • a 57
  • m 8
  • s 1
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Classifications