Search (15 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  • × theme_ss:"Benutzerstudien"
  1. Westman, S.; Laine-Hernandez, M.; Oittinen, P.: Development and evaluation of a multifaceted magazine image categorization model (2011) 0.05
    0.048171937 = product of:
      0.096343875 = sum of:
        0.096343875 = sum of:
          0.06569959 = weight(_text_:n in 4193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.06569959 = score(doc=4193,freq=4.0), product of:
              0.19504215 = queryWeight, product of:
                4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
                0.045236014 = queryNorm
              0.33684817 = fieldWeight in 4193, product of:
                2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                  4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4193)
          0.030644279 = weight(_text_:22 in 4193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.030644279 = score(doc=4193,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.15840882 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.045236014 = queryNorm
              0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4193, 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=4193)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    The development of visual retrieval methods requires information about user interaction with images, including their description and categorization. This article presents the development of a categorization model for magazine images based on two user studies. In Study 1, we elicited 10 main classes of magazine image categorization criteria through sorting tasks with nonexpert and expert users (N=30). Multivariate methods, namely, multidimensional scaling and hierarchical clustering, were used to analyze similarity data. Content analysis of category names gave rise to classes that were synthesized into a categorization framework. The framework was evaluated in Study 2 by experts (N=24) who categorized another set of images consistent with the framework and found it to be useful in the task. Based on the evaluation study the framework was solidified into a model for categorizing magazine imagery. Connections between classes were analyzed both from the original sorting data and from the evaluation study and included into the final model. The model is a practical categorization tool that may be used in workplaces, such as magazine editorial offices. It may also serve to guide the development of computational methods for image understanding, selection of concepts for automatic detection, and approaches to support browsing and exploratory image search.
    Date
    22. 1.2011 14:09:26
  2. Griesbaum, J.; Mahrholz, N.; Kiedrowski, K. von Löwe; Rittberger, M.: Knowledge generation in online forums : a case study in the German educational domain (2015) 0.03
    0.03084036 = product of:
      0.06168072 = sum of:
        0.06168072 = sum of:
          0.0371653 = weight(_text_:n in 4440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.0371653 = score(doc=4440,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.19504215 = queryWeight, product of:
                4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
                0.045236014 = queryNorm
              0.19055009 = fieldWeight in 4440, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
                0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4440)
          0.024515422 = weight(_text_:22 in 4440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.024515422 = score(doc=4440,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.15840882 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.045236014 = queryNorm
              0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4440, 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=4440)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  3. Mandl, T.; Schulz, J.M.; Marholz, N.; Werner, K.: Benutzerforschung anhand von Log-Dateien : Chancen Grenzen und aktuelle Trends (2011) 0.02
    0.01858265 = product of:
      0.0371653 = sum of:
        0.0371653 = product of:
          0.0743306 = sum of:
            0.0743306 = weight(_text_:n in 4304) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0743306 = score(doc=4304,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.19504215 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045236014 = queryNorm
                0.38110018 = fieldWeight in 4304, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4304)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
  4. O'Brien, H.L.; Toms, E.G.: ¬The development and evaluation of a survey to measure user engagement (2010) 0.02
    0.016424898 = product of:
      0.032849796 = sum of:
        0.032849796 = product of:
          0.06569959 = sum of:
            0.06569959 = weight(_text_:n in 3312) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.06569959 = score(doc=3312,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.19504215 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045236014 = queryNorm
                0.33684817 = fieldWeight in 3312, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3312)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Facilitating engaging user experiences is essential in the design of interactive systems. To accomplish this, it is necessary to understand the composition of this construct and how to evaluate it. Building on previous work that posited a theory of engagement and identified a core set of attributes that operationalized this construct, we constructed and evaluated a multidimensional scale to measure user engagement. In this paper we describe the development of the scale, as well as two large-scale studies (N=440 and N=802) that were undertaken to assess its reliability and validity in online shopping environments. In the first we used Reliability Analysis and Exploratory Factor Analysis to identify six attributes of engagement: Perceived Usability, Aesthetics, Focused Attention, Felt Involvement, Novelty, and Endurability. In the second we tested the validity of and relationships among those attributes using Structural Equation Modeling. The result of this research is a multidimensional scale that may be used to test the engagement of software applications. In addition, findings indicate that attributes of engagement are highly intertwined, a complex interplay of user-system interaction variables. Notably, Perceived Usability played a mediating role in the relationship between Endurability and Novelty, Aesthetics, Felt Involvement, and Focused Attention.
  5. Lewandowski, D.; Kerkmann, F.; Rümmele, S.; Sünkler, S.: ¬An empirical investigation on search engine ad disclosure (2018) 0.02
    0.016259817 = product of:
      0.032519635 = sum of:
        0.032519635 = product of:
          0.06503927 = sum of:
            0.06503927 = weight(_text_:n in 4115) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.06503927 = score(doc=4115,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.19504215 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045236014 = queryNorm
                0.33346266 = fieldWeight in 4115, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4115)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    This representative study of German search engine users (N?=?1,000) focuses on the ability of users to distinguish between organic results and advertisements on Google results pages. We combine questions about Google's business with task-based studies in which users were asked to distinguish between ads and organic results in screenshots of results pages. We find that only a small percentage of users can reliably distinguish between ads and organic results, and that user knowledge of Google's business model is very limited. We conclude that ads are insufficiently labelled as such, and that many users may click on ads assuming that they are selecting organic results.
  6. Knautz, K.; Dröge, E.; Finkelmeyer, S.; Guschauski, D.; Juchem, K.; Krzmyk, C.; Miskovic, D.; Schiefer, J.; Sen, E.; Verbina, J.; Werner, N.; Stock, W.G.: Indexieren von Emotionen bei Videos (2010) 0.01
    0.013936987 = product of:
      0.027873974 = sum of:
        0.027873974 = product of:
          0.05574795 = sum of:
            0.05574795 = weight(_text_:n in 3637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.05574795 = score(doc=3637,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.19504215 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045236014 = queryNorm
                0.28582513 = fieldWeight in 3637, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3637)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
  7. Clewley, N.; Chen, S.Y.; Liu, X.: Cognitive styles and search engine preferences : field dependence/independence vs holism/serialism (2010) 0.01
    0.011614156 = product of:
      0.023228312 = sum of:
        0.023228312 = product of:
          0.046456624 = sum of:
            0.046456624 = weight(_text_:n in 3961) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.046456624 = score(doc=3961,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.19504215 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045236014 = queryNorm
                0.23818761 = fieldWeight in 3961, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3961)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
  8. Bergman, O.; Gradovitch, N.; Bar-Ilan, J.; Beyth-Marom, R.: Folder versus tag preference in personal information management (2013) 0.01
    0.011614156 = product of:
      0.023228312 = sum of:
        0.023228312 = product of:
          0.046456624 = sum of:
            0.046456624 = weight(_text_:n in 1103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.046456624 = score(doc=1103,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.19504215 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045236014 = queryNorm
                0.23818761 = fieldWeight in 1103, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1103)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
  9. Unkel, J.; Haas, A.: ¬The effects of credibility cues on the selection of search engine results (2017) 0.01
    0.011614156 = product of:
      0.023228312 = sum of:
        0.023228312 = product of:
          0.046456624 = sum of:
            0.046456624 = weight(_text_:n in 3752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.046456624 = score(doc=3752,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.19504215 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045236014 = queryNorm
                0.23818761 = fieldWeight in 3752, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3752)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Web search engines act as gatekeepers when people search for information online. Research has shown that search engine users seem to trust the search engines' ranking uncritically and mostly select top-ranked results. This study further examines search engine users' selection behavior. Drawing from the credibility and information research literature, we test whether the presence or absence of certain credibility cues influences the selection probability of search engine results. In an observational study, participants (N?=?247) completed two information research tasks on preset search engine results pages, on which three credibility cues (source reputation, message neutrality, and social recommendations) as well as the search result ranking were systematically varied. The results of our study confirm the significance of the ranking. Of the three credibility cues, only reputation had an additional effect on selection probabilities. Personal characteristics (prior knowledge about the researched issues, search engine usage patterns, etc.) did not influence the preference for search results linked with certain credibility cues. These findings are discussed in light of situational and contextual characteristics (e.g., involvement, low-cost scenarios).
  10. Madden, A.D.; Webber, S.; Ford, N.; Crowder, M.: ¬The relationship between students' subject preferences and their information behaviour (2018) 0.01
    0.009291325 = product of:
      0.01858265 = sum of:
        0.01858265 = product of:
          0.0371653 = sum of:
            0.0371653 = weight(_text_:n in 4408) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0371653 = score(doc=4408,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.19504215 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045236014 = queryNorm
                0.19055009 = fieldWeight in 4408, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4408)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
  11. Okoli, C.; Mehdi, M.; Mesgari, M.; Nielsen, F.A.; Lanamäki, A.: Wikipedia in the eyes of its beholders : a systematic review of scholarly research on Wikipedia readers and readership (2014) 0.01
    0.0091932835 = product of:
      0.018386567 = sum of:
        0.018386567 = product of:
          0.036773134 = sum of:
            0.036773134 = weight(_text_:22 in 1540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.036773134 = score(doc=1540,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15840882 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045236014 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1540, 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=1540)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    18.11.2014 13:22:03
  12. Mizrachi, D.; Bates, M.J.: Undergraduates' personal academic information management and the consideration of time and task-urgency (2013) 0.01
    0.0076610697 = product of:
      0.0153221395 = sum of:
        0.0153221395 = product of:
          0.030644279 = sum of:
            0.030644279 = weight(_text_:22 in 1003) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.030644279 = score(doc=1003,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15840882 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045236014 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1003, 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=1003)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Young undergraduate college students are often described as "digital natives," presumed to prefer living and working in completely digital information environments. In reality, their world is part-paper/part-digital, in constant transition among successive forms of digital storage and communication devices. Studying for a degree is the daily work of these young people, and effective management of paper and digital academic materials and resources contributes crucially to their success in life. Students must also constantly manage their work against deadlines to meet their course and university requirements. This study, following the "Personal Information Management" (PIM) paradigm, examines student academic information management under these various constraints and pressures. A total of 41 18- to 22-year-old students were interviewed and observed regarding the content, structure, and uses of their immediate working environment within their dormitory rooms. Students exhibited remarkable creativity and variety in the mixture of automated and manual resources and devices used to support their academic work. The demands of a yearlong procession of assignments, papers, projects, and examinations increase the importance of time management activities and influence much of their behavior. Results provide insights on student use of various kinds of information technology and their overall planning and management of information associated with their studies.
  13. Aloteibi, S.; Sanderson, M.: Analyzing geographic query reformulation : an exploratory study (2014) 0.01
    0.0076610697 = product of:
      0.0153221395 = sum of:
        0.0153221395 = product of:
          0.030644279 = sum of:
            0.030644279 = weight(_text_:22 in 1177) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.030644279 = score(doc=1177,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15840882 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045236014 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1177, 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=1177)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    26. 1.2014 18:48:22
  14. Beaudoin, J.E.: Content-based image retrieval methods and professional image users (2016) 0.01
    0.0076610697 = product of:
      0.0153221395 = sum of:
        0.0153221395 = product of:
          0.030644279 = sum of:
            0.030644279 = weight(_text_:22 in 2637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.030644279 = score(doc=2637,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15840882 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045236014 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2637, 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=2637)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    22. 1.2016 12:32:25
  15. Monchaux, S.; Amadieu, F.; Chevalier, A.; Mariné, C.: Query strategies during information searching : effects of prior domain knowledge and complexity of the information problems to be solved (2015) 0.01
    0.0076610697 = product of:
      0.0153221395 = sum of:
        0.0153221395 = product of:
          0.030644279 = sum of:
            0.030644279 = weight(_text_:22 in 2680) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.030644279 = score(doc=2680,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15840882 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045236014 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2680, 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=2680)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    25. 1.2016 18:46:22