Search (14 results, page 1 of 1)

0.03754639 = product of:
  0.07509278 = sum of:
    0.07509278 = sum of:
      0.03267146 = weight(_text_:systems in 5298) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03267146 = score(doc=5298,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052184064 = queryNorm
          0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 5298, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5298)
      0.042421322 = weight(_text_:22 in 5298) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042421322 = score(doc=5298,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052184064 = 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)

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

0.02310221 = product of:
  0.04620442 = sum of:
    0.04620442 = product of:
      0.09240884 = sum of:
        0.09240884 = weight(_text_:systems in 5025) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09240884 = score(doc=5025,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.57622015 = fieldWeight in 5025, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5025)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Einführung in einen Themenschwerpunkt "Evaluating exploratory search systems"

0.021780973 = product of:
  0.043561947 = sum of:
    0.043561947 = product of:
      0.08712389 = sum of:
        0.08712389 = weight(_text_:systems in 8614) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08712389 = score(doc=8614,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.5432656 = fieldWeight in 8614, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=8614)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.021307886 = product of:
  0.04261577 = sum of:
    0.04261577 = product of:
      0.08523154 = sum of:
        0.08523154 = weight(_text_:systems in 3691) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08523154 = score(doc=3691,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.5314657 = fieldWeight in 3691, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3691)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

To make their system quickly usable, designers often build interfaces that reflect well-known manual activities. Demonstrates how undergraduates use their mental models for print encyclopedias to develop minimal proficiency with various electronic encyclopedias. Lower performance levels in the electronic systems are due to additional cognitive load required to adapt and develop mental models for the new systems. For the fact retrieval questions used in these relativley small data bases, the hypertext encyclopedia required less cognitive load than the 2 traditional Boolean-based systems. Adaptive designs that provide multiple system images are encouraged to support more comprehensive user understanding and more varied tasks

Source

ASIS'91: systems understanding people. Proc. of the 54th Annual Meeting of the ASIS, vol.28, Washington, DC, 27.-31.10.1991. Ed.: J.-M. Griffiths

0.019058352 = product of:
  0.038116705 = sum of:
    0.038116705 = product of:
      0.07623341 = sum of:
        0.07623341 = weight(_text_:systems in 7099) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07623341 = score(doc=7099,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.47535738 = fieldWeight in 7099, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7099)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.019058352 = product of:
  0.038116705 = sum of:
    0.038116705 = product of:
      0.07623341 = sum of:
        0.07623341 = weight(_text_:systems in 6135) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07623341 = score(doc=6135,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.47535738 = fieldWeight in 6135, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6135)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.015401474 = product of:
  0.030802948 = sum of:
    0.030802948 = product of:
      0.061605897 = sum of:
        0.061605897 = weight(_text_:systems in 5100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061605897 = score(doc=5100,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.38414678 = fieldWeight in 5100, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5100)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Presents a study that identifies and examines the roles that information-seeking expertise and domain expertise play in information seeking in full text, and user search systems. This forms part of an investigation to characterise information seeking and to determine how it is affected by interactive electronic access to primary information. Distinguishes between the approaches of search experts and domain experts. Makes recommendations for systems design

0.009529176 = product of:
  0.019058352 = sum of:
    0.019058352 = product of:
      0.038116705 = sum of:
        0.038116705 = weight(_text_:systems in 4350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038116705 = score(doc=4350,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 4350, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4350)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Reports progress and future plans for a project to study the interactions of users with information retrieval interfaces. Tests are run with professional data base searchers and with end users who are members of a profession but have little or no searching experience. Interfaces tested include a command language search system used to search DIALOG bibliographic data bases, a non-procedural system that produces DIALOG commands, and several full text systems, including one using hypertext. The intent is to determine which kinds of users perform best with each type of interface. The project is being conducted jointly bay the University of Toronto and the University of Maryland

0.009529176 = product of:
  0.019058352 = sum of:
    0.019058352 = product of:
      0.038116705 = sum of:
        0.038116705 = weight(_text_:systems in 1252) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038116705 = score(doc=1252,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 1252, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1252)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The data systems, policies and procedures, corporate culture, and public face of an agency or institution make up its organizational interface. This case study describes how user interfaces for the Bureau of Labor Statistics web site evolved over a 5-year period along with the [arger organizational interface and how this co-evolution has influenced the institution itself. Interviews with BLS staff and transaction log analysis are the foci in this analysis that also included user informationseeking studies and user interface prototyping and testing. The results are organized into a model of organizational interface change and related to the information life cycle.

0.008167865 = product of:
  0.01633573 = sum of:
    0.01633573 = product of:
      0.03267146 = sum of:
        0.03267146 = weight(_text_:systems in 2421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03267146 = score(doc=2421,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 2421, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2421)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

School library media specialists do not know which search strategies are most appropriate for the new full-text CD-ROM databases. Reports an experiment conducted to examine the effectiveness of 2 search strategies - analytical and browse strategies - for information seeking and use among high school students using an electronic full-text ancyclopedia for the search task. The experiment sought to determine whether: a short training session in a particular information strategy allows an information seeker to form an adequate mental model of the search task; and a simple 'browse' model compare favourably with a more 'analytical' model for information seeking in a full-text online environment. Both strategies proved effective for finding relevant information yet each demonstrated distinct advantages and disadvantages. Recommends that as new technologies are introduced, school library media specialists should conduct careful observations and controlled comparisons of how students use these systems

0.008167865 = product of:
  0.01633573 = sum of:
    0.01633573 = product of:
      0.03267146 = sum of:
        0.03267146 = weight(_text_:systems in 892) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03267146 = score(doc=892,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 892, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=892)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Recording search histories, presenting them to the searcher, and building additional interface tools on them offer many opportunities for supporting user tasks in information seeking and use. This study investigated the use of search history information in legal information seeking. Qualitative methods were used to explore how attorneys and law librarians used their memory and external memory aids while searching for information and in transferring to information use. Based on the findings, interface design recommendations were made for information systems. Results of the study from the legal user group presented evidence of the usefulness of search histories and history-based interface tools. Both user manifestations and researcher observations revealed that searchers need historical information in information seeking. Search histories were found to be useful in many user tasks: memory support, search system use, information seeking, information use, task management, task integration, and collaboration. Integrating information across various user tasks and collaborating with others are extensions of traditional information-seeking and use models. These findings encouraged the design of user interface tools and guidelines building on search history information.

0.008167865 = product of:
  0.01633573 = sum of:
    0.01633573 = product of:
      0.03267146 = sum of:
        0.03267146 = weight(_text_:systems in 4082) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03267146 = score(doc=4082,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 4082, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4082)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Support for explicit collaboration in information-seeking activities is increasingly recognized as a desideratum for search systems. Several tools have emerged recently that help groups of people with the same information-seeking goals to work together. Many issues for these collaborative information-seeking (CIS) environments remain understudied. The authors identified awareness as one of these issues in CIS, and they presented a user study that involved 42 pairs of participants, who worked in collaboration over 2 sessions with 3 instances of the authors' CIS system for exploratory search. They showed that while having awareness of personal actions and history is important for exploratory search tasks spanning multiple sessions, support for group awareness is even more significant for effective collaboration. In addition, they showed that support for such group awareness can be provided without compromising usability or introducing additional load on the users.

0.0068065543 = product of:
  0.013613109 = sum of:
    0.013613109 = product of:
      0.027226217 = sum of:
        0.027226217 = weight(_text_:systems in 1957) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027226217 = score(doc=1957,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 1957, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1957)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This is a propitious time for information science. The WWW has propelled information services into the public eye as never before, and information professionals are sought out in all walks of life to assist people with work, learning and play in the information environment. Classical information retrieval has yielded novel techniques for applying computers to retrieval problems, including WWW search engines. The classical model of retrieval is one of matching queries to documents and ranking these matches. It is apparent, however, that a new model of retrieval is needed as people access large-scale digital libraries of multimedia content and vast collections of unstructured data in the WWW. What is needed are ways to bring human intelligence and attention more actively into the search process. To this end, researchers are beginning to combine the lessons from designing highly interactive user interfaces with the lessons from human information behavior to create new kinds of search systems that depend on continuous human control of the search process. I call this hybrid approach to the challenges of information seeking, human-computer information retrieval (HCIR). Though human-computer information interaction is perhaps a more expansive and appropriate phrase, the HCIR phrase unites two well-known fields/communities of practice and is thus adopted here. HCIR aims to empower people to explore large-scale information bases but demands that people also take responsibility for this control by expending cognitive and physical energy. This paper outlines the basic motivations and concepts of HCIR and presents design goals and challenges that are informed by two ongoing HCIR projects.

0.0054452433 = product of:
  0.010890487 = sum of:
    0.010890487 = product of:
      0.021780973 = sum of:
        0.021780973 = weight(_text_:systems in 913) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021780973 = score(doc=913,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.1358164 = fieldWeight in 913, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=913)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Interactive query expansion (IQE) (c.f. [Efthimiadis, E. N. (1996). Query expansion. Annual Review of Information Systems and Technology, 31, 121-187]) is a potentially useful technique to help searchers formulate improved query statements, and ultimately retrieve better search results. However, IQE is seldom used in operational settings. Two possible explanations for this are that IQE is generally not integrated into searchers' established information-seeking behaviors (e.g., examining lists of documents), and it may not be offered at a time in the search when it is needed most (i.e., during the initial query formulation). These challenges can be addressed by coupling IQE more closely with familiar search activities, rather than as a separate functionality that searchers must learn. In this article we introduce and evaluate a variant of IQE known as Real-Time Query Expansion (RTQE). As a searcher enters their query in a text box at the interface, RTQE provides a list of suggested additional query terms, in effect offering query expansion options while the query is formulated. To investigate how the technique is used - and when it may be useful - we conducted a user study comparing three search interfaces: a baseline interface with no query expansion support; an interface that provides expansion options during query entry, and a third interface that provides options after queries have been submitted to a search system. The results show that offering RTQE leads to better quality initial queries, more engagement in the search, and an increase in the uptake of query expansion. However, the results also imply that care must be taken when implementing RTQE interactively. Our findings have broad implications for how IQE should be offered, and form part of our research on the development of techniques to support the increased use of query expansion.