Search (234 results, page 1 of 12)

0.049133226 = product of:
  0.09826645 = sum of:
    0.020812286 = weight(_text_:information in 2730) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020812286 = score(doc=2730,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 2730, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2730)
    0.077454165 = weight(_text_:standards in 2730) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.077454165 = score(doc=2730,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.34469998 = fieldWeight in 2730, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2730)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Electronic libraries will depend on distributed computing, storage and retrieval standards that enable multiple user interfaces to multiple information stores. Examines the lessons in interface design learned by Carnegie Mellon University Libraries in building their library system. User interface design is difficult and time-consuming. Distributed retrieval has implications for user interface design. User interface design specifications save time and aggravation, user interfaces need to be tested and revised. Politics and egos can disrupt user interface design

Imprint

Illinois : University at Urbana-Champaign, Graduate School of Library and Information Science

Source

Emerging communities: integrating networked information into library services. Proceedings of the Clinic on Library Applications of Data Processing, Illinois University at Urbana-Champaign, 4-6 April 1993. Ed.: A.P. Bishop

0.048590284 = product of:
  0.064787045 = sum of:
    0.006866273 = weight(_text_:information in 168) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006866273 = score(doc=168,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 168, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=168)
    0.044259522 = weight(_text_:standards in 168) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044259522 = score(doc=168,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.19697142 = fieldWeight in 168, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=168)
    0.013661247 = product of:
      0.027322493 = sum of:
        0.027322493 = weight(_text_:22 in 168) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027322493 = score(doc=168,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 168, 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=168)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

The effect that content and layout of bibliographic displays had on the ability of end-users to process catalog information was tested using a 2 x 2 factorial experimental design. Participants were asked to perform two related tasks during the course of the experiment. In the first task, they were asked to select a set of items that they would examine further for a hypothetical paper they must write, using a simulated online catalog to make their assessments of relevance. In the second task, they were asked to examine 20 bibliographic records, decide whether they would choose to examine these items further on the shelf, and identify the data elements that they used to formulate their relevance decision. One group viewed bibliographic records on an interface similar to current online catalogs, one that used data labels and contained data elements commonly found. A second group viewed these records on an interface in which the labels had been removed, but the data elements were the same as those in the first. The third group viewed these records on a labeled display that included enhanced data elements on the brief record display. The final group viewed these records with the same brief record data elements as the third group, but with the labels removed, using ISBD and AACR2 punctuation standards. For the first task, participants using enhanced brief screen interfaces viewed more brief screens and fewer full screens than their counterparts. Screen durations for the second 10 screens were found to have dropped from those of the first 10 screens. Statistical analyses comparing demographic variables to the screen frequencies uncovered many significant differences. Participants using the enhanced-content interfaces made fewer selections from index and full screens, and more selections from brief screens. For the second task, participants who used enhanced-content interfaces were able to make some sort of relevance judgment more frequently than those who used standard-content interfaces.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.047912344 = product of:
  0.19164938 = sum of:
    0.19164938 = weight(_text_:standards in 7444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19164938 = score(doc=7444,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.85291135 = fieldWeight in 7444, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=7444)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Considers whether standards are needed for OPAC interfaces. Examines issues surrounding calls for standards for OPAC interfaces. It is unlikely that one interface will be accepted by vendors. The role of the OPAC is changing so rapidly there is little chance of standardization

0.038344346 = product of:
  0.07668869 = sum of:
    0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 2782) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01029941 = score(doc=2782,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2782, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2782)
    0.066389285 = weight(_text_:standards in 2782) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.066389285 = score(doc=2782,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.29545712 = fieldWeight in 2782, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2782)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Current research on user interfaces to online public access catalogs is reviewed in an attempt to identify research methods and findings applicable to the design of effective user interfaces to online public access catalogs. A broad definition of user interface is employed which includes data structures, in addition to searching and indexing software. The following features of online public access catalogs are discussed: the demonstration of relationships between records, the provision of entry vocabularies, the arrangement of multiple entries on the screen, the provision of access points, the display of single records, and the division of the catalog into separate files or indexes. For each feature, user studies and other research on online public access catalogs are reviewed and those findings summarized which provide insight into user needs concerning that particular feature; issues are identified and directions for further research are suggested. Implications for cataloging codes and standards and system design are discussed

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 42(1991), S.78-98

0.03592316 = product of:
  0.07184632 = sum of:
    0.024031956 = weight(_text_:information in 1601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024031956 = score(doc=1601,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 1601, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1601)
    0.047814365 = product of:
      0.09562873 = sum of:
        0.09562873 = weight(_text_:22 in 1601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09562873 = score(doc=1601,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 1601, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1601)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

27.12.2014 18:54:22

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 45(2011) no.1, S.367-430

0.03353864 = product of:
  0.13415456 = sum of:
    0.13415456 = weight(_text_:standards in 2725) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13415456 = score(doc=2725,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.5970379 = fieldWeight in 2725, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2725)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Standards for user interfaces for access to bibliographic data bases cannot be developed without more complete understanding of the current user, user attitude and capabilities. Gives 3 means of achieving this based on observing the user. 45% of access points in subject searches results in no retrievals. Errors in searching on-line catalogues occur with a 40% no hit title search rate and a 51% no hit author search rate when those records were on the data base. Stresses the importance of fundamental user interface components contained in the IBM staff publication systems guide. Concludes that although there is no such thing as a standard user it is still vital to develop user standards

0.03273274 = product of:
  0.06546548 = sum of:
    0.017165681 = weight(_text_:information in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017165681 = score(doc=1352,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 1352, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1352)
    0.0482998 = product of:
      0.0965996 = sum of:
        0.0965996 = weight(_text_:22 in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0965996 = score(doc=1352,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 1352, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1352)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

22. 2.2003 17:25:39
22. 2.2003 18:17:40

0.029586 = product of:
  0.059172 = sum of:
    0.02913113 = weight(_text_:information in 2997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02913113 = score(doc=2997,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.3291521 = fieldWeight in 2997, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2997)
    0.030040871 = product of:
      0.060081743 = sum of:
        0.060081743 = weight(_text_:organization in 2997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060081743 = score(doc=2997,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.33425218 = fieldWeight in 2997, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2997)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

While most research in the area of human-information behavior has focused an a single dimension-either the psychological or the social-this case study demonstrated the importance of a multidimensional approach. The Cognitive Work Analysis framework guided this field study of one event of collaborative information retrieval (CIR) carried out by design engineers at Microsoft, including observations and interviews. Various dimensions explained the motives for this CIR event and the challenges the participants encountered: the cognitive dimension, the specific task and decision, the organization of the teamwork, and the organizational culture. Even though it is difficult at times to separate one dimension from another, and all are interdependent, the analysis uncovered several reasons for design engineers to engage in CIR, such as when they are new to the organization or the team, when the information lends itself to various interpretations, or when most of the needed information is not documented. Similar multidimensional studies will enhance our understanding of human-information behavior.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 55(2004) no.11, S.939-953

0.027849235 = product of:
  0.05569847 = sum of:
    0.03179129 = weight(_text_:information in 3534) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03179129 = score(doc=3534,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.3592092 = fieldWeight in 3534, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3534)
    0.023907183 = product of:
      0.047814365 = sum of:
        0.047814365 = weight(_text_:22 in 3534) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047814365 = score(doc=3534,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3534, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3534)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Presents a research project funded by the Spanish government and conducted by professors and students of library and information science, principally from the University of Granada, in collaboration with 2 organizations specializing in electronic information. The research group, 'Virtual reality interface for accessing electronic information', aims to define and develop a new interface for access to electronic information, with particular emphasis on the need for a 3-dimensional metaphor designed specially to improve inter-user communication and to facilitate browsing among great volumes of electronic information

Source

Library and information research news. 22(1998) no.71, S.34-39

0.027311075 = product of:
  0.05462215 = sum of:
    0.020812286 = weight(_text_:information in 5295) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020812286 = score(doc=5295,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 5295, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5295)
    0.033809863 = product of:
      0.067619726 = sum of:
        0.067619726 = weight(_text_:22 in 5295) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.067619726 = score(doc=5295,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.38301262 = fieldWeight in 5295, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5295)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

A new search paradigm, in which the primary user activity is the guided exploration of a complex information space rather than the retrieval of items based on precise specifications, is proposed. The author claims that this paradigm is the norm in most practical applications, and that solutions based on traditional search methods are not effective in this context. He then presents a solution based on dynamic taxonomies, a knowledge management model that effectively guides users to reach their goal while giving them total freedom in exploring the information base. Applications, benefits, and current research are discussed.

Date

22. 7.2006 17:56:22

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.6, S.792-796

0.026984949 = product of:
  0.053969897 = sum of:
    0.009710376 = weight(_text_:information in 4281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009710376 = score(doc=4281,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.10971737 = fieldWeight in 4281, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4281)
    0.044259522 = weight(_text_:standards in 4281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044259522 = score(doc=4281,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.19697142 = fieldWeight in 4281, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4281)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

It is common knowledge that computer interfaces in different cultures vary. Interface designers present information in different languages, use different iconography to designate concepts, and employ different standards for dates, time, and numbers. These manifest differences beg the question of how easily an interface designed in one country can be used in and transferred to another country. Are the challenges involved in adaptation merely cosmetic or are they shaped by more profound forces? Do all cultures respond to interfaces in similar ways, or does culture itself shape user comprehension? If culture is a factor in explaining varied user reactions to comparable interfaces, what specific cultural dimensions are responsible for the divergences? Do differences reside mainly at the level of national cultures, or do they depend an other variables such as class, gender, age, education, and expertise with technology? In the face of a potentially large number of explanatory variables, how do we delimit a workable concept of culture and yet remain cognizant of other factors that might shape the results of culture and interface research? Questions such as these have been asked in the ergonomics community since the early 1970s, when the industrialization of developing countries created a need for more research an cultural differences (Honold, 1999), resulting in an increased interest in the universal applicability of ergonomic principles. This trend continued after the reunification of Germany and the emergence of market economies in Eastern Europe (Nielsen, 1990). In the mid-1990s, as markets outside the U.S. rapidly expanded, it became necessary to develop appropriate user interfaces for non-Western cultures in order to facilitate international cooperation. This fresh impetus for research led to the development of practical guidelines and a body of Gase studies and examples of possible solutions. Most recently we have seen attempts to provide a theoretical foundation for cross-cultural usability engineering and experimental comparison studies (Honold, 1999).

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 39(2005), S.257-310

0.025659401 = product of:
  0.051318802 = sum of:
    0.017165681 = weight(_text_:information in 5191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017165681 = score(doc=5191,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 5191, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5191)
    0.03415312 = product of:
      0.06830624 = sum of:
        0.06830624 = weight(_text_:22 in 5191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06830624 = score(doc=5191,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 5191, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5191)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

22. 7.2006 17:37:31

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.6, S.777-780

0.02555398 = product of:
  0.05110796 = sum of:
    0.023785468 = weight(_text_:information in 7701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023785468 = score(doc=7701,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.2687516 = fieldWeight in 7701, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7701)
    0.027322493 = product of:
      0.054644987 = sum of:
        0.054644987 = weight(_text_:22 in 7701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054644987 = score(doc=7701,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7701, 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=7701)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Describes SIFT (Search in Free Text) an information retrieval system originally developed for administering governmental documents in Norway but which is now being applied alsewhere. SIFT handles structured information well. A library system, SIFT-BIBL, is now available. SIFT's retrieval engine and search facilities are powerful. Its user interface is limited but being imporved. An application programmer interface has been released which will allow programmers to develop their own interface. A Windows-based- client-server version is now being beta tested

Date

23. 1.1999 19:22:09

0.025134712 = product of:
  0.050269425 = sum of:
    0.014865918 = weight(_text_:information in 3262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014865918 = score(doc=3262,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 3262, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3262)
    0.035403505 = product of:
      0.07080701 = sum of:
        0.07080701 = weight(_text_:organization in 3262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07080701 = score(doc=3262,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.39391994 = fieldWeight in 3262, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3262)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 56(2005) no.10, S.1098-1112

0.024811499 = product of:
  0.049622998 = sum of:
    0.02913113 = weight(_text_:information in 5298) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02913113 = score(doc=5298,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.3291521 = fieldWeight in 5298, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5298)
    0.02049187 = product of:
      0.04098374 = sum of:
        0.04098374 = weight(_text_:22 in 5298) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04098374 = score(doc=5298,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5298, 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=5298)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The authors describe user interface tools based on search histories to support legal information seekers. The design of the tools was informed by the results of a user study (Komlodi, 2002a) that examined the use of human memory, external memory aids, and search histories in legal information seeking and derived interface design recommendations for information storage and retrieval systems. The data collected were analyzed to identify potential task areas where search histories can support information seeking and use. The results show that many information-seeking tasks can take advantage of automatically and manually recorded history information. These findings encouraged the design of user interface tools building on search history information: direct search history displays, history-enabled scratchpad facilities, and organized results collection tools.

Date

22. 7.2006 18:04:19

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.6, S.803-897

0.024245888 = product of:
  0.048491776 = sum of:
    0.027249675 = weight(_text_:information in 6715) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027249675 = score(doc=6715,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.3078936 = fieldWeight in 6715, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6715)
    0.021242103 = product of:
      0.042484205 = sum of:
        0.042484205 = weight(_text_:organization in 6715) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042484205 = score(doc=6715,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.23635197 = fieldWeight in 6715, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6715)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This paper discusses visualization of legal information using a tool for temporal information called LifeLines. The direct and indirect histories of cases can become very complex. We explored ways that LifeLines could aid in viewing the links between the original case and the direct and indirect histories. The Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation and Hewlett Packard Company case is used to illustrate the prototype. For example, if users want to find out how the rulings or statutes changed throughout this case, they could retrieve this information within a single display. Using the timeline, users could also choose at which point in time they would like to begin viewing the case. LifeLines support various views of a case's history. For instance, users can view the trial history of a case, the references involved in a case, and citations made to a case. The paper describes improvements to LifeLines that could help in providing a more

Imprint

Medford, NJ : Information Today

Series

Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science; vol.36

Source

Knowledge: creation, organization and use. Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science, 31.10.-4.11.1999. Ed.: L. Woods

0.023969568 = product of:
  0.047939137 = sum of:
    0.024031956 = weight(_text_:information in 5296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024031956 = score(doc=5296,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 5296, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5296)
    0.023907183 = product of:
      0.047814365 = sum of:
        0.047814365 = weight(_text_:22 in 5296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047814365 = score(doc=5296,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5296, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5296)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

User interfaces of Web search engines reflect attributes of the underlying tools used to create them, rather than what we know about how people look for information. In this article, the author examines several characteristics of user search behavior: the variety of information-seeking goals, the cultural and situational context of search, and the iterative nature of the search task. An analysis of these characteristics suggests ways that interfaces can be redesigned to make searching more effective for users.

Date

22. 7.2006 17:58:06

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.6, S.797-799

0.023939986 = product of:
  0.04787997 = sum of:
    0.017839102 = weight(_text_:information in 5838) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017839102 = score(doc=5838,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 5838, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5838)
    0.030040871 = product of:
      0.060081743 = sum of:
        0.060081743 = weight(_text_:organization in 5838) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060081743 = score(doc=5838,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.33425218 = fieldWeight in 5838, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5838)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Information retrieval and exploration of work domains through databases and integrated information systems has become increasingly important in many modern work settings (as well as in libraries). The problem space of the users is defined on occasion by the dynamically changing requirements from their tasks and goals. it is argued that IR system design should be based on an analysis of the properties of the work domain, the task situation and the user characteristics. The paper describes a general framework for IR system design that has been used in the design of a library system. A special problem identified from use of the framework in domain analysis of fiction retrieval is treated in more detail: mapping the authors' domain structures to the domain structures expressed in users' needs in indexing and representation of fiction

Series

Advances in knowledge organization; vol.4

Source

Knowledge organization and quality management: Proc. of the 3rd International ISKO Conference, 20-24 June 1994, Copenhagen, Denmark. Ed.: H. Albrechtsen et al

0.023545908 = product of:
  0.047091816 = sum of:
    0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 2627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01029941 = score(doc=2627,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2627, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2627)
    0.036792405 = product of:
      0.07358481 = sum of:
        0.07358481 = weight(_text_:organization in 2627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07358481 = score(doc=2627,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.40937364 = fieldWeight in 2627, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2627)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The nature of search requirements is perceived to be changing, fuelled by a growing dissatisfaction with the marginal accuracy and often overwhelming quantity of results from simple keyword matching techniques. Traditional search interfaces fail to acknowledge and utilise the implicit underlying structure present within a typical keyword query. Faceted structure can (and should) perform a significant role in this area - acting as the basis for mediation between searcher and indexer, and guiding query formulation and reformulation by interactively educating the user about the native domain. This paper discusses the possible benefits of applying faceted knowledge organization systems to enhance query structure, query visualisation and the overall query process, drawing an the outcomes of a recently completed research project.

Series

Advances in knowledge organization; vol.9

Source

Knowledge organization and the global information society: Proceedings of the 8th International ISKO Conference 13-16 July 2004, London, UK. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine

0.022797368 = product of:
  0.045594737 = sum of:
    0.020812286 = weight(_text_:information in 6687) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020812286 = score(doc=6687,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 6687, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6687)
    0.024782453 = product of:
      0.049564905 = sum of:
        0.049564905 = weight(_text_:organization in 6687) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049564905 = score(doc=6687,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.27574396 = fieldWeight in 6687, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6687)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Imprint

Medford, NJ : Information Today

Series

Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science; vol.36

Source

Knowledge: creation, organization and use. Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science, 31.10.-4.11.1999. Ed.: L. Woods