Search (244 results, page 13 of 13)

7.4368593E-4 = product of:
  0.0044621155 = sum of:
    0.0044621155 = weight(_text_:in in 2044) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0044621155 = score(doc=2044,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.07514416 = fieldWeight in 2044, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2044)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Categorized overviews of web search results are a promising way to support user exploration, understanding, and discovery. These search interfaces combine a metadata-based overview with the list of search results to enable a rich form of interaction. A study of 24 sophisticated users carrying out complex tasks suggests how searchers may adapt their search tactics when using categorized overviews. This mixed methods study evaluated categorized overviews of web search results organized into thematic, geographic, and government categories. Participants conducted four exploratory searches during a 2-hour session to generate ideas for newspaper articles about specified topics such as "human smuggling." Results showed that subjects explored deeper while feeling more organized, and that the categorized overview helped subjects better assess their results, although no significant differences were detected in the quality of the article ideas. A qualitative analysis of searcher comments identified seven tactics that participants reported adopting when using categorized overviews. This paper concludes by proposing a set of guidelines for the design of exploratory search interfaces. An understanding of the impact of categorized overviews on search tactics will be useful to web search researchers, search interface designers, information architects and web developers.

7.4368593E-4 = product of:
  0.0044621155 = sum of:
    0.0044621155 = weight(_text_:in in 4474) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0044621155 = score(doc=4474,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.07514416 = fieldWeight in 4474, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4474)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This article proposes a theory of information need for information retrieval (IR). Information need traditionally denotes the start state for someone seeking information, which includes information search using an IR system. There are two perspectives on information need. The dominant, computer science perspective is that the user needs to find an answer to a well-defined question which is easy for the user to formulate into a query to the system. Ironically, information science's best known model of information need (Taylor, 1968) deems it to be a "black box"-unknowable and nonspecifiable by the user in a query to the information system. Information science has instead devoted itself to studying eight adjacent or surrogate concepts (information seeking, search and use; problem, problematic situation and task; sense making and evolutionary adaptation/information foraging). Based on an analysis of these eight adjacent/surrogate concepts, we create six testable propositions for a theory of information need. The central assumption of the theory is that while computer science sees IR as an information- or answer-finding system, focused on the user finding an answer, an information science or user-oriented theory of information need envisages a knowledge formulation/acquisition system.

7.4368593E-4 = product of:
  0.0044621155 = sum of:
    0.0044621155 = weight(_text_:in in 1281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0044621155 = score(doc=1281,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.07514416 = fieldWeight in 1281, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1281)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Previous studies have shown that users' cognitive styles play an important role during web searching. However, only a limited number of studies have showed the relationship between cognitive styles and web search behavior. Most importantly, it is not clear which components of web search behavior are influenced by cognitive styles. This article examines the relationships between users' cognitive styles and their web searching and develops a model that portrays the relationship. The study uses qualitative and quantitative analyses based on data gathered from 50 participants. A questionnaire was utilized to collect participants' demographic information, and Riding's (1991) Cognitive Styles Analysis (CSA) test to assess their cognitive styles. Results show that users' cognitive styles influenced their information-searching strategies, query reformulation behavior, web navigational styles, and information-processing approaches. The user model developed in this study depicts the fundamental relationships between users' web search behavior and their cognitive styles. Modeling web search behavior with a greater understanding of users' cognitive styles can help information science researchers and information systems designers to bridge the semantic gap between the user and the systems. Implications of the research for theory and practice, and future work, are discussed.

7.4368593E-4 = product of:
  0.0044621155 = sum of:
    0.0044621155 = weight(_text_:in in 3600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0044621155 = score(doc=3600,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.07514416 = fieldWeight in 3600, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3600)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)