Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Hartley, J."
  1. Hartley, J.; Betts, L.: Revising and polishing a structured abstract : is it worth the time and effort? (2008) 0.03 
    0.028486984 = product of:
  0.056973968 = sum of:
    0.056973968 = product of:
      0.113947935 = sum of:
        0.113947935 = weight(_text_:perception in 2362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.113947935 = score(doc=2362,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.32135084 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.4187727 = idf(docFreq=195, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05006422 = queryNorm
            0.35459045 = fieldWeight in 2362, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.4187727 = idf(docFreq=195, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2362)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Many writers of structured abstracts spend a good deal of time revising and polishing their texts - but is it worth it? Do readers notice the difference? In this paper we report three studies of readers using rating scales to judge (electronically) the clarity of an original and a revised abstract, both as a whole and in its constituent parts. In Study 1, with approximately 250 academics and research workers, we found some significant differences in favor of the revised abstract, but in Study 2, with approximately 210 information scientists, we found no significant effects. Pooling the data from Studies 1 and 2, however, in Study 3, led to significant differences at a higher probability level between the perception of the original and revised abstract as a whole and between the same components as found in Study 1. These results thus indicate that the revised abstract as a whole, as well as certain specific components of it, were judged significantly clearer than the original one. In short, the results of these experiments show that readers can and do perceive differences between original and revised texts - sometimes - and that therefore these efforts are worth the time and effort.
  2. Hartley, J.: Applying psychology to text design : a case history (1997) 0.02 
    0.016957529 = product of:
  0.033915058 = sum of:
    0.033915058 = product of:
      0.067830116 = sum of:
        0.067830116 = weight(_text_:22 in 616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.067830116 = score(doc=616,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17531638 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05006422 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 616, 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=616)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    International forum on information and documentation. 22(1997) no.1, S.3-10
  3. Hartley, J.; Sydes, M.: Which layout do you prefer? : an analysis of readers' preferences for different typographic layouts of structured abstracts (1996) 0.01 
    0.010174517 = product of:
  0.020349033 = sum of:
    0.020349033 = product of:
      0.040698066 = sum of:
        0.040698066 = weight(_text_:22 in 4411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040698066 = score(doc=4411,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17531638 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05006422 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4411, 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=4411)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.1, S.27-37
  4. Hartley, J.; Sydes, M.; Blurton, A.: Obtaining information accurately and quickly : are structured abstracts more efficient? (1996) 0.01 
    0.008478764 = product of:
  0.016957529 = sum of:
    0.016957529 = product of:
      0.033915058 = sum of:
        0.033915058 = weight(_text_:22 in 7673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033915058 = score(doc=7673,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17531638 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05006422 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 7673, 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=7673)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.5, S.349-356

Authors

Years

Themes