Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.02766634 = product of:
  0.05533268 = sum of:
    0.05533268 = sum of:
      0.0054123 = weight(_text_:a in 2905) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0054123 = score(doc=2905,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 2905, 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=2905)
      0.04992038 = weight(_text_:22 in 2905) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04992038 = score(doc=2905,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2905, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2905)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 2.2009 18:50:43

Type

a

0.0020714647 = product of:
  0.0041429293 = sum of:
    0.0041429293 = product of:
      0.008285859 = sum of:
        0.008285859 = weight(_text_:a in 1103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008285859 = score(doc=1103,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 1103, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1103)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Users' preferences for folders versus tags was studied in 2 working environments where both options were available to them. In the Gmail study, we informed 75 participants about both folder-labeling and tag-labeling, observed their storage behavior after 1 month, and asked them to estimate the proportions of different retrieval options in their behavior. In the Windows 7 study, we informed 23 participants about tags and asked them to tag all their files for 2 weeks, followed by a period of 5 weeks of free choice between the 2 methods. Their storage and retrieval habits were tested prior to the learning session and, after 7 weeks, using special classification recording software and a retrieval-habits questionnaire. A controlled retrieval task and an in-depth interview were conducted. Results of both studies show a strong preference for folders over tags for both storage and retrieval. In the minority of cases where tags were used for storage, participants typically used a single tag per information item. Moreover, when multiple classification was used for storage, it was only marginally used for retrieval. The controlled retrieval task showed lower success rates and slower retrieval speeds for tag use. Possible reasons for participants' preferences are discussed.

Type

a

0.001674345 = product of:
  0.00334869 = sum of:
    0.00334869 = product of:
      0.00669738 = sum of:
        0.00669738 = weight(_text_:a in 296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00669738 = score(doc=296,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 296, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=296)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Three studies were made of the use of COM catalogues at the University of Toronto and the Mississauga Library System: unobtrusive observations, structured interviews, and a timed-search experiment in reel, fiche and card catalogues. The reel catalogue was found to be the overwhelming favourite, almost as popular in the public library as in the academic library, where 82% of the users reported it to be their preferred form of catalogue. However, for nearly all test questions and searcher types in the timed-search experiment, successful searches required less time in the card catalogue than in either form of the COM catalogues.

Type

a

0.001674345 = product of:
  0.00334869 = sum of:
    0.00334869 = product of:
      0.00669738 = sum of:
        0.00669738 = weight(_text_:a in 2016) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00669738 = score(doc=2016,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 2016, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2016)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

Type

a