Search (12 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0050479556 = product of:
  0.020191822 = sum of:
    0.020191822 = weight(_text_:information in 5018) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020191822 = score(doc=5018,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.3291521 = fieldWeight in 5018, 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=5018)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Summarizes findings of an international study on information-seeking habits and preferences: With extensive input from hundreds of librarians and OCLC staff, the OCLC Market Research team developed a project and commissioned Harris Interactive Inc. to survey a representative sample of information consumers. In June of 2005, we collected over 3,300 responses from information consumers in Australia, Canada, India, Singapore, the United Kingdom and the United States. The Perceptions report provides the findings and responses from the online survey in an effort to learn more about: * Library use * Awareness and use of library electronic resources * Free vs. for-fee information * The "Library" brand The findings indicate that information consumers view libraries as places to borrow print books, but they are unaware of the rich electronic content they can access through libraries. Even though information consumers make limited use of these resources, they continue to trust libraries as reliable sources of information.

0.0042066295 = product of:
  0.016826518 = sum of:
    0.016826518 = weight(_text_:information in 5882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016826518 = score(doc=5882,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.27429342 = fieldWeight in 5882, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5882)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Due to the advances in information retrieval in the past decades, search engines have become extremely efficient at acquiring useful sources in response to a user's query. However, for more prolonged and complex information seeking tasks, these search engines are not as well suited. During complex information seeking tasks, various stages may occur, which imply varying support needs for users. However, the implications of theoretical information seeking models for concrete search user interfaces (SUI) design are unclear, both at the level of the individual features and of the whole interface. Guidelines and design patterns for concrete SUIs, on the other hand, provide recommendations for feature design, but these are separated from their role in the information seeking process. This chapter addresses the question of how to design SUIs with enhanced support for the macro-level process, first by reviewing previous research. Subsequently, we outline a framework for complex task support, which explicitly connects the temporal development of complex tasks with different levels of support by SUI features. This is followed by a discussion of concrete system examples which include elements of the three dimensions of our framework in an exploratory search and sensemaking context. Moreover, we discuss the connection of navigation with the search-oriented framework. In our final discussion and conclusion, we provide recommendations for designing more holistic SUIs which potentially evolve along with a user's information seeking process.

Source

Understanding and improving information search [Vgl. unter: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341747751_Designing_Multistage_Search_Systems_to_Support_the_Information_Seeking_Process]

0.0035694437 = product of:
  0.014277775 = sum of:
    0.014277775 = weight(_text_:information in 4130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014277775 = score(doc=4130,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 4130, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4130)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Information Research. 6(2001), no.2

0.0025501337 = product of:
  0.010200535 = sum of:
    0.010200535 = weight(_text_:information in 1172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010200535 = score(doc=1172,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.16628155 = fieldWeight in 1172, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1172)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This think piece tells why the online library catalog fell from grace and why new directions pertaining to cataloging simplification and primary sources will not attract people back to the online catalog. It proposes an alternative direction that has greater likelihood of regaining the online catalog's lofty status and longtime users. Such a direction will require paradigm shifts in library cataloging and in the design and development of online library catalogs that heed catalog users' longtime demands for improvements to the searching experience. Our failure to respond accordingly may permanently exile scholarly and scientific information to a netherworld where no one searches while less reliable, accurate, and objective sources of information thrive in a paradise where people prefer to search for information.
The impetus for this essay is the library community's uncertainty regarding the present and future direction of the library catalog in the era of Google and mass digitization projects. The uncertainty is evident at the highest levels. Deanna Marcum, Associate Librarian for Library Services at the Library of Congress (LC), is struck by undergraduate students who favor digital resources over the online library catalog because such resources are available at anytime and from anywhere (Marcum, 2006). She suggests that "the detailed attention that we have been paying to descriptive cataloging may no longer be justified ... retooled catalogers could give more time to authority control, subject analysis, [and] resource identification and evaluation" (Marcum, 2006, 8). In an abrupt about-face, LC terminated series added entries in cataloging records, one of the few subject-rich fields in such records (Cataloging Policy and Support Office, 2006). Mann (2006b) and Schniderman (2006) cite evidence of LC's prevailing viewpoint in favor of simplifying cataloging at the expense of subject cataloging. LC commissioned Karen Calhoun (2006) to prepare a report on "revitalizing" the online library catalog. Calhoun's directive is clear: divert resources from cataloging mass-produced formats (e.g., books) to cataloging the unique primary sources (e.g., archives, special collections, teaching objects, research by-products). She sums up her rationale for such a directive, "The existing local catalog's market position has eroded to the point where there is real concern for its ability to weather the competition for information seekers' attention" (p. 10). At the University of California Libraries (2005), a task force's recommendations parallel those in Calhoun report especially regarding the elimination of subject headings in favor of automatically generated metadata. Contemplating these events prompted me to revisit the glorious past of the online library catalog. For a decade and a half beginning in the early 1980s, the online library catalog was the jewel in the crown when people eagerly queued at its terminals to find information written by the world's experts. I despair how eagerly people now embrace Google because of the suspect provenance of the information Google retrieves. Long ago, we could have added more value to the online library catalog but the only thing we changed was the catalog's medium. Our failure to act back then cost the online catalog the crown. Now that the era of mass digitization has begun, we have a second chance at redesigning the online library catalog, getting it right, coaxing back old users, and attracting new ones. Let's revisit the past, reconsidering missed opportunities, reassessing their merits, combining them with new directions, making bold decisions and acting decisively on them.

0.0025239778 = product of:
  0.010095911 = sum of:
    0.010095911 = weight(_text_:information in 1173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010095911 = score(doc=1173,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 1173, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1173)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Popular commercial on-line services such as Google, e-Bay, Amazon, and Netflix have evolved quickly over the last decade to help people find what they want, developing information retrieval strategies such as usefully ranked results, spelling correction, and recommender systems. Online library catalogs (OPACs), in contrast, have changed little and are notoriously difficult for patrons to use (University of California Libraries, 2005). Over the past year (June 2005 to the present), the Melvyl Recommender Project (California Digital Library, 2005) has been exploring methods and feasibility of closing the gap between features that library patrons want and have come to expect from information retrieval systems and what libraries are currently equipped to deliver. The project team conducted exploratory work in five topic areas: relevance ranking, auto-correction, use of a text-based discovery system, user interface strategies, and recommending. This article focuses specifically on the recommending portion of the project and potential extensions to that work.

0.002379629 = product of:
  0.009518516 = sum of:
    0.009518516 = weight(_text_:information in 3317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009518516 = score(doc=3317,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 3317, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3317)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.002379629 = product of:
  0.009518516 = sum of:
    0.009518516 = weight(_text_:information in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009518516 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 2593, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2593)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.0020608194 = product of:
  0.008243278 = sum of:
    0.008243278 = weight(_text_:information in 5013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008243278 = score(doc=5013,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.1343758 = fieldWeight in 5013, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5013)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The destabilizing influences of the Web, widespread ownership of personal computers, and rising computer literacy have created an era of discontinuous change in research libraries a time when the cumulated assets of the past do not guarantee future success. The library catalog is such an asset. Today, a large and growing number of students and scholars routinely bypass library catalogs in favor of other discovery tools, and the catalog represents a shrinking proportion of the universe of scholarly information. The catalog is in decline, its processes and structures are unsustainable, and change needs to be swift. At the same time, books and serials are not dead, and they are not yet digital. Notwithstanding widespread expansion of digitization projects, ubiquitous e-journals, and a market that seems poised to move to e-books, the role of catalog records in discovery and retrieval of the world's library collections seems likely to continue for at least a couple of decades and probably longer. This report, commissioned by the Library of Congress (LC), offers an analysis of the current situation, options for revitalizing research library catalogs, a feasibility assessment, a vision for change, and a blueprint for action. Library decision makers are the primary audience for this report, whose aim is to elicit support, dialogue, collaboration, and movement toward solutions. Readers from the business community, particularly those that directly serve libraries, may find the report helpful for defining research and development efforts. The same is true for readers from membership organizations such as OCLC Online Computer Library Center, the Research Libraries Group, the Association for Research Libraries, the Council on Library and Information Resources, the Coalition for Networked Information, and the Digital Library Federation. Library managers and practitioners from all functional groups are likely to take an interest in the interview findings and in specific actions laid out in the blueprint.

0.0020608194 = product of:
  0.008243278 = sum of:
    0.008243278 = weight(_text_:information in 5069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008243278 = score(doc=5069,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.1343758 = fieldWeight in 5069, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5069)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

As mentioned above, the guidelines are intended to apply to all types of catalogue, including Web-based catalogues, GUI-based interfaces, and Z39.50-web interfaces. The focus of the guidelines is on the display of cataloguing information (as opposed to circulation, serials check-in, fund accounting, acquisitions, or bindery information). However, some general statements are made concerning the value of displaying to users information that is drawn from these other types of records. The guidelines do not attempt to cover HELP screens, searching methods, or command names and functions. Thus, the guidelines do not directly address the difference between menu-mode access (so common now in GUI and Web interfaces) vs. command-mode access (often completely unavailable in GUI and Web interfaces). However, note that in menu-mode access, the user often has to go through many more screens to attain results than in command-mode access, and each of these screens constitutes a display. The intent is to recommend a standard set of display defaults, defined as features that should be provided for users who have not selected other options, including users who want to begin searching right away without much instruction. It is not the intent to restrict the creativity of system designers who want to build in further options to offer to advanced users (beyond the defaults), advanced users being those people who are willing to put some time into learning how to use the system in more sophisticated and complex ways. The Task Force is aware of the fact that many existing systems are not capable of following all of the recommendations in this document. We hope that existing systems will attempt to work toward the implementation of the guidelines as they develop new versions of their software in the future.

0.0017847219 = product of:
  0.0071388874 = sum of:
    0.0071388874 = weight(_text_:information in 4494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071388874 = score(doc=4494,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 4494, 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=4494)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

"Frau Wiesmüller möge mir verzeihen, aber was sie da mit Bellinda Woppada zur Katalogisierung in öffentlichen Bibliotheken zusammengeschrieben hat, ist für mich aus Benutzersicht ziemlich uninteressant. Es gibt bisher kaum Literatur zu diesem Thema, das aber nach Ansicht der Autorinnen wichtiger ist als es scheint. Meine These lautet: Es muss für BenutzerInnen katalogisiert werden, aber schon ein sehr sehr kurzer Blick auf einige OPACs macht deutlich, wieviel da im Argen liegt. Zu den einzelnen Medien sollte möglichst viel Information als Entscheidungshilfe vorliegen, und das kann nur durch viel mehr Kooperation der Bibliotheken realisiert werden. Die Optik ist meist katastrophal. Die OPACs geben sich ästhetisch abschreckend auf dem Stand der 1990er Jahre, Coverbilder gibt es weniger, als ich gedacht hätte."

0.0016826519 = product of:
  0.0067306077 = sum of:
    0.0067306077 = weight(_text_:information in 1447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0067306077 = score(doc=1447,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.10971737 = fieldWeight in 1447, 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=1447)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The BAER Web Resources Group was charged in October 1999 with defining and describing the parameters of electronic resources that do not clearly belong to the categories being defined by the BAER Digital Group or the BAER Electronic Journals Group. After some difficulty identifying precisely which resources fell under the Group's charge, we finally named the following types of resources for our consideration: web sites, electronic texts, indexes, databases and abstracts, online reference resources, and networked and non-networked CD-ROMs. Electronic resources are a vast and growing collection that touch nearly every department within the Library. It is unrealistic to think one department can effectively administer all aspects of the collection. The Group then began to focus on the concern of bibliographic access to these varied resources, and to define parameters for handling or processing them within the Library. Some key elements became evident as the work progressed. * Selection process of resources to be acquired for the collection * Duplication of effort * Use of CORC * Resource Finder design * Maintenance of Resource Finder * CD-ROMs not networked * Communications * Voyager search limitations. An unexpected collaboration with the Web Development Committee on the Resource Finder helped to steer the Group to more detailed descriptions of bibliographic access. This collaboration included development of data elements for the Resource Finder database, and some discussions on Library staff processing of the resources. The Web Resources Group invited expert testimony to help the Group broaden its view to envision public use of the resources and discuss concerns related to technical services processing. The first testimony came from members of the Resource Finder Committee. Some background information on the Web Development Resource Finder Committee was shared. The second testimony was from librarians who select electronic texts. Three main themes were addressed: accessing CD-ROMs; the issue of including non-networked CD-ROMs in the Resource Finder; and, some special concerns about electronic texts. The third testimony came from librarians who select indexes and abstracts and also provide Reference services. Appendices to this report include minutes of the meetings with the experts (Appendix A), a list of proposed data elements to be used in the Resource Finder (Appendix B), and recommendations made to the Resource Finder Committee (Appendix C). Below are summaries of the key elements.

Theme

Information Gateway

0.0011898145 = product of:
  0.004759258 = sum of:
    0.004759258 = weight(_text_:information in 2547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004759258 = score(doc=2547,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 2547, 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=2547)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The discovery service (a search engine and service called WILBERT) used at our library at the Technical University of Applied Sciences Wildau (TUAS Wildau) is comprised of more than 8 million items. If we were to record all licensed publications in this tool to a higher level of articles, including their bibliographic records and full texts, we would have a holding estimated at a hundred million documents. A lot of features, such as ranking, autocompletion, multi-faceted classification, refining opportunities reduce the number of hits. However, it is not enough to give intuitive support for a systematic overview of topics related to documents in the library. John Naisbitt once said: "We are drowning in information, but starving for knowledge." This quote is still very true today. Two years ago, we started to develop micro thesauri for MINT topics in order to develop an advanced indexing of the library stock. We use iQvoc as a vocabulary management system to create the thesaurus. It provides an easy-to-use browser interface that builds a SKOS thesaurus in the background. The purpose of this is to integrate the thesauri in WILBERT in order to offer a better subject-related search. This approach especially supports first-year students by giving them the possibility to browse through a hierarchical alignment of a subject, for instance, logistics or computer science, and thereby discover how the terms are related. It also supports the students with an insight into established abbreviations and alternative labels. Students at the TUAS Wildau were involved in the developmental process of the software regarding the interface and functionality of iQvoc. The first steps have been taken and involve the inclusion of 3000 terms in our discovery tool WILBERT.