Search (30 results, page 2 of 2)

0.0020296127 = product of:
  0.0040592253 = sum of:
    0.0040592253 = product of:
      0.008118451 = sum of:
        0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 1197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008118451 = score(doc=1197,freq=32.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 1197, product of:
              5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
                32.0 = termFreq=32.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1197)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

User interfaces for digital information discovery often require users to click around and read a lot of text in order to find the text they want to read-a process that is often frustrating and tedious. This is exacerbated because of the limited amount of text that can be displayed on a computer screen. To improve the user experience of computer mediated information discovery, information visualization techniques are applied to the digital library context, while retaining traditional information organization concepts. In this article, the "virtual (book) spine" and the virtual spine viewer are introduced. The virtual spine viewer is an application which allows users to visually explore large information spaces or collections while also allowing users to hone in on individual resources of interest. The virtual spine viewer introduced here is an alpha prototype, presented to promote discussion and further work. Information discovery changed radically with the introduction of computerized library access catalogs, the World Wide Web and its search engines, and online bookstores. Yet few instances of these technologies provide a user experience analogous to walking among well-organized, well-stocked bookshelves-which many people find useful as well as pleasurable. To put it another way, many of us have heard or voiced complaints about the paucity of "online browsing"-but what does this really mean? In traditional information spaces such as libraries, often we can move freely among the books and other resources. When we walk among organized, labeled bookshelves, we get a sense of the information space-we take in clues, perhaps unconsciously, as to the scope of the collection, the currency of resources, the frequency of their use, etc. We also enjoy unexpected discoveries such as finding an interesting resource because library staff deliberately located it near similar resources, or because it was miss-shelved, or because we saw it on a bookshelf on the way to the water fountain.
When our experience of information discovery is mediated by a computer, we neither move ourselves nor the monitor. We have only the computer's monitor to view, and the keyboard and/or mouse to manipulate what is displayed there. Computer interfaces often reduce our ability to get a sense of the contents of a library: we don't perceive the scope of the library: its breadth, (the quantity of materials/information), its density (how full the shelves are, how thorough the collection is for individual topics), or the general audience for the materials (e.g., whether the materials are appropriate for middle school students, college professors, etc.). Additionally, many computer interfaces for information discovery require users to scroll through long lists, to click numerous navigational links and to read a lot of text to find the exact text they want to read. Text features of resources are almost always presented alphabetically, and the number of items in these alphabetical lists sometimes can be very long. Alphabetical ordering is certainly an improvement over no ordering, but it generally has no bearing on features with an inherent non-alphabetical ordering (e.g., dates of historical events), nor does it necessarily group similar items together. Alphabetical ordering of resources is analogous to one of the most familiar complaints about dictionaries: sometimes you need to know how to spell a word in order to look up its correct spelling in the dictionary. Some have used technology to replicate the appearance of physical libraries, presenting rooms of bookcases and shelves of book spines in virtual 3D environments. This approach presents a problem, as few book spines can be displayed legibly on a monitor screen. This article examines the role of book spines, call numbers, and other traditional organizational and information discovery concepts, and integrates this knowledge with information visualization techniques to show how computers and monitors can meet or exceed similar information discovery methods. The goal is to tap the unique potentials of current information visualization approaches in order to improve information discovery, offer new services, and most important of all, improve user satisfaction. We need to capitalize on what computers do well while bearing in mind their limitations. The intent is to design GUIs to optimize utility and provide a positive experience for the user.

Type

a

0.001913537 = product of:
  0.003827074 = sum of:
    0.003827074 = product of:
      0.007654148 = sum of:
        0.007654148 = weight(_text_:a in 3887) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007654148 = score(doc=3887,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 3887, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3887)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Although extremely useful for visualizing high-dimensional data, t-SNE plots can sometimes be mysterious or misleading. By exploring how it behaves in simple cases, we can learn to use it more effectively. We'll walk through a series of simple examples to illustrate what t-SNE diagrams can and cannot show. The t-SNE technique really is useful-but only if you know how to interpret it.

Type

a

0.0018909799 = product of:
  0.0037819599 = sum of:
    0.0037819599 = product of:
      0.0075639198 = sum of:
        0.0075639198 = weight(_text_:a in 3366) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0075639198 = score(doc=3366,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 3366, 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=3366)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Documents in rich text corpora usually contain multiple facets of information. For example, an article about a specific disease often consists of different facets such as symptom, treatment, cause, diagnosis, prognosis, and prevention. Thus, documents may have different relations based on different facets. Powerful search tools have been developed to help users locate lists of individual documents that are most related to specific keywords. However, there is a lack of effective analysis tools that reveal the multifaceted relations of documents within or cross the document clusters. In this paper, we present FacetAtlas, a multifaceted visualization technique for visually analyzing rich text corpora. FacetAtlas combines search technology with advanced visual analytical tools to convey both global and local patterns simultaneously. We describe several unique aspects of FacetAtlas, including (1) node cliques and multifaceted edges, (2) an optimized density map, and (3) automated opacity pattern enhancement for highlighting visual patterns, (4) interactive context switch between facets. In addition, we demonstrate the power of FacetAtlas through a case study that targets patient education in the health care domain. Our evaluation shows the benefits of this work, especially in support of complex multifaceted data analysis.

Type

a

0.0016571716 = product of:
  0.0033143433 = sum of:
    0.0033143433 = product of:
      0.0066286866 = sum of:
        0.0066286866 = weight(_text_:a in 79) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0066286866 = score(doc=79,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12482099 = fieldWeight in 79, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=79)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

With the terrific growth of data volume and data being produced every second on millions of devices across the globe, there is a desperate need to manage the unstructured data available on web pages efficiently. Semantic Web or also known as Web of Trust structures the scattered data on the Internet according to the needs of the user. It is an extension of the World Wide Web (WWW) which focuses on manipulating web data on behalf of Humans. Due to the ability of the Semantic Web to integrate data from disparate sources and hence makes it more user-friendly, it is an emerging trend. Tim Berners-Lee first introduced the term Semantic Web and since then it has come a long way to become a more intelligent and intuitive web. Data Visualization plays an essential role in explaining complex concepts in a universal manner through pictorial representation, and the Semantic Web helps in broadening the potential of Data Visualization and thus making it an appropriate combination. The objective of this chapter is to provide fundamental insights concerning the semantic web technologies and in addition to that it also elucidates the issues as well as the solutions regarding the semantic web. The purpose of this chapter is to highlight the semantic web architecture in detail while also comparing it with the traditional search system. It classifies the semantic web architecture into three major pillars i.e. RDF, Ontology, and XML. Moreover, it describes different semantic web tools used in the framework and technology. It attempts to illustrate different approaches of the semantic web search engines. Besides stating numerous challenges faced by the semantic web it also illustrates the solutions.

Type

a

0.0014647468 = product of:
  0.0029294936 = sum of:
    0.0029294936 = product of:
      0.005858987 = sum of:
        0.005858987 = weight(_text_:a in 548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005858987 = score(doc=548,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 548, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=548)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

UDC aims to be a consistent and complete classification system, that enables practitioners to classify documents swiftly and smoothly. The eventual goal of UDC is to enable the public at large to retrieve documents from large collections of documents that are classified with UDC. The large size of the UDC Master Reference File, MRF with over 66.000 records, makes it difficult to obtain an overview and to understand its structure. Moreover, finding the right classification in MRF turns out to be difficult in practice. Last but not least, retrieval of documents requires insight and understanding of the coding system. Visualization is an effective means to support the development of UDC as well as its use by practitioners. Moreover, visualization offers possibilities to use the classification without use of the coding system as such. MagnaView has developed an application which demonstrates the use of interactive visualization to face these challenges. In our presentation, we discuss these challenges, and we give a demonstration of the way the application helps face these. Examples of visualizations can be found below.

Type

a

0.0014647468 = product of:
  0.0029294936 = sum of:
    0.0029294936 = product of:
      0.005858987 = sum of:
        0.005858987 = weight(_text_:a in 4837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005858987 = score(doc=4837,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 4837, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4837)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Icon system could represent an efficient solution for collective iconic categorization of knowledge by providing graphical interpretation. Their pictorial characters assist visualizing the structure of text to become more understandable beyond vocabulary obstacle. In this paper we are proposing a Knowledge Engineering (KM) based iconic representation approach. We assume that these systematic icons improve collective knowledge management. Meanwhile, text (constructed under our knowledge management model - Hypertopic) helps to reduce the diversity of graphical understanding belonging to different users. This "position paper" also prepares to demonstrate our hypothesis by an "iconic social tagging" experiment which is to be accomplished in 2011 with UTT students. We describe the "socio semantic web" information portal involved in this project, and a part of the icons already designed for this experiment in Sustainability field. We have reviewed existing theoretical works on icons from various origins, which can be used to lay the foundation of robust "icons systems".

Type

a

0.0014351527 = product of:
  0.0028703054 = sum of:
    0.0028703054 = product of:
      0.005740611 = sum of:
        0.005740611 = weight(_text_:a in 1293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005740611 = score(doc=1293,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 1293, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1293)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper aims to identify what information visualisation is and how in conjunction with the computer it can be used as a tool to expand understanding. It also seeks to explain how information visualisation has been fundamental to the development of the computer from its very early days to Apple's launch of the now ubiquitous W.I.M.P (Windows, Icon, Menu, Program) graphical user interface in 1984. An attempt is also made to question why after many years of progress and development though the late 1960s and 1970s, very little has changed in the way we interact with the data on our computers since the watershed of the Macintosh and in conclusion where the future of information visualisation may lie.

0.001353075 = product of:
  0.00270615 = sum of:
    0.00270615 = product of:
      0.0054123 = sum of:
        0.0054123 = weight(_text_:a in 1288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0054123 = score(doc=1288,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 1288, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1288)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Interface designs for lexical databases in NLP have suffered from not following design principles developed in the information visualization research community. We present a design paradigm and show it can be used to generate visualizations which maximize the usability and utility ofWordNet. The techniques can be generally applied to other lexical databases used in NLP research.

0.0011839407 = product of:
  0.0023678814 = sum of:
    0.0023678814 = product of:
      0.0047357627 = sum of:
        0.0047357627 = weight(_text_:a in 3886) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0047357627 = score(doc=3886,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 3886, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3886)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0010148063 = product of:
  0.0020296127 = sum of:
    0.0020296127 = product of:
      0.0040592253 = sum of:
        0.0040592253 = weight(_text_:a in 3067) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0040592253 = score(doc=3067,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 3067, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3067)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a